The Industrial Revolution: the Widening Gap Among the Classes
Enlightenment economics, first propounded by Adam Smith and characterized by a laissez-faire role of government, benefited the middle class and permitted an expansion of its numbers. The emerging middle class, eager to profit, pushed for changes in government and inadvertently prompted changes in the social order that set the stage for nearly seventy years of bloodshed, beginning with the first French Revolution of 1789 and its subsequent Reign of Terror, to the Napoleonic Wars and the revolts across Europe in 1848. To put the human toll into perspective, Napoleon lost nearly 900,000 men in his Russian campaign alone. This estimate represents on a small total of those killed in the period. Wholesale slaughter became such common feature of European life that Napoleon's staggering losses did not present an immediate threat to his power nor diminished his ability to raise an army.
Liberalism
The economic policies prescribed by Smith called for the complete freedom of the merchant and producer of goods to exploit all resources, free of tariffs, in order to meet the demands of the market place. The government, long suspected of corruption, would be limited, in Smith's economics, to a well-defined role. It would undertake, on behalf of industry, tasks that posed danger or expense too great for industry to absorb. Hence the government would assume such responsibilities as furnishing armies, opening new trade routes and protecting old ones, acquiring new resource regions, and building and maintaining roads.
The unbridled quest for profit, called liberalism, led to the further separation of the three classes: the landed aristocracy, the group that held power by virtue of land ownership and long bloodlines; the bourgeoisie or the newly expanding middle class; and the laborer, who did not own land and hence could not represent himself, even by vote, in government.
The liberals, in their expanding class and desire to have government that favored market-place economics, threatened the power of the old order of the aristocracy. At the same time, liberalism ran headlong into opposition with another fundamental tenet of the Enlightenment, basic human rights. Enlightenment economics portrayed the world as a vast storehouse of raw materials to be exploited, but liberal economists drew no distinction in defining raw materials between a vein of coal and the labor force. The treatment of the worker is furnished in below in the description of his working and living conditions.
Wart's Steam Engine
Liberal economics changed the geography of Europe through population migration. The Industrial Revolution began in Britain in the late eighteenth century, considerably earlier than on the continent. By 1830, the continental producers had caught up. The mills, located in the cities, attracted increasing numbers of workers. At the same time, the population of Europe continued to grow rapidly. By mid-century, half the British population lived in cities. On the continent, about one fourth of the population had migrated to urban centers.
The exploding population put vast strains for basic services on the physical resources of the cities. Housing, water, sewers, fuel, food, and lighting were in short supply. Slums of indescribable squalor become a principal urban characteristic. Disease ravaged the population and crime, the only alternative for the unemployed, became a way of life for many unfortunates.
Honore Daumier, The Third-Class Carriage, c1862
Two types of urban worker emerged. One was the laborer who worked in the new industries and learned the skills necessary to run its new machinery. The mill worker had no legislation to protect him. He worked long hours for little pay and watched his children forced into the same work before his eyes. Unemployment was a constant specter; boredom and, in some cases danger, a constant companion at the job.
The second was the urban artisan. He represented the older craftsman, usually producing very fine handmade goods and working in a small shop that employed ten or fewer workers. He was represented by the guild, an institution that dated from the Middle Ages. Despite a finer product, this type of worker was the harder hit economically. He could not keep up with the production rates that accompanied the new technology, and he could not afford to charge less.
Classical economists did not foresee an improvement to the lot of the worker. In his Essay on Population (1798), Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) drew a pessimistic picture. In his view, the population would ultimately outstrip the food supply. Disaster could be averted only by late marriage, chastity, and contraception. Moreover, if wages were raised, the worker would have more children. The children would consume these wages and more food.
In the Principles of Political Economy (1817), David Ricardo (1772-1823) drew an even darker picture by taking the train of thought one step further to formulate a cycle he called the Iron Law of Wages. If wages were raised, the worker would have more children, and the additional wages would not be spent on consumer goods, but on feeding the children. As the children entered the work force, the additional number of workers would drive down wages. With the drop in wages, the worker would have fewer children, thus causing the wages to rise once more and the process to start anew. The concept reinforced the employers desire to justify keeping wages low since, in economic theory, the birthrate of the worker would always assure the minimum level necessary for him to reproduce but not flourish. Ricardo's theory, however, did not take into account that some working families did regulate their own birthrates and hence lived at a higher standard.
Louis Nain (1595-1648), Peasant Family in an Interior (1642).
Romantic Idealism and Nationalism were two related and conservative reactions to Enlightenment thought and the horrors of the French Revolution and Napoleon’s invasions. Romantic idealism was the most important force in the period from 1800-1830.
It was at once a backlash against the cold intellectualism and reason of the Enlightenment and a re-embrace of spiritual values displaced by scientific truth. The movement revered intuitive knowledge that could not be proven by science. It revered nature anew and elevated the common folk to heroes. It eschewed Classical formalism, preferring raw or strong emotion to balance and elegance.
In Britain and France, Romantic idealism wavered between mystic irrationalism and the gallant defense of liberty and social reform. Romantic idealism saw its most cohesive development in Germany, where several fundamental tenets crystallized.
First, Romantic idealism recognized the validity of intuitive or instinctual knowledge beyond that acquired through the reasoned, empirical, scientific, deductive methods of the Enlightenment. Romantic idealism also sought to imbue the universe, described in enlightened terms an infinite, impartial, mechanism (“watch-work”) set in cold and eternal motion, with a spiritual component. To this end, Romantic idealists began to view nature and its functioning in terms of its beauty, majesty, power, truth, and capability to support life and give succor. In brief, Romantic idealists saw goodness in the physical universe, not only in what stood realized before them, but also in a divine plan unfolding, through evolution, for the benefit of all elements of the universe, especially including man. Romantic idealism the means to positive community with a higher entity, whatever it be, gutted from Medieval concepts of God by the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment.
In a second critical Nationalist tenet of Romantic idealism, the individual had no significance except as a participant in a social group. The seeds of the idea of the state as the guarantor of individual rights were sown first in the theories of the Enlightenment philosophe, Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Rousseau believed that no individual citizen was more important than the state. The survival of the state guaranteed the survival, rights, and liberty of the individual citizen. Hence the first obligation of the citizen was to ensure the survival of the state. His role was to subjugate his own interests to those of the larger whole. He had no rights or freedoms beyond the jurisdiction of the organized society of which he was part.
Moreover, the Romantic idealists believed that society and the state were social organisms and the products of natural evolution, not the artificial creations of man for his own convenience. Society could not be created, as in Enlightened thought, by social contract. These constructs of society became a prominent feature of the theories of several later German Romantic idealist philosophers.
Napoleon’s invasions brought to the fore a question urgent for the citizen and crucial to nationalism: to which social group does citizen prefer to participate, his own or that of a foreign culture imposed from without?
Four Important Romantic Idealist Philosophers
Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) derived his beliefs in the natural rights of man and separation of powers as necessary to protect man’s rights from Enlightenment thought. Other beliefs, presented in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781), differ significantly from rationalism of the eighteenth century.
Kant divided the universe into two distinct realms: phenomena and noumena. The realm of phenomena embraced physical nature that was knowable and understandable by empirical study and reason. The realm of noumena was the higher, spiritual reality. Here the rational cannot be applied to prove that God exists, that humans exercise free will, or that the human soul is immortal. For example, the beliefs are long held in Western culture that virtue and happiness are linked or that moral laws govern the universe. The assertions are outside the jurisdiction of scientific provability, but linger as feelings to strong to dismiss as mere illusions. In brief, faith, intuition, and deep conviction are just as valid as instruments of knowing in the higher realm as observation and reason are in the realm of the physical natural world.
Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) developed a philosophy in which the world of the mind or spirit was the only true world. In his view, the individual realizes his true nature only by bringing himself into true harmony with the universal purpose. He can know nothing of reality by observation or reason, but must follow his intuition to discover the guidance from the supreme ego or universal intelligence. The philosophy basically represents a spiritual pantheism with a universal spirit directing all life and all activity toward a final goal of sublime perfection. Fichte’s emphasis upon intuitive spiritual truth allays it to the “otherworldly” aspect of Christian spirituality prior to the Scientific Revolution.
Fichte had secondary importance as a political philosopher. In response to Napoleon’s invasions, he was one of the earliest to proclaim an ideal of collective nationalism and call for a united and powerful Germany to assume leadership of the civilized world.
Georg Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1831) was the most important of the Romantic idealist philosophers. Like his earlier contemporaries, Hegel retained the idea that a profound intelligence or God guided the realization of the universe. The universe as he described it was in a state of perpetual flux but also in a state of perpetual evolution. Every institution or social or political organism grows to maturity, fulfills its purpose, and then is supplanted by a new one. The most valuable aspects of the original are never wholly destroyed, however, and these elements fuse with the incoming to make a new organism that combines the best elements of each. Hegel’s concept of fusion was taken over by Marx as a central idea to the realization of the perfect Communist state.
Because each fusion resulted in evolution, Hegel did not view the process as mechanistic but as one guided by universal reason or God. Evolution was, then, the unfolding of God’s plan in history. As Marx would maintain later, Hegel saw the ultimate goal of evolution as a perfect realization in which the interests of the citizen and the interests of the state would be perfectly blended. Like Rousseau, Hegel maintained that true individual liberty consists comes only when the individual gives himself over to political society. The citizen has no rights that the state is obligated to respect because the citizen, without the state, would be little more than an animal.
Georg Wilhelm Hegel
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) contributed an unexpected ramification of Romantic idealism. In his concept, universal force directed all growth and movement. Force was for him, however, will, the blind, unconscious craving or drive of individuals and species to survive. Since the drive is present in all animate forms, their societies must always be characterized by basic facts of survival. The strong must always devour the weak. Selfishness, pain, and misery are inseparable aspects of life. The only possible means for man to attain happiness is for him to deny life in the manner of the Oriental ascetic.
Romantic Idealism in Literature and Other Arts
The impact of Romantic idealism upon literature was most pronounced in Germany and Great Britain beginning in the late eighteenth century. Romantic idealism evolved most extensively in Germany, and two writers emerged as important literary figures, Friedrich Schiller (1579-1805) and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832). Both were formed by the period of Sturm und Drang (“Storm and Stress”) in which they grew up. German Sturm und Drang writers denounced established societal conventions and restraints as well as foreign cultural influences. Foreign influences were not only odious because they imposed a behavior and value system, but also because the restraints they imposed were not even native.
Schiller’s works reflected many of these ideals and his themes frequently depicted idealized acts of heroism in the context of the struggle for freedom. William Tell uses the Swiss struggle against Austrian domination as a backdrop.
Goethe was among the most important and influential of all German Romantic writers. His most significant literary achievement, Faust, was published in two parts. The first part was published in 1790, and the second part did not follow until 1831. Goethe used Faust to express the fundamental facets of his philosophy.
Each part focuses on the role that the individual must take to reach fulfillment. The first part advocates the jettison of the individual of the conventions and restraints that bind him. The first part also reflects the positive aspects of the spirit of rebellion that characterized the time period. The second part waxes more philosophical, driving the point that freedom from convention is not enough, but that each person must undertake an unending quest for fulfillment through unlimited experience.
In France, later Romantic urges tended to surface as works that glorified liberty and social reform or as mystic irrationalism. Two principal French writers were Georges Sand (1804-1876, nee Aurore Dupin) and Victor Hugo (1802-1885). Sand, Chopin’s confidante, campaigned for love unencumbered by conventions such as marriage. Hugo elevated the peasant or common man to the status of hero. His themes often involved the redemption of the soul purified by heroism or suffering and were strong indictments of social cruelty. Hugo’s works were often set against idyllic rural backgrounds. By the mid- to late nineteenth century, the mystic component of Romanticism became evident in a strong interest in literature in medieval stories and myths and in architecture in the Gothic revival.
Romantic writers were limited by their disdain of reason and science. Their disdain did not prevent them from identifying the ills and shortcomings of society but did prevent them from offering any permanent solutions or relief. Moreover the unbridled, exaggerated, excessive emotionalism of their works made them targets of sharp criticism and mockery even when their points or causes were laudable.
French Romanticism had to overcome special circumstances not found elsewhere in Europe. For one, the tradition of classical formalism in the seventeenth century had been central at the court of Louis XIV, where the art, architecture, and music strongly imitated classical forms. All three media were marked by certain traits that included decorative function, strong affectation, artificiality, subordination of content to form, and mechanization.
Classical formalism continued into the nineteenth century with the rise of Napoleon. In his evocation of the power (and legitimacy) of the ancients, Napoleon adopted ancient symbols and the ancient names for various offices including “emperor.” Moreover, he desired that Paris reflect ancient power and glory and, to that end, set about filling Paris with buildings modeled after classical ones. Not unexpectedly, classical painting simply continued under Napoleon. After Napoleon’s final exile, French painters did not return to the style of the Revolution or that of the years of his rule. Instead painters such as Delacroix distorted the classical formal tenets with intense, lurid scenes glorifying the struggle for freedom, social injustice, or dramatic moments from Medieval history or myth.
Other issues augmented the melange of competing class influences. France experimented radically, at great cost in human life, with the kind of government that would best serve. Democratic government, republican government, and even different types of monarchy, such as that under Napoleon, were each established and replaced by bloodshed. Other powers also exerted influence.
Worker revolts were not uncommon, and the working class was often drawn into conflict by the other classes. The Catholic Church, the continued existence of which was questionable for a time in France, represented a traditional power. Rising sentiments of Nationalism redefined or defended territorial borders.
Utopian Socialism
Utopian Socialism, an ideal in wealth-sharing in which the well-being and rights of the worker were guaranteed, sprang from Enlightenment seeds but never came to fruition. Utopian socialists were more interested in social justice than in realizing the models of economic theorists or developing national prosperity. Utopian thinkers envisioned a cooperative society in which each member would contribute at his level of capability his labor or expertise and receive in return an equal share of the rewards.
In socialist utopian society, all men would live in peace and harmony. The social stratification and the outmoded customs and traditions of the older orders, especially those of the market-driven economy, would be eliminated, hence removing the ills of those orders. Since the ownership to the means of production and the profits would be equally shared, the enslavement of the weak by the strong, crime, and greed would no longer have reason to exist.
Among the most successful of social experiments were those conducted by Robert Owen (1771-1858). Owen was the co-proprietor of a large cotton mill in Scotland. Owen believed that the profit system made it impossible for the worker to buy the very goods he produced. Moreover, the profit system produced crises, avoidable under socialism, that were detrimental to the worker. The crises included overproduction and unemployment.
To demonstrate his vision, Owen built houses for his workers, reduced the length of the work day from fourteen to ten hours, introduced more humane working environments, established schools for worker children, and furnished opportunities and facilities for worker recreation. His experiment was highly successful (and profitable) but should be regarded more as a paternalist society than as a true socialist cooperative. Other cooperative experiments followed shortly in geographic areas as remote as Indiana, and failed after very brief tenures.
Communism
Karl Marx (1818-1883) was the genius spark behind a more radical, and profoundly influential, form of socialism, communism. The term ‘communist’ denoted a more extreme concept than that propounded by the utopian socialist, and was a term applied later. Marx viewed "communism" as the as the highest form of socialism, the state to which to aspire. In 1848, Marx co-authored a pamphlet with Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) explaining his concept. The pamphlet was called The Communist Manifesto. The Communist Manifesto, drew little attention at the time of its publication, though many scholars regard it as the ‘birth cry of modern socialism.’
Karl Marx
Engels became Marx’s lifetime friend and financial underwriter. Despite having earned a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Jena in 1841, Marx’s radical views and subsequent political troubles assigned him to a life-long struggle against poverty. From 1848 onward, Marx spent most of his years in London.
Marx outlined his radical theories in Das Kapital (1867). Two additional volumes were published posthumously. Marx’s theories were indebted, at least as starting construct, to the ideas of Hegel and the socialist Louis Blanc (1811-1882). For the economic plight of the worker, Marx drew upon the theories of Ricardo (see above).
In Marx’s economic view, all political, social, and intellectual advances resulted from changes of advances in the underlying economic environment, particularly changes in the means of producing and exchanging goods. Every new economic system is characterized by distinct patterns of production and exchange. The methods evolve to an apogee of efficiency and then develop internal problems that lead to decline. Concurrently, the foundations of new systems that will supplant the older ones evolve. The new system retains the most viable and valuable components of the older one.
Marx’s understanding of economic history was defined in the light of class struggle. In the terms of free economy, the struggle existed between the capitalist and the worker, whom Marx called the proletariat. The capitalist owned the means to production and made his profit from exploiting the labor of the proletariat. The proletariat furnished the labor but was received only a wage for his labor. The wage was invariably adequate for subsistence and the re-population of the class.
Marx called the difference between the value of the product of the proletariat's labor and what the proletariat received for his labor, surplus value. Surplus value took three forms, profits, interest, and rents. Surplus value, which generates capital, is the product of the worker and not the capitalist. Hence the appropriation of the surplus amounts to robbery and the economic system that holds the proletariat, slavery.
Marx foresaw an intermediate socialist revolution in which the proletariat would seize the reins of the capitalist system and replace it with a socialist one. Here the proletariat class, the vast majority, would act on behalf of itself, the vast majority, and so not become an oppressor class. The state would own and operate all means of production, distribution, and exchange. The worker would receive payment commensurate to work performed.
The socialist revolution would in time give way to Marx’s ideal of the perfect society, or communism. The society would be classless. No private ownership would exist. Men would subsist solely by working, each at his ability, and would receive from the general wealth a sum proportionate to his needs. The state would disappear, replaced by the voluntary associations needed to manage production needs and assure the provision of social necessities.
posted by Richard Metzger at 2:49 PM
<< Home