Marxist Theories During the French Revolution - Coursework Example

How Were Marxist Theories Apparent During the French Revolution? The French Revolution generally refersto a period of social unrest and political reorganizations that occurred between the years 1787 and 1795. The activities leading up to this period have been widely discussed and studied, with a variety of theories and examinations claiming differing factions as playing a large part in the turmoil. One of the most popular theories includes the idea that the fall of the monarchy was simply a result of the fall of the social class with which it was most closely associated, that of the feudal nobles. According to this view, the nobility, led by the parliaments, challenged the monarchy as it had done several times in the past. This time, though, the rising urban class of shopkeepers and artisans, known as the bourgeoisie, continued the struggle, focusing it against the noble landowning class that had traditionally been the support of the monarchy. With the bourgeoisie success, the noble class was pulled down, the king along with it as its figurehead, and replaced by the First Republic. In many ways, the search for the reasons and participants can be found in the theories brought forward by Karl Marx, such as in the popular protest movements of the day which provide a more accurate view of both how the monarchy lost its favor and who was most in control of the political and social changes that were happening in those years. French society at the time of the Revolution was very similar to most of the other countries of Europe of the period in that it had an absolute monarchy that followed much the same pattern of rule that had been established by Louis XIV in the early 1700s. As a part of this system, there was an aristocratic class that held most of the status and wealth of the nation in a feudal-type system and a merchant class called the bourgeoisie that, at times, held enough wealth to rival the nobles, but had none of the political clout. There was “a vast peasantry accounting for one in seven or one in eight of the population, most of who were legally free but bound to their seigneur … by a myriad of services and obligations surviving from the medieval past. … And, in cities, … a great urban population of innumerable crafts and occupations, for the most part poor and depending for survival on cheap and plentiful bread” (Rude 1995). What made France different from these other countries that shared so many attributes was the fact that the French bureaucracy had been allowed to gain enough wealth to make them independent of the crown that had given them such success. “All these social groups and classes were potentially revolutionary or committed to some form or other of political and social change. … The bourgeoisie wanted a higher social status and a share in government commensurate with their wealth” (Rude 1995) in keeping with Marxist theories while the aristocracy was continuing its centuries long struggle to regain political power that had been taken from them by King Louie XIV. “Throughout the eighteenth century … [the nobles] encroached steadily upon the official posts which the absolute monarchy had preferred to fill with technically competent and politically harmless middle class men. … Consequently, the nobility not merely exasperated the feelings of the middle class by their successful competition for official posts; they also undermined the state itself by an increasing tendency to take over provincial and central administration. Similarly, they … attempted to counteract the decline in their income by squeezing the utmost out of their very considerable feudal rights to exact money from the peasantry” (Hobsbawm, 1969). It was the counter-revolution that propelled the working people into open revolt. The central concepts of Marxist economics, essential to understanding the causes of the French Revolution, include the theory of labor value, the disposition of production and the inevitable conflicts between the classes. Conflicts will always persist because the upper class can never totally control the lower classes. Lesser concepts include the idea of increased misery, the obsession with possessions and the consequences of economic alienation. Marx’s theories of labor value combined with his concepts of capitalism endeavor to clarify how the revenue system operates to the benefit of the upper classes and the detriment of the lower classes. Marx defines wealth as something produced by labor from resources originating in the natural world. In terms of capitalism, wealth becomes a vast accrual of possessions. Commodities are articles of wealth created solely as a means to exchange other objects so as to enhance wealth. Money is capital in the purest form. The Marxist conflict theory views capitalist production as an essential element of class struggle. A social class consists of individuals grouped in relation to their ability to produce wealth and in their shared relationship to those that own the production methods. “For Marx and Engels the class struggle between the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) and the proletariat (working class) is the great lever of modern social change” (Knox, 1988: 160). Marx identified three social classes based on their income source, labor, capitalist and landowner. Marxism theorizes that as capitalism persists, it exacerbates the misery level for working class individuals. Political commentary at this time was negatively directed at the bourgeois who led the National Assembly as well as the Commune of Paris, the National Guard and the King, culminating in July of 1791, when a demonstration crowd on the Champ de mars, responding to these appeals, was attacked by the Paris National Guard. The press continued to advise aggressive action, encouraging the people to defend themselves. In 1792, a group of Parisian artisans attacked the Tuileries Palace and arrested the royal family and dispersed the Legislative Assembly. This attack was followed a month later with a mass killing of thousands of political prisoners, referred to as the “September Massacres.” According to Lewis (1998), “the relatively large sections of the rural … and urban populations which propelled the Revolution forward in its early years were reduced to their much more ‘elite’ and organized cores after the summer of 1792, creating what historians often term ‘the Popular Movement.’” War with the rest of Europe and the establishment of the First French Republic marks the so-called “radical stage” of the revolution. It is at this time that the Sans-Culottes, a group of workers named to indicate they wore pants instead of the luxury-indicating knee breeches, demanded the revolutionary government do something about their poverty even as the clergy and aristocracy organized a counter-revolution to try to remove some of the reforms of the Revolution that were not working in their favor. “The sansculottes were organized … and provided the main striking-force of the revolution…. Through journalists like Marat and Hebert, through local spokesmen, they also formulated a policy, behind which lay a vaguely defined and contradictory social ideal, combining respect for (small) private property with hostility to the rich, government-guaranteed work, wages and social security for the poor man, an extreme, egalitarian and libertarian democracy, localized and direct. In fact, the Sans-Culottes were one branch of that universal and important political trend which sought to express the interests of the great mass of ‘little men’ who existed between the poles of the ‘bourgeois’ and the ‘proletarian’, often perhaps rather nearer the latter than the former because they were, after all, mostly poor” (Hobsbawm 1969). The Sans-Culottes participated in the Jacobins and the Cordeliers, providing the necessary communication link between the working people and the new government. Much of these events follow almost step by step the predictions that Marx and his colleague Friedrich Engels predicted for England as a result of the wide divide between social classes, a revolution that obviously never happened in this country. However, it has been said that when a person is hungry, they don’t want communist theories, they want a meal. “It may be expected that by the time the rising comes the English working classes will understand basic social problems sufficiently clearly for the more brutal elements of the revolution to be eventually overcome” (Engels, 1958). The term ‘brutal’ reveals much in Marxist thought. He believed the transformation from a divisive and oppressive capitalist society to a more communally-minded, tolerant and humanitarian socialist society would involve a brutal transitional stage, a forceful uprising of the working class such as what was seen during these years of the French Revolution both as it was driven by the common people as well as how it was driven by the popular press. Throughout the French Revolution, then, one can see that it was the involvement of the popular classes and their continuous protest movements that propelled the revolution movement through the dissolution of the monarchy and beyond. Without the involvement of the peasant classes, the Revolution would not have brought any significant changes for the lower classes, just as previous rebellions among the nobles had not led to significant changes in the past. With the widespread news of the events in Paris, spread through various avenues, the peasants of the outlying districts and country sides also revolted, adding further impetus to a rapidly deteriorating system and forcing change at the legislative level. Further popular involvement led to the King’s capitulation on limiting his own powers and additional critical press further drove the people into more acts of aggression against a still broken system, finally leading to the emplacement of a popular government in place of the defunct kingdom. However, this popular government quickly lost its popular support, resulting in a similar defeat and opening the way for the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte. Through the various events of the French Revolution, the theories of Marx and Engels, writing very persuasively in the Communist Manifesto appealing for rebellious actions against the bourgeoisie, seem to have been acted out. “Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing society and political order of things” (Marx & Engels, 1952: 94). The rebellions referred to in the Manifesto call for mass actions against the nobility such as what occurred in France. This should not be confused with uprisings relating to the bread riots or trade union activism. It speaks to functions in a broader social context. Marxist theory envisions the future of society as free of capitalism, replaced by the collective utopia brought about by communism. This was thought to be the natural course of mankind in which Marx had drawn-up the blueprint (Hunt, 1974: 212). Marx and Engels held the optimistic viewpoint that the working class would create a society based in equality and more humane than capitalism was capable. Marx envisioned that communism would produce “a society in which the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” (Sowell, 1985: 25). This type of social setting is considered more fulfilling than the accumulation of wealth and vital to a truly civilized society. This was even more important than the material standard of living. Marxist philosophy cannot be narrowly viewed as a simply an explanation of the conflict between poor and rich. Marx’s purpose was to incite a not-so-subtle call to action and his words spoke to the potential he believed society could achieve. Marx theorized that the conversion of minds and social structures to communism would end the divisions between social class in addition to erasing the tyrannical line that divides governmental authority and society. There would be no need for political institutions or private property. Social justice would not have to be legislated because the antagonistic obstructions to social accord Marx believe stems from an individual’s ego and ‘one-sided development’ would be all but eliminated. Individuals would ‘de-alienate’ and be absorbed into a new, closer-knit society and recognize humanity as more than a concept. “Voluntary solidarity, not compulsion or the legal regulation of interests will ensure the smooth harmony of human relations […] the powers of the individual can only flourish when he regards them as social forces, valuable and effective within a human community and not in isolation” (Marx & Engels, 1978: 179). According to Marx, communism allows people to make suitable use of their human capabilities. While this final element of Marx’s theories did not come to pass exactly as envisioned in France, many of the earlier concepts of an exploited lower class banding together as a means of overthrowing an unsupportive government in brutal and revolutionary fashion are certainly traceable. Works Cited Hobsbawn, E.J. “The Age of Revolution.” New York: Praeger. (1969). Hunt, R.N. “The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels.” Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press. (1974). Knox, E. “Marx, Class and Socialism.” Socialist Standard. (August 1988). Lewis, G. “The ‘People’ and the French Revolution.” University of Warwick. (1998). Retrieved December 2, 2009 from Marx, K. & Engels, F. “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” Moscow. (1952 ed.) Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick. “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” London and Moscow: Lawrence & Wishart and Progress. (1958). Rude, G. “Ideology and Popular Protest.” Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. (1995). Sowell, Thomas. “Marxism.” New York: Basic Books. (1985). Read More