The Causes Of The 1848 Revolution In Krefeld

The Revolutions of 1848 have been described as the “greatest revolution of the century”1. From its mild beginnings in Palermo, Sicily in January 1848, it did not take long to spread across the rest of Europe (Britain and Russia were the only countries not to experience such revolutions). “In 1848 more states on the European continent were overcome by revolution than ever before and ever since”2. The Revolutions became more radical but after June 1848 these revolutionary events began to overlap with those of counterrevolutionary actions, thus enabling the old regimes to return to power. 1848 was described as “a sunny spring of the peoples abruptly interrupted by the winter of the princes”3.

The failure of the 1848 revolutions caused gains made in the last 30 years to disappear. Europe had started the process of working together with the peace settlements of 1815 (Text 681). European powers, instead of working together, began to act in accordance with their own national interests.

The Revolutions of 1848 During the year of 1848, a revolutionary tide broke out in Europe.

The Great Mahele of 1848, the great revolution of land in Hawaii, was when King Kamehameha III divided the land into different portions. To be more specific, he split the land into thirds, one belonging to king, another to the ali’i, and the third was to the maka’ainana, or the commoners. This event was a result of the foreigners pushing the Hawaiians to think their way, which is gaining control over land would be better and make the Hawaiians become more responsible citizens. King Kamehameha III was afraid of the foreigners trying to take over by force so he created this revolution as a solution to be able to let the foreigners get what they want, while also helping the Hawaiians get some land, too (Cachola). Although the Mahele intended to satisfy the foreigners while also helping the Hawaiians, it turned out to become unjustified because the maka’ainana lacked knowledge and experience with new laws, the Hawaiians didn’t have money, and the maka’ainana didn’t have food because the konohiki withheld the resources.

Europe underwent a wave of revolutions during the 19th century. This series of political upheavals was known as the Revolutions of 1848. The Revolutions of 1848 were a series of republican revolts against European monarchies. The revolutions began in Italy, in January 1848, and eventually spread to the rest of Europe. The Revolutions of 1848 were significant because they were the most widespread and violent political movements of Europe in the 19th century. Ultimately, the ideas of conservatism, liberalism, and nationalism impacted the Revolutions of 1848.

Thus, it was believed that conflicting classes existed because individuals developed an appropriate sense of class-consciousness (Buckler 740). This consciousness is very obvious when looking at the mindset of the middle-class owners. They were primarily focused on production and gave little thought to the environment of their workers. As a result, most early factories contained extremely unpleasant work conditions. Mills and factories were dangerously loud, and they were sweltering hot in the summer while poorly heated in the winter. Work days consisted of endlessly long hours and holidays were rarely granted. Furthermore, no laws or unions stood protecting the early urban proletariat workers. Despite these horrid conditions, the proletariat workers were desperate for jobs and were entirely dependant on their employers. Also, because of class-consciousness, they came to accept their positions in society as grueling factory workers. On top of terrible work conditions, the Proletariats’ living conditions were less than satisfactory due to the rapid population increase in urban cities. Until the Industrial Revolution, most of the continent’s population was rural. However, by mid-nineteenth century, half of all Europeans lived in cities and worked in the new industrial factories instead of farms. This transformation of Europe from a rural to urbanized society depressed the living standards of workers to horrendous levels. In doing so, however, it

Throughout history there has always been revolutions, change, and reforms. In 1832, England experienced the death of George IV and accession of William IV in 1830 ,that resulted in a general parliamentary election in which the opposition political party, the Whigs, scored major gains with their platform calling for parliamentary reform. With the Tory party divided, the king asked the leader of the Whigs, Earl Grey, to form a government. Immediately, the Whigs introduced a major reform bill designed to increase the number of voters by 50 percent and to eliminate underpopulated electoral districts (“rotten boroughs”) and replace them with representatives for previously unrepresented manufacturing districts and cities, especially in the industrial

The industrial revolution that swept across Europe in the 19th century was vital to both the economic and social advancements that Continental Europe was able to achieve. Starting in the United Kingdom with small textile mills run by hard labor quickly transitioned to larger factories using unskilled workers. With the progression of the 19th century, the Great Britain no longer was the only nation going through a period of industrialization. Soon after, Britain’s breakthrough, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy began their own periods of industrialization. Throughout Prussia and the other small German states, the creation of factories and the move away from farming created problems. For many factory owners, they found replication to be all

The German Peasants’ War of 1525 has been seen as both the last great medieval peasant revolt and as the first modern revolution. For more than 150 years the War has been the topic of ongoing historical debate. Indeed, it has always been a subject of contention among historians who seek to determine its relation to the Reformation. While most Reformation scholars have arrived at a consensus as to the series of events that transpired during the war, there has not been such agreement regarding the perplexing inner dynamic of the uprising. Set against the backdrops of both the German revolutions of 1848 and the political developments that characterized 1970s Germany, this debate has seen engagement from the historians Friedrich Engels and Max Steinmetz, who provide a Marxist interpretation that attempts to depict the war as the “high point of the early bourgeois revolution”, locating it within a German revolutionary tradition by citing the socioeconomic tensions that arose through the peasants’ oppressive relationship with the feudal lordship of their rural communities. Departing from the Marxist interpretation, Günther Franz has entered into the debate, defining the revolt as a “political revolution of the German peasant estate” that was made possible by the Reformation. Although he acknowledges the troubling nature of the evident economic difficulties, Franz understands the war as a response to the changing political structure of 16th century Germany. Submitting his own

Overcrowding, terrible food, disease and alcoholism were everyday happenings. Peasants began to realise that working in the factories was no better than working on the land. As a result of this industrialisation, a new class of people called the Capitalists began to emerge in Russia. These were the new middle class, which Russia had only seen as shopkeepers and university lecturers, but landowners, bankers, industrialists and businessmen flourished.

Throughout The Communist Manifesto, Marx expresses the political, economic and social turmoil that were present in their society. During this time period, agriculture production was the main occupation. This resulted in a class struggle between the landowners and the serfs who labored the land. A new, manufacturing class emerged from this conflict called the bourgeoisie. Bourgeoisie changed the focus from agriculture to industrialization and commerce. Having “less dexterity and strength [that] is required in manual labor, [helps] modern industry develop” and prosper throughout society (Marx 131). This more proficient way to produce commodities helped the bourgeoisie control global and domestic trade. They eventually reached a point where they were inhibited by the feudal government and could not progress at the original rate they were going. Resulting from this, the French Revolution occurred and the bourgeoisie demolished the aristocracy that was originally present during this primitive time. Unfortunately, this did not resolve the primary

poor” tension all the time.Karl Marx’s depiction of class conflict illustrates that the masses are the ones who should wage an armed struggle against the ruling class (or the rich), but The Purge ironically boasts a perversion of his idea. Instead, we see how the ruling class eliminates everyone under their wing with bullets and blades. In comparison, it is like witnessing an elite protest where conflicting interests are pitted against each other. Even in a state of normlessness, we see that anarchy remains at the mercy of the elites.

As the bourgeois advanced financially, they also gained political influence. They progressed from a once oppressed class to an independent urban republic. As their political influence increased, certain changes became clear. The bourgeois had “torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation (Marx).” This force eventually grew to the point that it was able to force other nations to conform to its values and methods or suffer extinction. As the bourgeois became richer, the proletarians began to suffer more. The balance of property began to shift even more rapidly than before leaving property “concentrated…in a few hands (Marx).” Eventually, the super-efficient production of the manufacturing economy began to take its toll on the bourgeois as well as the proletarians. More goods were produced due to the cheaper costs and ease of manufacture leading to an over-production of goods (Marxism). Over-production became a serious problem, resulting with widespread unemployment of the proletarians, and threats of a revolution on the horizons.

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte was written by Karl Marx a few months after the December 1851 coup d’etat of Louis Bonaparte in France. In this short text, Marx further examined the revolution of 1848 and the series of political reversals which eventually led to the coup. Marx views the coup as a consequence of sharp intensifications of class antagonisms in modern bourgeois society, which is the central idea of the theory of revolutionary change presented in the Communist Manifesto. Therefore, his analysis in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte allows us to understand how his theory bears out in practice. However, in the latter text, Marx also made some adjustments to his theory. He went from a simple, bifurcate model consisting of only a dominating class and a dominated class to a more sophisticated understanding where he identifies the subgroups within the main groups, as well as the roles each of these factions played during the course of the revolution. In this paper, I will explain the revolution theory proposed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, and how the theory was applied and adjusted in the Eighteenth Brumaire to make concrete historical sense of the events happened during the years between 1848 to 1851.

The revolutionaries in Italy had longstanding grievances, some were nationalists and some were liberals. Despite all having different ideas and aims they all resoundingly agreed that Italy needed change. The hopes of the various revolutionary groups had been raised by the election of Pope Pius and Charles Albert the King of Piedmont Sardinia. However, their hopes and resulting revolutions were crushed due to many concerning factors.