The Causes Of Radicalism In The Early 20th Century Europe

France was under extreme turmoil because of its structure and King Louis XVI, there were many growing tensions throughout France that needed to be dealt with before the revolution was to take over. The three estates in France were under a very unequal system where the majority vote and majority of wealth came from less than 10 percent of the country; many privileges were the given to them like minimal taxes and all authority. The other 90 percent of the country was living in extremely poor conditions and were spending 90 percent of their wages on bread. King Louis XVI continued to charge the third-estate excessive amounts of taxes to pay for his contribution to the American war. Moderates believed they could change these issues through minor reforms, but when that failed the radicals realized it would take a revolution to change the problems that persisted in France. Because strict government control during the Radical stage of the revolution (1792-1794) was placed in society, a dictator of the Radical stage, Maximilien Robespierre was able to achieve more than the moderate stage (1789-1792). There were many great ideas in the moderate stage but they were pursued with the dedication of the leaders in the radical stage, while they were already achieving many of their own goals.

“A reform movement attempts to change limited aspects of a society but does not aim at drastically altering or replacing major social, economic, or political institutions… a revolutionary movement, in comparison, is a social movement in which participants are organized to alter drastically or replace totally an existing social, economic, or political institutions” (Defronzo 8).

We can trace this radicalization according to Jim George to the liberalization of belief system in the 60s inside the Western countries especially the United States and outside these in the fight against communism.

There were a couple of main forces that lead to the outbreak of the war. The first force was called nationalism, which is having a devotion to your nation. Nationalism can be a positive force or a negative force. It can unify nations or cause them to compete against each other. During the 20th century nationalism was a negative force. It caused a rivalry between the Great Powers of Europe. The powers were France, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Great Britain. The rivalry was caused by many things. Competition for materials, competition for markets, and fights over the territories were the problems. Some examples of them arguing over territories is when France never got over losing Alsace-Lorraine and Russia and Austria-Hungary both wanted control over the Balkans. These disputes lead to demands for independence among the different ethnic groups. The last force that lead to the war was imperialism, which is where a strong nation tries to dominate other nations. The Great Powers of Europe were searching for colonies to take and this caused them to get closer and closer to war. It made them distrust each other and made their rivalry even worse. The nations of Europe thought that in order to be great they had to have a good military. Every nation except Great Britain had a large and powerful army. Militarism is the policy of keeping an army ready for war. They brought this policy into play because they needed a way to keep track of the army. The policy had just the

Whether through culturally divergent beliefs, tactics, or both, political radicals exist, by definition, on the often negative fringes of societal opinion. While the idealistic goals of most radicals are generally not fully achieved, often giving way to irrelevance in the changing course of material and societal progression or being coopted by more commonly palatable moderates, a rare yet significant few succeed, whether directly or not, in making their demands a reality. Thus, when remembering these successful radicals, it is common practice for the latter societies to patriotically or nostalgically claim them as enlightened moral crusaders, as is seen in the likes of the American revolutionaries and Martin Luther King. It is an interesting phenomenon, however, and one that causes much more nuanced reflection on the past, when a radical whose ends become the

She draws this from Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. She explains that the ruling class has to create a state of constant revolution to be in power and that the only way they could remain to be in power. In fact, that is what the Germans did to be power for so long. Ardent critically explains the relationship between revolution and ideology. She argues for a given government system to immensely practices totalitarianism towards its people, and for the people to efficiently establish change within the system, there must be a revolution that adequately initiates positive ideology, which implies promises and supports the dignity of human beings, as well as limiting the powers of the changed government. Undoubtedly, totalitarianism refers to a political theory that is applied by a particular centralized government that practices dictatorship. Revolution refers to a significant change in political association and power that essentially take place due to population rebellion against a specific government. Ideology refers to a precise system of concepts and principles that explicitly form the foundation of political policy and theory. ThusArdent explains that for the people who are experiencing totalitarianism within their system of government, the changes that should incredibly be done within the government through revolution should intensely be composed of a positive ideology that

From another perspective, Robert Bannister, author of Neo-darwinism and the Crisis of the 1890s, observes that social Darwinism “described a variety of evils” from its first appearance in Europe around 1880 to the time it found its way into American thought twenty years later. For example, while some early commentators identified social Darwinism as “brutal individualism” similar to that advocated by Herbert Spencer, others insisted that it provided a new rationale for socialism and the class struggle or an explanation for the “rising tide” of imperialism and militarism in the late 19th century. Such individualism can be found in the laisse faire system of economics first utilized by American businessmen. American businessmen found in darwinistic

By proposing an answer with supportable evidence to an urgent and controversial question that affected all walks of life, society had little choice but to listen, especially since Darwin was already a naturalist of some celebrity. The concreteness of his suggestion aside, Darwin’s success lies in his understanding, coincidental or not, of the text’s audience. Due to its artful blending of science and aesthetics, On the Origin of Species was relatively accessible, and of interest to those even outside of the scientific community. By contrast, Swift’s work was aimed towards readers of a higher class, who likely benefitted from the inequities that A Modest Proposal aimed to point out and change. As a political pamphlet, the text would have been largely inaccessible to the victims of this problem, who were likely illiterate and would not have the leisure to frequent the coffee shops where it would have been read.

Schultz mentions that railroad tycoons, such as Charles Francis Adams, Jr., felt justified in their over bearing behavior because they proved to be the most successful competitors in an open market (2016). This attitude was very present in the time period when Darwinism made its debut. Keas points out that “a tribe with more altruistic behavior would out-compete (in the “battle for life”) those lacking such selfless behavior” (2010).

Your argument that Darwin has more influence I see is well supported, the example from Cosmos using the warrior crabs is quite strong. My only concern is the lack of support/evidence towards Adam Smith. There is a clear and strong argument as to why Darwin will have a lasting influence but there is little information provided about Smith, his theories and why it is inadequate in having a lasting influence. The only part I see in your short essay about Smith is the last line saying the ideas of Adam Smith are “antiquated for modern day use.” On the contrary, Smith’s idea of evaluating a country’s wealth through GDP is still being used today, his theory of the invisible hand is still being caught in some if not most economics classes today. Your

The Radical Period of The French Revolution By the end of 1971, Europe was preparing to witness the end of a seemingly triumphant revolution in France. The country was restructuring its government in a forceful and bloodless manner, while the tyrant King Louis the XVI agreed to the demands of the masses (albeit without much choice). However, due to the fanatical aspirations of men such as Danton, Marat and Robespierre,it would be only a matter of months before the moderate stage of social and political reform was transformed into a radical phase of barbaric and violent force. In their quest for freedom, equality and fraternity, the leaders of the Jacobins inadvertently turned the revolution into an oligarchic dictatorship

In today’s society, we have many rights that were fought for over the years. We gained freedom but do we really have complete freedom? In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Americans and Europeans fought for equality and liberty. These rights were fought for all across the world.

History informs us that radical revolutions are inevitable. The demand for a rapid fundamental change in all aspects of a country can only be satisfied through a radical overthrow of the old structure. The best explanation investigates the nature of the radical factions that direct the course of the revolution: unafraid to use violence to implement change, radicals are characterized by their boldness and their devotion to overthrow the old regime completely and establish a fairer society which all are equal before the law. Radicals lack privilege, voice, and ultimately opportunity in the corrupt system; therefore, they are naturally suited to utilize drastic measures under the name of liberty to rid the oppression under the old regime. Having

Most of the new ideas and principles emerged during the 19th century in the Western Europe. These ideologies were introduced and analysed by multiple individuals. Liberalism, socialism, nationalism and imperialism are the some of the powerful ideologies that impacted the society development. The 19th century ism’s principles were influential during their time and have changed over the years. The ideologies are very influential till this day and it is the main reason of why our modern society is the way it is. Even though each of of these ideologies have different beliefs, principles and goals, they have many similarities supporting each other.

The European Revolution of 1848 was one of the biggest moments in European history. There were many aspects that led to the 1848 revolution. The revolution impacted many people in Europe and even other countries. Many great men were involved in this big part of European history. There are many different topics to discuss such as why was the revolution started, who was involved, and how it affected the European people, government, and even other countries.