The social question or what is now known as the existence of poverty, what is not only poverty as in depravation but as Ardent puts it, “It is a state of constant want and acute misery… It was due to the poverty and dire need that the people rushed to the French revolution, inspired it, drove it onward and eventually sent it to its doom, for this was the multitude of the poor”. Ardent detests the French revolution for what it was and for what it could have been, had Robespierre giving up his power to masses, let them roam with political freedom they would have been successful to attend to the their economic needs as well as conquering a revolution much like the American revolution. Ardent believes humans were put on this Earth to be equal and
He wrote pamphlets insisting that the poor deserved to have a voice in government” ( DiConsiglio). 78. It is easy to see how strongly Robespierre felt about the inequality at the time, to the point where he was creating pamphlets in order to spread his beliefs and to meet his goals and ambitions. He did this as a way to rally up the people of France and to educate them about the injustice that was taking place. To many people, Maximilien Robespierre was a hero because he successfully gave faith and hope to his people that change and equality could happen.
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
would change became reality. This was a threat to the power of the king. The different
Analyzing the post-revolutionary governments of America and France will prove that the French Revolution was far more revolutionary than the American Revolution, due to the radical change that took place, the type of government implemented after, as well as the Napoleonic Code brought forth by Napoleon Bonaparte.
The three main contributory factors that I am going to focus on are the aristocracy, rising debt levels and inequality amongst the people of France. The role that King Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette had before and during the revolution was a key factor in starting the revolution. His attitude towards his role as king was poor. He was shy, indecisive and disinterested in politics from a very early age and this continued throughout his reign. During the years leading up to the revolution, France was in massive debt after the Seven Years War. Combined with this, there was a famine which increased the price of bread and brought a lot of the country to the brink of starvation (Kinser, 1999). Louis and Marie Antoinette's eating habits did not help reassure the French people of Louis' competency as a ruler. They gorged themselves on fine cuisine as their people starved all around the country (Cavallaro, 2001).
The social condition in France before the French Revolution was very poor. The society was divided into three estates: first estate, second estate, and third Estate. The first and the second estates were made up of the Clergy
The essential cause of the French revolution was the collision between a powerful, rising bourgeoisie and an entrenched aristocracy defending its privileges”. This statement is very accurate, to some extent. Although the collision between the two groups was probably the main cause of the revolution, there were two other things that also contributed to the insanity during the French revolution – the debt that France was in as well as the famine. Therefore, it was the juxtaposing of the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy as well as the debt and famine France was in that influenced the French Revolution.
Each social class in France has 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)
Throughout the years, humans have constructed many unique civilizations; all which follow a distinct social, economic, and political structure. Even so, there is one characteristic that prevails among these societies, the concept of nationalism. In short, nationalism refers to the feelings people have when identifying with their nation. This simple notion possesses the ability to divide or unite collective groups, and has played an important role in many historical events.
In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau hypothesizes the natural state of man to understand where inequality commenced. To analyze the nature of man, Rousseau “strip[ped] that being, thus constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he could have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could have acquired only through a lengthy process,” so that all that was left was man without any knowledge or understanding of society or the precursors that led to it (Rousseau 47). In doing so, Rousseau saw that man was not cunning and devious as he is in society today, but rather an “animal less strong than some, less agile than others, but all in all, the most advantageously organized of all” (47). Rousseau finds that man leads a simple life in the sense that “the only goods he knows in the un...
After the end of French Revolution, as the empires slowly diminished, countries wished to become independent and develop nation-states. Possibly one of the first nationalists was Johann Gottlieb Fichte, who attempted to urge Germans to be individual from people of other nation-states. Many years later, more people became interested in nationalism, some in more positive ways than others. Ernest Renan questioned the definition of an actual nation, and what constituted a nation. However, not everyone agreed with nationalism. John Acton strongly opposed nationalism and maintained that its primary goal was not freedom. Unfortunately, the negative connotations and slight misinterpretation of the works of each of the pro-nationalist authors gave rise to war, both the Great War and Second World War. Acton was right to oppose nationalism, as early thinkers such as Fichte, Mazzini and Renan gave unclear notions of nationalism, which contributed to misinterpretation of literary texts.
First it is important to understand the French economy during the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The working class people were struggling with their need to get by in life and feed their family and the internal call to make a choice and gain equality. The problem was that the proletariats did not have much of a choice at the time because if they did not work then they did not survive. The struggling class had to agree to what all the owners said and “whatever their status, the peasants continued to pay to their lord feudal dues on such land as they held on his estates." 2 It was clear that a social change was needed since the workers were being so abused and getting no reward for their efforts.
During the late 18th century, both France and the British colonies in America experienced wars the opened the eyes of nations. The French Revolution and American Revolution drastically changed political thinking. In the French Revolution, monarchism was abandoned and political power was given to the people until the country became out of control, and a military dictatorship was necessary to regain control of France. In the American Revolution, a new nation was formed as the British colonies tore themselves away from the English monarchy. In the end, both France and the new United States of America moved away from absolute rule by a king or queen and wanted to put the political power in the hands of their people. However, there are many differences as well as similarities along the way to their political reformation.
The bad living conditions of France and its depressed economy was one of the primary drivers for the French Revolution. The people of France were so poor that they had no shoes to wear and no food to eat. The poverty of France breaks its economy at its root. The economy got so bad that “By December 1788, there was a nationwide revolt against food shortages and rising prices, which continued to spread till the summer of 1789, when there was another bad harvest”(Todd 528). One ...
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