In the 18th century, there was a resurgent interest in classical Europe. During the same time, there were movements in America and France to create new democratic republics. Would this have happened without an interest in the ancient Roman Republic and Greek democracies? I don't know as much about France, but the American Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by ancient Roman politics, history and culture. Was there an interest in republics and democracies that preceded the new fascination with classical Europe?
Text
Not too long ago a made a post about the first years of social-democracy in the XIX century Romania. I stopped at 1899-1900 after the party received a blow when the cracks inside its ranks lead to the desertion of the intellectual wing of the party. They crossed over to the Liberal party and never came back.
This is called in the Romanian historiography and also by the socialists of the interwar period as "the first socialist movement" because there was another movement after the events of the 1899-1900 and about this "second" one I will write a few things in this post.
The (almost) disappearance of social democracy in Romania and the catalyst for it's revival
In 1900 the socialist movement was in a dire crisis. The most important and most active members ceased their activity and almost all the clubs(the local organizations) closed. The exception being the Bucharest club which had a limited organization and the IaΘi club with an even more limited activity(in fact, only one source that I have read mentioned this second club) and for the next two years no notable events occurred.
This will change in 1902 when the Liberal government enacted the "professions law". This is an interesting law and the concept behind will surely sound familiar in the interwar period for some of the readers of my post. Basically it established "corporations" in which anyone who practiced a trade must enter in order to practice it in the future. It was made up of workers and shop owners alike and in theory they will reach a consensus when a work conflict will arise. The workers needed to pay a fee for enlisting in these corporations and also a membership fee. It is also important to mention that it did not included the factory workers, only those in small shops, but this were the vast majority in 1902.
This law is, in a way, a catalyst for social-democratic revival here and the new movement is very different than the one I had written in the last post. While Dobrogeanu Gherea was still the theoretician, it's actual leadership is made by workers, in contrast with the intellectuals of the past. This is also a more militant group which made workers organizations and actions like strike the central part of the movement. After the disappointment of political tactic with an emphasis on running for office and engage in politics, the focus on worker organizations seems logical. T
... keep reading on reddit β‘I read some quotes of Magne carta. It seems like giving power to parliament from king of england. But I think at that time people who can join in parliament was only few nobilities..
Un like french or united states, it doesn't seems to give power or rights to normal civilians. Does any misunderstood imformation in here?
(Sorry of my english writings. English is not my first language.)
Usage of "liberalism"/"liberal" varies. I mean it in the high-level, Enlightenment sense of non-authoritarian, not the common modern conservative/liberal contrast.
)