During the 1830s it was a time in which Revolutions were happening across Europe. A country in Europe that fell into Revolution again was France. Unlike the first main Revolution in France this Revolution was of smaller scale, which is thus why it is often overlooked in history textbooks today. What happened in France during the Revolution of 1830?
Charles X became king in 1824, he was an Ultra(which was a French political faction). During this time politics was mostly made up of Moderates and Liberals, but instead Charles chose his own officials from his own political faction, the Ultras. This was not exactly something that pleased the majority at the time. To make the tension worse Charles dissolved the chamber of deputies(which was a lower house of the French Parliament), and decreased the number of eligible votes to a number below twenty three thousand.
This ended in Charles being deposed, and protests in the streets. He was replaced by a man named Louis Philippe. This did not end the issues though because the Artisans were now displeased about free market economics.
Thus, this is what happened in France during the Revolution in 1830.
During the 18th century new movements in art and literature sprung up. One of those new artistic movements’ was the movement of Romanticism. What were the characteristics of Romanticism?
Romanticism is an artistic movement that had a focus on emotions, unlike Neoclassicism which had a focus on reason, logic, and balance. Romanticism was also a movement that had an emphasis on the individual, and their feelings. One can find Romanticism in paintings, music, and literature. Thus, these are the characteristics of Romanticism.
Karl Marx(1818-1883), was a German political philosopher who compiled the ideas of the political ideology of communism. Marx believed very fully that communism was effective, and was bound to happen in the near future(which did in fact happen in some countries). Because Marx was a heavy believer of communism he had many criticisms toward capitalism. What are some of Marx’s criticisms of capitalism?
The first criticism of Marx that must be noted is how he believed that capitalism is based on the concept of “exploitation” of wage labor. A lot of Marx’s criticism towards capitalism was based on how a capitalistic economy apparently treated their workers. Another specific criticism is that in capitalism the producer only produces things that the consumer(buyer)wants. His argument was that in communism this would not be the case and that instead the producer could make what he wants to make, not what the people who give him business in the first place want. This would not exactly be an effective business decision whatsoever. The way that the producer is able to make money is by making what his consumer(buyer)wants, because why else would the consumer buy from him? It is clear that Marx was not exactly the most economically sound person.
Marx was very critical of capitalism, and believed quite fully that capitalism was all bad and that it did nothing good towards the working class. This was completely regardless of the truth that the majority of the things that come along with capitalism actually makes sense, and are effective economically.
Facism was a political ideology that became widespread in Europe during the earlier portion of the 20th century. A few influential European powers, such as Germany, adopted it. The ideology itself is quite controversial and many can agree that it overall was a negative in history. But what is facism? What are the primary values of this political ideology?
A fascist government has a heavy emphasis on the nation, and is very nationalistic. Instead of focusing on the triumphs of the individual fascism encourages the focusing of the triumphs of the state. That the “Good of the Nation,” is more important than the rights of the individual. Fascism promotes a planned government, instead of a government that is dictated by the people. In short, these were the primary values of fascism.
The American constitution has been a very important factor in ensuring that the freedoms of the American people are protected from the government. This is unique compared to other countries. The American constitution, though aspects of it have been updated, there are specific things that have never changed since its creation. What is the idea of a “living constitution?” In what way could it be argued that the American Revolution was a war against a “living constitution?”
A “living constitution,” is a constitution that can be modified or changed if necessary over the years, to keep up with the changing times. In the case of the American Revolution, one can consider it as a war against a “living constitution”.” This is due to the truth that the colonists at the time wanted certain laws that would never be changed. Laws that would never change over the years.
Thus, this is the idea of a “living constitution,” which is a constitution that can be changed if necessary over the years. The colonists before and during the American Revolution did not want a “living constitution,” they wanted a constitution that would not be changed at random, and would be relevant over the years, which is why it can be argued that the American Revolution was a war against a “living constitution.”
Neoclassicism was an artistic period during the 18th century in which art was inspired greatly by the classical art from ancient Greece and Rome. Neoclassicism was not only applied to paintings but also to sculptures, literature, etc.
A very important characteristic of Neoclassicism was its focus on balance, symmetry, and reason, which were valued things in the classical period. Another very important characteristic of Neoclassicism was its emphasis on serenity, order, and rationality. Thus these were the characteristics of neoclassicism.
The United States is a vast country that is divided into fifty states. Each state has some of its own authority and is more or else somewhat separate from the federal government. Some seem to believe the two political theories apply to the United States situation are the compact and nationalist theories. What are the compact and nationalist theories of the union?
The compact theory states that the Union came after the states. That the states created the union, and the union is only a combination of these states. The nationalist theory states on the other hand that the states have no power, that a union is a whole unit, and that the states were created after the union. In conclusion, these are the compact and nationalist theories of the union.
After the physical death of Jesus Christ, his apostles went on spreading his teachings; trying to convert others to believe. A group of people who they had difficulties with along the way were the Sadducees, who were a Jewish sect. The Apostles and Sadducees were unable to find a way to reconcile their rival opinions, which leaves the question: why were the Sadducees and Apostles unable to find a way to reconcile their rival opinions?
Trying to convert a group that has mostly different beliefs than you do is a long shot in many ways. First of all the Sadducees though they believed in God, did not believe in an immortal soul, and that there is life after death. Also they did not believe in resurrection(Christ rising from the dead), which was pretty fundamental to the teachings of Christ, which was now being carried out by His Apostles. This already would be a pretty large rift in the view points, and also from the sounds of it the Sadducees had a pretty firm belief on their own beliefs.
Not believing in resurrection meant that the Sadducees would not have been very convinced of Christ being resurrected, which was a message that the Apostles shared. Another thing that was a very important piece of the teachings of Christ was that humans have an immortal soul, which was again something that the Sadducees did not have a belief in meant that they would have also not been convinced with the Apostles teachings, when it came in regards to that.
One of the largest reasons why the Sadducees and Apostles were unable to find a way to reconcile their rival opinions, was because the Sadducees questioned that Christ was the Son of God. Because the Sadducees questioned or disagreed with many of the fundamental beliefs in the teachings of Christ, reconciliation between them and the Apostles was a bit out of reach to say the least. The Sadducees saw the Apostles most likely as people who were changing the old ways, which threatened their beliefs, regardless of if their beliefs were correct or not, in the first place. They saw the Apostles as a threat to their overall way of life.
The Sadducees and Apostles had quite a few rival opinions, on a variety of things including: the soul, resurrection, and the question of whether Jesus was the Son of God. The beliefs of the Apostles in many ways went against the beliefs of the Sadducees, which caused a rift between the two groups. To conclude, this was why the Sadducees and Apostles were unable to find a way to reconcile their rival opinions.
Althusius was a German political philosopher during the early 17th century. Hobbes on the other hand was an English political philosopher, who lived during the 17th century. Both of these political philosophers had pretty different ideas and beliefs, on numerous areas of topics. An example of the very different views of these philosophers is their models of society. What were the models of society laid out by Althusius and Hobbes?
The Althusius model of society was a model in which there were a series of groups. The first group is the family, and the second group is the village. A group of villages becomes a province or provinces, and finally, these provinces evolve into kingdoms. In this model, the people create their government which leaves them the ability to give or take back power from the government.
Hobbes’ model of society on the other hand was very much different. Hobbes stated that the government was not created by the people, and was there before. A government has the right to give and take away the rights and liberties of the people. The people have to do things for the government, not the other way around. Thus these are the models of society laid out by Altusius and Hobbes.
Socialism is a highly debated political belief that has much controversy surrounding it. The views of socialism have been around for centuries, but especially began to set forth after the French revolution which was based on certain socialistic beliefs. Like every political belief, socialism has a spectrum of subgroups who share a common view of socialism just with different flavors of the same belief. One of these so-called subgroups is known as Utopian socialism. What was the basic message of the utopian socialists?
Utopian socialists main goal is to persuade capitalists to surrender the means of production peacefully to the people. They believed that the government should have almost or total control over the people. Of course, like all areas of socialism, the ideal society of the Utopian socialists there would be no private property, all production would be under the control of a few specific producers, and no one would own anything. To conclude this was the basic message of the utopian socialists.