“At a time when the idea of a national economy was not even conceived of-but, though the government did not understand it, the problem was central to its difficulties”.
In 1789, cloth production was about half of that in 1787 and wages fell so sharply that unemployment rose by 50%. Frances debt and the laissze faire attitude to the national economy meant the that the people were highly discontented and struggling to maintain an existence. The unemployment rates not only effected the working class though. They also had a large knock on effect on the Bourgeoisie who’s business were suffering immensely through the downswing in trade yet the Bourgeoisie were forced to continue funding the government and the extravagance of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette’s lifestyle. Although this was not necessarily a big factor as it only accounted for about 5% of Frances expenses, it did show how little the King and Queen cared about the economic state of France.
The down swing in the economy in Labrousse’s words;
“attacked an organism that was already very anaemic”
The whole French economy, undermined by years of stagnation was crumbling.
Between 1741 and 1789, prices rose by 65% however, nominal wages rose by only 22%. The price rises hit everybody, but especially those living at subsistence level. The fact that there had been bad harvests in 1788 and another was expected in 1789 did nothing to help. The bad harvest increased food prices up to almost famine levels. This may have been a successful time for large landowners who profited from grain sales, however, it increased the prices for the masses. The effect of the bad harvest was that it created rural poverty. When the rural population have less disposable income there is less money to spend on non-essential items. This leads to less demand for manufactured goods which therefore means that there is an urban depression in the urban industrial areas which in turn causes increased poverty. The bad harvests with the threat of more to come, combined with the ever increasing National debt only served to heighten the discontentment of the people. The Third Estate suffered badly and were deeply unhappy and this included the Bourgeoisie as the lack of spending hit them hard whilst the King was seen to be doing nothing to help the situation or the people affected by it.
When the national economy hit a slump the Bourgeoisie and the 3rd estate felt it the most. Indeed the Bourgeoisie were economically keeping Frances head above water. The huge debts that France owed were owed not only abroad but also primarily to the Bourgeoisie; the rentiers, merchants, manufacturers, businessmen and financiers. The Bourgeoisie practically ‘bailed out’ France and it can be argued that really the state was indebted to the Bourgeoisie. The Bourgeoisie were keeping France solvent, yet it was the Nobility who had all the privileges, power and the voice in how the country was run. This left the Bourgeoisie deeply dissatisfied. Secondly, the nobility were keeping the Bourgeoisie out of the top positions in French society. They claimed back any positions filled by Bourgeoisie only to be less competent at the job. Much of the nobility paid their way into the positions, subsequently much corruption took place when collecting taxes, which in turn meant the already hated and inefficient tax system was not even properly administrated! This kind of unfairness infuriated the Bourgeoisie and only drove people even more to look for something different, something that would change the way France was heading.
The terrible state of the French economy helped cause the revolution because the bankruptcy of the government meant that the economy was unstable, combined with the threat of another bad harvest the masses were fearful of total collapse. As can be seen in Germany during the Wall Street Crash of 1929, when the German people turned to the extreme left and extreme right. When people
are in turmoil, they turn to extremes, a revolution therefore may well have seemed to be an option.
The social structure of France was divided into three groups, the 3rd Estate consisted of 23 of the 26 million in France. It included peasants, city workers the Bourgeoisie who were merchants, manufacturers, lawyers, doctors etc. They were the wealthiest and most educated, but had no say in the running of the country of which they funded. They found this deeply unfair and infuriating as they wanted some kind of input into the spending of the money that they were forced to pay, this can be cited as a reason for the uprising of the Bourgeoisie.
One of the main grievances of the 3rd Estate was the seigniorial system. The peasants were burdened with huge amounts of taxation that were nearly impossible for them to pay. These included the taille, vingtieme, capitation and gabelle which all increased enormously between 1749-1780’s along with rent to their landlord. For every 100 francs earned only 18 francs would be left. This system allowed for greater income disparity in France and a real separation of classes which left peasants almost isolated compared to the rest of society. This led to a discontented peasantry within France which meant that a massive percentage of the total population were not content.
The other 2 estates were the 1st and 2nd Estates. The 1st Estate was the Church which was the minority of 1 to 2 per cent of the population, but it owned nearly 10 per cent of all land. It paid no taxes but they collected a tithe from the peasants.
The 2nd Estate was the nobility. They made up 2-5% of the population and enjoyed extensive rights and privileges. They, like the 1st Estate, paid hardly any taxes and economically, the nobility was characterised by great land wealth. Nobles were generally the richest members of the society. Typical sources of income were rents and dues for the use of their farms or estates. The 1st and 2nd estate paid minimal amounts towards the state and used their political influence to ensure this did not change.
The 3rd Estate were deeply unhappy due to the large taxes that they had to pay however the 1st and 2nd estate were determined not to give up their concessions. The great inefficiencies in the taxation system showed in the Government’s budgets as it went bankrupt. The injustice of the taxation system is essentially an economic factor however the social structure of France had a large influence in the taxation system, therefore can be argued that had the social system been adequate, the economic unrest would not have arisen which suggests, that social change comes from social causes, not just economic.
Social unrest is a key issue in discussing the causes of the revolution as all sections of French society had reason to be dissatisfied. The nobles were resentful of power that was removed from them by the monarchy. The power and privileges they did have were despised by the Bourgeoisie. The peasants saw tax reform and equality as the way to the abolition of the seigneurial system which was their main grievance. The 3rd estate clearly wanted equality, Abbe Sieyes pamphlet shows this:
“What is the 3rd Estate?”
1st. What is the third estate? Everything.
2nd. What has it been heretofore in the political order? Nothing.
3rd. What does it demand? To become something therein.
This clearly illustrates the discontentment of the 3rd Estate, there is no mention of any economic factors, just of equality.
Some historians blame the opposition of the parliaments as the main reason why the King was unable to reform the financial system. However, it can be argued that it was not the parliaments that were obstructing the crown from reforms, but in fact the character of the King himself. Louis XVI was well meaning and wanted to do the best by France however he lacked self-confidence and drive. Comte de Provence commented:
“The weakness and indecision of the King are beyond description”.
If Louis XVI had been a stronger monarchy he would have been capable of overcoming his problems with the Aristocracy. His powerful position should have allowed him to force the tax reform. Louis should never have allowed himself to call the Estates-General but instead he should have introduced mild reforms to the gain the support of the public. If he had been a stronger person he also would not have been so easily influenced by the nobility, his advisers or his wife. Instead France went without tax reform which can be sited as an economic cause of the revolution however the weakness of the King is not!
The Estates General was based around the 3 estates meeting separately and voting on the issues done by order, this meant that there was a bias in favour of the clergy and nobles who could block out the 3rd estate. The 3rd estate felt that It should be entitled to double representation as it was representing the largest section of society by far and by virtue of the fact that it sustained the state with its taxes. When Louis XVI agreed to increase representation to the 3rd estate it mediated change and acted as a catalyst summoning masses of political excitement, and 6 weeks later the 3rd estate declared themselves and anyone who would join them, a nation assembly. This is important as it was the first political break and can be argued as being the main starting point of the revolution. From a Marxist view point, the calling of the Estates General was the beginning of the Bourgeois revolution, a class struggle against the aristocracy.
Lefebvre explains:
“the French Revolution was above all, a struggle for equal rights”
The calling of the Estates General incited radical thinking, people started to really question the State. The meeting led to the formation of the National Assembly which established a new legal system, the National Assembly it can be argued, inspired the popular uprising and this is why the Calling of the Estates General and appeasing the 3rd Estate is such a vital factor in the causes of the Revolution.
The writings of Rousseau especially his work ‘The Social Contract’, laid out a basis for a representative government. The English writer and revolutionary Tom Paine named his book which was a defence of the revolution, ‘The Rights of Man’. This influence and diffusion of ideas meant that although there was no leader of the revolution as such, there was an impetus behind it in that. The Enlightenment made reform not only seem desirable, but necessary. The Enlightenment had great appeal to the Bourgeoisie because it talked of free commerce and more liberal freedom, encouraged people to challenge the ideas of absolutism and proposed that equal rights and responsibilities should replace privileges and divine right. They became critical of absolutism, the class system, privileges and the lack of liberal rights.
It can be argued that the Revolution came in response to events and the likes of Rousseau were not calling for a revolution however, the philosophers may not have been revolutionary, but their ideas were!
The Enlightenment added fuel to the fire, however, many French troops (mainly made up from the Bourgeoisie)returned full of new ideologies. The troops talked of ideas of no taxation without representation, all men should have liberal freedoms, that Republic is superior to a monarchy and most, importantly, that it is right to take up arms against tyranny. France was fighting for these ideals yet they did not have them! These new ideas were in vast conflict with the ideas prevalent in the Ancien Regime, they were so important because they added weight to any criticism of the Ancien Regime! America provided an actual system, other than Britain that was up and running and successful and different to France! These mythical ideals served to encourage the discontented Bourgeoisie to look for an alternative.
Antoine Barnave states that:
“a shift in the balance of wealth leads to a shift in the distribution of political power”
From his quote, it is clear that economic factors, were important factors of the French Revolution. The bankruptcy of France and the sheer injustice of the taxation system led to deep rooted resentment amongst the 3rd Estate. However, it is clear to see that there were also other factors, social and political that led to the French revolution such as the monarchical state, the lack of people representation, the hierarchical social system and the influx of new ideologies that suggested better ways of life.
The Marxist view that the revolution was a Bourgeoisie revolution, fuelling capitalism infers that economic factors were the driving force behind the revolution however, Cobban, a leading revisionist states that the capitalist bourgeoisie were not leaders of the Revolution and that they gained little from it, therefore other factors, political and social, must be taken into account. The French revolution, just like the Russian revolution that took place over a century later, was dependant on there being certain conditions at the right time, to bring about change. The economic factors may not have been as influential without the short comings of the political and social system. The causes are complex and include economic, social, political and later, cultural factors. All of these are linked, no one cause can be identified as most important. Unrest was deeply rooted in the dismay of the political structure and social climate of the French system, however, the economic problems added to the unhappiness and acted as a catalyst which lit fires of revolution.
Word count: 2967
Bibliography
1.T C W Blanning, The French Revolution: Aristocrats versus Bourgeois? (London, 1987)
1. W Doyle, The Oxford History of the French Revolution (Oxford Paperbacks, 1990)
2. P McGarr, 'The Great French Revolution', (International Socialism 43,1989)
3.J.M. Thompson ‘The French Revolution’ (Sutton Publishing Paperback, 2001)
4.Alexis de Tocqueville et al, ‘The Old Regime and the French Revolution’ (Doubleday Books ,1955)
5.
6.
7.http://www.members.aol.com/agentmess/frenchrev/summary.html
8.http://www.mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/rev891.html
Quoted in ‘ From the French Revolution to the Nineteen-Thirties’. London: Allan Wingate. (1951)
cited http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod10.html
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture11a.html
Quoted in P McGarr, 'The Great French Revolution', International Socialism 43 (1989), p9