The main question of this thesis is that how the socio-economic changes caused the French peasant revolts during the French wars of religion? To understand why the peasant revolts happened in this way, we need to look at the economic and social conditions of the French peasantry in the late sixteenth century. In order to fulfill it, I will look at the peasant revolts through two macro and micro perspectives in the framework of the comparative economic history. The 16th and 17th century Europe was an agrarian society with the peasant economy. In peasant economy, the labor and agricultural output were the capital, for this reason, there were extreme anti-military spirit in all three peasant revolt waves. Understanding the peasant economy is …show more content…
For macro-approach, I use the Immanuel Wallerstein famous theory of the Modern world system. His idea offers a good framework for better understanding of the historical changes and making of the capitalist economy. Basically, Modern world system is the synthesis of Marxist and Braudelien economic history based on the “longue durée” processes. With an emphasis on the Marxist idea of accumulation and labor process, this theory provides a decent context for the conceptualizing the peasant revolts both on the local and national scales. At the end, I take into account the basis of this transition as the main ground of all changes. The smallest unit in this process is related to the economic life of peasants. The peasant economy has some characteristics which describe this mode of rural production. The common economic characteristics of peasant household agricultural production is about the ways by which the peasant families make use of the resources at their disposal, for production, for …show more content…
He has an ambivalent attitude to the peasantry. In his famous book “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, Karl Marx formulates the peasant economy as a mode of production among the peasants which instead of bringing them together, isolated them from one another and it happens through the lack of good means of communication and poverty. For Marx, each peasant family is almost self-sufficient because they directly produce their needs for consumption and saving in an exchange with nature than in dealing with society. The economy of a village has the same features because the combination of peasant families makes a village. He sees the lack of division of labor in the cultivation of the field, the small holding, lack of applicable science and absence of proper social relationship as the backwardness of the peasant economy. He adds that the peasant economic conditions of existence separate their mode of life, their interest, and their culture from the other classes. The interconnection among them just comes from their attempt to maintain themselves. Their interest begets no community, no national and no political organization bond. They do not form a class for this reason for their political life, they need to be represented. The peasants shape an economic class than the social and political class. For Marx and Engels, the peasants were a fossil representative of an old and reactionary social
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Social DBQ Beginning in the 16th century, there was a growing unrest among the serfs primarily in modern day Germany. High taxes, joined with the fact that peasants had no opportunity to increase their social standing, let alone the right to do so, gave an atmosphere of disaccord between the noble, and lower class. Internalizing the egalitarian ideologies of Martin Luther, it was easy for the peasants to feel like they had greater place in among society. However, due to semi-feudalistic attitudes of those days, peasants were the lowest social class and needed to stay that way for such a social structure to function. Martin Luther’s teachings that through faith everyone could be equal in God’s eyes gave peasants a false sense of equality,
The French Revolution was caused by the French government’s inability to unite their people as one nation and address the people’s demand for reformation of unjust taxation and citizen equality causing uprisings and revolts among middle and lower class people. The French government was already unstable after their assistance in the United States with their fight for independence, which put France in tremendous debt. Since the nobles and the clergymen were favored by the government, taxes were forced upon the Third Estate resulting in even more unrest. All citizens were not equal under the law, and the government was too occupied by their financial situation to focus on fixing the inequality and lack of representation among their own citizens.
Marx and Engels then follow with a series of rhetorical questions: “Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not been hurled back from the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries (1)?” Combined with the notion that holding power leads to corruption and immorality, the questions asked presents the reader with the impression that the communist party is being purposefully targeted by influential authorities. Marx and Engels further appeal to the emotions of their readers by adding that “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has… left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”(4).”
The idea behind this according to Marx is that history is a series of stages, defined by their mode of production and the struggle between classes: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. " According to Marx, the current historical stage is the capitalist historical stage. This is the conflict between the bourgeoisie (middle class) and the proletariat (working class). This theory is supported by the historical stages preceding the capitalist historical stage which can easily be defined by their modes of production and class struggle, or lack thereof.
Karl Marx was the child of middle-class Jews in western Germany who had converted to Lutheranism. The popular, “The Communist Manifesto” was curated in 1848, by Marx and his lifelong friend and associate Friedrich Engels, who helped organize revolutionary groups. Marx created a new worldview of the facts, theories, and hopes of the industrial age. Marxism offered a unified view and a psychological substitute for traditional religion. He stressed the international character of working-class movements, claiming the system promises misery to the laborers and contains contradictions to ensure its own destruction.
From this history, Mao set out to turn the current workers revolution into a peasant revolution. Mao himself believed that the road to success relied “mainly on the alliance of the workers and the peasants” (Zedong, 1949). Even with Zedong’s proclamation of unity, it was seen that the peasants themselves became the driving force of the war. Up until 1926, years before the war, the workers and peasants had been more united, but in this year the peasants were given more responsibility and separation from the workers. Leon Trotsky evaluated the position of the peasants and workers and argued that while the peasants “desire a friendship with the workers” that they are incapable of maintaining it (Trotsky, 1932).
Marx and Engel focused on class conflict as the driving force for their argument. Throughout history, there is a common theme of a caste society lasting for so long until the mistreated lower class attempt to break the cycle; but that system is only replaced with a new
In conclusion, peasantry has been able to survive in an increasingly expanding industrialised and capitalist society mainly by adapting, by letting the protagonists of this reality think about and redefine what it means to be a peasant in today’s world, by deciding which aspects of tradition maintain and which discard in order to be able to keep up with the times. Each of these situations varies depending on the community, and we must assume there are as many ways in which to be a peasant as there are peasant
As the revolution started, peasants became rebellious as they wanted change. The Bourgeoisie obtained wealth however it was taken away which led them to collaborate with the lower class. This source demonstrates how unequal each class was and how the failures of the country fell on the peasants as they bared most responsibility and contributed the
In bourgeoisie society, there is living labor, but it is used to increase collected labour but in a communist society, collected labour exists but it is broadened, improved and shows appreciation and encouragement to the existence of the laborer. Communist robs no man of the authority to apposite the products of civilization. Mark speaks about different divisions of communist and literature. He mentions the reactionary socialism which includes the bourgeois socialists which are individuals who fight against the bourgeoisie society and their development of production. They are against the bourgeoisie because they see their approach of life as a hazard.
Peasants are defined as small agricultural producers who with the help of simple tools and the labour of their families, produce mainly for their own consumption through the cultivation of land and for the fulfilment of obligations to the holders of political and economic power says Shanin (1973). Tribal and peasant societies overlapped; tribal society goes down, peasant society goes up. People in peasant societies were somewhat more free and were able to tend their own crops but to have their own lands they still had whims of the landlord, traders and social
Third, Marx demonstrated that, as productive powers of a human society – its ‘productive forces’ - inevitably keep growing, they necessarily come into conflict with the prevalent way of organizing social production and reproduction, which he called ‘the social relations of production’. Fourth, he made the point that as productive forces developed, there would emerge a surplus of production over and above the needs of social reproduction, which would then enable a section of society to live off the labor of the rest of society. In other words, the emergence of a surplus would make logically possible the coming into being of class society, based on a division of society between the majority who work – the exploited - and a minority who live off the labor of the majority – the exploiters. Such a class division would of course be possible only on the basis of the minority of exploiters being in control of social production, primarily through their monopoly of ownership of
His ambition for universal equality, collective justice, and classless society transfixed me. I never thought that a classless society could be possible; however, my understanding of his work leads me to envisage the possibilities of a classless society. Marx’ work demonstrates a man who genuinely wants societal change. “The goal of sociology would not simply be to scientifically analyze or objectively describe society, but to use a rigorous scientific analysis as a basis to change it” (Little & McGivern, 2013,
Class conflict, Marx believed, was what encouraged the evolution of society. To quote Marx himself, The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one
CHAPTER 3 CLASS STRUGGLE Generally class struggle means conflict between the upper class and lower class the idea of Class struggle is long-used mostly by socialists and communists, who define a class by its relationship to the means of production such as factories, land, and machinery. From this point of view, the social control of production and labour is a fight between classes, and the division of these resources basically involves conflict and causes damage. Societies are socially divided based on status, wealth, or control of social production and distribution, and in this division of class conflict arises. It is important to know Karl Marx theory on class struggle; he viewed the structure of society in relation to