As the human activities changed into a mere act of monetary, the labour process became a process by which the capitalist consumes labour power. The labourer works under the control of the capitalist to whom his labour belongs. Capitalist pays for a day’s labour power at its value, and therefore he has the right to use that power a day belongs to him, just as much as the right to use any other commodity. Under the supervision of the capitalists, labourers are made sure to work in a procedure format and use the means of production, i.e. the machinery, with intelligence, so that there is no necessary waste of raw materials (Marx, 1867 cited in Barid, 1999).
At this stage, one thing we should notice there was a beginning form of labour division. To increase the efficiency and productivity, capitalists divide the production into three different stages—carding, spinning and weaving. They also grouped the labour for each stage of the production. This type of division is often referred as division of labour. It is regarded as a very effective way of allocating labour resources. Evident is the example of pin maker from Adam (Mulline, 1987):
“A pin maker with his utmost industry, make one pine in a day, and certainly could not make twenty…but it is divided into a number of branches…one man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cut it, a fourth point points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct…those tem people …could make among them upwards of forty thousand pins in a days…”
Labour division functioned extremely well in textile industry, because the production itself is indeed complex and it does demand a high level of cooperation. For instance, it is almost impossible for one person to demonstrate both spinning and weaving at the same time. Even if a very skilful worker did manage to produce the yarn and weave it into cloth, the productivity would be very disappointing for capitalists, who tend to treat time is money.
The influence of “division of labour” is profound; it is wide-spreadly applied in the productions thereafter. However, the application of labour division is in a way deskilled the workforces. Multi-skill labourer is now no longer required, if you are capable of completing one single job in the production, then you would also have the probability to be involved in the production. This is also the reason why many of the first factory labourers were not able-bodied men but poor, indigent, women and children (Dwyer). Moreover, labour division weakens the control of the labour over other factors in labour process. Allocating labourers to one-off jobs (see figure 1.2), each labourer who is single-skilled will therefore only know how to use the specific instrument and his subject of the production, which is a small part of the process as a whole. For example, the spinner could be very good at operating the spinning wheel and turning the cardings into yarn, but she might not be capable of weaving the handloom and turning the yarn into cloth. In this circumstance, the spinner is only acting on the instruments and raw materials in his part of the production but not the other which require for additional skills. Meanwhile, when the machinery is still driven by man- power, division of labour intensified the use of labour. It was the job for one multi-skilled man, but now capitalists need four to complete the divided process.
Labour
Division of labour
Labour Labour Labour Labour
Raw materials Tools
*Figure 1.2 the labour division
The real change in the structure of labour process came with technological advancements of machinery during industrial revolution (1760-1830). According to Jun Bai, industrial revolution is innovation of a machine society (see Appendix 1). In other words, industrial revolution is a period containing accelerating and unprecedented technological change. Moreover, clustering of macro-invention gradually lead the original labour intensified manufacturing to capital intensified manufacturing represented by relatively lower labour-capital ratio and the massive usage of machines in production.
Before the development of the machines, the textile industry had some coordinating problems. It took four spinners to keep up with one cotton loom, and ten persons to prepare yarn for one woollen weaver (Kreis, 2001). Spinners were busy, but weavers often had to be idle for lack of yarn. The conflict was even sharpened when John Kay invented flying shuttle, which speeded up the pace of weaving. Between 1740s and 1780s most of the textile processes were mechanised (detail see Appendix 1). By the beginning of the eighteenth century in England, the use of machines in manufacturing was already widespread. As a result, the productivity took off and increased dramatically (see Appendix 1). Meanwhile, technological process which progress as a consequence of specialisation extended the level of labour division. As a result, duties of labourers became simpler on one particular job, such as turning on an automatic loom or monitor the regulation on the loom. On one hand, it boosted the level of employment within the industry (the consequence of labour division). On the other, hand-brain distinction leads to a massive deskill of labour. The increase in employment is only an increase in manual workers who can only contribute their labour power but not the skill. In fact, deskilling labour often signs the unemployment in skilful workers and the deduction of labour’s worth. By 1800 the number of workers needed to turn wool into yarn had been reduced by four-fifth, and by 1840 the labour cost of the making the best woollen cloth has fallen by at least 50 percent (Mack, 2002). The technological machinery gradually became the brain in the manufacturing processes and substituted the labourers.
Prior to 1850s, due to the removal of the “brain” (skillful) part in the production, the biggest dilemma faced by factory owners was to get their workers to act like efficient machines. This meant working in a more discipline way—to the clock and to the rhythms of the machine. In the modern sense, it is an act of Taylorism, which highly focus on time and motion and supervision (Cole, 1993). Employers began to recruit women and children in the production. Firstly, it is because of the savings on labour cost (the wage of able-bodied men is much higher). Secondly, it is because they are easier to control in ways that ensured steady production.
As all labour became commodity available in the open market, the actual subjection of labour for a capitalist has modified. To gather nature source of settlements, the formal subjection of labour has become a monetary act, i.e. salaries or wages. For instance, employers pay out one pound on each pound of cotton employee produces, employee can use the payment for other consumptions. However, rather than surviving of the fittest, the actual subjection of labour in the capitalism is to control the productivity of each labourer by adopting the technology advancement. In order to speed up the production, the supervisor might turn up the volume of steam engine of the loom. Therefore, the weavers have to weave faster so that they can keep up with the pace. As the machinery started to affect the performance of the labour, we can see labour tended to be an appendix factors in some productions as the time moves along. Instead, technology took over to become the dominant and act upon labour. The new adjustment in the England’s economy system reflects that the evolution of technology actually dictates the labour process of a society as a whole (see figure 1.3).
Technology
Improved
Raw Material Tools and machinery
Deskilled
Labour
*Fig 1.3 the new labour process
Compare Figure 1.3 with Figure 1.1; there is a major reverse in the interaction between the features in labour process. Figure 1.1 presents an interaction at the stage of pre-industrialisation, when labour demonstrates other the factors of production. In the domestic labour process, the workers own their own instrument of production—spinning wheel and handloom. The labourers also consume or produce their own material. The labour thus is the key of all, but the productivity at that period was low. Whereas, Figure 1.3, in the neo labour process (post-industrialisation) workers became commodities in the marketplace. In order to dominant the labour process, capitalists adopted varieties of science advancements on materials and machinery, and introduced the division of labour into the production. Those substitute the control power of labour and deskill the labourers. This leads to the dictation of other factors of production, in particular tools and machinery, over labour. Technology eventually became an essence interfering the interactions within labour process thereafter.
By reversing the structure of labour process, capitalists are rewarded with a tremendous rise in productivity and enormous amount of profit as well as cost savings. In1790s of Britain, 11b of cotton can be produced within 3 hours, whereas in1830s of Britain, to manufacture 11b of cotton would only take1 hour and 20 minutes (Thoemmes, 1999). Because the labour is no long the key of the production, the value of labour power therefore fell, and labourers were worth much less than before, and unemployment was high in urban cities. However, the reverse of situation allows the capitalists to invest heavily on developing new technologies for further cost saving. As a result, labour intensive industry cease and capital intensive formed. The capitalism then became a driving force towards modern civilisation (urbanisation) and a higher standard of living in the west European countries. The entire economy is actually benefited. According to Mack, between 1770 and 1850 the economy of England changed from mostly agricultural to mostly industrial (Mack, 2002).
In conclusion, capitalists were the winner in the industrial revolution; they took the full advantages of the advances in technology. They maximised both productivity and their own wealth at that time. In addition they also contributed to the nation’s economy as a whole. As the technology continues to develop, the structure of capitalism enhanced and became more stable, and the performance of labour in textile industry totally depended on machinery. However there are also some valuable things which technologies can never replace—the intelligence of human. Technology might be able to speed up simple productions, but the quality and complexity of hand-made clothes appeal to be more astonishing.
Appendix 1
Several inventions in textile machinery occurred in a relatively short time period during the industrial revolution.
-
1733 invented by John Kay - an improvement to looms that enabled weavers to weave faster.
-
1742 Cotton mills were first opened in England.
-
1764 invented by James Hargreaves - the first machine to improve upon the spinning wheel.
-
1764 invented by Richard Arkwright - the first powered textile machine.
-
1769 Arkwright patented the water frame.
-
1770 Hargreaves patented the Spinning Jenny.
-
1773 The first all-cotton textiles were produced in factories.
-
1779 Crompton invented the that allowed for greater control over the weaving process.
1785 Cartwright patented the . It was improved upon by William Horrocks, known for his invention of the variable speed batton in 1813.
-
1787 Cotton goods production had increased 10 fold since 1770.
-
1789 brought textile machinery design to the US.
-
1790 Arkwright built the first steam powered textile factory in Nottingham, England.
-
1792 Eli Whitney invented the - a machine that automated the separation of cottonseed from the short-staple cotton fibre.
-
1804 Joseph Marie Jacquard invented the Jacquard Loom that weaved complex designs. Jacquard invented a way of automatically controlling the warp and weft threads on a silk loom by recording patterns of holes in a string of cards.
-
1813 William Horrocks invented the variable speed batton (for an improved power loom).
-
1856 William Perkin invented the first synthetic dye.
-----------Bellin, 2002
Appendix 2
1. Bellin, M (2002) Industrial Revolution - Timeline of Textile Machinery
Consulted on 6th December 2002
2. Mack, P, E (2002) The British Industrial Revolution
consulted on 6th December 2002
3. Thoemmes, (1999),
consulted on 5th December 2002
4. Jones, R. & Lewis, M (1995) Cotton, Lancashire and the Industrial Revolution
Consulted on 5th December 2002
5. Dwyer, J (2001) The Industrial Revolution
consulted on 3rd December 2002
6. Bai, J (2000) “Machine Society” and the Modern Economic Growth
Consulted on 2nd December 2002
7. Baird, S (1999) THE LABOUR-PROCESS AND THE PROCESS OF PRODUCING SURPLUS-VALUE
consulted on 24th November 2002
8. Kreis, S (2001) The Origins of the Industrial Revolution in England
consulted on 24th November 2002
9. Mullins, L.J. (1987), Management and Organisation Behaviour, The bath Press, Avon
10. Cole, G. A. (1993), Management Theory and Practice, Guernsey, Channel Islands
Word count: 2696 in total (including the title, context and Appendixes)
2183 (context only)
