European Civilization 3 ( Britain and France )

Efficiency: The power of the second principle (principle of improving living standards) is the technological power that tries to realize a certain value, in other words, the power to improve living standards through technology. Along with improvements in technology, the reorganization of the power of social structure: the power of the third principle (principle of community development) also appeared along with improvements in efficiency. The French Revolution was the beginning of the civil revolution, and the formation of organizational power that invested the power of the entire nation in the national goal. The beginning of this social structure power originally occurred in England, with the Puritan Revolution and the Glorious Revolution, but it is necessary to note that the innovation of social structure power occurred earlier than the Industrial Revolution. This order was the same in France and the United States, but it was reversed in later developing countries. The social structure was innovated after the introduction of efficiency (Germany, Russia, Japan). Parliament and journalism appeared as systems to draw out cooperation based on the spontaneous will of the people, but it was the later developing countries Germany, Russia, and Japan that appeared in the form of forcing the innovation of social structure from above before waiting for spontaneity.

 

Let's go back to Britain. The power of Britain's social structure: the power of the third principle (the principle of community development) was not something that was consciously sought. Incidentally, the Industrial Revolution was probably the same. Britain's social structure power arose from the gradual restriction of royal power, and the background to this is that Britain had been centralizing relatively early. The conflict between (royalty, Catholicism, privileged merchants) and (aristocracy, the Church of England, Puritans), followed by the Tories and Whigs, had already laid the groundwork for the effectiveness of democracy. In other words, democracy is a "process of the purification of power," and the essence of the effectiveness of democracy lies in the gradual purification of vested interests that are no longer in tune with the times and tend to commit injustice. In that sense, Britain also demonstrated this in the establishment of the industrial society in the 19th century. This purification power is noteworthy, as it has not been seen in other civilizations until now.And in the case of Britain, it is also worth noting that this purification power was carried out by an oligarchy of aristocrats for a long time.*

 

*British democracy was formed by limiting the power of the monarchy. The rising gentry and merchants joined forces against the power of the vested interests of the great nobles and privileged merchants, which led to the formation of political parties such as the Tories and Whigs. In the case of Britain, the monarchy was associated with policies that did not match the national interest in a broad sense (for example, James II's cooperation with Louis XIV), so there were special circumstances in which the monarchy was abandoned by the great nobles. However, Britain must have been troubled about which direction to take at this point, and Louis XIV's enormous influence seems to have worked in the direction of uniting Britain and the Netherlands. This is an interesting point in the formation of Britain's foreign policy, just as it was in the era of Queen Elizabeth when they opposed Spain (this may also apply to the later Anglo-Japanese Alliance). However, the Glorious Revolution cannot be avoided as being remarkable because the oligarchy itself decided on this policy, since the monarchy had been expelled at that time. I think that even when we look at the British Parliament in the 19th century, we are amazed at the judgment of the British oligarchy in the many compromises and negotiations. In Bagehot's British constitutional theory, he touches on the authoritative and effective parts of the constitution, and says that the effective power is held by the middle class, taking into account compromises with tradition. This means that rapid changes in society should be avoided, because tradition is an accumulation of customs, and the authority of tradition should be respected to a certain extent, and necessary matters in society should be decided by the middle class through discussion. Thus, during the Whig era, Britain won the Seven Years' War, the Industrial Revolution progressed, and the Napoleonic Wars and the subsequent Vienna System became the Tory era. After the first electoral reform in 1830, the electoral law was revised three times over a period of time, the Corn Laws were abolished, and the House of Lords Act was enacted, gradually changing the social structure. During this time, the Whigs, who were the liberal forces, ended their role after passing through the Liberal Party, and their base sank due to the rise of the working class and the growing disparity in the middle class.

 

This is where France differs. In France, the monarchy and the nobility were fighting over who should pay for the budget deficit, but they dragged the masses into it, and the French, who had already seen and learned about the British and American revolutions, rushed straight for democracy. They used that momentum to spread democracy and nationalism throughout Europe (the Napoleonic Wars).

 

It was fine for England until the local reforms were transferred to its relative, America, but when it grew into a fanatical religion in France, it became wary of France, which was trying to make greater strides in the economy and military by exerting the power of its people more than England, and tried to suppress it (Conference of Vienna). Talleyrand was originally a person who wanted to stop the revolution within the framework of a British-style aristocratic oligarchy, so he probably aimed to compromise with England along these lines and build a long-term relationship with England. After the July Revolution (1830) and the establishment of the Orléans dynasty, Talleyrand began negotiations with England (the British foreign secretary was Palmerston of the Whig Party). This also ended in an incomplete way, but it could be said that this was the sober end of an era. After that, France experienced various political systems, with royalists, bourgeoisie, and democrats all mixed together, but in diplomacy, France, which had often been the hegemon of the European continent since Louis XIV, ended its conflict with England (although there were skirmishes) and began to cooperate with England in a broad sense until World War II.

 

*There may be some problems with how to interpret the policies of Napoleon III and the Franco-Russian alliance. There was a struggle between republicans and royalists within France, and the military was also strong, leading to the Boulanger and Dreyfus affairs. Napoleon's military glory and expansionism were also present, but France, along with Britain, was on the side of protecting vested interests. During the Vienna System, France was rather suppressed, and this was the era of Russia and Austria. France's advance resumed under the Orléans dynasty in 1830, and took a leap forward with the February Revolution of 1848 (a global revolution), but despite Napoleon III's advance into the world, cooperation with Britain seems to have been basically maintained. This was probably because France shared the same opinions as Britain in a broad sense regarding Russia and Austria (the Ottoman Turkish problem) (which is why the sale of the Suez Canal was also concluded). At this point, in 1871, the German Empire emerged as a disruptive factor. Germany's emergence brought France and Russia closer together, and France then tried to counter Britain as well. However, Russia was weak, and in the end Russia reconciled its interests with Britain, which led to World War I.

 

All rights reserved to M Ariake