More handpicked essays just for you.
American civil war perspectives
Political and social changes of the civil war
Political effects of the american civil war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
"Oppression can only survive through silence" said Carmen de Monteflores and history proved this concept most thoroughly. However, the oppressed groups are generally not silent at all. They revolt, get violent, and are repressed again. This is not a rule, just a simple generalization and, of course, there are numerous exceptions. There is always a possibility that these downtrodden factions will get together to form a strong opposing force that will be an equal or almost equal rival to those that oppress. The coercion of the working class continued throughout the eighteenth century. Horrible working conditions, poverty, and hunger were blooming in the world of the industrial proletariat. The fruitless revolts did not change the situation and just when it seemed like the treatment of the waged people could not get any worse, the resolution appeared in all its glory. This historical period (1860-1914) could be best described using the Hegelian philosophy. The constant oppression of the working class will serve as thesis. The antithesis would come with the unification of the proletariats, forming the trading unions. The role of synthesis is given to the emergence of political democracy and mass political parties. The time period from 1860 to 1914 is defined by the surfacing of the "mass societies." The social order practically ignored the industrial proletariat and the foundation for a reform was laid. The industrial proletariat refers to all the workers who desperately depended on their wages. These people had absolutely no role in politics or in society in general. Even as late as 1860, the workers had to depend on themselves only to improve their social conditions. During the Industrial Revolution, as the number of machines mu... ... middle of paper ... ...feelings prevailed over those of unification. The division inside the socialistic party put only one question in front of Europe - how will the bettering of the workers' lives come upon the continent, through gradual small reforms or through big and rapid revolution? Late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century were the years of achievement, the years of one huge reform, the years that shaped the present day in so many ways. The present day industrial workers owe their stable life, pleasant working conditions, and a variety of insurances to nothing else but these fifty four years. The struggling lives of industrial proletariat (thesis), their desire for improvement (antithesis), and the emergence of the welfare state, political democracy, trading unions, and social equality (synthesis) skillfully describe the picture of the events happening in those days.
The period in which the early socialists were formulating their theories covers the development of industrialism which was causing the dislocation to the situation of existing social groups.
The era that marked the end of civil war and the beginning of the twentieth century in the united states of America was coupled with enormous economic and industrial developments that attracted diverse views and different arguments on what exactly acquisition of wealth implied on the social classes in the society. It was during this time that the Marxist and those who embraced his ideologies came out strongly to argue their position on what industrial revolution should imply in an economic world like America. In fact, there was a rapid rise in the gross national product of the United States between 1874 and 1883. This actually sparked remarkable consequences on the political, social and economic impacts. In fact, the social rejoinder to industrialization had extensive consequences on the American society. This led to the emergence of social reform movements to discourse on the needs of the industrialized society. Various theories were developed to rationalize the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Various reformers like Andrew Carnegie, Henry George and William Graham Sumner perceived the view on the obligation of the wealthy differently. This paper seeks to address on the different views held by these prominent people during this time of historical transformations.
The decline of aristocracy in The Communist Manifesto began with Karl Marx’s statement, “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.”1 Marx recognized the ideals of the social rank, which has influenced every society throughout history. The two social classes described by Marx were the Bourgeoisie, or the upper class, and the Proletariats, or the lower class. Before the Bourgeoisie came to social power, landowners and corporate organizations ran the society. Marx believed that the severe separation of the two classes greatly troubled society and that the two classes must coexist as one with each other.2
Socialism as defined by the parameters of the post revolution into the pre industrial period was the nearly universally marked by the race to empower the working class. Yet, within this broad definition of socialism, Karl Marx, Gracchus Babeuf, and Robert Owen differ in their views of a utopian society and how it should be formed. It was to be their difference in tradition that caused their break from it to manifest in different forms. Although they had their differences in procedure and motive, these three thinkers formed a paradigm shift that would ignite class struggle and set in motion historical revolutions into the present. Within their views of a utopian community, these men grappled with the very virtues of humanity: greed versus optimism.
With this in mind, some perspective on the society of that time is vital. During this time the industrial revolution is taking place, a massive movement away from small farms, businesses operated out of homes, small shops on the corner, and so on. Instead, machines are mass-producing products in giant factories, with underpaid workers. No longer do people need to have individual skills. Now, it is only necessary that they can keep the machines going, and do small, repetitive work. The lower working class can no longer live a normal life following their own pursuits, but are lowered to working inhumane hours in these factories. This widens the gap between the upper and lower class-called bourgeois and proletariat-until they are essentially two different worlds. The bourgeois, a tiny portion of the population, has the majority of the wealth while the proletariat, t...
The Conditions of Britain's Working Classes c.1840 For many centuries, Britain's economy was centred on agriculture, which became mechanised in the early 18th century. In the 1840s, however, the working state of Britain was very different - Britain was industrialising; capitalism resulted in massive dislocation. The number of jobs becoming available in the cities due to the building of factories and workshops meant that people were both internally migrating and immigrating. The majority of immigration was from Ireland; Irish workers named 'navvis' were entering Britain to work on the canals. However, even though so many jobs were being created, the massive influx of people into the cities put great pressure on precious resources and resulted in population explosion due to the ever-increasing urbanisation and industrialisation, which exacerbated public health issues which had been ever-present over centuries.
...r a classless, productive, industrial society that was beneficial to all, the mere recognition of strength in numbers and class solidarity were fundamentally effective and paved the way not only for future governments but for future laborers.
While the Congress of Vienna largely achieved its goal of military peace among European states in the nineteenth century, ideological and social conflicts took shape within and among these states. Responding to the Industrial Revolution, writers of the time encouraged workers to unite against oppression and demand the rights they deserved. Though this call to action was widespread, not everyone shared the same vision of how these goals ought to be achieved. Specifically, while many sought to evade or destroy the influence of mainstream capitalist society in order to improve workers’ standards of living, in The Workers’ Union, Flora Tristan seems to imagine a workers’ revolution that would work within the current laws and use the existing political structure to its advantage.
happening in the world, with more and more people just accepting the new social classes and not protesting their unfairness. This source not only helps us understand the living conditions of the time but also the change in society that occurred during the Industrial
In response to intervention, thousands of groups of people became defiant. Laborers living off the bare minimum often assembled into organized groups to enforce their demands upon the government, making a notable push for reform (D) while educated men such as Henry Demarest Lloyd promoted virtue, not land, as the ideal focus of government (B). Dissatisfaction continued within the middle class. As new industrial machines emerged, designed for mass product...
The working classes’ unrest and radicalism in this period was motivated primarily by their economic and pecuniary environment. This economic milieu which incorporated the working classes of the nineteenth century was the fundamental basis from which unrest sprang; it was the origin of their motivation, rationale and, to the limited extent it existed, their solidarity. In this context radicalism found purchase; it capitalised on the latent political energy of the working class, emergent amongst the economic malaise that followed the end of twenty-three years of war in 1815, as well as the failure of Luddism
The changes accompany the transition from one epoch to another. In the late nineteenth century labor has become a commodity to the merchants, and the formation of a new mode of production has risen which gave rise to a capitalist society. There is a new class distinction between the laborer and those who owned the means of production.
Working conditions in the Industrial Revolution were very harsh. It was a time when people wanted mass amounts of production and were not concerned about how things got done as long as they got done. Chadwick and Sadler both took initiative to try to change and protect workers’ rights. As worker’s health became more public, people began to realize how bad they were suffering, the Parliament knew they had to make changes. The Parliament put in many acts and laws that would limit work hours and give workers more rights and better health.
The problem with society during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was the equality of all persons was few and far between. The bourgeoisie was in control of all the power and the proletariats were basically under their control. It was as if the bourgeoisie “originated out of the old medieval peasant class, in opposition to the medieval titled aristocracy.” [ii] They had taken over everything; the oppressed class lived by their rules and ways of life. Their way of life was not a happy one; family was based upon money instead of love. “Capital developed in the same proportion as the class of laborers developed.” ii Life then seemed simple for those living the life of the bourgeoisie, b...
The mid 19th century was an age of growth like no other. The term “Industrial Revolution” refers to the time period where production changed from homemade goods, to those produced by machines and factories. As industrial growth developed and cities grew, the work done by men and women diverged from the old agricultural life. People tended to leave home to work in the new factories being built. They worked in dangerous conditions, were paid low wages, and lacked job security (Kellogg). It is difficult to argue, however, that the economic development of the United States was not greatly dependent on the industrial revolution.