Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effect of industrialization on workers
Evaluate the effects of industrialization on working people
Effect of industrialization on workers
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effect of industrialization on workers
According to the Aristocracy of Manufacturers, which from Democracy in America, Tocqueville mainly discussed about how scientific manufactures bring people to the aristocracy. He separately discussed about potential harms of division of labor, and the differences between the new aristocracy and the old one. In his mind, division of labor expends the rank between the workers and masters, because work men only pay attrition on the specific work processes, which limit their views and thinking abilities, but masters consider extensive production view more than workers, which makes masters control more social capital. This phenomenon tends to the new aristocracy. In addition, he argued that this new aristocracy is different between the old one, because the relationship between the masters and workers are built by the benefits, which means masters only pay workers for producing goods, and masters have no responsibility to workers out of the working hours. In the old aristocracy, workers belong to the masters. Masters have responsibility to workers’ lives. 2 In order to show the potential harms of division of labor, Tocqueville presented an example about making pin head. He believed that a worker, who make pin heads over twenty years, wouldn’t do more but making pin heads. The reason is, In the process of division of labor, the pin heads maker only consider about doing his job, the job limits his ideas and views. In this situation, the worker is not belonging to himself but belonging to the job. Tocqueville argues that this production mode leads to workers lose the general faculty of applying their minds to the direction of the work. He supports his argument as the example of workers who spent twenty years in making heads for pins. He s... ... middle of paper ... ...ot have free time to have a rest, and doing social contract. Some of them even get the depression problem. Another problem as Tocqueville said, a new aristocracy is coming out in society. A lot of news report that lots of leaders of private company burn the money, like buying lots of luxury, but just paying the minimum standards salary to workers. These leaders are cooler to workers, like firing employees, who produce lower benefits; they do not care about workers’ life situations. I heard the news that there were five young employees suicide in a Chinese company, which used to made phone products. The point is it is hard to stop this new aristocracy. The reason is this group of people control the production of necessary goods which so close to our lives; common people are “supporting” this rich group. The rich have economic power and ability to expand their empire.
The rapid development of global economy with the opening of new markets worldwide gave way to the development of new means of production and also to the change of ideologies across the world. Alongside with that, the division between different groups or classes within societies became more apparent as some people got richer and other poorer. These two phenomena, the worldwide development of industries and consequent class struggles, have been analyzed by two major thinkers of their times, Karl Marx and Robert Reich. Their essays have been influential and are similar in sense that they analyze existing conditions of societies and give projections on future fates of people, or more specifically, fates of classes. In this paper, the main focus will be on the fate of the wealthiest people; these are the bourgeois for Marx and symbolic analysts for Reich. More specifically, it will be argued that the rich people will be in the worst position according to Marx and this position will cover two aspects: material aspect, which is how well the rich will eventually manage their properties, and the inherent antagonism of classes and its consequences for the wealthy.
He expresses about his mother working at the restaurant is what made him and this article credible. He got to witness and experience his mom and her “waiting brilliance” up close and personal (Rose, 273). He also states, “I’ve since studied the working habits of blue-collar workers and have come to understand how much my mother’s kind of work demands of both the body and the brain” (274). In this statement he establishes his own credibility as a source of authority on this issue. Rose, the author, wants to open social minds by showing “mental activity” (279) required in blue-collar work is still under-recognized and undervalued by society. The blue-collar workers are not as valued as they deserve but the capability they have is not less than other high-level workers, even sometimes it’s more than
Basically, in 1850 people's labor skills were being wasted because they were stuck in a factory doing a simple task. "Work sessions must be varied about eight times a day because a man cannot remain enthusiastic about his job " ( 117). This statement was a suggestion made by Charles Fourier, who wanted work to become better. This statement talks about division of labor. Division of labor was a direct result of industrial capitalism, and it created alienation of labor.
Tocqueville’s analysis for the potential of an industrial aristocracy to grow in a democracy is useful in analyzing America prior to and during the Gilded Age. This time period in American history exhibits the growth of an industrial aristocracy that Tocqueville prophetically warned readers possibly happening in democracies. To fully understand how the growth of such an elite can develop, it’s necessary to first look at Tocqueville’s arguments on how the opportunity of political freedom can give a democracy two tendencies: that of the despot or the sovereign. Also, the Tocquevillian perspective of the economic animal in a democracy helps reinforce the inevitable notion of American’s transition from an agrarian society to an industrial empire. However, what came with the preference for the efficiency of industry over the equality of republican values was a select few reaping the benefits of the rest. The aristocratic class that grew in America during Gilded Age occurred for many reasons. The American-will, coupled with technological advancement and a large European immigrant labor supply, had changed the structure of labor. This division of labor made
In the essay “Work in an Industrial Society” by Erich Fromm, the author explains how work used to carry a profound satisfaction, however today workers only care about their payment for their labor. Fromm opens up with how craftsmanship was developed in the thirteenth and fourteenth century. It was not until the Middle ages, Renaissance and the eighteenth century, when craftsmanship was at its peak. According to C.W. Mills, workers were free to control his or her own working actions, learn from their work and develop their skills and capacities. Despite what Mills says, people today spend their best energy for seven to eight hours a day to produce “something”. Majority of the time, we do not see the final
They were able to take advantage of the growing technology and exploration to advance out of the middle class and become extremely rich. Through their wealth, the bourgeois were able to gain an enormous amount of influence in society. For example, they have “exclusive political sway” (Marx 18). In other words, the state exists entirely to serve the needs of the bourgeois. However, even more importantly so, their existence is bringing about a gradual disintegration of sentiment and true relations. People are now measured by the amount of material goods they own. Therefore, doctors, lawyers, and other originally honest occupations have become based entirely on wages and familial relationships no longer exist. They have instead been replaced by purely money relations. The bourgeois are also constantly exploiting the lower classes, otherwise known as the proletarians. (Marx
Provoking thoughts occurred as a result of viewing a certain piece of art at the San Jose Museum of Art. This piece of art piece labeled Fallen Fruit by David Burns and Austin Young was the awe and inspiration for my topic of this paper. The piece made me think of working conditions and how far they have improved in the past century. The digital print coldly depicts assembly line workers packaging fruits for a company. The print displays the average worker in monochrome while the environment juxtaposes the workers with its tinted bright colors. The contrast between the monochrome workers and the tinted environment creates a feeling where the worker is lost in a sea of color and reveals a sense of seriousness of the morbid reality that most workers faced during the 1920s. This contrast was created by Burns and Young as a metaphor to illuminate the audience on the emphasis that companies placed on the workplace itself and the products that were being produced rather than the conditions of the workers. The angle and focus of the workers in the print also help establish a feeling of disregard for the workers. This cruel reality established by the print led me on the train of thought of the Progressive Era. An era of great change, Progressive reforms helped the quality of life for the average worker and helped pave the way for future improvements. Although Progressive reforms for the workplace were loosely enforced, these labor reforms were effective to help create better working conditions, help regulate big business, and push for the creation of unions and bureaus.
Commodity fetishism has blinded people into believing that value is a relationship between objects, when in reality, it is a relationship between people. This in turn, prevents people from thinking about the social labor condition workers have to endure; they only care and value about how much objects costs. They think that the source of the value comes from the cost, but it truly comes from labor (FC). Through this objectification stems alienation and estrangement. Marx starts with the assumption that humans have an intrinsic quality. As human beings, individuals like to be create and manipulate his or her environment. Creating is a part of people; therefore, people their being into their creations. However, Marx postulates that capitalism and specialized division of labor separates that working class from their creations in four ways- through alienation from the product, the labor process, one’s species-being, and humanity itself. The working class suffers through this hostility to make create more wealth for owners of factories. They get trapped in a cycle to make products for profit, but as automation advances, machines begins to take over people’s jobs; therefore, there less employment opportunities available, which in turn allows factory owners to decrease wages and exploit and devalue the working class (EL). In the The Poverty
In the past, Marx acquired an intriguing stand on individualism he found that it was far more important than equality. He argues individualism allows workers to achieve a consensus and breakdown the dictatorial leader. De Tocqueville on the other hand mentions that capitalism thrives on individualism. De Tocqueville’s argument was between equality versus individualism. He describes individualism as “a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends” (De Tocqueville, 506). His perspective was that individualism empowers people to become competent but also strengthen and reassure society to work with the others in the community to magnify the possibilities for
In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature operate (Marx).
The owners of capital, the bourgeoisie and the society’s intellectuals, all of whom comprised the elites of society, viewed the working class as a group of people whose sole purpose was to offer their sweat and their time in backbreaking labor towards the success of large profiting industries which would make the rich wealthier and the elite more powerful. In 1858, James Henry Hammond, one of South Carolina’s elites made a public statement in a speech that became well known. He said “In all societies, there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. With fewer skills and a “low order of intellect” the laboring class formed the base of the civilized nations. Every advanced
Capitalism controls or enslaves the laborer by making his existence dependent on the process of production instead of the production of the labor for himself. The laborer is historically different in a capitalist society because he is separated from production. He no longer produces for himself but instead for the general wealth, or the wealth of the capitalist. Capitalism controls even the capitalist himself by turning him into a mechanism which acts as the driving force of capitalism. As a consequence, the capitalist creates a society which is alienating and brutal for the laborer. However, the domination of the capitalist system leads to the creation of a collective working group that can become a form for human development and the creation of new radical social changes.
Producing goods or services are dictated not by employees but by their employers. If profits exist, employers are the ones that benefit more so than the regular worker. “Even when working people experience absolute gains in their standard of living, their position, relative to that of capitalists, deteriorates.” (Rinehart, Pg. 14). The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Hard work wears down the employee leaving them frustrated in their spare time. Workers are estranged from the products they produce. At the end of the day, they get paid for a day’s work but they have no control over the final product that was produced or sold. To them, productivity does not equal satisfaction. The products are left behind for the employer to sell and make a profit. In discussions with many relatives and friends that have worked on an assembly line, they knew they would not be ...
The changes accompany the transition from one epoch to another. In the late nineteenth century labor has become a commodity to the merchants, and the formation of a new mode of production has risen which gave rise to a capitalist society. There is a new class distinction between the laborer and those who owned the means of production.
Which means we become disconnected from who we are in the jobs we do. Doing the jobs that people do to support whatever is going on in their life makes them “depressed spiritually and physically to the condition of a machine.” Karl Marx says; that in itself is an enemy against Karl Marx question “what is it to be free?” because if we are slaves to our job then are we really free? We become detached from ourselves which doesn’t allow workers to express themselves in their nature which leads to emotionally issues due to lack of emotionally expression. To make the best out of physically and emotionally suppressing jobs individuals do, Karl Marx says to “see themselves in the objects they created” which means use the objects as a positive outlet like creativity or artistic ability because it reminds us who we are at the end of the day and we share our personal qualities in the things we produce.