Cassanova

I got home from school and immediately started on homework.

History came first- I wrote the longest assignment of my life so far.

It was an assignment about Marxism.

'Class struggle and other Marxist ideas best describe

why there was a French

Revolution'. To what extent do you agree with this?

(1,500 words)

The French Revolution was a revolution caused by the rage of the

Third Estate of France, a call for equality, that lasted 10 years from,

1789 to 1799. It began on July 14, 1789, when revolutionaries

stormed Bastille, a fortress in Paris, known formally as the Bastille Saint-Antoine, demanding gunpowder after raiding a different

location for weapons. The revolution came to an end in 1799 when

a general named Napoleon overthrew the revolutionary government

and established the French Consulate. There are several theories

that go into depth about why The Revolution happened. For

example, the Marxist Theory, which was a theory devised by

Charles Marx, suggested that the best way to describe the roots of

the revolution was due to class struggle. Other theories, such as the

Intellectual theory (devised by Rousseau & Montesquieu who

believed that it actually happened due to a struggle of ideas) and

the Cultural Theory (by Roger Chartier, who believed that the

revolution was driven by changes to ordinary people's lives that

happened over a long time).

It is possible to agree with this statement because the Revolution

heavily stemmed from the class struggle that already existed

between the three classes. Many historians have described the

French Revolution with Marxist ideas. Marxists claim that the French

Revolution was like most other class struggle revolutions. At the

time, France had three estates: the clergy (people who worked in

the Church), nobility and commoners (everyone else). At the time,

there were tensions between the 1st & 2nd and the 3rd Estate. because of the taxation. 'The first two estates were taxing the 3rd

Estate heavily. The 22 million peasants (farmers) in France made up

85% of the population. Together with the town workers (8% of the

population), they paid the heaviest taxes in the country. The bourgeoisie

made up 4% of the population and were people such as bankers,

lawyers, merchants and doctors.' [1] The parliament was completely

unbalanced. Each estate got 1 vote and the 3rd Estate, who made

up most of the population, found themselves constantly being

outvoted by the first two estates on important decisions. All

taxation raises were also mainly placed upon the poor and the rich

typically dodged their taxes or kept all collected taxed to

themselves. Anything there was, they taxed. In the economic crisis,

the upper class were not as heavily affected, however, the poor

were devastated, as well as being forced to pay high taxes by the

government and private tax organisations such as the Church. This

was also frustrating because they could barely afford to sustain

themselves after all of the tax collection. Bread pieces had begun to

rise, quite quickly and after several famines and poor harvests, they

were left to starve. This led to the Third class to become enraged

due to taxation without representation as they had no say in their

taxes, and they could barely live. This meant that they wanted to

revolt against the upper class and a call for equality. On the 20th of

June 1789, The Tennis Court Oath was made. This was the members

of the Third Estate (and even some from the first two by that point)

swearing that they would "not to separate and to reassemble

wherever required until the Constitution of the kingdom is

established". This led to a series of events such as the Great Fear

and the Storming of the Bastille. This links to the idea of class

struggle because the Third Class began to revolt against them

because of the inequality between them, taxes constantly being

risen against them and not having a fair vote.

However, it is possible to disagree with this statement as there

are other alternative explanations that may better explain the

reason that the French Revolution happened. One alternative

explanation is the Intellectual Explanation which was a set of ideas

developed by Montesquieu (1689-1755) and Jean-Jacques

Rousseau (1712-1778). Historians argue that the French Revolution

happened due to a struggle of ideas, as opposed to the idea of class

struggle that is put forward by the Marxist explanation. During the

enlightenment, philosophers began to develop ideas about the

world around them. Two such ideas were: People should rely on

their problem solving and do things themselves, instead of relying

on superstition and religion. This directed people such as Newton to

his scientific discoveries such as laws of motion. Another idea was

that governing systems should develop a set of rules and laws

based on the rights that everybody had, not catered for a specific

group of people (the upper/rich classes). This system should be

based on democracy – not just rule by one or one small group of

people, and be expressed through laws Montesquieu claimed that

the best kind of government was one where force was part between

various gatherings – for instance, the ruler, the aristocrats, the

Church and the ordinary citizens. This would keep one piece of

society from getting excessively powerful and protect individuals'

rights. However, Rousseau held altogether different opinions to Montesquieu. He thought that the individuals in France (or any

nation) should lead themselves – otherwise called being sovereign

over themselves. This implied that no monarch should rule. This

meant that opinions and thoughts are expressed through law and

votes. This challenges the Marxist idea of class struggle as it

suggests that the Revolution happened not because of inequality

and class struggle, but because people were developing their

reasoning skills and were developing the ability to understand

modern politics and think for themselves.

Another explanation would be the Cultural Explanation.

Developed by historians Roger Chartier, who believes that the

reasons were cultural. This meant that the revolution was driven by

changes to ordinary peoples' lives that occurred over a long span of

time. Some of the important changes that are included were:

Education and literacy, de-sacralisation and people's expectations.

In the 18th century, many of the French had the opportunity to

learn to read and write. Catholic schools encouraged literacy. The

schools did not just teach the upper class. This meant that even the

regular people were literate and could understand political ideas.

Books around this time had also started being printed in their native

language, and not just in Latin (as they had mostly previously been

as books were seen as for scholars). Historians have proven that

more literate areas were more likely to criticise the king and nobles

than areas that were less literate. De-sacralisation refers to when a

building/artefact becomes less sacred, or not sacred at all. This

happened to the French King and the main French religion

(Catholicism) during the 18th century. Traditionally, it was said that

the king was chosen by God to rule. However, the nation lost

respect to the king and therefore the Catholic religion after Louis XV

had led France into disastrous wars, forcing them into debt- such as

funding the American Revolutionary War and had many scandalous

affairs with many different women. Louis XVI was seen as weak and

indecisive. For example, he focused too much on the court and

nobility- not the people who funded their lives. As French society

developed, French people came to assume that changes would

happen within their lives. The Third class gradually became

enlightened to the imbalance and started to demand equality.

These feelings built up over the long-term and worsened at times of

difficulty such as the 1787-88 food crisis. This also challenges the

Marxist idea of class struggle because it suggests that therevolution happened because peoples lives had changed naturally,

such as the introduction of education, the nation became more

literate and could access reading materials which were starting to

come out in their native language.

In conclusion, I partially disagree with this statement. This is

because there are other statements and/or theories that can

partially explain this too. You could take partial elements from

different theories and put them together to make an overall more

accurate theory. A more appropriate statement would be 'Class

struggle and other Marxist ideas partially describe why there was a

French Revolution'. Despite most of it seeming to stem from the

Third Estate's rage due to the inequality they faced in taxes and

votes etc, elements such as the Enlightenment (The intellectual

Explanation), and the fact that people became more literate,

leading to a better comprehension of politics and understanding

arguments (Cultural Explanation) can all be added to make a new

and more agreeing theory. It may not be completely accurate, but

it's definitely better than stand-alone theories that rely on a few

points.

Phew.

My teacher better give me a good grade or else.

I put waayy to much effort into that

Second came maths- it was on the Pythagoras Theorem. I had to write an essay on how it worked and it's rules:

Pythagoras' theorem states that for all right-angled triangles, 'The square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides'. The hypotenuse is the longest side and it's always opposite the right angle. Pythagoras' theorem only works for right-angled triangles, so you can use it to test whether a triangle has a right angle or not.

That was easy to write.

I had no problem with that.

The last one was on geography, another essay- on deforestation this time:

Why should I care?'

Rainforests absorb Carbon Dioxide. You should

care because it's a substantial amount. This is

why the air in the country is much better than in

urban areas. It's because, unlike the cities, most

plants are actually real. This is also why trees are

planted.

Although they only take a small amount of

surface, they're massively influential in the air we

breathe and even the climate around us.

On average, one acre of new forest can sequester

about 2.5 tons of carbon annually. Young trees

absorb CO2 at a rate of 13 pounds per tree each

year. Trees reach their most productive stage of

carbon storage at about 10 years at which point

they are estimated to absorb 48 pounds of CO2

per year. If you, a selfish business, do not care

about that and want to displease the all mighty

Tree Master and Co, every tree you cut down releases

all of the collected carben and even more if you're

idiotic enough to actually burn them down. This

all goes into the Ozone layer (of which all

existence depends upon) and damages it all. It

also contributes to global warming, as well as

going against the sustainable development goals.

(Number 13- Climate Action)

cutting down rainforests also completely messes

up biodiversity, endangered species and also can

make them go extinct.

If that still somehow does not convince you

top care, then wood is a finite resource. If

you just take and don't put back (ie replant

etc) then CONGRATULATIONS, you've just

possibly brought the doom of humanity and

the world we know it far far closer than it

would've been if you'd started a clean energy

company.

So what? I replant trees.

Well, good for you. But you're still

contributing massively to global warming

even then. It takes time for trees to grow

(duh) and honestly, clean energy would be

better.

According to the NOAA 2019 Global Climate

Summary, the combined land and ocean

temperature has increased at an average

rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since

1880; however, the average rate of increase

since 1981 (0.18°C / 0.32°F) is more than

twice as great. That's just an average. The

number is estimated to snowball

exponentially, and even a global pandemic,

one that forced us to stop all transport, well

nearly all, won't put so much as a dent in it,

especially with the effects of Self Licencing

that people may have.

Rainforest can regulation regional

rainfall, it is like a giant sponge, during rain, trees absorbed most of the

moisture, the moisture absorption by

root to the leaf surface to allow water to

water vapor forms released into the air.

After the water vapor formed a cloud,

then become rains, rain formation

brings the life to the arid place. If the

rainforest is felled, cloud formation and

precipitation will also decrease; so

many places there will be loss of

drought and crop harvest.

Wow, that was a lot writing.

This is school for you.

The one I was sent to thought it was a good idea to push us beyond what was just on the curriculum.

I personally loved this style of study, others, not so much.

It was hard work, but it yeilded great results.