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” (Marx and Engels 1848). Social class, therefore, is based upon economic criteria and conflict occurs between those who own the means of production (bourgeoisie) and the wage-labourers (proletariat). As well as having economic control over the proletariat, the bourgeoisie also have the power to determine the superstructure; the ruling class can distort perceptions of the world and hide the true nature of social relationships and the exploitation of the proletariat and, above all, promote bourgeoisie interests. Marx defines production as workers selling their labour for wages in order to exchange money for commodities that will meet their most basic needs. As Marx
In the middle ages, three distinctive kinds of peasants existed: the serfs, slaves and the freemen. Serfs made up only half of the population for peasants. A serf was under the command of his lord and had to abide by his rules. He then contained absolutely no political rights. Alike the serfs,
Some of the causes included, the extreme power to a single leader, and the desire for power, while some responses would be hatred towards the leader and hard work to stay alive, all depending on one’s perspective due to their status in a society. My first grouping would be documents 1, 4, and 6 because they all pertain to the leaders of the societies that caused the inequality. Document 1 is a wall relief from the palace of Sannacherib at Nineveh in 704-681 B.C.E. This wall relief shows the ruler or leader sitting at the top of a hill watching his slaves being brutally treated as they do hard work. His amount of power caused him to control his slaves to do hard work without remorse or sympathy towards them which caused the social inequality.
This book foresees shortcomings for farmers and their crops as well economic distress. Populism is defined as people who are the under caste of society making a political movement. The farmers felt like they were beat around by big businesses, and felt like they had no political outreach to help them get an equal share for their work production. To oppose this they pulled together and formed the populist group called the Farmer’s Alliance. This helped the lower classes feel like they had some people.
One of the weaknesses for this French colony was that their farm land was run on a seigneurial system of land distribution. Large landowners, such as nobility, individuals in the military, and church industrials, had farmers, also known as habitants, working on their land. These farmers had to pay annual fees to these seigneurs. In order to pay these seigneurs, they paid them in produce, labour, and occasionally in money when they were able to sell their crops to buyers. Another weakness of the land tenure was that the Seigneurial system did not encourage farmers to be creative for the production of their crops.
Historiography Nahom Assefa Slavery was a brutal system of forced labor that began since the dawn of time. It has been traced back to 1772 B.C in Babylon when the code of Hammurabi was written. The system involved many different types of people and was used for various economic exploitation. In America this was one of the biggest challenges for the young republic leading to differences between the North and south. The issue was so extreme they say during the Lincoln administration America was more divided than any other point in history leading to the civil war between the union and the confederates.
Mud-Sill Theory vs. Free Labor Questions on the Readings Mud-sill: the lowest foundation of the building What is the mud-sill theory according to Hammond? The mud-sill theory according to Hammond is that in all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, or the duties that no one really wants to do. A society must have this class or the society will not progress, civilize, and refine itself. What is the mud-sill theory according to Lincoln? The mud-sill theory according to Lincoln was that all laborers are naturally either hired laborers or slaves.
Marxist believe the conventional families are the foundations of capitalism it does this in many way; Private property inheritance, Marxists believe that all functions of the family are performed purely for the benefit of the capitalist system. One of the key factors determining how our society plays in to the hands of capitalism is was who inherits Private property. Engles, Marx friend and supporter, argues that a monogamous nuclear family has become essential in society as men had to be certain of the parentage of their offspring to guarantee that their legitimate heir inherit from them. In Engels eyes this made for a ‘historical defeat for the female sex’ suggesting that woman were now under men’s control and just mere of object to provide offspring to become a heir to the inheritance. Marxist altercate that woman will never receive liberation from patriarchal control with the means of capitalism and private ownership nearby.
They were a powerful tribe, with a strong development in gold and silver metalworking, weaving, agriculture and ceramics production. In the fifteenth century there society changed when they were invaded by the Incas then about a hundred years later the Spanish. Today many things have changed and Canar is poor province with a small population. The province has around twenty five thousand people that can be found in small remote towns that are in high altitudes. The Canair people farm off small plots of rock covered land and have a few sheep, pigs or cattle.
Russia was seen as having a feudal system where the working class (peasants) were holding up everyone above them and retaining nothing. The response from the Tsar was the emancipation in 1861. Nicholas was quoted saying to nobles of Russia that “the existing condition of owning souls cannot remained unchanged. It is better to begin to destroy serfdom from above than to wait until that time when it begins to destroy itself from below”. Although there were a few cases of the Tsar redistributing land to the peasants Riasanovsky claims that the “Fundamental inequality and widespread destitution could not be remedied by a re-division of the peasants inadequate land” This further brings the idea of Marxism into Russia which is discussed later.