Revolution

Hobsbawm focuses his attention in Chapter 12, of the book, The Age of Empire 1875-1914 on Revolution. Revolution as defined in class as “violent seizure of state power through class-based revolts from below,” allows for an insight. A fifteen year time period is described a belle époque which in basic terms is a “Golden Age,” for the upper class at least. This was a time of possible and inevitable revolutions in the future. Many ancient empires are accounted for and their demise and rebirth with new governments, mostly reformed to Western standards, as the case of the Japanese. A few such cases are that of the Russian, Chinese, Habsurg, Ottoman, Mexican, and Irish empires to name a few took place. Ancient empires should not be crumbling unless due to some sort of legitimate cause, so why the need for revolution?
Revolts in this time period consistently occurred wherever there was internal pressure such an upset working class, not to mention under educated. I believe the people revolted one reason internally is to be find equality with westerners and upper class alike. Governments like Russia’s misuse of peasant labor, serfdom, certainly cause a suppressed upheaval in it population. The case of China and many of its ancient views led to revolution and rebellion. Empires such as these were not without their external influences as well. The West played a huge role in shaping the East. The core empires did not have much to worry about but many of the periphery countries were affected by the West. The Irish as they sought independence from Britain, and Poland as they were torn between Germany and Russia as well. The United States and other Western Empires played a key role economically and socially to influence revolution in empires throughout the world. The book goes on in detail to describe reasons of internal and external cause for revolution and change in major empires, ancient and small.
While I find revolutions are necessary to accomplish goals of change especially when in absolute rule, these revolutions were destined to come about in these ancient empires. The only way for survival is adaptation and these empires were stuck on the old ways. Suppressing the rising working class and ancient narrow minded views led inhabitants to want reform. People do not “rebel” without at least a solid cause to support. I feel it was inevitable for such reforms to occur do you?

Power of the World Workers

A wave of industrialization has spread in the years spanning 1870 to 1914. Hobsbawm speaks of rapid growth in manual labor and a decrease in agriculture and craftsman workers. Jobs multiplied in gas, water, sewage, mines, and many more occupations listed through Chapter Five, eventually organizing the working class. To get an idea according to Hobsbawm two-thirds of workers in cities over 100,000 people worked in industrial occupations. Thus, with the majority of the people being blue collar, the organization of a unified political party became primary focus, at least where there was democratic and electoral politics that allowed it. The working classes goal was to form a socialist or labor party, in which it had control in government. My question then, referred to in class, is why did the workers not succeed in creating “worker’s utopia?”
Working class parties began to grow powerful with the goal of emancipation of the workers and what seems as enslaving the exploiters. Revolution being the number one priority, made capitalists and their states increasingly worried. We can see clearly the rise of the working class but unifying the working class into one homogeneous party is nearly impossible. Hobsbawm describes the riffs between these labor parties and how disputes constantly undermined their ultimate goals. One example of this is equivalent groups trying to monopolize in a certain kind of work, causing uninvolved workers in inter-occupational strikes. This is just one of many, as nationality, culture, language, and religion also played significant roles in fragmenting the working class.
Another reason consisting of nationality, language, culture, and religion played another role in crushing the hope of having one unified working class. Hobsbawm refers to several incidents of these barriers. An example of this is Bohemia Czech workers resisting integration in pan-Austrian movement, primarily involving workers of German speech. This only serves to re- illustrate how culture, nationally, and language server to split the working class. This however did not make it an impossible thought to unify a working class, but did set forth great difficulties. Reasons mentioned before and conflicts that crossed class lines, seemed to make for the impossibility.
One last possibility is the formation of trade unions, which serve as a political class consciousness. Basically the political pressure that helped in utilizing workshop strength essentially was the only method used; coupled along with this are the strikes in the transportation field, and metal working. They were large and thinly populated making it hard to unite. The transportation sector did not actually have labor unions, but when on a strike dramatically affected economies. My main point is working class is all but impossible to unify in one homogeneous socialist group.
The workers of the world had the potential to accomplish their goals, yet they fell short. A few key components to their failure of “workers utopia” are religion, culture, nationality, labor unions, strikes, divisions between labor classes and many more led to the non-homogenous system. A system in which many socialist labor parties existed in fragmentation of the evolving world. My next question then would be, how the world would differ today had they accomplished in making a “workers utopia?”

China's Collapse

China in the late 14th and 15th century was by far the most extensive, populous, and technologically advanced region of the medieval world. China’s role as a core in the old world system would have led many to believe that China would become the new core of the world system. Why then did China’s reversal of roles in the world system occur? There is a multitude of reasons but a few key ones are external issues, religious ideology, economic collapse, and collapsing parts of the world system.
China led the world to believe they were not interested trade, yet they most actively participated. Instead, the best way to view one of China’s reasons for withdrawal is their changing views in trade. This is directly linked to Confucianism, which did not have an importance for entrepreneurship. Thus, when China views did favor trade their technological advances such as the sluice gate, paper, siderurgy, put them far ahead in the world system. China falls in and out of public trading due to their religious ideology, then resumes in the fourteenth century by taking over the Indian Ocean. They built an unrivaled navy at the time and had no problem controlling the Indian Ocean.
The conquering of the Indian Ocean, with an unrivaled navy, seemed to make China almost in complete hegemonic control. Their policy quickly changed and they withdrew and terminated their relations with the world. It is clear at this point China has everything it needs to be the hegemonic power in the new world system. China’s withdrawal in the Indian Ocean left a “vacuum” of power to be filled, not to mention its merchants with no state support. This most likely led to economic problem as the merchants could no longer privately further their interests. The key reason behind this is Ming sought to reestablish symbols of authenticity from the past Mongol invaders, to do this they strayed away from the Mongols open trade and pursued confunsianism.
The reversal of China’s position is also related to external factors like the Black Death that decimated China and the war to rebel against the weaken Mongols led China to diminish in power. After, their power was restored from the Black Death; the massive fleet eventually could no longer be supported, mainly due to economic collapse, but also due to the collapse of other parts of the world system. Their economic downfall can also be contributed to corruption, political factions, and larger expenditures then revenue. This ultimately led to the collapse of China’s nearly hegemonic state into fifteen smaller regions.
Again, the question of why did China’s reversal of roles in the world system occur? Economic Collapse, Confucian ethic, desires to separate themselves from the Mongols, and the collapsing parts of the world system led to their reversal. Once powerful and united, China opened up the door for the emergence of a new power, the West. The Portuguese men of war easily took over the Indian Ocean after vacation of the Chinese, and offered all that the Chinese could not to the Arab merchants solidifying the West’s emergence in the new world system. China’s reversal in roles, I feel, did not have to occur, but then again history is said to repeat itself. Any thoughts?

Struggle of Maritime Powers

Venice and Genoa, two maritime trade and sea powers existed in competence for centuries, as well as part of the “Big Four”. As Abu-Lugbod describes, “both cities played pivotal roles in joining Europe to the ongoing world economy of the east.” The referred reference is that of mainly China, Mongolia, India, and a few others. There were three main passages used create the eight zones of trading, until the Portuguese circumnavigation of Africa. Genoa is eventually supplanted by Venice in the 14th century. So, why did Genoa fall to Venice in terms of monopolizing when Genoa predates Venice as preexisting port?
There is no question that when it came to terms of resources, that these two key city-ports spent as much money and time on trading and expanding their connections as they did fighting with each other(Genoa-Venetian Wars). Genoa and Venice both sought to monopolize trade. Genoa motivated by more likely greed then religious factors joined the crusades, as did Venice, though much more reluctant, created a want for eastern goods. These goods included silk, spices, pottery, and more. Ironically, even though Venice was reluctant to join the crusades until it seemed a sure victory, they ended up being the hegemonic force controlling the route that allowed them access to spices and silks. Genoa, although rewarded for their help in the crusades, did not gain such a victorious benefit from the crusades.
Another factor in the downfall of Genoa was its wavering supplies of slaves and it poor choice in the Black Sea. Genoa at one point supplied much of the slave labor for the Egyptians, thus granting them trade rights and routes into the East. Genoa was unable to continue the supply of slaves, where as Venice capitalized on this situation picking up the slave trade into Egypt, along with routes to the East. Genoa, trying to fully exclude Venice and vice versa, attempted to use the Black Sea as another entry to the Northern Route. Thus, at this point in history in the world system both were hegemonic powers yet located in different regions of trade, creating in essence a world system. Genoa’s attempt at using the Black Sea is crushed by the rebellions and fragmentation of the Mongol Empire. The Mongol empire collapsed on itself due to an insufficient system of relying on resources of its conquered, and no export production. In essence without the continual conquest of new people the system would eventually have to collapse on itself. The downfall of the Mongol Empire proved to render the Black Sea, and the Northern Route less then mediocre, due now to unsafe conditions of traveling the route.
The perpetual downfall of Genoa is marked in my opinion by start of the Black Plague. The Black Plague wiped out two-thirds of the world’s population including Genoa and Venice. Again, why did Venice prevail over Genoa? Well, the Black Plague created a contraction in the world system. Genoa was not able to reform its political issues, and government to account for the change. Venice recovered from the Black plague because it provided state support to its maritime merchant’s investments such as convoys, warships, weapons, and more where as Genoa was not did not. Basically, Venice had a “safety net” to insure its overall trade. Genoa on the other hand was not located in as prime of a position as Venice. Venice’s overall choice on the Southern Route, trade with Egypt, and state insurance allowed them ultimately to overcome Genoa.