- This topic has 5 voices and 19 replies.
-
Posts
-
As there were revolutions afoot around this time he was avoiding one from the bottom by supplying on from the top. Like when Czar Alexander abolished serfdom; give them what they want, on your own terms, before they take it on theirs.
Before anyone thinks I'm going all modern day, big government Liberal here, that's how I'm looking at this. He and others did pass laws to improve working conditions, which IMO was absolutely necessary back then (along with public health laws and suffrage acts). From what I've learned, the governments did nothing for a couple of hundred years except take taxes and build multi-acre palaces or whatever with the money, so it was good to see the governments starting to actually work for the people. In that respect, it wasn't a bad thing.
I do realize that laws or policies that might be the object of scorn today may have actually been good or legitimate at one point in time. For example, I've thought about the Civil Rights Act(s) of the late 1960s and perhaps other legislation along this line. Although I can't say I'm a fan of affirmative action nowadays on principle, I have thought that there was a time indeed when this kind of policy was really needed during a time when discrimination was so pervasive. What we have to ask, though, is the question of when we gradually change certain policies because the underlying problems are not the same that they used to be. In terms of modern welfare, we can see that it has become so large, likely so bureaucratic, that it presents its own set of problems that may actually hinder what its ultimate goal is.Interesting comment by Wally. I hadn't thought of that but the French Revolution must have been a lesson for all European governments during the 19th century. Rather than give them a steak, throw then a bone. I don't know, but this could very well have gone into the thinking of Bismark.
As there were revolutions afoot around this time he was avoiding one from the bottom by supplying on from the top.
That's actually a good idea on his part – solve the problem before it becomes a bigger a problem.Hmmm, maybe I am a big government, modern-day Liberal. 😮
….Interesting comment by Wally. I hadn't thought of that but the French Revolution must have been a lesson for all European governments during the 19th century. Rather than give them a steak, throw then a bone. I don't know, but this could very well have gone into the thinking of Bismark.
Not really, until later; look at the Congress of Vienna… re-establishs legitimacy, establishs a balance of power, gets a handle on liberalism (no one wanted another French Revolution), and putting all your germans in one basket and letting Austria watch the basket (the Geman Confederation). Metternich was the driving force here (trying to make france less the problem and more the solution, getting back into the good graces of the rest of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars.
Bismarck?s true genius was his mastery of Realpolitik, which he largely created. He was Realpolitik?s best practitioner. He knew exactly what position he wanted Prussia to be in and had the bureaucratic and diplomatic skills to achieve those goals. His Diplomacy for one was masterful. He managed to goad other countries into declaring wars that he wanted, which let Prussia play the aggrieved party while his army was busy trouncing their opponents. The pity is that his successors had neither his clarity of vision nor his diplomatic abilities. Bismarck created the modern German state and Wilhelm II and his weak Chancellors destroyed it.
