Monthly Archives: February 2014

Consequences of the Industrial Revolution through “Silesian Weavers”

Posted on by

“A curse on this lying father-nation/ Where thrive only shame and degradation”

With a great deal of good always comes a fair amount of bad. So when the Industrial Revolution took off, along with the economy and development of machinery, the poor treatment of workers came to light. This neglect for the welfare of laborers is brought to attention by Heinrich Heine, author of “Silesian Weavers”. In this poem, Heine uses strong negative diction to impassion his audience, in turn sparking the development of a constitution for Prussia. Particularly striking word choices include the repetition of the word “curse”, “gloom-enveloped eyes”, “funeral shroud”, “dank rot”, and “cheerless”, among others. Heine uses these negative words to illustrate the mistreatment of laborers during the time. He points a finger at the government, in particular the king himself (“A curse on the king…/Who was not moved even by our grief”), in order to draw attention to the main cause of this degradation of workers. The quote at the very beginning of this post highlights the sentiments of Heine and his supporters during this time of ill-treatment. This particular line suggests that the nation has been reduced to a country that can only host shame and degradation, and no longer has a place for honor and respect in its labor system.

This situation was not exclusive to Silesia, but was prevalent throughout Europe during the Industrial Revolution. The poor treatment of workers ignited a revolution within the Industrial Revolution, a revolution of workers seeking respect. It inspired workers to pursue better treatment, working conditions, and rights.

Although in America and many parts of Europe, people work in the presence of humane conditions, American and European corporations run countless enormous factories in third-world, developing countries in which the workers are exploited, similar to what occurred during the Industrial Revolution. In these establishments, workers are paid close to nothing for hours of grueling, tedious labor. We do this because it ensures greater profit for our corporations. Obviously it is unjust, but why do countries repeat mistakes that have been made in the past? Is it because we have the power to domineer over less fortunate nations? Do these workers have the capability to ignite a movement against exploiting corporations, such as what occurred in Prussia? Why aren’t we taking more action against this exploitation of foreigners working for our companies? Is it because we feel removed, distant, and unconnected to these people because they are working thousands of miles away? We certainly have the resources and power to end this exploitation, but no great measures are being taken to end it.

Consequences of Industrialization

Posted on by

In H. Heine’s “The Silesian Weavers” he writes “A curse on this lying father-nation where thrive only shame and degradation, where every flower’s plucked ere it’s bloom and worms thrive in the dank rot and gloom- we’re weaving, we’re weaving!”

This passage exemplifies the poor working class man’s view of the industrial revelation. I chose this passage because it is a curse to the father-nation that is taking advantage of the these workers. The passage shows the feelings of hopelessness and anger that these people had towards their nation. Heine speaks for the people when he writes about their “degradation” and how they see no good and if they manage to get something, anything from their labor, it is quickly stripped from them by those that oppress them. This keeps them in a hopeless state where they expect to be wronged, overworked, and spend their lives rotting in the dark of these workplaces. The workers were basically slaves working unconscionable hours with little time for breaks and meager pay. The industrial revolution was a big step towards solving economic problems and advancing in technology, vocation, transport, communications and mechanized goods. However, the industrial revolution also caused problems of exploitation of women labor as well as child labor. It also created an even bigger divide between the rich and the poor and divided the people into those who “had” and those who didn’t. The need for cheap workers was solved by using the young people and making them work in conditions so horrible, most of them grew up maimed and unhealthy to the point where their quality of life was severely reduced and many died. With no rights to vote, or strike against this injustice, Heine provides these laborers with a voice, and expresses the feeling of these oppressed people who have been denied an opinion or choice for their quality of life.

Silesian Weavers

Posted on by

Heinrich Heine’s poem, “Silesian Weavers” was inspired by a protest over the working conditions of weaving laborers in Silesian, Prussia. The poem confronts the issue of workers’ rights and their continuous exploitation and oppression by the rich and, along with worker riots, served as a key asset for the revolution that subsequently forced the King of Prussia to allow his people a constitution.

Heine’s poem, which pays sympathy to the working class, was intended to inspire and even arouse anger amongst his lower-class compatriots. He tacitly implies that a day of retribution is coming and that the rich will soon be forced to atone for their wrongdoings. While it was not uncommon for philosophers, writers, and artists to condemn wealthy individuals and their monarchy for their treatment of those less fortunate, Heine’s also denounces the less tangible set of institutions of religion and nationalism.

“One curse upon the God to whom we prayed […]”

“A curse upon the king, the rich man’s king[…]”

“A curse upon the false fatherland[…]”

Heine begins each stanza by damning an institution in which people were once comforted by. He curses to God, to whom the people once prayed, implying that the Germans clung to their faith even in the most despondent of times and foolishly hoped for savior, receiving nothing in return.

In his next stanza, Heine asserts that the people are not the ones being represented by the king and it is only the rich who benefit from the monarchy’s existence. Here, he insinuates that it is not the monarchy that will assist in terminating the workers’ struggle, but rather it will be the body that sucks them dry.

Heine criticizes the country of Germany, addressing it as a “false fatherhood” and rather than patriotism and nationalism thriving, despair and shame are the only things to prosper.

Unlike Herder and de Lisle, along with other political writers of the time who advocated that things such as religion and nationalism were essential, Heine actually blames these institutional practices for the deterioration of the working class.

“The Avarice of Masters”

Posted on by

“Here, then, is the ‘curse’ of our factory-system; as improvements in machinery have gone on, the ‘avarice of masters’ has prompted many to exact more labour from their hands than they were fitted by nature to perform…”

 

This quote, from “The Physical Deterioration of the Textile Workers”, ties in with our previous discussion of the potential dangers of a laissez-faire economy. The “avarice of masters” drives this type of economy by almost dehumanizing the working class. Those with power feel no guilt about the conditions their workers labor under; their only concern is the amount of money they can make or the amount of resources they can have produced. We heard from Marx and St. Simon about how an economy might collapse if this alienation of proletariat from bourgeoisie continues and expands. Furthermore, it seems as if the concern for the conditions of the laborers is exacerbated when people begin to realize the suffering of children in the factories and fields. This, seemingly, becomes the breaking point for many people, where the “masters” have pushed too hard. “…Prompted many to exact more labour…than they were fitted by nature to perform…” Though the economy does not collapse entirely, surely these essays helped to produce legislation preventing child labor soon thereafter. In fighting back, the working class demonstrates that such an economy cannot function if the workers aren’t provided proper rights and conditions while serving those in positions of power.

“We’re weaving, we’re weaving!”

Posted on by

In H. Heine’s poem “The Silesian Weavers” he writes “Their gloom-enveloped eyes are tearless, They sit at the spinning wheel, snarling cheerless: “Germany, we weave your funeral shroud, A threefold curse be within it endowed-We’re weaving, we’re weaving!”  This is of course in reference to the awful conditions for factory workers during the Industrial Revolution.  This poem pertains to the workers in Silesia, a Prussian Province.

This stanza in the poem is more impactful when taking into account the other two readings.  Even though Heine’s poem is about Silesia, it could be about any large factory.  This is not an overreaction to one factory with poor conditions.  Every factory had these issues.  Every worker sat “at the spinning wheel, snarling cheerless”.  The workers are clearly angry with the factory, angry with the new life.  This is not just obvious because the poem was inspired by an 1844 protest but the language.  When writing “A threefold curse be within it endowed” Heine was showing this anger.  The workers are angry about the money and hours because of these conditions.  It is much easier to like your job when the conditions are acceptable, but 19th century factories were certainly not acceptable.  The last line of the first stanza is also very telling.  By using the exclamation point, Heine is implying that “We’re weaving, we’re weaving!” is something the workers had to say often, in order to show the bosses they we’re still working.  However if they had to show they we’re working then how much effort were the putting into the work?

The Dangers of a Laissez Faire Economy

Posted on by

Owen, Comte de St. Simon, and Marx share similar disdain for laissez faire economies. All three vilify the effects of a free market, in stark contrast to the beliefs of Adam Smith. Owen and Comte de St. Simon are most explicit in their attacks on the free market, blaming its systems and its supporters for the overwhelming decadence of industrial Europe. They argue that laissez faire economies rewards those who exploit others while punishing those with any shred of decency or respect for their fellow man. This compels men to become more selfish and deceitful, or else face monetary destitution, the latter being the more appealing option to most. By this process, men aspiring to the same goal are forced into competition and rivalry, turned against each other by their economic situation. Owen pleads with the people of England to recognize this unnatural animosity, but the proponents of laissez faire economies are firm in their conviction that the interests of the individual and the interests of the society are intertwined. But as Owen elucidates, the laborers who manufacture the products which benefit society are often deprived of the fruits of their labor. The benefits of a free market economy are only immediately realized by those who are selfish and shameless, while the honest working people are left to trudge through fiscal turmoil.

While the United States’ economy is not a completely free market, the ideals of capitalism are still held in high regard by many U.S. citizens. However, as these authors have made obvious, a laissez fair economy is often only advantageous to a minority of the population. Do the pros of capitalism outweigh the cons? Is equality of opportunity more important than equality of outcome? Would we be a better nation if we were more fiscally equal? Or are we a better nation under the ideals of capitalism?

Labour, Industry and the Error of Man

Posted on by

Both Robert Owen and Comte de St. Simon talk about the natural ways of man.  Owen especially talks about the natural errs of man and that a bloodless revolution is possible if society rejects the “system” and adopts better principles.  He rejects the industrial man and states that this is the last thing he wants people to subject themselves to as it will make a slave of them.  Marx takes more of a stance against politics and the economy saying the only things it “sets in motion are greed, and the competition against greed.” He compares the workers to commodities and the more they produce, the poorer they get.  Marx states that the worker must reconnect with nature and that nothing can be created without a good relationship between the worker and nature.

This strong natural theme is represented in many of our other readings. Man going back to nature or their natural state is a common theme and industry takes man father away from nature.  The first word in the excerpt of Hobbes’s Leviathan is nature and the natural equality between men.  In contrast Turgot talks more about the division of land and social classes and their obligations in the changing age of the Enlightenment and the up- in -coming industrial revolution.

The Economic Option

Posted on by

All three of the historians that we examined had different viewpoints regarding economics than did Adam Smith. While Smith believed laissez-faire capitalism was the best economic method a country could employ, his opponents (Marx, Saint-Simon and Owens) all believed that it belittled the poor to such an extent that it was not a viable option. Although the capitalist method increases production to unforeseen levels, it creates an undeniable divide between social classes. The owners of the companies become much richer than the working class people, while all they have to do is sit down and watch the money being made in front of their eyes. Although this was clear exploitation of the working class, Smith believed that this was the best method because it helped the country grow economically, even though the people suffered. Marx was against this. He thought that if the gap between the rich and the poor got to an uncontrollable level the whole economy would come crashing down. The workers would get angry enough to rebel against the owners and the whole governmental system would plunge into anarchy, finally resulting in the “purest form of socialism”, communism. Saint-Simon also thought that the capitalist society would not work in the long run – when competitors in the same job went up against each other they would try to beat out the other person instead of being the best worker that they could be. He supported more of an “equality” economy where the owners would work to support their employees so they their workers would enjoy putting in the hours at the factory.

Which method do you think is best? There are pros and cons to each type of economy, but I feel you have to side with the one that provides the most growth for the country as a whole over individuals. Marx’s plan would lead to inevitable conflict, while Saint-Simon’s wouldn’t provide as much production that is desired. I would choose Adam Smith’s capitalism because it vaults the specific country into a whole new class on the world scale, while raising the bar for all of the people in said country.

Competitive Industry

Posted on by

In Comte de Saint-Simon’s The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry, Saint-Simon disapproves and criticizes laissez-faire capitalism for its brutal competitive nature. He views industrialists as self-centered and vain. He claims, “the industrialist is very little concerned about society’s interests.” Saint-Simon has a Hobbesian view on the Industrial Revolution. He suggests that when two men pursue the same career, they inevitably become enemies; their lives become nasty, short, and brutish as they seek glory over each other’s career. Saint-Simon reasons that when masses of people charge into production, the result is disastrous with few industrialists succeeding and the majority victimized and suffering. The hardworking men that lose in these crises become broke and dismayed. These men assume new roles of dishonest characteristics in order to prevent capsizing in the laissez-faire capitalism. In Saint-Simon’s words, these men are “lost to humanity.” Saint-Simon supports an industrialized system where its leaders view society as the primary component and work to settle the needs of the poor.

While Saint-Simon views the laissez faire capitalism competition as disastrous, Adam Smith in his Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations, believes that through division of labor, laissez faire will increase productivity resulting in a higher standard of living. Smith focuses on the value production as the means to success whereas Saint-Simon emphasizes the ill will of man. Saint-Simon’s position assumes that personal and social interests do not coincide and thus government intervention is required to protect the poor. Saint-Simon in his Hobbesian view has little faith in the ability of men to work together for society’s interests rather than personal interests.

Law in 15th Century Rus’

Posted on by

The judicial system of 15th century Rus’ was significantly more developed than the old system used during the time of Kievan dominance. While we don’t have much more evidence for the Kievan judicial system, we do know the basics of the system. In contrast, a large amount of evidence remains from the Post-Kievan period that details the workings of the system, and in many cases, individual court cases.

The system used in 15th century Rus’ was probably more developed because of use and years of troubleshooting. The system had a large amount of time to grow by “verbally and mentally recorded case-law”. The judges that were found in the 15th century would have learned how to deal with issues not detailed in the main law codes through years of experience and teaching from former judges.

Despite the amount of development and use for the judicial system, some of the practices remaining are quite contradictory to today’s standard judicial systems. In this instance, we’ll use a land dispute between two parties as an example. A judge would travel to the location of the dispute and mediate the argument between the two parties by determining which party has the stronger evidence. The most important evidence to have is the word of local men (preferably elders) who have good knowledge of the area. Second to this is written evidence, such as a deed or charter. After these evidences, should neither party have them or should no conclusion be reached, judges would often rely on “God’s justice” or divine intervention for the decision to be made. An example of a method used by these judges is having one party kiss a cross and walk the border of the land that they claim. If they are telling the truth, then they will not be punished by God for lying (it’s very similar to what would commonly be used for witch trials). If all of these evidences fail, then the two parties would send a representative to duel with each other.

Despite the significant developments of the judicial system since Kievan times, the system employed by judges in 15th century Rus’ was not perfect. The main problems lie with their categorization of evidence. Judges would take the word of a local elder over any documents that could be presented, but these locals were often biased in their testimonies and would back a party regardless of the truth. So, the “truth” was often found in power, influence, money, or a big family.