There is no guessing where the oligarchs stand. “All power and wealth to the oligarchy” is their motto. Those existing in the lower ranks of poverty are of no concern to the upper class, exploiting other members of society are what they do best. The tory we find at the other end of the scale. In tory society tradition rules; taking the group’s well being rather than the individual is primary. Somewhere in the middle we have the liberals (some bleeding hearts, some not so much).

Reason, rationality, logic, and thought are the theoretical source of legitimacy of the liberal. They believe that logic and intellect are infallible guides to action. Individualism is fundamental to the culture. Individual self-interest is assumed to be the motivation of all actions. They feel that competition brings out the best in people and that this competition is necessary for the survival of society.
The hierarchy of a liberal is one of merit. He believes that merit will be rewarded with wealth. Anyone in a liberal culture who is not rich is considered to be without merit. The poor deserve to be poor, liberals feel, since all individuals are free to achieve then those who don’t must have something wrong with them. The liberal would like the whole world to be middle class and feel sure that if the poor would only accept the cultural attributes and attitudes of the middle class their problems would be over.
For if the poor had middle-class attitudes, they would soon have middle class incomes and poof! all their problems would be gone.
Despite the liberal’s competitiveness, they do have what one might refer to as a soft sport for children of the poor. They don’t believe these children should be made to suffer due to their parent’s ineptitude. They feel that every individual should start out equally well equipped to compete. Therefore, liberals do invest in welfare to aid the children of the poor. Since the adult poor cannot be trusted or expected to implement these programs, extensive governmental organizations staffed by good liberals are necessary to correctly carry them out. They manage to give some help to the poor but succeed in not hurting or changing the way of living of the rich.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

This parallels quite closely with the relationship between international lending institutions and third world countries. Agencies such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund provide billions in loans to third world countries for development projects such as building dams and power plants, paving roads, and investing in large scale agriculture. These projects are supposedly designed to assist in economic development, but which have often been associated with monumental environmental devastation and social dislocation.
Once these countries build up large external debts they cannot get credit or cash anywhere else and are forced to go to these institutions and accept whatever conditions are demanded of them. The poorest countries of the world owe more money to these two institutions than they do any other private or government institutions because most of these loans were so poorly designed that the borrowing countries have not reaped enough income to pay them back. Loan repayments are sucking crucial resources out of poor country budgets, and into the coffers of the rich world.

Just as the liberals believed the poor just needed to adjust their attitudes toward a middle class way of thinking to enable them to succeed, so these agencies believed the superiority of western economic systems and cultures alone could save these poverty stricken countries. The lending institutions know these countries debts are so immense that repayment is impossible. The only sure result of their continuance of loaning is profit for themselves.
In their struggle to make repayment countries have been forced to do anything that will lead to immediate profits. Unfortunately, this is often at the cost of long-term damage to the environment, i.e. clear-cutting entire forests, single-cropping farmland, and strip mining without restoring the topsoil. The liberals do not see this as a problem as their emphasis on
immediate and short-term individual profit dictates the exploitation of resources rather than their development. So long as the liberals need not live in the areas affected there is no reason


.. tution of governmental censorship on all forms of press. Another reduced the right to vote in such a way that none of the bourgeois classes retained their suffrage. It concentrated all the political power back into the hands of the conservative aristocrats. The last decree called for new elections on the basis of the previous three decrees.

On July 27, 1830, the July Revolution broke out in Paris. It were the republicans, mostly consisting of students, other intelligentsia, and working-class leaders, that undertook action, because they saw their chance to achieve their ideal of universal male suffrage. Strangely, it was not the upper-middle class that acted although they were the ones brutally deprived of their right to vote the day before. For three days, Paris was the stage of popular revolt. Charles X stepped down and fled to England, because he did not want to be taken captive by the angry revolutionists, the army refused to defend him against. After the abdication of Charles X, the liberals still wanted to continue with the existing system of constitutional monarchism, but with a king they could trust, which is completely in line with their view of government of constitutional monarchism, shown in the first chapter. However, they did liberalize it in that there was to be no more absolutism, the Chamber of Peers would be no longer be hereditary, and the Chamber of Deputies would be elected by a doubled electoral body (from 100,000 to 200,000).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The Chambers agreed that the new king would be the Duke of Orlans, proposed by Marquis de Lafayette, who was crowned on August 7, 1830. The upper-bourgeoisie – merchants, bankers, and industrialists – benefited most from the new system. To them, this new system was to be the end of political progress. After the revolution of 1830, liberalism became the governmental doctrine that was only interested to preserve the status quo. Liberalism in Britain: In England the Tory government had already begun to liberalize in the decade preceding the July Revolution in Paris.

The Tory party had reduced tariffs and allowed British colonies to trade with countries other than Britain. Skilled workers were now permitted to emigrate and industrial manufacturers could export machinery, thus revealing British industrial secrets. These measures came very close to the liberal ideal of free trade. The Tories did not only liberalize the economy, but they had also started to reform some social aspects of society as well, notably in the direction of freedom of religion. Permitting Protestants to hold and run for public office had extensively reduced the power of the Church of England.

From now on Catholics received the same rights as others. The introduction of an official police force, that was to keep protests, angry crowds, and occasional riots under control, was unprecedented in any European country. The main injustice in Britain, at that time, was the unequal distribution of representation of the people in the House of Commons. It was estimated that in about 1820 less than 500 men, most of them members of the House of Lords, really selected the majority of the House of Commons. As a consequence, of the Industrial Revolution the population was shifting considerably to the north, while the population used to be concentrated predominantly in the south.

However, no new boroughs (urban centers having the right to elect members of Parliament) had been created, since 1688, to the displeasure of the northern industrial urban centers. In 1830, probably influenced by the July Revolution in Paris, the issue of reforming the House of Commons was raised again by the minority party, the Whigs. As an answer to the enormous outburst by the Duke of Wellington, in defense of the existing system, a Whig ministry took over the government. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass the Commons and the ministry resigned. Fearing popular revolt, the Tories refused to form a new government. The Whigs returned and now the bill did pass the House of Commons, but it stranded in the House of Lords. The country was on the eve of a revolution if the bill would not become law. The Whigs went to the king with this argument trying to persuade him to create enough new Lords to change the majority of the House of Lords in favor of the Whigs.

The Lords surrendered and they approved the bill. In April 1832, the bill finally became law. The new law was a typical British creation. In stead of adopting the new ideas of the French – that each representative should represent approximately the same number of voters – they preferred to make some alteration in the existing system. The property owners and their principal employees – doctors, lawyers, etc.- would under the new law, elect the members of the House of Commons.

The new law came down to the redistribution of votes, not to a substantial enlargement of the electoral body (from 500,000 to about 813,000). Conclusion: In my opinion, the influence of the liberals in France should have been far greater than that of the liberals in England, because the liberals in France had obtained the control over the government. Therefore, it would seem to be easier for them to institute legal measures to benefit their political and economical ideologies. However, they refused to adopt and implement the successful English policies. Consequently, the main difference between the two countries remained that England continued to flourish and easily be the leader of the world economy. In England, the control of government by the Tory party, after 1832, reduced the influence of capitalism on society.

Consequently, legislation was passed to somewhat protect the workers against the continuing lust for profit of their employers. This contrary to France where only the most well to do were in control of politics not much was done to relieve the condition of labor. Concluding I believe that, in England, even though the liberals did not have direct influence on the course of politics, English society did come very close to some of the liberal ideals, e.g. constitutional monarchy, emigration of skilled workers, colonies trading with other countries, etc. It is, therefore, fair to say that, although the liberals did not have the direct influence on public policies, the influence exerted by the liberalist ideologies was far greater than in France. History.


I'm Lydia!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out