279

[introduction.]

280 281

p While capitalist features were emerging in feudal production relations, so the wealth and influence of the bourgeoisie as a capitalist class grew. In countries where capitalism developed particularly rapidly the bourgeoisie soon ceased to remain content with the patronage and assistance formerly afforded it by the absolute monarchies of the feudal era. The bourgeoisie came to aspire to power in order to ensure that the whole apparatus of state coercion would serve the interests of capitalism and deprive the feudal lords—whom the capitalists regarded as idle parasites—of the power which they had enjoyed in their position as members of the ruling class in states with an absolute monarchy. Attempts to gain power had been made, as described in earlier chapters, as. early as the sixteenth century. Such, essentially, were the Reformation and the Peasant War in Germany. The first successful bourgeois revolution was the revolt of the Netherlands against Spanish rule. In both these countries the crucial issue had been the transfer of power from the hands of the feudal landowners tothe bourgeoisie and at the same time the triumph of a new social system, that of capitalism, over the former feudal society—a revolutionary transition from one social order to another, more progressive one.

In the history of Europe, and indeed of the world, a particularly important role was played in this connection by the revolution which took place in England in the middle of the seventeenth century. The growing power of the bourgeoisie and the sections of the nobility with similar interests, together with the liquidation of the last vestiges of feudal patterns of agriculture and industry^ made of England by the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a progressive country and major world power with an enormous 282 number of colonial possessions all being exploited in the interests of the English capitalists, merchants and entrepreneurs and, by the eighteenth century, in the interests of the English factoryowners. It was in England that capitalist society first emerged, before it became a world-wide phenomenon. Hence the English bourgeois revolution was of great significance for the whole course of world history and Soviet Marxist historians regard this event as marking the beginning of modern history, i.e., the history of capitalist society.

Prelude to the English Revolution

p As it gradually grew more powerful, the English bourgeoisie came to express its dissatisfaction with the King’s absolute power in ever stronger terms. Meanwhile the King and his loyal supporters failed to realise that in face of the successful development of a capitalist economy and the emergence of the bourgeois class feudalism was doomed.

p The first Kings of the new Stuart dynasty, James I (1603-1625) and Charles I (1625-1649), strove despite pressure from Parliament to assert their unlimited power as absolute monarchs.

p The financial policy pursued by these Kings met with a particularly cold reception.

p According to a law passed in the fourteenth century new taxes could only be introduced with the consent of Parliament, and on more than one occasion Parliament refused to approve new taxes. In the reign of Charles I (son of James I) the conflict between Crown and Parliament came to a head. In 1628, Parliament presented a Petition of Right to the King, who dissolved Parliament the following year and did not convene it again for eleven years. Charles’ chief counsellor at that time was Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, who advised him to defy Parliament and initiate Personal Rule exercising his royal prerogatives. This would have been possible if it had not been for the fact that the King had neither the right to introduce new taxes without the consent of Parliament nor complete control of the army.

p In order to gain control of the army, Charles sent his minion, the Earl of Strafford, to Ireland as Lord Deputy in 1631, with the task of mustering an army there on the pretext of quelling an Irish revolt.

p In an attempt to raise money, in 1635 Charles reintroduced ship money, a tax which had been decreed before Parliament had come into being when money was demanded from the inhabitants of the coastal countries to help ward off the attacks of the Normans; the King also tried to levy other taxes but met with sharp opposition from Parliament.

283

p In 1631 a rebellion broke out in Scotland in answer to Charles’ attempt to extend English absolutism to that part of the realm as well, and introduce the Church of England there, which was loyal to the Crown, whereas by that time Calvinism in its Scottish form, Presbyterianism, had taken root in Scotland.

p From the very beginning of the rebellion the situation looked extremely grave for King Charles. He was short of money and had no army at his disposal and was thus obliged to convene Parliament. In April 1640 Parliament was convened after an interval of eleven years: however, not only did the new Parliament refuse to give the King any money but it continued to advance major demands aimed at curbing royal power and even entered into secret negotiations with the Scots. The King dissolved Parliament once more after no more than a few weeks had elapsed and this Parliament as a result came to be known as the Short Parliament.

p The King meanwhile was still short of funds and the rebellion was gaining ground, so that in November of that same year Charles was obliged to convene Parliament once more. This time he faced still tougher opposition than before. Well aware of the King’s difficult position Parliament firmly insisted on his complying with its demands.

p The walls of London were soon covered with revolutionary slogans and the government was afraid to dissolve Parliament, which indeed was destined to become the Parliament of the English bourgeois revolution. It came to be known as the Long Parliament as it was not dissolved for twelve years.

p Parliament succeeded in condemning the Earl Strafford by act of attainder and he was sentenced to death as a traitor. Not long afterwards a similar fate was to befall another champion of absolutism Archbishop Laud. Parliament abolished the prerogative courts and the King’s right to raise ship money, reasserted its right to control the levy of taxes and in November 1641 forced through the "Grand Remonstrance”, which listed the unlawful acts of the King and demanded that all important posts in the realm should be occupied by "such as henceforth the Parliament may have cause to confide in".

Enraged at this the King appeared in Parliament and ordered the arrest of the leaders of the opposition, but they had already gone into hiding in the City (the leading trading houses and banks belonging to the bourgeoisie were situated in the City and it was firmly in support of the opposition). Unrest broke out in the town. Large bands of sailors came up from the docks to defend the leaders of the opposition. In January 1642 the King left London for the north-west and started to muster his loyal followers. In August he declared war on Parliament.

284

The Commencement of the Revolution

p The feudal landowners of the economically backward NorthWest rallied to the Crown. The more developed South-East and London, the bourgeoisie and the part of the nobility with similar interests supported Parliament. From the outset of the Great Rebellion the Navy was on the side of Parliament and this served to protect England from interference on the part of absolute monarchies on the continent. The Church of England supported the King, while the Puritans were staunch supporters of Parliament and the names of the various groupings of the period were derived from different trends in the Protestant movement.

p The party of the rich bourgeoisie which played the leading role in Parliament was known as that of the Presbyterians wha favoured a united Calvinist Church administered by a council of church elders. The party of the lesser nobility and the bourgeoisie were the Independents, who favoured the religious independence of every church congregation. When the war started the King had the upper hand. The landowners who fought on his side were professional fighting men and their cavalry was disciplined and experienced. The forces mustered by Parliament, on the other hand,, were insufficiently organised and poorly armed. Apart from this, the commanders in the parliamentarian army were mainly from the class of lesser landowners and waged the campaign with little zeal, reckoning all the while with a speedy reconciliation with the King. The Presbyterians in Parliament, who made up the majority, were also reckoning with such a reconciliation.

p Parliament’s indecisive policy and the setbacks suffered by itsarmy gave rise to dissatisfaction in the radical sections of English society, who were soon to close their ranks and rally to the support of the Independents. The Independents were led by Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), a farmer of moderate means, who mustered a cavalry army which included peasants, craftsmen and various representatives of the lesser bourgeoisie alongside the stern and ardent adherents of Calvinism—the Independents. The iron discipline which reigned in Cromwell’s cavalry (his men came to be referred to as “Ironsides”) succeeded in gaining the first victory over the King at Marston Moor in July 1644. After this Cromwell was permitted by Parliament to reform the army as a whole and his New Model Army delivered the final blow to the King’s cause at the battle of Naseby in 1645. Many prisoners were taken, and all the Royalists’ artillery, a large part of their other arms and the King’s diplomatic correspondence were seized. It emerged from the latter that while the King had been carrying on negotiations with Parliament for an armistice, he had also been corresponding with European governments asking for their help, and in letters to his 285 friends had written of the cruel punishments, which he would mete out to the “rebels” if his cause, proved victorious. These letters were published and aroused universal indignation. The King’s authority suffered a severe blow as a result.

p After the battle of Naseby Charles suffered a number of further defeats. By March 1646 almost all the Royalist strongholds had surrendered, army and the King fled to Scotland. However, the Scots, who had received 400,000 pounds for the help that their troops had shown Cromwell’s army, handed the King over to the English in January 1647.

While the war was being conducted Parliament introduced various reforms directed towards the partial liquidation of feudal practices. Part of the Crown and Church lands, and lands belonging to the King’s supporters were confiscated and sold. The abolition of manorial estates in 1646 was also to have far-reaching consequences. All obligations connected with these estates were abolished and lands belonging to the nobility now became the property of the gentry. However, while gentry property was made free of all vestiges of feudal vassalage, the peasants’ plots remained subject to the former conditions: the peasants still had to pay all manner of taxes and labour-services to the lords and thus gained nothing from the revolution. The Great Rebellion consisted of a contest between the bourgeoisie in alliance with the •country gentry against the monarchy, powerful lords and the -established Church.

The Second Civil War

p After the King had been handed over to the army as a prisoner, the Presbyterians in Parliament considered that the revolution was over and were ready to negotiate a peace with the King. However, the revolutionary ardour of the popular masses who had gained nothing from the five years’ war had in no way been calmed. The common soldiers in the army chose to fight on and a new party known as the Levellers came into being, led by John Lilburne (1618-1657), who demanded universal suffrage, the abolition of the monarchy and the return of enclosed land to the peasants. Political power was soon in the hands of the army and Parliament decided to disband it on the pretext that the war was over. This decree gave rise to indignation in the army and the regiments proceeded to elect their representatives—Agitators—to form councils of soldiers’ representatives who demanded decisive action from the Grands (as the officers or the Independent military leaders were known among the common soldiers). In order to keep the soldiers under control Cromwell set up the General Army 286 Council, in which soldiers were under the surveillance of their officers. Soon afterwards the army occupied London and had the country virtually in its hands.

p However class conflict was now to break out in the army. The officers and Levellers could not agree on the nature of the future political structure of the state to be adopted. The Grands were wary of universal suffrage, claiming that the poor might seize power and do away with private property.

p These conflicting interests soon led to a revolt of the Levellers and common soldiers. Cromwell put down the revolt and disbanded the Army Council, leaving only the council of officers.

p Counter-revolutionary elements now came to the fore, making currency out of the clash of interests in the army. Presbyterians in Parliament came to terms with the Royalists and the King succeeded in escaping and taking refuge among the Scottish lords who mustered an army of twenty thousand men and marched into England to confront Cromwell’s army.

p Well aware of the dangerous situation, the Grands and the Levellers closed their ranks once more and Cromwell’s army succeeded in defeating the Scots. The King was arrested and called to account for all the bloodshed perpetrated on his orders, and the injury he had brought to God’s cause and the poor English nation. The army removed the Presbyterians from Parliament and the Independents who remained in office sentenced the King to death for High Treason. On January 30th, 1649, the King was beheaded and England was proclaimed a Republic without a King or House of Lords.

p In 1653 Cromwell dissolved what was left of the Long Parliament and in 1654 he was proclaimed Lord Protector of the Republic, thus becoming sole ruler of England. While he was in power he dealt quite ruthlessly both with Leveller and Royalist oppositions. He put down revolts in Ireland and Scotland and declared these countries part of the English state for all time (1654). Cromwell also gained a number of successes in the sphere of foreign policy. After routing England’s main trade rival Holland and obliging her to acknowledge the Navigation Act which had been drawn up in 1651 and according to which goods to be sold in England could be brought to English shores only by English ships or those of the country producing the goods in question. This dealt a disastrous blow to Dutch trade. Cromwell seized the island of Jamaica from Spain, which was then the centre of the slave-trade, and Dunkirk in the Spanish Netherlands.

p In 1658 Cromwell died at the height of his power. However, the bourgeoisie, the new ruling class, fearing a new wave of revolution and the involvement of the broad masses of the people soon restored the monarchy in the person of Charles II (1660-1685), 287 followed by James II (1685-1688). When these last Stuart Kings tried to revert to the policies of their predecessors, the bourgeoisie drove the dynasty out once and for all in what was known as the Glorious Revolution, when without any bloodshed William of Orange and his consort Mary, close relatives of Stuarts, were invited to ascend the throne. This event marked the final victory of Parliament, which provided a more realistic reflection of the balance of class interests in the country than Stuart absolutism.

p The English revolution did away with the last vestiges of feudalism and a new monarchy took shape whose powers were limited by Parliament. The essence of this parliamentary system consisted in the country being ruled by the party receiving the majority of votes in parliamentary elections. Ministers were appointed from among the leaders of the majority party and the government was responsible to Parliament. This meant that if the government was not accorded the support of Parliament then it would be obliged to relinquish power. However, the ruling parties in Parliament did not stand for the people’s true interests since it was only a small section of the population, men of noble birth or ample means who enjoyed the right to vote.

p From a small country which in the fifteenth century had had a population of no more than 3V2-4 million and had held sway 288 neither over Ireland nor Scotland, England had now become a major European power ruling over not only the whole of the British Isles but also vast territories in North America and the whole of India.

p In the sixteenth century England secured victories over Spain, over the Dutch in the seventeenth, and over France in the eighteenth. This enhancement of England’s power was a direct result of the country’s capitalist development.

The English revolution was the first bourgeois revolution with repercussions that were to make themselves felt far beyond its borders and which was to mark a turning point in history. However, much time was still to elapse before a capitalist economy and bourgeois rule were to spread throughout even the whole of Europe.

Absolutism in France

p Meanwhile in France, where capitalist elements had appeared as early as the end of the fifteenth century and manufactories had grown up in the sixteenth century, another 150 years were to pass before the advent of bourgeois revolution (1789). The revolution in England took place during the heyday of the absolute monarchy in France, that is the reign of Louis XIV, "le roi soleil" as his contemporaries flatteringly called him.

p Louis XIV came to the throne in 1643 when he was only five years old. He took over the reins of government in 1661 and was to rule for more than half a century (1661-1715). "I shall be my own minister”, declared the young King, and indeed he was to be an all-powerful ruler, whose will determined the fate of all his subjects, of the whole realm.

p For many a long year the saying: "L’etat c’est moi”, was attributed to Louis XIV and although nowadays the statement is regarded rather as a legend than a fact, this sentiment still provides a vivid reflection of the actual state of affairs in the France of that time. The King and his immediate entourage at court held such power and lived in such luxury that it may well have seemed to them that the life of this big state began and ended with the magnificent halls and chambers of the royal court.

p Louis XIV’s long reign was referred to as "la grande epoque" or "le siecle de Louis le Grand”. During his reign a new royal palace was built at Versailles which dwarfed all other royal residences in Europe in its extravagance, luxury and brilliance. Many of the noble courtiers followed the King’s example and built themselves magnificent residences and chateaux. During Louis’ reign France was to wage incessant wars against Spain, Holland, England, Sweden and Austria, in which French troops secured 289 many illustrious victories and French commanders earned a great reputation. France under Louis XIV seemed to the whole world to be the most powerful state in Europe.

p However, as the years and decades of this "great age" followed one another the common people, the peasants and craftsmen (in short those the fruit of whose labours went to feed and clothe the nobility, clergy, army, court and the King himself) came to realise that their living conditions were growing worse and worse, that the country was becoming impoverished and that each new day brought heavier burdens. Popular risings broke out in various parts of the realm and were only put down with great difficulty: this served to illustrate the real attitude of the French people to Louis le Grand. When the King died in 1715 his funeral had to take place in secret to avoid a major rebellion.

p During the reign of Louis XV (1715-1774) the critical state of affairs in this feudal absolutist society grew still more serious. The ruling nobility and, in particular, its upper echelons, i.e., the King and his courtiers, chose to ignore the desperate plight of the warworn troops, the fact that their lavish expenditure was far beyond the means of the State Treasury, the suffering of the starving peasantry and the discontent of the bourgeoisie, while they gave themselves up to dancing, carousing, costly balls, receptions and hunting. The lavish expenditure at court and at the residences of the greater and lesser nobility, entertainment and all manner of frivolity knew no bounds. No thought was given to the morrow. Louis XV is reputed to have declared: "Apres nous le deluge!" The King, his courtiers and the vast majority of the nobility lived their lives according to this code, all hoping they would not outlive the Golden Age.

p The only source of income of this parasitic nobility was exploitation of the peasantry and taxation of the bourgeoisie. Rapacious robbery of the peasantry led to its impoverishment and a general crisis in French agriculture. The extremes resorted to with the aim of intensifying the feudal exploitation of the peasantry in the eighteenth century merely meant that the nobility cut the ground away from under their own feet.

The tide of wide-scale discontent mounted apace. The peasants were not only unwilling but indeed unable to go on living as they were. In the course of a whole century, and particularly during the middle and latter half of it, major peasant uprisings had shaken the edifice of the French monarchy. The impoverished working men in the towns had also come out into the streets on several occasions, raiding granaries and food warehouses. The bourgeoisie, which by this time constituted the most educated and economically powerful class was unwilling to reconcile itself either to its lack of rights or to the arbitrary sway of the court and the nobility. All 290 the exploited and underprivileged classes, the whole of the oppressed third estate, rallied together to oppose the privileged minority.

The Enlightenment

p This discontent among the ranks of the bourgeoisie and the popular masses found graphic expression in the philosophical, political, and economic writings and belles lettres of the eighteenthcentury Enlightenment, a truly Golden Age of French culture.

p The writers of the Enlightenment did not represent a united group, and indeed were distinguished by their very diversity. One of the first among them, a simple country priest Jean Meslier (1664-1729), was never to emerge from obscurity. It was only many years after his death that the manuscript of his “Testament” started to be circulated clandestinely. In this work he expressed materialist ideas, criticising the state and feudal oppression.

p Unlike Meslier, the Enlighteners of the older generation—-Montesquieu (1689-1755) and Voltaire (1694-1778)—won great fame during their life-time. Montesquieu spoke out as a severe and profound critic of despotism and the arbitrary rule of the absolute monarch in his political and philosophical writings Lettres Persanes and De I’esprit des lois. He held the injustices of despotic France up for comparison with ideals of freedom, above all political freedom. Montesquieu is rightly held to be the father of bourgeois liberalism.

p Voltaire, a writer of brilliant irony and wit, was the author of tragedies, verse, historical writings, philosophical novels, satirical poems, political treatises and articles. He was a brave and inveterate enemy of the Church and champion of anti-clericalism, and poured scorn on the morals and dogmas of feudal society, and the lawlessness and vice inherent in absolutism. However, in his constructive programme for reform, as in his attitudes to the common people, he was restrained and moderate. Yet his role in the Enlightenment was enormous and due not so much to his political views as to the free-thinking spirit of inquiry and scepticism with which he inspired the younger generation, thus leading them directly or indirectly towards the path of revolutionary struggle.

p Philosophers of this movement included the doctor Julien de La Mettrie (1709-1751), author of the book L’Homme machine which caused such a sensation in its day; Denis Diderot (1713-1784), the chief editor and initiator of the famous many-volume Encyclopedic and a number of philosophical and political works; Helvetius (1715-1771) who in his book De Vesprit criticised religious faith and the Church, and despotism; and D’Holbach (1723-1789), author of the famous Systeme de la Nature. Their materialism still 291 contained various inconsistencies and was as yet purely of a mechanical variety. Nevertheless, they played an important and positive role in the cultural development of those times fighting against obscurantism and ignorance, boldly propagating progressive new ideas in defiance of established religion and mediaeval doctrines.

p The economists Quesnay, Turgot and Du Pont de Nemours, who came to be known as the physiocrats, spoke out in favour of unlimited freedom of economic initiative and enterprise, ideas which corresponded to the interests of the bourgeoisie.

p Alongside these writers and Enlighteners, whose writings reflected so clearly the ideology of the young and revolutionary bourgeoisie of that period, were others whose works voiced the aspirations and dreams of the popular masses. The auto-didactic writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was to exert an extremely strong influence on the younger generation, and yet he was obliged to spend his whole life as a homeless impecunious wanderer. Despite the contradictions permeating Rousseau’s novels, verse and philosophical and political writings, they were to have a revolutionising effect on his contemporaries. They contained two main ideas which were to make of them such a strong attractive force: the idea of equality, which Rousseau approached not merely as a political but as a social phenomenon, and the idea of the people’s power. His dream of the ideal republic where equality reigns, an egalitarian republic of petty producers, property-owners unacquainted with poverty or wealth was of course unrealistic, but it reflected the age-long aspirations of the peasantry, desperate for the land which had been taken away from it by the feudal lords, the dreams of the working people of another more just society of which they themselves were as yet only dimly aware.

p The ill-defined social aspirations of the poorest strata of society of those times also found expression in the writings of the Utopian communists: Morelly, author of a treatise entitled Le Code de la Nature, and the Abbe de Mably, author of numerous political works. Both Mably and Morelly subjected the whole of the social system based on private property to harsh criticism. But this ideal “natural” communist order—the Golden Age of mankind—was seen by them to be bound up with the advance of enlightenment.

p Despite this diversity of expression the ideas of the men of the Enlightenment had in common a bold resolution in subjecting to merciless criticism all social institutions, dogmas and canons of the already obsolete feudal society of the age of absolutism. This ideological barrage was to precede the direct revolutionary onslaught of the masses.

The Enlightenment played a still more dramatic role in France during the eighteenth century, by which time it was no longer a 292 strictly French phenomenon, but a movement embracing the whole of Europe—Germany, Russia, Italy and Spain, in short all those countries where the struggle against the feudal absolutism standing in the way of progress was underway.

The Monarchies of Eastern Europe

p While in France capitalist development was at least progressing, if at a much slower pace than in England, in Eastern Europe the feudal mode of production and feudal states were still deeply entrenched and revolutionary ideas even at the time of the French Revolution were to produce little echo there. In contrast to developments in England, here the capitalist developments taking place in the progressive countries of Europe were to give rise to a wave of feudal reaction. In the North-East and South-East of the continent two large states arose—Prussia and Austria, whose economies were based on the agricultural enterprise of the nobility relying on the labour services of peasants bound to their land. This involved a return to the very earliest forms of feudal exploitation, explained by the fact that the European countries to the East of the Elbe became the source of agricultural produce for the markets of Western Europe, where capitalism was already taking root. Prussian, Polish and Austrian landowners drove peasants from their former holdings, extended their lands under the plough, making use of the peasants’ obligatory labour services and binding the latter to their estates once and for all and depriving them of all personal freedom. They sold their produce wholesale in the West and thus grew rich on the proceeds and entrenched their position as the privileged section of society. These states represented a bastion of feudalism and reaction in Eastern Europe, and waged continual aggressive wars. For this purpose they kept expanding their armies, which were commanded by members of the nobility (in Prussia by the Junkers) brought up in an atmosphere shaped by centuries of hostilities against the peoples of Eastern Europe, some of whom they succeeded in subduing and bringing to their knees. Expanding their territory at the expense of the petty German states, Prussian and Austrian interests soon clashed as both attempted to unify Germany under their hegemony. Neither succeeded in this venture and no further attempts were made until the nineteenth century.

Poland was a special case. Here, as in Prussia, an agriculture based on peasants’ labour services had grown up and few of the towns had become industrial centres of any importance. Furthermore, the townspeople in their economic activity showed themselves to be closely dependent on the existing agricultural system 293 and supported the Polish nobles and the reactionary feudal order from both political as well as economic considerations. The defiant political independence of the Polish nobles meant that Poland was only formally a monarchy while in practice each large landed estate was virtually an independent entity and the country was more like a republic than a monarchy. All affairs of state were decided by the Sejms (councils of elected representatives of the nobility) while all Polish nobles had the right to reject the Sejms’ decrees and even use armed force against the existing order. In conditions such as these the state could not hope to preserve its unity and at the end of the eighteenth century it ceased to exist, being partitioned by Austria, Prussia and Russia.