What Were The Sans Cultism

When the French Third Estate stormed the Bastille in 1789, they envisioned a country in which they were no longer trodden upon by the First and Second Estates. They envisioned a nation where they had a major voice in politics and had a prominent role in the economy. By successfully overthrowing the French government and installing their own, they succeeded; albeit for only a short time. Little did they know that within a few decades, the same social hierarchy would be reinstalled during the Industrial Revolution, except the lower classes would be fighting for sanitation instead of bread. Over the course of the nineteenth century, various arguments emerged of how to improve the lives of European workers during the Industrial Revolution. Arguments

The French Revolution was a time of great social, political and economic tumult in the closing years of the Eighteenth Century. The motivators pushing French citizenry toward revolution are varied in scope and origin. They range from immediate economic woes to an antiquarian class structure. Modern historians still debate the value of the changes that the revolution brought to modern society. The middle class made gains that would never be rescinded, but do revolutions always end in tyranny? In the years before the revolution citizens were rigidly constrained by the estates of the realm. These social strata had been in place since the medieval ages. The people were divided into three groups; clergy, nobility and everyone else. The clergy

John Locke and Karl Marx, two of the most renowned political philosophers, had many contrasting views when it came the field of political philosophy. Most notably, private property rights ranked high among the plethora of disparities between these two individuals. The main issue at hand was whether or not private property was a natural right. Locke firmly believed that private property was an inherent right, whereas Marx argued otherwise. This essay will examine the views of both Locke and Marx on the subject of private property and will render insight on whose principles appear more credible.

During the French Revolution, there were three different social categories that separated you depending on how much money were making, and who you were. The First Estate were the clergy, or priests, the Second Estate were the nobility,and last the Third Estate were peasants. For example, there was a picture on the Do Now: The Causes of the French Revolution, that depict the difference in treatment each social group were receiving. The priests were in charge of the Church the main government, and they were rich, they had fancy clothing and lived a great life. The nobles were also rich, if you were a noble back in 1789, you were a police officer, or someone who worked in the community. The peasants were very poor due

Karl Marx and John Locke both formulated philosophical theories that worked to convince people of their rights to freedom and power; however, they had conflicting viewpoints on the idea of private property. Locke felt that property belonged to whoever put their labor into it, and one could accumulate as much property as he or she wants (692). Marx, however, considered the private property of the select few who possessed it to be the product of the exploitation of the working class (1118). Personally, I believe that Locke’s conception of private property is more convincing than Marx’s point of view.

In fact, he believed private property was “sacred” to civilization because it allowed competition and competition resulted in more people being able to purchase products of better quality. He believed “the poor enjoy what the rich could not before afford. What were the luxuries have become the necessities of life.” (Paragraph 4) He added, “Not evil, but good, has come to the race from the accumulation of wealth by those who have the ability and energy that produce it.” (Paragraph 7)

One might ask if the 1789 document, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen addressed the needs of all the people of the third estate like its writers claimed was its purpose. The National Assembly of France, which consisted of mostly wealthy bourgeoisies men, wrote the declaration. The remaining members of the third estate, which included the urban poor sans-culottes, therefore did not have much say in what was being addressed to the public. Enlightenment ideas such as popular sovereignty and civic equality, advocated by both the bourgeoisies and sans-culottes, is apparent in the statement. Furthermore, the National Assembly of France addressed the sans-culottes’ need of equality, employment based on talent, and desire for a political reorganization.

During 1789 and decades prior, peasants toil in the fields and reap the diminishing wheat stalks. Bound by the law set by the king, they suffered paying the nobility’s and clergy’s expenses with whatever income they had. When not in desperate poverty, the Third Estate would muster any energy to exert disdain to their king, indifferent behind palace walls. With Voltaire's and Rousseau's conceptions, commoners imagined a government where the nation was in potency, not the monarch. Yet, King Louis XVI taunts this bubbling tension by claiming these privileges were well-deserved, insinuating that his people were literal breadwinners, obligated to pay tribute. With high tax rates, a radical government where the people were free of ridicule circulated

The citizens of the 3rd estate and some citizens in the 2nd estate in France during 1789, were not happy at all. They were getting heavily taxed by Louis XIV, Marie Antoinette, and the Catholic Church. When they didn’t have the money to pay the taxes that was forced upon them. After all of the hard work they put in to growing crops, the crops were taken

The third estate’s citizens had the lowest income in France, yet they were the ones who were supporting the government. The burden of the countries taxes was nearly impossible for the third estate to carry. One peasant woman said that the taxes were “crushing” her and her fellow third estate members. (Document 2).The first and second estate made up the wealthiest portion of France, yet they paid next to nothing in taxes. This obviously and rightfully angered members of the third estate. Why should the only people who can afford to pay taxes be exempt from them? This kind of inequality resulted in violence from the third estate. As a form of rebellion, peasants attacked tax collectors whom they owed money. They also burned land registers and court records. This example, along with the formation of the National Assembly show that the first actions of the revolution were a result of not giving the third estate the voice that it’s members felt it

“The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property” (The Communist Manifesto , p. 10).

John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, two philosophers with differing opinions concerning the concept of private property. Rousseau believes that from the state of nature, private property came about, naturally transcending the human situation into a civil society and at the same time acting as the starting point of inequality amongst individuals. Locke on the other hand argues that private property acts as one of the fundamental, inalienable moral rights that all humans are entitled to. Their arguments clearly differ on this basic issue. This essay will discuss how the further differences between Locke and Rousseau lead from this basic fundamental difference focusing on the acquisition of property and human rights.

The opposition that the backers encountered were the Monopolist and the Aristocrats. These groups did not want the railway running through their beautiful properties. The monopolists and aristocrats, “have always been enemies to nation improvement” (236). These people did not like any improvement to their land because it infringed on their own property. In their opinion the improvements caused their land to be “defaced” and took away from its “elegance”. According to the author of the pamphlet, the opponents’ motives were that in addition to taking their land they did not want the

Another way in which 16th and 17th century prevailing hierarchies was threatened was in the idea of private property. Utopia is very clear in its depiction of an egalitarian state, so far so that "there is no private property, [and] everyone works for the public good" (More 130). As nobility in western society was often dictated by private property and owning land, the idea of getting rid of private property was incredibly threatening to the west hierarchical structures. By allowing for no private property, any power that nobility claimed became meaningless, and as did the idea that the nobility was superior to the peasantry. On the whole, ideas about land ownership and

The abolition of private property is one of More's chief criticisms of Utopia; it seems to mimic the common understandings of communism, which Thomas More’s character Raphael has been accused of protecting not only by me, so this not a new concept.