Europe between 1850 and World War One: Mass Politics and State Authority
Conservative reaction after 1848
by end of 1851, conservative order restored everywhere (including France under Louis Napoleon)
Conservative elites need to find way to “control movements for manhood suffrage and nationalism, to use these as props to support rule of traditional elites
Liberals, frightened by 1848, need to find a way to make change (extending voting rights, promoting free trade, national unification, etc) without risking radical social revolution from the lower classes
Socialists and the radical left debate over how to make social revolution—through peaceful electoral political means, through violent revolution, through terrorism? By organizing mass political parties, or by organizing conspiratorial movements?
One case in which these issues can be seen is England.
• Failure of the Chartist Movement to win political reforms and extend voting rights in 1840s.
• Loose coalition of left liberals, radical republicans, and socialists push for voting reform in 1850s
• Conservative Party (Tories) led by Disraeli push for even wider voting reforms in late 1850s, based on belief that the lower classes are basically conservative and nationalistic, and will support Tories if they promote imperialism/patriotism
Another case is Prussia (northern Germany)
Collapse of revolutionary movement in 1849, King Fredrich Wilhelm back grants a constitution
Prussian constitution gives King special executive authority: names ministers, controls diplomacy and military, can disband legislature at will
Legislature’s main power is control over budget
legislature elected by universal manhood suffrage, but by voting curia, so votes of big landowners count more than votes of peasants, urban workers, or the middle class
underlying conservativism of Prussian political culture reinforces authoritarian pseudo-democracy.
Another case is France under Louis Napoleon Bonaparte
To put down left opposition, LNB used police state tactics (spies, arrests, political trials) and restrictions on civil liberties (no freedom of speech , press, or assembly in 1850s)
To draw support from wide range of population, LNB granted universal manhood suffrage. He could claim that France was democratic, and he could use mass support to defend himself from critics. Repression prevented danger from the left, and his real opposition came from monarchists. He could not repress them, because he needed them to cooperate in governing vs the left.
To manipulate mass support, LNB use propaganda skillfully and presented himself as “all things to all people,” friend of the common man, friend of the worker, of the business man, of the farmer, etc.
To boost mass support and reduce danger of revolution, LNB initiated new social legislation, e.g., clearing out and re-building slum sections of cities, building sewer systems, etc. Also re-legalized unions (although they were filled with police spies)
To boost mass support, LNB emphasized the link between patriotism and foreign policy. Used French intervention in Italy and French wars of imperial conquest in Asia and Africa to rally the public “around the flag” and promote idea that his rule was responsible for France’s status as a world power.
To build support from middle classes and promote economic growth, LNB subsidized economic development, esp. the RRs. Also promoted banking reforms to make more capital available to business, and legal reforms to make it easier to form corporations.
All these measures had multiple aims—one clear aim was turning the lower classes away from radical politics and reducing the threat of radical (social) revolution.
The Crimean War (1854-56) came in the middle of this decade of conservative reaction.
Russia was pursuing the goal of expanding its control in Black Sea at expense of Turkey.
Austria saw this as threat because of danger of Slavic nationalism, but stayed “neutral.” Prussia stayed out of war but supported Russia.
France and England both supported the Turks, out of fear that Russia would gain access to Mediterranean. Two year war proved to be humiliating to Russia. It gained minor territory, but its status as a Great Power was damaged. This would lead to major reforms in Russia in the 1 860s.
1860s: A decade of conservative-led change
Reforms in Russia. In early 1860s, the new Tsar Alexander II led a series of major reforms with the aim of building up Russia’s economy and military. These included:
Abolishing serfdom, but keeping the peasants tied to their villages, with village (not private) ownership of land, and requiring that peasants pay the State for the cost of emancipation (the State had paid serf owners for the loss of their “property”
Reorganizing the military
Creating a new legal system based upon trials in open courts
Reorganizing education
Creating elected quasi-local government agencies, etc.
Three crucial ideas to keep in mind about these reforms:
1) they were change “from above,” by the Autocratic regime, in an effort to keep Russia and world power and preserve the system of Autocratic rule
2) they did successfully accelerate the processes of capitalist economic development and urbanization in Russia, together with all of the social changes that go along with such processes (the growth of new social classes, etc.)
3) the limited and often contradictory nature of these reforms (serfs freed but with little land and required to pay the state for emancipation, local governments created but given no real decision making authority, attempt to build rule of law at the same time as continued centralized control of Autocratic regime that was not limited by any constitution, etc) would contribute to great social and economic tensions. This helps explain the revolutions in Russia in 1905 and 1917. Radical intellectuals saw these reforms as disappointing half-measures that kept the system of Autocracy (the Russian form of Absolutism) in place. As a result, a radical revolutionary movement began to emerge in Russia in the 1860s.
Italian Unification:
In 1848, liberal movement for Italian unification led by radical nationalists like G. Mazzini. When (incomplete) unification finally occurred, it was largely the result of efforts by Conservative statesman Count Cavour of Piedmont-Sardinia.
In the late 1858 Cavour together with Louis Napoleon’s France launched a war against Austrian control over much of Northern Italy. (LNB wanted to weaken Austria and wanted some territorial gains [ Nice]). But in 1859, LNB backed out of the war (in part afraid of political conflict with the Vatican). Cavour’s war with Austria was largely successful, but Italy was still divided into multiple kingdoms.
Cavour did not want to work with the more radical nationalist groups, because he feared any potential for social revolution led by liberals (and especially by socialists). But in 1860 in the southern parts of Italy, the leftist nationalist leader Garibaldi led a successful rebellion/war against the Bourbon monarchy in Sicily and in southern Italy.
The division between the supporters of Cavour and those of Garibaldi was based on two major issues: should a united Italy be a centralized state (Cavour’s view) or a federation; and should unification leave the old aristocratic ruling class and the wealthiest elements of the bourgeoisie in power (Cavour’s position). To cut off Garibaldi’s advance, Cavour invaded central Italy (including the Papal States) in August 1860 (with support from France). [ forces soon had to withdraw from the Papal States] He then pressured Garibaldi into accepting the annexation of the south into a “united” Italy under the control of Piedmont-Sardinia.
The Piedmontese King, Victor Emmanual , now became the constitutional monarch of a “united” Italy. The new government was based upon a highly centralized state system (with Turin as the capital), with the institutions of Piedomont imposed on the rest of the country. In practice, though, the country was hardly unified; deep regional loyalties and rivalries remained, the country was far from any kind of cultural “national” unity, and the danger of rebellion against the center was considerable. Still, what Cavour had done was achieve “unity” from “above,” without any social revolution that would have disrupted the power of existing elites.
Germany and unification in the 1860s:
The revolutions of 1848 had failed to unify Germany. In Prussia, King Fredrich Wilhelm had restored monarchical rule and established a new “authoritarian” constitutional system (previous lecture). Germany would be unified around Prussia in the 1 860s, as a result of the efforts of King Wilhelm I and his brilliant conservative minister Otto von Bismarck.
The death of Fredrich Wilhem in 1861 brought to Prussian throne Wilhelm I, who believed that Prussia would united Germany through its military and economic dominance. In 1861-62, Wilhelm’s attempts to institute a new military buildup were blocked by liberals in the legislature, who feared it would further strengthen the Junkers (and who wanted a “citizens’ army”). This led to a constitutional crisis. Wilhelm appointed Bismarck, a conservative Junker, as his prime minister. Bismarck dissolved the parliament, repressed the left liberals, divided the opposition by making promises of concessions to the right liberals, and in this was controlled the legislature by the end of 1862. Bismarck laid out his agenda for unification in his 1862 “blood and iron” speech. Unification through military and economic might and ultra nationalism. The key question was, would Germany unite around Prussia in North or Austria in South?. The Prussians under Bismarck quickly strengthened their trade agreements with northern German states. But unifying the rest of Germany would require war.
In 1866, a conflict with Austria over who would politically dominate the territory of Holstein gave Bismarck a chance to whip up ultra-nationalistic fervor in northern Germany in favor of war. Prussia easily defeated Austria, which cemented its dominance in the north. But Catholic southern German states resisted Prussian dominance and would not join the new German confederation. Bismarck had united northern Germany without any social revolution, in a way that put the Prussian elites in power. Now, to do the same over the south, he would use a war against France, in 1870-71.
Louis Napoleon and France in the 1860s:
Support for Louis Napoleon began to disappear in the mid-1860s, due to conflicts with the Catholic Church and the small business community and the re-emerging radicalism of the workers movement. In response, and facing opposition from liberals in the parliament, LNB made a series of concessions (e.g., he restored freedom of press and limited free public assembly in 1868 and accepted parliamentary review of government policies in July 1869). The new constitution of 1870 made significant concessions to parliament, but it also recognized Louis Napoleon as the head of state. Parliament began asserting its independence in early 1870, in particular over issues of foreign policy. Parliament and LNB competed with each other to appear “tougher” on the issue of Spanish succession, in which France opposed Prussia’s efforts to place a member of Prussian King Wilhelm’s family on the Spanish throne. Both factions in French politics hoped to use confrontation with Prussia as a tool to secure their own domestic political goals.
The Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71:
On 19 July 1870, France declared war on Prussia. The war was a disaster for France, and after several major military defeats, LNB removed the Premier appointed by parliament and again assumed control over all aspects of government. On 2 September 1870, LNB was captured at the front in yet another French defeat. On 4 September, the parliament declared France a Republic (the Third Republic) and formed a “Government of National Defense.” But on 19 September, the Prussians placed Paris under a state of siege. The city was blockaded and starved.
On 2 January 1871, the French government capitulated to Prussia, and asked that it be allowed to hold new elections before signing the peace treaty. Elections were held on 8 February, and a National Assembly began meeting on 12 February. On 23 February 1871, the Assembly appointed an old Liberal leader (Thiers) to form a new government. On 26 February, Thiers signed a peace treaty with the German Empire that 1) gave Germany 500 sq. miles of economically important territory (Alsace and Lorraine), with a population of 1.5 million; 2 required that France pay an indemnity. Under the treaty, German troops were to occupy Paris on 1 March 1871.
The Paris Commune:
On 18 March, the remaining population of Paris and the Paris National Guard refused to disarm and allow the Germans to enter the city. When ordered to do so by the government, they rebelled and seized control over the city. Thiers and the government then fled. On 19 March the people of Paris began elections for the Paris Commune, an absolutely democratic self-government. All men voted, and in most districts women voted, too. The Commune began meeting on 28 March: in addition to organizing the defense of the city, the Commune also instituted a large number of democratic social reforms. On 6 April 1871, the French government and army attacked the Commune. The Communards defended the city successfully until 21 May, when the army broke its way into the city. A week of bloody fighting followed, and on 28 May 1871 the last fighters of the Commune were killed. Over 100,000 people were then arrested: many were executed, and thousands were exiled. This was the last major popular uprising in France until the 1960s. On 31 August 1871, Thiers was selected as President of the Third Republic. He would be overthrown by conservative General MacMahonon in 1873. Political dominance of the Third Republic would thereafter bounce back and forth between conservatives and right-liberals.
German Unification and Its Challenges:
In 1870-71, Bismarck and King Wilhelm used the Franco-Prussian War to pull the remaining southern principalities (except Austria) into a united German Empire. The German Empire was declared on 21 January 1871.
Bismarck initially sought broad political support for unification by appealing to center-liberal political factions. But when in 1873 the world economy went into a depression (known world-wide at the time as the “Great Depression”), and the German middle class moved further to the right in its political sentiment, Bismarck abandoned his policy of compromise with liberals and built a political of the center-right and far right. This political alignment would dominate Germany through World War One.
Social tensions in the united Germany
Cultural Tensions--between the Lutheran culture of the North and the Catholic culture of the South, made worse by Bismarck’s policy of “Culture Wars” against Catholicism in the 1 870s
Social tensions--The Junkers and other aristocrats were politically dominant but were increasingly economically threatened. In particular, free trade policies would have undermined their positions as agricultural capitalists.
The Middle Class was of growing economic importance, but still lacked real political power.
The Lower Middle Class was being “squeezed” by the growth of big business.
The peasants, especially in the South, were threatened by the kulturkampf and by trade policies that favored the Junkers.
The Working Class grew in numbers as the economy industrialized, and workers in Germany were very politically active. Although in the South, the Catholic political parties and trade unions had much influence among workers, in the North the most important political organization among workers was the German Social Democratic Labor Party--the socialist party founded by Karl Marx.
Political tensions: The right-center and conservative political parties-- mostly supported by the Junkers and some big industrialists--rallied around Bismarck and dominated politics, but they represented only a minority of the population. Most of the middle class supported various “centerist” and liberal parties. But the Social Democrats were by far the biggest political party.
By the 1 890s, the socialist party had more than 1 million members. This posed a potential threat to both the government and the middle class: The socialists had as their first goal the end of Germany’s authoritarian system of constitutional monarchy and the establishment of a democratic republic; the socialists’ longer term goal was ending capitalism and replacing capitalist society with a socialist society, in which there would be no private {or corporate] ownership of business, industry, or land.
Policies to Promote Conservative Stability in the German Empire, 1871-1914
Under Bismarck’s leadership and even once Bismarck had been replaced in 1890, the German government followed a complex strategy to restrain social and political tensions and hold on to power. (When Emperor Wilhelm I died in 1888, the new Emperor, Wilhelm II, found himself at odds with Bismarck; after a series of disagreements, he pressured Bismarck to resign in 1890).
State support for big business: the government both became a major consumer of industrial goods (especially military industrial goods) and made legal changes that encouraged the growth of big corporate conglomerates.
In particular, in made it easier to form corporations--these have the advantage of being able to raise large sums of capital by selling stock, and they protect investors from legal claims against them as individuals. In Germany, large “cartels” formed that integrated corporations vertically (so that a corporation might control all of the industries that provide it with goods and services, thereby reducing costs and increasing profits) and horizontally (so that a corporation can control many or all of the companies in a particular industry, thereby eliminating competition and increasing profits). This was in keeping with the wide-spread trend away from laissez-faire and towards “organized capitalism.”
The Marriage of Iron and Rye: to protect the incomes and power of the Junkers, the state imposed high tariffs on imported grain. This raised the price of imported grain and gave an advantage to the Junkers; whose large estates specialized in crops like rye. But raising the cost of grain hurt industrialists--it meant that the cost of living for workers was higher, and that forced industrialists to pay higher wages. [ also hurt the dairy- farming peasants of the South...]. The government’s pro-big business policies were in part a way of securing a “balance” between the aristocrats and the industrialists--a marriage of Iron (the industrialists) and Rye (the aristocrats).
Negative Integration: The German government and its conservative supporters used all means within their grasp to define “good Germans” as those who were loyal to the Emperor and the government. Newspapers, churches, schools, and other shapers of public attitudes all stressed that certain categories of people were “un-German”--Jews, Gypsies, Poles and other ethnic minorities, and also socialists, anarchists, and even liberals who were “too critical” of the government. The point was to pressure people to conform politically and socially.
Socialization: The institutions responsible for socializing people--for teaching individuals how to fit into society and how to behave, emphasized that one should act like a “good German”--which meant conform politically and socially and respect and accept the leadership of the conservative elites. These institutions included schools, churches, universities, fraternities, the army, etc.
Social Imperialism: The German government undertook a policy of colonial expansion in Africa and in Asia during the 1 870s- 1914. This “imperialism” was partly motivated by economic concerns, which we will discuss in a later lecture. But is had a domestic political goal as well--the government used Germany’s various victories in the colonies and its growing influence in the world to “rally people around the flag.” The idea was that they could use “patriotism” to silence political dissent.
Social welfare programs: Bismarck (and the chancellors under Wilhelm II) understood that the socialists were popular among workers because the socialists’ criticisms seemed to explain the great difficulties that workers faced in their daily lives. Bismarck outlawed almost all socialist party activities (the “anti-socialist laws” of 1878 and the anti-socialist trade union laws of 1879), but also introduced a number of social welfare programs designed to “take away the socialists’ issues” by improving conditions for workers.
These reforms included a medical treatment bill for industrial workers (1883), an accident insurance act for industrial workers (1884), and the extension of insurance to agricultural workers (1886). In 1890, when Bismarck resigned, the government lifted the anti-socialist laws. but it continued issuing social reform measures like the 1891 factory inspection act.
This combination of policies may have prevented social tensions in Germany from boiling over into revolution. But they also helped reinforce the authoritarian aspects of German political culture, promoted ultra nationalism and intolerance towards minorities, and helped push Germany along the path that would lead to World War One, as we will see in a later lecture.