I would agree with the argument that the American Revolution did not involve any significant change in property or class relations within the US, aside from the disposession of some Tory sympathizers who fled. The argument was made by somebody that the American Revolution was a real revolution because it instigated anti-monarchism and republicanism. But it was preceded in that by both the Dutch revolt against the Spanish and, more significantly, by the English Revolution of 1648, culminating in the beheading of Charles I and the rule by the Long Parliament.
As a curious aside, it has recently been found that the US Declaration of Independence parallels in significant ways the the proclamation issued by the Dutch rebels against the Spanish rule. This means that Thomas Jefferson was not only a slaveholding hypocrite, but maybe a plagiarist as well. If he keeps this up, he might end up being as bad as Paul Krugman, :-).
As regards the French Revolution, I would remind Louis P. that there was a major transfer of control of land in the countryside from the aristocracy to the peasantry, a point I made in an earlier post that Louis ignored. This was only partly undone by the Restoration. Thus the French Revolution still has a major claim of being a genuine revolution, even if not of the sort often claimed by commentators focusing solely on events in Paris.
BTW, Louis, I bet you did not expect your posting on Buddhist socialite chic in New York to trigger the long thread that has followed up on it (of which these posts are a part), eh? Barkley Rosser On Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:09:05 -0500 Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:
> >So, I would say the "standard" Marxist
> >answer is that the Am. Rev. was a
> >truly great rev.
> >
> >
> >Charles Brown
> >
>
> Lenin's remarks to American workers was not a Marxist analysis of the
> American revolution. It was instead a typical revolutionary greeting that
> the Comintern trotted out on special occasions, to greet delegations, etc.
>
> A more interesting discussion of the American revolution would involve the
> degree to which social-economic forms were transformed. Revolutions are
> supposed to abolish one form of property ownership and institute another.
> In Cuba the army and police marched into privately-owned plantations,
> factories and banks and announced that they now belonged to the people.
>
> In point of fact nothing like this occurred in the French Revolution or the
> American Revolution. Furthermore, Europe generally evolved peacefully
> toward modern capitalist relations as the aristocracy happily joined the
> bourgeoisie in exploiting the working-class. Everything that was
> revolutionary about 1789 and 1776 can be traced to the plebian elements
> like the sans-culottes or Tom Paine, who struggled against the so-called
> "revolutionary" bourgeoisie.
>
> I have attempted to debate Charles on these questions on the Marxism list,
> but he seems to lack the time and interest to dig into the historical
> detail. Quoting a speech or article from Lenin to make a point is the curse
> of Marxism. It is the sign of dogmatism. Burford is fond of this practice
> as well.
>
> If we can't get past this type of "holy scripture" approach, then we might
> as well leave politics to bourgeois ideologists, who seem much more
> motivated to dig beneath the surface. Can you imagine Francis Fukuyama
> quoting Adam Smith to make a point? No wonder the left is in such horrible
> shape.
>
> Louis Proyect
>
> (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu