Understanding the Industrial Revolution: Its Causes and Consequences - Term Paper Example

Understanding the Industrial Revolution: Its Causes and Consequences Essay of Introduction Eric Hobsbawm (1991) was not overstating when he proclaimed that “the Industrial Revolution marks the most fundamental transformation of human life in the history of the world recorded in written documents” (p. xi). Understanding the beginnings of modern society requires understanding the causes and consequences of the Industrial Revolution. This essay addresses the following questions: In what ways was the industrial revolution an international event—and why is this significant for understanding its causes and consequences? The Industrial Revolution: A Historical Analysis In contemporary history, Industrial Revolution is the course of transformation from an agricultural economy to industrial production. The Industrial Revolution emerged in the 18th century in England and eventually expanded to other countries (Allen, 2009). There are four major causes of the Industrial Revolution: technology, capital, geography, and agrarian revolution. First is technology. Britain went through a revolution in the development and utilisation of energy sources as they shifted from animal energy, to water energy, to steam energy within a brief duration of time. The steam engine was the driving force of the Industrial Revolution (Allen, 2009). Second is capital. Britain had an expansive foreign dominion that furnished them with stable and progressive economy. They had the resources or capital to construct and maintain important infrastructures, such as factories and transportation systems. Third is geography. The British has huge reserves of natural resources required by industrialisation, like coal (Stearns, 1998). Moreover, Britain had control over numerous natural ports and passable waters which facilitated the movement of products within and outside the country. Fourth is the agrarian revolution, which was described as a major development in farming techniques that facilitated higher food yields. This revolution was reinforced by the invention of new farming equipment and high quality fertilizers (Stearn, 1998). On the other hand, there are eight major consequences of the Industrial Revolution: imperialism, communism, societal transformations, working conditions, urbanisation, laissez-faire, major businesses, and mass production. First is imperialism. India, China, Africa, and other regions were invaded by Europe in order to gain control of their natural resources and access to their markets for industrialised products (Allen, 2009). Second is communism. As argued by Karl Marx, human history is rooted in conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. He envisaged that the working class would rebel to topple those who own the means of production and build a social order with an equitable distribution of resources. This theory of socialism would become the groundwork for the 20th-century Cuban, Chinese, and Bolshevik Revolutions (Garrett, 2000). Third are societal transformations. Members of the middle class acquired new roles and a higher living standard. On the other hand, working class families experienced serious adversities because of poor working and living conditions. Fourth is working conditions. Members of the working class received negligible pay and worked under inhumane conditions. Many workers were harmed or killed because of hazardous conditions in the workplace (Garrett, 2000). Fifth is urbanisation. People migrated to urban areas to seek better employment. Conditions were seriously harsh during the initial stage of the Industrial Revolution, as members of the working class resided in congested tenements, without proper sanitation and sewage. This led to epidemics (Allen, 2009). Sixth is Laissez-faire. This is an ideology in economics introduced by Adam Smith, which claimed that the economy would operate perfectly without government intervention. This economic philosophy governed the Industrial Revolution. Seventh are major businesses. The expansion of the Industrial Revolution led to growth in businesses. The flow of capital facilitated the growth of businesses into corporations that had connections to other parts of the world (Stearns, 1998). Eight is mass production. The emergence of factories resulted in mass production of goods. Mass production led to the lowering of prices of manufactured products. The Industrial Revolution was a milestone in world history because it led to major societal transformations. Its consequences were sweeping and impacted numerous cultures across the globe (Lowy, 2010). This basically explains why the Industrial Revolution is an international event. The Industrial Revolution, in essence, has transformed the world. Emphasis on new systems and processes for producing products, industrialisation has changed not only societies, but also individuals. The Industrial Revolution was a global event from the very beginning. It led to transformations that had been taking place in the global economy, and afterward it reconstructed the relations within it, and keeps on doing so. According to world-system analysts, it was in framework of colonialist and imperialist Europe that emerged in the 16th century that the whole world steadily and permanently became interconnected via trade arrangements comprised of unbalanced exchange (Babones & Chase-Dunn, 2012). This led to a really deep-seated transformation— the beginning of modern global capitalism, originally concentrated in the Americas and Europe but afterward spreading to other geographical areas. By emphasising the significance of the major sectors’ commodity chains and economic processes, world-system analysts examine the upward and downward movement of dominant institutions that took place much prior to the Industrial Revolution (Babones & Chase-Dunn, 2012). From this standpoint, the Industrial Revolution was merely another occurrence wherein a growing entity successfully achieved a comparative advantage in newly developed major industries and developed new abilities for guiding the capitalist global economy towards stronger integration. This toning down of the importance of the Industrial Revolution as a turning point in world history contradicts the knowledge governing the 20th century of Smithianism and Marxism (Babones & Chase-Dunn, 2008, p. 52). Reducing the importance of the Industrial Revolution, Immanuel Wallerstein stresses that it must not be viewed as a large-scale event that caused cyclical development, but instead as the consequence of modern economic thought (Lowy, 2010). Hence the importance of the Industrial Revolution is situated in its contribution to the rapid and strong economic growth of the West during the nineteenth century when an organised strategy of deindustrialisation and colonisation of the colonies enabled Western colonisers to build up massive resources and power (Kaufman, 2004). Outside British territories, Russia, and Japan a complete Industrial Revolution failed to emerge. Exploitation by the Western powers hampered total transition to an industrial economy. The demand of Western powers for products considerably weakened economic self-sufficiency. Dependence on the purchases and investments of the West hindered the prospects for self-sufficient economic development. Major industrial development in fact reinforced reliance on the West if the needed machines or equipment had to be bought from another country. Transformation, all in all, was nearly worldwide, but it was not directly pointed towards industrialisation. However, the aspect that made the Industrial Revolution a global event was steam power. The railroad constructions that began in the 1830s were made possible by steam power. These railroads linked communities and contributed to the rise of regional economies. These economies developed as railroad systems grew and resulted in the formation of national and, sooner or later, global markets (Bairoch & Velen, 1966). Alongside the construction of steamships to facilitate faster navigation of world’s oceans, it became probable to incorporate North American and European production with the markets and resources of other parts of the world. Together with the new pattern of political imperialism in the latter part of the 19th century, the new consolidated markets made the Industrial Revolution a genuine international event. While numerous scholars have disagreed about the history, causes, and consequences of the Industrial Revolution, the explanation of Hobsbawm of its significance to world history remains relevant. Hobsbawm (1999), being one of the leading Britain’s historians, discussed comprehensively numerous issues. He thoroughly studied the British industrial revolution and, influenced by Marxism, he viewed its consequences as a motivating factor underlying the global movement towards liberal capitalism. Similarly, Marx and Engels studied the causes of the British Industrial Revolution. They argue that the Industrial Revolution unfavourably affected the proletariats, and so offered solutions to the problems brought about by the industrial setting (Lapides, 1990). Marx and Engels explain that the Industrial Revolution was facilitated and sustained by circumstances that were present at the time. Engels (2009), in particular, mentions the annulment of laws, like England’s Corn Law, and the unearthing of gold reserves in Australia and California. He also includes progress in transportation and communication, such as the steam ship. Nevertheless, this is viewed as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution. For Marx and Engels, the history of the proletariat arises from the origination of machine-dependent production and the creation of the steam engine (Lapides, 1990). They believe that these two occurrences led to the Industrial Revolution. Marx and Engels see the history of the Industrial Revolution through the eyes of the ordinary British individual. They argue that before the Industrial Revolution farmers, although lacking education or skills, still had control over their own lands. They worked for subsistence and were ‘stable’, only working for their basic needs. They are the ‘toiling machines’, according to Engels, which had been governed by powerful aristocrats (Engels, 2009, p. 16). For Engels, the roots of the Industrial Revolution, as well as how it evolved, were essentially the rational path of development. The inventions resulted in the ultimate triumph of machine-dependent production over manual labour. The consequences of such were the growth in production, the reduction of prices of products, wealth of trade and business, and the rise of Britain’s national prosperity (Lapides, 1990). Nevertheless, Marx and Engels also argue that it resulted as well in the fast increase of the working class, the abolition of stable employment, and the termination of property ownership (Kaufman, 2004). In essence, the Marxist analysis of the causes and consequences of the Industrial Revolution is a compelling image of roots of the process, and the circumstances of those who primarily contributed to its triumph—the proletariats or the working class. It is obvious that Marx and Engels detested how the working class is exploited by those who own the means of production, and that their solution, or ‘cure’, is a forceful revolution against the oppressor. They apparently denounce democratic change by encouraging transformation solely by revolution. Alongside with these arguments that the revolution is unavoidable and certain, they predict that this war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will be the most violent conflict ever to come into fruition. On the other hand, Leon Trotsky argues that this Marxist focus on nonconcrete aspects of the Industrial Revolution is equivalent to ‘hopeless formalism’ (Day, 2004, p. 7). Marx had consistently argued about the relationship between the political influence of the working class and industrial development; however, he had not envisioned that such ‘historically relative’ theories must be translated into a ‘supra-historical axiom’ (Day, 2004, p. 7). Russia’s industrialisation, according to Trotsky, was exceptional and could not be analysed based on the standards used in other countries. Russia had practically jumped over the initial phases of capitalism. Driven by profit, European investors did not aspire for political power in Russia. Hence, bourgeois liberalism was moderate compared to other countries, like Britain. Within this perspective Trotsky claims that “the attempt to define in advance what proportion of the whole population must be proletarian at the moment of the conquest of political power is a fruitless task” (Day, 2004, pp. 7-8). In other words, Trotsky’s view of revolutions is more global than the ideas of Marx and Engels, which seem to be localised. Trotsky even argues that Russia’s industrial revolution should be global if it intends to survive for a long time (Lowy, 2010, p. 56): Left to its own resources the working class of Russia will inevitably be crushed by the counter-revolution the moment the peasantry turns its back on it. It will have no alternative but to link the fate of its political rule, and hence the fate of the whole Russian revolution, with the fate of the socialist revolution in Europe. As argued by Trotsky, Russia’s development had been financially supported mainly by foreign investment, and this fact seemed to ascertain that for both politically and economically related causes the revolution would go beyond the borders of Russia (Day, 2004). Understanding the reason some countries still confront problems transitioning into an industrialised economy—or the reason some countries could not passionately desire an industrial revolution because of its risk to their core value system—requires an accurate knowledge of what causality has demanded for the past two centuries. Because the industrial revolution began in Britain and afterwards expanded to other parts of the world, an equal consideration of diversity and shared features has been vital to historical analysis. The industrial revolutions that took place all over the world have had several fundamental similarities. They clearly involved not just large-scale organisational and technological transformation but also changes in working conditions and family roles. Urban areas consistently developed and the agricultural sector was re-evaluated (Allen, 2009). But industrial revolutions also differed widely. They were different in terms of accessible resources and geography. They are different in terms of timing—earlier industrial economies unavoidably manifested different qualities from later industrial economies, and several of these differences have been permanent (Stearns, 1998). Ultimately, they are different in terms of structures and culture. Conclusions Since its beginning, the Industrial Revolution has created important areas of study. It became important to understand precisely the causes and consequences of this global event, which has been largely attested by the most brilliant political and social scientists—Hobsbawm, Marx, Engels, Trotsky, etc. Although these areas of study have evolved as the structure, system, and technology related to the revolution have progressed and as more countries have been pulled into the process, historical analysis is still vital not only to make sense of the past but to understand the nature of the industrial economy today and its repercussions. Causation is still an important issue. Understanding the factors that pushed Japan and Britain to launch an industrial revolution is still a major historical task. Identifying the central aspects and how they could be reproduced or repeated today combines history with present-day issues. References Allen, R. (2009) The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. UK: Cambridge University Press. Babones, S. & Chase-Dunn, C. (2012) Routledge Handbook of World-Systems Analysis. London: Routledge. Bairoch, P. & Velen, V. (1966) “Original Characteristics and Consequences of the Industrial Revolution.” Diogenes, 14(54): 47-58. Day, R. (2004) Leon Trotsky and the Politics of Economic Isolation. UK: Cambridge University Press. Engels, F. (2009) The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844. New York: Cosimo, Inc. Garrett, G. (2000) “The Causes of Globalisation.” Comparative Political Studies, 33(6-7): 941-991. Hobsbawm, E. (1999) Industry and Empire: From 1750 to the Present Day. New York: The New Press. Kaufman, B. (2004) The Global Evolution of Industrial Relations: Events, Ideas and the IIRA. Washington, DC: International Labour Organisation. Lapides, K. (1990) Marx and Engels on Trade Unions. New York: International Publishers Co. Lowy, M. (2010) The Politics of Combined and Uneven Development: The Theory of Permanent Revolution. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books. Stearns, P. (1998) The Industrial Revolution in World History. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Read More