What do you think?
Rate this book
How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois Revolutions?
An abridged edition of the insightful work praised as “an impressive contribution both to the history of ideas and to political philosophy” (Alasdair MacIntyre, author of After Virtue ).
Once of central importance to left historians and activists alike, recently the concept of the “bourgeois revolution” has come in for sustained criticism from both Marxists and conservatives. In this abridged edition of his magisterial How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois Revolutions? Neil Davidson expertly distills his theoretical and historical insights about the nature of revolutions, making them accessible for general readers.
Through extensive research and comprehensive analysis, Davidson demonstrates that what’s at stake is far from a stale issue for the history books—understanding that these struggles of the past offer far reaching lessons for today’s radicals.
Once of central importance to left historians and activists alike, recently the concept of the “bourgeois revolution” has come in for sustained criticism from both Marxists and conservatives. In this abridged edition of his magisterial How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois Revolutions? Neil Davidson expertly distills his theoretical and historical insights about the nature of revolutions, making them accessible for general readers.
Through extensive research and comprehensive analysis, Davidson demonstrates that what’s at stake is far from a stale issue for the history books—understanding that these struggles of the past offer far reaching lessons for today’s radicals.
440 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 1, 2010
53 people are currently reading
545 people want to read
About the author
Neil Davidson
47 books13 followersNeil Davidson lectured in sociology at the University of Glasgow and is the author of six books, including the Deutscher Prize–winning Discovering the Scottish Revolution and, most recently, Nation-States. He wrote some of the most widely read analyses of the previous referendum and Scottish independence for journals including Bella Caledonia, Jacobin, New Left Review, Radical Philosophy and Salvage.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
December 9, 2024
Incredible. Very dense. Davidson masterfully uses his sources to really illuminate this concept. His concluding discussion on permanent revolution should be ready by every Marxist, as it poses a useful antidote to decades old dogma. Despite (maybe because of?) the Cliff-isms, this a really coherent and useful understanding of the era of bourgeois revolutions.
January 20, 2016
Would've marked it as 5/5 but part 3 was a bit of a slog through the history of ways historians attempted to redefine and respond to the concept of 'bourgeois revolutions'.
Excellent book, wide-ranging and clear and historical nuggets on nearly every page.
Excellent book, wide-ranging and clear and historical nuggets on nearly every page.
August 4, 2024
Took my time with this, worth it. Find people complaining about size or breadth a bit dead - sometimes you’ve just got to lock in.
The sheer range and scale of this book is terrifying. Feels like the accumulation of a life’s intellectual commitment laid bare for the reader - snark at other thinkers and all.
Davidson’s actual end position, that we must return to the law of uneven and combined development to reinvigorate both Marxist history and strategy, could be easily missed amongst the variety of historiographical points made, but is a crucial intervention.
The sheer range and scale of this book is terrifying. Feels like the accumulation of a life’s intellectual commitment laid bare for the reader - snark at other thinkers and all.
Davidson’s actual end position, that we must return to the law of uneven and combined development to reinvigorate both Marxist history and strategy, could be easily missed amongst the variety of historiographical points made, but is a crucial intervention.
Read
October 21, 2025Dnf. Interesting w regards to bourgeois ideologists’ own theorization of bourgeois revolution and the concept of “passive revolution” and corrective in explaining what a bourgeois revolution is from the position of Marxism, but it’s Cliffite dogmatism w its stale and silly analysis of “second international Marxism”, “Soviet state capitalism”, and what have you made it a total slog I lost interest in finishing.
July 3, 2018
Perhaps it's just my lifelong interest in Lincoln, but I find the US Civil War makes a useful index for the narratives and theories of lefty historians. Any adequate reading will need heaps of nuance and specificity; any compelling reading will still need a theory. Davidson's argument here meets both tests. He follows the mainstream accounts of James McPherson and David Blight in depicting the genesis and function of US anti-blackness (correctly IMHO). His added Marxian insight is that neither the slave system nor industrial capitalism could have coexisted alongside the other-- an insight made all the more helpful by its resonance with Lincoln's own analysis.
To the main point: the Civil War is the last and pivotal example Davidson offers of "bourgeois revolutions," by which he means revolutions which establish capitalism in place of feudal or tributary economies. As such, the book also functions as a decent primer on some theories of revolution. It helps that Davidson writes eloquently and often with good humor to boot.
One caveat: As with most lefty history I've read recently (see my tag), there is a fair bit of sub rosa intra-left sniping here. As a Protestant theologian, I find the rhetoric of sectarian orthodoxy familiar if slightly maddening. Be ready to google shibboleths and to read the results critically if you do.
To the main point: the Civil War is the last and pivotal example Davidson offers of "bourgeois revolutions," by which he means revolutions which establish capitalism in place of feudal or tributary economies. As such, the book also functions as a decent primer on some theories of revolution. It helps that Davidson writes eloquently and often with good humor to boot.
One caveat: As with most lefty history I've read recently (see my tag), there is a fair bit of sub rosa intra-left sniping here. As a Protestant theologian, I find the rhetoric of sectarian orthodoxy familiar if slightly maddening. Be ready to google shibboleths and to read the results critically if you do.
March 24, 2021
I promised myself that I was not going to wade into any more tedious disputes among Marxists about the correct way to read history, and then I accidentally started this book. Needless to say, I did not finish it.
October 20, 2023
As the book description notes, defining just what a bourgeois revolution is has been a difficult theoretical problem. Because bourgeoisies were not necessarily engaged in any sort of revolution, Professor Davidson wisely suggests that such revolutions aren't identifiable by structural forms or the social forces animating them. Instead, they can be identified by their outcomes, initiating or consolidating a period of capitalist dominance.
Having providing a useful definition, the book leads the reader through the feudal systems of Europe out of which capitalism would eventually arise, contrasting these with the tributary systems commonly found in Asia but also explaining why capitalism did not arise in the Italian city-states, where more advanced forms of finance and better connection to eastern trade networks had enabled them to develop more than the rest of Europe, nor in Mughal India, which had considerable engagement with established trade networks.
The structures of the Ottoman Empire, including its restrictions on private property in land, time limitations in use of land, hostility to potential alternative sources of power and a bias toward small commerce, precluded evolution from a tributary economy.
In feudal economies, although peasants were incapable of social revolution, space to put an end to feudalism arose and grew because of permanent ownership of land by lords, the tenant farmers of the lords, and larger peasants, each of which were capable of producing and marketing surpluses. In turn, incessant warfare, shipbuilding for trade and the military protection of that trade, and the increasing reliance on markets, all built on slavery (with Brazilian and Haitian sugar plantations bearing a resemblance to factories), helped erode Western European feudalism, already in crisis.
A bourgeois revolution in not secure until systemic irreversibility is achieved, the author argues, declaring that capitalism in one country is no more viable than socialism in one country. He argues that even in the late 17th century, the first two capitalist countries, England and the United Provinces (the present-day Netherlands), were not guaranteed to survive in a Europe dominated by absolutist states even though capitalism was well-established in the two. The Dutch achieved the "first permanently successful bourgeois revolution" but their United Provinces weren't centralized enough to maintain their leading position. Britain's victory over France in the Seven Years War sealed British dominance over the emerging capitalist system, and bourgeois revolutions would now have the ability to survive as capitalism, having secured its foothold, began its expansion around the globe.
I've only scratched the surface of the contents of this book, and there is much interesting theoretical material to frame this history. How Revolutionary is well-written and although not suitable for a beginner, it is at a level understandable to those with a modest amount of prior knowledge. That bourgeoisies were often the beneficiaries rather than the agents of transitions from feudalism to capitalism, particularly as aristocracies continued to hold political power even as countries transitioned to capitalism, makes the concept of a bourgeois revolution sometimes elusive, but How Revolutionary provides an excellent framework for grasping an important element of history, one that should be grasped if we are to understand our present world and the task we have in advancing beyond capitalism.
Having providing a useful definition, the book leads the reader through the feudal systems of Europe out of which capitalism would eventually arise, contrasting these with the tributary systems commonly found in Asia but also explaining why capitalism did not arise in the Italian city-states, where more advanced forms of finance and better connection to eastern trade networks had enabled them to develop more than the rest of Europe, nor in Mughal India, which had considerable engagement with established trade networks.
The structures of the Ottoman Empire, including its restrictions on private property in land, time limitations in use of land, hostility to potential alternative sources of power and a bias toward small commerce, precluded evolution from a tributary economy.
In feudal economies, although peasants were incapable of social revolution, space to put an end to feudalism arose and grew because of permanent ownership of land by lords, the tenant farmers of the lords, and larger peasants, each of which were capable of producing and marketing surpluses. In turn, incessant warfare, shipbuilding for trade and the military protection of that trade, and the increasing reliance on markets, all built on slavery (with Brazilian and Haitian sugar plantations bearing a resemblance to factories), helped erode Western European feudalism, already in crisis.
A bourgeois revolution in not secure until systemic irreversibility is achieved, the author argues, declaring that capitalism in one country is no more viable than socialism in one country. He argues that even in the late 17th century, the first two capitalist countries, England and the United Provinces (the present-day Netherlands), were not guaranteed to survive in a Europe dominated by absolutist states even though capitalism was well-established in the two. The Dutch achieved the "first permanently successful bourgeois revolution" but their United Provinces weren't centralized enough to maintain their leading position. Britain's victory over France in the Seven Years War sealed British dominance over the emerging capitalist system, and bourgeois revolutions would now have the ability to survive as capitalism, having secured its foothold, began its expansion around the globe.
I've only scratched the surface of the contents of this book, and there is much interesting theoretical material to frame this history. How Revolutionary is well-written and although not suitable for a beginner, it is at a level understandable to those with a modest amount of prior knowledge. That bourgeoisies were often the beneficiaries rather than the agents of transitions from feudalism to capitalism, particularly as aristocracies continued to hold political power even as countries transitioned to capitalism, makes the concept of a bourgeois revolution sometimes elusive, but How Revolutionary provides an excellent framework for grasping an important element of history, one that should be grasped if we are to understand our present world and the task we have in advancing beyond capitalism.
Want to read
July 26, 2012Here some preliminary comments fromHOW REVOLUTIONARY WERE THE BOURGEOIS REVOLUTIONS?
NEIL DAVIDSON
-----------------------------------
“I was frankly pole-axed by this magnificent book. Davidson resets the entire debate on the character of revolutions: bourgeois, democratic and socialist. He's sending me, at least, back to the library."
—Mike Davis, author, Planet of Slums
-----------------------------------
Once of central importance to left historians and activists alike, recently the concept of the “bourgeois revolution” has come in for sustained criticism from both marxists and conservatives. In this comprehensive rejoinder, Neil Davidson seeks to answer the question “how revolutionary were the bourgeois revolutions” by systematically examining the approach taken by a wide range of thinkers to explaining the causes, outcomes, and content of the French, English, Dutch, and other revolutions. Through far reaching research and comprehensive analysis, Davidson demonstrates that what's at stake is far from a stale issue for the history books – understanding these struggles of the past offer far reaching lessons for today's radicals.
-----------------------------------
PRAISE FOR HOW REVOLUTIONARY WERE THE BOURGEOIS REVOLUTIONS?
“Neil Davidson wends his way through the jagged terrain of a wide range of Marxist writings and debates to distil their lessons in what is unquestionably the most thorough discussion of the subject to date. If the paradox at the heart of the bourgeois revolutions was that the emergence of the modern bourgeois state had little to do with the agency of the bourgeoisie, then Davidson’s study is by far the most nuanced and illuminating discussion of this complex fact. A brilliant and fascinating book, wide-ranging and lucidly written.”
—Jairus Banaji, author, Theory as History
“[This] is a monumental work. Neil Davidson has given us what is easily the most comprehensive account yet of the ‘life and times’ of the concept of ‘bourgeois revolution’ … This would have been enough. However, Davidson has also provided us with a refined set of theoretical tools for understanding the often complex interactions between political revolutions which overturn state institutions and social revolutions which involve a more thorough-going transformation of social relations.”
—Colin Mooers, author, The Making of Bourgeois Europe
-----------------------------------
NEIL DAVIDSON teaches at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow where he is the Vice-President of the local University and College Union branch. He is the author of The Origins of Scottish Nationhood (2000), Discovering the Scottish Revolution (2003), for which he was awarded the Deutscher Memorial Prize, and also co-edited Alasdair MacIntyre's Engagement With Marxism (2008) and Neoliberal Scotland (2010). Davidson is on the Editorial Board of International Socialism. others...If you've already read it, offer us your views....
NEIL DAVIDSON
-----------------------------------
“I was frankly pole-axed by this magnificent book. Davidson resets the entire debate on the character of revolutions: bourgeois, democratic and socialist. He's sending me, at least, back to the library."
—Mike Davis, author, Planet of Slums
-----------------------------------
Once of central importance to left historians and activists alike, recently the concept of the “bourgeois revolution” has come in for sustained criticism from both marxists and conservatives. In this comprehensive rejoinder, Neil Davidson seeks to answer the question “how revolutionary were the bourgeois revolutions” by systematically examining the approach taken by a wide range of thinkers to explaining the causes, outcomes, and content of the French, English, Dutch, and other revolutions. Through far reaching research and comprehensive analysis, Davidson demonstrates that what's at stake is far from a stale issue for the history books – understanding these struggles of the past offer far reaching lessons for today's radicals.
-----------------------------------
PRAISE FOR HOW REVOLUTIONARY WERE THE BOURGEOIS REVOLUTIONS?
“Neil Davidson wends his way through the jagged terrain of a wide range of Marxist writings and debates to distil their lessons in what is unquestionably the most thorough discussion of the subject to date. If the paradox at the heart of the bourgeois revolutions was that the emergence of the modern bourgeois state had little to do with the agency of the bourgeoisie, then Davidson’s study is by far the most nuanced and illuminating discussion of this complex fact. A brilliant and fascinating book, wide-ranging and lucidly written.”
—Jairus Banaji, author, Theory as History
“[This] is a monumental work. Neil Davidson has given us what is easily the most comprehensive account yet of the ‘life and times’ of the concept of ‘bourgeois revolution’ … This would have been enough. However, Davidson has also provided us with a refined set of theoretical tools for understanding the often complex interactions between political revolutions which overturn state institutions and social revolutions which involve a more thorough-going transformation of social relations.”
—Colin Mooers, author, The Making of Bourgeois Europe
-----------------------------------
NEIL DAVIDSON teaches at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow where he is the Vice-President of the local University and College Union branch. He is the author of The Origins of Scottish Nationhood (2000), Discovering the Scottish Revolution (2003), for which he was awarded the Deutscher Memorial Prize, and also co-edited Alasdair MacIntyre's Engagement With Marxism (2008) and Neoliberal Scotland (2010). Davidson is on the Editorial Board of International Socialism. others...If you've already read it, offer us your views....
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews