>>> Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/27/99 10:16AM >>I believe that the key to >unraveling this question is in the use value/exchange value dichotomy. Before the introduction of large-scale commodity production, cities were much more woven into their natural environment. It is interesting to note--as Ellen Wood does in her article in the MR issue on agriculture--that it was only England that contained a modern capitalist city in the 1500 and 1600s. France had much smaller cities and were much more knitted into the fabric of the countryside. London, of course, provides the model for the modern urban center. France, on the other hand, as George Comninel points out, did not really have an urban bourgeoisie. There was no industrial class that was fighting to burst through the fetters of feudal production. In reality, the landed gentry and the untitled landowners cooperated to reshape the French state and form the basis of modern political parties, divided along Liberal and Conservative line. ((((((((((((((( Charles: Interesting how the "bourgeoisie" got a French name. I guess the French were telling on the English. Charles Brown
