[Marxism] on the Lincoln debate - my two cents worth
lnp3 at panix.com
Sun Dec 2 14:42:02 MST 2012
On 12/2/12 4:35 PM, Alan Bradley wrote:
> The obvious next question: to what extent was this reversed during the counter-revolutions - Thermidorian, Bonapartist and Royalist?
> If the answer boils down to "not substantially", then the claim that "the French revolution was not a revolution" makes no damn sense whatsoever.
For what it's worth, Comninel and Ellen Meiksins Wood argue that there
was no capitalism in France before or after 1789. The fact that peasants
benefited from land seizures might have retarded the growth of
capitalism, if I understand their argument correctly. It is only through
the large farms based on leasing that led to the growth of capitalism in
Now I don't buy any of this myself but I found Comninel's argument that
the revolution was led by elements of the aristocracy quite convincing.
But as I said, I might be convinced otherwise by Neil Davidson not to
speak of Henry Heller, the critic of Brenner who wrote this:
More information about the Marxism