2025.05.12 Political means vs. Economic means. On calico and silk in 18th c France [Grok]

https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_2b7e9890-5838-4bb0-af48-5142e3d88c16 Let’s dive into the relationship between Colbert’s regulativism and the National Convention’s repression of Lyon merchants, as well as the transition from calico to silk in 17th-18th century France, to support your project on political versus economic means. Colbert’s regulativism, rooted in mercantilism, was about state control to maximize France’s wealth and power. As Louis XIV’s finance minister from 1665 to 1683, Jean-Baptiste Colbert implemented policies to prioritize the state over individual merchants, enforcing strict regulations to protect French industries. He aimed for a favorable balance of trade—export more, import less—to accumulate gold. This meant heavy intervention: granting monopolies, subsidizing industries, and enforcing quality standards that often stifled innovation. For textiles, Colbert banned imported calicoes in 1686 to shield domestic producers of wool, linen, and silk. Calico, a cheap, colorful cotton fabric from India, was wildly popular, but its importation threatened French textile industries. The ban aimed to force consumers to buy French goods, but it backfired—smuggling thrived, and domestic calico production was crushed. Many skilled workers, often Huguenots, fled to Holland and England, boosting their industries instead. This regulativism set a precedent for state overreach into economic affairs, which evolved into more violent forms by the time of the French Revolution. Fast forward to 1793, the National Convention—during the radical phase of the Revolution under the Jacobins—faced Lyon, a silk-weaving hub, as a hotbed of resistance. Lyon’s merchants and silk workers, known as canuts, were economically vital but politically suspect. The city had prospered under the Old Regime, with silk becoming a cornerstone of French luxury exports, partly due to earlier mercantilist policies Colbert had championed. Lyon overtook Tours as the silk capital, supported by state-backed innovations like those of Philippe de Lasalle, who improved looms in the 18th century. However, the Revolution disrupted this. The Jacobins, pushing a centralized, egalitarian agenda, saw Lyon’s merchant elite as counter-revolutionary. Lyon rebelled against Parisian control in 1793, aligning with moderate Girondins and royalists. The Convention responded brutally, besieging the city and executing over 2,000 people in the ensuing repression, targeting merchants and workers alike. This was political means at its extreme—using violence to enforce ideological conformity, contrasting with Colbert’s economic focus but echoing his prioritization of state control over individual economic freedom. The transition from calico to silk reflects both economic and political shifts. Calico was a mass-market fabric, but its ban under Colbert redirected focus to luxury goods like silk, which aligned with mercantilist goals of prestige and high-value exports. Silk production in Lyon was state-supported—Colbert had encouraged it by importing Flemish expertise and founding royal tapestry works like the Gobelins. By the 18th century, silk was France’s pride, with Lyon’s canuts producing for the elite. However, the Revolution’s chaos, including the Convention’s repression, devastated the industry. The demand for simpler styles and the economic turmoil of the 1790s crippled silk weaving, though Napoleon later revived it for imperial grandeur. The throughline from Colbert to the Convention is the state’s willingness to suppress economic actors—whether through regulation or violence—to enforce its vision. Colbert’s bans and monopolies constrained merchants for economic gain; the Convention’s executions in Lyon did so for political control. Both illustrate political means overriding economic ones, though the methods grew more extreme as the state’s goals shifted from wealth to ideological purity.