The French Revolution occurred at the end of the 18th century, and the October Revolution in Russia occurred at the same time as the February Revolution in 1917. China’s long-term revolution has now spanned more than a century. The deeds of these 200 years have been As for the Far East and the West, the geographical environments are different and the social backgrounds are complicated. The results are of course highly inconsistent. However, from a long-term perspective, the above three movements all occurred in countries with a continental character, and they were all forced to abandon the past system of relying on agriculture as the basis of the national economy and adopt a trend of digital management.
These three countries encountered many difficulties in the process of reform. Because the agricultural system in the past was too deeply entrenched and political centralization involved too much, it was not easy to change. The new society needs to be based on business habits, and its activities should be based on the functions of low-level structures. The ancien regime in France, Russia under the Tsarist rule, and traditional China could not adapt to the environment immediately because their existing systems were unable to produce formulas and laws for free exchange of various economic factors to meet this need.
The situation encountered by these three countries cannot be entirely attributed to the poor organization in the past. They all have reflected on their past and demonstrated the expertise of bureaucracy. Louis XIV of France (reigned 1643-1715) claimed that "I am the country", which shows that he enjoyed great success in his country. Caesarine II of Tsarist Russia (reigned 1762-1796) and Alexander I (reigned 1801-1825) were both enlightened rulers during the "enlightened autocracy" period, and their civil and military skills were similar to those of Kangxi (1662-1722) during the prosperous Qing Dynasty. , Yongzheng (1723-1735), Qianlong (1736-1795) three dynasties have different approaches but the same purpose. However, the grandeur of its appeal depends on the environment and background of the 18th century and before. When it comes to capitalism and mercantilism, not only are the organizations and structures of these countries unable to compete with them, but their own existence is also in question. Even the actions and measures of the past have become obstacles and obstacles in the present.
Class struggle has been proposed in the above three movements. Lenin advocated "the transfer of all power to the Soviets", obviously imitating the strategy of the "Montagnards" using the "sans-culottes" (details below) during the French Revolution. China's organization of the so-called "Rebellion General Headquarters" during the Cultural Revolution was not unique, because the "insurrection comite" also appeared in Paris in the late 18th century. But are the hardships faced by France, Russia, and China actually due to social and economic inequality, and the conflict of class interests being the focus of all problems? On the other hand, is it because of the experiences of France, Russia and China that in the future the world's decision-making will only take the path of capitalism, because it is "real gold that is not afraid of fire"?
The problem doesn’t end there. Capitalism is a type of organization and a movement that occurred before the French Revolution, but the term capitalism was coined because of the French Revolution and its process (see Chapter 1 for details), so it has a history of nearly two hundred years. With subsequent developments, especially recent developments in mainland China and the Soviet Union, it is still questionable whether this term, a concept that is opposed to socialism, can remain intact. This book adopts the inductive method and advocates first presenting the experiences of France, the Soviet Union, and China in entering into the process of digital management, or in attempting to enter this realm. From a technical point of view, if we can conduct a practical anatomy of the above three movements and refer to the information in the previous chapters, we should be able to provide a more objective but more specific answer to the above questions when making the conclusion in the next chapter.
The French Revolution
The French Revolution is a subject that is extremely prone to disputes. The historian Georges Lefebvre wrote in 1932: "The old system had put the history of French agriculture on the path of capitalism, and the Revolution suddenly completed this work." This statement cannot be agreed with by other writers. Lefebvre mentioned in another book: “The progress of capitalism has not accelerated in this decade.
On the contrary, the environment only reduces it. "In fact, although Lester's two statements are contradictory, they can still be based on simultaneously. Because the former refers to capitalism as a system and involves organizations; the latter refers to the actual amount of accumulated capital and the mobilization of manpower. One is a long-term view, and the other is a short-term judgment. However, the difference between them is very easy to cause misunderstanding.
Writing history from personal experience is a well-known problem. An example is the debate between Alphonse Aulard, the first professor of the French Revolution at the University of Paris, and his disciple Albert Mathiez in the late years of the French Revolution. Danton, Marat and Robespierre were the leading figures. After Marat was assassinated by the female assassin, only Danton and Robespierre were left. In Olard's view, Danton was a hero. Robespierre was both vain and nerdy, so he decided on the path to revolution based on his personal likes and dislikes. Madiz emphasized that Robespierre and his comrades really sincerely benefited the people, while Danton was good at corruption. They can betray the revolution at any time. Not to mention the special books they have written, they have been teaching and editing special journals for decades. In addition, they have written nearly thousands of books on various topics on the great revolution, often more than ten volumes. There are a lot of journal articles. The date of the publication of this book coincides with the 200th anniversary of Louis XVI’s Estates-General and the Bastille prison riot. The French are preparing to provide it in commemoration. New thoughts, I predict that there will be a dazzling array of articles about the Great Revolution. We have exhausted our energy to read one thousand percent of their works, so how can we extract the essence and write a short review?
But? History is a very broad realm, and we all have different goals in it. In our opinion, the French Revolution is a common topic in human history, and it will affect the development of other countries. Without paying attention to the subject matter, the deeds in the previous chapters of this book will not be explained, and the subsequent developments will not be explained. Under this international attention, the French Revolution as we know it has its exemplary role in the United States. , Japan and Germany lacked central institutions in the past, so there were fewer obstacles to the creation of new institutions. This has given us a pre-arranged reference for the hypothesis. Therefore, our observations focus on the sudden reorganization of France at the end of the 18th century. The difficulties encountered are not focused on the personal aspects. Here is an example:
Louis XVI's attempt to escape in June 1791 was a legendary episode in the history of the Revolution. Carefully, they initially broke through the difficulties. However, as soon as they left Paris, the group relaxed their guard. The king was discovered twice, and the carriage could not maintain the planned speed. As a result, the people who were preparing to respond on the way had to evacuate their posts, and the king's horses were sent to China. It was dark at Varennes, and the delay here was a major reason for the interception. Warrenne was not far from the border, and there were Austrian troops ready to meet him. The failure to do so certainly made those who sympathized with the king and queen feel regretful. Even historians could not help but wonder in their hearts: How would the situation change in the future if Louis had arrived at the border safely? However, this kind of fantasy is not only unhelpful, but may also cause illusions. Later facts proved that the problems in France at that time could no longer be solved by strengthening or even reforming the country's high-level institutions. Under this situation, the power of the king was minimal.
The French Revolution had its basic reasons behind the scenes. Its ingredients were complex and majestic, and no one could control the situation at the time. Otherwise, so many revolutionaries and so-called counterrevolutionaries would never have been guillotined. Moreover, these brewing factors appear suddenly and do not stay at each stage for a long time. Therefore, everyone is not encouraged to take the initiative immediately. When Lefebvre described the Parisian women who forced Louis to move from Versailles to Paris in October 1789, he wrote: "No one could have dreamed that the revolution had just begun." It can be seen that people always thought that the drizzle and breeze of that day were Already like the huge waves and hurricanes of the future.
Louis XVI was once accused by historians of having a wandering mind. At first he was given the chance to run away but refused to do so because it was not regal to evade responsibility. When Paris was unstable, he deployed troops to defend himself and sometimes suppressed members of parliament. However, when he was threatened by the rioters, he refused to use force. He plotted against the queen many times, only to change his mind at the last moment. Only when he finally died on the guillotine could he die an honorable death. After careful analysis, we believe that the main reason for its lack of decision-making is the lack of clarity on the situation. And it cannot be said to be untrue that his concepts of responsibility for all parties conflict with each other. When the revolution first began, no one could predict the breadth of its implications. Even a few people made bold views, which later proved to be too narrow. The Great Revolution led to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy through policy improvements, then moved forward to establish the Republic of China, then further modified the entire human culture, ranging from ethics and religion, to the calendar and weights and measures, and finally changed to a military dictatorship, and was subject to international interference. The remaining waves oscillated several times. ten years. Under this situation, we can only understand what Clemenceau, nicknamed the "Tiger Prime Minister" during World War I, said: "A revolution is a whole, a big square." Because impersonal factors (impersonal factors) are more important than personal factors, this also means that collective responsibility (corporate responsibil-ity) is more important than individual responsibility. It is also because of non-personal factors that the Revolution can be connected with the history of countries (such as China) that have no direct relationship with France.
To accuse King Louis of being unwise and courageous is to accuse Robespierre of being unjust and unkind, and even more to accuse Napoleon of being unfaithful and unfaithful. Robespierre wore a light blue coat, aristocratic breeches, and powdered hair. His confidant and comrade Saint-Just wore earrings. Dandong showed personal interests when negotiating with foreign countries, which was at least insincere. But Napoleon was also accused of marrying a disreputable woman and relying on nepotism to rise through the ranks. As for starting a fortune through the revolution, there are sisters and brothers in the Bonaparte family who all broke the soil and became kings, or took the title of nobility. Napoleon's plunder abroad was never publicly explained. In short, morality is the last link of truth. Once the highest quality in the world is proposed, there is no room for turning back, and the story has to end. None of the above comments and accusations come close to the subject we are trying to examine. The Revolution attempted to redefine the standards of human morality, and its record should not first be divided by moral issues. Let us quote Lefebvre's words again: He said: "The moralist will praise bravery and condemn cruelty, but he cannot explain accidents."
The following is our view on the Great Revolution, focusing on technology, And in the discussion, he traced the most basic facts of the revolutionary process: the occurrence of the Great Revolution is generally believed to have begun in 1789. In fact, the Paris parlement the previous year rejected the king's decree to impose taxes and amend judicial procedures, forcing the king to convene a meeting of the three estates. Before the prologue, it had already sent a warning that the nobility and privileged classes were not restrained. This relationship is very important, because the occurrence of the Great Revolution was not a fatal conflict between one class and another class, but an intricate overlap of interests and interests between various classes and regions. In the future, revolutionaries will be able to see clearly that class struggle is actually a tool for solving problems. In the future, this practice was also seen in Russia and China.
The French Parliament is different from the British Parliament (Parliament). It is established by region and is not a legislative body. Like the High Court, it also maintains a style similar to the Chinese Tang Dynasty's "subordinate ministers and provincial governors." All laws must be "registered" by the parliament before they can take effect, so administrative agencies cannot ignore them. In addition, it inherited the legacy of the feudal system and the independent judiciary, which could not be controlled by a particularly powerful monarch. In 1788, the Paris parliament was in conflict with Louis XVI's administration, which resulted in a political deadlock.
At this time, the country's finances were also at a low ebb. It turned out that France's military and political strength in the 18th century was only superficial. The country relied on debt to survive, and its army relied on German and Swiss mercenaries to enrich its ranks. The previous international wars were either disastrous defeats or inconclusive. The United States' participation in the War of Independence was considered a victor, but it also resulted in a loss of money.
At the same time, financial difficulties cannot be solved internally, because the palace's expenses are less than 6% of the budget, and the interest paid on public debt exceeds half of the budget.
The population of France at that time was estimated to be between 23 million and 25 million, with Paris exceeding 600,000. With France’s wealth of resources, if the economy was well organized, its national economy and people’s livelihood would be better than those of neighboring countries, such as Britain and the Netherlands should not be overshadowed. Moreover, France’s national economy already has a foundation to take off. Since the 17th century, the mercantilist policy was vigorously advocated by famous ministers Richelieu and Colbert. France's shipbuilding, overseas trade, textile, glass industry and luxury goods manufacturing have all made great progress. The organization of joint-stock companies was also roughly at the same time as that of other advanced countries. The Paris Stock Exchange dealt with speculative business until the climax of the Revolution and was suspended during the "Time of Terror" in 1793. However, in terms of legal system, these new economic factors cannot be combined into a self-regulating structure (from our perspective, capitalism has not yet matured), but can only be flattered by the breath of the bureaucratic organization. The latter can openly sell various business privileges. Now it seems that the word "corruption" can no longer describe this situation. The main reason is that industry and commerce cannot be merged into one unit with agriculture. Its wealth base is fragile and its benefits only benefit a part of the population. Compared with the backward situation of Germany (details in Chapter 6), it is too much.
The Estates-General convened in 1789 showed that France actually had three systems. Its principle is similar to the coexistence of feudalism and prefectures and counties in China before the Wu-Chu Rebellion in the early Han Dynasty, but it is far more complicated. The first level (First Estate) consists of monks, Catholic abbots and ordinary monks and nuns, numbering no more than 100,000. They had their own administrative system, religious courts, and generally collected tithes from believers. They also had real estate owned by monasteries. Many bishops and abbots were actually lords of villages. The monks not only supervise the health and death of all believers, but also have jurisdiction over their marriage and inheritance, as well as education and charity. The first level does not pay taxes to the king, but traditionally contributes voluntarily to the treasury after consultation, and sometimes pays a portion of the interest on the national debt, but there is no exception.
The second level is the nobility. The total number is only 400,000. There are mainly two types. One is the original warrior class, some of which can be traced back to pre-medieval German origins, and some of which were added later. The other type is that judges of courts at all levels and heads of local managers generally contribute funds to purchase them. At the end of the 18th century, the French nobility was extremely mixed, some were extremely rich and some were extremely poor. Generally, titles are inherited by the eldest son, but there are also new titles of nobility, which only extend to the recipient himself. Navy and army officers were led by nobles, and sometimes their status included privileges. The old concept that every noble was the lord of the manor no longer existed. Because French land could be bought and sold freely, sometimes entire estates fell into the hands of civilian buyers. However, the feudal system was not completely abolished. Some nobles were still lords and still opened manor courts. It is estimated that on the eve of the Revolution, about 1/5 of the French land was still in the hands of the nobles. In addition to collecting feudal customs from farmers, they also insisted on their water conservancy rights, mineral rights, tree planting rights, and hunting rights.
The nobility had no collective organization, and it was extremely difficult to collect direct taxes from them. On the one hand this is also due to the organization of French local governments. The development of history made the central area of ????the French territory belong to the king in the early days, and the administrators assigned by the central government were generally unrestricted. However, each unit in the frontier had a contract with the king when it was subordinated. Each unit also had a hereditary local chief and a representative local body to preside over it. Taxation still needs to be negotiated. Moreover, the continued existence of the manor system is the reason why it is difficult to make precise surveys and statistics. The feudal rules of Europe never specify what kind of industry is owned by which person. Instead, only the majority of people enjoy privileges on the same land, and they have to farm according to the rules. This further hinders the advancement of agriculture. In addition, entire cities and towns enjoy different privileges.
The third level is civilians, who are said to account for 94% of the country's population, most of whom are farmers. The French husbandry system has been abolished long ago, and except for a few areas in the northeast corner, the husbandry system no longer exists. Ordinary farmers can purchase property freely. The ratio of homesteaders to tenant farmers varied widely from place to place. The general difficulty is that the cultivated land is divided too small and agricultural technology cannot be improved.
The population has increased significantly in the past few decades, and most farmers feel oppressed. Whenever a natural disaster occurs, there is a risk of food shortage, which also affects the lives of citizens. According to research, compared with the early 18th century on the eve of the Great Revolution, land rent increased by 98%, prices increased by 65%, and wages only increased by 22%. Therefore, the lives of ordinary people can only get worse and worse. The harvest in 1788 was not good, winter was severe, rivers were frozen, and food was both scarce and unable to be transported. The next year, as many as half of the city's citizens were unemployed, which was the main reason for fueling the momentum of the revolution. The commotion in Paris during the summer caused rumors and disturbances to spread into the countryside and throughout the country.
The urban bourgeoisie are the leaders of the revolution. It is natural for them to fight for their own rights, and it is natural for them to hate the privileges enjoyed by nobles. But the simple conflict of class interests is not the main motivation that makes them sacrifice their lives to launch a political wave. Because they are successful in their careers, they can also marry nobles or buy titles and donate official positions. It's just that they feel mentally depressed under the old system. Since the Enlightenment, various concepts of natural human rights and national covenants have penetrated into the hearts of the people. The distance between ideas and knowledge and social environment and living habits is the most powerful condition in modern society that drives the middle class to participate in the revolution. France already has this background at this time. Later, bankers and wealthy businessmen contributed funds to citizen riots, lawyers participated in the organization with their eloquence, Sieyes participated in the revolution as a member of the religious order, Mirabeau reduced his aristocracy to a representative of the people, Danton, Robespierre and the Great Most revolutionaries were lawyers by training. Marat is a doctor turned journalist. None of the above can easily explain their state of mind and actions based on their own class interests. At the same time, the bourgeoisie (bollfg60isi) is an extremely broad and non-marginal term. From the richest businessmen to the almost privileged class, down to the craftsmen operating on a small business, they can all be called the bourgeoisie or the citizen class. Although the Great Revolution made the bourgeoisie rise, Many members of the bourgeoisie were also liquidated.
Now let us recall the situation when Louis XVI convened the meeting of the Estates-General: this kind of meeting has not been held since 1614. Because in the past, his ancestors, Louis XIV and Louis XV, had reigned for 131 years. They focused on personal politics and lacked a sound organizational system. At this time, the purpose of the king convening the three-level parliament was nothing more than to plan a tax plan and solve financial problems. However, the lower class has been heavily exploited. It not only holds the feudal status, but also pays all direct taxes (taille), provides labor (corvee), and has to bear most of the salt tax (gabelle). Tax. The new burden cannot be allocated directly to other level two. In the past, the overlapping framework of public and private financial matters has not been reorganized for a long time. It is impossible to know where taxes can be increased and where rents should be increased. Therefore, the collection of taxes and rents mostly relies on the contract system. Only professional collectors who are familiar with local and individual conditions can perform tasks and make profits from them. If the situation could still be managed numerically, there would be no need to trouble them. At the same time, there are many problems that affect the whole body. For example, the trend will intensify in the future, nobles will flee abroad, and many people in the lower class will lose their jobs. Raising the price of grain should be beneficial to farmers, but farmers growing grapes and making wine in the Midwest are complaining. To improve agricultural production, the first step was to enclose land so that arable land could be put into cultivation. However, the first opposition was the farmers; they lost the right to collect wood and graze livestock on public land, and immediately became unable to make a living. There is no way to plan or find solutions to problems like this.
So judging from various non-personal factors, France is no longer able to negotiate peacefully and reorganize fairly. The only option was to throw everything into a big melting pot and wait for the arrangements of history, but no one saw through this situation at the time.
When the Estates-General convened in 1789, the various levels and local units, in accordance with previous regulations, listed their demands for petitions to the king, called. ahi6y, we might as well call it "Chen Qing Biao". Among the second-level requirements, there is a section that requires the king to fix the status of the nobility. The rank of each person must be carefully determined, so that they can form their own financial group and system like monks. From now on, the court must not confuse the status by selling officials and titles. The king's ministers must be selected from the nobles, and their children are the responsibility of the royal family. educate.
It seems surprising to us today that such demands are out of touch with current affairs. The Great Revolution aimed to liquidate the nobility. Once the steps began, many nobles were guillotined without trial. So why were they so domineering and arrogant in the first place? Instead of humbly asking for forgiveness when they should have asked for forgiveness, they instead boasted and demanded the enhancement of their privileges?
This kind of behavior can also be explained by citing the situation of non-personal relationship:
Making a statement of complaint is also a legal procedure. The Estates-General turned out to be a dialogue between the king and his subjects. Of course, the king wanted representatives at all levels to make joint decisions on tax collection, and the latter took this opportunity to convey their opinions to the higher authorities. If you have power, you have obligations, and if you have obligations, you have power. All of the above are in line with the feudal system. It's just that since the meeting is divided into three levels, the shadow of class struggle has already been cast when the meeting is convened.
Delegates at all levels are elected by local units. The procedures are different. They usually go through three or four primary elections and re-elections. Therefore, representatives can only be regarded as being authorized by local units to participate, rather than participating in consultations on state affairs with their personal opinions. After such an arrangement, the electors of each local unit also feel that they have become a public opinion institution. Unless their class and local petitions are answered, they have no shirk. So, starting with Paris, which was both the capital and a place where fashionable people discussed politics, many journals and pamphlets were produced to incite revolutionary sentiments. Since then, 407 "electors" in Paris have held regular meetings after electing representatives to the three-level congress. The Paris Commune and the National Guard were born from this meeting of electors. These institutions and organizations, as well as the clubs where Parisian politicians often met, became the basic force in instigating the revolution. Later, they not only maintained order but also instigated the mob. The situation was much the same in other regions. When the riots in Paris began in 1789, the prefects (intendants) sent by the old system to various places had escaped. The organization of the government had collapsed. The towns generally followed the methods of Paris, except for conveying to the National Assembly ( Except for the bills of the National Assembly (see below), it no longer accepts the command of the administrative system under the jurisdiction of the king.
So the weakness of the old system is one of the main reasons why the situation is out of control. This situation also made the French Revolution close to the Russian October Revolution, but not comparable to the German unification movement. On July 14, 1789, the Parisian masses first broke into the Wounded and Sick Soldiers' Building and obtained 32,000 muskets. Then they attacked the Bastille Prison. The purpose was to obtain weapons and gunpowder and eliminate the threat of the fortress to the Parisian citizens. It was not the so-called liberation of prisoners. . The news spread everywhere, many towns and villages responded, and peasants attacked the noble strongholds.
For the sake of simplicity, the Great Revolution can be described in two stages: the early stage lasted for more than three years from the opening of the Estates-General in May 1789 to August 1792, and its purpose was to formulate a constitutional monarchy. In August 1792, Louis lost all power, and the revolution moved from moderate to extreme, and finally to the Reign of Terror (referred to as Terror), which ended with the "Thermidorian Reaction" in July 1794. month, and the later stage also lasted nearly two years. From then until Napoleon mutinied and seized power in November 1799, more than five years were considered a period of consolidation and consolidation.
When the three-level meeting was held, there were about 600 representatives from the third level and about 300 representatives from the first and second levels. At first, the king and parliament insisted on following the practice of 1614, in which the three levels discussed and voted separately. If a certain motion received the consent of both levels, it would be passed. Obviously, this cannot make any changes to the national system, and even if you want to change the principles and policies, it will be difficult. Therefore, the representatives of the third level advocated that all representatives consult together and vote collectively. Under this idea, the three-level meeting became the "National Assembly" (National Assembly). This organization later called itself the "Constituent Assembly" [Constituent Assembly]. The representative political body produced by the Constitution-making Conference is called the "Legislative Assembly", which met in 1791.
All of the above are different from the "National Convention" in the late revolutionary period). Because the king blocked the venue of the parliament, these representatives gathered at the indoor tennis court of the Palace of Versailles. They also encouraged some representatives of lower-level monks and progressive nobles to participate. They were also afraid that the king would suppress it with force. The participants signed an oath and said that unless the purpose was achieved, , never disperse. It mentioned that the purpose of convening the National Assembly was to "draft a constitution, give new life to the country, and determine the correct principles of the monarchy."
This is how the revolution unfolds. Seeing that the situation was out of control, Louis XVI ordered representatives of the first and second levels to participate as one. His concession was not motivated by enlightened views but by internal and external threats. Paris was both in a food panic and unaware of the king's intentions. He concentrated troops inside and outside Paris to prevent the mob from rising and to protect the safety of the National Assembly. However, once the so-called mob is organized, it is actually the revolutionary mass force and the talisman of some representatives in the National Assembly.
The three-level conference met for discussion on May 5th. On June 20th, there was a tennis court oath. On June 25th, the Paris Commune was organized. On July 14th, the Bastille was captured. On July 17th, On October 5, Louis XVI went on a tour of Paris, hoping to soothe public sentiment. On October 5, more than 6,000 women on the streets of Paris braved the rain, holding javelins and two cannons, and walked 12 miles to the Palace of Versailles to petition the National Assembly and the King. , made a request for "bread". With the support of 20,000 national troops behind them, the king and queen were forced to move from Versailles to the Tuileries in Paris. Two weeks later, the National Assembly met in Paris. From then on, both parties were under the shadow of the Paris masses. The masses or mobs commanded by the Paris Commune had the power to influence the overall development of future national affairs.
To this day, no precise explanation can be found for these deeds. For example, the riots in Paris and the women's demonstrations were obviously planned and hosted by someone. who are they? What was the original purpose? Although historians have their own guesses, the person who most likely benefited from it was the Duke of Orleans, the distant uncle of the current king. He himself wanted to be a constitutional monarch. It is also possible that Seas and Mihapo had foreseen this, and even Some people suspect that LaFayette, who became famous during the American Revolutionary War and is now elected as the commander of the National Army. Several chief writers of newspapers were also accused of instigating the initiative, but no one provided reliable evidence. In short, it is difficult to write a definite history from personal observation.
In addition, the harvest in 1789 was good, the food problem was solved for a time, and the tense atmosphere had eased. So why are earth-shaking events yet to unfold, and why the civil war and the continuous bloodshed on the guillotine are still happening three years later?
The National Assembly decided to take over the real estate of the monastery, abolish the tithe, relieve all kinds of feudal obligations, unconditionally abolish the personal obligations, and redeem the land obligations at a price. It also adopted the "Declaration of Human and Civil Rights", the first paragraph of which advocates that "all human beings enjoy freedom and equal rights from birth to the present, and social differences only arise under the conditions of the same utility." Furthermore, these rights are enumerated as "liberty, property, and the right to resist oppression." Citizens are equal before the law. The new law has yet to be announced, and the new constitution divides citizens into two categories: "active citizens" and "non-active citizens." The former have minimum taxes and the right to vote. The Legislative Assembly convened in 1791 was formed according to this procedure. Its organization was unicameral, so there was no distinction between aristocrats and commoners, not to mention monks. The King maintains limited veto power over bills passed by the Legislative Assembly (the Legislative Assembly is held every two years, and the King can veto the same bill in two terms, so the veto is valid for a maximum of 4 years). To cope with the current financial problems, it was decided to issue a kind of paper money, called "assignats", which would be secured by confiscating the monastery's real estate.
It seems that the reforms included in these provisions are extremely extensive, and the steps are gentle and compromising. Why can't such a plan turn hostility into friendship? There must be something fishy in it.
The abolition of feudal privileges was not passed through detailed examination and consideration in the National Assembly, but a small number of premeditated people decided to hold a meeting at 5 o'clock in the evening (August 4, 1789), and the meeting was extended to two in the morning. The decision was voted on, and the debate procedures were pre-arranged. For such an important reform, most of the people concerned must admit that it is a desired outcome and actively carry out it. Only then can we hope to overcome the technical difficulties. But in fact, when the legislation was enacted, it was hoped that its actions would be like "magic", so there was a lot of propaganda and little actual effect. At this time, the remaining feudal elements in France were not visible as a whole, but penetrated into various economic lives in the countryside. For example, "prestige" came with privileges; in many cases, personal obligations and land obligations were inseparable. Distinguish; many feudal privileges are based on occupation, and some are based on contract. Even if the peasants had to pay a price of 20 or 25 years to redeem the land, it would be technically difficult. Moreover, some of the land was subject to tenant transfers, and it was not clear who could take advantage of it. The lords used the excuse that unless the ransom was collected, the privileges would still remain. It remains the same as before, and the situation varies from east to west, north and south. Therefore, a piece of legislation in the National Assembly only caused all kinds of disputes. Some farmers fought for the benefits brought to them by the bill, and they continued to struggle until 1793. The plot was a "real civil war."
It seemed easy to confiscate the temple property and abolish the tithe, but later it became more involved. Since the bishops and abbots lost their income, Congress decided to pay their salaries, so all religious officials became government employees. And because the administrative regions of the country were organized at this time (refer to the previous section, French provinces are divided into central and border regions), the national territory was divided into administrative divisions (depart-ments) of roughly equal area according to the mountains and rivers within the territory, so the old bishoprics were abolished. The new bishopric overlapped with the administrative district. Under the policy of unity of politics and religion, the National Assembly passed the "Civil Constitution of the Clergy" in 1791, which stipulated that bishops should be elected by voters and no longer recognized by the pope, and all monks must swear an oath of loyalty to the country. . One modern writer believed that this move "interrupted the unity of the country and civil war began."
It is difficult for non-believers to grasp the mystery of this. The Roman Church came into being when Christ gave the mandate to Paul. For thousands of years, the bishops' mantles have been passed down from generation to generation, which means that God has sent orders to people. Many religious officials already feel it is inappropriate to reduce the number of bishops and change their jurisdictions. Because from a theological standpoint, these measures have defiled the roots of their sacred mission. As for swearing an oath to the human government, it is equivalent to converting all bishops and abbots into political instructors. Some monks are more optimistic and feel that serving the Lord and civil administration can be regarded as two paths, but few are in favor of taking the oath. Among the 160 bishops, only 7 took the oath. Later, the pope rebuked the "organizing act", deepening the divisions within France. patriot