Category Archives: Uncategorized

Societal Aspects of Post-Kievan Rus

Posted on by

I believe that a lot can be learned about the society of Rus through the interpretation of legal documents such as the Novgorod Judicial Charter. As we already know the Russian Orthodox Church has played a vital role in Russian history since its introduction to the area, and this is a perfect example of the influence it had. By far the most frequently repeated phrase in this legal document is “kissing the cross”. This term referred to the act of kissing the cross as a symbol of a litigants promise to tell the truth during a court case. While this is similar to our modern system of swearing on the Bible, it would mean drastically more to an ancient society which revolved around religion.

This document also shows the considerable power that the Church itself wielded at the time. Like in previous legal codes, the Novgorod Charter states that a portion of fines leveed on criminals would be sent to the archbishop as well as his lieutenant and the steward. This meant that the Church more than likely commanded vast wealth at this point and would have owned large amounts of property coming from criminals who were unable to pay their fines.

Another aspect of this document that I found incredibly interesting was the equality that was commanded by the document. The first rule stated is that “everyone is to be judged equally, whether boyar, [a man of] middling means, or a poor man [lit., a young man]. While we cannot always tell how often these rules were enforced, this shows a clear attempt to give all freemen a legal equality that would not have been seen in other parts of the world at this point in time. However, it should be noted that while this court system seemed to be set up fairly, it revolved around witness testimony, something that has historically been a problem. Not only does your memory change over time, it would not be difficult to bribe or intimidate somebody to say that you were right in your argument.

Class Divide: The Bourgeoisie and The Proletariat

Posted on by

From The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, I chose the passage in Chapter 1- Bourgeoisie and Proletariat that reads: “Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.”

I chose this passage because it speaks about the class divide and struggle that we have encountered in various readings. From the period of Enlightenment, through the French Revolution, Nationalism and Nation Building, and into the Industrial Revolution, there have always been distinct differences between classes and the way they were treated. The manifesto was written with the intention that it could be read by the public, and appeal to a general audience that did not need to be highly educated. This theme relates to what we discussed in the previous class about the writings of Smith, Owen, and Marx. All three of these works address the differences and struggles between classes. This particular passage from the manifesto addresses the same issue. As society progresses and changes, the classes have also changed and have become more divided. Marx says that the Bourgeoisie must become educated about the conditions and poor treatment of the Proletariat, whose only valuable asset is their power to perform labor.

 

 

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

Posted on by

The Communist Manifesto is the crowning achievement of Karl Marx.  The groundwork for the economic and social aspects of communism.  Marx, a German philosopher and economist was extremely discontent with the results of the industrial advancements made with capitalism.  As a reaction to the rise in capitalism, Marx created The Communist Manifesto.  The bourgeois continued to separate themselves from the working class economically due to the lack of attention paid to worker’s conditions, as well as extremely low wages. Marx saw the economic elite become too powerful.  Marx uses a unique mixture of analytic commentary, as well as romantic diction to convey his message.  Beginning with the distinction of the proletariat (the working class) and the bourgeois (the economically wealthy) and how the bourgeois use and exploit the hard labor the proletariat put into their work, as well as the holding of a hugely disproportionate amount of wealth.  Marx eventually calls the “workers of the world” to unite as one, as reclaim what is rightfully theirs, most likely by force.

The most vital passage within The Communist Manifesto is the ten measures in which all communism can be based upon.  These pillars of Communism are Marx’s integral points.  Starting with the “Abolition of property in land and confiscation of ground rents to the State”, Marx’s points are each a unique response to the problems that Marx’s exposes in the beginning of the manifesto.  Marx concludes that if these points are followed, the proletariat and bourgeois class distinctions will cease to exist, thus the public will lose political character.  This is vital to the existence of the society, as there would no longer be any conflict among individuals on a political scale.

Do you agree with Marx’s ten points?  Would you add or remove any while still maintaining the core of communism?  Do you think this type of society would ever be possible?

Judicial Charters

Posted on by

The judicial process during the late 15th century in Russia, particularly including the Novgorod and Muscovite societies, is significantly different from the times of the Pravda Russkaia. From a first glance at both the judicial charters of Novgorod and Muscovite, such things including the structure of the documents and its intended audience differ substantially.

In both charters, the document is directed more towards the higher most positions of power in their society, such as the archbishopric if Novgorod the Great and Pskov, the Grand Prince, and the mayor, and their duties in terms of what is expected of them in a case. For instance in both judicial charters it states that evidence of some sort should be provided when a case is brought to court.

Yet what I found the most intriguing was the overall structure for the Muscovite judicial charter. While reading the judicial charter of the Muscovite society I found the steps in which they took to determine the most adequate outcome to be significantly similar to that of the judicial system in our modern day society. In particular, for example, the charter discusses in a land dispute between two groups it is first brought in front of a judge. From there, if the judge deemed necessary, the dispute or case would be brought fourth the Grand Prince.

After reading through this passage I find myself wondering why these societies were so advanced, in terms of judiciary systems, than most other societies during this time.

Consequences of the Industrial Revolution through “Silesian Weavers”

Posted on by

“A curse on this lying father-nation/ Where thrive only shame and degradation”

With a great deal of good always comes a fair amount of bad. So when the Industrial Revolution took off, along with the economy and development of machinery, the poor treatment of workers came to light. This neglect for the welfare of laborers is brought to attention by Heinrich Heine, author of “Silesian Weavers”. In this poem, Heine uses strong negative diction to impassion his audience, in turn sparking the development of a constitution for Prussia. Particularly striking word choices include the repetition of the word “curse”, “gloom-enveloped eyes”, “funeral shroud”, “dank rot”, and “cheerless”, among others. Heine uses these negative words to illustrate the mistreatment of laborers during the time. He points a finger at the government, in particular the king himself (“A curse on the king…/Who was not moved even by our grief”), in order to draw attention to the main cause of this degradation of workers. The quote at the very beginning of this post highlights the sentiments of Heine and his supporters during this time of ill-treatment. This particular line suggests that the nation has been reduced to a country that can only host shame and degradation, and no longer has a place for honor and respect in its labor system.

This situation was not exclusive to Silesia, but was prevalent throughout Europe during the Industrial Revolution. The poor treatment of workers ignited a revolution within the Industrial Revolution, a revolution of workers seeking respect. It inspired workers to pursue better treatment, working conditions, and rights.

Although in America and many parts of Europe, people work in the presence of humane conditions, American and European corporations run countless enormous factories in third-world, developing countries in which the workers are exploited, similar to what occurred during the Industrial Revolution. In these establishments, workers are paid close to nothing for hours of grueling, tedious labor. We do this because it ensures greater profit for our corporations. Obviously it is unjust, but why do countries repeat mistakes that have been made in the past? Is it because we have the power to domineer over less fortunate nations? Do these workers have the capability to ignite a movement against exploiting corporations, such as what occurred in Prussia? Why aren’t we taking more action against this exploitation of foreigners working for our companies? Is it because we feel removed, distant, and unconnected to these people because they are working thousands of miles away? We certainly have the resources and power to end this exploitation, but no great measures are being taken to end it.

Consequences of Industrialization

Posted on by

In H. Heine’s “The Silesian Weavers” he writes “A curse on this lying father-nation where thrive only shame and degradation, where every flower’s plucked ere it’s bloom and worms thrive in the dank rot and gloom- we’re weaving, we’re weaving!”

This passage exemplifies the poor working class man’s view of the industrial revelation. I chose this passage because it is a curse to the father-nation that is taking advantage of the these workers. The passage shows the feelings of hopelessness and anger that these people had towards their nation. Heine speaks for the people when he writes about their “degradation” and how they see no good and if they manage to get something, anything from their labor, it is quickly stripped from them by those that oppress them. This keeps them in a hopeless state where they expect to be wronged, overworked, and spend their lives rotting in the dark of these workplaces. The workers were basically slaves working unconscionable hours with little time for breaks and meager pay. The industrial revolution was a big step towards solving economic problems and advancing in technology, vocation, transport, communications and mechanized goods. However, the industrial revolution also caused problems of exploitation of women labor as well as child labor. It also created an even bigger divide between the rich and the poor and divided the people into those who “had” and those who didn’t. The need for cheap workers was solved by using the young people and making them work in conditions so horrible, most of them grew up maimed and unhealthy to the point where their quality of life was severely reduced and many died. With no rights to vote, or strike against this injustice, Heine provides these laborers with a voice, and expresses the feeling of these oppressed people who have been denied an opinion or choice for their quality of life.

Silesian Weavers

Posted on by

Heinrich Heine’s poem, “Silesian Weavers” was inspired by a protest over the working conditions of weaving laborers in Silesian, Prussia. The poem confronts the issue of workers’ rights and their continuous exploitation and oppression by the rich and, along with worker riots, served as a key asset for the revolution that subsequently forced the King of Prussia to allow his people a constitution.

Heine’s poem, which pays sympathy to the working class, was intended to inspire and even arouse anger amongst his lower-class compatriots. He tacitly implies that a day of retribution is coming and that the rich will soon be forced to atone for their wrongdoings. While it was not uncommon for philosophers, writers, and artists to condemn wealthy individuals and their monarchy for their treatment of those less fortunate, Heine’s also denounces the less tangible set of institutions of religion and nationalism.

“One curse upon the God to whom we prayed […]”

“A curse upon the king, the rich man’s king[…]”

“A curse upon the false fatherland[…]”

Heine begins each stanza by damning an institution in which people were once comforted by. He curses to God, to whom the people once prayed, implying that the Germans clung to their faith even in the most despondent of times and foolishly hoped for savior, receiving nothing in return.

In his next stanza, Heine asserts that the people are not the ones being represented by the king and it is only the rich who benefit from the monarchy’s existence. Here, he insinuates that it is not the monarchy that will assist in terminating the workers’ struggle, but rather it will be the body that sucks them dry.

Heine criticizes the country of Germany, addressing it as a “false fatherhood” and rather than patriotism and nationalism thriving, despair and shame are the only things to prosper.

Unlike Herder and de Lisle, along with other political writers of the time who advocated that things such as religion and nationalism were essential, Heine actually blames these institutional practices for the deterioration of the working class.

“The Avarice of Masters”

Posted on by

“Here, then, is the ‘curse’ of our factory-system; as improvements in machinery have gone on, the ‘avarice of masters’ has prompted many to exact more labour from their hands than they were fitted by nature to perform…”

 

This quote, from “The Physical Deterioration of the Textile Workers”, ties in with our previous discussion of the potential dangers of a laissez-faire economy. The “avarice of masters” drives this type of economy by almost dehumanizing the working class. Those with power feel no guilt about the conditions their workers labor under; their only concern is the amount of money they can make or the amount of resources they can have produced. We heard from Marx and St. Simon about how an economy might collapse if this alienation of proletariat from bourgeoisie continues and expands. Furthermore, it seems as if the concern for the conditions of the laborers is exacerbated when people begin to realize the suffering of children in the factories and fields. This, seemingly, becomes the breaking point for many people, where the “masters” have pushed too hard. “…Prompted many to exact more labour…than they were fitted by nature to perform…” Though the economy does not collapse entirely, surely these essays helped to produce legislation preventing child labor soon thereafter. In fighting back, the working class demonstrates that such an economy cannot function if the workers aren’t provided proper rights and conditions while serving those in positions of power.

“We’re weaving, we’re weaving!”

Posted on by

In H. Heine’s poem “The Silesian Weavers” he writes “Their gloom-enveloped eyes are tearless, They sit at the spinning wheel, snarling cheerless: “Germany, we weave your funeral shroud, A threefold curse be within it endowed-We’re weaving, we’re weaving!”  This is of course in reference to the awful conditions for factory workers during the Industrial Revolution.  This poem pertains to the workers in Silesia, a Prussian Province.

This stanza in the poem is more impactful when taking into account the other two readings.  Even though Heine’s poem is about Silesia, it could be about any large factory.  This is not an overreaction to one factory with poor conditions.  Every factory had these issues.  Every worker sat “at the spinning wheel, snarling cheerless”.  The workers are clearly angry with the factory, angry with the new life.  This is not just obvious because the poem was inspired by an 1844 protest but the language.  When writing “A threefold curse be within it endowed” Heine was showing this anger.  The workers are angry about the money and hours because of these conditions.  It is much easier to like your job when the conditions are acceptable, but 19th century factories were certainly not acceptable.  The last line of the first stanza is also very telling.  By using the exclamation point, Heine is implying that “We’re weaving, we’re weaving!” is something the workers had to say often, in order to show the bosses they we’re still working.  However if they had to show they we’re working then how much effort were the putting into the work?

The Dangers of a Laissez Faire Economy

Posted on by

Owen, Comte de St. Simon, and Marx share similar disdain for laissez faire economies. All three vilify the effects of a free market, in stark contrast to the beliefs of Adam Smith. Owen and Comte de St. Simon are most explicit in their attacks on the free market, blaming its systems and its supporters for the overwhelming decadence of industrial Europe. They argue that laissez faire economies rewards those who exploit others while punishing those with any shred of decency or respect for their fellow man. This compels men to become more selfish and deceitful, or else face monetary destitution, the latter being the more appealing option to most. By this process, men aspiring to the same goal are forced into competition and rivalry, turned against each other by their economic situation. Owen pleads with the people of England to recognize this unnatural animosity, but the proponents of laissez faire economies are firm in their conviction that the interests of the individual and the interests of the society are intertwined. But as Owen elucidates, the laborers who manufacture the products which benefit society are often deprived of the fruits of their labor. The benefits of a free market economy are only immediately realized by those who are selfish and shameless, while the honest working people are left to trudge through fiscal turmoil.

While the United States’ economy is not a completely free market, the ideals of capitalism are still held in high regard by many U.S. citizens. However, as these authors have made obvious, a laissez fair economy is often only advantageous to a minority of the population. Do the pros of capitalism outweigh the cons? Is equality of opportunity more important than equality of outcome? Would we be a better nation if we were more fiscally equal? Or are we a better nation under the ideals of capitalism?