America in 2020 Feels Like France in 1788
By: Nicolas Carteron
Tags: Inequality, Justice, USA, Politics, Society

Lady Guillotine, Anonymous, XVIII century—Public Domain

America in 2020 Feels Like France in 1788

We are in December 2020. Soon, this decade of a year will be behind us, but its human, social, economical, and political consequences will affect us for generations to come. We can safely assume that future historians will regard 2020 as one of the most momentous years in history, a civilisation-defining event.

It is a common game amongst journalists and intellectuals to compare years between themselves to draw parallels and “learn from history.” We see it every time something major happens. The past twelve months have seen their fair share of comparisons for America: to 1828, 1840, 1876, 1918, the 1930s, the 1960s, 1980, and I may be missing a few.

The one year I haven’t seen 2020 in the U.S. compared to is the one it is most alike: 1788 in France, the year before the French Revolution.

Understanding the chain of events that led to the toppling of a thousand-year-old monarchy and the beheading of its king is beyond the scope of an article like this one. Millions of words have been written on the subject and, 231 years later, scholars still argue about it, and it is not my role, as a humble enthusiast, to partake in the debate.

If we turn to a simplified version of things, also known as the Wikipedia page for Causes of the French Revolution, we see that the main drivers behind the revolution were (1) the shifting political and social landscapes; (2) a new cultural environment influenced by the Age of Enlightenment; and (3) a financial and economic crisis affecting all levels of society. The importance of each factor is debated, but they all played a role.

Reading the Wiki article, one can’t help but be stunned by the similitudes with today’s America. You have to replace a few words here and there, and it might be about us, living right now.

Take this paragraph, for instance:

[The] bourgeoisie played a fundamental role in the French economy, accounting for 39.1% of national income despite only accounting for 7.7% of the population. Under the Ancien Régime they were part of the Third Estate [...] Given their […] aspirations on a class-wide level, the bourgeois wanted to ascend through the social hierarchy […] demand[ing] that Louis “assure to the third estate the influence to which it is entitled in view of…its contribution to the public treasury”.

A highly divided society, where your caste is defined at birth and therefore by luck, where social mobility is nearly nonexistent, and where a disenfranchised minority pays a major share of the national income (i.e. tax income)? Sounds familiar.

This desire for higher social position resulted in high levels of […] corruption […] with many bourgeois simply attaching the noble particle ‘de’ to their name or assuming nonexistent titles. Investigations into this behaviour were stopped in 1727. Furthermore, many government offices and positions were sold to raise cash. The bourgeois bought these positions and hence were ennobled; by 1765, six thousand families had gained nobility through this method.

The only way to move upward was through corruption, purchasing government jobs. Reminds you of something?

Such entryism resulted in significant social tension, as the nobles were angered that these bourgeoisie were entering their ranks […] and the bourgeoisie were angered that the nobles were trying to prevent them ascending and being disdainful even when they did ascend. As such, there was significant social tension between the dominant classes at the time of the French Revolution.

Tensions between socio-economic classes? Never heard of that.

There are two main points of view with regard to cultural change as a cause of the French Revolution: the direct influence of Enlightenment ideas on French citizens, meaning that they valued the ideas of liberty and equality discussed by Rousseau and Voltaire et al, or the indirect influence of the Enlightenment insofar as it created a “philosophical society”.

New ideas, put forth by intellectuals, and a new vision of society brought back from the American War of Independence by veterans, help shape a philosophical society whose goal is to promote the ideas of liberty and equality. If we ignore for a second that the Age of Enlightenment was fundamentally a good idea, doesn’t it perfectly capture the discourses of all factions in America: liberty, freedom, equality, justice.

Doesn’t it also encapsulate the current explosions in thought movements in America? From the Gang to BLM, the alt-right to QAnon, whatever their side and their seriousness, and far from me the idea to even remotely compare these groups, one can’t deny the dynamism of the American intellectual scene right now.

As such, when the Estates-General was called, its rigid […] conflicted with the new, informal organisation, and caused dissent; the Third Estate had attained equal status to the nobility, in their view, and when they demanded that the Estates meet as equals, the King’s refusal triggered their secession from royal authority.

A request for equal treatment is met with an authoritative refusal leading to a refusal to obey said authority? Once again, can’t see what you’re talking about.

The Court was deeply in debt, which in conjunction with a poor financial system, created a crisis. In order to service the debt, given the Crown could find no more willing lenders, Louis attempted to call upon the nobility […] However, the nobility refused to help […] and hence Louis was forced to rely upon the Estates-General. This meant that the discontented Third Estate (damaged by poor policy and low standards of living) were given the opportunity to air their grievances, and when they did not receive the desired response, the Revolution proper began; they denied the authority of the King and set up their own government.

A nation indebted to the brink of bankruptcy, in which the elites “refuse to help.” Tell me more!

The French Crown’s debt was caused by [the] intervention in the American War of Independence and the Seven Years’ War, and underlying issues such as an inadequate taxation system. […] France faced an impossible dilemma: how to both maintain its international position and status by engaging in […] conflicts and fund them with an archaic and grossly inefficient system.

Three wars (the War of Austrian Succession, the Seven Year’s War, and the American War of Independence) had cost the crown billions of livres its failing tax system couldn’t repay. Interesting…

The financial system was ineffective in multiple ways. First […] the nobility still wielded significant influence at Court; when […]a Controller-General, suggested taxing luxury items, he was removed from office due to noble opposition. Second, there was a system of tax immunities and feudal privileges that allowed many of France’s wealthy citizens to avoid many taxes, notwithstanding the fact that few direct taxes were levied in the first place.

Alright, so the wealthiest citizens benefit from “tax immunities” and end up paying virtually nothing. Surely someone in government worked to fix this?

One of the ministers that Louis turned to in order to resolve the financial crisis was Turgot, finance minister from 1774–1776. Turgot abolished the regulations surrounding the food supply, which to this point had been strictly controlled by the royal police: they monitored the purity of bread flour, prevented price manipulation via hoarding, and controlled the inflows and outflows of grain to regions facing good and bad harvests. This caused rampant speculation and […] famine and dissent (the Flour War) ensued […] with rumours of [the government’s ] intention to starve the poor both prevalent and widely believed.

The government reaction to the financial crisis and the famine ravaging their country was to deregulate the food market, which led to speculation, more famine, social unrest, and the rise of conspiracy theories.

In 1783, Calonne was appointed as finance minister; Calonne, ahead of his time, advocated increasing public spending to drive up consumption and hence increase the country’s GDP and tax revenues. However, this policy also failed, and only resulted in higher debt and France facing a primary deficit for the first time. The total fiscal deficit reached 140 million in 1787.

Another minister tried a more socially conscious approach, but it also failed. What Wikipedia fails to mention is that the minister had advocated for higher taxes to finance his plan, a proposal that was summarily refused by all those who would stand to suffer from it (they hadn’t nailed down the concept of recusal just yet).

Necker, appointed in 1777–1781 and 1788–1789, used his connections with European banks to facilitate lending in order to fund wars and service the debt, but this proved a temporary measure (as might be expected) and had little long term value.

The government also tried to raise more debt to pay down older debt. The issue was that the more debt France accrued, the higher the interest rate its lenders demanded, forcing the country in a deadly spiral. Sounds familiar?

Furthermore, significant resentment was felt by the poorer members of the Third Estate […] largely due to vast increases in the cost of living. From 1741 to 1785, there was a 62% increase in the real cost of living. In 1788 and 1789 there were poor harvests [that] caused bread prices to rise in conjunction with falling wages. In 1789 itself there was a 25% fall in real wages and an 88% increase in the price of bread.

Vast increases in the cost of living that aren’t met with increases in real wages? For 44 years in a row? Wow, that sounds harsh. This situation couldn’t last for 56 years, never!

These immediate issues increased the resentment of the underlying problem of the inequality of land distribution, in which peasants made up approximately 80% of the French population, but only owned 35% of the land.

France revolted when 80% owned only 35% of the major asset class of the time? Imagine what would happen in a country if, say, 50% owned only 0.7% of it?

[Peasant] had to pay various dues to their noble landlords, taxes which were often disproportionately high in comparison to their income.

A disproportionate tax burden, where the poorest pay the most and the richest pay the least? That wouldn’t float.