Social Inequalities During The Industrial Revolution

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.

From around 1750 to 1900 Britain went through major changes or transformation in industry, agriculture and transportation that affected everybody’s lives. For some it generally improved their lives, however not all were so lucky. The industrial revolution brought with it many changes good for some and bad for others.

During the time frame of the Industrial Revolution there were 3 main social classes: The upper class, the middle class, and the lower class or the working class.

Throughout history, a divide has always existed between the rich and poor in society. However, during the Industrial Revolution in Victorian England, this rift reached its peak. The working class labored for long hours and received miniscule wages, whereas the bourgeoisie grew abundantly wealthy through the labor of the working class. Published in 1848 and 1854 respectively, Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto and Charles Dickens’ Hard Times both comment on these troubles. While Hard Times is a novel which tells a story and The Communist Manifesto is a short publication which tries to bring about social change, both writings offer a sharp critique of the class antagonism brought about by capitalism at the height of the Industrial

Initially we shall examine the concept of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels view of Socialism as described by Michael W. Doyle. At the very beginning of the chapter he states that “[Marx and Engels] are perhaps best known for the materialist conception of history in which the conditions of production shape all other areas of society — institutions, laws, ideas and morality” (Doyle 322). Both of

During the nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie had definite opinions about the affects of industrialization on society. A greater understanding of their views on history and humanity can be gained by comparing and contrasting two written artifacts: The Communist Manifesto and “Wealth.”

As Ewen begins by describing the two contrasting perspectives of social reality. “It described factory industrialism as producing the accoutrements of a democracy, one which invites every man to enhance his own comfort and status. Equating democracy with consumption” (Ewen 187). Ewen recognizes that “Mass production, according to this outlook was investing individuals with tools of identity, marks of their personhood” (Ewen 187). One side of the perception of social reality is production.

The Industrial Revolution serves as a key to the beginnings of cutting edge Western society. The same number of history specialists has viewed, "the Industrial Revolution was no inconsequential progression of changes in cutting edge frameworks and era, and however a social change with social reasons furthermore critical social effects. The Industrial Revolution can be said to have made the European working-class. It made the European middle-class as well. In the wake of the Revolution, new social associations appeared. There is no denying the way that the Industrial Revolution began in England eventually after the focal point of the 18th century. England was the "First Industrial Nation." As one money related understudy of history commented in the 1960s, it was England which at first

The Industrial revolution started in Britain around 1750 and by 1850 it will make Great Britain the wealthiest country in the world. The revolution also spread to other European countries and the New World. Both Germany and United States will surpass Britain in the next fifty years. What was the effect of The Industrial Revolution on the working class?

This essay will compare and contrast Wollstonecraft’s and Marx’s thoughts on inequality, in consideration of the following topics. What does each author see as the primary form of social inequality? According to each author, Why do many consider this form of social inequality to be legitimate? Why does each author think this form of inequality is illegitimate? Wollstonecraft addresses gender inequality in the home and in society. Marx addresses class inequality amongst the bourgeoisie and proletariat. For Marx the bourgeois take away the proletariat's ability to choose to create for themselves, rather to create for a wage. Both Wollstonecraft and Marx believe the ideology of those in power is spread throughout all of society in an attempt to keep themselves in control. Those in control of society want everyone to believe that their way of life is natural and best for them. For Wollstonecraft, men, those in control, say that gender inequality is natural. For Marx, the bourgeoisie, those in control of the economy, justify their actions through free market. Wollstonecraft believes that gender inequality is

The Industrial Revolution, which began in England, brought on many advancements in the production of textiles. This revolution that improved the manufacturing industry’s ability to produce goods in mass quantity with less labor should have been a way that the industrial worker’s lives improved. However, the opposite occurred. Engels describes a competitive working environment where workers competed to make enough money to survive with their families. Their survival only led to more suffering of neglect, poverty, and squalor. Engels book, Condtion of the Working Class in England, 1845, is a detailed account of the proletariat who were oppressed by the bourgeoisie. Engels wrote a dismally detailed account of the working class place during the Industrial Revolution in England, placing the workers in the cities as subhuman, expendable, and economically less expensive to maintain than a slave.

     The Communist Manifesto was written by two world renowned philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This book was produced in an era of great suffering and anguish of all workers in a socially distressed system. In a time when revolutions were spreading through Europe like wildfire, Marx organized his thoughts and views to produce the critical pamphlet “The Communist Manifesto”. Marx’s scrutiny illustrates his belief that unless change is to occur the constant outcome will repeatedly remain uniform. This is a novel that displays the differentiation between the Bourgeois and the Proletariat. Class relationships are defined by an era's means of production. Marx’s

I believe that the Industrial Revolution contribute to political inequality. The Industrial Revolution took place between the 18th and 19th centuries. Major technological breakthroughs like manufacturing, agriculture and trade changed the way we conducted things. The cotton gin, steam engine, and sewing machine were all in inventions that shaped entire economies and brought deep and lasting change to all classes of people. Thus the separation on social and political inequality happened. But Karl Marx believed in a communist society. There are no class distinctions and everybody works but an individual with a higher physically and intellectually superior get the recognition (Marx 1875, 231-233). Michael Bakunin seems to be in favor of revolutionary

Before the Industrial Revolution, Great Britain’s economy relied heavily on agriculture, which at that point of time was based a flawed system dating back to the Middle Ages. This system, known as the open field system, showed agricultural inefficiencies, and was disallowing of innovation. These inefficiencies eventually led to the privatization of land for agriculture, in an effort to solve what is now commonly referred to as “the tragedy of the commons”. Great Britain was now moving forward, and as the country (and continent) began enclosing their land, Britain began a period of modernization, with new technologies that would increase productivity in industry to a level never before seen. This is the period commonly referred to as the Industrial Revolution, and was an era of unprecedented growth in industry from the middle of the 18th century until around the middle of the 19th century. In 1760, 53% of the British population worked in agriculture. By 1840, that had dropped to 29%. The evolution from water and wind power to steam engines, as well as the creation of many pieces of machinery for the textile industry (such as the Spinning Jenny, which reduced the production time on yarn) vastly improved British manufacturing of goods, and the reliance on agriculture continued to drop. The development from an agricultural focus

The industrial revolution stands as a time marker in history where a growing rift occurred between traditional and modern lifestyles. The revolution brought more than just industrial changes, it also brought along a new era of cultural differences that would disturb current society. The underlying changes come from the “social effect of industrialization: the breaking up of the old social units and social relationships” (Hartwell 242), these changes occur in Casterbridge between Michael Henchard and Donald Farfrae. Although Henchard and Farfrae are both successful farmers and grain investors, their methods of gaining success differ as Farfrae adapts new technologies while Henchard holds to old beliefs.