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.

Elsewhere, anger which had boiled up among the army rank and file, over delayed pay and poor conditions, broke out at the city of Nancy and sparked a mutiny. This took place with the backing and active support of many citizens of the French town. The mutiny was brutally put down by other troops under the command of Bouille, a reaction which became known as the massacre at Nancy. This event provoked massive protests among the ordinary citizens of Paris. The liberal middle-class in the National Assembly, a group often referred to as the Gironde, who supported such firm action, found themselves increasingly isolated and depleted. They were not going far enough for the ordinary citizens (e.g. allowing capitalist speculation in grain and other foodstuffs) and far too far for the Royalists (i.e. abolishing titles for nobility and confiscating their land).

Rumours continually spread concerning royalist plots to allow the King to escape and rally a foreign invasion force, but whilst the National Assembly endlessly discussed such matters, it did little or nothing to prevent such an outcome. Eventually a bungled and ungainly escape plan was attempted by the royalists. A huge, lumbering coach was employed to take the royals to Mettz. It took a full week to get 150 miles with its large cargo of disguised royals, maids in waiting, and chests of food, fine clothes and jewels. The escape route was eventually blocked at Varrenes, and the King arrested by a diligent ex-post master and assorted villagers. They held him prisoner until he was escorted back to Paris.

The aftermath.

There were many further events such as; the nationalisation of the ecclesiastical lands; the burning of Chateaux; the declaration of martial law; the September massacres; the army mutinies; the execution of the King; the Jacobin Terror; the dictated economy; the revolutionary wars and the Thermidorian reaction. These were among the most important in tracing the complex and contradictory political details through which the struggle between the factions of the exploiting classes (feudal nobility and bourgeois middle-classes) and the ordinary citizens for supremacy were worked out. For the moment suffice to say that, as in the case of the English Revolution, the workers and peasants, after being successfully used as shock troops by both factions, were eventually outmanoeuvred by the political skills and tactics of the bourgeois middle-class, and lacking their own sustained organisation, were eventually divided and terrorised into submission.

Further comments.

The background to the French Revolution is complex and shifting, as with any other rapid economic, social and political change or development. However, for our purposes we must not let the complexity disguise the fundamental issues. In a way parallel to the English Revolution, the dispute between the King, Nobles, Clerics and Capitalists, which led eventually to a political crisis and Revolution, was over their respective shares of the surplus product and surplus value. These were economic surpluses which, as we have noted, were extracted from the peasants of the countryside and the workers in the towns and cities. In the case of France, the dispute among the competing elites, took the form of arguments over voting rights and who had the right to carry out trade, raise taxes, or operate monopolies. But as we saw in chapter 9, taxes are but a portion of the surplus product or surplus value and trade, including monopolies, is just another way of obtaining that surplus product and value. Control of the state, through its decision-making process, whether by vote or royal command, was merely one important way in which access to that surplus was (and is) increased and maintained. The process has been described in the following way;

"Opposition to the Old Regime in France came in the first place from the middle classes (lawyers, merchants, businessmen etc.) who were excluded from playing much part in the government of the country. Representatives of this class seized the opportunity of the crisis of 1789-91 to make Louis XV1 ACCEPT A POSITION OF MORE LIMITED POWER, CLOSER TO THE King OF ENGLAND'S. tHEY ALSO RESENTED PRIVILEGES THAT WERE OBTAINED BY BIRTH AND NOT BY MERIT. IT WAS PARTICULARLY GALLING TO MERCHANTS AND TRADERS TO SEE THE NOBILITY EXCUSED FROM MUCH TAXATION. the POWER, WEALTH AND PRIVILEGES OF THE church WERE CONSIDERED EXCESSIVE, TOO. bUT THE MIDDLE CLASSES WERE NOT THE ONLY ONES TO BE DISSATISFIED WITH THE old regime. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION CONSISTED OF THE PEASANTS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE AND THE poorer workers of the towns." ('The Armies of the Revolution'. J.E. Sharp. Pub. UTP. page 3.)

It is easy to understand why so many middle-class individuals were opposed to the Royalty and Aristocracy. It was the bulk of this latter pompous and parasitic class, who in numerous ways directly impeded the wider economic and social development of the bourgeois middle-classes. What is less obvious is why so many appeared to readily accept some of the demands of the workers and peasants. This is easier to understand if we recognise that a totally impoverished peasantry and proletariat is of little use economically to those capitalists who live from manufacturing, sales of produce or services. If we recall how surplus value is extracted and realised, we will recognise that in order to produce and accumulate wealth, in the form of money capital, the capitalist class - as a whole - have to ensure a reasonably healthy and well-fed working class - at least in their home country. It is also in this class's direct interests to have a mass of peasantry who retain sufficient surplus that they can afford to purchase goods and services provided by capitalists.

Growing awareness of the economic opportunity and potential to be gained from this was one of the spurs to the development of the numerous middle-class 'champions' of the masses. The other and more immediate one was the pressure exerted by the oppressed themselves. Once roused, mobilised and armed, the sans culottes showed themselves quite capable of turning on their middle-class superiors with or without the assistance of the guillotine and reminding them of their numerical strength. An illustration of the effectiveness of this kind of pressure is provided by the shake-up given to the National Convention's slow debate over the 22 Convention representatives named in incriminating documents found in the Kings chambers. The Convention's laggardly pace in dealing with these 'traitors' resulted in it being surrounded by many thousands of citizens who brought weapons and large quantities of food with them. After locking the representatives in their debating chamber, they refused to let them out until they had made a decision to punish the offenders. Doubtless with the memories of the 'September Massacre' of royalists still fresh in their minds, the 'liberal' majority in the assembly were persuaded to deal with the issue with greater speed.

The bulk of the middle-class representatives in the National Assembly, and the later short-lived Parliament were, for a whole period, consistent in wishing to make a deal with the French King and his Aristocratic supporters. For them, the revolution was over after they had gained control of the decision-making process, through the creation of the National Assembly. It was only the intransigence of the King, and other Royalists, which prevented a compromise from being reached at that juncture. Even after the King's bungled attempt to 'escape' Paris, (i.e. the 'flight to Metz' via Varennes), only a minority of the Assembly's Representatives (i.e. the Jacobin members) seriously wanted the king deposed. The rest were still trying to establish France as a constitutional monarchy similar to England. It was the repeated exercise of the royal veto against urgent measures proposed by the legislative assembly and the threat of invasion led by the émigré Duke of Brunswick, which eventually forced many elected representatives to give up attempting a compromise with the royalist camp. Later, after voting to execute the King, they realised there was no turning back. After that point, any return to royalist rule, would see them lose everything, up to and including their lives.

There is no question that the revolutionary middle-class and their allies, relied heavily upon the French working class and peasants in the early skirmishes and during the crucial struggles with the Aristocracy. After making repeated conciliatory gestures to the monarch, all of which were ultimately refused by Louis, they had to choose to defend their gains of church land, the confiscated property of nobles, and their new political privileges. If they didn't they might see them reclaimed and themselves punished. They made this defence by calling upon the mass of ordinary citizens to arm themselves and come to their aid. As George Rude notes of this period;

"...the Mountain and Jacobin leaders, while quite prepared to use the popular movement to promote their political ends, were in no particular hurry. They had no intention of allowing the movement to fall into the wrong hands." (George Rude. 'Robespierre'. Pub. Collins. 1975. page 35.)

Nevertheless, at crucial times, encouraging the masses' self-activity was a risk they had to take. Even the more wavering representatives were given a final push in that direction, with the publication of Brunswick's invasion Manifesto, for it threatened to treat all who resisted royalist restoration as traitors. Thus with an Assembly bogged down in endless debates and reports, it was the Paris sections (local organisation and administrative units) which eventually seized the initiative. The forty-eight sections formed a central committee, three representatives from each section and enlisted men into a citizens' army. This example was followed up in numerous towns and villages throughout France.

The arrival of 500 armed men who had marched over 600 miles from the southern port of Marseilles acted as a psychological and physical spur to many of the Paris sections and resulted in a large armed demonstration marching to the King's residence. That stand-off ended in a full-scale street battle. It was only when the Aristocracy was sufficiently defeated, that the fears of the capitalists and their supporters again became directed towards the peasants and workers.

It is revealing to summarise and contrast some crucial episodes of the revolution in terms of the activity of the predominantly middle-class lawyers and elected representatives, and those of the predominantly peasant and lower-class ordinary citizens. The activities of the representatives of the middle classes were to draw up the Declaration of the National Assembly, the Tennis Court Oath, guard the King and Royal family, write a Constitution, formulate resolutions ending some feudal rights, declare Martial Law, order the massacre at the Field of Mars, form political Clubs (Bretton, Jacobin etc.), nationalise church property and pass sentence on the King. They also nominated the members of the Committee of Public Safety, nine non-elected men, and the Revolutionary Tribunal, a Jury of nominated men and five chosen Judges which authorised the Terror. In all these events speaking and writing were the dominant mode of activity of the middle classes. Of course, words and paper were utterly useless against the royalist swords and pistols. Without another force these declarations and documents would have been useless. Certain individuals aside, the only time numbers of them seriously picked up arms, was to defend their own property.

In contrast the sans-culottes, or ordinary people, rioted and demolished toll booths; conquered the Bastille; burned Châteaux and physically destroyed the hated records or tithe-rolls. They marched to Versailles and captured the King; fraternised with the 'loyal' troops until they changed sides; invaded the Tuileries Palace to frighten the King and formed armed squads to defend Paris. They produced committees in the sections; surrounded the National Assembly and wouldn't let them out until they had made some decisions. They found or fabricated the arms to defend themselves; captured the King a second time; demanded his execution and formed the organised sections of the commune.

In other words, at each critical stage of the unfolding events the middle-class discussed and debated, either in the Assembly chamber, political club or wrote in pamphlets or newspapers. On the other hand the masses organised and acted to stop the King, fought hand to hand with his armed supporters and foreign friends and subjected the middle-class to pressure by demonstration and petition. It is clear that without the masses of ordinary citizens organised and prepared to act, the revolution would have got no further than the declaration of a National Assembly. Without the sans-culottes and the sympathetic soldiers, the National Assembly with all its paperwork would have been quickly dispersed by Royalist bayonets and swords.

Despite the historical recognition given to Mirrabeu, Lafayette, Marat, Danton and Robespierre etc., they on their own would not have survived to make the Tennis Court Oath let alone make it through the following years of revolution. Yet they did play a significant role for all that, particularly in the early stages. Their defection from the status-quo weakened the ruling class and their literary and debating skills exposed and publicised the weaknesses and shortcomings of the monarchy. At critical times they also rubber-stamped the initiative of the French masses, large numbers of whom, for a time, needed the approval of people they thought intellectually and culturally superior to them. After creating all the local bottom-up democratic organisations throughout Paris and France, and having dealt with the royalist oppressors, enough of the sans-culottes mistakenly put their trust in the 'left' Jacobins such as Barere, Varenne, Carnot, Herbois, Couthon, Lindet, Robespierre and Saint-Just. It was these characters, who in a period of confusion and danger, along with a number of other trusted political associate's, proceeded to orchestrate the Terror.

We should at this point reflect a little more about the period of Terror in the French Revolution; not so much for its horror - that has been sufficiently documented elsewhere - but for its effect on the organisation of the masses and their involvement in the revolution. The Terror was initially supposed to deal quickly and severely only with armed nobles and royalists who remained in France and were considered a danger to the new republic. This danger was identified as stemming from acts of sabotage, starting rebellions or helping the invading foreign pro-royalist armies. "Terror", said Robespierre, "is merely justice - prompt, severe and inflexible". Yet in practice it wasn't prompt, it wasn't inflexible, and although it was often severe, it certainly wasn't justice.

The terror was organised from within a small un-elected group of people who orchestrated the arrests, tortures and executions in a top-down fashion. The administration of the terror was deliberately set up as an authoritarian structure which used the local sections and committees merely to process its arbitrary decisions. As a consequence the terror became indiscriminate and because the whole process, including the Committees of Safety and Revolutionary Tribunals, was unaccountable, it rapidly became corrupted. Power was entrusted to a small group of people who thought themselves superior and correct on all important matters. Yet it was soon well-known that for a sum of money or sexual favours given to key members of a tribunal, even a blatant counter-revolutionary royalist saboteur could escape the guillotine.

That alone was bad enough. On an even worse level the terror was soon extended to include the non-royalist political adversaries of the Jacobins or even anyone who openly disagreed with the Jacobins. In this way even strong supporters of the revolution found themselves imprisoned and facing death under the guillotine. Many former Jacobins, who had political disagreements with those Jacobins in charge of the terror, also found themselves treated as enemies of the revolution. (A situation not entirely dissimilar to that of many Bolsheviks and former Bolsheviks in Stalin-dominated Russia.). Using official statistics, Sidney Hook (1945) concluded that "seven out of every ten persons guillotined or shot during the French Terror were workers, peasants and members of the lower middle-class". The terror became so arbitrary that just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or having the same surname as a wanted citizen, could involve arrest and execution.

Elsewhere I have argued that the use of Terror holds back the revolutionary development of communities by fragmenting them into frightened individuals; that fear of arbitrary punishment isolates them from each other, freezes them into silence, causes them to retreat into platitudes, inactivity and hankering after earlier more peaceful times. Terror and fear makes conservatives out of ordinary people and proto-fascists out of those who carry out the terror. The use of such brutal force also provides ammunition to those wishing to push back the revolutionary progress of society. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the year of Terror initiated by the Jacobins.

The terror ended only after Danton and Robespierre themselves were guillotined. From being hailed as men of the people, and heroes of the revolution, after the terror, they found few champion's in the massed crowds who watched in silence as the guillotine ended their lives. They had sent those to the right of them (the Girondins) to their deaths and those to the left of them (the Hebertists). Before the year was out they in turn were sent to follow their victims. At the same time the terror ended only after it had neutralised and fragmented the genuine revolutionary proletarian and sans-culotte forces. In its wake it left the way open to the victory of the Thermadorian reaction and the eventual military dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte. By that time there was no organised sans-culotte force to prevent this outcome for the terror had destroyed it.

Terror breeds fear, disgust, disappointment, disillusionment which then seep through the ranks of the oppressed, diluting courage and dissipating unity, leaving the way open for counter-revolution. From the standpoint of the oppressed masses the terror in France put an end to their hopes and revolutionary aspirations, as its use also did a century or so later in Russia.

D) The Russian Revolution.

Background.

In chapters 4 and 5 we looked in some detail at the post -1917 revolutionary events in Russia. This was done through considering the writings of Lenin. The logic of Bolshevik economic and social policies from the standpoint of the working classes was traced. For the purposes of those chapters it wasn't necessary to review the lead-up to the outbreak of revolution in 1905 and beyond. However, in discussing revolution this extended pre-revolutionary period is something we now need to consider.

The social and political history of Russia, from its formation as the original 10th century Kiev 'Rus' to the 20th century feudal super-state, was dominated by incessant disputes between competing groups of aristocrats and rulers. From the 12 century expedition under Prince Igor; the later purges and conquests of Ivan the Terrible and Boris Godunov; through the reforms of Peter the Great and down to Alexander 2nd, the 'noble' history is one of intrigue, squabbles, assassinations, wars and conquests. All these events were aimed at holding on to, or increasing the amounts of, tribute, tithe or labour appropriated by the various ruling cliques.

For centuries the working population of peasants, serfs and slaves had to endure the savage exploitation by one set of rulers after another. Once within the geographical control of the Grand Prince, the various Princes, or Boyers (those just below the Prince) and later the Czar, the working population became either slaves, serfs or heavily taxed peasants. Not surprisingly, what was extracted from the working population varied from 'tribute in kind' (furs, honey, wood, grains etc.) to barshchina or corvee labour (i.e. compulsory working days) or both. The common purpose of this forced extraction, as elsewhere in the ancient and medieval world, was to appropriate and accumulate surplus production in the hands of the ruling elite.

The slave (in early Russia they were often called kholopi) worked all the time to produce for the landowner, the serf only a set number of days. The free peasant (or smerdi) worked all the time for him or herself, but had to set aside some (a varying amount) of their production for the landowner. Even the later development of the peasant system still amounted to surplus production extraction - albeit by a slightly different method. Under such conditions there would be rebellions, peasant uprisings and even insurrectionary peasant wars. These occurred with considerable regularity as the working population, often taxed beyond their limits, attempted to throw off the yoke of oppression and change the system. Thus;

"...there were huge, widespread and fearsome revolts. In 1669, for example, 200,000 rebels - Cossacks, peasants and natives of Asia - seized Astrakhan, Saratov and Samara; over-running the lower Volga, they killed landowners and members of the prosperous middle class. Their leader Stenka Razin was not captured until 1671, when he was executed and quartered in Moscow on Red Square. A century later, in the same regions, Pugachev's uprising had equally massive initial success. Cossacks from the Don and the Ural Rivers, Bakshirs, Khirgiz, serfs from seignorial domaines and from the great iron and copper foundries in the Ural mountains, all joined the revolt, known as the Pugachevina. The rebels advanced as far as Niijni-Novgorod, hanging landowners as they went and promising everyone land and liberty." (Fernand Braudel.. 'A History of Civilisations'. Pub. Penguin, page 544.)

The Saratov and Pugachev rebellions were just two of the many outbreaks of civil disobedience and insurrection. Most of them in one way or another succeeded in throwing off oppression - but only temporarily. The reason is relatively simple. An ill-trained, hastily assembled peasant militia, no matter how desperate or enthusiastic, was no match for a united warrior class able to assemble an army of trained, professional soldiers. Peasant fighters also tended to engage in only short campaigns and return home when the heavy work of planting or harvesting was due. At such times the rebellion would just evaporate. From the 10th century on, every century saw slave, serf and peasant uprisings in Russia and by the 19th century they had reached exceptionally high figures. Between 1790 and 1850 there were repeated factory disturbances as Russian workers demonstrated their opposition to capitalist exploitation. In the two years between 1861-63, for example, when records were more reliable, there were also an estimated 2000 peasant disturbances. Yet despite the number and violence of these outbreaks, the results still fell short of a revolutionary transformation of Russian society. However, changes were taking place which would transform future rebellions.

Throughout the history of Russia the main concern of the Russian Aristocracy and Czar was the conquest of land and its associated labour power in order to support the growing number of aristocratic families in the manner they had become accustomed. However, as the centuries progressed, territorial conquest more often than not required up-to-date techniques of warfare. It became clear to many in the upper ranks of Russian society that in order to compete territorially with the armies of European nations, backed as they were by industrial methods of production, Russia would need to modernise.

One Czar, known as 'Peter the Great', is generally recognised as the first to really begin to modernise Russia. However, it was difficult for him and his supporters to modernise sufficiently on the basis of the amount of surplus production extracted from serf and peasant labour. Lacking machinery and incentive, serf and peasant labour was limited and variable in how much surplus it could produce. The Czar and his advisers decided to supplement this form of surplus production by copying the other 18th century mercantile powers which had grown rich by trade. He therefore, used his conscripted serf armies to capture territory which contained existing trade routes so that he could immediately tax the movement of goods.

After capturing Azov to the south of Russia, he tried to repeat his success in the north, but severely underestimated the fighting ability of the Swedish army at Narva. The defeat of Peter's troops against Sweden revealed that for Russia, this imperialist style short cut to additional wealth was not going to be easy. It became increasingly obvious that it was necessary to develop the technical and industrial base of Russia itself in order to use this to support his army. Yet financially, the poorly trained and armed forces of Russia were already costing 80% of Peter's state revenue. At that point he clearly lacked sufficient financial means to modernise and develop Russia. His solution was two-fold. First, he created more taxes for the peasant population and second, he encouraged rapid industrial development. He did the latter by granting capitalist manufacturers and mining companies the right to use forced labour in their factories. The Czar even supplied this in the form of serfs transferred from his own estates.

He hoped that on the basis of serf labour, the small but growing capitalist class - in key industries - would be able to make sufficient profits to develop their industries rapidly. It was a policy which produced patchy results in terms of technological development, but the overall effects of this period have been summed up in the following way;

"The effort to emulate the way of life of the European aristocracy imposed enormous financial burdens on the poor Russian gentry, burdens they sought to transfer to the State and their own peasants. These burdens pitted peasantry against nobility in a struggle for their very survival and lent a bitter hostility to the basic division in Russian society." (The Making of Modern Russia'. Kochan and Abraham. Pub. Penguin. 1986. page 125.)

As we have previously read, the hostility between peasants and nobility dated back well before Peter the Great, but his measures certainly turned the screw a few extra notches. However, these were not the only results of that lengthy period. Divisions were beginning to open up among the ruling class - this time not just over individual status and power - but over how to modernise Russia. Peter and his supporters in the aristocracy, clearly wanted modern technology in Russia, but paradoxically they still wished to retain the system of landed aristocrats and serf labour which had traditionally supported them.

Many of them thought, with good reason, that to pay wages to a large 'free' agricultural population would cost the landowners far more than they could guarantee to make on the sale of goods on the world market. Serf labour, therefore, maintained its attraction for this aristocratic class because it was cheap and could get the work done without them having to purchase expensive machinery. However, some nobles saw the obvious flaw in such a short-sighted economic strategy. Serfs do not earn wages and therefore cannot buy commodities and thus they cannot, like workers, become a real internal market for general capitalistic development. The status of serfdom also does not create any individual incentive to work harder and the serf , like the slave, needs considerable supervision and control.

Under such feudal relationships, attempts to raise production levels, as well as encourage new developments, were proving useless in all but a few exceptional cases. The permeation of such views and experiences created a significant level of opposition within the ranks of the ruling class. It was an opposition which had continued to grow under successive royal dynasties. Given the European and American revolutionary rhetoric of equality, of which the Russian nobility were well aware, 'liberal' criticism tended to focus on the weakest link in the aristocratic system. That link was the condition of the serfs. For example one member of a Russian serf-owning family under the rule of Catherine found;

"....serfs forced to toil six days a week on their masters land. He found officials and judges who would sell a verdict or decision. He found corrupt businessmen. He witnessed a serf auction, where human beings were knocked down like cattle to the highest bidder. He saw a round-up of serfs, press-ganged into army service, as in eighteenth century England. " (ibid. page 146)

Alexander Radishchev, who was responsible for publishing these revelations, was originally sentenced to death for such 'whistle-blowing' against his class. It was only later that this sentence was commuted to exile. Further indication of the growing splits in the ruling class came under Alexander 1st. During this reign opposition to the way the Czar was steering Russia, grew amongst officers, nobles, officials in the state bureaucracy, merchants and among the growing professional class. Eventually a group of high ranking officers secretly formed a 'Union of Salvation' and plotted to assassinate Alexander but the attempt failed. Alexander died soon afterwards and so the plot was rekindled for the next Czar, Nicholas. A further half-hearted assassination attempt was made in December 1825. This Decembrist Revolt was quickly put down and autocratic authority re-established. Its significance lies not in the failure of the attempt but in the fact that it indicated a substantial number of the upper classes who were determined to force the issue by drastic means. It testified that the split in the ranks of the ruling class was running ever deeper and wider. In the period following this event, all opposition and open criticism was strictly forbidden, but this did not alter the symptom nor remove the cause. This period also saw the growth of literary criticism in the novels of Tolstoy, Gogol, Chekhov, Pushkin and Dostoyevsky. Such indirectly critical literature was widely read among literate middle-classes and had considerable anti-feudal propaganda value.

Further wars, including the Crimean, ended in defeat for the Russian army and revealed yet again the deficiencies of a serf-based economy in carrying out the warfare of that period. The Russian army invariably fought with outdated weapons at the front, whilst behind the lines the serf-based production of uniforms, boots and other essential equipment, could not keep up with the levels needed. Even the roads and railways - maintained by occasional serf-squads - were few and inadequate. All this was blatantly obvious to the peasant army, intellectuals and those nobles not blinded by self-interest into sycophantic support for the Czar.

A later Czar, Alexander 2nd. took a few steps in the direction of reform, but these were generally considered to be too little, too late. In 1860 a number of partial reforms were enacted and in 1861 the serfs were emancipated. However, this emancipation did not turn out to be the blessing for which many peasants had hoped. The eventual terms of emancipation left many serfs with inadequate land and also owing the previous landowner indemnity money for the purchase of it. Many hundreds of serf and peasant riots followed the declaration of emancipation as former serfs fought their former owners for better terms. Apart from a number of exceptions, emancipation brought a general lowering of the already low standards of living for masses of the former serfs. Burdened as they were by debt and taxation, they were not provided with sufficient land to support both themselves and their burdens.

The abolition of serfdom also weakened the prestige and reduced the already declining wealth of many nobles and aristocrats. They now had no 'free' labour to exploit. Large numbers of the landowners had to mortgage their land (previous to abolition they had actually mortgaged their serfs to the banks for loans) to continue their lavish lifestyles. Many lost everything. The results of all this upheaval was to alienate the peasantry and, of course, many nobles, further from the ruling dynasty of Russia. Perhaps not surprisingly in those circumstances, Alexander the 2nd was also assassinated.

The next Czar (Alexander the 3rd) reversed some of the earlier reforms. He was convinced that it was the reforms which were creating a rebellious peasantry, a discontented middle-class and opposition within the landed aristocracy. In fact it was the level of oppression followed by the grudging, half-hearted reforms which were causing an additional element of discontent in all classes. This process further undermined the cohesion of the social and military forces which the ruling autocrat relied upon to sustain his dynasty. By this time a large section of the bureaucracy was also discontented, (including more 'nobles' in the higher ranks of the state) and the clergy were split between liberal modernisers and reactionary traditionalist. All this frustration and dissatisfaction was steadily eroding the foundations of the Czarist autocracy. The reforms had not gone far enough and reversing them only made matters worse.

In 1891 a great famine occurred which also brought another twist to the downward spiral of the Royal Dynasty's authority. To save embarrassment, the existence of a famine was at first denied. Eventually a famine relief programme of sorts was initiated by the Czarist bureaucracy. Predictably, it started late, was inadequate to the task and quickly deteriorated into a shambles. The only real successful food and medical relief, as cholera and typhus became extensive, came from a system of voluntary organisations staffed by all classes in Russian society. This became a widespread voluntary effort and it grew independently of the government, eventually overshadowing its 'official' efforts.

Saving the peasants was not just a humanitarian concern however much it may have been presented as such, it was also an economic one. A substantially depleted peasantry would result in drastically less production and thus a fall in surplus production. The failure of the Czarist aristocracy to even seriously try to keep alive the very peasants, upon whose labour they and the nobles depended, led to further dissatisfaction and criticism from all quarters. The experience of this 1891 famine resulted in a further recognition that the ruling clique was incompetent, could not be persuaded to reform itself and therefore needed an external force to change it. At the same time the success of the voluntary efforts at famine and medical relief led to a growing realisation among many middle-class citizens, that they did not need the Czar and his bureaucracy.

It is interesting to note that opposition was growing so rapidly in that period that in 1902 a journal called 'Liberation' was founded, the Social Democratic Party (known by the shorthand term S.R.'s) was formed, and in 1904 a 'League of Liberation' was created in Petersburg. An oppositional anti-capitalist trend, inspired by Marx's writings, had commenced in the late 19th century and in 1898 the first congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party (RSDP), took place. In 1904 the RSDP, at its second congress, was thrown into crisis over the question of rules. The year (1904) also witnessed a war with Japan, with all the previously mentioned problems of insufficient supplies and equipment. This too ended in failure with a humiliating surrender by the Russians at the garrison of Port Arthur.

The armed struggle.

The war effort in the Crimea, and its aftermath, caused further hardship for both the troops and the civilian population. The crisis which followed the defeat, culminated in the revolutionary ferment of 1905. A notable incident in 1905 was the peaceful demonstration led by a Father Gapon, which called for relief of peasant distress. The procession, complete with petition, was met by gunfire and dispersed, with eventually thousands dead and wounded. Strikes of workers and peasant revolts followed and soviets (committees of workers) were set up in many cities. Numerous peasant committees were also formed in rural areas. Undoubtedly potentially revolutionary in character, these 1905 insurrections, however, did not gain the general support of the rank and file soldiers and sailors, and so were soon put down. Nevertheless, many of the important features occurring in 1917 were displayed during that year.

The eventual collapse of the 1905 uprising was followed by what has become known as the years of Stolypin reaction. It was a period of harsh rule, some minor reforms and many hangings. They were years which witnessed a reactionary political process which temporarily subdued the population, but changed nothing substantial. It is from this period that the mounting opposition from within the ruling class moved from passive grumbling and secret scheming to increased political action. Members of the Aristocracy, together with representatives of the middle-classes, began to join and become involved in the various political groupings. They typically joined such groups as the previously mentioned Social Revolutionaries (SR's), the Constitutional Democrats (Kadets) and the Octobrists. The rapid growth of these parties during the latter part of this period, was an indication of the changing nature of the opposition to Czarist rule from within the ruling and governing elite. All sought some degree of reform, but varied in the extent and the nature of the reforms they proposed. The Constitutional Democrat Party (Kadet) is interesting in this respect. With a programme calling for a legislative Parliament, universal suffrage, civil rights, democratic local government and autonomy for conquered countries, it managed to attract 60% of its membership from within the ranks of nobles, professors, academics, lawyers, doctors, journalists and state officials.

The years immediately preceding the 1917 revolution were also marked by further instability which had numerous causes. The war with Germany, starting in 1914, refusals by nobles to serve in the various Czarist governmental initiatives, and rapid changes in government personnel, all contributed to the shakiness of the governmental fabric. Many in the pro-Czarist camp hoped that the war with Germany would distract criticism and serve to unite all classes behind the war effort. For a time this seemed the case, particularly in the ranks of the nobles and middle-classes. But soon criticism of the war effort was growing again and the dissatisfied members of the Duma (a form of Parliament) clamoured for the Czar to appoint a new war ministry. His response to this particular criticism was to close down the Duma.

The closing of the Duma was followed by an unsuccessful plot to arrest the Czar's wife and compel Nicholas to abdicate in favour of Grand Duke Nikolai. As we have seen, conspiracies against the Czar were not unusual for that whole period and many of them originated within the Czar's immediate circle. This perhaps indicates, as much as anything, that the extent of the splits in the ruling class had reached all the way up into the Czar's immediate family. Not long after this failed attempt, Prince Lvov told a meeting of the Progressive Bloc to abandon all further attempts at working with the Czarist government as it was a waste of time and would fail. Things finally came to a head when one moderate leader of the Progressive Bloc (Milyukov) openly accused the Czarist clique of treachery. Although not intending his words to spark off a revolution, by this time the widespread pre-revolutionary unrest was waiting for any such signal.

"What Miliukov had failed to appreciate was the extent to which a revolution had now come to be seen as unstoppable and even desirable, not just by the radicals but by the conservatives too. His own strategy of conciliation and parliamentary struggle, with the aim of reaching a compromise with the government, was rapidly losing ground. As one general at Stavka remarked, there was a widespread conviction that something had to be broken and annihilated, ...." ('A People's Tragedy'. Orlando Figes. Pub. Pimlico 1997. page 287.)

Such extensive feelings among the social, economic and military elites had further repercussions. It meant that when the increasing number of anti-war demonstrations, bread strikes, peasant uprisings, army rebellions and naval mutinies took place, there were very few in the establishment to speak out against them or organise to stop them. Many establishment figures became either neutral or even quietly supportive of such openly anti-government actions. Of particular significance was the fact that lower officers and sergeants, those drawn from the workers and peasants, were themselves becoming revolutionary.

The war went badly for the Russian military and the resulting shortages provoked many strikes and protests. In October 1916 the workers in the Vyborg side of St. Petersburg, supported by soldiers, came out on strike. By the 19th of October over 60 factories were out on strike. Soldiers at the front, seeing no end to the war and having endured three harsh winters, were refusing to fight the Germans and in some cases openly fraternising with them. The peasant army, the last military prop of the Czarist regime, was beginning to crumble. In St. Petersburg a demonstration organised on February 23 1917 (International Women's Day) began with chants of 'Bread' and continued on and off throughout the weekend. The shouts of the participants grew more menacing and over the last days finished with cries of 'down with the Czar'. Even the loyal Cossack troops were now proving reluctant to act against the demonstrators. These February days were full of violence, demonstrations and mutinies, but significantly the outbreaks were not organised by any political party. All the reliable eyewitness evidence suggests they were the spontaneous outbursts of groups of people at the end of their patience, in the grip of uncontrollable anger and sensing a serious weakness in the ruling class. The mutiny of the Petersburg garrison; the successful capture of the Arsenal; the occupation of the telephone exchange and railway stations; and the capture of the Peter and Paul Fortress, were all significant, but largely uncoordinated insurrectionary events. However, it was the march on the Duma, at the Tauride Palace and the forming of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers Deputies, which signalled a further decisive turn in the events. These latter actions indicated that the restless, incoherent insurrection was being rapidly transformed into organised revolution.

The Duma deputies tried for a few months to gain control of the situation by creating a Temporary Committee for the Restoration of Order in the Capital. This committee invited a Grand Duke to become a dictator in the hope that he could restore order. The initiative failed. It seemed that no-one knew what to do and that the chaos would continue. Yet it was the modest organisational efforts of the Workers Soviet which progressively seized the initiative. The issuing of Order No 1, by a Military Commission, set up by the Petrograd Soviet, clinched the issue, for it spoke directly to the needs of the rank and file soldiers. This one document, ensured the allegiance of significant numbers of soldiers, to the Soviet. From then until October there was a situation of dual power. It was a period in which the Soviet repeatedly tried to persuade officials of the Duma to form a popular government sympathetic to the workers and soldiers.

All the 'left' groups and parties, with the exception of Trotsky's group, at that time wanted and expected a bourgeois government formed from the Duma Parties. Few expected a form of government based upon the Soviet. Indeed, in March, the formation of a provisional government, negotiated by the Soviet, was clearly meant to be a bourgeois government. For it proposed a cabinet, containing a Prince, a millionaire and assorted other bourgeois ministers. Its principles were meant to include freedom of speech and an amnesty for political prisoners. These were all compatible with a bourgeois form of rule and its organisational brief was to prepare for setting up a Constituent Assembly. Nothing suggested by the soviet at that time indicated the idea of the soviet itself being the basis of self-organisation of working people. It was the actions of the workers, soldiers and peasants together with the disintegration of the ruling class, as the events unfolded during the summer months, which convinced workers and Bolsheviks that this was a possibility. The possibility turned into reality by the October declaration of - All power to the Soviets!

Further comments.

The political and social power of feudal Russia, was spread among the royal court, the nobles, the state bureaucracy, the heads of the armed forces and the church. These were the structures, staffed by their respective elites, which supported the Czar's rule. Collectively they held the rest of the population in subservience by force of custom, law and armed power. The Czar, whatever schizophrenic ideas he entertained of his God-given powers, was merely a human representative, situated for historic reasons, at the pinnacle of this organised power structure. Over many years support for the Romanov dynasty was progressively eroded in all sections of the ruling elite. In the reign of Nicholas all the military, social and economic chickens, came home to roost.

Many in the immediate court circles, and the clergy had also become disgusted with the Czar and his wife over their support for the corrupted 'holy man' Rasputin. This, however, was a symptom of feudal degeneration and not a direct cause. Many other despicable characters had been tolerated previously without causing the downfall of an entire system. Providing those supporting the Aristocracy continued to get what they felt they were entitled, no one bothered too much about corruption. The difference in 1905 - 1917 was that a considerable number of the noble aristocrats had been ruined by the abolition of serfdom and many of those in the state bureaucracy were frustrated by Czarist interference and restrictions.

Increasingly those in the higher ranks of the armed forces were frustrated and antagonised by the Czar's incompetence and antiquated methods of warfare. For a number of years there had been a gradual coming together of dissidents among the ruling elite, intent on doing something to change things. The Decembrists, noted earlier, were an early conspiratorial military attempt, but by 1905 many of the nobility and landed gentry had joined, or were joining with others, in quite distinct political groupings. As noted, many joined the Constitutional Democrats (known as the Kadets), others entered the Octobrist Party, the Social Revolutionaries and a few the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. These were the 'active' dissidents among the ruling elite and they plotted in various ways to remove the Czar and replace his direct rule with an alternative.

Of course many more among the ruling elite remained passive critics of the Czar and many remained his faithful supporters. However, when the crunch came the supporters were not sufficient, nor sufficiently strong to prevent the revolution from unfolding. The moment the situation became clearly poised between revolution or the restoration of feudal order, too few of the nobles and army leaders would openly declare themselves for the Czar. Even fewer were prepared to act decisively on his behalf. Among the many critics of the feudal system, were also to be found those from the capitalist classes who were not in receipt of Czarist support. By degrees the split in the ruling class became complete. The resultant weakness was sufficient for the revolutionary forces, comprising disaffected nobles, bourgeois representatives and workers and peasants representatives, to seize the initiative during the February insurrection. The relative weakness of the bourgeois politicians on the one hand and the strength of workers', soldiers' and peasants' pressure for bread, peace and land, on the other, meant that the revolutionary 'settlement' of February 1917 was itself soon destabilised. The determined pressure by workers, soldiers and peasants and the weakness of the bourgeoisie, allowed the Bolsheviks to emerge from a hunted minority in July 1917 into a high-profile political force during August and September. By October 1917, they were able to put themselves at the head of the revolutionary developments.

E) GENERAL SUMMARY.

The revolutionary transformations we have considered were not simply brought about by conflicting ideas of taxation, religion or peace. Not even desperate appeals for 'bread and land', as in the case of Russia, have ever by themselves resulted in revolution. Demands for peace, sufficient food, land, an end to punitive taxation and religious persecution, have been regular outcries over long periods of time. Such outcries and even uprisings, have frequently resulted in further bouts of oppression rather than its alleviation. In all the cases, underneath the political, monetary and religious rationalisations of the combatants, the struggles were predominantly over which form of surplus labour extraction, feudal or bourgeois, was to dominate. In other words which socio-economic group, capitalist or aristocracy, was to dominate society in the creation and appropriation of that surplus. The fact that there were often capitalists and pro-capitalist aristocrats on both sides of the revolutionary forces, can serve to confuse the real issue. Identifying such simple categorical opposites as pro-capitalist and pro-feudal does not necessarily help. In the classical bourgeoisie revolutions few of the human agents involved on both sides - even the sharpest thinkers - had any real clear perception of the actual economic or even social developments which were to follow. As we have seen during the struggles, even the most central figures often convinced themselves, or allowed themselves to be convinced by others, that the central issues at stake were about religion, loyalty, virtue, honour or some other secondary feature. However, public rhetoric does not always correspond to the private obsessions, particularly in revolutionary periods. Tithes, benefices, stipends, estates and trade were, with rare exception, at the forefront of a majority of the combatants' thoughts, even if these thoughts were kept private.

We can say retrospectively that the first three revolutions considered were bourgeois or capitalist revolutions. This can be said not because all the bourgeoisie were on one side and the all the feudal aristocracy on the other, but because the human agents who dominated during and after the revolutions, promoted, introduced, and when possible, imposed measures, which stimulated capitalist activity or removed those practices which restricted it. The partial exception to this, perhaps, was the Russian revolution and that, as we have seen in chapters 4, 5 and 6, holds special lessons for anti-capitalists, working classes and other oppressed people. Nonetheless, all four cases provide clear indications of the factors which lead to the revolutionary overthrow of one system and the introduction of another. The phases generally conform to the following overall pattern. A long, (often very long), pre-revolutionary situation - a serious crisis - open splits in the ruling class - involvement of the masses - reaction - self-defence by the masses - stalemate and dual power - followed by civil war. The final stage, of civil war, ends in either savage repression and reprisals or revolutionary reconstruction, depending upon which side is the victor. Within each overall phase other similar and distinct stages, such as minor crises, uprisings, barricades etc. are repeated or reveal themselves for the first time.

We can see from these examples that revolution against an oppressive regime is never an amicable or bloodless encounter. Oppressive regimes cling onto their power with all the desperation and apparatus of oppression that they can muster. Against this, the oppressed and their allies need to defend themselves and, on frequent occasions, attack and neutralise the oppressing groups. We have seen that this is the case for bourgeois revolutions whose leaders have not stopped at this defence, but instituted terror against their own supporters among the most oppressed. This was also the case in the anti-capitalist revolution led by the Bolsheviks. All failed to retain a humanist content and as a consequence all failed to liberate the poor and the oppressed. So I suggest, as already noted, that the humanist 'essence' of the anti-capitalist struggle cannot be discarded even in the most desperate circumstances. Revolutionary-humanism needs to be not only the 'conscience' of the anti-capitalist revolutionary process, but also the guiding principle. The humanist essence is needed to remind participants in the revolutionary process of its purpose. To relinquish, ignore or to suppress the humanist purposes of anti-capitalist revolution, at any time, leads irresistibly to its complete abandonment and suppression. This much we have seen in the case of Russia and in the case of the numerous anti-capitalist sects we considered earlier.

It is clear from any study of failed revolutions and defeated rebellions, that an organised, armed minority can usually oppress and govern a large mass of unorganised and unarmed people. This is a simple organisational/military fact whether that armed minority are the guards of a concentration camp holding down the inmates, or the armed forces of a whole country suppressing the majority of its inhabitants. However, we can also see from the revolutions considered, that this general truth only holds good as long as that ruling group remains united, cohesive and retains the loyalty of its military forces. Once that cohesion sufficiently breaks down then the simmering opposition that is latent in all oppressive societies, is presented with the opportunity - not only to burst out - but to organise itself and create much needed change.

In the cases of revolutionary upsurge considered, this anger of the oppressed is deliberately fermented and orchestrated by the section of the ruling strata wishing to create change. The breakdown in the ruling strata's cohesion is clearly demonstrated in all the revolutions outlined in this chapter. When Count Axel von Fersen noted during the French revolution, that;

"The Aristocracy, Clergy and Parlements, who first initiated rebellion and disaffection, have suffered first. Chaos increases day by day and above all , it seems endless." (Quoted in P. Vansittart. 'Voices of the Revolution'. Pub. Collins, page 105.).

He accurately indicated a crucial ingredient in the unleashing of every successful revolution; the splits in the ruling elite. In each case the rising bourgeoisie, petite bourgeois classes and the oppressed, working and peasant, classes were ineffective against united ruling feudal strata despite numerous armed uprisings and propaganda. That is until the ruling group, or a section of it, itself created a crisis or reacted to one by splitting into warring factions and one section initiating rebellion. This is the historical materialist underpinning to Marx's observation that the dissolution going on within the ruling class during revolutionary periods causes a section of the ruling class to cut itself adrift and join the revolutionary class. It is also the basis of Lenin's assertion in 'Left Wing Communism' that revolutions can succeed only when the 'ruling classes', 'cannot carry on in the old way' However, as we have seen in chapters 4 and 5, Lenin and the Bolsheviks got no further than theoretically analysing this aspect of revolution, whilst in their real actions they merely replaced the royalist oligarchy with a political oligarchy; the aristocratic bureaucracy with a petty-bourgeois bureaucracy; and eventually a 'white' Czar (Nicholas), with a 'red' one (Stalin).

We have seen in three of the cases examined in this chapter, England, France and Russia, that the working and peasant classes were used by the rising bourgeois class and its allies as shock troops to overthrow the remnants of the feudal power. The bourgeois leaders (and in the case of Russia the Bolshevik leaders) either promised or accepted the demands of the oppressed classes prior to or during the revolutionary struggles, before reneging on these promises after they had obtained positions of power. In other words they simply replaced the old ruling strata with themselves as a new ruling stratum.

In each of these cases in order to achieve this result they had to use the armed force, created to combat the old order and the counter-revolution, against the oppressed classes once the counter-revolution was defeated. It is this process which creates an additional problem for the modern oppressed classes in achieving their liberation from capitalist exploitation and oppression. In this context the role of the middle-classes is important to consider. The growth of this class in many capitalist countries has led to a crucial phenomenon. They can play a progressive or reactionary role in any crisis. In Europe they backed the fascist regime of Hitler and other fascistic movements and in Chile they helped bring down the Allende government. For an anti-capitalist revolution it is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, that the ruling class splits and in alliance with the oppressed classes overthrows the old ruling class. For a successful revolution against the capitalist system there has to be more. The oppressed need to ensure that their liberation is not simply tied to demands upon yet another elite waiting to take the place of the previous one and govern. The distinct possibility of such a danger resulted in a clear warning given by Marx and Engels;

"...from the first moment of victory, the workers' mistrust must be directed no longer against the defeated reactionary party, but against their previous allies, against the party that wishes to exploit the common victory for itself alone." (Revolution and Counter-revolution in Germany. Peking Edition. page 158)

Interestingly, neither Lenin or Trotsky called the attention of workers to this warning - nor, to my knowledge, have any of their followers. In this context it should be remembered that demands on elected representatives to 'nationalise the means of production', provide 'the right to work' or demands to form a 'workers' government' etc., which were prevalent at one time, are in fact petty-bourgeois demands. They presuppose that a political elite will be given, or has already been given, the power to grant such demands, or refuse them. Such demands also assume that these representatives have been given full control over the labour and surplus production of the workers. As we noted in chapter 4, the historical research and social analysis produced by Marx had already indicated that the task of an anti-capitalist revolution was to free the producers from wage slavery and reunite them directly with control of the means of production. Its purpose was to end all economic and political power over them and give them back their own collective power to produce. With the end of wage-slavery and once reunited with the means of production, the workers would have the opportunity to communalise (not nationalise) the means of production, introduce self-government and provide work for themselves. They would not need to demand what they wanted from an 'alien power' placed over them, but grant it for themselves in negotiation with other workers.

For those who accept the revolutionary perspective it is essential to be clear on what a revolution is and under what type of conditions it commences and develops. As we have seen it is not simply the existence of large pockets of frustration, anger or dissatisfaction among the lower orders which creates an uprising or revolution. In the everyday existence of oppressed groups, the expression of anger and dissatisfaction are constant and visible in one form or another. This is so whether they manifest themselves in individual psychosis and violence, or organised protest. It is important to understand that the vast majority of people, even those who are most oppressed, are not automatically revolutionary. Indeed, they can be extremely cautious. Ceasing work is a major step for working people because it immediately cuts off their income and therefore their access to food, shelter and clothing. The resulting hardship from such action does not only descend upon themselves, but visits their families. Further than that, rebellion and uprising also risks life and limb. This reality is the material basis for their cautious behaviour and often seemingly conservative opinions.

This material base acts as a great restraint on their individual and collective actions despite the intensity of their feelings of injustice and oppression. It is only when great numbers are faced with desperate situations such as war, famine, economic collapse or other collective disaster - when they can retreat or prevaricate no more - that they are driven to act, often defensively at first. The organisation of the Paris sections in 1789 were defensive and the calls for bread were extremely desperate and limited demands. Neither of these actions were explicitly meant to foment revolution. Setting up the citizens' defence committees, in the later Paris Commune, were also defensive acts, as was the original impetus for forming the soviet self-help committees in Russia, and as already noted, the vast majority of the demonstrators for 'Peace, Bread and Land', in St Petersbourg, did not see themselves as pushing beyond the bounds of the capitalist system.

The anti-capitalist masses only really become downright revolutionary when they see no other way out in general and in particular when they see the crisis is causing the disintegration of the forces oppressing them. So we can conclude that even wide-scale organised protests and armed uprising do not mean that revolution will follow or that if it does it will automatically succeed. The somewhat premature attempted revolution in Germany of 1848 demonstrates the latter point, particularly after the defeat of the Spartacist uprising, as did the failure of the Communist Party inspired one in Brazil in 1935. So we can begin to summarise the following conditions. For a general uprising or rebellion there has to be;

1. Sufficient widespread anger/dissatisfaction among significant sections of the population, manifested in rolling strikes, widespread civil disobedience, public and private propaganda questioning the legitimacy of the system.

2. The potential for collective action against the causes of dissatisfaction facilitated by close proximity, good communications and existing or new organisations capable of orchestrating this action.

3. The actual development of collective action organised against the cause of dissatisfaction, together with the establishment of co-ordinating centres for co-operative organisation/action.

For a successful uprising there are two further requirements;

4. The dissatisfaction against specific issues needs to be expanded and permeate sections of the ruling stratum. A platform of demands or unifying slogan needs to arise or be created which focuses this discontent and rebellion.

5. Sufficient armed/military strength needs to go over to the side of the oppressed and/or the oppressing groups military forces become sufficiently weakened or neutralised to allow the rebellion to take on the oppressors and demolish their positions and organisations of power.

Of course the members of any serious anti-capitalist movement and organisations of revolutionary humanists, would be 'active' in relationship to the five previous points. Incidentally, the above criteria, derived mainly from considering bourgeois revolutions, also operated during the changes to the ex-Stalinist countries and the former Soviet Union itself. Under 'solid' Stalinist and pro-Stalinist ruling elites such as East Germany, Hungary and Checkoslovakia in1953, 1956 and 1968, no amount of widespread anger and dissatisfaction (point 1), potential for organising (point 2), or forms of collective action, was sufficient to seriously de-stabilise the ruling elite. The Soviet Union, as with East Germany, Hungary and Chekoslovakia before it, required a split in the ruling stratum (point 4) and sufficient military support or neutrality (point 5) to make the opposition effective. In terms of the Revolutionary Humanist perspective for revolution we can add further requirements in order to transform a successful political uprising or rebellion into a successful, thoroughgoing, anti-capitalist economic and social revolution.

6. The armed and unarmed workers need to produce/choose their own co-ordinating organisations and spokesperson's who see themselves as facilitators of the self-activity of the working people rather than a new elite leadership.

7. The existing capitalist state (its armed bodies of men, its bureaucracy, its power structures etc.) needs to be captured, dismantled, demolished completely and existing political forms of organisation dissolved along with them.

8. The new socio-economic system would need to be economically sustainable and organisationally maintainable, from within the ranks of the producers themselves.

9. Decisions on production and the amount and type of surplus production need to remain with the producers organised in their local, regional and international collectives. Armed defence of the new system would need to be by the workers and communities themselves.

10. Any necessary planning and co-ordination of production and exchange should be based upon a negotiated community-across model, rather than a centralised top-down model. Delegates to planning bodies would need to be elected for ability and be revocable.

In the advanced capitalist countries over the past hundred years there has been widespread dissatisfaction and even anger among large sections of oppressed and exploited. There has also been the potential for collective action, good communications and numerous actual and potential organisational forms. But in the latter part of the 20th century, in the advanced countries, no matter how much militancy among the oppressed, there has been, apart from minor squabbles, a consistent united alliance between the ruling elites. During the 1920's in Britain there was repeated militancy among the working class. The years 1919, 1920 and 1921, in particular, saw an extremely high degree of organisation and preparation for confrontation with the government among the triple alliance of Miners, Railworkers and Dockers. Even the police went on strike in 1919. This widespread and continuous period of dissatisfaction culminated in the General Strike of 1926, but the conditions never developed beyond the first three noted above. Sadly, points four to six were entirely missing, the ruling capitalist elite remained united, the Triple Alliance was frustrated and the later General Strike was utterly defeated. In the modern period, opposition parties such as the Labour Party in the U.K, representing the interests of the middle and lower middle-classes, remain firmly wedded to the existing capitalist system. Even fairly deep differences between the capitalist class over entry into the European Economic Community, the Euro currency, or those around the North Atlantic Trade Agreement, have proved insufficient to split the ruling elites to any significant degree. And who can doubt that the armed forces of all the advanced countries are anything but loyal to their respective capitalist governments, or factions within them and the N.A.T.O. alliance?

No one can argue that in any of the advanced countries, there exists even the serious idea of a defensive workers militia, let alone potential armed bodies of men and women ready to take on the ruling class. True, we are undoubtedly in a pre-revolutionary situation, in which the system is increasingly criticised over its inadequacy to deal with the fundamental issues of human and environmental rights. It is true also that some of that criticism stems from within the ruling elite itself, but there is as yet no serious rupture or disintegration of ruling-class solidarity. It is also true in the advanced countries that the professional middle-classes, so long a bulwark of support for the capitalist system, have seen their job security and steady upward mobility undermined by changes in the capitalist system. Taking advantage of the creation of low-paid professional workers in what were third-world countries, global capital is now shedding 'elite' workers in the advanced countries. Even the managerial sections of the middle-classes, who now politically dominate that class, are only as secure as their latest performance figures generated in increasingly competitive working environments. In the long term, sections of the middle-class will not necessarily remain loyal to global capital now the capitalist class has ceased to be loyal to them. The middle-class (or rather the elite working-class) sections of society need to be made aware of this logical development of global capital. Awareness of the real source of their misfortunes will assist them in seeing through any illusions capital creates for these sections of the work-force. As yet this development is a small but fundamental breach, and a source of serious instability in the support structure for the capitalist system, but it is not yet anything more than that.

It will require more than the present loss of status and security to cause sufficient disintegration within the ruling capitalist strata, sections of the middle classes to break away from their fetishism and awe of capitalist forms of accumulation and a significant part of the military machine to become neutral or come over to the anti-capitalist's side. How long this pre-revolutionary situation will last is an unknown and unknowable question. What can be said is that a crisis on an extremely large scale will be needed to produce such a dislocation, dissolution and disintegration of any of the ruling capitalist powers of the advanced countries of Europe, North America and Asia.

It would take something on a par with a massive war, a major and enduring collapse of the financial/economic system, or a series of immense ecological disasters to bring this about. This is not to say that in the meantime there might not be other places where the chain of capitalist exploitation produces yet another 'weak link' such as Mexico in the 1990's or Argentina in 2001, where a particular crisis of capitalism becomes unstable and creates conditions of social and economic turmoil. The Argentinian spectacle of middle-class men and women banging on the doors of banks with hammers and pans, because the I.M.F. inspired financial collapse has robbed them of their savings, and economic status is likely to be repeated elsewhere. There may also be places where the ruling military or political elites rupture and split and where the oppressed rise up with sufficient strength and with sufficient allies to overthrow their rule. However, it will be essential in all such cases, as noted above, that the revolutionary-humanist perspective, is to the fore if such uprisings and rebellions are to have any chance of success in building anything better, and if they are to become a pole of attraction for many more of the world's oppressed.

It should be clear from this brief description of revolutionary processes that the leaders of those left anti-capitalist groups in the 1960's to 1990's, who continually claimed revolution was imminent in Britain, Europe, America and even Asia (see chapter 3), were at best muddled in their thinking, or at the worst, delirious. It should also be clear from the above that the best intellectual and material efforts of Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks, discussed in chapters 4 to 6, were insufficient to produce what anti-capitalist working people needed. They were unable to grasp the real essence of the revolutionary humanism of Karl Marx. In the end they were not able to develop an understanding of revolution beyond the limitations of bourgeois thinking; beyond replacing one political elite with another.

Much of this criticism has the obvious advantage of hindsight, but not all. Crucial parts of this criticism were available, at the time, to the leaders of the anti-capitalist struggles if they had bothered to acquaint themselves with it or to sufficiently consider its importance where they had. Marx had expressly noted the purpose of anti-capitalist revolution in his earliest writings, as was discussed in chapter 4. We saw he was also scathing with regard to the political mentality and of those who thought they could do things on behalf of the working class. He also clearly stated the difference between the two types of revolution, capitalist and the future anti-capitalist, as long ago as 1852 when he emphasised that;

"Bourgeois revolutions, such as those of the eighteenth century, storm quickly from success to success. They outdo each other in dramatic effects; men and things seem set in sparkling diamonds and each day's spirit is ecstatic. But they are short-lived; they soon reach their apogee and society has to undergo a long period of regret until it has learned to assimilate soberly the achievements of its period of storm and stress. Proletarian revolutions, however, such as those of the nineteenth century, constantly engage in self-criticism and in repeated interruptions of their own course. They return to what has apparently been accomplished in order to begin the task again; with merciless thoroughness they mock the inadequate, weak and wretched aspects of their first attempts; they seem to throw their opponent to the ground only to see him draw new strength from the earth and rise again before them, more colossal than ever; they shrink back again and again before the indeterminate immensity of their own goals, until the situation is created in which any retreat is impossible.." (Marx. Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. In, 'Surveys from Exile'. Pub. Pelican. page 150)

It was this understanding which gave rise to Marx calling the workers' anti-capitalist revolution a 'permanent revolution'. Permanent because working people would restlessly, and self-critically, forge a society which was essentially humane and fair to all its people. As an anti-capitalist revolution the results of October 1917 in Russia were indeed inadequate and wretched. Yet this wretchedness and inadequacy, did not emanate from a lack of self-activity or creativity by workers and peasants, but from their trust in a political vanguard that appeared to know what it was talking about. Of course, the immensity of the task to overthrow the capitalist system and achieve a socio-economic system that will not oppress people or exhaust the planet, does indeed appear overwhelming. How could it be otherwise? If it were easy, it would already have been done. However, as the extent and depth of the crises and effects outlined in chapters 9 & 10 indicate, retreat from this perspective and task is impossible without intellectually, emotionally and materially resigning oneself, and the rest of the human species, (and the planet) to a future of oppression and devastation. For serious humanists and anti-capitalists, a global situation has been created by international capital, from which a retreat has indeed become impossible. There is simply nowhere else to go for those with genuine, all-embracing, anti-capitalist and humanist concerns. We need to begin again the quest for a post-capitalist society, one based upon real reciprocity and beneficial association. To begin this task again, and to fulfil it, we, and future generations, will need persistence. Nothing can take the place of such persistence. It has been said that the words 'press on' have solved, and always will solve, the problems of the human race. However, in 'pressing on' we need also exercise great care and consideration in selecting the type of path we tread.