Positive Effects Of The Industrial Revolution On The Lives Of People - Case Study Example

Positive Effects Of The Industrial Revolution On The Lives Of People Industrialization has been one of the greatest jumps in the history of mankind. Industrial revolution can be said to be the greatest single revolution in the history of mankind that changed the very lifestyle of people. From there it has been no turning back. Industrialization or the industrial revolution did not end up bringing the flow of technology in a single night. I was a revolution spread over years and thus, its impact and consequences are much outstretched. These features and its impact make the industrial revolution the greatest change in the history of mankind. The industrial revolution resulted in a change in the lifestyle of the people of Britain to begin with. They were now using coal for heating as well as to power locomotives. The standard of living for some had improved and the society was progressing. Industrial revolution is said to have brought many positive effects in the lives of people. Inventions such as the steam locomotives helped transportation and the increase in agricultural yield helped the farmers. There were many more significant inventions which changed the face of the earth and improved the lives of the masses. However, as it is commonly said that a coin has two sides and so this is also visible here. With the many pros which the industrial revolution brought with itself it also brought some flaws. It is these flaws which are often highlighted when industrial revolution is discussed. To begin with it is claimed that the industrial revolution created a huge gap between the other countries and Britain. Also this did not only lead to huge technological gap between the countries but this also created a financial gap between them and Britain. The incomes of the average family were increasing and the people were becoming richer. At this point sociologists like Marxists claim that the businessmen or the ruling class are exploiting the masses by paying them lesser wages. This causes the standard of living of the workers to actually fall rather than improving. However, as statistics show that people were actually well of in the long run. As soon as the technological change set in the conditions started improving and soon the families were spending more on food, clothing and household goods than ever before 1 Overall, the Industrial Revolution had many good effects. It increased the amount of goods and services a nation could produce and supplemented to its wealth. It created jobs for workers and over time assisted they live better lives. It produced better diets, better accommodation, and cheaper, better clothing. Thus said simpler as mentioned earlier is improved the standard of living of the people. This created a new era in the history of mankind. The English city of Manchester showed how industrialization changed society. Swift growth made the city swarming and filthy as they were not used to these advancements and the increase in waste and pollution. The factory owners endangered their money and worked long hours to make their businesses grow. In return, they relished huge profits and built huge houses. The workers also worked long hours, but had few benefits. Many of these workers were children, some only six years old. Not until 1819 did the British government put limits on using children as workers. With so much industry in one place, Manchester writhed in another way. Coal smoke and cloth dyes polluted the air and water. The pollution caused by the industries was turning out to be a significant and critical issue. 2 The most remarkable social consequence of the Industrial Revolution was the advent of the factory. It is inadequately realized today that before the Industrial Revolution the vast majority of people worked in their homes or in fields or attached workshops. Even workers who had lost their economic freedom, such as those in the so-called putting-out industries (in which a merchant supplied them with raw materials or transitional products that the worker then processed at a fixed piece wage), worked in their own homes. Free artisans, shopkeepers, and farmers were locally based, and employed members of their own households. Even those whose work required being away from home, such as masons and transporters, normally operated from a home base. Colliers, soldiers and sailors, and some workers in manufacturing (in large ironworks, breweries, and shipyards) were among the few who worked under conditions that would remind one of modern labor arrangements. With the Industrial Revolution, this situation began to change. The “mill,” in which production took place in a large room in corresponding fashion and under administration, slowly spread; and although the changeover took many years to reach its full course, its roots are clearly in the fateful years of the late eighteenth century. The industrial revolution also gave way to the concept of the division of labor. This meant that the workers were now moving towards specialization and this would later be utilized by Henry Ford to carry out the mass production of cars. The idea of “progress” of the Enlightenment that continuing growth and improvement being the destiny of human and natural life further amalgamated during the 19th Century. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution (Origin of Species, 1859) was taken as the confirmation that progress was the natural path of life, and also effective in the study of social evolution. Herbert Spencer (1820 –1903) an English philosopher and liberal political theorist is considered as the father of Social Darwinism, a school of thought that applied the evolutionist theory of survival of the fittest (a phrase coined by Spencer) to human societies. 3 In economic theory liberals like David Ricardo (1772-1823) John Stuart Mill (1806-73) defended that free, unregulated competition would bring continuous economic expansion and establish the universal justice.4 Some thinkers went farther and urged that businesses should be owned by society as a whole, not by individuals. Then a few people would not grow wealthy at the expense of many. Instead, all would enjoy the benefits of increased production. This view—called socialism—grew out of a belief in progress and a concern for justice and fairness. A German thinker named Karl Marx wrote about a radical form of socialism called Marxism. He said that factory owners and workers were bound to oppose one another in the struggle for power. Over time, he said, the capitalist system would destroy itself. The red ass of workers would rebel against the wealthy few. Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto in which he described communism, a form of complete socialism in which all production is owned by the people. Private property would not exist. In the early 1900s, these ideas would inspire revolution.5 Prior to industrialization in England, land was the primary source of wealth. The landed aristocracy held enormous powers the feudal system. However, a new source of great wealth grew from the Industrial Revolution, that which was derived from the ownership of factories and machinery. Those who invested in factories and machinery cannot be identified as belonging to any single class of people (landed aristocracy, industrialists, merchants). Their backgrounds were quite diverse, yet they had one thing in common: the daring to seize the opportunity to invest in new ventures. It was these capitalists who gave the necessary impetus to the speedy growth of the Industrial Revolution. In the early years of this period we find most investments being made in a field closely related to one’s original source of capital. Manufacturers took a substantial portion of their profits to “plough back” into their business, or they invested capital in ventures that were related to their primary business. Eventually, as opportunities to realize great profits proliferated, it was not uncommon to find these entrepreneurs investing substantially in concerns about which they knew very little.6 Two kinds of capital were needed by these industrialists; long-term capital to expand present operations, and short-term capital to purchase raw materials, maintain inventories and to pay wages to their employees. The long-term capital needs were met by mortgaging factory buildings and machinery. It was the need for short-term capital which presented some problems. The need for short-term capital for raw materials and maintaining stock was accommodated by extending credit to the manufacturers by the producers or dealers. Often, a supplier of raw materials waited from 6 to 12 months for payment of his goods, after the manufacturer was paid for the finished product. Not all countries that rivaled Britain followed its detailed technological example. Some specialized in exclusive, high-quality products. Others relied on different sources of energy, such as water or wind, or found niches in specialized industries. The Industrial Revolution, however, was not about one technical detail or another. It was about the willingness to use a growing understanding of nature (physics, chemistry, biology) in industrial production, implemented by private enterprise, for the sake of profit. It was about the ability of capitalists to mobilize capital and labor on a large scale to introduce these new techniques. It was this feature of the Industrial Revolution that prepared the ground for modern economic growth and the unprecedented prosperity it has brought too much of humanity, a prosperity that would have been unimaginable anywhere in 1750. 7 References http://industrialrevolution.sea.ca/impact.html Moyker, Joel. Industrial Revolution, http://www.oup.com/us/pdf/economic.history/industrial.pdf Montagna, Joseph, Industrial Revolution, http://www.kaustschools.org/uploaded/Week_1_Activities/Humanities-9-Industrial-Revolution.pdf Ross, Stewart. The Industrial Revolution, Evan Brothers, 2008. The Industrial Revolution and Consequences, http://www.yeditepe.edu.tr/dotAsset/74101.pdf The Industrial Revolution 1700-1900, http://mclane.fresno.k12.ca.us/wilson98/mwh/C/MH09C037.PDF Read More