Introduction
Europe, before the Second World War, was torn up by the governing classes and the interconnection between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Land ownership and agriculture became the determining factors in the amount of power a class had and this was the key issue that would allow any change. Those who had the power did not want to let go of it or the attributes that allowed possessing the said authority.
The separation from the Old Regime came at an extremely slow pace in Europe, in comparison to Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary. The movement towards the republic was the key goal of the people, demanding their rights and freedoms acknowledged but the direction was being constantly halted by economic domination of the ruling class in agriculture and “traditional manufacture” (Mayer, 11).
The Old Regime was being supported by those who owned most land and in turn, they greatly influenced the government and the policies that were put in place. Bourgeoisie is thought of as the part of the nation that moved the progress, as they had the most influence on all the aspects of social life.
Background
Mayer has always raised controversy whenever she stands to speak about the history of revolutions that took place in many regions. She compares the state of affairs in Europe and close by nations through uncovering the reasons that delayed liberalism and greatly influenced the onset of the World War.
This book raises various issues that reflect disparities among various scholars and philosophers but also created a different perspective as to the change in politics and the fall of Old Order.
Perspectives of Arno Mayer on the Industrial Revolution in Europe
She explains that Europe was well prepared to participate in the First World War even though most of its enemies were not aware of these plans. Physical and ideological adjustments had already taken place long before there were rumors of an inevitable war. In addition, civilization had already taken place in most parts of Europe even before anyone though that there was going to be a war.
But even with the increase of tensions, the governing classes were not going to let go of their dominance and power in society. The way out was to adjust the already existing policies to the new ones, “the old elites excelled at selectively ingesting, adapting, and assimilating new ideas and practices without seriously endangering their traditional status, temperament, and outlook” (Mayer, 13).
It is interesting that no global changes would be sufficient enough to deprive the land owners and those in control of their power. Their selfish ways were indifferent to people’s rights and the condition that Europe and nation were in.
She added that the old regime was the greatest beneficiary of natural resources in Europe including land, minerals and power. In addition, Mayer confirms that people in the middle class were on bad terms with one another and this became a self destruction tool used to fight them.
They were not well aware and exposed to politics and this became a major blow in their operations. They could not fight the nobles since their ideologies were based on issues of human rights like good working conditions and improved salaries.
The old order was being supported by both the government and the bourgeoisie. This ensured that those who were in power continued to get more wealth and barricade their evils with money and influencing regimes.
The working class had little ability to overthrow the regime because all authority concentrated in the minority of the governing class. All manufacturing and industry was tightly controlled and there was little possibility to change either working conditions or the positions of those in charge.
The much wanted increase in literacy, reduction of poverty and disease was the want of many and the government was constantly bombarded with the message but nothing was being done. This is a well realized fact because there was no material gain for those with all the rule. On the contrary, resources would have to be spent to better the lives of the working class and this was not the goal.
It took longer to achieve and implement changes as people were divided regarding the intervention of the state in business activities although most of them preferred that there should be limited interference.
This explains why liberalism (conservative) is adhered to by many European parties that consider their ideologies as liberal. The few that still follow social liberalism are puppets of the old order that was not willing to shed their ideologies.
Mayer argues that the proletariats were willing to enter coalitions and form governments that would listen to the people and all parties including those in opposition.
In addition, she stated that the new order was very determined to revolutionize Europe through their numbers and not war equipment, strategies or economic influences. They believed that the power of a state belongs to the common man who toils and works to ensure the economy survives thus it should offer opportunities for individual growth.
The clear separation between classes is not a surprise, as a similar picture can be observed today. But presently, there are regulations that would prevent total domination of the ruling class. The unstable condition on the nation, due to violent conflict was another great influence on both the morality and physical state of the countries.
The war was fought both on the streets and countryside where peasants, religious leaders, workers and members of different unions. She explores the events that led to the evaporation of feudal leadership that was replaced by Darwinism.
The proletariat wanted a regime that would offer liberty, fraternity and equality to everybody regardless of their economic. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie was very much committed in preserving their culture and failed to realize that their opponents were determined to liberate Europe even if it meant death.
It is easy to understand that when people become oppressed so much that they have nothing to lose, they will resort to any means necessary to change the order of things. The limitations of the time and human rights were a major determinant in the ways these changes were taking place.
Mayer argues that the proletariats were disorganized and illiterate and this contributed to their defeat. However, they never gave up and continued to work to ensure the old order is replaced even though this was going to cost them money and even life.
The beginning of the 18th century saw the bourgeoisie restore the old order and almost everything lost was recovered. However, there existed antagonism between these groups leading to political wars over the following two centuries. This period was marked by conflicts between the proletariat and bourgeoisie with each group wanting to compel the government to consider its pleas.
It is interesting to note that “The conventional wisdom is still that Europe broke out of its ancient regime and approached or crossed the threshold of modernity well before 1914” (Mayer 5) but it is a major setback in understanding the historical development of power separation in Europe.
Communism was gaining ground in many nations and there were fears that this was going to erupt into a massive demonstration that would affect the old order in all European states. This necessitated the need to form alliances that would help to fight enemy troops.
The need for an established order which allowed for greater control was the goal and it would not be overthrown easily. The labor force was a significant driver of the industrial revolution witnessed in Europe since they were exposed to political activism courtesy of their involvement in worker’s union that advocated for their rights.
Conclusion
There is no denying that Europe was very much influenced by those in power and that there is a close connection between the state the nation was in, the World War and what followed. The fact that the masses are demanding a change does not mean that those with power will listen and change their policies to suit the majority.
Even though these issues are historically significant and are considered a part of the past, this sort of problem still exists today. The shift from class separation to liberalism was a major change in Europe that has led to the modern world. It would be wise to use this as an example, to prevent group domination over people’s rights and equality.
Works Cited
Mayer, Arno. The Persistence of the Old Regime: Europe to the Great War (Second Edition) (Verso World History Series). London: Verso, 2010. Print.