Category: European History

The Beginning of the Cold War: Similarities and Differences Between Socialism and Liberalism in the Nineteenth-Century Europe

socialism.jpg

Since the Second World War, the world is divided into two: the capitalist nations and the communist nations. Communism being rooted to socialism, the conflict started in the nineteenth century Europe. Back then, capitalism, in the name of liberalism, was developing. Yet, some liberalists who found mistakes in capitalistic model of the society formulated Utopian Socialism. They both were similar that they valued equality, yet were different that liberalism valued economic liberty which led to poor condition of working when socialism emphasized equality of all social members which improved the working condition of the laborers.

It is true that both wanted equality of people. Liberalism of the nineteenth-century originated from enlightenment ideals, majorly summarized to equality and liberty. Since the beginning of French Revolution, liberalists, who were majorly consisted of bourgeoisies, advocated for expanded suffrage. The cahier de doléances written during the French Revolution shows that one of the most frequently appearing concerns about the government was equal political representation and fair voting system in the General Estate. Furthermore, the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” signed during the French Revolution shows the ideas of the growing liberalism. The declaration states that all “men are born and remain free and equal in rights” and that “social distinctions can be founded only on the common good”. This declaration becomes the foundation of all classical liberalism ideals. Economic liberalists such as David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus do not distinguish men according to their class but only according to their personal interest. Also, political liberalists who believed in utilitarianism such as Jeremy Bentham believed that maximum happiness for the maximum number should be achieved. However, this statement also assumes the fact that all human beings are equal thus their happiness is valued equally. Similarly, the socialists during the nineteenth-century supported equality between all human being. The nineteenth century socialists, referred to as Utopian Socialists by later philosophers, dreamt of small societies in which all members of the community were valued equally (of course according to the natural law) by sharing the workload and profit of the community amongst the members equally. Examples of the Utopian Socialist communities are Phalansteries created by Charles Fourier and New Lanark created by Robert Owen. Charles Fourier created the Phalansteries in hope to create ideal societies in which individuals work equally for a common goal and earn equally. Also, New Lanark aimed to decreasing the economic gap between the poorly treated factory workers and the rich capitalists. The workers in New Lanark were paid more by the capitalists so that the general workers’ living condition got more equal to the managers’ compared to other factories around Europe. These examples show how Utopian socialists valued equality similar to how the liberalists of the nineteenth century did, if not more. As discussed above, this similarity accounts for the origin of the two ideas. Both liberalism and socialism originated from the ideals created during the French Revolution which emphasized the importance of liberty, equality, and fraternity in society. Thus, both ideas supported equality of all people.

Although liberalists and socialists aimed at general equality, their focus diverged on to what extent they expanded equality. Liberalists did value equality like how socialists did. However, they interpreted equality as non-interruption of social order to artificially create social difference unlike socialists who defined equality as state in which all human beings are held at equal value: equal working and equal earning. Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham formulated the idea of Laissez-Faire and Utilitarianism which founded the nineteenth century liberalism which emphasized economic liberalism and individual self-interest. David Ricardo, a classical liberalism philosopher, was deeply influenced by Smith’s idea written in the Wealth of Nations. He then wrote books regarding economic phenomenon shown in nineteenth century Europe. Encompassing all economic situations, an assumption and a hypothesis that Ricardo and Smith make is that people will and should maximize self-interest to maximize profit. This sometimes may be presented unequal between different social groups, for example, Ricardo’s theory on wages says that the wage of any worker will tend toward the minimum wage that the worker can receive. Thus, the investors will maximize their interest while the laborers will receive just the right amount of money to survive, eventually increasing the gap between economic social classes. This shows how liberalists did believe in equality under law, yet advocated for inequality through fulfilling individual interests. Unlike liberalism, Utopian Socialists believed otherwise. They criticized capitalism for pursuing nothing but self-interest. Charles Fourier in his On Economic Liberalism writes that it is ridiculous that merchants can throw away tons of grain during the times of great famine just to increase grain price and maximize profit. He continues to say that thus, “commercial liberty should be subject to restrictions consistent with the needs of society as a whole” (Fourier). This shows that Fourier believed that general welfare should be above individual interest. Consistent to his argument, Fourier established phalansteries where community members worked for the common welfare rather than individual profit. Fourier’s idea shows that Utopian Socialists criticized liberalists’ emphasis on individual interest while highlighting the importance of general wellbeing of the society. The difference exists because Utopian Socialism came into being when philosophers tried to tackle problems of liberalism. Like Malthus, some inteligencias saw inequality between the poor and the rich. This led idealists like Fourier and Owen to construct the Utopian Socialism. Thus, the difference between liberalism and Utopian Socialism was inevitable.

Following the said difference, liberalism and socialism differed in ways they viewed workers. As discussed above, liberalists believed in maximizing individual self-interest. Yet, since the bourgeoisies who controlled the capital and the land owning aristocrats were the only social groups who could control their self-interest by either increasing or decreasing the profit, the laborers were not able to intervene in determining their profit. According to Ricardo, the wage of the laborer will tend toward the minimum amount of money that the worker can survive with and that is the Iron Law of wages. This is due to the assumption that most liberalists made: all economic participants will maximize their profit if they can. Since the bourgeoisies will maximize their profit, the expenditure on laborer will decrease toward the minimum amount they can receive. Thus, naturally, the living condition of the workers fell to a state in which laborers were forced to live in congested slums with basic clothing. However, unlike liberalists who maltreated their workers, Utopian Socialists provided their workers with comparatively higher standard of living. Robert Owen, developing his industry in New Lanark, gave workers higher wages. This was clearly against the assumptions of the liberalists while aligning with socialism since the capital-controlling bourgeoisie sacrificed his profit for the general welfare. The highly paid workers’ standard of living rose and the total revenue increased as well. With the increased production, workers’ wage increased more. This cycle demonstrates the Utopian Socialists’ belief in improving the working condition of the laborer. These differences occurred due to their difference in the emphasized value. Since liberalists believed that individual interests should be valued more, the working condition of the laborers will naturally fall in the process of maximizing the profit of the higher class when socialists believed that individual interest should be sacrificed for equality and general social welfare in which the laborer’s living condition will be enhanced.

To conclude, liberalism and socialism during the nineteenth century showed very different traits of belief despite their common root in the ideals of the French Revolution. These two major ideas of the nineteenth century Europe later grows to be the two dominant ideas of the world. Due to their ideological difference, physical and mental wars occur between many countries where many people die. The two ideologies, liberalism and socialism, are clearly different in terms of what they emphasis and how they manage. However, it is important to remember that they both aim for the same goal, equal society.

Advertisements

Totalitarianism, its Definition and Implication on Modern Politics

161107120239-01-trump-parry-super-169In the election of 2016, Mr. Donald Trump won the American presidential election. Mr. Trump, for his populism based policies and violent attitude toward social minorities, is criticised ruthlessly by the opposing and even the same party members. One of his main policies that created social disturbance during the early stages of campaign, to build a wall on the Southern Border of the United States and to remove all illegal immigrants out of the country. These strong state based nationalistic policies were analysed by many journalists to follow the traits of totalitarian rulers. This essay will argue that indeed, it is unsafe to generalise Mr. Trump as a totalitarian and lead to a deeper discussion on what a safe historical analysis and its implementation on modern society is.

To debate whether Mr. Trump is or is not a totalitarian, the term totalitarianism should be defined using historical evidence to support the definition. Totalitarianism is a single party system based political structure promising nationalism and economic growth which uses strict security and police system to retain power.

Totalitarian governments are single party system based political structures that use security and police system to retain power. As the outcome of the election of November 1932, the Nazi party remained the biggest political party in Germany. Also, as the former chancellor Papen left office, Hitler was appointed the chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Although Hindenburg remained as president until 1934, Hitler was able to consolidate absolute power under himself. Hitler representing the Nazi party, passed the Reichstag fire decree and the enabling act in February and March 1933 respectively, which gave absolute legislative and executive power under Hitler. He used this power to outlaw all non-Nazi political parties. Through these steps, Hitler not only consolidated an individual led government but more importantly, a single party based political structure which did not check and balance the absolute leader. Also, Hitler used violent security to ensure his power. Schutzstaffel were the personal guards of Hitler. They were divided into units that served specific purposes in society. Gestapo in specific was the secret state police dressed up as civilians that would spy on and report illegal activities such as treason that happened in the private sectors of the German citizens. This strict security system enabled Hitler to stay in power.

Also, Stalin consolidated a single-party communist system. Lenin, with the Russian revolution, created a single communist government. This was passed on to Stalin who commissioned the Soviet Constitution which empowered the communist party as the only political party and Stalin as the absolute leader. To ensure his power, he created the NKVD, an intelligence agency that conducted political oppression. In the 1930s, using the NKVD, Stalin carried out several purges where he executed several thousands of people for being accused of political oppositions. The political opposition included rebellion leaders and possible assassinators of himself amongst the officials. Through strict politics based on terror, Stalin remained in power until the end of the World War.

Totalitarian governments use nationalism to gain popularity. Nation in modern society is defined as an “imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign”. Hence, nationalism is an ideal that claims that the members of the nation are bonded to each other within the principles of nation. The commonality necessary to form a bond may include symbols such as flags to the shared identity such as ethnicity to language.  Hitler emphasised the German nation in order to gain popularity. The 25-point Program of the NSDAP claims that the Nazi party demanded “unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the people’s right to self-determination”, “substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law” and that “only a member of the race can be a citizen”. Given that these programs that the NSDAP party suggested for the election are deeply rooted in nationalistic ideals and that they are the first three programs suggested out of twenty-five, it can be said that the NSDAP party emphasised nationalism in their campaigning. Also, during his time as a chancellor of Germany, Hitler promoted strong boycotts and violent rampaging of Jewish shops and businesses. Despite of the enlightened ideas that were abundant within the European nation that all people are equal and the hyper-liberal metropolitan cities that illuminated Germany which embraced diversity, German public was supportive of these racially discriminatory policies as well as extremely German specific nationalistic programs. Given that Hitler won the election using programs that oppose the general norm of the German public, it came be safely claimed that Hitler and the Nazi Party rose to power with the promises of enlightening the failed German nationalism after the first World War, which the people valued over other liberal values such as equality of all.

Mussolini also used ideas of nationalism to gain popular support and to legitimise its power. The Italian identity has been defined by Roman and Christian values for Italy had prided their bearing of the great Roman Civilization. Mussolini, in The Doctrine of Fascism, calls on to Christian values. He emphasizes the “self-sacrifice, the renunciation of self-interest, by death itself… purely spiritual existence” using biblical allusions to promote state prioritization over individual. Also, the symbol of fascist party originated from the ancient roman object Fasces that symbolized the governor’s judicial and executive power in the Roman government. Mussolini used these symbols in his propagandas to ensure Italians that he will bring back the lost nationalism. During the 19th century, Italy went through unification which promised them a successful and a strong nation. However, at the end of World War 1, Italy, although being on the winners’ side, was left in great war damage while not being granted enough compensation. The consequences of the war failed the trust in Italians for their country. Hence, the Fascists who promised to light the fire of nationalism once again won the people’s demand for a successive country.

Furthermore, Stalin too embodied nationalistic ideas as well. The Soviet Constitution states that the Soviet is constituted with several Republics under a single Union where each Republic represents the specific ethnic group that reside in it. Also, each Republic was granted, to some extent, autonomy to legislate laws for its own benefit and execute them if it does not conflict with the laws of the Union. This shows that each unit of Republic would have been strongly bonded by their common ethnicity in its own Republic according to the principles of ethnic nationalism. However, by granting autonomy to individual Republics, the Soviet Union as a whole became decentralized. Nevertheless, the Union was able to reduce revolts thus gain more power through granting autonomy to all Republics by fulfilling the minor ethnic groups’ demand for self-determination. Although the Soviet Union did not establish national identity of the Soviet Union, by granting individual nationalism according to ethnic groups, the Soviet Union gained popularity and support.

Totalitarian governments promise the public to bring economic success and prosperity of the nation to gain power and eventually rise to power. After the Great War, Germany was devastated by the war reparation as compromised by the Treaty of Versailles and the economic depression of 1929. In the abyss of economic failure, Hitler gave German people realistic plans to save them from their devastated state. The 25-point program of the NSDAP party demands “abolition of unearned incomes… breaking of debt (interest)-slavery” and most importantly, “abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles”. Along with policy changes, Hitler nationalized industries and gave orders to corporations on what they should and should not produce, increasing job opportunities and production. As a result, Porsche was ordered to create the Volkswagen, the people’s car. The beetle modeled cars along with several other industries increased middle, low-class spending on cheap luxury goods which eventually revived the German economy.

Mussolini too promised economic success to workers extensively for he got the most support from them. The basic doctrine behind fascism is to create efficiency. Thus, they divided the citizens into syndicates consisted of people with similar economic interests. For example, workers would be placed in the worker syndicate when lawyers would be placed in the lawyer syndicate. Through this system, the syndicates would vote for representatives who arrange the general interest of its syndicate and discuss it with other representatives from different syndicates in order to resolve conflicts. This efficient way of problem-solving between classes established several workers’ benefit such as increased wages. This shows that regardless of the total production, Mussolini ensured that the workers increased their benefits thus keeping the promise.

Stalin promises economic success to its nation. He posed the five-year plans to improve Russian economy. Nationally planned economy was primarily designed by Vladimir Lenin. However, Lenin’s plan failed as the agricultural production stagnated and the overall industrial production did not rise significantly. When Stalin gained power, he increased the state power over economy, thus increasing the frequency of government intervention in economy. The five-year plans that were created as the result of Stalin’s rise to power fostered several industries. The iron, coal and oil industry production increased by over 300%. This production increase put USSR next to America in terms of production, relieving the country from economic deprivation.

Analyzing the definition of totalitarianism in terms of Mr. Trump and his policies, it can be easily concluded that Mr. Trump and the republican government that will come to power in 2017 is not a totalitarian. Firstly, for the first time in many years, the parliament, as well as the president, are republican. Thus, despite the existence of the democrats, it has been speculated several times that the democrats will not have enough power to bring about change. This political situation resembles the single party system in which the legislative and the executive branch are tied to a single group of people. It is also true that Mr. Trump used extensively nationalistic policies to gain popularity. His main slogan for the campaign was “make America great again”. This slogan embodies the American nationalism as it demonstrates Trump’s belief in American prosperity. This is illustrated more dramatically when several of his policies are analyzed. Mr. Trump plans to reconsider all international relationships to evaluate if the particular relationship is beneficial to America. Also, he plans to establish a strong citizen based minimum wage system where the benefit of the American production goes to the American citizens. Furthermore, Mr. Trump’s policies regarding economy and taxation is very promising to the peasants. Mr. Trump aims at decreasing overall tax and abolish Obama care in order to reduce the additional compulsory payment. He also claims that he will increase job opportunities by building infrastructures and expanding on government cyber system. Nevertheless, Mr. Trump has not started his office yet. As a result, it seems too early to evaluate Mr. Trump if he fits within the definition of totalitarianism. This is evident since Mr. Trump has neither demonstrated if he will use strict and even violent securities and police to retain his power nor if he will achieve the economic goals that he has set. Thus, Mr. Trump cannot be called a totalitarian yet.

This inconsistency considering the future poses a deeper and a general historiographical question. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin rose to power and declined. Modern day historians classify these individuals as totalitarian for their past works, treacherous or glorious. Although the word totalitarianism was used several times by politicians during the early and mid-20th century, the most significant use of totalitarianism was by Hannah Arendt who analyzed Hitler and Stalin to argue that they were not traditional tyranny but an entirely new form of government in 1951. This shows that although speculations of the totalitarian rulers were made during their times of regime, a formal historical analysis of the totalitarian government was made once the government had terminated. If so, can Mr. Trump be analyzed as a totalitarian in terms of history even though he has not completed and even more so started his career as a politician? More deeply, can current issues or events that ought to come be evaluated or even predicted by analyzing history? It is true that history repeats itself. Marx consolidated the theory of Dialectical Materialism which argued that analyzing history, there are natural progresses in which the world flows. His evidence was that history repeats itself. For example, repeated revolutions have caused the society to be more liberal; from the middle ages, the scientific revolution sparked the enlightenment, thus the enlightened despots; the French Revolution ended the monarchical forms of government and triggered the democratic forms of government; several revolutions during the 19th century and the Russian Revolution provoked communist governments. Similarly, the Totalitarian governments of the 20th century rose to power as a reaction to the failed status quo of Germany, Italy and Russia during the inter-war period like how Louis XVI consolidated individual power, abolishing the liberal parliament that his predecessor, Louis XV left while trying to pay the national debt caused when fighting against Britain. It is true that this historical connection can be made since in both cases, the individuals are dead and the event has terminated. However, even though history does repeat itself, humans cannot rely on history to tell them what will happen according to history. This is because individuals have the power to change history. Hitler coming to power might seem like the obvious step that has followed the economic depression. However, the German people in 1930s would have had similar discussions that are carried out nowadays because of Mr. Trump. Also, due to rambling totalitarian governments in Europe, the second world war did seem inevitable. However, many of the soldiers who were recruited in the war would have had a normal life like Asian men who are not aware of the growing tension around the Pacific Ocean. Thus, it is very unsafe to generalize a repetition in history as a consequential event that will happen.

Recently, media and the public show the trend of lightly comparing Hitler with Mr. Trump for being excessively nationalistic and racist. Although it is true that both individuals strongly believe and believed in nationalist values, it is highly risky to even compare Hitler with Mr. Trump for one exists only in history when the other has not created it yet. Thus, as historians, we cannot evaluate if Mr. Trump is totalitarian. Also, even if we were to evaluate history, we would have to keep in mind that nothing in history is inevitable or obvious, that all participants of history are individuals just like us.

Realpolitik and its roles in the unification of Germany and Italy

Berlin.jpgRealpolitik also known as pragmatic nationalism is a political theory primarily based on nationalism and focused on achieving a certain goal through practical means in which it appears to be conservative from time to time. Realpolitik, in the context of 19th century revolutions, has led the unification of Germany and Italy to success through incorporating as much self-interests of interest groups to maximize satisfaction amongst different political party.

Unlike many ideas and political theories created during the 19th century, Realpolitik embodies a very conservative view of politics, from time to time absolutist, which helped the unifiers easily control the execution of policies, creating policies consistent with only one idea. In The Speech to the Frankfurt Assembly, Droysen emphasizes how Germany should value “power” more than “[constitution]”. Also, the author strongly argues that German Unification will occur when a strong ruling house is settled. This statement, to begin with, is not liberal at all since the act of valuing power over constitution is ignoring the popular voice of the legislative body, belittling the right of the mass. Also, the establishment of powerful ruling class is the creating of aristocrats, thus returning the government system to the class based pre-modern government. Additionally, according to Field Marshal Helmuth von Motke, the Austro-Prussian War was fought not because of territorial or economic reasons, but because of “the establishment of power”. He also analyzes the situation of the Austro-Prussian War as Prussia filling in the vacuum of leadership of the German races caused due to the devastation of Austria with the crossing of the Alps. It is true that being conservative, monarchical and even totalitarian may not seem to have any direct effect on the unification. However, those are indeed connected. Looking at Bismarck and his domestic policies, every individual, no matter of their ideals, have a detailed plan which is more effective than when plotted as a group. This was proven by the Frankfurt Parliament in 1848 when they failed miserably to establish a new constitution as well as a government due to diverse interest groups and conflict between them. Thus, the reinvestment of power to an individual has allowed for faster and more efficient execution of policies which not only allowed the individual to carry out his plan undisturbed but also helped the nation as a whole to gain the momentum to carry out the unification.

One of the three main characteristics of Realpolitik is that it distanced people from ideal and abstract views and gave way to practical policies and decisions which increased the general happiness of the nation by corresponding to as much self-interest as it could. This created numerous supporters and eliminated the oppositions despite the fact that the majority of the population during the 19th century was liberal while the unification government was conservative. Firstly, Otto von Bismarck uses pragmatic policies regarding domestic and foreign affairs to unify Germany. Bismarck was a conservative prime minister of Prussia. Despite his conservative identity, he used any means to unify Germany. Bismarck, knowing that oppressing either of the two parties, liberal and conservative, would cause revolts, balanced the favor of the two parties. He established a government based on conservative values of monarchy and institution. However, at the same time, Bismarck granted freedom of press, coalition and even universal suffrage. These liberal policies compensated for conservative institution. Also, in terms of foreign affairs, Bismarck was extremely careful on how and with whom he should form allays. In the excerpt, Bismarck clearly says to “avoid wounding Austria too severely” for it will backstab Germany by allaying with France, which was originally neutral with Germany. Bismarck’s delicate manipulation of international relationship shows how he used decisions based on practical needs more than just ideals to deal with problems which led to the unification of Germany. These situations are also evident in Italy. In the Report of the meeting of Count Cavour with Emperor Napoleon III of France Napoleon has agreed to fight on behalf of Italy if the war. However, since France had a conservative government during the year 1858, Italy had to agree to conservative terms, that the war is of non-revolutionary cause, despite the original purpose of creating a unified liberal government. This allay has led Italy to unify the Norther regions. His choice to use conservative values in order to unify Italy shows practicality more so than ideals. Also, Speech of Vittorio Emanuele I shows pragmatism in politics to create an efficient government. Due to the allays created between France, Rome and Count Cavour, the Italian government created after the unification could not be as liberal as anticipated. However, the Italian people, since the revolution of 1848 were excited about the liberal government. Thus, Victor Emanuele I, the first king of the kingdom of Italy announces that “the opinion of civilized nations is favorable to [the government]; the just and liberal principle”. Also, Emanuele I appeals to the emotion of the audience by humbling himself and saying that “[he takes] pleasure in manifesting to the first Parliament of Italy the joy [he feels] in [his] heart as king and soldier”. One important fact about the document is that it is a speech given in public. These two quotes from the speech show that Emanuele I not only is trying to favor the expected audience of liberal intelligentsias but also appealing to the emotions of the Italian citizen in order to win their favor for the comparatively conservative government. These elaborate speeches of ensuring the public has not only secured the unification but also halted future revolts against the government. The use of white lie as well as emotion is a direct example of maximizing satisfaction by using practical method of establishing government rather than an ideal method.

Also, Pragmatic Nationalism, as its name suggests, contained nationalistic characteristics which motivated the individuals to unite the nation in the first place as well as helped the initiators of unification to justify their conservative actions to the liberal public. Firstly, The Program of Count Cavour describes nationalism as the necessary step in human progress in which one grows into a more moral and intelligent being. Thus, according to the author, national identity is required to create a truly civilized nation. The author takes a step further and analyzes Italy. He mentions that “Nationalism has [kept] all parts of Italy united despite the differences that distinguish them.” (Cavour, 1846). This shows that he had faith in the nationalism of Italian people which motivated him to create a united Italy. Analyzing the date that this document was recorded, the document was made before the revolutions of 1848. This means that the author has not witness of the failed yet the first attempt on the Italian unification. This shows that even before several attempts on unifying Italy, the author was determined to creating a united Italian state. Also The Imperial Proclamation illustrates the role of nationalism within the German context. The article refers to the word “fatherland” several times. In German, “fatherland” translates to Vaterland, another name for Germany. This shows that the idea of nation represented the parent like figure of the individual participants. This provokes brotherhood within the nation, thus nationalism. Analyzing the date of the document, the document is created on the day of the proclamation of the German Unification. Also, this document is the Imperial Proclamation, which is the equivalent of the declaration of independence for America written at the moment of establishing the government. Thus, whatever is written on the document can be regarded as the founding ideas of the government. This shows that the idea of nationalism not only has been prevalent throughout the process of unification but also has resulted in a governmental system based on nationalism.

To conclude, Realpolitik has influenced Germany and Italy in unifying itself. Considering the fact that Realpolitik consists of pragmatic measures and nationalism, manipulating with situations to favor oneself practically as well as using nationalism has allowed Bismarck and Cavour to maximize satisfaction amongst the interest groups so that there is a point of compensation in which an individual based government can quickly and efficiently rule over the mass without revolts.

European Homefront During the First World War

World War 1, also known as the Great War has brought many devastation across Europe. One of the major reasons that differentiated the World War 1 from previous wars is that the Great War was the first Total Warfare. Total Warfare means that every part of the nation contributes to the war by either actually fighting or producing military goods. Thus, homefronts were created in which civilians took part in the war as well. European civilians during the time of war were first filled with enthusiasm and excitement about the war which soon were bombarded with the reality of war, changing to reactionary movements against the war, for a peaceful nation.

When the war broke out, European civilians, especially nationalists, thought that by participating in a war, a nation could strengthen it power; they supported and cheered for the new war. Bertrand Russell’s autobiography states that “the day war was declared… men and women were delighted at the prospect of war”. This shows that indeed, many people generalized as “average men and women” cheered at the declaration of the World War. Stefan Zweig’s autobiography too states that people cheered for the war, but in more excited tone. Zweig states that “All differences of class, rank, and language were flooded over at that moment by the rushing feeling of fraternity”. This shows that simultaneously in Britain, Austria and presumably other European countries, the idea of nationalism toward its own country burst into the streets which resulted in open celebration of the war. Additional document which could deliver a personal idea and pride for the country in participating in the war would strengthen the argument. The two documents mentioned above are observations made by two different individuals in two distinct nations. However, they both rather give an objective view on the cheering crowd than their opinions about the war itself. To expand the claim about the relationship between the civilian perspective of the war and nationalism, a personal idea regarding the perspectives of the war prior to its intensification can be used.

However, as the war continued for unexpectedly long time with much more devastation than anticipated, formally cheerful crowd disappeared to thin air. One limitations that Zweig and Russell’s autobiography have is that it only illustrates the people’s support for war only at the beginning of it. Very different from the former documents them, Rosa Luxemburg describes that “the scene has changed fundamentally”. In contrast with the “cheering crowds” and the “rushing feeling of fraternity”, Luxemburg describes that the war has indeed changed “cities [into] ruins; villages [into] cemeteries; countries [into] deserts…” She continues to say that “there are food riots in Venice, in Lisbon… plague in Russia”. These devastating descriptions of the war contrasts the formerly described scenes of pride, showing the disastrous reality that the Europeans civilians had to live during the times of War. Additionally, given that Luxemburg is a woman Socialist who wrote a book called ‘The War and the Workers” during the period of war shows that there may have been similar socialists who thought that the continuation of war was absurd and that indeed acted in defense of their beliefs. The letter sent from the governor of the department of the Isere to the minister of the interior of France formally lists out the grievances and complaints that the peasants of the following district had with war. The letter reads that the workers “are upset about the duration of the struggle, impatient with the increasing cost of living”. The document being a letter by a governmental official to another governmental official shows that the grievances and the complaints made by the peasants were officially and formally formulated. This shows that the tragic situation that the peasants are in is not lighthearted but indeed serious. These two key devastations in Europe is well illustrated by Anna Eisenmenger, a typical Austrian middle class woman, in her Diary. She describes that “we house wives have… grown accustomed to standing in ques… to being obliged to go home with empty hands and still emptier stomachs”. This quote shows that a typical house wife during the World War 1 waited in line to presumably get a ration or buy daily groceries. However, the starving does not end. Eisenmenger continues to describe that “it happens more and more frequently that… tired women who have been waiting for hours collapses from exhaustion”. To the civilians and to women in specific, the everlasting war has brought eternal starving and discomfort which eventually ended in fainting and probably even death. These descriptions are generalized by the author to the whole population of women in Austria. This perspective is significant since generalizing the situation to a bigger population conveys that most of the people in Austria during that period of time went through the similar tragedy in their lives. To enhance the argument regarding the European devastation in the homefront, specific statistical data may be used. A factual statistical data that encompasses the economic losses as well civilian casualties will solidify the argument, not relying entirely on subjective observations.

The devastation that civilians had to suffer urged numerous people to react accordingly to the global war. Returning back to the Letter from the governor of the department of Isere, the governor mentions that these devastations led to peasants “increasingly taken in by the propagandists of the united Social Party” to react against the war-supporting governments. Vladimir Lenin, the communist Leader wrote in his “The Call to Power” that “the government is tottering” due to the World War 1 and that the only way of “salvation” is through the communist revolution. This shows that radical political interest groups such as the communist party has turned their backs from the war-supporting governments toward peaceful communist government. In the context of devastation in European homefront, the peasants who also opposed war would have easily joined the communist party to revolt against the government. The massive joining of the peasants through individual interest would have increased the magnitude of the revolution. Him being the leader of the Russian Revolution and the communist society in general, his anti-World-War ideas would have been imposed on other numerous communists in and out Russia. This shows that the anti-World-War ideals did not only reside within Russia but also with other countries where communist parties did exist. In addition, the plots of the violent revolution that Lenin dreamt of is illustrated briefly in the meeting of the Russian tsar’s Council of Ministers in 1915. The Council of Ministers say that the past revolution in Moscow of 1915 “ended in bloodshed” where several gun shots at the protestors ended up with several casualties. However, the Ministers also say that the firing was necessary. This shows that the protestors too would have shown violence in their process of demonstrating. Also, the second route in which the revolutionaries revolted was by getting excited by “the speeches in the Duma… newspaper stories… and rumors of disorder in the rear”: media. This shows that the revolution if happens will include both violence and media. However, violent protest and revolutions were not the sole reaction to the homefront devastation. The Food Production Department poster created around 1918 urges the customers to buy canned food rather than “perishable produce” for the perishable produce will rot and be wasted in some point in time. The inventions that account for the discomforts that the civilians back in the homefront had to endure show that suppliers and consumers, the market, have reacted to create different demands and supplies and live within the discomfort rather than to change reality. To enrich the argument regarding the non-violent means of reaction to the devastation at homefront, several diaries like accounts of civilians in the homefront who have changed their lifestyle due to the war can be used to model the civilians’ reaction towards the Great War.

To conclude, civilians of the European homefront during the First World War were first filled with enthusiasm and excitement about the war and its benefits in terms of nationalism. However, when they realized the devastation that the war can bring, the civilians realized the reality of the war. This motivated the civilians to react to the war, both violently and non-violently.

The Beginning of the Cold War: Similarities and Differences Between Socialism and Liberalism in the Nineteenth-Century Europe

Since the Second World War, the world is divided into two: the capitalist nations and the communist nations. Communism being rooted to socialism, the conflict started in the nineteenth century Europe. Back then, capitalism, in the name of liberalism, was developing. Yet, some liberalists who found mistakes in capitalistic model of the society formulated Utopian Socialism. They both were similar that they valued equality, yet were different that liberalism valued economic liberty which led to poor condition of working when socialism emphasized equality of all social members which improved the working condition of the laborers.

It is true that both wanted equality of people. Liberalism of the nineteenth-century originated from enlightenment ideals, majorly summarized to equality and liberty. Since the beginning of French Revolution, liberalists, who were majorly consisted of bourgeoisies, advocated for expanded suffrage. The cahier de doléances written during the French Revolution shows that one of the most frequently appearing concerns about the government was equal political representation and fair voting system in the General Estate. Furthermore, the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” signed during the French Revolution shows the ideas of the growing liberalism. The declaration states that all “men are born and remain free and equal in rights” and that “social distinctions can be founded only on the common good”. This declaration becomes the foundation of all classical liberalism ideals. Economic liberalists such as David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus do not distinguish men according to their class but only according to their personal interest. Also, political liberalists who believed in utilitarianism such as Jeremy Bentham believed that maximum happiness for the maximum number should be achieved. However, this statement also assumes the fact that all human beings are equal thus their happiness is valued equally. Similarly, the socialists during the nineteenth-century supported equality between all human being. The nineteenth century socialists, referred to as Utopian Socialists by later philosophers, dreamt of small societies in which all members of the community were valued equally (of course according to the natural law) by sharing the workload and profit of the community amongst the members equally. Examples of the Utopian Socialist communities are Phalansteries created by Charles Fourier and New Lanark created by Robert Owen. Charles Fourier created the Phalansteries in hope to create ideal societies in which individuals work equally for a common goal and earn equally. Also, New Lanark aimed to decreasing the economic gap between the poorly treated factory workers and the rich capitalists. The workers in New Lanark were paid more by the capitalists so that the general workers’ living condition got more equal to the managers’ compared to other factories around Europe. These examples show how Utopian socialists valued equality similar to how the liberalists of the nineteenth century did, if not more. As discussed above, this similarity accounts for the origin of the two ideas. Both liberalism and socialism originated from the ideals created during the French Revolution which emphasized the importance of liberty, equality, and fraternity in society. Thus, both ideas supported equality of all people.

Although liberalists and socialists aimed at general equality, their focus diverged on to what extent they expanded equality. Liberalists did value equality like how socialists did. However, they interpreted equality as non-interruption of social order to artificially create social difference unlike socialists who defined equality as state in which all human beings are held at equal value: equal working and equal earning. Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham formulated the idea of Laissez-Faire and Utilitarianism which founded the nineteenth century liberalism which emphasized economic liberalism and individual self-interest. David Ricardo, a classical liberalism philosopher, was deeply influenced by Smith’s idea written in the Wealth of Nations. He then wrote books regarding economic phenomenon shown in nineteenth century Europe. Encompassing all economic situations, an assumption and a hypothesis that Ricardo and Smith make is that people will and should maximize self-interest to maximize profit. This sometimes may be presented unequal between different social groups, for example, Ricardo’s theory on wages says that the wage of any worker will tend toward the minimum wage that the worker can receive. Thus, the investors will maximize their interest while the laborers will receive just the right amount of money to survive, eventually increasing the gap between economic social classes. This shows how liberalists did believe in equality under law, yet advocated for inequality through fulfilling individual interests. Unlike liberalism, Utopian Socialists believed otherwise. They criticized capitalism for pursuing nothing but self-interest. Charles Fourier in his On Economic Liberalism writes that it is ridiculous that merchants can throw away tons of grain during the times of great famine just to increase grain price and maximize profit. He continues to say that thus, “commercial liberty should be subject to restrictions consistent with the needs of society as a whole” (Fourier). This shows that Fourier believed that general welfare should be above individual interest. Consistent to his argument, Fourier established phalansteries where community members worked for the common welfare rather than individual profit. Fourier’s idea shows that Utopian Socialists criticized liberalists’ emphasis on individual interest while highlighting the importance of general wellbeing of the society. The difference exists because Utopian Socialism came into being when philosophers tried to tackle problems of liberalism. Like Malthus, some inteligencias saw inequality between the poor and the rich. This led idealists like Fourier and Owen to construct the Utopian Socialism. Thus, the difference between liberalism and Utopian Socialism was inevitable.

Following the said difference, liberalism and socialism differed in ways they viewed workers. As discussed above, liberalists believed in maximizing individual self-interest. Yet, since the bourgeoisies who controlled the capital and the land owning aristocrats were the only social groups who could control their self-interest by either increasing or decreasing the profit, the laborers were not able to intervene in determining their profit. According to Ricardo, the wage of the laborer will tend toward the minimum amount of money that the worker can survive with and that is the Iron Law of wages. This is due to the assumption that most liberalists made: all economic participants will maximize their profit if they can. Since the bourgeoisies will maximize their profit, the expenditure on laborer will decrease toward the minimum amount they can receive. Thus, naturally, the living condition of the workers fell to a state in which laborers were forced to live in congested slums with basic clothing. However, unlike liberalists who maltreated their workers, Utopian Socialists provided their workers with comparatively higher standard of living. Robert Owen, developing his industry in New Lanark, gave workers higher wages. This was clearly against the assumptions of the liberalists while aligning with socialism since the capital-controlling bourgeoisie sacrificed his profit for the general welfare. The highly paid workers’ standard of living rose and the total revenue increased as well. With the increased production, workers’ wage increased more. This cycle demonstrates the Utopian Socialists’ belief in improving the working condition of the laborer. These differences occurred due to their difference in the emphasized value. Since liberalists believed that individual interests should be valued more, the working condition of the laborers will naturally fall in the process of maximizing the profit of the higher class when socialists believed that individual interest should be sacrificed for equality and general social welfare in which the laborer’s living condition will be enhanced.

To conclude, liberalism and socialism during the nineteenth century showed very different traits of belief despite their common root in the ideals of the French Revolution. These two major ideas of the nineteenth century Europe later grows to be the two dominant ideas of the world. Due to their ideological difference, physical and mental wars occur between many countries where many people die. The two ideologies, liberalism and socialism, are clearly different in terms of what they emphasis and how they manage. However, it is important to remember that they both aim for the same goal, equal society.

Causes of the Protestant Reformation DBQ – Outline

DBQ Outline

Thesis: The Protestant Reformation did not have a specific beginning nor an end. However, it began due to majorly three reasons being, the theological and doctrinal fallacies that the Catholic Church had with the constant change of popes and canon laws, the corruption that kept going on throughout the time period and the reformer’s criticisms on it, and finally development in popular art that was used to spread the ideas to a wider audience.

 

Paragraph 1 Theological fallacy

Topic Sentence: The main reason behind why theologians not only Martin Luther has decided to start the Protestant Reformation was due to the Catholic Church altering their church doctrines and believes.

Doc J

Evidence 1: It is written by the Pope Boniface VIII

Evidence 2: He declares that there is no salvation outside Rome and Roman pontiff.

Evidence 3: This document is written during the 1302, very before the Protestant Reformation.

Analysis: The fact that this document was written way before the Protestant Reformation shows how Catholic Church institution has presented doctrinal fallacies by the Pope shows how it has been collapsing since the early 14th century. To explain further about the doctrinal fallacy, the document clearly says that there is no salvation outside Rome and Roman pontiff. However, the bible clearly mentioning that “I am the way and the truth and the life” in John 14 shows how the doctrines of Catholic Church contradicts the bible which says that salvation actually lies within Christ. This doctrinal fallacy has led to angering theologians such as Martin Luther.

Doc E

Evidence 1: Shown above, there were already much mal teachings of Christian doctrine.

Evidence 2: Zwingli too argues that “the Word of God has been so dimmed and confused and paled with human ambitions and teachings.”

Evidence 3: He also directly criticizes the church institutions by calling them “invented external worship” and “invented service of God” and carries on to argue that people who learn from the Catholic Christians are becoming another anti-doctrinal people who think they are believing the Christ but are indeed not.

Analysis: This document ties in with the previous document to show that education done by Catholic Church institution has successfully persuaded lay people to making them believe that Catholic Christianity is the better church. However, the theologians argue that since, words of god, bible, does not justify many wrong doings of the pope and since it has continued to happen at night for several decades. Furthermore, Zwingli very much openly over fires criticism at the Catholic Church and its doctrines. For example, him even calling the Catholics “word of mouth calls themselves Christians” shows the fact that Zwingli not even considered the Catholics as Christians. Finally, these criticisms on the altered Catholic Church’s doctrine has contributed a lot into triggering the Protestant Reformation since Luther himself, who is considered to be the starter of the Protestant Reformation, had started the revolution by questioning the authority of sacraments and the true meaning of the bible.

 

Paragraph 2 Corruption and Criticism

Topic Sentence: The corruption of the church clergies, priests and even the Pope himself has created countless criticisms from various classes of people toward the Catholic Church which eventually led to the Protestant Reformation.

Doc G

Evidence 1: Luther, the leading individual of the Protestant Reformation was accused of heresy

Evidence 2: He begins by criticizing the doctrine of the recent Catholic Church, that they are devil in a sense that they distort the bible and reinterpreted it in a wrong way.

Evidence 3: Martin Luther focuses on the comparison between the popes, Julius II and Boniface VIII and an imperial emperor. He establishes the fact that the past Popes have acted like tyrants by describing the fact that those popes led military warfare that led to devastation.

Analysis: The fact that he first criticizes the doctrinal aspects of Catholic Fallacy shows how he lies in the same plane of Protestant Reformation. Also the fact that he describes the Popes to be tyrant like and military like shows how the popes in Luther’s eyes were corrupt and should be criticized for good.

Doc F

Evidence 1: The author claims to resist the lust of the flesh.

Evidence 2: The author also questions the wearing of lavish clothing. He goes on to say that it is a creation and desire of a mind not a grace of God.

Analysis: With the two main points that the author wants to argue, Calvin seems to be criticizing the pope and the clergies. This is evident since the Catholic church during that time period was at constant debate whether celibacy of priests was the right action and due to this, more priests started to “overflow without measure” bursting with desire for women. This led to numerous accounts of corruption within priests and other church officials. Furthermore, the criticism on clothing seems to reflect the Pope himself since during the time period of the Protestant Reformation, the popes, to show their power off, wore luxurious clothes with furs and silk, incompatible to that of any prince’s.

Doc D

Evidence 1: The document was composed in mid-16th century as the complaints by the German Princes

Analysis 1: Thus, it can be said that the document is about Protestant Reformation during the 16th century and in Germany.

Evidence and Analysis: Analyzing the Document in the context of the Protestant Reformation, German Money can be analyzed as tithe or other church related tax. Furthermore, since the tax to the church is going “over the Alps” to Rome and is being used “contrary to nature,” as a part of luxury of the Pope, the document criticizes the corruption that is going on in Rome and with the Pope.

Evidence and Analysis 2: The document states that “pastors given to us are shepherds only in name…[caring] for nothing but the sheep’s fleece.” Thus it criticizes the fact that corruption has proceeded not only in Rome but even in local levels of priests and clergies.

Analysis: shown through the criticisms in documents mentioned above, it can be reasonably inferred that corruption that has been carried on well before the Protestant Reformation has quickly tied in with the doctrinal complaints that reformers had to create numerous criticisms on the Catholic Church resulting in more people joining.

Perspective: The fact that it is written by German Princes show how groups that took part in the Protestant Reformation included noble classes along with theologians and peasants.

 

Paragraph 3 Use of Populism

Topic Sentence: Even though there were underlying social and theological reasons why Protestant reformation came into being, since reformation is a movement that involves thousands of people not regarding of theologians, the protestant reformers used various populous mediums to spread their ideas around Europe.

Doc I

Evidence 1: The description of the picture mentions a vendor in the woodcut. The wood cut too suggests that the lavishly dressed individual sitting to the very left seems to be the vendor. However, the title of the woodcut is “Hawking Indulgences” indicating that the vendor would be selling the indulgence. Furthermore, indulgence at the time prior to the protestant reformation was considered to be a sacrament, a semi-salvific act.

Evidence 2: The woodcut is created by Jörg Breu the Elder, a leading artist of the Northern Renaissance art movement and also a popular artisan that created numerous famous artworks as well as woodcuts.

Analysis: The fact that a sumptuous and luxurious, even secular looking entity is selling the indulgence, which should be carried out by a clergy, criticizes how secular the Catholic church and how corrupt the clergies has become. Furthermore, the fact that a popular artisan has created the artwork of criticism shows how protestant reformers used trendy art mediums to popularize their protestant world views and bitter critiques towards the Catholic Church, persuading them to join the Protestant church.

Doc B

Evidence 1: The dialogue is conversed between the soul of the Pope Julius II and Saint Peter when the Pope Julius II has died and risen to the gateway of heaven. The Pope Julius II has an army that has followed him since he promised them the entry to heaven in return for a religious campaign. As the Pope tries to open the door of heaven with the key of his secret money vault, Saint Peter appears and questions the Pope of his deeds on Earth. The Pope tries to persuade the Saint to let him enter, but the Saint does not allow it.

Evidence 3: The Pope seems to be calling himself the source of absolute power since he can cancel or recant and change the canon law that the whole of Europe was under.

Evidence 2: The Saint satirizes the Pope for being able to reign forever since he cannot be punished or be considered a heretic.

Evidence 3: He also adds that the Pope for being able to “cheat Christ with his laws” and saying that “the remedy [to stop the situation] in such case is not a council,” Saint also points out that the Pope not only had absolute but almost tyrannical religious power over doctrines and secular laws.

Evidence 4: This dialogue, maybe for a play, was assumed to be created by Erasmus and other individuals collaboratively. However, Erasmus denies the fact that he has written them. Thus, a group of reformers critical about the corrupt Catholic Church should have written them, in the writing style of Erasmus.

Evidence 5: This dialogue can be most likely be interpreted as a play script. Thus, it was meant to be performed in front of normal lay people.

Analysis: The fact that the dialogue involves a lot of satire of the Pope and the Catholic Christian institution and that it was created for performance purpose shows that these critical ideas of Catholic church has taken various forms of populous media in order to convey the message to a more diverse audience. Furthermore, the fact that this literary work might have been written by an individual who borrows the style of a very famous Catholic Critique, Erasmus, shows how criticisms on Church institution has been so famous that it not only was read, but were followed by other intelligentsias. Compared to the previous document, it can be seen that spread of criticisms on church institution has taken forms in various media formats. In a bigger historical context of media history, the fact that plays were a major part of media shows that the trend of expressing people’s idea has started to cover a vaster amount media types.

Doc C

Evidence 1: The ninety-five thesis composed by Martin Luther has been distributed and well-read throughout Germany and Europe.

Evidence 2: This article composed in 1517 is well after the creation of the documents discussed above.

Analysis: The fact that this article was composed after the previous two documents shows that this article may reflect the progress of the past two documents. Furthermore, the fact that it actually took only a month to spread a document around Europe shows how not only the success of printing press existed but also the underlying criticism and disapproval has continued to root on people’s mind through the works of populous media.

 

Conclusion: In conclusion, the Protestant Reformation began due to three major reasons; the theological fallacies, corruption and criticisms, and populous media to widen the spectrum of audience.

Coming of the French Revolution of 1789 and the Conflict between the Bourgeoisies and the Aristocracy

Coming of the French Revolution of 1789 and the Conflict between the Bourgeoisies and the Aristocracy

“The essential cause of the French Revolution was the collision between a powerful, rising bourgeoisie and an entrenched aristocracy defending its privileges.” French Revolution starting in 1789, in the very surface seems like a revolting movement by the peasant class in conquest for their political rights. However, in depth, it can be analyzed that it was in specific the bourgeoisies that contributed the most to the coming of it due to inequalities that they faced at every aspect when it can be also argued that it is in fact not the class conflict that was necessary for the triggering of the French Revolution, countering the quote, because bourgeoisies were not everyone who had oppositions to the governmental system.

Financial and economic crisis that France experienced was one of the major reason for the coming of the French Revolution on 1789. In the process, the class conflict between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie was imminent. In Louis XV’s reign, France had to undergo numerous military expeditions ranging from the War of the Austrian Succession from 1740 to 1748 and the Seven Year’s War from 1756 to 1763. Additionally, Louis XVI’s international policy to help the American Revolution expanded France’s annual military expenditure. Along with this, France’s national finance was failing due to inefficient management shown in cases like the Mississippi Bubble. These series of events placed France under large debt crisis far beyond monarch’s reach. French monarchs since then tried countless fiscal reforms to rescue France’s economy. These reforms included the increased taille, the land tax, the vingtième, the income tax, and the internal tariffs. These increased tax targeted the Third estate which included the farming peasants, city laborers as well as the growing bourgeoisie. French taxation system in late eighteenth century, considerate of the income level of the subjects, required the most earning to pay more tax. This property chained the high earning bourgeoisies. It is not to say that farmers or other laborers were not burdened by the tax, they were also in economic crisis. However, the bourgeoisies were the most affected by the national debt and the most suffered. Furthermore, the bourgeoisies consisted of merchants and artisans had to pay extra taxes such as patents and tariffs besides the main income tax and church tax as the new Controller-General suppressed guild system. On the other hand, the second estate, consisted of aristocracies were mostly exempt from tax.

The political and social discrimination that the bourgeoisie class had to face also triggered the French Revolution of 1789. Bourgeoisie class was an economically growing social group. However, given their position being the Third Estate, they were never treated equal to the nobles or the priests. This is very well illustrated with the famous quote by Marie-Antoinette, “Let them eat cake!” As the famine in France continued throughout the late 18th century and the government supported liberal economic policies, France suffered great inflation. Grain price as well as the bread price soared up the sky. Ironically, with the inflation, the wage of the workers stagnated. Because of this economic phenomenon, peasants did suffer. However, the most suffered were the city laborers, the artisans, and the merchants. They, living in cities, had to pay for the bread with a price 50% more than what it was before. The merchants had to suffer the high inflation barriers when trading with foreign countries as well as within France and the artisans had to suffer the decrease in demand for their works. This hardship that the Third Estate city residents had to bear was undermined by the nobles. Linking back to Marie-Antoinette’s quote, regardless of whether it was actually said or not, a nobility uttering such things shows how inconsiderate nobles in general were towards the third estate. Furthermore, their constant desire for political suffrage shows the class conflict that bourgeoisies had to endure. Louis XV was considered to be an enlightened despot for his legislative reforms: creation of Maupeou Parlement. This form of Parlement, more so than Parlement of Paris was subservient, creating central judicial system and merit based bureaucracy which in turn suppressed the hereditary nobles. However, during Louis XVI’s reign the Maupeou Parlement was abolished and the prior Parlement of Paris was reinstated. As a result, the talented bourgeoisies’ benefits were confiscated, enlarging the power of the hereditary aristocrats. Also, the Declaration of Rights of Men and Citizen directly shows the ideals that bourgeoisies wanted, grant of citizenship and political freedom according to payment of tax.

However, it was not only the class conflict between the bourgeoisie class and the aristocracy that was essential for the coming of the French Revolution of 1789. Given that France during the 18th century was financially and politically unstable due to the past monarchs, not only the bourgeoisies but also political groups from other social classes expressed their opposition towards the government. At the midst of the establishment of political inequality between the estates, it was at the Assembly of Notables that the idea of calling for the assembly of the Estate-General was first thought of. This shows how not only the third estate and the bourgeoisies themselves but also the nobles of the second estate were in some way aligned to make political equality. It is not to say that they expanded the concept of equality to their general lives, but they made efforts to include the third estate members at deciding over a major issue, taxation. Furthermore, a lot of individuals from the second estate took part in radical reforms and revolutions itself. Marquis de Lafayette was a French general commonly known for his accomplishments in the American War of Independence. However, when he returned from the battle field, he dived into another one by leading the march towards Versailles in 1791. Although it is does not directly show the cause for revolution, it elaborates on the spirit of the revolution of 1789, that the third estate is not the single entity that broke out into war: nobles in opposition to the government’s policies revolted actively. Additionally, numerous clergies were in line with the revolution. For example, Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, a priest, expressed his political and social values through his book, What is the Third Estate, by stating that the third estate should claim their right both politically and socially.

To conclude, the class conflict between the bourgeoisie class and the aristocracy was an essential component in causing the French Revolution of 1789. The social, political inferiority that the bourgeoisies endured created the long fuse triggered by the economic burden. However, viewing from another perspective that many activists were from other classes, show how the class conflict might not have been a necessity. Yes, of course, even if there weren’t a class conflict, there would have been other triggers to start the fire of revolution. However, it was the bourgeoisies that contributed the most to the coming of the revolution of 1789 which can be analyzed that, for the specific revolution of 1789 to happen, the class conflict was necessary.

Effects and reactions that the Scientific Revolution brought up with churches during the seventeenth century

Effects and reactions that the Scientific Revolution brought up with churches during the seventeenth century

Sixteenth century to the early Seventeenth century was a continuation of religious conflicts. As a result, two major branches of Christianity departed. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox on one hand and Protestantism including Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Puritans, et al. The subtle development of science during the Seventeenth century, as a revolutionary act itself, affected European Church pretty much similarly. However, due to their conflicting ideals and pursuing goals, their reactions towards science was different where Catholics and Orthodox rejected contrary to Protestants who accepted.

The Scientific Revolution first came as a big shock to many Europeans. Europeans, before Scientific Revolution and seventeenth century were dependent on ecclesiastical views that the churches imposed on them. The only sciences that they were allowed was at most Aristotelian views adapted by Christian theologians such as Aquinas to suit the Christian purpose, to explain God’s divinity. However, with the increase of maritime exploration, navigational technology was demanded and with the increase of general population, agricultural technology was called for. This resulted in lots of institutions being established regarding advanced education and research. Numerous universities were established during the fifteenth century to seventeenth century to tackle competition for marital colonies and English Royal Society as well as French Royal Academy of Science were developed in European Countries to devise new technologies to be used in agriculture. Even the pope sponsored scientific research to prove God as shown in the case of Galileo. It was in the arms of those institutions that scientists such as Copernicus to Newton were able to grow. When these scientists devised revolutionary theories and discoveries, the institutions were affected first and with most impact. Firstly, Newton with the help of English Royal Society and the Cambridge University was able to create the basics of modern physics. Due to Newton’s accomplishment, the English Royal Society was able to adjust itself to suit the necessities of scientists in England. This can be seen in increase of experimental fields of research as Newton developed further into his theories. This also influenced numerous other scientists in England to carry out further researches. Additionally, Galileo, with the sponsorship of the pope, was able to prove the new understanding of the relationship of the Heaven and the Earth first developed by Copernicus. However, his discoveries disproved the previously believed Aristotelian understanding of the Universe where Sun revolved around the Earth. This discovery was detrimental to the church because of several stories in the scripture regarding the movements of the stars as mentioned in the bible where it says that “… sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Joshua 10:13) Furthermore, René Descartes also familiar with the church, since he was educated in France, a Catholic country, develops new theories of scientific way of thinking, skepticism. In his explanation of skepticism, he has established ideas of atoms and materialism which contradicted with the Christian values of what things are made of. This not only irritated the Christian clergies but also even lay believers affecting most parts of Europe.

The church in turn reacted to the Scientific Revolution strictly with their belief. As more and more scientists brought up discoveries that contradicted and disproved original Christian ideas, the church divided into two parts to react differently to the crisis. Catholic church, along with the Eastern Orthodox church strongly opposed the newly developing technology and theories. This can be very easily seen from the pope’s reaction towards Galileo’s heliocentric model of the Universe. As soon as Galileo published his work on his research on heliocentricism, Dialogue Concerning Two World Systems-Ptolemaic and Copernican, the church condemned him by the Inquisition so that he was punished by house arrest. Furthermore, Descartes’ theory of materialistic world made up of atoms were also brutally oppressed by the Catholic church. This shows how Revolutionary movements were harshly banned by the Catholic Church. On the other hand, under the control of Protestantism, Scientific Revolutionists were able to perform in their full potential. Newton as the major example, carried his research out in Britain where the Anglican church mixed with Puritans and Quakers existed. The protestant Christians believed that it was up to the individual to decide what he or she wants to believe in. This allowed more freedom to scientists to question and experiment about the natural world not being limited by the bounds of Christianity. Thus, to increasing discovery, the protestant Christianity not only allowed scientists to skeptically view but also sponsor them carry out research to further develop the theory.

On the contrary, the scientists effected by the church authority also acted in varieties of ways. If the traits of Scientific Revolution were to be tracked, it would be easily found that many of the scientists published their works in Germany, Netherland, and England. One surprising aspect of the analysis is that there are a lot of French Revolutionists, but works of them are rarely found to be published in France. This shows that on account of oppression of science in strict Catholic countries such as France and Italy, numerous scientists such as Descartes and Galileo had to travel to relatively liberal country, Netherland to publish their work. Descartes published Discourse on Method and Galileo carried out further research on sunspots and other planets of solar system in Netherlands. This shows how Netherlands became a center of publication of science papers. One major reason that allowed Netherlands to be like this is its political structure. Netherlands in the seventeenth century was compromised of confederacy in which all provinces agreed to join together to work for utility. However, the reason they were able to establish a liberal government was because they claimed their religious and political independence from Catholic Spain during the Spanish war of succession. The liberal government also was very tolerant towards religion and also supported protestants if they had to. This shows that Scientific Revolutionists in Netherlands would have achieved more than Catholic countries under the protestant government explaining the reason for massive movements made by French thinkers to Netherlands.

To conclude, the Scientific Revolution has affected not only a minority group but most of the European population by impacting the church. However, because of the conflict in ideas within churches, the reaction that the church took in viewing of the Scientific methods differed from church to church. Lastly, due to the churches’ reaction, the scientists too reacted accordingly, by seeking for better work condition. The Scientific Revolution, the step that Europe took to break free from religious control, was successful since at the late seventeenth century, most of European countries including Catholic countries were accepting about the new theories to further develop navigational, agricultural and military technology.

Diary Entry of a Protestant Woman During the Spanish Inquisition

I do not remember much of what has happened to me in the past days. All I can recall is that while I was mourning for my husband a group of men stormed our house and violently shoved me around till I did not have the ability to think straight. When I woke up I was in this cell. The cell is dark, covered with stone wall on three sides and an iron door with firm steel bars in which I presumably entered through. The floor of the cell is completely covered with earth and the ceiling low. I am wearing the same clothes I was wearing from the time I was praying for my husband, now dirtied with dust. My hair is removed. When my sanity came back to me, I could not comprehend what was happening. I heard a terrible scream filled with horror in which I suspect to be of a man’s. The scream was followed by a vulgar shouting of another man except this man had a thunder like voice booming down a hall like structure. I was shocked for a long time. An hour or two. I felt suffocated. To relieve of stress, I started to write on floor.

 

I did not have a pleasant sleep. I explored this place more. Where I was was a basement of a building. The cell I was at was attached to a corridor with rooms to both sides of the way. I also realized there was another cell attached right above me from the same corridor. My room was covered with two doors. The inner door had a barred window through which I could see through and an opening where they handed me food and water. The outer door was solid with no window. They opened the outer door at six every morning to ventilate and deliver rations. That is the only time I can see light. Not sun light but a torch light. The room contained a straw bed where I had to sleep. They brought me two pots of water to drink and wash. In here, I cannot do anything but write.

 

The next day a man took me to another room, my eyes covered up. When he uncovered my eyes, it was a larger room with a table at the center and a wooden chair on two sides of it, another man sitting on the other end of the room. The man who took me there held me by my side and pushed me down on a chair. He shaved my hair. The shame that I felt was indescribable. The man opposite me asked about my name and age. Then they asked me about my husband: his name, his occupation, his faith. I told him I did not know much about my husband’s occupation. They took me back to my tiny cell. I thought over the questions that the man asked. Then I realized why I was here.

My husband and I originally lived in a small town at the very end of the Holy Roman Empire. My husband worked with books, from binding to delivering to the market. He read lots of books that came to him in request to be bound. However, all our lives changed when a book written by a man named Luther was requested to be bound and delivered to Castille. My husband bound the book by a night and read it by the next one. After reading, he became desperate to go to Castille. When I asked him for explanation, he just said that the God was calling. I simply could not understand. We traveled for days and nights to reach Castille. When we journeyed far enough, we realized that we have reached a town named Seville. We had to learn their language and culture. My husband traveled around the city delivering the books to people. We also went around the city helping the poor and curing the sick. When we were on the verge of adapting to the new society, my husband was arrested for accused heresy. The next day, I heard from neighbors that my husband was being burnt on stake. I did not understand the situation. A close friend of my husband told me that he was supporting a revolution of churches, supporting a new group called protestants and he has been arrested because of his criticisms towards the church.

I sat in my room thinking about my husband and in memory, I write.

 

Next day the same man covered my eyes and took me to the same room. The same man was seated opposite the table and asked me again of my husband. I told him I did not know of him much. However, this time, he took out a familiar book, the book that my husband has bound. The book that carried the ultimate reason that we came to Seville. The man said, holding the book, that my husband has committed an act of heresy by saying things against the Church. I kept on denying the fact that my husband would have done such a thing. When his questioning subsided, he scribbled some words on a paper. I could not read but as he finished writing, he stood up and announced I was accused of witchcraft for seducing a man to heresy. It did not make any sense. I was dumbfounded with the situation that I stood up and sat down with a thump. Other man who seemed like guards came in and dragged me back to my cell.

 

Next morning, even before they closed the doors after ventilation, two men came to my cell to take me to a different room. This time, a man, presumably a doctor, wearing a knee length gown stood. The man inspected me touching my limbs. When he was done, he said I was okay. They shoved me into the next room where the

 

It has been three days since I last wrote. I did not expect such horror. I was brutally taken by two men to a totally different room, clothes on my eyes. When they uncovered my eyes, a man, presumably a doctor, wearing a knee length gown stood. The man inspected me touching my limbs. When he was done, he said I was okay. It was then when a scream came from next door. I was on my nerves trying to figure out what was happening to me. They shoved me into the next room where the scream came from. I still cannot forget the sensation. The room was filled with wooden apparatus glimmering under the dimly lit torch light. There were half naked men hung on ceiling, and men gargling water, rolling about on the floor. The two men grabbed me from behind and threw me on the floor. They striped my clothes till I did not have any clothes on except the undergarment. I could not bear the moment. The air around me felt heavy. The men tied me to a wall and started lashing. It was about 14 lashes that I lost count of. I fainted. The next day I woke up, my body was covered with red strips. I felt an awful pain scorching through my back. I could barely manage to write.

 

The lashing continued for few days. Then for another few days, I could not do anything. I slept and ate. Nobody payed any visit. Even the men who came day by day to take me to the inspection room did not come. Days and days passed by. Then one day, a different man came to the cell and led me up the stairs. Where the man took me, I saw other prisoners like me. Since it was the first time to meet people other than men dragging me and pushing me, I felt a sudden joy. However, the heavy air pushed me not to express. A man dressed in lavish cloth descended from the stairs to the end of the line and led us to a hallway covered with cobblestone, with carpets, pictures and other luxuries. The man told us to stay quiet and calm. However, he did not look at any of the prisoners. When his speech was complete, the man opened the door at the end of the corridor and led us to the outside air. The light shined and made me blind. When I opened my eyes, I saw hundreds of people, quietly sitting. They all stared at me. As I walked to the center of attention, a man standing at the podium spoke in demanding voice. With an unforgettable voice. “These heretics, accused of defying the Lord, shall be punished, by the Lord.” The crowd screamed. They shouted “burn, burn, burn.” I could not comprehend what for. However, my husband’s image passed by. I was overwhelmed with terror. I could not see or listen straightly. When the line moved on, I could not move. A man who dragged me through grabbed my arm and shoved me through the door, into my cell room. I instinctively realized that I would be dead by tomorrow. However, I did not know what for. I did not do anything. All I did was watch my husband work, and help him. But now, I am convicted of witchcraft and heresy. I did not do any of that.

I do not know who or how this words will be delivered to but in hope of this to be found.

 

 

These diary entries were found in 1559 in a prison cell under the Inquisition headquarter of Valladolid by a catholic inspector named Xavier who found literary values in the entry to be conserved and published as a message to criticize the brutality of the Spanish Inquisition.

For the Full Document click Diary Entry of a Woman During the Spanish Inquisition

For the Bibliography click Diary Entry of a Woman During the Spanish Inquisition Bibliography