Balancing Out Europe

Political power and status have always been an exceptionally valuable asset to society. Power can be spread across a nation or be placed in the hands of a single person. But what happens when people of high status have their power threatened? This is the essential question discussed in class while on the topic of the Congress of Vienna. Upon the fall of Napoleon’s empire, diplomats from all of Europe would congregate in Vienna, Austria in order to solve many issues that had arisen after the French conquest. In class, we took the role of Klemens von Metternich, Prince of Austria, and made several decisions in order to rebuild Europe in the best way possible. Out of three choices, we were to select one that would best resolve issues such as redrawing the map of Europe, establishing a new French government and preparing for future alliances. The following explains how the decisions made by Metternich utilized specific concepts in order to eliminate threats to their power.

Congress of Vienna. Digital image. Emerson Kent. N.p., n.d. Web.

The concept of balance of power was used by Metternich and the diplomats of the Congress of Vienna to eliminate France as a potential threat to their power. The balance of power is the idea that the security of a nation is increased when power is distributed evenly among nations so one cannot overpower another. When addressing the issue of recreating the map of France, the Congress of Vienna decided to distribute power to the the nations of Europe in order to suppress France from continuing any form of future domination. This was the solution that our group selected in the class activity as well. The French empire was reduced to its borders before the time of Napoleon. Prussia was granted more territory surrounding France in order to create a strong border around France. The Netherlands was also created to border the remaining part of France. Both Austria and Prussia were given additional territory to compensate for their losses during Napoleon's conquest. The goal of this redistribution of land was to balance the power among many of the European nations to prevent any possible attempts of French expansion in the future. The Congress of Vienna was successfully able to eliminate any threats to their power by utilizing the concept of balance of power.

I personally believe that the decision made by the Congress of Vienna was appropriate for the situation. Around the fall of Napoleon’s conquest, France was still considered a major threat for a possible resurgence of conquest and expansion. Bordering France with strong countries such as Prussia and the Netherlands would make it near impossible for France to take control of Europe again. France was not reduced to anything smaller than it was before Napoleon’s conquest. The Congress of Vienna did not use emotional bias when deciding on Europe’s new borders. France was not punished after Napoleon’s, they were simply reset to what they were before any conflict. Countries that were subject to severe difficulties were granted extra land as a condolence. This decision is justified because these nations had to endure unnecessary hardship and deserve some sort of payoff. In the case of the redrawing Europe's borders, diplomats were not required to sacrifice some of their power to come to a final solution. The powerful should be willing to give up some of their authority if it is for the cause of the nation. A person in power is typically a leader of a group of people, like a nation. This person should be willing to do what it takes in order to make a situation optimal for his or her followers. To conclude, the Congress of Vienna took the right steps in redistributing land among European nations while utilizing the concept of balance of power to make their decisions.

A Little Man Impacting a Massive Continent

Napoleon Bonaparte was an incredibly powerful military and political leader. He managed to expand his country of France to encapsulate most of Europe. Under his control, he would change Europe’s political, social and economic policies and standards. Napoleon’s would not only impact Europe, but it’s citizens as well. These changes would improve the lives of those coming from any social class living under the ever expanding French rule. Napoleon’s influence would benefit French and set a new standard for Europe for the future.

One of Napoleon’s major contributions to Europe was eliminating the aristocratic upper class. Churches were no longer allowed to abuse their special privileges, and both the nobility and serfdom were meshed into one social class. A meritocracy was also established, and those who were truly skilled at their craft were rewarded. This was far more beneficial to society than the previously established aristocracy. Those who were willing to work for their success were finally able to do so. No longer would a European citizen be determined at birth to be rich or poor. More citizens were able to own property and receive an education. Napoleon drastically improved the standard of living and social system in Europe.

Napoleon Bonaparte
Image Via: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/

Not only would Napoleon change the lives of many of the European citizens, but he would also impact the political and economic systems as well. As aforementioned, Napoleon would eliminate the aristocracy and implement a meritocracy in place of it. Public works programs were in progress, and roads and canals were being constructed to better France and Europe. Napoleon established the Institute of Egypt, which would begin the study of ancient Egypt. The economy was reinvigorated as prices were controlled, trade barriers were removed, markets were stimulated and new industry was highly encouraged. With the social class being more evenly balanced, the improvements from both economical and political standpoints were easily adapted to.

Napoleon made positive impacts on France during his time in power. At the time of Napoleon’s reign, A majority of Europe was under French control. As time went on and countries were re established, Napoleon’s influence and tactics were adopted. Not only were the political, social and economic systems impacted in France, but in most of Europe as well.

How Candy Can Represent Capitalism, Socialism and Communism

As a way to simulate three of the most popular economic systems used worldwide, we performed an activity that would produce the same results. Starbursts were used to represent money. While most were given three starbursts, a small amount of people received ten. This is to account for the small upper class and the larger middle and lower classes. For about fifteen minutes, we were allowed to play rock paper scissors with fellow classmates. The winner would receive one of the losers starbursts. This is to represent individual monetary gain in loss. In a capitalistic economy, the government does not regulate trade and industry. Everyone in the class was allowed to choose whether they wanted to gamble their starbursts, or keep the ones they had. Some of those who had ten starbursts in the beginning ended up with less, while some of those who started with three ended up with more. At the end of this trading period, Ms. Bailey collected everyone's starbursts, and redistributed them equally among the class. This is to represent government control of economic activity in socialism. After this the class was given one more opportunity to gamble their starbursts again. Unlike the previous time, only a few students were willing to play again. This portion of the activity was to represent communism. Most students were fine with having the same amount as everyone else, and economic competition was very weak. The activity gave a very clear and realistic representation of capitalism, socialism and communism.

Some time after we performed the activity, a Socratic seminar was held to discuss what was learned in the process of the activity. I personally did not choose to participate in the seminar, instead I took notes during the discussion. I found some of my fellow classmates opinions very interesting. It became obvious that the turn from capitalism to socialism aggravated a lot of people. Both Kyle and Julienne discussed how it was frustrating to work to gain such a large amount of starbursts, just to lose it in the end. I also noticed that many people recognize that competition plays a huge role in an economy. Ryan had mentioned that humans are innately selfish, and in the end we care about ourselves first and others second. Troy said that no matter what the situation, everyone tries to find a way to win. This was represented in the activity when some people stole starbursts from others. While this might not be considered ethical, it is a perfect example of how some people were only concerned with the amount of starbursts they could gain. Ryan also said that a socialist economy is better for the poor because in a capitalist society, it is very difficult for a poor person to become rich. While I find this to be true, I still believe that a capitalist economy is better overall because it focuses around the idea that competition can drive an economy.

Karl Marx and Adam Smith proposed two different solutions to the same problem. Both men created ways to aid the lower class in society. Marx believed that the people would do anything to destroy the barrier between the proletariats and the bourgeoisie. To start, people would transform their capitalist government into a socialist government in order to make the circumstances fairer. From here, the people would self mediate themselves to the point where a government was no longer needed. In this scenario, social classes would no longer exist, as everyone would be economically equal. Adam Smith believed in the theory of the “Invisible Hand.”This concept states that the consumer would be driven to purchase from a business who provides the best and cheapest product. This creates competition among business owners, as they are trying to sell the best product for the lowest price. The drive that consumer have to purchase from a business that offers the best product is recognized as the invisible hand. Each proposals to aid the poor have their own pros and cons, however in the end they theoretically accomplish the same goal.

While I think that capitalism is the best way to run an economy, I do feel that there are ways it can be improved. One of the major problems with capitalism i that there is often a clear divide between the upper class and the lower classes. While the rich are constantly making a large sum of money, the poor can never gain enough money to move into the middle and upper classes. A solution to this would be taxing individuals based on income. If an individual has a high income, they should be taxed more than someone who has a low income. While everyone is still paying taxes, the rich are able to cover for the poor, as it doesn't affect their overall wealth. The poor would be able to save money and be able to better their lives, get better jobs and move up the social hierarchy. I feel that competition is a crucial part to any economic success. This coupled with my own ideas on taxing could make for an improved form of capitalism that accommodates for the lower class as well.

Industrialization vs. The Luddites

While the technological progression during the Industrial Revolution implemented many positive changes during the time, there were some were not as accepting of the movement.  The Luddites were a group of very skilled workers who created high quality products. With the introduction of machines and factories, work that was normally done by man was now being done by machine. The Luddites did not like the concept of industrialization and technological progression. They feared that in time, machines and factories would do the work they do, and that they would become unemployed because of this. In retaliation to this, the Luddites destroyed these machines, and in severe cases, burned down factories. However, the Luddites did not destroy any machine or factory they saw. Most Luddites were very experienced in working with machines. They attacked factories that wanted to use machines to produce high quality product at the cheapest possible cost. These factories were what were putting the Luddites in danger. Instead of requiring a skilled worker to produce a high quality product for good pay, factories could hire low wage workers to maintain a machine that could produce a product of the same quality. The Luddites felt that they needed to prevent industrialization in order to keep their jobs.

An image depicting two Luddites destroying a machine.
Via: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/FrameBreaking-1812.jpg

The following is a mock primary source letter intended to show the views and opinions of those living during the time of the Luddite protests.

Dear Cousin,

I am writing to you to address the recent activities of the Luddites. If you are not already aware, the Luddites are a group of expert craftsmen who are against the concept of industrialization. They see the machines and factories as potential threats. If machinery can do the same work they do for less of a cost, the Luddites will lose their jobs. As a rather experienced weaver, I have to applaud the Luddite’s endeavors. I believe that these machines are replacing human labor. Since industrialization has become popular, I haven’t had nearly as much work as I used to. I even received a wage cut because the factories were producing the same products I was for less money. If this continues, myself and many others will be out of a job. I have decided to join the Luddite cause. The Luddites are preventing any means of technological progression. If I want to keep my job, I have to join them. They are fighting for a lot of skilled workers to keep their jobs, an I support them for that. In a few days, a group of fellow Luddites are planning to break into a factory during the night and smash all of its machines. I think I am going to go with them. I will update you on the result of the riot in my next letter. Until then, I will continue to support the Luddite cause.

Your Cousin,

John

American and British Factories During the Industrial Revolution

Out of all of the jobs in the world, working in a factory is most certainly not the most appealing. Working conditions are poor, labor is grueling and the pay is meager. Typically, the topic of factory labor directly linked to modern day sweatshops. However, the bad reputation factory’s hold goes back to the 18th and 19th century. The Industrial Revolution introduced innovative technology that would do the work of a human in a fraction of the time. Machines were introduced to factories to mass produce textiles and other products. Both America and Britain were home to many factories during this time. Those who were employed at these factories did not work in the best of conditions. As time went on, it appeared that both countries were competing to have the worst working conditions in their factories.

Britain led the charge into the Industrial Revolution. While America was still in its early stages as a country, Britain could focus on mass production in factories. Around the beginning of the 19th century, Britain had experienced an increase in population. As Britain is a small country, land became overcrowded. With an increasing population came an increasing lower class as well. Factory labor was the simplest solution for those looking to get by. Factories were packed with employees, and factory owners lost control of the worsening working conditions. Children were the ideal employee for factories, as they could be hired for cheap and bring some money home to their families. In time, children would become the majority of the workers in British factories. However, many of the children could not handle the long day of hard labor, and were often caught sleeping on the job. This would lead to the punishment of a beating, which did not help the situation. There were no breaks for meals, so the children would eat at their work stations. Many of the children were not schooled during their time in the factories, and many grew up to be illiterate. Some cities that were especially factory weighted had an infant death rate of over 50%. Would Britain set the terrible standard for working conditions in factories?

With the country maturing from its early stages of life, America was ready to get take part in factory production. America was working under different circumstances than Britain. As opposed to the small land area Britain had, America had a lot of land to settle. With westward expansion underway, families could settle west and rely on a farm to keep themselves alive. Many did not need to work for factories, so factory owners had to find a way to gain employees. The strategy was to make the factory life look as appealing as possible. To do this, boarding houses were established, factory workers would have to wear uniforms and be taught manners. The plan was successful, as families were sending their children to the factories to bring some money home. In the beginning, factory workers were pleased with their jobs, and working conditions were bearable for once. American factories had improved upon those in Britain. However, this did not last long. As time went on, conditions became worse and worse. Reports of injuries and even deaths were becoming ever so frequent. The health of the factory employees were deteriorating as they worked. Once the demand for workers was fulfilled, factory owners no longer needed to be strict about their factories, and the conditions worsened. Eventually, American factories would become undeniably similar to those in Britain.

While it goes with one question that both countries had unbearable working conditions in their factories, one question still remains, who had it worse? American factories looked promising when they started. Conditions were far better than factories in Britain. At this time, it would be obvious that the working conditions in British factories were worse than those in America. However, as time progressed, American factories became overpopulated, unsanitary and a hub for injury and death, much like the factories in Britain. At the peak of the Industrial Revolution, both countries had equally poor factory conditions. It would be a matter of minor pros and cons of each countries factories that would distinguish them.

Just as modern day sweatshops are considered to be an awful job for the employee, factories in Britain and America during the Industrial Revolution were infamous for their terrible working conditions. While it would be difficult to establish what country had worse working conditions, it goes without saying that each country had its specific reasons that lead to their deteriorating factory conditions.