The Paris Commune demonstrated an exemplary working class movement for the revolutionary French Socialist Party of 1902. The proletariat movement not only showed the nobility but also the middle class that they were no longer going to be treated like slaves. The riots the people of working class got involved in showed the true socialism that was influencing their actions. There were 36,000 people arrested at the Commune (Tombs Paris 113). The vast number of arrestees show the people wanted a change; they were no longer willing to sit and watch their government push them aside. The vast number of participants provided an example for the socialist party of 1902 of how many people would support their socialist agenda. The lower class in 1871
As Rand refutes a principal concept of socialism, she illustrates multiple counts of insubordination and social class structures. Socialism’s attempt to remove class structure fails miserably. The most prominent demonstration of rebellion rises from Equality 7-2521 and his emotions and desire for knowledge. After being denied by the Council of Scholars, Equality 7-2521 rashly breaks a window and flees “in a ringing rain of glass” (Rand 75). Equality 7-2521’s actions illustrate the ‘working class’ rebelling against the ‘elitists’ though this society attempted to eliminate social structures. Furthermore, Equality 7-2521 was not alone in rebelling against ‘the brotherhood’, Liberty 5-3000 followed his example. Unsatisfied with her life and the suppression of emotion, she followed Equality 7-2521’s example and “on the night of the day when we heard it, we ran away from the Home of Peasants” (Rand 82). The rebellion of the two members reflects the means of a social rev...
The Manifesto of the Communist Party is well known for its revolutionary zeal, but we often think of the proletariat as the revolutionary force. However, Marx and Engels suggest that the bourgeoisie also came about through revolution. In your own words, explain how the “bourgeoisie played a most revolutionary part.”
"Oppression can only survive through silence" said Carmen de Monteflores and history proved this concept most thoroughly. However, the oppressed groups are generally not silent at all. They revolt, get violent, and are repressed again. This is not a rule, just a simple generalization and, of course, there are numerous exceptions. There is always a possibility that these downtrodden factions will get together to form a strong opposing force that will be an equal or almost equal rival to those that oppress. The coercion of the working class continued throughout the eighteenth century. Horrible working conditions, poverty, and hunger were blooming in the world of the industrial proletariat. The fruitless revolts did not change the situation and just when it seemed like the treatment of the waged people could not get any worse, the resolution appeared in all its glory. This historical period (1860-1914) could be best described using the Hegelian philosophy. The constant oppression of the working class will serve as thesis. The antithesis would come with the unification of the proletariats, forming the trading unions. The role of synthesis is given to the emergence of political democracy and mass political parties.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels see the French revolution as a great achievement in human history. However they also discuss serious criticisms of it. Marx and Engels discussed the struggle between two distinct social groups during the French Revolution which are the city poor and the privileged classes and what happens when power fell into the hands of the revolutionary “petty bourgeoisie” and the paris workers creating a class struggle and it impact on political issues . This essay will explain how Marx and Engels view the French revolution and their analysis of the revolution’s achievements and shortcomings.This essay will also apply their analysis of the French
William H. Sewell, Jr.’s Work and Revolution in France: The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848 (1980) is a qualitative analysis of the French labor movement, sweeping three radical revolutionary eras: 1790’s, 1830’s, and 1850’s. Sewell’s strategy encompasses “aggregating and analyzing” (1980: 5) events that would generally be considered the banal factional struggles and encounters of individual French workers. He amasses these facts into a macro-history of the workers’ plight to class-consciousness from the ancien regime to the repressive post-revolutionary era of 1850’s. Sewell frames his historical analysis within the context of the way the workers’ movement utilized the evolving rhetoric to advocate their pro-rights agenda. He performs a stringent investigation on the progression and determination of the use of specific terminology, focusing his lens on how concepts of culture (i.e., ideas, beliefs, and behaviors) aid in shifts of existing structures.
With this in mind, some perspective on the society of that time is vital. During this time the industrial revolution is taking place, a massive movement away from small farms, businesses operated out of homes, small shops on the corner, and so on. Instead, machines are mass-producing products in giant factories, with underpaid workers. No longer do people need to have individual skills. Now, it is only necessary that they can keep the machines going, and do small, repetitive work. The lower working class can no longer live a normal life following their own pursuits, but are lowered to working inhumane hours in these factories. This widens the gap between the upper and lower class-called bourgeois and proletariat-until they are essentially two different worlds. The bourgeois, a tiny portion of the population, has the majority of the wealth while the proletariat, t...
Those unhappy citizens who overthrew the absolute monarchy and the church belonged to a group known the bourgeoisie. This group was defined under the “Popular Movement” was constituted by angry peasants and wage-earners that had come under the influence of the rational ideas of the Enlightenment (Slevin, 2003). The bourgeoisie of this time was justifiably angered by many societal afflictions such as:
Mentioning the fruitless riots in Paris and Lyon, she asserts that unions are the workers’ “one legal and legitimate resource” with which to end oppression. Instead of trying to rebuild society from the ground up in small colonies, Tristan maintains that positive change can be made for workers on a large scale and within the existing societal framework. In The Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels maintain that large-scale political change is immediately necessary to ensure the proletariat’s rights: “the first step.is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State.”
The bourgeoisie will soon be vanishing by the proletariat. Document 2 The Communist Manifesto states that the middle class has more benefits, but soon all of that will go away from the lower class if this continues on. The lower class has the power to overthrow more social problem than the middle class can. Observing Document 2 The Communist Manifesto it states that the men of the working country (lower class) will work together to overthrow any social obstacle because in their power they have nothing to lose but their chains. Another problem that has erupted was that the middle class and the social class is splitting up. Document 5 Self Help and Thrift proves that the many people of the middle class must work hard and self-improve, but the middle class despise the lower class. They say that the lower class has no gratitude and they are mocking the middle class. This way of thinking led to the development of a social war between the lower class and the middle class. Document 5 Self Help and Thrift also explained that the lower class is uncivilized. The middle class seems to be verbally abusing them and just in general blaming them for way they are in the situation of being poor. The revolution is not only about the middle and lower classes. It is also about how people wanting to change the working condition. The parliamentary took action to help those who are in need
To truly understand this concept an examination of the two major social classes in Europe at the time is critical. However, properly characterizing the bourgeoisie has been rather problematic for scholars. Pierre Proudhon defined the bourgeoisie as a “capitalistic aristocracy” who gained their wealth through little or no work.2 Nevertheless, many scholars like Michel Lhomme assert that the bourgeoisie is simply the social class that exists consisting of numerous facets between the landed aristocracy and the lower, working class. Ultimately, what seems to be true of the bourgeoisie is that it consisted of businessmen, professionals, and state officials that were united in ushering in the emergence of a middleclass 19th century society.3 These groups were connected because they shared a set of values that consisted of ideologies that embraced basic capitalistic ideals of economic expansion, increasing the standard of living, and augmenting the complexity of society as a whole; therefore, they were united in their defiance against the traditional, static society where production was limited to habitual consumption and business organizations remained monotonous.
They did not have any production of capital and essentially was a class of workers that expected to look for some kind of employment, just when it financially profited the bourgeoisie. The low class experienced phases of advancement, however was as yet comprised of different gatherings competing with each other. First, they were singular laborers, then they were workpeople in manufacturing plants and inevitably went somewhere else. As indicated by Marx, it was the working class who were the progressive class, since they attempted to keep up their position and added to the entrepreneur framework.
Their initial victory was “followed by an ensuing struggle to implement change”. The people had taken to the streets not knowing what they would do if they did manage to take power. Now that they had, because of their different individual aims, they found it hard to compromise. This eventually led to a growing split between moderates and radicals, as well as between social classes, particularly in France. The moderates did not want a government based on universal male suffrage and the middle classes were determined to resist the demands of the lower classes....
One cause of both Revolutions was that people from all social classes were discontented. Each social class in France had its own reasons for wanting a change in government. The aristocracy was upset by the king’s power while the Bourgeoisie was upset by the privileges of the aristocracy. The peasants and urban workers were upset by their burdensome existence. The rigid, unjust social structure meant that citizens were looking for change because “all social classes…had become uncomfortable and unhappy with the status quo.” (Nardo, 13) Many believed that a more just system was long overdue in France.
The working class was remained aloof to political congress. Also hostile to the upper class and working class. The working class was the far most worst affected class during this time. The lack of money was a result of negligible food supply. Some families had to send their children to work. If the father of a family passed away that meant no income for the family. Some families were then forced to live on the streets. If not they would only be able to have a one room through public housing. This class really was categorized as the skilled and unskilled workers. The revolution also helped the working class. Industrial workers were able to get jobs. That which helped improve their living conditions. But still the unskilled workers were placed below the skilled ones had remained unemployed. They were vulnerable to the
At the start of the revolution, in 1789, France’s class system changed dramatically (Giddens, 2014). Aristocrats lost wealth and status, while those who were at the bottom of the social ladder, rose in positions. The rise of sociology involved the unorthodox views regarding society and man which were once relevant during the Enlightenment (Nisbet, 2014). Medievalism in France during the eighteenth century was still prevalent in its “legal structures, powerful guilds, in its communes, in the Church, in universities, and in the patriarchal family” (Nisbet, 2014). Philosophers of that time’s had an objective to attempt to eliminate the natural law theory of society (Nisbet, 2014). The preferred outcome was a coherent order in which the mobility of individuals would be unrestricted by the autonomous state (French Revolution). According to Karl Marx, economic status is extremely important for social change. The peasants felt the excess decadence of the ancient regime was at the expense of their basic standards of living, thus fuelling Marx’s idea of class based revolutions and the transition of society (Katz, 2014). This can be observed, for example, in novels such as Les Liaisons Dangereuses, a novel that had a role for mobilizing the attitudes of the