World History: Capitalism and Socialism

Today we're looking at two ideas which have shaped the world today: capitalism and socialism. We looked briefly at these ideas when we looked at the Industrial Revolution, but we will expand on them today. Some form of capitalism and socialism have existed for centuries across the world: Joyce Appleby joked that historians of capitalism have stated that it started repeatedly since the Roman Empire; Peter Marshall has stressed how ancient Daoism and Buddhism can anachronistically be described as leading themselves into being anarchist; and the Zapatistas in contemporary Chiapas, Mexico have stated that their socialist policies are in continuation with indigenous practices. This is important to bear in mind as today we'll largely be looking at the development of modern capitalism and socialism - this leads us to a focus on Europe and North America. However, when I can, I want to expand this to look at developments in capitalism and socialism outside the Euro-American world. Before we begin, I also want to preface this post by stating that I am a socialist, so I will likely be more critical of capitalism than some other histories which you might read - such as Appleby's history of capitalism referenced in this post.

From Mercantilism to Modern Capitalism

A French seaport in 1638 during the height of French mercantilism

A basic definition of capitalism is an economic and political system where trade and the way goods are produced, the means of production, are in the hands of private owners. This is a broad definition and describes many societies throughout history, and one of the main forms which this took was mercantilism and merchant capitalism. Merchant capitalism, in particular, we have seen throughout the World History series, and could be found in most regions of the world - especially India, China, and Japan. Mercantilism, meanwhile, is a form of capitalism which aims to see the maximisation of a state's exports - trade and consumption was seen as finite, so it was believed that to survive you needed a monopoly on trade. This led to the formation of large companies, as it was a safer investment for wealthier individuals to own shares in a company than entirely rely on your own capital as in the past. A major mercantilist in England, Thomas Mun, was influential in the formation of the English East India Company (EIC), and similar ventures opened with the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the Hudson Bay Company in Canada to name two prominent ones. Mercantilism required state intervention in order to protect trade, so in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries protectionist policies were implemented to edge out competitors, and there were even wars - especially between the English and Dutch. However, by the late-eighteenth century mercantilism started becoming routinely criticised. The best known critic is that of Adam Smith. Smith was a Scottish economist and philosopher, and was highly influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment which led him in 1776 to write An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Smith did not live in a vacuum: it is no coincidence that his ideas of liberty were being repeated by other economists as American revolutionaries and Thomas Paine were calling for political liberty. In Wealth of Nations Smith broke from traditional narratives that humans were unpredictable and capricious, instead he argued that 'principle which prompts to save is the desire of bettering our condition, a desire which though generally calm and dispassionate, comes with us from the womb, and never leaves us till we go into the grave'. Smith argued that the 'invisible hand' of the free market should govern economics; states should take a backseat and allow the supply/demand generated by markets, caused by human purchasing power, to govern economies. It was human nature to naturally lead to productivity and the best market solutions.

Adam Smith

Smith based his writings on economic developments in Britain since the 1600s, and this leads us back to a discussion we had when we looked at the Industrial Revolution, why did modern capitalism emerge in Europe? Max Weber argued that it was due to the 'Protestant work ethic' - this falls apart when we look at the rapid industrialisation of Japan in the 1870s. Modern, industrial capitalism primarily emerged in Britain and the Netherlands for several reasons. The first is weakened monarchical power - the long history of republicanism in the Netherlands and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in Britain resulting in the execution of Charles I gave their respective parliaments more power. This prevented possible restrictive laws on markets from being passed, and gave non-royals the ability to forge legislation - it is no coincidence that the UK and US quickly adopted aspects of Wealth of Nations. Changes in the countryside played a great influence - crop rotation and new crops from the Americas, like potatoes, allowed more crop production and population growth. Due to increasing crop yields this drove down the price of food which allowed people to have greater ability to purchase goods. In England, the Enclosure Acts, which Karl Marx placed great emphasis on for the formation of modern capitalism, placed common land in the hands of private owners which, in turn, forced tenant farmers off of land and into urban areas. Britain's easy access to coal, and the high numbers of waterways in the Netherlands and Britain allowing for easier transport, allowed for industrialisation to take place. The first chapter of Marx's Kapital explains well how this promoted the origins of industrial capitalism. He uses the example of a coat being made of 20 yards of linen, but is worth double due to the value of labour. As the factory owner owns the means of producing the coat they keep the profit after the value of the goods and labour has been taken out. To maximise profit you have to reduce the value of labour without overproducing - he uses diamonds in this case, they are valuable as they are hard to get, but if they were common their price would decrease. Mechanisation made the production of commodities faster and easier reducing the hours needed to produce our coat, so factories emerged to house the machinery and increasing urban populations created a workforce to work in the factories. Finally, modern capitalism could not exist without the exploitation of colonised peoples - as argued by David Landes, industry needed slavery. Britain and the Netherlands were deeply involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade and imperialism through the EIC and VOC. Raw materials could be produced abundantly and cheaply in India, Indonesia, and the Caribbean, and the colonised regions opened up markets for the selling of finished products.

The Capital Revolution

In 1848 Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote that the new capitalist, bourgeoisie class 'has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations...It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades'. Wherever capitalism touched it greatly changed. The most notable example is the impact on the environment. Lands completely changed as they were uprooted for mining and construction - the construction of the Suez Canal managed to link two of the major seas. The burning of fossil fuels warmed global temperatures putting us, unfortunately, on the current path to climate catastrophe - smoggy cityscapes became common in late-nineteenth century art. Before 1811 the peppered moth in England was white, but soot from chimneys in northern England made the trees appear darker so they rapidly evolved to be black. Thanks to deindustrialisation since the 1970s these same moths are returning to their whiter colouration as trees are less sooty. Capitalism created new industries and made older ones more profitable creating demographic shifts. In Britain, cities like Glasgow, Birmingham, and Manchester dwarfed older seats of power, so much so, that several acts had to be passed in parliament redistributing where parliamentary seats were. Gold rushes in South Africa, California, and Australia saw booms in population as people rushed to make a fortune from gold, or from miners. In Australia 'bushrangers' preyed upon prospective gold miners, and some have become subject to folk legend, like Nat Kelly. These regions saw other demographic changes. California saw an influx of immigrants from China and Mexico, and Australia from Germany and China which today influences the demographics of the regions. Africans started moving to the cities, and in the South African gold mines different ethnic groups started interacting, and new ideas of sexuality even emerged. New groups, the bourgeoisie, started supplanting traditional elites. Although new capitalists in Japan were often from poorer samurai families, and intermarriage between poor samurais and wealthy merchants had happened before 1868, Japanese conservatives in the 1870s and 1880s feared capitalism believing it was disrupting the Confucian order of the country. There was a push and pull between old elites and the new: Prussian Junkers in Germany remained influential until World War Two but ceded ground to new industrialists; and while British aristocrats balked at the idea of allowing steel magnate Andrew Carnegie into their 'circle' they had to begrudgingly marry their children to American industrialists and allowing a Jewish banker, Lionel de Rothschild, into the House of Lords in 1858. However, this did not stop the Rothschilds from being subjected to intense antisemitic attacks - a topic for when we look at racism in a future post.

Japanese women in a basket weaving factory

The bourgeoisie were not the only class to emerge thanks to capitalism - there was also the working class. We see different cultures and identities emerge consequently. Prior to industrialisation, women could find some form of emancipation thanks to textile works - they could make their own textiles in their home. The factory saw the means of production taken out of their hands which limited their agency. We will explore the idea of 'separate spheres' more when we look at the origins of feminism in a future post, but it is important to reference it here. This was an idea, primarily in Europe and the US but it was also adopted in Japan, that there were two spheres: the public, of work and politics dominated by men, and the private, of the home and family dominated by women. This was less the case for working class women - working class women, and children, regularly worked in factories or other industries. In 1882, women comprised three-quarters of textile workers in Japan, and these figures were replicated across industrial societies. Factory life was hard regardless of age and gender - to save costs owners allowed poor and dangerous conditions to flourish. Injury and death was common, and reformers largely focused on child and female labour when criticising poor working conditions. In 1911 the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York burnt down killing 146 garment workers, of which 123 were women, which caused outrage and the laws passed in order to improve work conditions. Women were not passive in this. E. Patricia Tsurumi has discussed how women resisted sexual abuse and poor work conditions through go-slows, strikes, running away (over 60% of Kanebo mill workers between 1905 and 1915 did so), and singing insulting songs: The owner and I are like spinning machine thread/ Easily tied, but easily broken. 

New Cultural Worlds

Carnegie Hall in 1910

An emergence of a new class with purchasing power created a new and exciting world. As argued by Eric Hobsbawm, the home 'was the quintessential bourgeois world, for in it...could the problems and contradictions of his society be forgotten or artificially eliminated'. The domestic sphere emerged to ensure that the home remained central in society - this is especially prevalent in Japan when Meiji reformers after 1868 cast the nation as one family. In Britain, Christmas was redeveloped to be about family just as much as Christ; Christmas trees, songs, and dinners were meant to symbolise the warmth of the family. The public, both bourgeois and working, looked to Queen Victoria - firmly out of political life the royals served as something to emulate, so the German Prince Albert introducing the German tradition of Christmas trees to his family was adopted by everyone. Wealthier women could work before marriage in clerical employment, but they were expected to give this up when they got married. It is notable that these women also became reformers. City life was seen as breeding sin, vice, and poverty, so they formed organisations to tackle this. The Women's Christian Temperance Movement in the US is a good example. The first suffragettes, like Emmeline Pankhurst in the UK, were also moneyed women, and they aimed to use their position to gain the vote. Clothing has always been used to signify class, and capitalism continued this trend. However, new consumption allowed those who could afford it to dress like the wealthy. This was even the case at the fringes of capitalism. Jean and John Comaroff have discussed how, before colonial rule, Tswana royals in southern Africa controlled access to European clothing and wore it to meet with Europeans. Entertainment could now be purchased. Poor and wealthy went to shows, sometimes together to the scandal of society, and holidays emerged. The Rokumeikan in Japan became a scene where elite could sip drinks and do the waltz combining European and Japanese formal wear. New and old elites started making contacts for the first time - aristocrats had to allow nouveau riche into their circles, and they became the patrons of culture. Andrew Carnegie sponsored the construction of venues, like Carnegie Hall, and even expeditions to discover dinosaurs. 1916 saw oil tycoon John Rockefeller become the first billionaire, and financier J.P. Morgan, supposedly, joked that, when asked how much it costs to own a yacht, replied 'if you have to ask, you can't afford it'.

Empire and Capitalism

Khama III, Chief of the Bamangwato and Sir Albert Spicer, London Missionary Society Treasurer

Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin famously stated that imperialism was the final stage of capitalism, Hannah Arendt argued they marched hand in hand. Regardless, empire and capitalism were intrinsically linked. Colonial rule saw the economies of colonised societies to geared towards the export of raw materials and the import of finished goods - as late as the 1950s Britain tried to make nut production the crop of Tanganyika in east Africa. Although it is an exaggeration to say that Britain broke the thumbs of Bengali textile weavers, Britain did break Bengal's textile production to prevent competition. As we saw when we looked at British rule in India, key parts of the Indian continent was converted to the production of raw materials, primarily cotton, in what Romesh Chandra Dutt in 1902 described as the 'drain theory'. Britain had prevented the development of an Indian economy 'draining' it of resources. This had devastating direct consequences. When crops failed, as they were prevented from growing crops on land for cotton or saffron, it created devastating famines - a tenth of Orissa's population died in the 1865-6 famine, 3.5 million died in Madras and a million in Mysore in the devastating 1876-8 famine. While capitalism prevented famines during crop failure in Europe, it made it far worse in India. Capitalism was often used as a way for colonial expansion - Britain used opium to edge its way into China, and Britain and France used loans to Egypt in order to enforce their hegemony, and the US used companies to oust governments in Central America. Meanwhile, Leopold II of Belgium formed a company to rule the Congo for him. Today's Democratic Republic of the Congo has its shape due to traders setting up stations along rivers to best monopolise rubber and ivory. The Congo Free State, similarly, saw some of the worst atrocities in colonialism where Congolese were brutally enslaved, beaten, and killed in order to extract resources. A leather whip, the viboko, became the symbol of Belgian rule as Congolese were forced to work over 80 hours a week in poor conditions. Elsewhere, there were hopes to bring the colonised into a capitalist market. The work of the Comaroffs is especially interesting in this regards. The London Missionary Society (LMS) in southern Africa particularly tried to introduce consumerism, linking consumerism to Christian faith. Tswana were encouraged to buy European clothing as a sign of faith, and Tswana, in turn, adapted it for themselves - children and unmarried women wore pre-Christian clothing and wore European later. I want to discuss this more in our next World History post as we've just scratched the surface of colonialism and imperialism here.

The Origins of Modern Socialism

Marx and Engels

Conditions created by capitalism, although it brought benefits, it also brought intense suffering. Poverty, disease, and alcoholism were just some of the problems which capitalism either caused or accentuated. There were reformers who hoped to relieve the poor, such as York confectioner Seebohm Rowntree, but others rejected socialism entirely. Instead of private individuals owning means of production workers should own it - this was socialism. As we've already mentioned, some form of socialism have existed in some form across the world and history - Peruvian Marxists have argued that the Inca were 'feudal communists' as they did not use markets. Regardless, the first of the modern socialists emerged with the 'Utopian socialists' like Charles Fourier, Robert Owen, and Henri de Saint-Simon, although George Lichtheim describes them as 'doctrinaires' instead. These socialists argued that self-governing communities should be formed based on egalitarian ideas - Fourier is believed to have coined the term 'feminism' and advocated for homosexual emancipation. However, utopian socialists were later criticised by a new generation of socialists for being utopian. The most notable of these were the 'scientific socialists' of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Engels in particular in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880) argued that utopians created new ideas with no practical way in achieving them, whereas 'scientific socialists' looked at real world conditions and developed theory from there. Marx was born into a German Jewish family (which converted to Christianity to avoid antisemitic laws), and had a long history of radical politics. He was influenced by philosopher Georg Wilhelm Hegel and adapted his ideas of dialectical materialism. Human history was a conflict of classes driven by ideas, a thesis combats and antithesis before reaching a synthesis which, in turn, forms its own antithesis. Engels was the son of a German factory owner, and became upon seeing the horrific conditions of his father's Manchester factory became radicalised. Mary Burns, an Irish worker in his father's factory, greatly influenced his views, and in 1845 wrote The Condition of the Working Class in England. Marx and Engels became close friends and regularly worked together joining the Communist League. Inspired by the 1848 revolts Marx and Engels wrote their most influential piece - The Communist Manifesto - setting out their ideas in a way for workers to easily access.

In France, a different theorist emerged called Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who rejected the idea of the state entirely - Marx and Engels had advocated the proletariat, the producing class, seizing the state in order to bring about socialism. In 1840 his text What is Property? declared that 'Property is Theft', and that rejecting property and state could the proletariat be liberated. He declared, as well, that he was an 'anarchist', but, unlike later anarchists, he believed that markets could exist under socialism. Also, he was very antisemitic and sexist, so much so that he was denounced by many other anarchists, although he did state that 'In my ideal society I would be guillotined as a conservative'. Meanwhile, a Russian theorist, who became involved in the 1848 Czech Rebellion, made his way to France - Mikhail Bukanin. Bukanin was influenced by Proudhon but rejected the idea of having a market in any form. Louis Blanqui, meanwhile, controversially argued that a small cabal should take control of the state to aid the working peoples. Despite their clashes, Marx and Bukanin helped form the International Workingmen's Association, better known as the First International, in 1864 uniting all socialists and trade unions in order to plan out revolution. However, it was deeply divided and women were barred until 1865. In 1867 Harriet Law became the first female member, but she remained its only female member.

The Paris Commune

1871 proved to be the most important year in leftist history. Louis Napoleon declared war on Prussia but was roundly defeated and abdicated leaving France in disarray. The peoples of Paris rose up, and a crowd of women marched upon the local barracks seizing cannons and weapons. Leftist journalist Louis Delescluze and Polish officer Jaroslaw Dabrowski were elected to lead the newly formed Paris Commune. Proudhonists, Blanquists, libertarian socialists, and scientific socialists made up the ideology of the Paris Commune, and this is shown by their policies. Guillotines were symbolically burnt to show a break with the violent French Revolution, the Church and state were declared to be separate, the Louvre was turned into a arms factory, the Vendome Column depicting Napoleon was torn down, and workers given control over companies. Women were integral to the Commune where Louise Michel became one of the most influential figures in the revolt, and the Union des femmes pour la défense de Paris et les soins aux blessés was formed by socialist bookbinder Nathalie Lemel and Russian exile Elisabeth Demitrieff. The Women's Union demanded women's education, divorce, suffrage, and an end to capitalism. The Commune was very international - French, German, Russian, Spanish, and even Algerian individuals joined together in protecting the Commune. However, when the French Third Republic got together intense street fighting began and the Commune was brutally crushed. Afterwards, the First International became heavily divided over why the Paris Commune failed. Marx in The Civil War in France (1871) argued that the communards were too quick to dismantle the state, if they had taken it over they could have better defended themselves. Meanwhile, anarchists like Bukanin argued that it failed as they left too much of the state intact - no one took over the Bank of France which then funded the French army. Marx kicked the anarchists out of the First International, and since then the left has been divided between Marxists and anarchists. Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck commented that 'Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!'

Developments with Socialism after 1871

A collection of Japanese anarchists including Osugi Sekae and Ito Noe

Anarchism and what would become Marxism would continue to develop after 1871. Marx and Engels continued expanding their ideas - Engels released his Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and Marx would eventually release his very influential Das Kapital. Marx's ideas were always changing and he rejected the term 'Marxism' as it implied that he had the answers - he believed people should start with his ideas. Marx and Engels were also keen to dispel cult of personalities which occasionally cropped up. However, the rift with the anarchists was never healed and anarchists were barred from the Second International when it was formed in 1889. Anarchism similarly developed - a Russian aristocrat Peter Kropotkin - would become the most influential anarchist thinker helping influence anarcho-communism, and Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta helped influence anarcho-syndicalism. Marxism and anarchism went beyond their roots with European male thinkers as new thinkers and activists applied their ideas to new situations. For example, Russian Marxist Alexandra Kollontai blended Marxism and feminism, and is seen as the founder of Scandinavian feminism for her activism in the region during World War One. Similarly, Rosa Luxemburg and Clara Zetkin in Germany would try and combat sexism in the labour movement, and try to apply class emancipation to the suffrage movement. Across the world activists blended local ideas with new ideas - Peter Marshall has argued that Mohandas Gandhi was even inspired by anarchism. Swami Vivekananda reinterpreted the Bhagavad Gita to craft it as a libertarian text which future anarchists, like Aurobindo Ghose, would build upon. Japanese censors prevented the translation of Marxist texts, but Kotuku Shusui managed to escape censors by translating anarchist texts - it took until the 1920s for Lenin to be translated into Japanese! Kotuku asserted that anarchism fit with Daoism and Zen Buddhism helping form the paper Heimin. Feminist Ito Noe was an influential writer for the paper Bluestockings calling for female and class emancipation. In the 1920s the anarchist movement was brutally crushed, Ito was strangled in prison, so Marxism replaced anarchism, but, even today, the Japanese Communist Party has strong anarchist leanings. In 1905 the influential 'One Big Union' the International Workers of the World (IWW) was formed in Chicago. Founded by figures like Irish socialist James Connolly, Jewish thinker Emma Goldman, and 'Big Bill' Haywood, among others, it was inspired by anarchist thought to unite the labour movement. Russia was a site of both Marxist and anarchist movements, but the most significant figure to come from this was Vladimir Lenin. A history of secret societies due to state repression influenced what would become Marxist-Leninism. Lenin argued that the workers had to be guided by a revolutionary vanguardist party, as Lenin would succeed in establishing the Soviet Union Marxist-Leninism would become the dominant Marxist thought among twentieth-century communist parties.

Conclusion
The nineteenth and twentieth centuries have been greatly shaped by the clash between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism broke the old feudal world and forged a new revolutionary system, but, in doing so, created suffering for the masses. Socialism emerged as a force to resist and liberate the masses. Joyce Appleby argued that capitalism was a cultural system just as much as an economic one - as we have seen this is accurate. Capitalism formed new identities and cultural practices, as argued also by Marx and Engels the means of production forms a superstructure which all things in society comes from. Equally, socialism developed its own culture - as seen in the Paris Commune egalitarian and emancipatory ideas influenced a desire to emancipate workers and women. The anarchist-Marxist divide continues to divide the left - they even fought one another during the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars. These ideas continue to shape our lives today, and many of the debates we have now have been argued for the last century and a half. When we see a pop-up ad on the internet its origin lies back with Adam Smith in 1776, and the means to critique it with Marx.

The sources I have used are as follows:
-Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Capital, 1848-1875, (London: Abacus, 1975)
-Joyce Appleby, The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism, (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010)
-Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, (New York, NY: MetaLibri, 1776/2007)
-Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, (London: Penguin, 1848/2015)
-Karl Marx, Das Kapital, Volume 1, (London: Redwood Press, 1887/1971)
-Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, (London: Progress Publishers, 1880/1970)
-John and Jean Comaroff, Of Revelation and Revolution, Volume 2: The Dialectics of Modernity on a South African Frontier, (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1997)
-George Lichtheim, A Short History of Socialism, (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970)
-Colin Campbell, The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987)
-T.C.W. Blanning, 'The Commercialization and Sacralization of European Culture in the Nineteenth Century', in T.C.W. Blanning, (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern Europe, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 120-147
-E. Patricia Tsurumi, 'Female Textile Workers and the Failure of Early Trade Unionism in Japan', History Workshop, 18, (1984), 3-27
-Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, (London: Fontana Press, 1993)
-Kristin Ross, Communal Luxury: The Political Imaginary of the Paris Commune, (London: Verso, 2015)

Thank you for reading. Next time we will look at imperialism and colonialism, and how that affected colonised peoples. For other World History posts we have a list here. For future blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.

World History: The Revolutions of 1848

An 1848 painting by Horace Vernet depicting the revolt in Paris

Today we're looking at the last event in what Eric Hobsbawm characterised as being in the 'Age of Revolution'. Later named the 'Springtime of Peoples' beginning in February 1848 revolution swept over Europe - they remain the most widespread revolutionary wave in European history. From nobles to labouring poor the masses rose up against autocracy and inequality, but most were crushed within the year resulting in even more autocratic regimes. However, the ideas of 1848, and the consequences of 1848, would continue on in Europe for much longer.

Origins

Europe in the 1840s was a time of transition. German democrat Victor von Unruh stated that 'We live in transitional times. The old has not yet been overcome, the new is still being born.' The legacy of the French Revolution lived on with its ideas of 'liberty, equality, and brotherhood', as well as the new European order created by the Congress of Vienna. Austrian diplomat Klemens von Metternich helped create a post-Napoleon order where conservative, absolutist powers of Austria, Russia, and Prussia aimed to crush potentially subversive ideas of liberalism, republicanism, socialism, and even nationalism. Regardless these ideas continued to flourish. In 1830 a revolution toppled the autocratic and conservative Bourbon monarchy in France leading to the rise of the July Monarchy under the constitutional monarch Louis-Philippe; however, this monarchy was still repressive and few people could vote and there was another failed revolt in 1832 which featured heavily in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. More radical socialists emerged across Europe and major radicals, such as Karl Marx, were regular sent into exile. National identity started to emerge in divided Germany and Italy, as well as the multi-ethnic Austrian Empire. Metternich even tried to use this to his advantage - when Hungarian liberal and nationalist Louis Kossuth was elected to the Diet in the 1830s Metternich ensured that the government started supporting Croatian intellectual Ljudevit Gaj. However, when southern Slav nationalism grew this was withdrew in 1842. The conservative order was being challenged long before 1848 - revolts in France in 1830 and 1832, Galician peasants rose up in 1846, in 1847 bread riots swept Germany, and periodically Britain saw a series of protests by the Chartists who wanted increased suffrage and democracy. 

Eugene Delacroix's Liberty guiding the People depicting 1830

Economic and social issues also played a role in the origins of 1848. Populations started rapidly growing, especially in the cities, but there were issues thanks to harvest failures. This created a domino effect of economic decline - food prices rose, people spent less on manufactured goods, businesses started to collapse and so did the banks. Of course people are aware of inequality when times are good, but it is harder for autocratic regimes to justify themselves when everyone is poorer. Thanks to the Industrial Revolution demographics and economics started changing. Rising industrialisation caused more people to move to the cities, and balance of power shifted. As argued by von Unruh Europe was in transition - using a Marxist stance Europe was transitioning from feudalism to capitalism, or an early-modern economy to our present capitalist one. The old society was giving way to a new one, and naturally problems arose from that. Cholera epidemics are a good example - squalid cities changed thanks to industrialisation made cholera run rampant but states found it hard to deal with them.

Outbreak of Revolt - in Italy

Revolt in Palermo

Often we view the 1848 Revolts as starting in Paris, and the Parisian revolt did offer the spark for continent wide revolt. However, in January our first revolt broke out on Milan. Italy was divided by various states and under the Austrian protection, so nationalism played a role. Austria started taxing Italian states so Milanese nobles started boycotting tobacco on New Year's Day- the most lucrative tax. To frustrate the Milanese the Austrian garrison were encouraged to smoke and on January 3 an Austrian soldiers scuffled with Milanese citizens after a soldier started smoking in someone's face. The 'tobacco riot' led to the deaths of six and the wounding of fifty, and in Venice liberals were arrested in fear that they would also agitate. Not long after a revolt broke out in Sicily. Seeing reforms in Rome by Pius IX and the 'fiercely independent' islanders begrudging the Bourbon monarchy in Naples they decided to celebrate King Ferdinand II's birthday. They built barricades, unfurled an Italian tricolour, and declared 'Long live Italy, the Sicilian Constitution and Pius IX'. Peasants soon joined the revolt and a General Committee was formed under Ruggero Settimo. Hearing the revolt in Sicily the people took to the streets in Naples. Soon enough revolt spread to the Papal States. The once reformist pope Pius IX had started slowing liberal reforms and his own civic guard joined the masses. The revolt in Rome eventually became far more radical, largely thanks to events abroad, and in February 1849 the future unifiers of Italy, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Aurelio Saffi and Giuseppe Mazzini, declared the Roman Republic. In France, the revolt was always far more radical.

France

Paris was always a cultural hub of Europe, and there was a joke stating 'When France sneezed Europe caught a cold'. It was thanks to the more radical nature of the French revolt which allowed 1848 to spread. It is quite possible that Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto in inspiration from the French revolt. Despite being a constitutional monarchy - and many radicals like Marx, and anarchists including Mikhail Bukharin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon calling it home at some times - the legacy of 1789 made the monarchy very restrictive. Prime Minister Francois Guizot was just one politician who ensured that political discussion remained silenced - insulting the king was banned and one cartoonist joked that pears should be banned as Louis-Philippe resembled one. The suffrage was also very small - only 250,000 could and all were men of wealth. As public meetings were banned 'banquets' were held instead, and Guizot banning of a banquet on 22 February began the revolt. The National Guard, composed of middling and petty bourgeois individuals, joined students and workers (also women) causing a crisis for the Guizot ministry - they had just lost their guard. Guizot resigned, Louis-Philippe panicked and abdicated, and a provisional government was set up in the Hotel de Ville. Although those who made up the representatives were mainly wealthy men their politics were diverse: moderate republicans, dynastic opponents, and even socialists including Louis Blanc and a metalworker called Albert. As what would characterise the 1848 Revolutions after brief success division would splinter the revolt.

Barricades during the June Days

Workers, socialists, and Jacobins feared that 1848 would be a repeat of 1830 - when Louis-Philippe abdicated his son, the Comte de Paris, was made king. Jacobin intellectual, Francois Raspail, marched onto the Hotel on February 25 with a workers' society and got the delegates to declare the Second Republic. Louis and Albert, meanwhile, organised a commission of workers' delegates in the Luxembourg palace to prevent worker exploitation, but it was far less powerful than the Hotel de Ville filled with wealthier individuals. Radical press, political clubs, and the National Guard campaigned for universal manhood suffrage allowing women to become increasingly politicised. Why should only men benefit from the new revolution? Women's clubs and the paper, Voix de Femmes, demanded female suffrage but little came of it. Elections for the new Assembly brought moderates to power angering workers outside of Paris. Louis Blanc had formed National Workshops in order to combat unemployment, but his resignation and failure to properly challenge the issue let the Assembly to start closing them. Angry radicals and workers rose up on June 23 in the 'June Days', but unlike in February the National Guard did as the government wished. Led by Louis Cavaignac the National Guard (numbering 40,000) clashed with even more workers and their families. 10,000 were killed (mostly workers) and 4,000 insurgents exiled to Algeria in what political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville described as 'a class struggle, a sort of servile war'. Marx described the Second Republic as 'the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the sabre'. The French Revolt spread quickly across Europe thanks to the newly emerged modern press and telegraph. American charge d'affairs in Vienna William H. Stiles stated that it 'fell like a bomb amid the states and kingdoms of the Continent: and, like reluctant debtors threatened with legal terrors, the various monarchs hastened to pay their subjects the constitutions which they owed them.'

Habsburg Empire in Revolt

The Habsburg ruled Austrian Empire was prime for revolt. It was struggling to industrialise, intensely conservative, autocratic, and starting to be divided by emerging nationalism. Revolution was proven to be contagious when Metternich resigned. Telegraphs and the Augsburger Zeitung brought news of the abdication of Louis-Philippe to the Austrian Empire, and in the Hungarian Diet Lajos Kossuth, whom we met earlier, declared that 'the pestilent air [of Habsburg absolutism]...dulls our nerves and paralyses our spirit' and that Hungary should be 'independent, national and free from foreign interference'. Kossuth wasn't too radical - he advocated keeping the Emperor as the King of Hungary. Students at the University of Vienna started petitioning for freedom of the press, religion, speech and teaching with participation in government, and a new Germany. In March they started protesting and were joined by workers. Workers, students, men, and women clashed with troops in Vienna and the government decided to dismiss the hated Metternich who fled to Britain. Metternich's resignation opened the floodgate for revolution: Hungarians started moving towards independence, Czech students protested in Prague and formed barricades demanding the implementation of Czech and possible independence, German Jews in Prague (like Ignaz Kuranda in Grenzboten) tried to defend the German minority and Jewish rights, and in Galicia (now Ukraine and Poland) demanded Ukrainian to be taught and implemented. As we shall see, the Habsburg revolts soon became overtaken by counterrevolution.

Revolt in Germany

The Frankfurt Assembly

Like Italy, what would become Germany was divided by various states united by language and a customs union called the Zollverein. The two main powers were Prussia and Austria - the two conservative powers of Central Europe. Inspired by France revolt first broke out in 'Third Germany', the various German states that weren't Prussia or Austria, first in Baden. A common occurrence in these revolts was a rural-urban divide which played out in Baden - attempts to entice peasants failed when they asked 'What does freedom of the press mean to us? Freedom to eat is what we want.' In Cologne the Communist League encouraged artisans to demonstrate in March and across the Rhine insurgents attacked steamships which, in turn, caused propertied liberals to encourage reform. At the start of March Prussia's capital of Berlin saw revolution - students, artisans, and tradespeople gathered in the Tiergarten clashing with troops. Unexpectedly, Frederick William IV agreed to a constitution, free press, and a new assembly - after seeing the same masses who toppled Louis-Philippe and Metternich he feared the same would happen. Clashes still happened causing him to remove the troops and many liberals were soon elected into the new assembly. 

Nationalists, both liberal and radical, hoped to use the 1848 Revolutions to unite Germany so began organising the Frankfurt Assembly - organised in May it was an attempt to unite all of Germany. When we get to nationalism we will again see how early German nationalism could be quite inclusive - if you lived in a German state you were a German in their eyes which caused leading Czech nationalist Frantisek Palacky to reject the offer to attend stating that he spoke Czech, not German. Liberals overwhelmingly were represented in the Frankfurt Assembly - most came from wealthier backgrounds including lawyers, publishers, businessmen (specifically men), and industrialists. The Assembly saw both moderation and radicalism - all were deemed German, Jews were emancipated, and freedom of the press, religion, and speech were guaranteed, but universal suffrage was initially rejected, women were not emancipated, and they wanted Frederick William to be king. The Assembly failed through division between moderates and radicals, and Frederick William refused to accept 'a crown from the gutter'. 

Other Revolts

There are many different revolts which took place in 1848 so we'll just cover a few of them.

Poland - Poland had been divided between several states (Prussia, Russia and Austria) by the end of the 1790s but, of course, this did not destroy Polish national identity. Due to this it was difficult for a Polish national movement to emerge across all the former territories, and as a result other states helped crush revolts. In 1830 Polish nationalists rose up in Russia so Prussia helped crush the revolt. Poland was also being colonised by Prussian farmers and the Prussian state even reversed their antisemitic policies in just that area. To build support among Polish Jews against Poles Prussia started emancipating them - an irony considering in the west Prussia was implementing more antisemitic policies. Thanks to events in Berlin in Poland benefited - exiles could return, prisoners were released, and increased autonomy was granted. Polish reformers refused to work with Jews or Germans alienating them so when an uprising did take place it could only find support from Polish communities. The Prussian army then managed to defeat the uprising and all grants of autonomy were scrapped.

The 'March Days' in Stockholm

Scandinavia and Switzerland - Scandinavia was not immune from revolt. Protesters in Stockholm rioted on March 18 demanding a constitution which were soon dispersed. Denmark in January had been facing liberal and peasant protests so these led to marches for a constitutional monarchy in Copenhagen when a new king came to the throne. He quickly signed a constitution granting their demands, however, Schleswig-Holstein was left unmentioned. This was a Danish-German duchy under Denmark's rule. Events in Denmark and Germany caused the duchy to rise up hoping to come under German rule after the Danish constitution hoped to put the duchy under Copenhagen's direct rule. The First Schleswig War broke out as German states battled the Danish over the duchy - an 1852 treaty left the duchy free but under Danish supervision. Meanwhile, in Switzerland there were fears that the recently ended civil war could flare up again. The Catholic cantons, wanting to escape Protestant rule, had tried to secede in a short civil war. Wanting to avoid this a new constitution was quickly made forming a federal state which ended the near independence of the cantons.

Ireland - For a long time Ireland had been ruled by Britain and a settle community had emerged. Protestant farmers from the 1600s had dominated Ireland largely from Dublin and Ulster at the expense of the Catholic population. Attempts to enforce English, British laws and customs, and years of repression had led to various nationalist movements. One such was the Young Ireland movement. Ireland also faced genocide in the 1840s - failure of the potato crop caused a famine which the British government did little to solve. Making matters worse, fearing the famine would increase nationalist urges, the Crime and Outrage Bill was passed in 1847. On 29 July seeing the uprisings the Young Irelanders rose up - it was soon crushed.

Where did it not Hit?

Chartists in London

Revolution did not sweep over Europe equally. Only the most democratic and industrialised states, and the least industrialised and most autocratic escaped full blown revolt. Popular protests in Belgium were diffused, much to the dismay of radicals, by a quick expansion of suffrage, and likewise in the Netherlands the king issued a quick liberal constitution. As states had quickly responded this undercut radical demands before they could take root in public discourse. Meanwhile, on April 10 the quasi-socialist Chartists organised a protest of between 50,000-100,000 at Kennington Common in London. The Chartists were a working-class movement wanting to expand the electorate, introduce secret ballots, abolish property qualifications for suffrage and political office, and payment for Members of Parliament. However, thanks to previous expansion of the suffrage, and their association with socialism, had left the Chartists isolated, and news from France alienated the rest of the country from possible domestic radicals. As a result the Chartists were soon dispersed. In Russia we did not see revolt because of the strength of absolutism and a lack of industry. News of revolt found it harder to spread to Russia so it could be quickly silenced, and nationalist movements (like with the Poles) found it hard to communicate. To organise a movement when you cannot properly coordinate - it is no coincidence that when Russia properly started industrialising from the 1850s that revolts were more common. Russia even helped crush some of the revolts in other states.

Why did they Fail?

Casino Savorelli after bombardment by French forces

One key reason explains why 1848 failed: division. A common trend was that when more radical, often urban working-class, voices started taking hold the liberal moderates sided with conservative forces. Following the June Days the provisional government used a now conservative National Guard to oust radical voices, and the elections in December even brought Napoleon's nephew, Louis, to power. In Germany the Frankfurt Assembly was intensely divided between moderates and radicals, as well as what Germany should be. There were advocates for Grossdeutschland (including Austria), and Kleindeutschland (excluding Austria); Catholics didn't want to be under the rule of a Protestant state (and vice versa); and moderates wanted a monarchy compared to radicals which didn't. Prussia soon ignored the Assembly issuing a 'monarchist' constitution, and after defeating the revolution in its own borders Austria turned on the southern German states - the biggest supporters of the Assembly. In Italy the rural peasantry had been excluded from enfranchisement so in Naples when the king attempted to reverse the constitution the peasants refused to help the urban bourgeoisie allowing them to be defeated. The radical Roman Republic initially won support by abolishing hated taxes, employing unemployed labourers to repair monuments and slums, and dividing land among the peasants, but their anti-clericalism alienated the religious masses. Appealing to his own conservative Catholic supporters Louis Napoleon sent troops to destroy the Republic and restore the pope. The Austrian military soon ousted revolutionaries in Italy, Vienna, Bohemia and Hungary crushing the revolt there. Again a moderate-radical, national, and urban-rural divide aided in this - Magyar gentry helped organise against Budapest radicals who, in turn, had allowed the Austrian army take Vienna. Emperor Ferdinand abdicated in favour of his young nephew, Franz Joseph, who would rule until the end of the First World War.

Conclusion and Legacies

This cartoon effectively shows the results of 1848: German princes hide behind Prussia sweeping revolt away, revolutionaries fleeing across the Atlantic, Austria and Magyar gentry dismember Hungary, and Britain mocks the continent ignoring starving people in its own borders

On the surface 1848 was indeed a 'Springtime of Peoples': a brief time in the sun. Poles, Germans, Danes, Italians, Magyars, Czechs, Slovaks, Jews, Serbs, Croats, Romanians, and Irish had all protested or revolted for autonomy as ideas of liberalism and socialism dominated discourses. However, divisions between nationalities, class, and location spelled their end - Robert Gildea has argued that if France had possibly looked outward they might have found more success. Despite Marx's and Engels' call for 'workers of the world unite!' the workers were divided, The Communist Manifesto little read until after the revolution, and working-class revolt was crushed. Louis Napoleon, who would soon crown himself emperor, Franz Joseph and Frederick William would ensure conservative forces dominated Europe - Prussia's conservative powerhouse Otto von Bismarck entered politics just after 1848. In the long-term 1848 would see success. Nationalism and socialism soon came to dominate the late-nineteenth century: socialists soon came to be a major force (especially in Germany), a working-class revolt broke out in Paris in 1871, Italy and Germany unified, and new national movements emerged. Austria initially seemed unstoppable but gave way - martial law was eventually lifted, liberal reforms started to be passed, and national groups were given autonomy. In 1867 Austria became Austria-Hungary to reflected the strength of nationalism. 1848 was a turning point for Europe, and the 'Springtime of Peoples' was not so short-lived.

The sources I have used are as follows:

-Robert Gildea, Barricades and Borders: Europe, 1800-1914, Second Edition, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)

-Mike Rapport, 1848: Year of Revolution, (London: Abacus, 2008)

-Priscilla Robertson, Revolutions of 1848: A Social History, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1952)

-Frank Eyck, (ed.), The Revolutions of 1848-49, (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1972)

-David Blackbourn, The Fontana History of Germany, 1780-1918, (London: Harper Collins, 1997)

-'1848: Year of Revolution', BBC In Our Time Podcast, 19/01/2012

-Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Capital, 1848-1875, (London: Abacus, 1975)

-Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, (London: Penguin, 1848/2015)

Thank you for reading. The next World History post will look at abolitionism, and the successes and failures of the end of slavery. For other World History posts we have a list. For future blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.

World History: The Industrial Revolution

Today on World History we're looking at perhaps the most important event in human history, and possibly was most vital in creating the world we live in today: the Industrial Revolution. Eric Hobsbawm characterises the Industrial Revolution with the French Revolution as the 'Dual Revolutions' which would shape the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Thanks to this a series of very important words were coined, or adapted, to describe the new world including: industry, industrialist, factory, middle class, working class, capitalism, socialism, aristocracy, scientist, engineer, proletariat, utilitarian, statistics, sociology, ideology, and journalism. Quoting Hobsbawm 'To imagine the modern world without these words...is to measure the profundity of the revolution which broke out between 1789 and 1848, and forms the greatest transformation in human history since the remote times when men invented agriculture and metallurgy, writing, the city and the state.' Within a century areas of the world became primarily urban over rural, and the world's environment physically changed. The Industrial Revolution is seen as starting in Britain but there is a big question: why?

Why Britain?

Someone in the eighteenth century would not imagine that the Industrial Revolution would begin in Britain. China had a long history of steel and coal mining, canal construction and even paper money; India's economy had a thriving cotton industry; and (as identified by Hobsbawm) both France and the German lands had a longer history of scientific and economic institutions, like the Ecole Polytechnique in France or the Bergakademie in Prussia. Rhinelanders in the 1300s had learnt to smelt iron and blast furnaces had been used since 1600. Hobsbawm argued that industrialisation didn't require advanced physics to happen - James Watt's steam engine had used knowledge of physics that had been known for a century, and its relatively simplistic operation means that it is still used today.  There has been a contentious debate about the origins of industrialisation in Britain which in the past included a misreading of the Asian economies, or the argument that something was 'unique' to Britain - 1905 Max Weber, one of the 'founders', of sociology argued that a 'Protestant work ethic' led to industrialising. However, this doesn't explain why it can be seen as starting in Britain and not Saxony or Prussia. Pat Hudson described it best, you cannot pick one factor as to why industrialisation began in Britain. A mix of reasons have been put forward and historians generally agree that a mixture of these allowed the emergence of industrialisation ranging from British laws and economics to empire to geographic luck. 

David Landes has identified two key factors enabling industrialisation in Britain: a favourable environment and resources. The resources is key; Britain had mines full of steel and especially coal in Wales, Scotland and northern England, including where I am from, Yorkshire. Importantly, the coal was close to the surface which made it accessible. Furthermore, Britain had many navigable rivers and, naturally being an island, a coast which allowed efficient movement of resources before the emergence of railways. His environmental arguments are heavily Eurocentric, however, but they do partially explain how industrialisation emerged. An absence of tolls, relative domestic stability, a relatively liberal market economy encouraging property rights, and laws allowing the quick emergence of companies helped influence rapid industrialisation. Hobsbawm and Hudson have also stressed Britain's colonial empire as influencing industry. A slave based economy in the Caribbean funnelled riches back to an elite in Britain who could then invest it, and the Caribbean accounted for 12% of English output between 1748 and 1776 alone. Demands of the Caribbean encouraged greater production. Hobsbawm focuses particularly on the British in India, and Stephen Broadberry and Bishnupriya Gupta have also focused on India. In the early 1700s Indian produced most of the world's textiles and had a vibrant export economy. Indian cotton production dwarfed the British production in Lancashire so to compete Britain needed to produce more, however, Indian wages were a fraction of what British wages were. In 1725 a labourer in London could earn a wage worth around 11 grams of silver per day compared to Delhi who earned barely 2 grams a day. Why Britain had such high wages is heavily contested, but the reason why it is important to bring it up is because normally if you wanted to increase productivity you hired more people. However, that would mean paying more high wages so new ways to increase productivity were needed. Although there are stories of East Indian Company officials breaking the thumbs of Bengali textile workers to break the Indian cotton industry - the story itself is likely a myth or mistranslation but Britain did 'deindustrialise' India to prevent Indian competition with British textiles. Finally, Hobsbawm places emphasis on the Enclosure Acts (1760-1830). Marx, and Hobsbawm as a Marxist, viewed the Enclosure Acts as being the birth of modern capitalism. Previously, unlike on the continent most of English land was communal or was 'common' where anyone could use it. The Enclosure Acts allowed individuals to buy this common, and largely unproductive, land which forced peasants to move from said land. As a result, this made a supply of labour readily available in new industries - especially cotton.

The Rise of Industrialisation

A spinning jenny

The exact origins of industrialisation in Britain are just as heavily debated as their origins. J.M. Roberts descried it best saying 'The men of the 'Industrial Revolution'...stood on the shoulders of innumerable craftsmen and artificers of pre-industrial times who had slowly built up skills and experience for the future.' However, the general consensus was that it took until after the Napoleonic Wars for industry to make a truly 'revolutionary' impact on society and economics. Weaving is a key industry which spearheaded the emergence of industrialisation - wages were relatively high and weavers, both men and women, could do it at home. Most of Britain's textile industry was in the North, especially in Lancashire. Albeit it was exhaustive and reliant on urine to bleach fabrics - that is until the creation of the flying shuttle in 1733 by John Kay. Previously four spinners were needed to use one weaver, now they only needed one. The flying shuttle allowed the creation of 'spinning jenny' (jenny being an abbreviation of engine) by James Hargreaves in 1764. By this time the East India Company now started ruling land in India allowing England to import a lot more cotton (1,755,580 kg in 1764 alone) so Hargreaves created the jenny to produce eight to twelve spools - later improvements allowed the jenny to produce up to 120 spools! It was so productive that other cotton manufacturers soon copied Hargreaves' design so he sued them - this would be a common trend throughout industrial history. By the time he died in 1776 over 20,000 spinning jennys were in operation across Britain. However, the yarn produced was fairly thin so in 1767 Richard Arkwright's water frame was invented to produce thicker yarn, and resulted in the rise of the factory as we would recognise it. The water frame needed water to work so naturally could only work in one area; factories had existed for a long time and in the early 1700s served as a way to keep workers together. Now factories served to house machines, and keep workers in one place. In the 1770s Samuel Crompton's spinning mule and Edmund Cartwright's power loom mechanised weaving - now thousands of pounds of cotton could be woven by only a few individuals. At its height Lancashire had over 50,000,000 spinning mules.

A drawing of Stephenson's Rocket

How were these mechanised looms powered? Water and rivers were a clear power source -watermills had been existence since ancient times across the world so why change a perfected system? However, not everywhere was next to a water source so different methods were needed. Thus, the steam engine came about. Linking to another aspect of the early industrialisation Thomas Newcomen in 1712 developed the steam engine, although steam engines had existed in some form long before then, in order to pump water from mines to access more coal, and sulphur. It formed a cycle - coal was burned to produce steam which powered the steam engine which was used to drain mines to access more coal. In 1776 Scottish engineer James Watt, whom the watt is named after, improved upon Newcomen's engine making it more efficient (although his first engine was huge being over 24 foot tall and had a danger of exploding) and we haven't really changed his design. Watt's steam engine has really been re-adapted over the next two centuries and we still use the design in everything from nuclear power to industrial boilers. Iron, especially cast iron, was always needed and slowly regions were adopting coke instead of charcoal in smelters, but to do so they needed more coal. A cycle was created: iron was needed so coal was mined which needed steam engines, which also needed coal, and to make steam engines one needed coal. Soon enough they all came together to create transport: Robert Trevithick in 1804 managed to create the first steam locomotive, ironically to move iron from the Penydarren Ironworks, in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales. In 1825 George Stephenson created the first railway for passengers, and the Liverpool-Manchester railway was opened in 1830. The US also innovated: as early as 1807 Robert Fulton (who also made the first submarine) managed to combine boats and steam to traverse the Hudson. Two years later the first steamboat went to sea. The Age of Steam had started to arrive.

Industrialisation Across the World

So far we have just discussed Britain but industrialisation happened across the world and continues to do so today. Europe used the colonised world as a way to get resources so prevented any large-scale attempts to industrialise these regions until after the Second World War. We'll discuss a few different regions now as most areas tried to industrialise in some way. Quite a few places, though, did bring in British engineers to help their industrialisation. 

Belgium

Belgium was the first state on the continent to start industrialising - it even started before its independence. By 1873 Belgium produced half as much iron as France and in 1850 consumed a lot more; in 1850 it consumed 90 pounds per inhabitant compared to 56 pounds in the US, 37 pounds in France, and 27 in Germany. Wallonia, the French-speaking south, had similar conditions to northern England, Wales, and Scotland - rich deposits of coal away from the traditional mercantile wealthy areas. Belgium did in twenty years what took Britain sixty: centres of industry like Liege, Seriang, and Charleroi produced tonnes of iron, zinc, coal, glass, and wool. Liege soon surpassed historic Ghent as Belgium's wealthy wool hotspot. It is not an exaggeration to say for its size and population Belgium became a leading industrial power, and the establishment of the Belgian Congo allowed the metropole to exploit the raw materials of the Congo in some of the most brutal example of colonialism in Africa. Wallonia quickly developed a vibrant trade union and socialist movement, so much so that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto in Brussels.

Germany

A painting of the town of Barmen in the 1870s

Industrialisation was not even in Germany as it was not a unified state until 1871. Industrialisation was strongest in the coal and iron rich Ruhr - by 1870 there were towns of over 1 million inhabitants. However, industrialisation was difficult - the three dozen entities all had different laws and policies, many states were hostile to urbanisation, and the power of junkers (landed aristocracy) in Prussia meant they were hostile to anything which would diminish their power. Industrialisation happened anyway. Reorganisation of agriculture allowed excess food production causing migration to the cities, the Zollverein economic union removed economic tariffs between the German states, the north (and Ruhr) had many available raw resources, the banks were powerful so could invest, and railways were soon linked to security. Under Otto von Bismarck the state even intervened to aid industrialisation and soon Germany became a major steel producer. Quickly coal production boomed - Ruhr coal output rose from 2.0 million short tons in 1850 to 22 in 1880 to 60 in 1900. It has been joked that Prussia, the state which largely unified Germany, was 'an army with a state' so naturally industries benefiting the army - like railways, shipping, and munitions - received favourable treatment. A big reason why Prussia was victorious over Austria in 1866 was because Prussia had an overwhelming industrial (and economic) advantage over Austria. 

The US

Building the Erie Canal

In the US industrialisation was heavily tied with the emergence of the market economy. In 1800 over 90% of Americans were rural whereas today this figure is the exact opposite. As Americans moved across the Appalachians they became increasingly isolated and were entirely reliant on their local communities. From 1800 to 1830 New England and North Atlantic states chartered more than 900 companies to build roads, and in 1806 Congress authorised the paving of a National Road from Maryland to the Old Northwest. Then Fulton managed to create the steamboat which revolutionised travel in the US. Now someone could travel from New Orleans to Pittsburg in a fraction of the time, and in 1825 the Erie Canal was completed connecting the Great Lakes to New York. Between 1787 and 1860 the central government spent around $60 million building canals, roads and harbours as individual states spent even more. The US would remain localised until after the Civil War but already communities were becoming increasingly less isolated. In 1844 Samuel Morse developed the telegraph which allowed messages to travel across an entire continent in minutes - within sixteen years 50,000 miles of telegraph lines were planted. In 1828 the first national railway was built between Baltimore and Ohio which would allow the US to truly be connected. By 1860 the railways covered 30,000 miles, more than the rest of the world. However, these railways, telegraphs, and industry were largely located in the North giving them an immense strategic advantage during the Civil War. There was also a dark side to American industry (some of which we'll discuss later). By the 1790s slavery was on its last legs in the South; it could not compete with foreign cotton production and tobacco farming had decimated the soil. In 1793 Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin which efficiently separated the seed from the cotton. It was now possible to efficiently grow cotton on a large scale which unfortunately saved slavery. The US even briefly reopened the Atlantic slave trade to accommodate an expansion in slavery and Native Americans were forced from their land in the South to make more land open to slavery. Similarly, railways allowed westward expansion which caused the displacement and genocide of Native Americans in the West.

Japan

Japan is an amazing case. In a decade Japan went from a society which has been described as feudal to an industrialised one. Since the early 1600s Japan had isolated itself from the European world but it faced a crisis when the US arrived and showed their strength against samurai armed with 200-year old muskets. How could Japan be so humiliated by this new state? In 1868 a group of young samurai overthrew the government in the name of the emperor in the 'Meiji Restoration'. The new leaders of Japan wanted to ensure that their state would not face the same fate as China - torn apart by rebels and foreign powers. Industrialisation was part of that, and they wanted to avoid what was happening in Egypt and the Ottoman Empire (which we'll get to). In 1871 Japanese officials were sent to the US and Europe in the Iwakura Mission to observe what was happening and learn how to utilise European sciences. The new Meiji leaders rejected foreign loans only taking one - to build an eighteen-mile railway line between Tokyo and Yokohama. By 1877 64 miles of railway had been constructed. Like the US Japan was eager to construct telegraph poles so by 1877 2,827 miles had been constructed. That same year a rebellion broke out, the Satsuma Rebellion, which rejected the Meiji reforms - like the US Civil War they were roundly defeated as the Meiji leaders could better organise thanks to railways and telegraphs. Of course, textiles were quickly became industrialised and capitalism emerged. 

Egypt and the Ottomans

The Suez Canal

From 1839 the Ottoman Empire, and the semi-independent Egypt, had tried to Westernise after seeing their humiliation during the Napoleonic invasion. Part of this was an attempt to industrialise. Across the Empire and Egypt schools based on French models were opened as well as small scale factories. These were especially prevalent in Egypt which had an extensive cotton economy - during the US Civil War Britain turned to Egypt for cotton and exports rose from 918,000 sterling in the 1850s to just over 10 million sterling a decade later. Egypt's crowning achievement, however, was the completion of the Suez Canal in 1869. Both looked to Japan as how to quickly Westernise, but Japan looked to them to see how not to Westernise. Egypt and the Ottomans were heavily reliant on foreign loans for their projects which resulted in giving over many key assets to Europeans. Extra-territoriality became common, and British and France used their loans to even take land from the Ottomans. As Britain comprised 80% of ship traffic through the Suez Canal in 1880 they were very keen to exert influence over Egypt - a revolt in 1881 gave Britain the excuse to invade and turn Egypt into a de facto member of the Empire.

The Second Revolution

Historians see the Industrial Revolution being split into two with a second starting in the second half of the nineteenth century - Hobsbawm characterises this as the 'Age of Capital'. What we often think of when we think of the Industrial Revolution comes from the Second Revolution. Steel has been seen as the industry which kicked off the Second Revolution; the development of hotter and more efficient furnaces in the 1850s and 1860s allowed greater quantities of steel to be produced from molten pig-iron like never before. The influence of early capitalism is disputed with the First Revolution but it cannot be denied in the Second. The Krupp family in Germany made a fortune from steel and coal production; the first US giant industrial companies like US Steel emerged; and Japanese zaibatsu (business conglomerates) dominated the political scene. The stock exchange now touched every aspect of everyday life so when a crash happened - like in 1890 - it could destroy the world economy. Oil tycoon John Rockefeller became the world's first billionaire in 1916. Many of the later industrialised countries, like Germany and Japan, did so as part of the Second Revolution. States were even willing to take part - Japan, Germany, Russia and even China saw state-sponsored industrial policies. Chemical and petroleum became the new dominant industries - Rockefeller became a millionaire thanks to oil. This Second Revolution became entwined with Empire. Africa's raw resources were one reason why Europe greedily carved up the continent and Britain formed what would become BP to monopolise Iranian oil. 

Industry and Society

Industry changed society more than any other movement since the development of agriculture. A general trend to urbanise is a common theme throughout world history but it skyrocketed thanks to industrialisation. In 1800 London, Paris and Berlin had populations of 900,000, 600,000, and 170,000 but by 1900 their populations rose to 4.7 million, 3.6 million, and 2.7 million. The same year Glasgow, Moscow, Vienna, and St. Petersburg also had populations exceeding a million. Industrial areas like the Ruhr in Germany or my own home of Yorkshire in England developed significant urban populations. In the cities a new urban class emerged - the working class. We still see the legacies of class divisions to this day. Workers from the Netherlands brought a nursery rhyme to my home town of Doncaster in the 1970s and the nursery rhyme resonated with the locals so much that it is taught in Yorkshire nurseries today:

Wind the bobbin up, Wind the bobbin up/Pull, pull, clap, clap, clap/ Wind it back again, Wind it back again/ Pull, pull, clap, clap, clap/ Point to the ceiling, point to the door/Point to the window, point to the door

Increasing efficiency in food production, the development of medicines, and fertilisers allowed life expectancy to increase although urban conditions, especially from the 1860s limited their potential. Industrialisation wasn't always well received. Luddism, a 'quasi-insurrectionary' movement according to E.P. Thompson, is an interesting example. Thanks to the Napoleonic Wars production needed to be increased which brought more mechanisation upsetting labourers - their jobs were now at stake. In Nottingham in northern England in 1811 industrial weavers were destroyed and the movement spread across Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, and Lancashire. Those attacking machines and burning mills were nicknamed Luddites, believed to be named after Ned Ludd who attacked two machines in a rage in 1799. This fear of being replaced by automation was not limited to this period, there would be the Swing Riots in the 1830s, or Britain and it really continues today. There was also opposition to industrialisation from elites. The emergence of an urban, industrial class threatened the authority of the landed elite and conservatives - in Japan several leaders opposed capitalism as it was believed to undermine 'Confucian values'. 

Children were regularly used in factories as labourers

Gender and the family was changed during industrialisation. Child labour was common across the industrialised world and in the mills of London children were expected to work with dangerous machines. It was not uncommon for children, or their parents, to be missing fingers or even limbs thanks to volatile machinery. The first child protection societies emerged to campaign against children working in these factories. Women also took part in manual labour despite the enduring stereotype that factory work was 'man's work'. Wages were low and families needed as money as they could. Of course, women's role in the working class shifted over time, place, class, and ethnicity. A working class Italian woman in Chicago would not be out of place in a factory but a married Japanese woman in Tokyo would be. It was common in Japan for society to expect a woman to leave manual labour when they married. In 1882 women were three-quarters of workers in textile factories so they were integral to the textile industry, but often they have been portrayed as submissive. Women could resist bad work conditions through various ways ranging from running away, 63-67% of mill hands in Kanebo between 1905 and 1915 did so, to work stoppages and strikes, and even singing. One song has the lyrics: The owner and I are like spinning machine thread/ Easily tied, but easily broken.

Capitalism and Socialism

I won't go into too much detail about this as I plan to do an entire World History post about capitalism and socialism. Modern ideas about capitalism and socialism emerged thanks to the Industrial Revolution - Hobsbawm sees the rise of capitalism as being tied to industrialisation. Previously, the non-aristocratic wealth owners in Europe and Asia had been merchants but the emergence of the factory allowed the industrialist to become the wealth owner. Vast concentrations of wealth in one factory now could allow an owner to become far wealthier than any merchant. As we saw in Japan capitalism directly threatened the old order - now individuals with no relation to traditional landed elite could hold power. Britain is a prime example of this clash. Several reform acts had to be passed to reflect the growth of cities like Manchester and Glasgow who had fewer seats in parliament compared to several rural areas with populations of less than five. British capitalists were also in favour of free trade which came to blows with its opponents with the Corn Laws - these laws were designed to protect British corn by imposing tariffs on foreign imports of corn and largely benefited the traditional landed elite. Even when the Irish Potato Famine killed a million, and it was clear that foreign grain was needed fast, parliament dragged its feet in repealing the Corn Laws. 

Marx and Engels: The 'Fathers of Communism'

Modern socialism emerged as a criticism of capitalism. Conditions in cities and factories were appalling everywhere - ghettos allowed the spread of disease, to save money factory owners would skip safety procedures and dock wages, and urban poverty was widespread as factory owners earned millions. Not all pro-worker movements, like the Chartists in Britain, were socialist and some socialists even rejected the new urban world, like Charles Fourier. Particularly in France socialists like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon started advocating that workers were the real producers, not the industrialists, and should therefore own the means of production. The most important figures to emerge from this thought are Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - the 'Fathers' of Communism. Marx was the son of a converted Jewish family who worked as a journalist as Engels was the son of a factory owner in Manchester. When it was the anniversary of Marx's 200th birthday I discussed their ideas, which you can read about here, so I will summarise them. Like Proudhon, they believed that workers were the true wealth producers being exploited by the capitalists and should rise up to eventually form a classless, moneyless society. Over the years their ideas have inspired others, like Rosa Luxembourg and Vladimir Lenin, and also been challenged by other members of the Left, such as by anarchist thinkers. The clashes between capitalists, socialists and aristocrats would come together in the Revolutions of 1848 - a topic for another day.

Criticisms of an Industrial World

Orphan Oliver and the workhouse in Dickens' Oliver Twist

There has always been an urban-rural divide, and this shall be seen when we look at the 1848 Revolutions. The poor living conditions instantly generated criticisms from a wide range of figures ranging from revolutionary socialists to Christian evangelists (and sometimes there were Christian socialist evangelists). Modern charity emerged as poor relief for the urban working class and the Salvation Army was formed in 1865 to 'save' London's working class. The city was seen as a corrupting influence - it is no mistake that most American prohibition groups targeted the city as a place where alcoholism corrupted. Women had their agency stripped from them in popular rhetoric; they were reduced to caricatures of the seductive prostitute luring 'good' men into sin, or innocent and pure figures being ruthlessly exploited and abused. Romanticism emerged looking back to an idealised pre-urban past. In Japan the rural samurai and peasant were restructured to represent the ideal Japanese lifestyle, and European writers tried to show the horrors of the present. The orphan Oliver is abused and cast out into the cold streets of London in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist (1839), and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818) showed the horrors of what modern science could bring. These ideas had long lasting ramifications. J.R.R. Tolkein blamed the horrors of the First World War on industrialisation and it is reflected in The Lord of the Rings: the hellish and industrial Isengard and Mordor releases its corrupted armies threatening the ideal rural Shire. When we looked at the Little Ice Age we looked at how global temperatures rose in the 1800s ending the Ice Age - it rose thanks to humans, not natural means. The Industrial Revolution's immense release of carbon dioxide and monoxide into the atmosphere which warmed global temperatures and unfortunately that trend has sped up. The Revolution brought humanity into modernity, but it also killed the environment.

Conclusion

The Industrial Revolution is undoubtedly the most important event in history since the adoption of farming. Now, most of humanity lives in cities and the reason why you can read this is because of the Revolution. Modern economies, politics, and societies emerged thanks to the Industrial Revolution. However, it set in motion the factory system which harmed millions up to this day - sweat shops differ very little to the factories of the 1860s. The pollution created by industrialisation has continued and increased, and world leaders are reluctant to act. Industrialisation brought us our current lifestyles but it might kill us. From the air we breathe to how to travel and how we eat the Industrial Revolution has shaped it all - for better or for worse industrialisation has touched us all.

The sources I have used are as follows:

-J.M. Roberts, The New Penguin History of the World, Fifth Edition, (London: 2007, Penguin)

-Pat Hudson, The Industrial Revolution, (London: Edward Arnold, 1992)

-Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution, 1789-1848, (London: Abacus, 1962)

-Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Capital, 1848-1875, (London: Abacus, 1975)

-David Landes, The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present, Second Edition, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)

-Stephen Broadberry and Bishnupriya Gupta, 'Cotton Textiles and the Great Divergence: Lancashire, India, and Shifting Competitive Advantage, 1600-1850', IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc, (2005), 1-44

-E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, (London: Penguin, 1963)

-Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty! An American History, Fourth Edition, (New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 2014)

-Marius Jansen, The Making of Modern Japan, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002)

-E. Patricia Tsurumi, 'Female Textile Workers and the Failure of Early Trade Unionism in Japan', History Workshop, 18, (1984), 3-27

-William Cleveland and Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East, Sixth Edition, (Philadelphia, PA: Westview Press, 2016)

Thank you for reading and I hope you found it interesting. Next World History we will look at the revolutions which swept Latin America bringing independence and look if they were really revolutionary. For other World History posts please see our list, and for future blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.