Chapter 4

Question One

The first pattern that took place was the rediscovery of meat production due to an increase in the population. The effective food production patterns were meant to counter the mental and social capacities of the people that were being destroyed by hunger. The people got cleverer with the increase in scarcity of food production. Between 1600 and 1800, the European wheat prices tripled, with producers utilizing all types of technology in the production process[1]. Different people could access food due to an increase in production but the growth of population culminated into more mouths to feed and less food as the increased food production could not sustain the population growth. The first impact of the food patterns was the diminishing of the dietary wellbeing of the population, which was known as nutritional decline. The second impact encompassed the fact that the army could not endure basic army activities. Finally, most workers could not sustain their jobs due to fatigue based on lack of food.

The pictures of poor households, as provided by sources 4 and 5, show the low productivity of food as compared to the sources in 11, 13 and 14. Poor households are always subjected to food shortages, not because the level of food production is high, but because the level of population is high. The growing population cannot be sustained by the current food production level. In terms of sources 11, 13 and 14, the political rulers are noted to be with good health and vitality as compared to those from the poor households. This is because they can be able to exploit the production process for personal and private growth. The most popular changes experienced were the capitalization on meat in food production, the increase in wheat prices all over Europe and an increase in food production due to the increase in technological employment.

Chapter 7

Question One

Both Marx and De Tocqueville exhibited differing views on democracy. De Tocqueville believed in a democracy based on the generative principles of equality of conditions. These state that democracy cannot exist void of equality for all people; people’s sovereignty whereby states are ruled by the people based on equal share of power; and finally public opinion in which all ideals are converted into reality and action[2]. Conversely, Marx disdained true democracy because it was based on the sovereignty of people. With the rise in communism, equality could not be arrived at especially due to private ownership that created inequality in poverty and wealth. In this case, democracy could not be arrived at as long as social inequality persisted.

Question Three

To Marx, social evolution was considerably affected by private ownership. Private ownership in terms of production, which resulted from capitalism, culminated into social inequality. The presence of social inequality negated the existence of true democracy as it was based on equality, sovereignty and public opinion. Conversely, De Tocqueville asserted that private ownership was an incentive by the poor to be converted into richness. Private ownership should have been eliminated because it converted the poor into the rich and the rich into the poor. According to him, the protective laws of France were favorable as they prevented private ownership.

Question Four

Though Both Marx and De Tocqueville detested the society that grew from the French revolution of 1848, they exhibited diverse views of the revolution.          De Tocqueville felt that the revolution was made successful through the civilization of democracy, which was dependent on retardation of capitalist development as well as decentralization not through the works of the proletariat. In contrast, the views of Marx on the revolution were that a new society always grew from the old society; hence, the proletariat should not be in a hurry to grow before the growth of capitalism was completed. The premature entry of an immature proletariat would culminate into the repression committed by the non-proletarian majority.



















Coffin, Judith, Stacey, Robert, Cole, Joshua, and Carol Symes. Western Civilization: Their History and Their Culture. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010

Wiesner, Merry E., Julius R. Ruff, and William Bruce Wheeler. Discovering the Western Past: A Look at the Evidence. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2004


[1]  Judith Coffin, Robert Stacey, Joshua Cole, and Carol Symes. Western Civilization: Their History and Their Culture. ( New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010), 16

[2]Merry E Wiesner. Ruff Julius R and William Bruce Wheeler. Discovering the Western Past: A Look at the Evidence. (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2004), 94.

Still stressed from student homework?
Get quality assistance from academic writers!

WELCOME TO OUR NEW SITE. We Have Redesigned Our Website With You In Mind. Enjoy The New Experience With 15% OFF