Hobsbawm's Theory on the General Crisis of the 17th Century

The Industrial Revolution was period of rapid economic and social growth during the mid 18th and early 19th centuries. The new found power of coal and iron made for many new innovations in machinery. Not all of the Industrial Revolution’s changes were physical. A new ideology arose from the sweat of the working class: socialism. Socialism is a political theory advocating state or collective ownership of property and industry opposed to private ownership. To fully understand the relationship between the Industrial Revolution and socialism, one must first be comfortable with the Revolution and its changes, socialism itself, and the fine line of events linking the two together.

During “the 19th century, when the Industrial Revolution triggered a series of radical changes national cultural fabric of state societies, the pressures of modernization were also transforming the way of life in traditional communities of peasant and other rural folk” (Haviland et al. 349). One of these transformations brought about by the Industrial Revolution is the invention of the factory. The factory, like capitalism, originated in England, but eventually made its way to America, specifically the region of New England. The factory caused artisans to lose autonomy, now forced to work

The topic I have chosen to discuss related to the last 400 years in Western Civilization is the industrial revolution in Britain. The industrial revolution was what created the modern capitalist system. Britain was the first to lead the way in this huge transformation. Technology changed, businesses, manufactured goods, and wage laborers skyrocketed. There was not only an economic transformation, but also a social transformation. The industrial revolution is such an interesting subject to further explore, because it truly made a difference in Britain in the late 1700s. The industrial revolution brought an increased quantity and variety of manufactured goods and even improved the standard of living for some individuals, however, it resulted in grim employment and living conditions that were for the poor and working classes. The industrial revolution had a bright and dark side to it. It was dark due to all the horrible working conditions, crowded cities, unsanitary facilities, diseases, and unsafe work environment, but the bright side is that it was a period of enormous social progress.

Division of labour is also credited with the rise of trade between different areas, the rise of capitalism, and increasingly complex manufacturing and industrialization. For Karl Marx, the production portion of Capitalism signalled great trouble. He believed production in Capitalist society worked in a way that the rich factory owner benefited and the poor factory workers lost. In his manner of reasoning, the Capitalist system was inherently meant to benefit the rich and exploit the poor: “All the bourgeois economists are aware of is that production can be carried on better under the modern police than on the principle of might makes right. They forget only that this principle is also a legal relation, and that the right of the stronger prevails in their ‘constitutional republics’ as well, only in another form.”[ii] Marx’s view of society and the world lead him to believe that humans create change in their lives and in their environment through practical activity in the practical world.

The Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was arguably the most important turning point in history. It transformed the manufacture of goods from craftsmanship to commercialism, exponentially increasing output and decreasing production cost leading to prosperity and an unprecedented supply of goods for the markets of the world. Industrialization and mass production was the fuel which ignited the flame of capitalism which was already established creating bringing sweeping changes in wealth and its distribution. Within a few generations the very fabric of society was virtually remade as millions left the farms and villages of the countryside for jobs in the cities. This monumental change did not immediately sweep

Prior to unfolding of the events in the 18th century the interlinkages of increasingly global world, stirred agrarian and rural society's. In particular, the families had begun to produce surplus and buying new commodities, which were hitherto, considered luxuries. This era of industrious revolution laid the foundation for the industrial revolution. The trade in this time to Europe was mainly spices from India, silk and porcelain from China and inspite of silver flowing in from Americas kept the balance in favour of the East. The capital and labour requirements were not intensive and the mercantile activities were primarily housed in the guilds. This essay attempts to understand how the industrial revolution impacted the commerce

The eighteenth century revolutions predate the Marxist framework which would ultimately changed the way in which revolutions are understood; as highly participatory mass-moments which sought to change some kind of social order. Gordon Wood acknowledges this as he states; “The social distinctions and economic deprivations that we today think of as the consequences of class divisions…were in the eighteenth century usually thought to be caused by abuses in government.” Skocpol also acknowledges the difference between modern and what the “liberal revolutions” of the eighteenth century. She writes that all revolutions that occur within the modern capitalist systems accomplish nothing but a more concentrated and centralized state bureaucracy. However Skocpol’s analysis takes a retrospective structuralist approach to understanding these eighteenth century social revolutions. Her analysis does not rely on the deprivation hypothesis nor any kind of ideology, but instead highlights the importance of the “revolutionary moment” where elites and peasants unite (through an “equal powers” negotiation) against the state (Stevens 10/16/17). By applying Skocpol’s model to the French, Haitian, and American Revolutions, we can see how well it holds up when applied to these various intertwined 18th century revolutions despite their drastically different outcomes.

Accurately established by many historians, the capitalists who shaped post-Civil War industrial America were regarded as corrupt “robber barons”. In a society in which there was a severe imbalance in the dynamics of the economy, these selfish individuals viewed this as an opportunity to advance in their financial status. Thus, they acquired fortunes for themselves while purposely overseeing the struggles of the people around them. Presented in Document A, “as liveried carriage appear; so do barefooted children”, proved to be a true description of life during the 19th century. In hopes of rebuilding America, the capitalists’ hunger for wealth only widened the gap between the rich and poor.

The industrial revolution that swept across Europe in the 19th century was vital to both the economic and social advancements that Continental Europe was able to achieve. Starting in the United Kingdom with small textile mills run by hard labor quickly transitioned to larger factories using unskilled workers. With the progression of the 19th century, the Great Britain no longer was the only nation going through a period of industrialization. Soon after, Britain’s breakthrough, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy began their own periods of industrialization. Throughout Prussia and the other small German states, the creation of factories and the move away from farming created problems. For many factory owners, they found replication to be all

Karl Marx, in the Capital, developed his critique of capitalism by analyzing its characteristics and its development throughout history. The critique contains Marx’s most developed economic analysis and philosophical insight. Although it was written in 1850s, its values still serve an important purpose in the globalized world and maintains extremely relevant in the twenty-first century.

Throughout The Communist Manifesto, Marx expresses the political, economic and social turmoil that were present in their society. During this time period, agriculture production was the main occupation. This resulted in a class struggle between the landowners and the serfs who labored the land. A new, manufacturing class emerged from this conflict called the bourgeoisie. Bourgeoisie changed the focus from agriculture to industrialization and commerce. Having “less dexterity and strength [that] is required in manual labor, [helps] modern industry develop” and prosper throughout society (Marx 131). This more proficient way to produce commodities helped the bourgeoisie control global and domestic trade. They eventually reached a point where they were inhibited by the feudal government and could not progress at the original rate they were going. Resulting from this, the French Revolution occurred and the bourgeoisie demolished the aristocracy that was originally present during this primitive time. Unfortunately, this did not resolve the primary

Though Karl Marx and Alexis de Tocqueville differ, they both contributed greatly to revolutionary concepts of their era. To better understand the analyses between politics, social, and economic changes Marx and Tocqueville discuss, we must first understand the shift of their time and the need for sociological analysis. The 19th century was a time of change and adaptation for everyone and few scholars were capable and willing to understand the impacts these changes would have on society and its entities. Both industrial and democratic revolutions affected their times and created shifts in society. The industrialization affected many aspects of society. It created a structural change in the economy shifting from agrarian income to industrial and commercial income. Technology impacted labour force and production shifting to large-scale manufacturing creating new types of investments. These changes affected class structure, migration, and workers which in turn affected economy and a shift in politics.

With the rise of capitalism and the spread of money into rural areas, vassals began to commodity their labor, and lords began to commodity their land. Commodifying land and labor allowed lords and vassals to receive more cash on a regular basis, yet the payments they received were still not steady and constant. As more vassals and lords commodified land and labor, land and labor soon became regarded as commodities. In feudalism, labor was seen as a relationship between the laborer and the lord, or the person receiving the labor. With the spread of monetization, however, the concept of abstract labor was introduced: a laborer could now sell his capacity/power and ability to do labor and the purchaser would be the owner of anything that the laborer produced (i.e. if someone buys someone’s capacity to cook a meal, the meal that the laborer produces with the boot capacity belongs to the buyer). This new way of understanding labor soon became widespread and labor feudal perceptions of labor were abandoned; labor had become a commodity, part of a capitalist economy. Moreover, land was now thought of as a commodity that could be bought and sold, unlike in feudalism where it was only seen as a lease from a higher lord that could be exploited but never owned. Perceptions of property also changed; property, or the amount of tangible goods someone had in their possession,

Not only did the bourgeoisie run the businesses, but also political matters. The power was shifting to the side of the owners, causing the gap between the proletariats and the bourgeoisie to grow bigger and bigger. The dominant force in Europe was actually creating a weapon without the realization of what they were doing. The labors, living conditions, and status of the proletariats created tension within the structure of the French society. The peasants even paid for the way of others, "it was on the peasants that all the abuses in the assessment

What makes a nation wealthy? Answering this basic question may not be as simple as it seems. Because we must first analyze what “wealth” is. This essay is going to cover Adam Smith and Karl Marx’s work and their views how the society works and how wealth is created. It is going to highlight the theory of “Division of labour” and how it shaped the social relations. Lastly Robert Heilbroner’s concept of “drive for capital” will be discussed and how it produces wealth and misery to analyze Sinclair’s insights into the nature of industrial life in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.