CHAPTER 12

REVOLUTION

We saw in chapter 3 that within the left sectarian groups considered, and indeed among the anti-capitalist left in general, much use is made of the word 'revolution'. However, such is the heritage of sectarianism that what little is portrayed about revolution, is usually very crude and/or abstract. We saw that the Workers Revolutionary Party leaders - those who considered themselves 'the most important part' of the class struggle - calculated that in Thatchers' Britain of the late 1970's 'conditions were entirely ripe' to go forward to the establishment of a revolutionary anti-capitalist government (see page 73 and 79 above). We noted that about the same time the International Communist Party were urging 'political rebellion' and were convinced that 'revolutionary struggles' were then realistically on the agenda. Other groups called for general strikes in preparation for revolution and if the reader remembers, the Maoists were on the verge of 'launching the final (revolutionary) offensive' against colonialism and imperialism. All the quoted sects, and many others, at one time or another have advocated revolution. Yet trawl through their copious documents as he or she may, the diligent anti-capitalist will find little which shines a light on how these groups hope to recognise revolutionary processes when they actually occur.

A single chapter can only begin to analyse some basic elements of such processes and not exhaust them. However, we need to begin this analysis if we are to ultimately rid the term 'revolution' of its abstract mysticism. We non-sectarian anti-capitalists, need to start this analysis also to free ourselves from dependence upon the fantastic prophecies of self-appointed sectarian elites. Such a start will enable workers and anti-capitalists to begin to judge for themselves what stage has been reached in terms of revolutionary political and social developments. By revolution I do not mean an overthrow of one part of government by another, (often called a 'Palace Revolution) nor do I mean simply an uprising (armed or otherwise) against some form of oppression. Nor do I consider revolution as an 'instrument', a 'thing' which history, or radicals, use to ensure a progression from one historical stage to another.

I am using the word here to describe a thoroughgoing change in the political and economic practices by which communities and social groups operate. Revolution in this sense is the term used to describe a process of social disintegration and human conflict, caused by a profound crisis in the existing economic and political structures of human societies, which leads to a change in those structures.

To assist our understanding of the nature of the revolutionary process we shall consider aspects of four revolutionary transformations; the English Revolution of 1641; the American Revolution of 1775; the French Revolution of 1789; and the Russian Revolution of 1917.

A) THE ENGLISH revolution .

Opposition to oppression and exploitation in the form of individual resistance and collective rebellion is probably as old as conquest and subjection. Slave revolts in antiquity were far from infrequent. Certainly recorded rebellion and resistance in England, date back to the Roman invasion by the Britons, the eventual uprising led by Queen Boadicea, as well as sporadic resistance to Celtic and Viking invasion. From at least the times of the Romans, the object of the successive conquering warrior groups was to subdue and control the native populations, in order to extract surplus labour and produce from them. This surplus product varied according to locality, but usually took the form of food (grain, roots, livestock etc.), materials (wood, metals, etc.), and human beings themselves (for slaves, servants, etc.). The form in which this surplus production was extracted, varied depending upon the requirements of the conquerors, and the resources of the conquered. For example, the Romans in addition to taking men, women and children as slaves for their mines, plantations and homes, preferred direct confiscation of certain products. These products were usually in the form of cattle, hides, corn, timber, hunting dogs, gold, silver and iron. Later still, the invading Anglo-Saxon war lords insisted on receiving the products of surplus labour in the form of two or three different types of ale, numerous oxen and cheeses, together with scores of hens and geese from each village within their control. They also insisted on free labour service when they required it. Such forced extraction's were the forerunners of the later feudal tithes (payment of a tenth of the things produced) and corvee (free services) labour which will re-occur throughout this chapter.

It is clearly the case that in England, some revolutionary ingredient was missing in terms of the great peasants' revolt against a poll tax in 1381, or in the case of the 'Cades' revolt of 1450. It is obvious that anger was also abundant in the various English uprisings of 1515, 1536, 1549 and 1553, but they nevertheless resulted in very little change, and were soon put down or subsided. We need to recognise that however intensive, or extensive rebellions become, without further economic, social and political factors having entered into the equation, they are unlikely to result in revolutionary change. It is these further factors which we will now consider.

The background.

The forces which confronted each other in the English Revolution of (1641-1650), were congregated around two basic socio-economic groups. On the one hand, the king and his loyal nobles, organised around the Royal Court. On the other, the rich merchants, manufacturers and disaffected nobles, who were based around Parliament. But why had these two groups of exploiters become so much opposed? The answer lies in the changing nature of economic trade and the continued expansion of a new type. Throughout the middle ages in Europe small pockets of capitalistic enterprise in manufacture and trade were increasing in number and diversity. The voyages of 'discovery', undertaken by Spain and Portugal in the 'Americas,' had opened up a new world of exploitable commodities and thus surplus labour, which was steadily enriching individual capitalists. This process also increased their number, in those towns and cities with ports for shipping, or which produced essential commodities. England was no exception to this development, even though she was later on this world scene than Spain, Portugal and Holland. Thus, from the introduction in Europe of the Fulling mill (approx. 1008), and windmills (approx. 1180) to grind corn, through to such activities as mining, brewing and the import and export of commodities such as wool and spices, England had increasingly developed its own groups of capitalist-led enterprises. They existed in every major town and city and were beginning to economically dominate in many.

By the time we reach the period of the English Revolution, these groups of traders and manufacturers, together with those who serviced them, had become a larger group than the nobles, and in many cases considerably richer. A few nobles and many of the country gentry, had been so impressed by this progress in wealth creation, that they had also created their own niche in the rapidly developing capitalist economy. For some land-owning aristocrats and gentry, it was a time of rapidly growing wealth. This was gained in some cases, by enclosing the common land, forcibly removing the poor cottagers, creating large sheep runs and causing poverty and unemployment among agricultural labourers. In other words they became rich by changing the type of production exercised on their own land and by gaining control, through legalised theft, of the common land. By the 17th century, the divergent interests between the high-placed representatives of the traditional feudal economy and the rapidly developing capitalist class, were threatening to spill over into open conflict.

Although both sides in the Civil War expressed their opposition to each other in the form of religious differences, questions of personal loyalty and taxation, the real undercurrent was to do with how each group gained and maintained their economic wealth and well-being. Religious disagreements were the ideological shrouds which were often used to camouflage the conflicting economic interests. To use the terms already developed in chapter 9, the real underlying social and economic difference related to how each group extracted and realised surplus products and surplus value from the working population. The king, and his main body of traditional aristocratic supporters, obtained surplus labour and value through rents, duties, tithes and taxes; the manufacturers, merchants and merchant gentry obtained theirs predominantly through the production and sale of commodities.

It had long been the view of many merchants and traders, that the Royalty (Kings and Nobles) had obtained their wealth unfairly. In the minds of the active, industrious gentry, merchants and manufacturers, The King and his courtly nobles did little or nothing to justify their extravagant lifestyles. Numerous revolts suggest that royal taxation tended to be unpopular with the overwhelming majority of people. When taxes were further raised for purposes of war, or when spendthrift royalty sat on the throne, the high level of taxation was often seen as excessive. Yet wars, and extravagant royalty, were regular occurrences. European wars in particular, were means by which English Kings and Nobles enriched themselves further. They did this by seizing overseas estates and plundering foreign city treasuries. However, raising an army required a great deal of money, and this frequently meant raising extra revenue by taxation, forced levies, gifts or 'benevolences', as they were often termed.

One particular royal strategy, which had begun to irritate the developing manufacturers and merchants, was the taxing of new sources of trade and manufacture. Each new source of commodity wealth saw the royal prerogative used to grant a monopoly or levy taxes. Such impositions were naturally resented by those who had to pay them directly, but they also invariably caused the prices of commodities to rise, which affected an even greater number of people. By the turn of the 17th century (in the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1st.), resentment, which had smouldered for a long time, turned to open anger during a Parliamentary debate. The extent of this anger is worth noting. In this case it was directed against the granting of Royal monopolies - often given free to royal favourites - and/or in exchange for large payments. Thus a member of Parliament, Mr Francis Moore stated;

"I cannot utter with my tongue or conceive with my heart the great grievances that the town and country for which I serve, suffer by some of those monopolies. It bringeth the general profit into a private hand and the end of all is beggary and bondage to the subjects." (Townsend's Journals. Quoted in 'A History of England'. Keatinge and Fraser Pub. A&C Black. page 374.)

During the same debate one angry MP read out a long list of such patents and monopolies and was interrupted by yet another member inquiring if bread was not on the list as well. The result of this parliamentary outcry in 1601, was that Queen Elizabeth 1st., apologised. She immediately abolished some of the monopolies, suspended others, and promised not to grant any more without, as she said, "they should first have a trial", to see how they affected her people. That particular Elizabeth had been astute enough to quickly defuse the situation, by apologising and backing down, in order to avoid further problems. Not so James the 1st, the next monarch on the English throne.

The disagreement deepened.

James inherited Elizabeth's royal debt of approximately £400,000, caused partly by the war against Spain and the costs of defence against its invading Armada. However, he did not imitate her relatively frugal court expenditure. His attempts to raise money - and objections to this from within the commons - characterised much of his reign. Finance was not the only point of dispute. Petitions and protestations raised within Parliament, such as one known as the 'millinery' and another on 'free speech', were challenges to the royal prerogative in all matters, including religion and politics. They were precursors of what was to come. The real root of the division is given away by the fact that King James was constantly summoning Parliament, not to discuss the finer points of theology or politics, but to demand money. He would then regularly dismiss Parliament, not because of its views on god, but when it failed to grant him sufficient amounts of cash. He did this when Parliament asked him to end taxation by 'purveyance', 'wardships' etc., and even on one occasion when Parliament dared to criticise him. Responding to further criticism, in a speech to the Star Chamber, (the King's private court for trying and sentencing his opponents), James however, again deliberately hid his rights to demand extra money behind a smoke-screen of religious sentiment, saying;

"That which concerns the mystery of the king's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of the princes and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit on the throne of God." (In Keating and Frazer . page 551.)

The references to 'lawful', 'mystical reverence' and 'God', whether the king believed them or not, were of course just ideological rationalisations for what were the real material interests of him and his supporters. As indicated, both sides went to considerable lengths at times to cloak their material and pecuniary interests in the struggle, by constant reference to 'history', 'religion' and 'national well-being'. However, it is not too hard to detect the real interests at work if a critical eye is kept on the debates and proceedings. For example, petitions and reports on the poor condition of trade and the condition of the poor were numerous during this period.

When James died, and his son Charles 1st took the throne, the same pattern quickly established itself. As time went on, the tension between the two sides became worse. Wading in and challenging the mystical reverence of kingship, as it applied to sharing surplus value by taxation and property rights was precisely what a majority of the wealthy manufacturers, merchants and gentry began to have in mind. During one period, Charles summoned Parliament and dismissed it several times, for the same basic reason. In between, with the help of his advisers, particularly the Duke of Buckingham and Archbishop Laude, the king remained determined to get his own way, particularly with regard to taxes. By the time Charles summoned his third Parliament, a great many manufacturers, merchants and a good part of the well-to-do within Parliament and the city of London, were in no mood to even humour the king let alone grant his fiscal wishes. When yet another Parliament assembled, the King issued orders for it to provide the financial means for meeting 'the common danger' presented by France and Spain. However, the members of Parliament were more concerned to air their own grievances than consider any danger. They drew up a 'Petition of Right' which among many things announced that;

"...it is declared and enacted, that from henceforth no person shall be compelled to make any loans to the king against his will, because such loans were against reason and the franchise of the land; and by other laws of this realm it provided, that none should be charged by any charge or imposition, called a benevolence, or by such like charge, by which the statutes before mentioned,.....that they should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other charge, not set by common consent in Parliament." (ibid. page 553/554.)

We should note in this petition from the Commons, in 1628, that there was no revolutionary denial of the continued existence of kingship. Nor was there any absolute opposition to the King's right to ask for money. The main thrust of the parliamentary opposition was reformist. It merely sought to challenge the King's assumption that he could compel Parliament, against its wishes, to grant him money - with no limit on the amount! After ordering one short adjournment, the King sent in the Speaker of the House of Commons to close Parliament. However, when the Speaker tried to prevent further speeches by members, two, Holles and Valentine, forcibly held him down. When some M.P's tried to leave, another determined M.P., prevented this by locking the door. At that point the M.P's. Eliot and Holles spoke to a resolution denouncing the royal levy of 'pundage' and tonnage, and all those who supported Popery. Parliament passed the resolution, and for the first time in its history, declared its own dissolution.

This positive defiance of the King's power to summon and discharge Parliament, was in fact the first indication that the struggle for what was essentially a moderate reform of royal privilege, could spill over into revolution. Elliot, Holles and Valentine were arrested on the king's orders. Elliot perished later, in the Tower of London. Such defiant actions made it clear that if neither side backed down, what was to follow could be, or would be, a life and death struggle. In such circumstances petitions were of no use, and defiance of any kind would create a royal backlash. John Lilburne, a stern critic of the Royalty, was whipped. Three others (Prynne, Burton and Bastwick) were publicly branded, and had their ears chopped off. It seemed likely that if things became worse, then executions, rather than whippings, would be the likely outcome. A growing feeling developed among the merchant and manufacturing classes, that the situation had gone on long enough. It was time for a serious challenge. They no longer restricted themselves to humble petitions, and meek declarations, instead they drew up Remonstrances and began to openly challenge the King's prerogative.

Having developed as an economic class, and flexed its muscles from time to time, the emerging capitalist class was now politically becoming a class 'for itself'. It lacked only the military means to enforce its interests. Meanwhile, having decided to do without a Parliament for a time, Charles decided to continue to extract his royal privileges in the manner he had become accustomed. Further royal monopolies were introduced and ship money (an exceptional tax to pay for the navy, previously levied in coastal towns only), was extended to all towns in the country. This extra tax burden caused yet another outcry, but this time among a wider range of people. During this period King Charles also managed to get on the wrong side of the Scottish nation in two important ways. First, by supporting a move to return all previously confiscated Scottish lands back to the church. Second, by insisting that Scotland adopt the English Book of Common Prayer. Within a fairly short time a large section of Scotland was literally up in arms and ready to fight. Charles' ill-considered response was to form an army to quell the riotous Scots. However, when the two armies met, it was Charles' somewhat motley crew of soldiers, which was no match for those assembled from north of the border. The Scots soon forced Charles' troops to retreat. A humiliated Charles returned to London even more determined to put down the Scots. He again summoned Parliament, in order to raise the necessary money. The new Parliament again refused his requests, and was again dissolved. He next tried to create an army by 'pressing' (forcibly kidnapping) men into its ranks, but the cause was unpopular, and with such unpopular means of recruiting, mutinies and desertions became common. Whilst this was going on, the Scottish forces advanced and captured the English towns of Newcastle and Durham. Soon after, the King was forced to end his campaign and agree to pay a ransom to the Scottish Army. Of course with no financial resources himself, Charles had no alternative but to summon yet another Parliament in order to try to pay this debt.

In the run-up to this new election, the MP. John Pym, the son of a Somerset Squire with links with the wool trade, toured the English counties with his friends, and urged all those with the vote to return candidates who would be firmly against the excesses of the monarch. This campaign proved successful, and as a consequence, the new Parliament which assembled, was no friendlier to the King's cause than its predecessors. Despite a declaration of being humble and faithful, the prelude to that parliament's Grand Remonstrance makes clear their position;

"The duty which we owe to your majesty and our country cannot but make us very sensible and apprehensive, that the multiplicity, sharpness and malignity of those evils under which we have now many years suffered, are fomented and cherished by a corrupt and ill affected party, who among other their mischievous devises for the alteration of religion and government, have sought by many false scandals and imputations, cunningly insinuated and dispersed among the people, to blemish and disgrace our proceedings in this Parliament and to get themselves a party and faction among your subjects, for the better strengthening themselves and their wicked courses and hindering those provisions and remedies which might by the wisdom of your majesty and counsel of your Parliament, be opposed against them" (in Keatinge and Frazer. page 563.)

Although complaining of evils suffered, the Grand Remonstrance, in its 204 clauses, still sought no real split with monarchical power. Instead, it chose to blame the King's close associates. In the Remonstrance we can see that it is these unnamed persons, and not the King, who are declared corrupt, cunning and wicked. Parliament, and a majority of its leadership, were at this point still hoping to reform the relationship between the monarchy and Parliament. The indecision of many in Parliament is made clear by the fact that this 'humble' attempt to stand up to the King on behalf of moderate reform, was only narrowly won by eleven votes. Many of the members of Parliament, despite everything the King had done, were nowhere near contemplating a physical struggle to force the reforms they desired on the King. Yet the mood was different outside Parliament.

In the days that followed the remonstrance, many ordinary citizens of London began to turn up at Parliament - some armed - and clamouring for a full scale confrontation with royalty. On the other side of the argument, there were those who urged Charles to send his royal troops - swords drawn - to put an end to this parliamentary opposition. In fear of their own safety, the Commons decided to pass a Militia Bill. The bill provided for the creation of an armed body of men directly responsible to Parliament. Charles responded to this challenge by ordering the arrest of five of the leading parliamentarians. Parliament stood its ground, and refused to surrender the MP's to the Kings men. By the time Charles and his guards arrived at Westminster to carry out the arrest, the five had slipped away across the river to the City of London.

The two actions, the passing of the militia bill and Charles's order to arrest the MP's, made it almost certain that in the struggle between the two rival socio-economic forces, compromise and reform was giving way to a revolutionary challenge to the existing power. These apparently small, but pivotal incidents, were quickly followed by other decisions and actions, which further set the seal on what was to follow. Parliament voted to put the country in a state of defence and issued a document entitled 'Nineteen Propositions', which also outlined the basis of a new constitution. When these were rejected by Charles, Parliament set up a 'Committee of Safety' to co-ordinate the parliamentary campaign. The issuing of the 'nineteen propositions' and the formation of the 'committee of safety', were measures with very clear revolutionary implications, and both sides knew it. Charles quickly made an attempt to seize the city of Hull, which was not only a strategic Port, but also housed the main arsenal of English weapons. He failed in this attempt, but soon both sides had obtained the military means to fight it out.

The armed struggle.

When the war of words finally became a battle of swords, pikes and muskets, the Parliamentary side was immediately the weaker, even though the English Navy declared itself completely on the side of Parliament. Few of the citizens who flocked to join the Parliamentary Roundheads, had any real training in warfare. The members of Parliament, who in the early stages, drew up citizens armies from their own districts and assumed leadership of them, were no better trained. It was decidedly an army of amateurs led by amateurs. On the other hand the royalist cause was served by a number of noblemen who had seen some kind of active service in European wars. With considerable support among the gentry, they also had many more who could already skilfully ride a horse, and who only needed to be trained to wield a sword, to become that decisive force in 17th century battles - the Cavalry. However, what early advantage the royalists had gained them little as it was more than counterbalanced by the indecisiveness of their own leader. The financial advantages, as was demonstrated by Charles's previous demands for loans, were with the parliamentary side. As it turned out, the early engagements between the combatants, were little more than confused skirmishes and even the outcome of the first major battle at Edghill was inconclusive. Nevertheless, over a period of time, the financial resources, the quality of the troops, the level of organisation, and the good will of the general populace, were all slowly moving in the direction of Parliament.

In retrospect, victory at the battle of Marston Moor in 1644, was the first major engagement which indicated that Parliament had decisively improved the ability of its troops. They could from then on match the royalist forces and, other things being equal, could beat them. Yet at the time this ability was easy to discount, for despite the victory, the Royalist armies controlled more of the country than Parliament. Nor did the Parliamentary success at Marston Moor significantly alter this territorial disadvantage. However, by the following year, at the battle of Naseby, the Parliamentary side had assembled and trained a 'New Model Army'. The formation of the New Model Army was to prove decisive in all the subsequent battles between the two sides. Over the same period, the Royalist troops had looted and pillaged their way into the bad books of even their own supporters. Charles had quickly run out of money, and when he could no longer supply his troops, they were left to provision themselves. They did this by seizing what they needed from the particular town or country they were passing through. Under these circumstances, drinking, rape and stealing valuables, were added to the list of unpopular supplies, which were being 'requisitioned' in this way. The result was that in many normally supportive districts, Royalists were becoming generally disliked. By degrees, in this period, the balance of military and moral strength was tipping heavily the way of Parliament. After a series of further defeats, in Cornwall and at Oxford, Charles eventually decided to flee north and surrender to the Scots, in the hope of sympathetic treatment. This decision, together with the defeats of his military forces, indicated that the back of the Royalist cause had been broken. With the King in custody, the decisive phase of the armed struggle in the English Revolution, was almost at an end.

Throughout this period, discussion and debate had been developed to a high level, among the troops of the New Model Army. Indeed, the very existence and structure of the army owed itself to the challenge Parliament had made to established authority and hierarchy. Cromwell and the pro-capitalist members of Parliament had been compelled to appeal to the general discontent felt among common people, in order to make a sufficiently strong alliance with ordinary citizens. Alliances of this nature are necessary to sustain a lengthy civil war. Parliamentarians, had been forced by their need for such an alliance, to hide their own particular economic interests, beneath such unifying calls as 'religious toleration' and the end to excessive and unfair taxes. Their fervent calls to end royal and religious privilege, therefore, had the 'knock-on' effect of calling into question all privilege - including the privilege of army rank. In the New Model Army officers were now being chosen for ability, rather than for their wealth, family connections, or favouritism. In quite a short time, the New Model Army had also become a hotbed of political agitation and religious polemic, over the general unfairness of the then existing form of society. A large part of this propaganda was carried out by various groups, among whom the Levellers were probably the most influential. The Leveller influence within the Parliamentary army, began to embrace the collective hopes of thousands of armed men. Increasingly the rank-and-file soldiers saw their sacrifices and risks in battle, as important enough to entitle them to a better future, once the King was out of the way.

However, with the King defeated, the parliamentary coalition of nobles, merchants and gentry, wished to disband their by now 'revolutionary' New Model army, as quickly as possible. They feared that the radical momentum of civil war and the agitation against royal wealth and privilege, might not stop at the removal of the king, but be developed to question all privilege and wealth. Such fears were not without substance, for there were many such ideas circulating at the time. At first some attempts were made by Parliament to purge the army of its radicals, but to no avail. Parliament next tried to disband the army, but this only served to spread considerable alarm among the rank and file soldiers. The soldiers responded at regimental level by electing special representatives or 'agitators', who were sent to Army headquarters and Parliament, to represent their views. When Parliament turned them down, the angry soldiers refused to disband, and set up their own printing presses to publish their grievances.

Seeing the strength of opposition to their views in Parliament, the soldiers demanded that Parliament be purged of the enemies of the ordinary citizen. Fearing further agitation, Cromwell and Ireton, responded to this threat by publishing a set of declarations, called 'Heads of Proposals'. These sanctified the property relations of the gentry, manufacturers and merchants. Within a short time, the army agitators countered these proposals, by putting forward their own arguments in the form of an 'Agreement of the People'. This radical document became a quite comprehensive manifesto of how the rank and file soldier and citizen envisaged the future organisation of English society.

These competing visions of the future without a King, were debated at length in what have become known as the Putney Debates. It clearly emerged during these that now the king was out of the way, the sanctity of their own property was uppermost in the minds of Cromwell and Parliament. Ireton put the pro-capitalist Parliamentary position at Putney most clearly and forcefully, saying;

"No person hath a right to an interest of share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom and in determining or choosing those that shall determine what laws we shall be ruled by here - no person hath a right to this that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom and those persons together are properly the represented of this kingdom..." (Quoted in 'The Levellers' .H.N Brailsford. Pub. Spokesman University. page 276.)

In other words those who did not own property (i.e. those without the 'fixed interest') should not have a say (a vote) in the running of the country, or be represented at Parliament. Parliament, in this view, was to be an oligarchy of the rich capitalists and pro-capitalist landed gentry, governing the country in the interests of this capitalist class. During these debates at Putney it became crystal clear to many of the rank and file representatives of the army that they would get nowhere in convincing Cromwell, Ireton and the majority at Parliament, to consider ordinary people's needs. On behalf of the rank and file of his own regiment, and echoing what many more undoubtedly felt, Sexby declared;

"There are many thousands of us soldiers that have ventured our lives; we have had little propriety in the kingdom as to our estates, yet we have had a birthright. But it seems now, except a man hath a fixed estate in this kingdom, he hath no right in this kingdom. I wonder we were so much deceived." (ibid. page 275)

And deceived they were. Having been used as shock troops in the war between Parliament and the King, between those representing the new capitalist methods of surplus labour extraction and those representing feudal methods of surplus labour extraction, the ordinary property-less soldier and citizen, was now to be cast aside. They were expected to meekly return to producing surplus value for a new ruling and exploiting class. But inevitably there was some resistance to this. Cromwell and Ireton tried to cobble together a compromise, but this was rejected by the army representatives, who drew up yet a further alternative. Short and to the point, their resolution declared that everyone in the country, except beggars and servants, should have the vote. It was passed by the army representatives, against the wishes of Cromwell and Ireton, and with only a few dissension's. Realising they were losing ground in this rank and file forum, the army leaders called a halt to the discussions. The army representatives were asked to return to their regiments and a committee was set up to look into the issue. Whilst this was being discussed, the King conveniently escaped from his army captors, and sought refuge in the Isle of Wight. This action provoked fears that the King would make peace with the Scottish armed forces and move to suppress Parliament. In such circumstances, it was felt by many in the Parliamentary side, that this was no time for the army regiments to fall out with Parliament or their commanding officers. Pressing this case, Cromwell and his close associates in the army Council of War issued another Remonstrance, this time complaining of the indiscipline among the troops.

This later Remonstrance contained a considerable threat. It was that Fairfax would resign, if such rebelliousness continued. It was a tactic which Cromwell had also used in response to criticism by large numbers of dissatisfied troops. The threat to resign of a key person who is not easily replaced, is a device often used by those in hierarchical positions, to get their own way against the opinions or decisions of large numbers of their supporters. The rank and file of the New Model Army had learned to trust the military strategy and tactics of Cromwell and Fairfax as much as they had begun to distrust them politically. This tactical threat caught the rank and file by surprise and since no alternative leadership had been prepared, it also caused confusion. The Remonstrance was read out loud to the regiments, accompanied by many promises from the generals.

In view of the threat from the King, many soldiers were subsequently persuaded to agree to obey orders. Those who agitated against this agreement were arrested. Nonetheless, two regiments were so opposed to this tactic, that they attempted a mutiny. Fairfax and his officers countered this by riding among the ranks chastising them and arguing them into acceptance. When order was finally restored, a number of soldiers were arrested. Three of them were tried on the spot and sentenced to death. The three who were given the sentence were allowed to throw a dice to see which one would actually have it the carried out. The soldier who lost, Richard Arnold, was shot dead in front of the whole regiment.

Against a background of fears of royalist plots, these divisive ploys restored an uneasy peace to the army, but the actions were greatly resented by most of the men. To prevent any further outbreaks of dissatisfaction, Cromwell and the war council called for a period of peace and reconciliation and appealed for unity against the royalists. Cromwell, up to this point, had hoped for reconciliation with the King, albeit subordinated to Parliament. However, the troops would have nothing to do with such a policy. Their campaign for improved social conditions, had been stopped in its tracks, not least, by the cunning of Cromwell and Ireton, but they were not in favour of a return of the monarchy. Cromwell, therefore, made another of his opportunist changes of tack, and decided against further discussions with Charles. In this way he appeared to fall in line with the overwhelming majority opinion of his troops. To quieten a few remaining pro-royalist opponents in Parliament, Cromwell's 'Council of the Army' sent a detachment of soldiers to 'purge' or expel the dissidents. This left only a small number of loyal MP's, who kept the House of Commons going as a 'rump' Parliament. This rump, led by Cromwell, then proceeded to set up a High Court of Justice. Its brief was to try the King for crimes against the state. After considerable deliberation, sentence was passed by this revolutionary court of the bourgeoisie, and on 30 January 1649 King Charles 1st was beheaded.

The aftermath.

Soon after the King's execution, the House of Lords was abolished and England was named a Commonwealth. Those still remaining in Parliament, were able to enrich themselves greatly by awarding themselves financial compensations, rewards of confiscated royalist property, and well paid jobs in the state. To the victors went the spoils, or at least in this case, to the victors' leaders. The Rump Parliament soon became such an obvious disgrace, that it was denounced not only by the troops and the Levellers, but by the Army leaders themselves. Cromwell eventually took a number of soldiers with muskets, forcibly emptied the House of Commons and closed it down. Six months later the Council of the Army (i.e. Cromwell's trusted followers) produced an 'Instrument of Government'. This proclaimed Cromwell 'Lord Protector' of England, Scotland and Ireland, and nominated a group of like-minded men to form a Council of State, to assist Cromwell in running the government. England, at that time, was for all intents and purposes, being run as a military dictatorship. From then until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, Cromwell ruled the country as an absolute dictator. The title of Lord Protector, required him to be addressed as 'His Highness'. Indeed, at one time, he and his close supporters, considered granting him the 'crown' and founding a new royal dynasty. Later, having secured their property and rents by 'pacifying' Ireland and Scotland, the new capitalist oligarchy, headed by Cromwell, set about using the English State's tax revenue to develop and improve their overseas trade. It was done by successive Navigation Acts and the building of a sizeable Navy. This Navy was then used to protect merchant ships, cargo and to seize the commercial and/or military assets of foreign powers, enabling a new stage of capitalistic development.

After Cromwell's death changes were made leading to the eventual return of Charles' son as King of England. With the restoration of the monarchy, under Charles the Second, came the restoration of the House of Lords and the Church of England. This time, however, on the firm understanding that all these sources of power and privilege, would in future, be subordinate to the House of Commons. The House of Commons was by this time fully dominated by the interests and representatives of the capitalist class. England at that point became the bourgeois monarchy it remains to this day.

Further comments.

The history of the English Revolution is extensively covered in numerous volumes. These explore the many twists and turns and detail countless events. Pamphlets, newsletters, memoirs and historical commentaries are available. Here we have covered just a few sources. However, the brief and incomplete picture described in the previous pages, provides us with sufficient detail to distinguish those economic, social and political factors, which transformed anger and rebellion, into revolution. Of course economic, social and political factors, are not as separate in real life, as they are often presented in literature. They intertwine and are combined within individuals and within economic, religious and political groups. However, for the present purposes let us for a moment separate them out. First the economic. We have noted the development of capitalist manufacturing, merchant traders and capitalist-orientated landowners, who were rapidly gaining wealth outside of, or alongside, the predominantly feudal agricultural economy. What the King did to raise money, increase taxes, introduce new ones, demand loans and gifts directly reduced the share of the surplus value they expected to obtain. When they were few, they grumbled to themselves, but as their numbers grew, they grumbled to each other. Their growing wealth enabled them to buy status by purchasing landed estates. In time they began to feel the equal of those nobles around them. Furthermore, when they compared themselves with the idle, profligate and dissolute royalty - of which there were many - they even began to feel themselves superior as a potential governing class. When they later gathered together in Parliament - a place of considerable power and influence - their combined grumbles were co-ordinated and condensed into political arguments.

In this context we should note that several leading characters such as Pym, Hampden, Saye and Cromwell were all directly or indirectly associated with capitalist concerns such as the Providence Adventurers, a private company set up to make money out of shipping goods and settlers to 'settle' foreign lands. To these parliamentary champions, can be added such figures as Sir John Evelyn, Lord Brooke, Sir Henry Vane, Lord Mandeville, Sir John Hotham, Sir William Waller, Lord Fairfax and his son Sir Thomas Fairfax. Such nobles, and many of the gentry in Parliament, had moved into the capitalist economic sphere. This caused a growing fracture in the economic interests of the feudal ruling elite. The rift between them, began to have serious social and political repercussions. As another historian, writing about the period, has described it;

"There was in a sense a single ruling class in Stuart England and now it was divided from top to bottom." (Battles of the English Civil War'. A. Woolrych. Pub. Pan. page 35.)

At first the reformist wing of the rising capitalist class made its moves by numerous polite requests to the King. Later, they put up a more determined stand against the royal prerogative, but still with reform firmly in mind. However, the belligerent and vindictive attitude of this particular King, meant that beyond a certain point, continuing to argue with him would result in the loss of their wealth, possible imprisonment and even death. The crucial point of determined resistance was signalled by the production of the Grand Remonstrance, but the situation finally became revolutionary with the decisions to pass the Militia Bill and refusing to give up the five named MP's to the King. The split in the ruling class at this point, became complete and for all intents and purposes, irreconcilable.

The next decisive event, which made what followed revolutionary, and not just rebellious, was that both sides recruited armies from the masses. In particular the parliamentary side, under the direction of Cromwell and Fairfax recruited ordinary working people, yeomen, artisans, craftsmen and labourers. With a rhetoric of equality, they convinced ordinary citizens to fight on the side of Parliament. The rank and file accepted this political rhetoric, only realising later that they had been duped. The expectation held out to them was the achievement of a new form of social/economic/religious settlement, which would be to their advantage as well as to the members of Parliament. During this process, the rank and file troops had become radicalised by the experience of collective living and fighting. The Leveller members with their literature and discussions further clarified the issues at stake. When it became obvious that Cromwell and Parliament were clearly against their aspirations, one of the most famous Levellers, John Lilburne, called before the Lords, accurately summed up the situation;

"All you intended when you set us a-fighting was merely to unhorse and dismount our old riders and tyrants, that so you might get up and ride us in their stead." (Quoted in 'The Levellers'. H. N Brailsford. Pub. Spokesman, page 93.)

It becomes apparent from this point, that a quite definite anti-capitalist mood had begun to develop within the troops which fought on the side of Parliament. Indeed, the New Model Army, as far as we can judge, had become not the usual docile amy fighting machine blindly following orders, but a democratic, militant, questioning and reasoning revolutionary force. For a time it was for all practical purposes, out of the control of Parliament and out of control of individuals such as Cromwell and Fairfax, who created it. At its height of democratic and Leveller influence, the army rank and file chose their own leadership through democratic procedures, exerted its influence on policy, and even on occasion refused to support Cromwell and Fairfax. For a whole period the latter had to run to keep up with the changes the rank and file army members were insisting upon. They had to pretend to agree with many of the far-reaching proposals formulated. Cromwell in particular was extremely astute. He allowed time to pass, until the New Model Armies' revolutionary energy had been sapped by frustration, desertion and punishment, before he attempted to split them and reassert full control. Once he did so he purged its ranks of the most extreme militants, and cleverly increased the pay of the remainder. He was then able to use this well organised and malleable Army to call a halt to the revolution, and deal with anyone, or any group, who opposed his view of how English society should be structured.

Although initiated by a rift in the ruling class it was the existence of large numbers of self-disciplined, articulate working people, organised in the New Model Army and their supporters in the towns and cities, which was the key factor in pushing the English Revolution further than its original instigators wished to go. As noted, a key role in that development was played by the propaganda and agitation of those known as the Levellers. The Leveller ideas became quite radical given the period in question. As an indication of this it is worth considering the views of Gerrard Winstanley, a Digger, as some levellers were known. He argued that;

"...the earth, with all her fruits of corn, cattle and such like, was made to be a common storehouse of livelihood, to all mankind, friend and foe, without exception. ('Winstanley: The Law of Freedom and other Writings.' Edited by Christopher Hill.. Pub Cambridge University Press, page 100.)

The Leveller platform, whilst not entirely embracing Winstanley's anti-capitalist agrarian socialism, nevertheless echoed many such sentiments and called for many progressive policies. These ranged from universal male suffrage and representative government, with representatives only serving for one year, to everyone being equal before the law (i.e. with no Parliamentary or Aristocratic privilege). The proposals also included decentralisation of power, the abolition of all monopolies, not just Royalist ones, and many other points aimed at 'levelling' out the disparities in wealth and privilege. Alas in the long struggle against the Royal armies these militants had become weakened, and in the struggle against their own bourgeois leaders (Cromwell and Fairfax etc.), they could not prevent themselves and the army ranks, being outmanoeuvred, deceived, individuals picked off, and groups disbanded.

We can see from the above, that in summary, the key factors which initiated, sustained and developed the English Revolution, were as follows;

1. New and developing economic circumstances conflicted with the old.

2. A serious and deep split occurred in the ranks of the ruling class.

3. Both sides of the ruling class recruited the population, formed them into armies, armed and trained them.

4. Rebellious propaganda/ agitation was carried out among the armed and unarmed subjects, to persuade them to become actively involved.

5. The section of the ruling class which challenged the old system controlled and directed the armed citizens, using them to defeat the old system

6. The armed populace gained self-confidence and developed a broader social agenda, which addressed its own needs and those of other

oppressed groups.

7. The victorious side maintained control of the armed forces and after using them to resist royalist counter-revolution, used them against the oppressed.

Although there was an early attempt to export the English Revolution to France, predominantly through the port of Bordeaux and the region of the Gironde, it was the colonists in America who next took up a successful revolutionary struggle.

B) The American Revolution.

The background.

The same economic and social conditions that had led to the overthrow of the feudal royalty in England also provided the incentive for some people to emigrate to America. That is to say unemployment, religious intolerance, high taxes and the oppressive injustice of the feudal aristocracy in England led some people to try to escape from this situation. Sailing ships crossing the Atlantic ocean, were for many, the avenue of escape, and New World of the Americas, the destination.

For the development of capitalistic methods of commodity production and circulation, which had created an intensified search for new sources across the seas, had also created increased poverty and unemployment in England. Hardship was felt particularly among the artisans and labourers from the lower classes in Britain. This was a state of affairs which occurred both prior to and during, the English Revolution. When religious intolerance was added to the considerable level of economic and social distress, it made the new lands of the Americas an attractive proposition for many aggrieved citizens, despite the difficulty of the Atlantic crossing. Such factors led to many expeditions taking people to America and the Caribbean, the most famous of these being known as the Pilgrim Fathers. These particular emigrants were the remnants of a persecuted group who founded a colony in 1620, which they called New England. The usual method of 'settlement' at that time was the setting up of capitalist companies. Such companies would organise the transport and fund the initial costs often in the form of an interest-bearing loan. Two in particular were successful, the 'London Company' to 'settle' Virginia and the 'Plymouth Company' to 'settle' Maine. However pure the motives of John Smith and his pilgrim followers may have been, the capitalist nature of the initiating joint-stock company, which organised the settlement, is incontestable. In fact it took 28 years of the combined efforts of the settlers to pay off their debt to the seventeenth century venture capitalists in the London Company. It should be noted that almost all of the early English settlements in America had their head offices in England and at least in the early stages, the governing elite of each colony were chosen by the company shareholders back in England.

After initial difficulties these various New World settlements grew into lucrative colonies for the finance and mercantile capitalists of Holland, France and England. As we witnessed in the previous chapter, the use of slaves and indentured labour gave a tremendous boost to the amount of surplus labour which could be extracted in those hot and humid climates, by the owners of sugar and tobacco plantations. Also as already noted, in these early stages of colonisation, the price of wage labour was often too high and plantation work too repellent to use 'free' wage labourers.

During that period England, by means of trade wars and naval wars, gradually gained the greatest share in the booming world trade. As a consequence both England, and the English Colonies in America, enjoyed a period of rapid accumulation of wealth which mainly lined the pockets of the capitalist and land-owning classes in each country. This wealth accumulation, however, had quite differing effects on the two elites. In England the new parliamentary oligarchy of capitalists restored the monarchy and enjoyed long years of affluence and plenty. Greed fed more greed and the English capitalists and their Parliamentary supporters treated the American colonies as vast reservoirs of surplus labour, to be drained by themselves at the smallest cost possible.

For a time this also suited the colonists who, in exchange for overall English control and protection, enjoyed a ready market for their produce in other English colonies and Europe via English merchants. However, the increase in trade and wealth also created a numerous class of increasingly rich colonists in New England. These were mainly merchants and plantation owners. Although often in debt to English and Scottish merchants, they were content with the system only as long as they were free to administer it as they saw fit. When England interfered too much, or demanded too much in return for its protection, these new world elites were apt to get indignant. One interference they resented considerably was the restrictions placed by the British upon the colonies' further expansion west and north into 'unsettled' territory. That was one reason why most of the Indian tribes fought on the side of the British.

Territorial expansion was seen as a substantial investment opportunity for colonial capitalists. For those further down the socio-economic ladder, it was a chance to seize land for farming. Increasingly, the colonists began to agitate against English control. Indeed, they started to echo the sentiments of the early participants in the English Civil War, claiming to resent paying taxes without having representation in Parliament. In reality the growing dispute was not simply about representation in the far away English Parliament. It was ultimately over the control and share of surplus labour and surplus value from slaves, indentured workers, small farmers and future surpluses from territorial expansion. Debates over increased taxation stirred up feelings among the shopkeepers, tradesmen, artisans and labourers, all of whom often bore the greater burden of tax deductions from the results of their labour. Each time a new English tax was announced, or an existing one increased, matters got worse.

The disagreement.

The ending of England's costly 'seven year' war with France brought with it the need and desire of the English capitalists to balance the state books without increasing taxation for themselves. This led to a series of attempts by the English Parliament to increase the taxation of the English Colonies in America. The early attempts, such as the Sugar Act, brought in reasonable, but insufficient amounts. However, when the British introduced a colonial Stamp Duty a year later, this was seen by many colonists, as going a step too far. Opposition to this and a series of other measures led to the physical intimidation of customs officials and the boycotting of British goods. One such incident took the form of the destruction of a building and the hanging of an effigy of the English appointed distributor of stamps from a tree in Boston, Massachusetts. The tree in question subsequently became known as the Liberty Tree. As time progressed both sides hardened their attitudes, stiffened their negotiation positions, and refused to back down. Around that time, an organisation of American middle-class radicals was formed, which later became known as the Sons of Liberty. This organisation played a significant role in the opposition to English rule.

The next round of confrontations took place when the English Government passed the Revenue Act of 1767. It was legislation raising new duties on glass, lead, paints, paper and tea. The act also set up a new, stronger Customs Commission to collect them. Further boycotts of English goods, petitions and circular letters by the colonists followed, and this time the boycott was more successful. Such tactics were met by the British appointed governors by dissolving the colonists official gatherings. These were known as the Assemblies of Representatives. The British government considered the colonists at Boston were the ringleaders of this rebelliousness, so they stationed a British warship in the harbour and landed British troops in the town. Boston merchants, angry at this, met secretly and agreed not to import anything at all from England. The Massachusetts Assembly, although officially dissolved, continued to meet, but called itself a convention. Over in England, representatives of the British capitalist establishment sponsored parliamentary resolutions condemning the riots. They threatened to arrest the culprits and transport them to England for prosecution. When news of this intention arrived in America, it had the effect of uniting all the leading groups of the various colonies against the British. It was only in the face of this unity, and after a riotous 18 months, that the British government decided to repeal the much hated Revenue Act - except that is for the duty on tea.

Meanwhile, Boston was seething with resentment at the stationing of British troops in the town. Harassment of British soldiers became a regular pastime. The depth of feeling was demonstrated, for a period, by schoolboys rioting every Thursday, when the schools were closed for market day. On one occasion a schoolboy was killed, and another injured, after they had surrounded the house of a British supporter. The incident sparked off further disturbances, and the following month, March 1770, five citizens of Boston were shot dead at a demonstration outside the customs house. This episode, known as the Boston massacre, not only aroused further hostility in Massachusetts, but was also influential in creating greater unity among the colonies on the Atlantic coast. The Sons of Liberty had. by this time, spread to every colony and its members held political power in eleven of the thirteen colonies. Such a rapid growth indicated the breadth of opposition to British government among the colonial elite. An uneasy truce followed the massacre at Boston, but it was one in which both sides were deeply distrustful of each other, firmly entrenched in their respective positions, and resolutely determined to get their own way.

A period of almost two years elapsed before things once more came to a critical head in an incident which occurred in Rhode Island. It was there that a group of merchants captured and sank a British revenue schooner, HMS Gaspee. Yet another investigating committee, on the instructions of the British government, failed to apprehend the culprits, but managed to alarm the populace by again calling for the culprits to be shipped to England for trial. This in turn prompted the Virginian Representative body (the House of Burgesses) to propose an extension of the circle of correspondence committees. They did this in order to co-ordinate common responses to any such aggressive acts by British representatives. In Massachusetts the same idea was taken up, but was developed further. Every township in the province proceeded to set up its own committee.

In the interim, the East India Company, had managed to get itself into severe financial difficulties. To get out of its problems, the company came up with a shrewd commercial plan. They successfully sponsored an Act of Parliament to lift the restrictions on its exports of tea to the New England colonies. The directors of the East India Company hoped to get out of these difficulties by selling a large amount of cheap tea direct to America and cutting out the American merchants. The rest of the British Government went along with this manoeuvre because they hoped that the prospect of cheap tea would placate the unruly colonists and cause them to overlook the fact that they would still be paying tax upon the tea.

The colonists, still not satisfied by the repeal of the Revenue Act, nor fooled by the sop of cheap tea, discussed what to do next. After some deliberation the action they came up with became known as the Boston Tea Party. It was an event during which an angry crowd, some disguised as native Indians, left a mass meeting and dumped the hundreds of chests of British tea into the waters of the harbour. The news of this act of rebellious sabotage of British property spread among the colonies inspiring similar opposition in New York and other colonies.

Predictably, the news inspired a completely different response in England. The incident was greeted by the East India Company, and its supporters in the British government, with outrage. They resolved to show the presumptuous colonists who was master in the colonies. For this purpose Parliament passed a series of Acts known as the Coercive Acts, aimed at punishing the Boston merchants. Parliament declared the Boston Port closed until compensation was paid to the East India Company. To assist in this process, they increased the powers of the newly appointed military Governor. Although the main thrust of this attack was directed at Boston and the colony of Massachusetts, the other colonies were not slow to see this as a process which could be used to against all other colonies. They were not mistaken in this assumption, for the subsequent publication of a Restraining Act hit at the trade of all the colonies.

At this point Massachusetts began military training and stockpiling weapons while other colonies organised support for them. Virginia called for a general congress to organise and co-ordinate the opposition. When the congress finally met, only Georgia did not send delegates. The colonists were almost united. On this overwhelming show of strength and unity, the congress delegates decided to refuse to obey the Coercive Acts, and debated the possibility of joint action. In doing so, they began to define their rights as colonists, and commenced placing definite limits on the powers of the British Parliament. The scene was clearly set for confrontation. Matters did not have long to wait. General Gage, the new British military governor, organised a raid on a suspected store of arms at the village of Concord. The colonists, having discovered his intention, sent seventy five volunteer colonists to intercept the 700 strong British contingent at Lexington. When they met, both sides opened fire. British redcoats killed eight of the volunteers and wounded a similar number. The remaining colonial volunteers scattered and the British soldiers marched on to Concord, but found nothing. The arms had already been moved elsewhere.

This shooting at Lexington was an important event for it was the first real encounter of armed troops on both sides. It was also significant because on the long march back, the Americans, although heavily outnumbered, shadowed the British troops and shot at them from the cover of woods and stone walls. In this way they inflicted heavy casualties on them. Lexington also effected the outcome of the second Congress held by the colonists. It marked a decisive end to the preceding passive forms of resistance, such as boycotting English imports and refusing to implement unpopular British laws. From that time on, significant numbers of colonists decided it was necessary to make war against the armed forces of Britain and to assert their freedom by taking up weapons.

The Armed Struggle.

The colonists organised a volunteer force, under the leadership of a southern planter named George Washington, and made preparations for a revolutionary war. Initially, the fighting was conducted with varying degrees of incompetence on both sides. However, by a combination of superior strategies and tactical skills, the colonial volunteers managed to inflict greater casualties on the British redcoats than they received from them. An example of this was at the battle of Bunker Hill, outside Boston. It was there that the British achieved their objective in capturing the heights of the hill, but the victory was achieved at the cost of so many casualties that the result of the battle was more in the colonist favour. Committed to a life and death struggle with the British, the leaders of the colonists were anxious to find ways to rally as many to their support as possible. They decided to issue a call to arms in the form of a set of principles. A document was written up, and passed by the congress, which became known as 'The Declaration of Independence.' Among its many points it stated;

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness— That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organising its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The original issue of contention, the right to decide deductions (taxes) from the surplus labour extracted from slaves and workers in the colonies, has taken a back seat in the declaration. Just like their capitalist brethren in the English Civil War, such concrete issues were often played down during the hostilities, whilst abstract principles of citizens 'rights' against oppressive governments, were brought to the fore. This gives the document more than a passing interest, for its significance is thus much wider than the American colonies struggle for independence. The declaration addressed at an ideological level the broader issue of struggles against all forms of political oppression. In order to justify their particular struggle against British authority, the leaders of the colonists felt they had to make a solid case for revolution in general. All men are 'created equal' the declaration says. But of course, under any system of inequality and oppression, men are not born equal. The capitalist system is no different in this respect. Noticeably, in the declaration, women don't even get a mention. Yet the declaration informed the world, that men are born with inalienable rights and that men, not gods, create (institute) governmental structures

The declaration went further and stated that the governed have the right to overthrow or 'abolish' those forms of government which become destructive of those human rights as perceived by each generation. The most conscious elements of the new class of colonial capitalists, in order to carry out a revolution aimed at securing their own interests, had to represent their interests as the general interest and speak on behalf of all men, not just their own privileged class. In one sense this declaration was just a piece of paper. No doubt some of those who signed it, did not intend it to have significance beyond the colonies or beyond that particular year of publication. Nevertheless, it stands as one of the few 'official' declarations by the bourgeoisie, which not only recognises, but publicly asserts, the right of the oppressed to rise up against their oppressors and engage in armed struggle to change how society is structured.

As the revolutionary war progressed, battles at Trenton, Princetown, Valley Forge and Yorktown, resulted in the colonists decisively gaining the upper hand. Despite the British employment of 18,000 mercenary soldiers, their efforts at supplying them and their own soldiers from depots at the other side of the Atlantic, had always been fraught with difficulties. When the French and Spanish governments entered the conflict, on the side of the colonists, they successfully guarded the Atlantic seaboard against further incursion by British troops and the supplies they needed. Against such odds, and under such circumstances, it was only a matter of time before the British were defeated.

Aftermath

A peace treaty ( Paris 1783) marked the official end of war between the colonists and Britain. Before long, however, divisions opened up between the states over trade, slavery and taxation. The leaders of the struggle for independence, decided that heavy costs of war, particularly debts to French capitalists, were to be recouped by hefty taxation, demands which many of the poor subsistence farmers found difficult to meet. The subsequent hounding and jailing of poor colonists for debt, led to an unsuccessful rebellion directed by Daniel Shays, which was, however, quickly subdued. Eventually, compromises were worked out between the states on the questions of slavery, trade and ultimately agreement was reached on the form of a national government. One consequence of the American victory over Britain was the 'opening up of the western frontier'. This allowed those with surplus capital to enrich themselves further by land speculation. Many of the leading political figures, including George Washington and James Madison, both U.S. Presidents, became land speculators in the western expansion and the conquest of native Indian lands which followed. Whilst the document itself was preserved as an historic artefact, the right to revolution trumpeted in the Declaration of Independence was, of course, quietly ignored.

Further comments.

The original economic form of the colonies of New England had been capitalist enterprises, created in Britain and exported or 'planted' on the coast of America. The head office and shareholders of these companies were in Britain. The purpose of these plantations was to extract surplus labour or surplus value and to return as much as possible of both, in the form of commodities or currency, to Britain. In time these small and isolated company plantations, became colonies with towns and an internal and external economy of their own. These new and developing economic centres were based upon the farmer, the merchant, the planter, the tradesman and the shopkeeper. The citizens of these towns, ceased to think of themselves as employees or mortgagees of the original firm, whose sole purpose was to live according to the dictates of head office. By the turn of the 18th century, the colonies had long outgrown the economic form given to them in their original charters, yet despite some modifications, they were essentially being run as if that form were still suitable.

From the outset, primarily because of the distance, the colonies had a high level of self-government, which meant that many problems had to be resolved by the colonists themselves. The British were content to extract their profits and let the colonists manage most of their own affairs utilising the various Assemblies set up for this purpose. Yet prior to the rebellion, there had been growing resentment against the imposition of British taxes and Governors in the colonies of new England. For a long time this remained at the level of grumbles, protests and occasional outbursts. The Assemblies, during this long period, became the real active decision-making bodies of the colonies, with the British-appointed Governor being an intermediary between them and the English Parliament. Once a wealthy oligarchy of rich colonists had developed, they were able to dominate the assemblies. They did so both in terms of their numbers, and in terms of being able to wield the political power and social prestige which went along with their economic wealth. A potential new ruling class within the colonies had been created, yet it was not allowed to rule.

Just a small sample of the higher placed movers and shakers of the revolution provides an indication of the occupations from which this class was developing. Benjamin Franklin (prosperous printer and newspaper owner); John Adams (Rich Lawyer); George Washington (prosperous Planter, slave owner and land speculator); John Dickinson (rich Lawyer); Samuel Adams (journalist and son of a rich businessman); John Hancock (Boston's richest merchant), William Byrd (rich Planter and slave owner) etc. These and other wealthy planter-families, such as the Randolph's and Harrisons, were able (and obviously willing) to implement policies and practices which promoted their own particular interests within the new continent. When these clashed with the interests of the British capitalist oligarchy then compromise or conflict were the only two possible ways forward.

In the early stages while the colonial oligarchy felt weak they chose compromise, but as their economic strength grew and the colonies became more densely populated, they became more self-confident and less prepared to accept British terms. Protest turned to passive resistance, and then to open rebellion. When the British closed down the rebellious Assemblies the wealthier colonists were quick to hold alternative assemblies called congresses. The colonists also formed a united front, and an alternative communication network, in the form of correspondence societies. Parallel with this the militant merchant and shopkeeper class created a subversive action group, the Sons of Liberty, which carried out propaganda and agitation. It also mobilised the mass of the ordinary citizens to riot and demonstrate. Later they armed citizen groups and organised them into a volunteer army. Further propaganda was promoted, in the form of the Declaration of Independence. We have read some of its principles but here is just an additional reminder of the flavour;

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpation's, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

The last sentence, in this part of the Declaration, repeats the essence of the bourgeois revolutionary position. The leading politicians had to adopt this stance, both to justify their overthrow of British rule, and to appeal to those citizens below them who were needed to conduct the armed struggle. When 'a long train of abuses' puts people 'under absolute despotism', the document declares, it is not just 'their right' but it is 'their duty', to throw off such a government and provide new guards for their future security. In the heat of their battle for independence, revolution had become not only a right, but a duty. The capitalist oligarchy in the colonies were suddenly revolutionary in words and in deeds - but, of course, only up to a point. That point was reached when they had beaten the British capitalists and put themselves in their place as a ruling strata. Then despite all the rhetoric of equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, black Africans continued to be bought and sold into slavery; native Indians continued to be massacred and scalped in even greater numbers. Women, who didn't even get a mention in the Declaration, continued in domestic slavery and land-less workers were presented with the choice of starvation or wage slavery. This capitalist concept of equality and liberty, explicit in the declaration of independence, did not extend to the realm of political equality let alone economic equality.

We can see that despite many differences, a similar pattern emerges as in the English Revolution. New and developing economic circumstances conflicted with the old; a serious and deep split opened up in the ranks of the ruling class; both sides recruited the masses, formed them into armies and armed and trained them. Rebellious propaganda and agitation were carried out among the armed and unarmed masses, to persuade them to become actively involved. The section of the class which successfully challenged the old ruling class controlled the armed masses and used them to gain victory. One of the notable differences is that in the case of the American colonies, the armed masses - made up in the main of petty-bourgeois elements, poor farmers and relatively small numbers of wage labourers - did not develop a broader social agenda. Although there were pockets of resistance and rebellion, as a whole, these groups did not appear to comprehensively address their own needs nor those of other oppressed groups. Thus, blacks, native American Indians and the working class continued to be exploited after the revolution, albeit not to an equal degree. Perhaps this was because many of the poor white colonists shared essentially the same expansionist vision as their wealthier associates. They little realised that the 'little house on the prairie' to which many of them aspired would be a relatively short-lived experience, before it became their turn to be swindled, bought out or ruined by large farming capital.

C) The French Revolution

The Background.

Throughout the whole of Europe the feudal economy was predominantly local. Although a considerable amount of overseas trade took place in certain sea ports, all the basic requirements of the population for food, shelter, clothing and transport, were mostly met within a very restricted area. France, as with many other European countries, had been for a long time made up of different regions, each under the control of a particular Noble family. Each region had evolved its own particular customs and practices and in some cases even its own language. Apart from the clerical and monastic landed estates, each group of ruling nobles controlled the collection and distribution of the region's surplus production and extracted it from the working population in the manner and at a time they preferred. In the 17th century, the Estates General (an assembly of French Nobles), granted a French King (Charles V11), the right to levy certain taxes within their own areas for his own purposes. From that point on there were three discrete contenders for a share of the surplus production of each feudal region, the King, the Nobles and the Clergy. The potential for disagreement over each group's relative share of this surplus production was considerable.

French feudal society (below the King) was made up of three distinct social and political groups called 'estates'. The First Estate, was that made up of the clergy which comprised around 1% of the population and owned 15% of the land. They derived their share of the surplus product from tithes (a percentage of the produce of the land), rents (a proportion of the surplus product converted into cash payments) and from trading and industries. In other words they benefited from surplus labour both in the form of surplus products and surplus value. The clergy were governed by the Bishops, many of whom obtained considerable surplus value and were extremely wealthy. The lower clergy, however, were quite poor.

The Second Estate comprised of the Nobles who were roughly 1.5% of the population and owned 20% of the land. Their wealth derived from dues, rents, share cropping and various other sources. In other words they also benefited from surplus labour of the working population in the form of surplus products and surplus value. Neither the First Estate, nor the Second paid any taxes to the Royal Court. In other words they did not 'pass on' to the royal court any of the surplus value or product they directly received.

The remaining 97.5% of the French people during that period were termed the Third Estate. According to historians this third estate consisted of Capitalists (approximately 500,000), City workers (2.5 million) and Peasants (22.5 million). We can see from this approximate breakdown of French society that it was the bulk of the 97.5% of the population (the Third Estate) which not only provided the surplus products and labour for the other two Estates but also surplus value in the form of taxes to support the royal government. The French taxes and financial arrangements were many and complex. They included such examples as the Taile, the Vingtiemes, the Corvee, the Gabelle and Capitation. We need not go into detail, but in order to understand the underlying motives behind the French Revolution, we need to constantly keep in mind the point made previously. The numerous taxes and financial obligations were no more than various ways of extracting surplus value or products from the peasants and workers.

A consequence of high taxation was that the condition of the urban and rural workers was dismal. For example;

"There can be little doubt, however, that the majority of the rural inhabitants of France were wretchedly impoverished....The vast majority of peasant-proprietors and tenant farmers, because of the inadequacy of their holdings, usually had to engage in some form of rural by-industry, or even, from time to time, work as agricultural day-labourers." ('The French Revolution'. A Goodwin. Pub . Grey Arrow. page 22/23.)

However, it was not simply the inadequacy of their holdings, but the heavy burden of taxation as many other historians have noted. It is typical of the bourgeois point of view that it sees the solution to the imposition of high taxes as the need for those who pay them to work harder and on larger tracts of land. In actual fact without so many noble and ecclesiastical parasites draining the surplus labour, small peasant and tenant holdings would have been quite adequate for the needs of rural inhabitants. Despite this severe impoverishment, the monarchs who followed Charles V11 continued the practice of raising taxes in the various regions. King Louis X1 was able to use a considerable portion of these to create a permanent army. In this and other ways he (and a succession of royal dynasties in France) strengthened and centralised political and military power in the hands of the monarchy. Over time, the position of the Nobles was weakened. However, France also experienced the changing technical and economic circumstances, which had led to the overthrow of the monarchical system, first in Holland and then in England. In both these countries the rising capitalist class, once it had unshackled itself from feudal obligations, enriched itself by confiscating feudal property and by controlling state power. In this way they had begun to transform themselves into world-class economic, political, military and naval powers.

Those in France who wished for similar developments, cast an envious eye on the situation in these republican countries. Indeed, the French monarchy, in its desire for an increased share in those new sources of surplus value, and in order to weaken the threat that the hereditary nobility represented, encouraged and rewarded the development of capitalist forms of production and circulation. It was the case that the cities of Nantes, Bordeaux and Marseilles, which supplied many of the combatants in the forthcoming revolution, contained a large maritime bourgeoisie. They, like their counterparts in Britain and Europe, were busily enriching themselves by means of slavery and plantations in the West Indies. As C.L.R James noted in the case of the city of Nantes on the river Loire;

"As early as 1666, 108 ships went to the coast of Guinea and took on board 37,430 slaves to a total value of more than 37 millions giving the Nantes bourgeoisie 15 to 20 per cent on their money. In 1700 Nantes was sending 50 ships a year to the West Indies with Irish salt beef, linen for the household and clothing for the slaves and machinery for the sugar-mills." (C.L.R. James. 'The Black Jacobins'. Pub. Alison and Busby. page 47/48.)

The private companies involved in this odious trade were granted monopolies by the French King. Another method of encouraging capitalist methods was to 'farm-out' (sell), the right to collect the King's taxes, to the highest bidder. In this way a large percentage of taxes were collected by capitalist middle-men, who obtained the right to collect them at an auction. Part of the attraction of this process, to the capitalists, was the possibility of creaming off a considerable amount of money in the process of collecting the taxes. This practice of tax 'farming' together with the monarchy's increasing reliance on loans, was a development which had progressively strengthened the power of the rising capitalist class, particularly the finance capitalists. It was a power which was by no means small. So for example;

"By 1661 all other elements of the finances of France were subject to the overriding influence of loans, in that everything else was used as means of providing the excessive interest rates which the financiers extracted from the state." (Crown, Financiers and Society in Seventeenth Century France.' Julian Dent. Pub. David & Charles, Newton Abbot, page 46.)

King Louis X1V not only borrowed from the capitalistic financiers but also rewarded helpful capitalists by promoting them into the nobility in the hope that such elevation would create loyalty to him. These changes, over a long period of time, meant that the nobles comprising the 'Second Estate' ceased to share a common economic interest. However, this weakening of the collective strength of the nobles was at the expense of strengthening a rapidly developing capitalist class, a section of which in time, as we shall see, opposed itself not only to the monarchy but the clergy and the aristocracy. Incidentally, the reason why so many French nobles eventually sided with the rising capitalist class, rather than the monarch, in the subsequent revolutionary upsurge, is made quite clear;

"As the century advanced a greater number of the aristocracy engaged in industry, either in their own names or in those of nominees....Even in the army, the traditional sphere of occupation of the upper classes, there was an opportunity for profit because , until the reforms effected by Choiseul at the end of the Seven Years War, the colonels, who were chosen almost invariably from noble families, could expect to make profit from the clothing and equipment supplied to their men, whom they regarded almost as their property." ('Europe of the Ancient Regime'. D. Ogg . Pub. Fontana, page 247/248.)

It should also be noted that some French Aristocrats, of a liberal persuasion, had supported the previously discussed American colonists' rebellion against England, a few even fighting on their side. In the process they had absorbed many of the colonists' republican views. It was from among these people, together with many magistrates, barristers and lawyers, that a 'patriotic' or 'national' party was eventually formed in France. This politicisation of the fuedal/capitalist struggle had created its own momentum and eventually large numbers of political clubs were formed. These in turn sponsored, or themselves produced, masses of pamphlets, which were then widely circulated. However, in order to face up to the 'establishment', the disparate interests of liberal clergy, capitalistic aristocrats, professional middle-classes and capitalists needed a unifying thread. Unity emerged over a period of time around three ideas which ultimately came to dominate the propaganda and the practical struggle against the French King and his supporters. They were, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

The disagreement.

By the eighteenth century the crisis in royal financing had matured fast. A series of attempts to organise the King's finances by royal officials such as Turgot, Necker, Colonne and Brienne, were opposed by the Parlement of Paris and a later Assembly of Notables. This open opposition indicated, as much as anything, that the conflict had sharpened considerably. As a direct response to this, the French King exiled all the members the Parlement of Paris. Riots followed, loans were refused by high ranking financiers, and the King was forced to back down. He then called a gathering of the Estates General. The traditional pattern of these infrequent gatherings was that each of the three 'Estates' met separately and voted separately. Any proposals, therefore, had to be approved by at least two out of three estates before finally going before the King for acceptance or rejection. For all practical purposes the combined efforts of the First (clerical) Estate, and Second (aristocratic) Estate, could defeat any proposals put forward by the Third Estate. In other words under 3% of the population could ignore the wishes of over 97%. From the standpoint of the majority of the aristocracy and clergy, the third estate was of little importance. However, the cause of the Third Estate found a champion in Abbe Sieyes, who declared publicly that in French society the Third Estate was everything. Yet it was clear from the existing situation, that any changes in French society which would benefit the 97.5% of the population belonging to the Third Estate, could only be seriously proposed if the voting system was modified. It was therefore the issue of reforming voting rights and procedures, which the competing socio-economic forces in French society first began to argue and campaign over.

The Third Estate's cause was further aided by the previously noted fact that the two ruling groups had developed serious divisions within their own ranks. In the run up to the meeting of the Estates General, a group of thirty nobles and clergy argued for a reform of the voting procedure. They claimed that the Third Estate should have twice as many votes as the First and Second Estates. It should be noted that many nobles, such as Lafayette and Mirabeu, were scathing in their estimation of their own 'noble' estate. Here is one testimony from another within such ranks;

"The castles which abound in our provinces and engorge large estates, misuse rights of hunting, fishing, wood cutting and within them still lurk those proud seigniors who so expertly detach themselves from common humanity, who pile their own taxes onto those of the King and who all too easily oppress the impoverished and unhappy peasants, despite being no longer privileged to kill them, at the cost of a handful of silver strewn onto the grave. The remainder of the nobility cluster round the throne, hands endlessly grasping for pensions and offices they demand all for themselves - titles, jobs, exclusive preferences, forbidding ordinary folk promotion or reward, whatever their talents or public usefulness; they prevent them serving by land or sea and for those of their own kind who shrink from actual work, they require bishoprics, abbacies and lucrative benefices." (Louis-Sebastian Mercia.. Quoted in P. Vansittart. 'Voices of the Revolution'. Pub. Collins, page 63.)

This is a quite articulate, if not very flattering, view of the gentlemen of the Aristocratic Second Estate by one of their number. When the Estates General finally met it was only to be lectured by the King. He made it clear there would be no reforms of any of the established practices. On the second day the Third Estate passed a resolution opposing the existing voting methods. This was rejected by majorities in both the other Estate meetings. A deadlock followed which lasted 6 weeks, before the Third Estate finally tried another tactic. This time they sent an invitation to the members of the First Estate to join them in their discussions. Only three members of the clergy responded immediately but by 17 June one hundred (1/3 of its membership) had joined the Third Estate. This trend was spurred on by pressure from 'below' in the form of organised groups of citizens demonstrating outside the meeting hall and present in the galleries. Such a public display of feeling was sufficient to eventually give the assembled members the confidence to announce the Estates General defunct and declare itself a National Assembly. This declaration - directly against the wishes of the established power of the King - was a further stage in the development of a revolutionary process. A series of diplomatic manoeuvres gained the National Assembly the initiative over the following days, and the Assembly started forming committees and issuing decrees, rather than simply passing resolutions. One such decree allowed for the collecting of taxes, but ordered that these should cease if the monarchy tried to dissolve the Assembly.

Such radical assumptions of power by the representatives of the Third Estate, caused considerable anger among many of the nobility close to the King, and counter measures were plotted at court. When the Assembly members found themselves accidentally locked out of their meeting hall, they met in a nearby tennis court. They proceeded to indicate their strong feelings by swearing a solemn oath not to disband until they had established a proper constitution. Hearing of this, the King and his advisers at their own meeting, declared the Assemblies' decrees invalid and decided on a show of strength. They did this by summoning several thousand of their most loyal troops to be stationed close by. It proved a difficult task, for many soldiers had become resentful, unreliable, and were by this time fraternising with the Paris citizens.

Given this level of turmoil the King hedged his bets a little and decided to address the members of the Assembly. He informed them of his decision to allow some changes to the procedures of the Estates General, but refused others. Announcing his intention to grant a few small reforms, he assured them he would allow nothing which affected the gathering of tithes and manorial dues. Before leaving he issued a thinly-veiled threat to dissolve it, if the members did not submit to his authority. However, those who remained in the Assembly refused to disband or to accept the royal dictates. Pressing their cause even further, they issued a decree declaring themselves immune to arrest. The knowledge that a contingent of 30,000 armed Parisians were prepared to back them up, and the fact that thousand of troops stationed nearby were less than enthusiastic supporters of the King, undoubtedly helped strengthen their determination.

The King and his loyal nobles again attempted to intimidate the Assembly by summoning more reliable troops to surround Paris. It is certainly significant that such intimidation required many regiments of German and Swiss mercenary soldiers, rather than French. Yet the stationing of foreign troops, seriously alarmed the residents of Paris. This move stimulated frantic searches, by the citizens committees, for arms and ammunition with which to defend themselves. The call to arms quickly spread throughout the Paris sections. Since the July days of 1789, which had been full of insurrections, events and riots, the middle-class supporters of the revolution had formed exclusive groups of armed men to protect their property and life from the unruly lower orders. It was during this period that it became vividly clear that the interests of the middle-classes in the revolution were different from the interests of the ordinary citizen. The anarchist writer Peter Kropotkin summed up it up in the following way;

"In short, while the people were forging pikes and arming themselves, while they were taking measures to prevent the ammunition from being sent out of Paris, while they were seizing the bread-stuffs and sending them to the Halles or the Place de la Greve, while on the 14th they were constructing barricades to prevent the troops entering Paris and had seized the arms at the Hotel des Invalides and were marching in a body towards the Bastille to compel it to capitulate, the middle classes were mainly preoccupied in taking measures for keeping the newly acquired power entirely in their own hands." (P. Kropotkin. 'The Great French Revolution 1789-1793'. Pub. Elephant Editions. Vol. 1. page 96/97.)

The armed struggle.

However, with the renewed threat from the royal court and its supporters, the newly elected city representatives and the National Assembly, soon to rename itself the Constituent Assembly, were only too eager to enlist the support of the masses of Paris citizens. Everyone with a pike or musket, and prepared to use it, was suddenly welcome. The citizens' militia rapidly increased and organised bands were sent out to secure arms from were ever they could be found. Word went out to warn citizens to keep a close watch on the King's ministers as it was feared they were plotting to overthrow the National Assembly and start a civil war. As noted by Kropotkin, eventually a large haul of weapons was discovered by one group at the Hotel des Invalides. Yet another group set off to examine the vaults of the Bastille.

The Bastille was a little-used fortress in need of repair and garrisoned by a small number of soldiers, many of whom were pensioners and were themselves short of supplies, yet its subsequent capture was quite important in a very real sense. It was seen as a practical achievement in the progress of revolution. However, the symbolic significance of the 'fall of the Bastille' far outreached its immediate threat to the revolutionary citizens of Paris. Its nine foot thick walls and multiple defences, crumbling as they were, symbolised the fragile solidity of the feudal power of the King, rather than simply of the fortress itself. The Bastille represented the long established and absolute power of the monarchy to dictate economic conditions, to imprison citizens, to suppress riots and rebellions. When the Bastille finally fell to the mixed crowd of journeymen, shopkeepers, labourers, and 300 hastily assembled militia men, it was a clear signal to Paris and the whole of France. Its fall indicated that the absolute military authority of the French monarchy could now be defeated if sufficiently challenged.

As news of the victory against the Bastille garrison spread across France, revolts occurred in other cities and towns against their respective ruling oligarchies. Committees and militias were rapidly formed to deal with the issues identified by the various local communities. These committees quickly realised that there was no substantial force left to prevent their collective efforts. Many of the higher nobles took fright at this startling turn of events and fled the country. Meanwhile under the pressure of the widespread popular revolts, the National Assembly was persuaded to pass many radical measures, although many of these were subsequently toned down before being processed into laws. On the 26 August 1789 a Declaration of Rights was agreed, which although reflecting the needs of the middle-class, who all along dominated the National Assembly, also removed many, but not all, of the feudal customs which effected all French citizens.

However, the declaration of formal rights did not guarantee equal rights to food for the Paris citizens. The long queues at the bread shops became the source of much agitation and anger. To the average citizen, the problem of the famine may have had multiple causes but blame, in the bread queues, centred on greedy monopolists and all forms of civic authority. What also became obvious to the ordinary citizens, was that the newly elected people's representatives in the National Assembly, included many who were rashly flaunting the new-found privileges of office. It became a situation filled with profound tension for all sections of French society, and desperation for many. Among the poorer sections of Paris, the situation bred an increasing distrust of all authority, both royal and liberal, which led to increasing reliance on mass action such as that displayed in the fall of the Bastille .

During this period the French King was advised by the moderates among his supporters to offer further compromises. However, he was not prepared to do so. Instead, he ordered a another regiment, the Flanders, to march on Versailles, where the Assembly met. The arrival of these troops gave the royalists renewed confidence and they began to rally their forces. At one point they publicly trampled on the new French flag (the tricolour) and threaten counter-revolution. In Paris the arrival of these new troops was the signal for the radicals to agitate further among the ordinary citizens and call for mass support for the National Assembly.

Early October saw a contingent of Parisian women march on the town hall and from there to Versailles. They were followed, in this demonstration, by many thousands of citizens and members of the newly formed National Guard. Their combined purpose was to demand bread, a dismissal of the anti-patriotic troops, and punishment for those who had abused the tricolour. In normal circumstances these were fairly simple demands, but in these circumstances, backed up by revolutionary determination, they were potentially explosive. This considerable show of force by the citizens of Paris, caused the King to back down and agree to the popular demands. It also provoked a second wave of emigration by the rich and famous. However, the King's offer did not quieten things down for long. The very next day the royal household was invaded by an angry mob who had found a murdered citizen in the grounds of the royal castle. Order was eventually restored by the National Guard, but when the King appeared on a balcony to try to placate the crowd they began to chant, 'the King to Paris'. Such was the size of the gathering and its mood, that the King decided to go along with their wishes. In effect, although still King, he was in fact the virtual prisoner of the crowd.

This further success against the forces of royal reaction was followed by a gesture of appeasement by the National Assembly. It decided that despite his previous hostile actions, the King could continue as constitutional monarch. He was to be provided with a suitable income from the state. At the same time the National Assembly further indicated its moderate, or middle-class, credentials by drawing up electoral regulations which restricted voting to those who paid taxes at a certain level. It has been estimated that these regulations gave voting rights only to the richest one sixth of the population. Just as revealing, was the fact that the pro-royalists and clergy in the National Assembly, were allowed by the majority to argue for their parasitic feudal rights to be 'commuted'. This meant they could be exchanged for large cash payments charged upon the villagers and peasant farmers. It was a measure, which if successful, would have forced many poor peasants to take out loans to pay for their land. Such a policy would have allowed peasants to escape the clutches of the feudal landowners, only to place them in the hands of the capitalist money lenders. It would have been a mere exchange of one form of exploitation for another. None of these new measures, however, solved the problem of state finances which were still in a considerable mess. In actual fact they were getting worse, for during the revolutionary upheaval, all classes were avoiding, or at least postponing, payment of their taxes.

The continuing predicament of state expenditure served to further highlight the different agendas of the workers and peasants, to that of the middle-classes. A dominant section of the capitalists and middle-classes needed a strong and relatively expensive state for a variety of reasons. First, the finance capitalists liked the security of lending money to the state, for it guaranteed them safe loans and secure interest. Secondly, many capitalists made guaranteed profits by supplying state organisations with commodities and services. Thirdly, the professional middle-class needed the state for jobs and pensions. All of these groups needed a state-financed standing army to protect their wealth from foreign invasion and internal threat from wage workers and peasants. This highly paid and fundamentally unproductive labour needed to be funded by extracting surplus labour and value from the vast working population of peasants and workers. A strong state was the best way of ensuring that all these needs were met.

In contrast the workers and peasants would have been best served by declaring the state bankrupt, closing it down and starting up new forms of social organisation better suited to their needs. Needs such as, retaining more of their surplus labour and having a decisive influence in how the rest was spent. Throughout the following weeks the National Assembly again tried to keep the lower orders under control as well as foil the plots of the remaining Royalists. An example which typified this 'liberal' balancing act is provided by the actions of one day in February 1791. Lafayette had to march his troops to Saint Antoine to put down a working class riot and the sacking of a prison (Vincennes), only to have to march them back the same day to the Tuileries Gardens, to deal with an aborted royalist plot to smuggle the King to Belgium.<