The Swedish Cap party and Hat party if they continued in the 1800s? Support amongst the newly urbanised?

[Gugu]

(First time posting so I'm kinda nervous haha)

So I'm in the process of writing and researching a timeline that involves the Swedish Cap and Hat parties continuing into the 1800s.

And so I'm wondering about the relationship between the different parties and agricultural workers once they start moving into the city.

One factor is that the Cap party would have an increased support amongst the newly urbanised industrial workers as many of them would either personally or have someone in their family with some sort of working relationship with the Cap party. Some for quite a long time. I think we would see something like this especially much during and following the influx of American grain on the European markets because then we would see a broader range of agricultural workers moving into the cities and not only those who didn't inherit land to work as well as an increase in absolute numbers. On the other hand maybe a lot of those moving into the city would find themselves drawn to the Hats' legacy of providing state funds for industry and manufacturing, sectors many would find themselves in once they come into the city, if anything it would increase job security for them.

Although it should also be mentioned that a lot of any changes would be very slight and small because of how late Swedish industrialisation and urbanidation was. Even if urbanisation increased during the 1800s it really took its time.

 

[TheHandsomeBrute]

I was always taught that the two were extremely corrupt and always siphoned government money into their pockets. Which made the two parties and the entire Riksdags government unpopular.

 

[Gugu]

I was always taught that the two were extremely corrupt and always siphoned government money into their pockets. Which made the two parties and the entire Riksdags government unpopular.

There definitely was a lot of what we today would call corruption (although attitudes at the time were different) in Swedish 18th century politics but it was not especially individual riksdag representatives taking government money, to a large degree they didn't have the ability to do so and there wasn't that much money to take anyway. No you see it was primarily in the form of foreign powers, largely France, Russia, Britain and to a smaller degree Prussia (out of these France was the most willing to pay large sums of money), to the different parties within the parliament. France paid large sums of money to the French friendly Hats and also the very monarchist Court party, which was essentially just a grouping of the royal family's close friends, because a return to an absolute monarchy in Sweden would be in their interests. Meanwhile Prussia, Russia and Britain paid money to the Caps, they had a more careful foreign policy that notably compared to the Hats didn't involve attempting to retake the provinces Sweden lost to Russia in the first fifth of the century.

The literature on these payments has varied over time with their judgements. Earlier, more conservative historians in the early 1900s viewed these payments as essentially making the political parties, and by extension Sweden, puppets to foreign powers. However further exploration of the relationship between donor and receiver has contributed to a more nuanced understanding of this relationship and their purposes. What one first has to understand is that sessions of parliaments lasted months and months, sometimes well over a year, and that meant that it was very expensive for many representatives to stay in whatever town the riksdag was held (primarily it was in Stockholm but sometimes it happened in other cities. Many representatives simply just couldn't afford to stay, they had to go back to their home where they worked. While the riksdag was in session they still had to pay for food and shelter and there was only a very very small support given from the state to the representatives. Often money was pooled in by the central leadership in the parties and then distributed amongst those pledging their votes in their favour. Often struggles between parties over power to a large degree about which side could muster up the most financial support to keep their allies present. Sometimes though they were paid in food or other valuables. Trading of information also happened. Nobles were often paid in educational and career opportunities in France. What the donors received in kind can also be debated. Newer research from the mid 1900s and onwards generally seem to agree that sure the side they supported would be friendlier to them and if that side wins then so would the government but actual laws and concrete actions were often hard to demand. The foreign powers didn't have all that much leverage since any decline in support would just play into the hands of other powers who also had a hand in Sweden. They did get state secrets sometimes though that should be mentioned.

 

[von Adler]

(First time posting so I'm kinda nervous haha)

So I'm in the process of writing and researching a timeline that involves the Swedish Cap and Hat parties continuing into the 1800s.

And so I'm wondering about the relationship between the different parties and agricultural workers once they start moving into the city.

One factor is that the Cap party would have an increased support amongst the newly urbanised industrial workers as many of them would either personally or have someone in their family with some sort of working relationship with the Cap party. Some for quite a long time. I think we would see something like this especially much during and following the influx of American grain on the European markets because then we would see a broader range of agricultural workers moving into the cities and not only those who didn't inherit land to work as well as an increase in absolute numbers. On the other hand maybe a lot of those moving into the city would find themselves drawn to the Hats' legacy of providing state funds for industry and manufacturing, sectors many would find themselves in once they come into the city, if anything it would increase job security for them.

Although it should also be mentioned that a lot of any changes would be very slight and small because of how late Swedish industrialisation and urbanidation was. Even if urbanisation increased during the 1800s it really took its time.

One problem is that the proletariat - both on the countryside (farm hands, agricultural labourers, crofters and so on) and in the cities (whether skilled workers, day labourers, apprentices and so on) were not represented in the estates parliament, as they were neither land-owning peasant not burgher (usually a business owner in a city with royal city rights). So currying their favour or championing their issues does not equal any kind of influence on national politics or among the members of the estates parliament.

Sweden went throught he agricultural revolution c:a 1790-1860, but industry had not evolved enough to swallow up the mass migration of agricultural labour to the cities. OTL, the response was a massive migration to America (1,5 million people 1850-1920). If that is not possible, there might be some kind of violent forcing of political reform earlier.

It was not until the abolishment of the estates parliament for the two chamber parliament in 1866 that politics changed - but mostly in that industrialists and other rich people not part of the nobility or burgher groups got the vote. Franchise was based on income and wealth - most self-owning peasants had the vote due to the wealth in their owned land. Roughly 25% - the richest - of the males had a vote in 1866. Because of inflation and slowly increasing general income (since the requirements were not changed), this had risen to 50% in 1907. Still, the urban and rural proletariat rarely if ever had a vote until the enfranchisement reform in 1907, which gave a single vote (rich people could have up to 400) to every male that had served his conscription, were deemed fit by is parish priest, did not receive support from the government or muncipality and had no outstanding tax debts. Then about 70% of males had a vote

Championing rural and urban proletariat issues did not become a viable political point until the 1880s, when the unions banded together and formed the social democratic party. Still, the first social democratic parliamentarians were voted in on liberal tickets through election cooperation.

 

[Gugu]

One problem is that the proletariat - both on the countryside (farm hands, agricultural labourers, crofters and so on) and in the cities (whether skilled workers, day labourers, apprentices and so on) were not represented in the estates parliament, as they were neither land-owning peasant not burgher (usually a business owner in a city with royal city rights). So currying their favour or championing their issues does not equal any kind of influence on national politics or among the members of the estates parliament.

Sweden went throught he agricultural revolution c:a 1790-1860, but industry had not evolved enough to swallow up the mass migration of agricultural labour to the cities. OTL, the response was a massive migration to America (1,5 million people 1850-1920). If that is not possible, there might be some kind of violent forcing of political reform earlier.

It was not until the abolishment of the estates parliament for the two chamber parliament in 1866 that politics changed - but mostly in that industrialists and other rich people not part of the nobility or burgher groups got the vote. Franchise was based on income and wealth - most self-owning peasants had the vote due to the wealth in their owned land. Roughly 25% - the richest - of the males had a vote in 1866. Because of inflation and slowly increasing general income (since the requirements were not changed), this had risen to 50% in 1907. Still, the urban and rural proletariat rarely if ever had a vote until the enfranchisement reform in 1907, which gave a single vote (rich people could have up to 400) to every male that had served his conscription, were deemed fit by is parish priest, did not receive support from the government or muncipality and had no outstanding tax debts. Then about 70% of males had a vote

Championing rural and urban proletariat issues did not become a viable political point until the 1880s, when the unions banded together and formed the social democratic party. Still, the first social democratic parliamentarians were voted in on liberal tickets through election cooperation.

I didn't really mean my question to be in terms of political representation and I apologise for it coming across that way. I was really just thinking in terms of sympathy, obviously the Swedish 1700s wasn't anything close to an actual democracy. What I do think is important though is that Sweden at the time had a relatively politically aware population overall, partially thanks to the relatively high literacy, the for the time lenient free speech laws, pamphlets and so on made by parties and political clubs (often with the financial support of foreign donors), especially in urban areas. The poor could definitely have opinions and different degrees of sympathies for different parties even at the time. My reason for wondering about if either party would have any considerable degree of sympathy from those groups is that if an established political entity existed that had some potential degree of sympathy from the urban workers existed that could potentially impact the labour movement, I have primarily considered this in the context of the Caps although I don't think they could become the primary arm of it of course. I asked this question thinking that if either party had some sort of sympathy among these groups once enfranchisement spreads to them, parts of the labour movement might partially channel their political advocacy or opinions through it (obviously this hinges on not only either having any degree of support from them but also still existing as a viable party). Since the Swedish labour movement has been so centralised in the real world, primarily around a select few organisations, I think its path would be quite different if such a thing could eventually develop.

 

[von Adler]

I didn't really mean my question to be in terms of political representation and I apologise for it coming across that way. I was really just thinking in terms of sympathy, obviously the Swedish 1700s wasn't anything close to an actual democracy. What I do think is important though is that Sweden at the time had a relatively politically aware population overall, partially thanks to the relatively high literacy, the for the time lenient free speech laws, pamphlets and so on made by parties and political clubs (often with the financial support of foreign donors), especially in urban areas. The poor could definitely have opinions and different degrees of sympathies for different parties even at the time. My reason for wondering about if either party would have any considerable degree of sympathy from those groups is that if an established political entity existed that had some potential degree of sympathy from the urban workers existed that could potentially impact the labour movement, I have primarily considered this in the context of the Caps although I don't think they could become the primary arm of it of course. I asked this question thinking that if either party had some sort of sympathy among these groups once enfranchisement spreads to them, parts of the labour movement might partially channel their political advocacy or opinions through it (obviously this hinges on not only either having any degree of support from them but also still existing as a viable party). Since the Swedish labour movement has been so centralised in the real world, primarily around a select few organisations, I think its path would be quite different if such a thing could eventually develop.

Oh no, nothing to apologise for. It is an interesting subject and question, and I would not write so much about it if i did not find it worth my time.

One also needs to remember that there were a third party during this era - Hovpartiet (the court party) which favoured increased royal power - it waxed and waned, but still existed.

Both parties had some sympathies for the poor and the destitute, but generally in the paternalistic charity sense, not in the sense of championing labour rights. It is simply a bit too early for the people in power to care about social issues such as housing, labour rights, access to clean water and sewers and so on. But if the parties for some reason continue to exist in their pre-1772 form, I suppose the Caps, who in general were more liberal than the Hats, who in general were more conservative (although this shifted back and forth as did parlamentarians between the two parties) would be the party to pick up that banner.

But IMHO, the development of the urban labour movement forming unions that then banded together to form a political party is a more likely path than a liberal party expanding to include their issues - unless you give Sweden some kind of first past the post election system that makes for two large parties instead of several.