I have to concede that the kind of anarchist society you describe has - like socialism, I should point out - never been tried and therefore any discussion of whether it would work and/or be the ideal society is purely theoretical. Ironically, I think if such a society were to work the way, as I understand it, it would ideally - though I have my doubts about how well it actually would work - it would remind me more than anything of William Morris's anarcho-socialist utopia in News from Nowhere (if you're not familiar with it, "socialism" doesn't imply the kind of communal ownership that one might assume to Morris).
To answer your question as straightforwardly as I can, Robespierre didn't believe in the independance of the economic from the political and the social. For him society exists to protect the people's rights, rights which are simultaneously individual and collective. If existence is to be considered the first of those rights, then it follows that the means of subsistence are also a right and that if I have grain - the major subsistence crop - I can't dispose of it however I see fit until such point as it has been established that everyone has enough to eat. That doesn't necessarily mean the government confiscates and redistributes it (although it can mean that in certain cases when the circumstances warrant it), but it does mean that I don't have the right to hoard it or burn it or sell it at an exorbitant price. It also doesn't mean that I can't hoard/burn/sell for the best price I can get, any lovely embroidered silks I happen to own (though assuming I didn't make them myself it does imply that I pay my workers a living wage, again because of the right to existence). (However, if I'm wealthy, Robespierre, along with the rest of my fellow citizens, will - rightfully, I think - reserve the right to keep an eye on me to make sure I don't use that money to corrupt the political process, since it goes without saying that my money doesn't give me the right to usurp more than my fair share of political power.)
The model I just outlined is probably the most classic example of redistribution, among those favored by Robespierre and the montagnards in general, as exemplified by the greniers d'abondance, but if you're against any kind of redistribution whatsoever you would equally be against such montagnard policies as progressive taxation to assure things such as public education, poor relief, veterans pensions, public works projects, the war effort, public museums, public festivals - anything paid in whole or in part by taxation really - since any kind of taxation and especially progressive taxation implies redistribution on some level. You'd also have to be against the confiscation of Church and émigré properties, especially when sold in small lots and the restitution of commons that had been usurped in the past I forget how many years by the nobility to the village communities, which often divided them among their members. You'd probably also have to be against the emprunt forcé, even though, as the name implies, that's was only considered a temporary wartime measure.
But here's the really short answer: Did Robespierre advocate dividing France into 26 million parcels of land and distributing them equally among the population? Obviously not. Did he consider property to be an absolute right trumping all other considerations? Certainly not. Like most people, then as now, he's somewhere in between.
Again, I can't recommend Florence Gauthier more if you want elaborations. Quentin Skinner will also do you nicely for a republican definition of "natural rights," though he unfortunately doesn't know the French Revolution well enough to use it as an example, though it's probably one of the most interesting of them.
I realize I've gone on quite a bit now, and I beg your pardon in advance for any rambling or incoherencies in the above. Normally I would go back and straighten it out somewhat, but I have to get up early tomorrow, so I don't really have time.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-05-24 09:45 pm (UTC)To answer your question as straightforwardly as I can, Robespierre didn't believe in the independance of the economic from the political and the social. For him society exists to protect the people's rights, rights which are simultaneously individual and collective. If existence is to be considered the first of those rights, then it follows that the means of subsistence are also a right and that if I have grain - the major subsistence crop - I can't dispose of it however I see fit until such point as it has been established that everyone has enough to eat. That doesn't necessarily mean the government confiscates and redistributes it (although it can mean that in certain cases when the circumstances warrant it), but it does mean that I don't have the right to hoard it or burn it or sell it at an exorbitant price. It also doesn't mean that I can't hoard/burn/sell for the best price I can get, any lovely embroidered silks I happen to own (though assuming I didn't make them myself it does imply that I pay my workers a living wage, again because of the right to existence). (However, if I'm wealthy, Robespierre, along with the rest of my fellow citizens, will - rightfully, I think - reserve the right to keep an eye on me to make sure I don't use that money to corrupt the political process, since it goes without saying that my money doesn't give me the right to usurp more than my fair share of political power.)
The model I just outlined is probably the most classic example of redistribution, among those favored by Robespierre and the montagnards in general, as exemplified by the greniers d'abondance, but if you're against any kind of redistribution whatsoever you would equally be against such montagnard policies as progressive taxation to assure things such as public education, poor relief, veterans pensions, public works projects, the war effort, public museums, public festivals - anything paid in whole or in part by taxation really - since any kind of taxation and especially progressive taxation implies redistribution on some level. You'd also have to be against the confiscation of Church and émigré properties, especially when sold in small lots and the restitution of commons that had been usurped in the past I forget how many years by the nobility to the village communities, which often divided them among their members. You'd probably also have to be against the emprunt forcé, even though, as the name implies, that's was only considered a temporary wartime measure.
But here's the really short answer: Did Robespierre advocate dividing France into 26 million parcels of land and distributing them equally among the population? Obviously not. Did he consider property to be an absolute right trumping all other considerations? Certainly not. Like most people, then as now, he's somewhere in between.
Again, I can't recommend Florence Gauthier more if you want elaborations. Quentin Skinner will also do you nicely for a republican definition of "natural rights," though he unfortunately doesn't know the French Revolution well enough to use it as an example, though it's probably one of the most interesting of them.
I realize I've gone on quite a bit now, and I beg your pardon in advance for any rambling or incoherencies in the above. Normally I would go back and straighten it out somewhat, but I have to get up early tomorrow, so I don't really have time.