Ideologies

During the 19th century, many new ideas of government were floating about, and people had different opinions based on their positioning in life.  There were three main ideologies; Liberalism, Conservatism, and Nationalism, and each of these expressed their own ideas.  Liberals believed that the middle class should have a say and that they have God given natural rights, but the poor or women were excluded from these rights.  Conservatives believed that revolutions result in violence, chaos, and bloodshed, so nothing good, and they are looking to preserve the aristocracy, social classes, and monarchy. Nationalists wanted to drive out foreign rulers and turn the country into a place where the country as a whole was the most important.  These varying viewpoints caused many disruptions in the social structure through these changes, such as the switch to Liberalism that Napoleon brought with his reign.

A Link to our Video on Liberalism http://video.videolicious.com/04b66400-ca54-491e-99fe-b42dfdb35ad8
Our project best describes Liberalism as the idea that the middle class should have more of a say in politics, not just the upper class and nobility.  Liberals believe that it is their natural right to be able to have a voice and that they should be able to help mold the country into what they want it to be.  Even though they thought that the middle class should have a say just like the nobility, they did not consider the poor or women to be their equals.  Liberalism influenced the 19th century politically by giving the average man the right to vote and help determine the future of his country.  It took away the absolute power of the monarchy, and enforced a type of democracy where the people choose what happens.  

Liberalism wasn't the only ideology that was around in the 19th century. There were also Nationalism and Conservatism. Nationalists believed that the country should be in control of itself and they wanted to drive out foreign rule.  They believed that, even if the foreign rule was good, the country should still be united under a person who is from that country in order to maintain the name and honor of it. Nationalism effected the social classes because it focused on creating a common good for the people and country, and gave people more pride in their nation. Conservatives were people who believed that the country should return to its original state of monarchy, and they wanted to preserve the social classes, monarchy, and aristocracy.  Conservatism effected the social and political structures of the 19th century by inspiring the people to revert back to older ways and traditions.  This caused the people to try and keep the aristocracy and monarchy intact, and allow the country to function as it did previously.  These ideologies helped to influence the many different perspectives of the way people thought that their countries should be run, and defined the lives of millions of people.

The Reign of Napoleon

When Napoleon Bonaparte came to power over France, he made huge impacts on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe.  These changes brought about both good and bad for many of the countries he conquered, as described by Madame de Stael, Marshall Michel Ney, and from an article called, "Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians."  The first difference that Napoleon made was having to do with the social classes of all of the conquered countries.

The first major change was in the social class system.  What Napoleon brought with his rule was the abolishment of nobility and serfdom, and he also removed church privileges and trade barriers, which allowed industries to grow rapidly.  Because of Napoleon, social class differences grew smaller and more people had access to education and rights to property, and this gave the lower class more opportunities to make their lives better. With the removal of the nobility of conquered countries, it gave everyone equal opportunities and made the lives of the poor much better.

Napoleon also helped to drastically change the economic standpoint of every country he conquered.  For many of the lands he took over, this helped their overall economy and provoked production and growth, stimulating the economy even more for them.  He also created the bank of France, which allowed him to directly control the worth of money and wealth, and regulated the flow of it.  However, while some countries prospered from it, Italy was not so fortunate. Napoleon invaded Italy and took an exorbitant amount of wealth in the form of art. These captures of museums and other places of high value shook Italy's economy, and nearly destroyed it due to the sudden loss of wealth.  Not only did he make changes in the economy of countries, but he also changed the political view of everyone he took over.

When Napoleon begun his rule over France, he changed its system of government into a monarchy or dictatorship.  When he overtook countries, he sometimes allowed them to keep their system of government but only if they complied to his demands, such as making alliances and agreements that benefited Napoleon more.  By uniting France under a single ruler, he potentially increased their strength in military, and also increased the power of the country because decisions did not have to be debated on, they could just be enacted immediately. This allows for important decisions to be made earlier and not have to go through a whole process of authorizing it by a board of people.

Napoleon was one of France's best and worst rulers, for while he brought prosperity and change he also brought bloodshed and war.  He conquered new lands for he French Empire, and had slain those who stood in his way.

Link to the Lost Voices Article
 http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html

Marxism and Smiths Theory

Learning about Carl Marx and Adam Smith's theories on how to stabilize the economy and bring the poor to a better standing point tells us a lot on how different our government could be.  In class, we went over Marxism through an activity using Hershey kisses. In the beginning, we were given a few Hershey kisses, but some students got an outrageous amount-almost three times as much as we had!  We then played Rock Paper Scissors, and would give a candy if we lost and get one if we won. The purpose of the lesson was to show how some people will undoubtedly have more candy than the rest of us.  After that, the teacher collected the candy and redistributed it evenly this time.  Students were then told to play again, and this gave everyone an equal chance. However, in the end some students still ended up with more candy than the rest, so the candy was collected and redistributed, but we did not play Rock Paper Scissors. These are called Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism, and for me, the activity was not fun and was frustrating, because I lost my candy immediately and couldn't win as much as I wanted.  Both Marx's theory and Smiths theory are aimed at helping to get the poor better lives and more stable economically, and both attempted to bring equilibrium to the social classes.

Marx's theory was a lot different than Smiths theory, mainly because Marx's theory had three steps to it. First, a country would be Capitalist and big companies would not pay their workers enough. The poor would continue to get poorer while the rich continue to keep getting richer.  Eventually, Marx said that this would lead to a workers revolt, and the government would be overthrown into a socialist society. They would then decide to evenly distribute resources among everyone, making everyone of equal class and opportunity. Eventually, the people would realize that they did not need a government to distribute the resources, and would all agree to share equally, resulting in the disbandment of government leading to pure communism without competition.  Smith, however, said that his theory of the invisible hand would be a much better way of controlling the economy.  He proposed that instead of having the economy be controlled by the government, they should just let people compete against each other.  By allowing this competition, one company selling the same product as another company will sell it at a lower price in order to sell more units, and if they don't then they will not make any money at all.  Eventually, he believed the costs would go low enough so that the poorer people could afford them, which clears up the issue of not having enough money for them.

I feel that Adam Smith's theory is the most effective in a society because it allows freedom of competition and it also allows the poor to eventually be able to afford simple necessities. Though neither are great, this would most likely work best for everyone in the country, as the amount of work people put in would grant them an equal amount of money in most cases, as producers would understand that their workers are consumers as well.  I personally would recommend a type of system where the poor get money loaned from the government, and the wealthier people get allowed to compete against each other to try to make more money.  This would allow the poor people to get enough money to at least get by, and also allow bigger companies to continue distributing products.  There really isn't any fathomable way for a country to be perfect economically, and there is always the poor and the rich. These social classes have been around for thousands of years, yet how come somebody hasn't come up with something more fair for the poor but just as good for the rich?



Video on "the Invisible Hand" idea constructed by Adam Smith

The Life of a Mill Worker

During the industrial era, mills were being constructed to mass produce linens along assembly lines.  Many girls from the country side went in to the cities in order to aide their families in multiple ways, such as by sending home money or simply giving them one less mouth to feed.  Being able to help their families through these tough times is what motivated girls to come to large cities and work in mills there.  

Coming to the mills had some ups and downs for the mill girls.  Some of the benefits they received were getting a place to live while they worked in the mills, even though it cost them a large portion of their salary for boarding.  However, it did help them to learn to be independent, and they were paid for it, and also received 3 months of formal education.  They were also given some free time on Sundays and at night, so they were not constantly working and could do things they wanted to do, such as go shopping for new clothes with the little money they had.  Even though life at the mills wasn't terribly bad at first, there were many costs to working the life of a mill girl.  They were not paid nearly enough, and they were forced to leave their families to work and live in the mills in the city, and not only that, the working and living conditions in the mills were very poor.  There were many girls crowded into the boarding rooms and the mills were dangerous with mean, strict overseers.  Women had to wear their hair tied up in order to prevent it getting caught in the mill and ripping their hair out, making it an extremely dangerous place because there were women working there.  During the 1800's, women who worked in the mills were thought to be improper and unclean, and were also thought lowly of because they were not with their fathers.  However, it opened up the eyes of some people who learned that women could also do work in factories instead of just men, and that they could do jobs just as well as anyone else.  Before the mills, girls didn't have many available jobs in cities, and were primarily stay at home people, and the opening of these factories gave women new opportunities in the workforce, but some restrictions on them took away their childhoods and didn't let them live the life that most girls did.  Working in the mills meant living a tough life, and it changed the way that many women were viewed in the 1800's.