|
pan--
the debt created by the american revolution took the form of bonds. that's how the french state paid for all it's military adventures. essentially, the state would borrow money from the aristocracy BECAUSE THE ARISTOCRACY CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF TAXES not the state. so it's a fundamental mistake to see in the factoids arrayed in the wiki pages that you quoted as meaning that you can project the current notion of taxation and how it works back to before 1787---because, like it or not, the modern system of taxation--along with the modern state---were CREATIONS of the french revolution.
generally, folk point to the cahiers de doléances that were issued in preparation for the convening of the estates general with crystalizing a whole host of problems---and the shape of the revolution emerged across this process of collecting the cahiers. the process involved a nation-wide network of town meetings essentially in the course of which people actually talked to each other and collectively drew up lists of problems or greivances---THAT was a fundamental process and the revolution came out of aristocratic attempts to shove the genie back in the bottle if you like by jimmying around the composition and rules of the estates general.
basically, the aristocratic "revolt" of 1787 set into motion a process that escaped them almost immediately.
this process turned on them, ate them alive.
so there is no way to consider the french revolution as a "tax revolt" in anything like a modern context. it's simply wrong, pan. and it's not central to your main arguments, so i don't know why you'd bother trying to defend it as if it was.
i'm not particularly interested in an argument about how to interpret the french revolution with you.
if you want a better idea of what i'm referencing, start with reading tocqueville. a wiki page is not a substitute.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|