Eng Rev Hill 2) B) Summary Note - 0 views

• 
  #1 Ian Schlom on 24 Nov 11

   

  An industrial revolution took place the century before 1640. The industrial revolution was stimulated by the plunder of monastic lands, in the New World, and from Africa (the slave trade). Rather than selling raw materials to be manufactured elsewhere, England was selling more and more finished or semi-finished materials. England's coal mining industry was booming. "[By] 1640 England produced over four-fifths of the coal of Europe." Coal allowed for the development of other industries, furthering along the industrial revolution. As trade increased, England became more of a colonial power.
  This expansion in trade and industry allowed the bourgeoisie and the Crown to see each other. The Crown and the feudal nobility and landowners saw the expansion of the bourgeoisie becoming a powerful player in the country. The bourgeoisie saw the restrictions that feudalism set on it. In response to the Crown's restrictions, Parliament chastised the monarchy, the edifice representing feudalism and the feudal landowners. Note its Parliament which responds to the woes of the bourgeoisie.
  Merchants organised into companies controlled export. "Merchant middlemen" controlled internal trade. Merchant middlemen controlled the labourers of the "putting-out system." The putting-out system is where a merchant with raw materials subcontracts with a small artisan. By the 17th century, these small artisans or peasants were owners of their own means of production, however, they were dependent on the bourgeoisie for supplies and income. The general rise in prices made this small artisan/peasant class dependent on the bourgeoisie. This class was usually in debt to the larger capitalist class. This class of small artisans was a kind of petty-bourgeoisie, so says Christopher Hill. This "petty-bourgeois" class was a class with its own interests, like any other class. At times, in the interest of its preservation and maintaining an enjoyable life (the kind which one would deserve), joined the feudal landlords in their movement against "usury" or wage-slavery. But this class was also a bourgeois class and the areas where it existed, East Anglia and the South Midlands would become areas of uncompromising resistance to Charles I. So it sided with the bourgeoisie against the restrictive policies of feudalism to limit industrial growth. However, the interests of the bourgeoisie and this petty-bourgeois class of peasants and artisans were only temporarily linked. The aims of the bourgeoisie would dissolve the old agrarian and industrial relations and transform these peasants, small artisans, and journeymen into proletarians, and thus contradictory with the aims of this "petty-bourgeoisie."
  Feudalism kept great restriction on production, keeping high standards on production, regulating and restricting competition. The industrial bourgeoisie found the guild's high standards for quality as a great restriction to meeting demands of the expanding market. This disregard for quality or consideration of high standards as an obstacle speaks to the capitalist ethos rising in the society. However, the guild's power was only extended in the towns and villages. So as England became a unified economic unit, these restrictions were harder to maintain. The bourgeoisie then took capital into the countryside. In the countryside they employed the cheap labour of the peasants ruined by the new bourgeois farming changes.
  In response to this move to the country, the Crown imposed new restrictions on industry and trade. The feudal landowners became worried and threatened by these changes that were entering the countryside. The flow of capital into the countryside added competition and new business where there'd been for generations very traditional and static agrarian relations. The new bourgeois changes also took more power away from the Crown. The Crown deliberately instituted policy that'd be in favour of the feudal landowners, like declaring new monopolies etc..
  So these are again the incentives to use bloodshed to realise interests. We see the sides drawn, the bourgeoisie and at first the "petty-bourgeoisie" on the one hand, the feudal nobility and thir king on the other.
  The petty-bourgeoisie seem to me to be the heroes. They are siding with the bourgeoisie when it's the national interest, and they are defending themselves and the rest of the country when they see that the bourgeoisie would harm England with its "usury" or wage-slavery.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">An industrial revolution took place the century before 1640. The industrial revolution was stimulated by the plunder of monastic lands, in the New World, and from Africa (the slave trade). Rather than selling raw materials to be manufactured elsewhere, England was selling more and more finished or semi-finished materials. England's coal mining industry was booming. "[By] 1640 England produced over four-fifths of the coal of Europe." Coal allowed for the development of other industries, furthering along the industrial revolution. As trade increased, England became more of a colonial power. <br /> This expansion in trade and industry allowed the bourgeoisie and the Crown to see each other. The Crown and the feudal nobility and landowners saw the expansion of the bourgeoisie becoming a powerful player in the country. The bourgeoisie saw the restrictions that feudalism set on it. In response to the Crown's restrictions, Parliament chastised the monarchy, the edifice representing feudalism and the feudal landowners. Note its Parliament which responds to the woes of the bourgeoisie. <br /> Merchants organised into companies controlled export. "Merchant middlemen" controlled internal trade. Merchant middlemen controlled the labourers of the "putting-out system." The putting-out system is where a merchant with raw materials subcontracts with a small artisan. By the 17th century, these small artisans or peasants were owners of their own means of production, however, they were dependent on the bourgeoisie for supplies and income. The general rise in prices made this small artisan/peasant class dependent on the bourgeoisie. This class was usually in debt to the larger capitalist class. This class of small artisans was a kind of petty-bourgeoisie, so says Christopher Hill. This "petty-bourgeois" class was a class with its own interests, like any other class. At times, in the interest of its preservation and maintaining an enjoyable life (the kind which one would deserve), joined the feudal landlords in their movement against "usury" or wage-slavery. But this class was also a bourgeois class and the areas where it existed, East Anglia and the South Midlands would become areas of uncompromising resistance to Charles I. So it sided with the bourgeoisie against the restrictive policies of feudalism to limit industrial growth. However, the interests of the bourgeoisie and this petty-bourgeois class of peasants and artisans were only temporarily linked. The aims of the bourgeoisie would dissolve the old agrarian and industrial relations and transform these peasants, small artisans, and journeymen into proletarians, and thus contradictory with the aims of this "petty-bourgeoisie." <br /> Feudalism kept great restriction on production, keeping high standards on production, regulating and restricting competition. The industrial bourgeoisie found the guild's high standards for quality as a great restriction to meeting demands of the expanding market. This disregard for quality or consideration of high standards as an obstacle speaks to the capitalist ethos rising in the society. However, the guild's power was only extended in the towns and villages. So as England became a unified economic unit, these restrictions were harder to maintain. The bourgeoisie then took capital into the countryside. In the countryside they employed the cheap labour of the peasants ruined by the new bourgeois farming changes. <br /> In response to this move to the country, the Crown imposed new restrictions on industry and trade. The feudal landowners became worried and threatened by these changes that were entering the countryside. The flow of capital into the countryside added competition and new business where there'd been for generations very traditional and static agrarian relations. The new bourgeois changes also took more power away from the Crown. The Crown deliberately instituted policy that'd be in favour of the feudal landowners, like declaring new monopolies etc.. <br /> So these are again the incentives to use bloodshed to realise interests. We see the sides drawn, the bourgeoisie and at first the "petty-bourgeoisie" on the one hand, the feudal nobility and thir king on the other. <br /> The petty-bourgeoisie seem to me to be the heroes. They are siding with the bourgeoisie when it's the national interest, and they are defending themselves and the rest of the country when they see that the bourgeoisie would harm England with its "usury" or wage-slavery.</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top