Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Industrial Revolution and its consequences
Between the four authors, the universal belief about Industrialism is that the benefits of it greatly outweigh the negatives effects. The main theme of each document is that factory workers deserve more rights than they already have. For example, the Lowell Mill Girls document ponders on how the women working in the factory rose up and demanded more pay for their work, since they were being paid so little, that the boss would pocket the money that should’ve been paid to them. This idea is much like Karl Marx Communist Manifesto, where he believes everyone should be equal and paid the same. The Organization of Labour is a socialist document written by Louis Blanc that wants the government to regulate who gets a job. Close to the beliefs …show more content…
“In the industrial world in which we live, all the discoveries of science are a calamity, first because the machines supplant the laborers who need work to live, and then, because they are also murderous weapons, furnished to industry which has the right and faculty to use them against all those who have not this right and power. What does ‘new machines’ mean in the system of competition? It means monopoly; we have proven it. (Blanc 1840)” Blanc believes that the new technological discoveries will take jobs away from the people. Therefore, it is the governments job to make new technology that does not take jobs away, but makes current jobs easier to increase the means of production. The comparison of machines to “murderous weapons” refers to how the factory workers live after they lose their jobs. No income means no food or shelter, resulting in death. Government regulating jobs is not the full extent of Blanc’s beliefs. “For the first years after the workshops are established, the government ought to regulate the scale of employment. After the first year it is no longer necessary, the laborers would then have time enough to truly estimate their respective work, and, all being equally interested as we will soon see, the success of the association would eventually depend on the elective principle.... (Blanc 1840)” Blanc believes a …show more content…
According to Marx, the class system is the main problem of the world. “Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: It has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other bourgeoisie and proletariat. (Marx 1848)” The bourgeois is the class the controls production, is rich, and is made up of the upper and middle class. The proletarians are the factory workers only. Because of these class systems, there will be a constant overthrowing of government as there is no equality. The end goal of Marx’s argument is to have everyone be equal. The ones who produce should be in control of production, much like Blanc’s social workshops, and that everyone will be a worker. In this society, there is no free-time. People will spend their time working. This goes against Ure’s belief of less labor hours. Leisure, according to Ure, is necessary to reduce stress on the body. Constant work will lead to the degradation of a working human being until they refuse or cannot
Though Ure’s intensions may not have been to directly criticize the capabilities of human beings, his excessive endorsement of machines had a negative impact on the human work forces. Ure states that human industry would become vastly productive “when [this industry] no longer proportioned in its results to muscular effort, which is by its nature fitful and capricious.” Statements such as these seems to categorizes human efforts as something that is useless and inadequate, even though for many centuries everything was woven, packaged, and created through the use of human hands. There is an enormous gap in Ure’s appraisal of human capabilities versus machine capabilities that seems to be consistent throughout his book. An example of this bias towards human versus machines is shown when he explains machines as a “blessing which physio-mechanical science has bestowed on society, and … [it is] ameliorating the lot of mankind.” This pedestal Ure places machines on is very demoralizing towards humans, as it essentially makes people obsolete. The execution of his influence in this book geared his readers towards a perspective that humans are too flawed to be profitable, rather than to express the uniting capabilities of man and
The factories are all emitting gas and the general conditions of the streets and buildings are less than ideal. This negative portrayal of the industrialization sheds a different light on the effects of industrialization. Between these two conflicting articles, it is difficult to see the true extent of the industrialization process’s benefits and harms. This uncertainty also supports the proposed unrest and conflict of the time.
The political crucifiction of the early blue-collar industrial worker was directly caused by organized labor. Before such ‘organization, existed, workers flew under the political radar in the best of ways. They were allowed to live peaceful lives and given the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, the commodore Andrew Carnegie had achieved the American dream in his rags to riches advancement and he offered the same opportunity for each of his workers. However, the arrival of the ‘organized’ labor movement drowned the worker’s chance at mobility. A cursory run through central terms of the question begs us to answer what is considered “organized” and “labor”. Organized can be...
The Industrial Revolution that took place after the Civil War made for a more economically sound country. American workers, however, were becoming more and more dependent upon their wages; a fear of unemployment also stemmed from this. Workers didn’t share in the benefits that their employers reaped. In a chart representing the hours and wages of industrial workers, from 1875 to 1891, it shows that even though their wages were subtly increasing, their 10-hour work day remained the same (Doc. A). Factories were headed by large corporations; this, in turn, meant that new machines lessened the amount of workers in certain fields. As a result of these unsuitable conditions, labor unions were formed. The challenges that these unions faced weren’t easy. If the workers involved in organized labor got too far out of line, these corporations could get federal authorities involved. Moreover, these companies could enforce “ironclad oaths” upon their employees. In a Western Union Telegraph Company employee contract, in 1883, it states that the employee will not be affiliated with any societies or organizations (Doc. E). Despite such setbacks, by 1872 there were over 32 national unions.
In Marx’s opinion, the cause of poverty has always been due to the struggle between social classes, with one class keeping its power by suppressing the other classes. He claims the opposing forces of the Industrial Age are the bourgeois and the proletarians. Marx describes the bourgeois as a middle class drunk on power. The bourgeois are the controllers of industrialization, the owners of the factories that abuse their workers and strip all human dignity away from them for pennies. Industry, Marx says, has made the proletariat working class only a tool for increasing the wealth of the bourgeoisie. Because the aim of the bourgeoisie is to increase their trade and wealth, it is necessary to exploit the worker to maximize profit. This, according to Marx, is why the labor of the proletariat continued to steadily increase while the wages of the proletariat continued to steadily decrease.
"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. In 1750 workers would do the same thing such as making shoes. Their means of production would simply be small tools. In 1850 they would do many boring things instead of just one. Also, their means of production would include bigger, more technological advances that not everyone would be able to run. This "improvement" still made work very boring. Work in the 1750's was more exciting than work in the 1850's.
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
“I regard my workpeople just as I regard my machinery...When my machines get old and useless, I reject them and get new, and these people are part of my machinery” (Sands 12). A foreman at a textile mill in Fall River, Massachusetts spoke these words in possibly the worst time during American labor history, the Industrial Revolution. During the Industrial Revolution, large numbers of people in the United States flocked to work in factories where they faced long hours, unsanitary and unsafe conditions and poor wages. Labor unions, or groups of organized workers, formed in the United States to ensure workers the right to a safe workplace and a fair wage in the face of capitalistic factory owners seeking wealth. In exchange, union members owe the responsibility to work diligently and to the best of their abilities or face the failure of their company and the loss of their jobs.
Marx, in The Communist Manifesto, exposes these five factors which the bourgeoisie had against the communist, and deals with each one fairly. As for the proletariat class, Marx proposes a different economic system where inequality between social classes would not exist. The bourgeoisie class was the class in control in the Gilded Age, yet Marx's views exposed the flaws in their social system and gave the proletariats a new social order. As the Gilded Age progressed, the bourgeoisie became more powerful and thus the proletariat class declined in their status.... ...
In the Communist Manifesto it is very clear that Marx is concerned with the organization of society. He sees that the majority individuals in society, the proletariat, live in sub-standard living conditions while the minority of society, the bourgeoisie, have all that life has to offer. However, his most acute observation was that the bourgeoisie control the means of production that separate the two classes (Marx #11 p. 250). Marx notes that this is not just a recent development rather a historical process between the two classes and the individuals that compose it. “It [the bourgeois] has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, and new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie ...
The political philosopher believed that communism could only thrive in a society distressed by “the political and economic circumstances created by a fully developed capitalism”. With industry and capitalism growing, a working class develops and begins to be exploited. According to Marx, the exploiting class essentially is at fault for their demise, and the exploited class eventually comes to power through the failure of capitalism.... ... middle of paper ...
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.
Marx wrote to Engels, “In my opinion, the biggest things that are happening in the world today are on the one hand the movement of slaves in America started by the death of John Brown, and on the other the movement of serfs in Russia… I have seen… that there has been a fresh rising of slaves in Missouri, naturally suppressed. But the signal has now been given. If things get serious.. what will then become of Manchester?” This is Marx’s idea of why a proletarian revolution is going to start. Marx constructed his view on communism based off of the human and technological potentials that were already established in his time, so that the socialist would then become a new society. The new, successful working class would then initiate the plans that help deal with all of the problems that the past society created and the revolution would release a social dynamic. He wanted to get rid of any of the patterns and tends that the capitalist societies had. His theory was characterized by the absence of money, social classes, and political or economic ideology. For example, in China communism is used as a redistribution of wealth where the rich people take all the money and redistribute it to the poor. In Marx’s eyes communism was the only way for people to be treated fairly and for there to be an end to the division of social
According to Marx class is determined by property associations not by revenue or status. It is determined by allocation and utilization, which represent the production and power relations of class. Marx’s differentiate one class from another rooted on two criteria: possession of the means of production and control of the labor power of others. The major class groups are the capitalist also known as bourgeoisie and the workers or proletariat. The capitalist own the means of production and purchase the labor power of others. Proletariat is the laboring lower class. They are the ones who sell their own labor power. Class conflict to possess power over the means of production is the powerful force behind social growth.
The relationship between technology and employment is at the same time complex and volatile (Mokyr 1990, p.52). To illustrate, the term “Luddite” was coined in the early 19th Century to describe mindless machine-breaking (Jones 1996, p.21). The Luddites were skilled cloth-weavers who believed that technology would destroy their livelihood and opportunities for work (Jones 1996, p.22). They were opposed not to the knitting and lace-making machines as such, but more to the “de-skilling” involved as these machines replaced workers which, inevitably led to the destruction of craft industries during this period (Jones 1996, p.24).