Chapter 8 Part One Development Chapter One The World in the 1780s 6

6 With the exception of Great Britain, which experienced revolution in the 17th century, and some smaller countries, absolute monarchy prevailed in all functioning countries of continental Europe. Countries that did not have an absolute monarchy generally fell apart and fell into anarchy , which were annexed by neighboring countries, such as Poland.Hereditary monarchs preside over a caste system of landed nobility in the name of God, supported by traditional organizations and ecclesiastical orthodoxy, surrounded by increasingly bloated institutions that have existed for a long time but do nothing.In an age of intense international competition, the absolute need for cohesive and efficient government forced despots to curb the anarchic tendencies of the nobility and other vested interests for a long time.It is true that they filled government institutions with non-aristocratic civil servants whenever possible.Moreover, by the second half of the eighteenth century these needs, combined with the apparent international victory of the power of capitalist Britain, induced most despots (or rather their advisors) to attempt to introduce economic, social, administrative and A program of knowledge modernization.The monarchs of that age, like the governments of our own, adopted the slogan "enlightened."For similar reasons, princes also adopt "plans," as some in our own time do "plans," with rhetoric rather than deeds.Most people are not interested in doing this because of the general ideals behind an "enlightened" (or "planned") society, but because they want to adopt the latest methods to increase their income, wealth, and power, because This will bring them real benefits.

In contrast, the middle and educated classes, those dedicated to the cause of progress, often pinned their hopes on an "enlightened" monarch, looking to a strong central institution to carry out their ideals.The monarch needed the middle class and its ideals to modernize his country; the weak middle class needed the monarch to deal with the resistance of stubborn aristocratic and clerical interests to the cause of progress. But in fact, however modern and innovative the absolute monarchy was, it still found it impossible to break free from the class system of the landed aristocracy.Indeed, it did not show signs of wanting to break free, after all, it was also a member of the noble landowners.The absolute monarch embodies and embodies the values ​​of the landed aristocracy and relies primarily on them for support.Yet the absolute monarch, theoretically free to do as he pleases, was in practice subordinate to the world of Enlightenment-washed feudal aristocracy or feudalism (a term later made popular by the French Revolution).Such a monarchy is happy to use all available power to strengthen its authority at home, to increase its tax revenue, and to increase its power abroad.This gives it reason to foster that social force that is actually on the rise.It intends to strengthen its political control by sowing discord among groups, classes, and localities.But its horizons are determined by its history, function, and class, and it has not been able to conceive (and never will be able to achieve) the radical social and economic transformation that economic progress requires. What is needed is what the rising social groups call for.

To take an obvious example, few reasonable thinkers (even among the advisers of the monarchs) seriously considered the need to abolish serfdom, and the remaining feudal dependencies on the peasantry.But any "enlightened" program recognizes such reforms as a central point, when in fact, from Madrid to St. Petersburg, from Naples to Stockholm, in the twenty-five years before the French Revolution, No monarch has ever endorsed such a program.Before 1789, the top-down emancipation of peasants actually only happened in atypical small countries like Denmark and the Duchy of Savoy, and only happened in the private estates of certain princes.Joseph II of Austria attempted to emancipate the serfs in 1781, but in the face of political resistance from vested interest groups and unexpected peasant uprisings, this major action failed and had to be abandoned halfway.In Western and Central Europe it was indeed the French Revolution (by direct action, reaction, or example) and the Revolution of 1848 that everywhere abolished feudal land relations.

So there was a latent conflict between the old forces and the new "bourgeois" society, which soon became public.This conflict cannot be resolved within the framework of the existing political system, except, of course, in places like England where the bourgeoisie has already won huge victories.The old system is under pressure from three aspects: new forces, stubborn and increasingly stubborn vested interest groups, and foreign competitors.These three pressures make the old system more fragile. The weakest part of the old system was where the old and new opposing forces tended to meet, in the provinces far from the emperor or in the colonies where the self-government movement was taking place.For example, in the absolute monarchy of the Habsburg dynasty, the reforms of Joseph II in the 1780s caused riots and a revolutionary movement in the Netherlands (now Belgium), which ended in 1789. It is naturally combined with the French Revolution.The white colonists in the overseas colonies of European countries were even more dissatisfied with the central policy of their home countries, which put the interests of the colonies strictly under the suzerain.In America, Spain, France, Great Britain, and Ireland, this self-governing movement of the colonists was everywhere—not always pursuing a system economically more Self-government was achieved through peaceful means, such as Ireland; or achieved through revolutionary means, such as the United States.The growth of the economy, the growth of the colonies, and the tensions caused by the attempted reforms of the "enlightened despotism" all greatly increased the chances of such conflicts in the 1770s and 1780s.

Local or colonial secessions are not fatal in themselves; the old monarchy can survive the loss of a place or two.Great Britain, the chief victim of the self-government movement in the colonies, remained as stable and alive as ever, despite the American Revolution, as it did not suffer from the enfeebling of the old system.There are few places where major shifts of power have occurred solely on the basis of domestic factors, and it is usually international competition that has brought about sudden changes. Because only international competition, that is, war, can test the national strength of a country, and it must be.When this test is not passed, the country will be shaken, disintegrated, or even collapsed.For most of the 18th century, one major rivalry dominated the European international scene and was at the center of periodic outbreaks of total war - 1689-1713, 1740-1748, 1756-1763, 1776-1783 1792-1815, which partially overlaps with the period covered in this book.That is the conflict between Britain and France, and in a certain sense, the conflict between the old and new ruling systems.For France, although the rapid expansion of its trade and colonial empire aroused the hostility of England, it was at the same time the most powerful, most distinguished, and most influential country, in a word, it is a typical , Aristocratic absolute monarchy.The superiority of the new social order over the old is more vividly reflected in nothing than the conflict between these two great powers, England and France.For Britain was not only the winner of the conflict, but all but one of them were to varying degrees decisively victorious.The British organized wars with ease and ensured the war from financial and material resources.On the other hand, despite France's size and potential resources, it was richer than England's, but the French absolute monarchy found itself out of reach.After France's defeat in the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), the rebellion of the North American colonies provided France with an opportunity to turn defeat into victory, and France seized this opportunity.Indeed, Britain suffered a disastrous defeat in the ensuing international conflict, losing the most important part of its American colonies.France, an ally of the nascent United States of America, also became the victor, but the price it paid was extremely high, and the French government's international difficulties inevitably plunged it into a deep domestic political crisis.Six years later, the French Revolution (from the crisis) emerged.