The Industrial Revolution.

The promise of human emancipation can be seen as a sheer lie that was sold to the proletarians by the manufacturers. The mere existence of factories and machinery meant discipline, as time was used to regulate working rhythms, rather than the pre-industrial freedom to complete tasks at one’s will. Labourers were expected at work at a specific time and required to work for a number of hours, all dictated by the manufacturer. If such time rhythms were not strictly followed, penalties such as fines or physical punishment for children were carried out. Such authoritarian enforcement of rules cannot be classified as “human emancipation”. In fact, it is the complete polar opposite to what the working class experienced during the revolution.

The bourgeoisie not only had absolute control of the factories but also had control over the matter of wages. Despite the bourgeoisie having “created more massive and more colossal productive powers than have all preceding generations together”, they did not choose to reflect that profit in the workers wages. In contrast, they selfishly chose to cut the already minimal wages to further enhance their own profits. It was also said that the manufacturers chose to reduce wages as an incentive for the labourers to work harder and longer to earn their weekly living expenses. The wages in which the workers received were at such a minimal level that approximately 500,000 workers starved to their demise. The few who cheated death had barely enough to feed their family, let alone clothe themselves during the colder periods, resulting in sickness. 

Due to the need for survival, workers (especially women, as they were seen as cheaper labour than men) struggled to undertake up to 13 hours of work a day and sometimes an additional 13-16 hours at night to provide for their family. As a result of this, we can evidently see Ferdinand Tonnies’ theory of Gemeinschaft Vs. Gesellschaft in practice. The community bonds of Gemeinschaft have been consequently destroyed by the constant need to fill all waking hours with factory work. Hobsbawm stated that “…all social bonds crumbled except the implacable gold and paper ones of the cash nexus…”, explaining the artificiality of these relationships.

The above examples demonstrate the bourgeoisie’s ability to control not only the working class’ wages but subsequently their lifestyle as well. Again, we cannot see the freedom in which the bourgeoisie so enthusiastically talked about before the onset of industrialism. In fact, the worker has ultimately become a slave; a prisoner to the factory and manufacturer with absolutely no rights at all. 

Since the bourgeoisie had the labourers working constantly, they had no other time to pursue other interests. Berman states that “the trouble with capitalism is that…it fosters, indeed forces, self-development for everybody; but people can develop only in restricted and distorted ways.” This statement simply expands on the idea that the non-marketable traits of a worker are not developed, resulting in a partial man. Not only is the personal development of individuals discouraged by the bourgeoisie but the actual factory work itself is downright boring and non stimulating for the mind whatsoever. Engels states that “the factory worker is condemned to allow his physical and mental powers to become atrophied”. This is yet another demonstration of control which the bourgeoisie had over the proletarians – that of their mind and personal development.

In conclusion, the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th Century only benefited one group of people – the bourgeoisie. The propaganda sold to the proletarians of human emancipation and freedom from constraints could not be further away from what they experienced during the revolution. What the bourgeoisie failed to tell the proletarians was that “the more capitalism advances the more impoverished the workers become”.

The irony of this matter is that more than a century later, we are unfortunately still in a society where exploitation occurs. Perhaps not as extreme as that of the revolution, but exploitation all the same. Marx suggests that capitalism is a world in need of a ‘false consciousness’ to act as a constant reminder that we are free, despite the discipline and control bureaucracies have over us. However, he also clarifies that the technique (ie. the machines and factories) was not to blame, but the bourgeoisie themselves.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berman, M., All That is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience of Modernity, Verso, London, 1983

Bottomore, T., Theories of Modern Capitalism, Allen & Unwin, London, 1985

Ellul, J., The Technological Society, Vintage Books, London, 1964

Engels, F., The Condition of the Working Class in England, Panter, London, 1969

Giddens, A., Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971

Hobsbawm, E.J., The Age of Revolution 1789-1848, Mentor Books, New York, 1962

Kumar, K., Prophecy and Progress, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1978

Lecture notes, Karl Marx: Alienation and the Division of Labour, 22nd March 2004

Thompson, E.P., “Time, Work Discipline and Industrial Capitalism” in A. Giddens & D. Held (eds) Classes, Power and Conflict, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1982