Q: What do you mean by industrialisation? What impact did it have on the evolution of different social classes in Europe?

The period from the late 18th to 19th century in Europe witnessed major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and transport that had a profound effect on the socioeconomic and cultural conditions. This industrialisation refers to a period of massive economic, technological, social and cultural change which affected humans to such an extent that it’s often compared to the change from hunter-gathering to farming. At its simplest, a mainly agrarian world economy based on manual labour was transformed into one of industry and manufacturing by machines. The Industrialisation process started in the United Kingdom and then subsequently spread throughout Europe, North America, and eventually the world. This phase has been popularly referred to as the Industrial Revolution, which marked a major turning point in human history; almost every aspect of daily life was eventually influenced in some way.

An important dimension of the industrialisation process in the context of Europe that needs to be discussed is whether it was a ‘revolution’ or a long-drawn out process. Credit for popularising the term ‘Industrial Revolution’ may be given to Arnold Toynbee, whose lectures given in 1881 gave a detailed account of it. However, the earliest use of the term “Industrial Revolution” yet located, according to historian David Landes, was a letter of 6 July 1799 by French envoy Louis-Guillaume Otto. The term Industrial Revolution applied to technological change was becoming more common by the late 1830s and continued gaining strength throughout the century. Charles Beard infact remarked that industrialisation fell upon the agricultural economy “like a thunderbolt from a clear blue sky”.

However, many scholars have criticised the use of the term ‘revolution’ to describe the changes that were taking place in Europe during this period. They believed that the term denoted a sudden and sharp change. Gary Hawke among others emphasised that something, which took a long time to evolve and affected people over a very long time can hardly be revolutionary. Therefore, most of the modern historians now tend to regard this process of industrialisation as a long-drawn out evolutionary process that passed over several stages before it reached its final stage. W.W.Rostow in his work “The Stages of Economic Growth” argued that industrialisation and hence economic growth passes through five stages: (1) growth in industry and agriculture but within a restrictive framework; (2) societies are in the process of transition in the “period when the pre-conditions for take-off are developed”; (3) the stage of take-off is achieved by overcoming all the obstacles, growth is becomes the normal condition and enclaves of modern activity expand and dominate society; (4) economy becomes part of the international economy and (5) stage of high mass consumption, where greater resources are available for social welfare. He believed that it would take about 3 decades for this entire process to be complete. Although, the timeframe has been criticised in recent years the significance of this thesis lies in the fact that it looks at industrialisation as an evolutionary process.

Another important scholar Alexander Gerschenkron, however, believes that an exception exists in case of the very late developers. He stated that growth in case of the backward regions cannot be gradual as they cannot afford time and hence they develop at an extremely rapid rate. This he described as the “great spurt” out of backwardness. He argued that since these regions developed late a model for industrialisation already existed and hence they didn’t have to waste any time on experimentation, unlike, other countries. Also, the pressure applied by these far more advanced countries compelled them into developing at a much faster rate. This model could be applied to Sweden and Russia, who industrialised rapidly after 1890. However, Trebilcock has reservations against this hypothesis. He says that even the Russian industrialisation had a pre-history that can be dated back to the 1850 and 60s that witnessed remarkable industrial growth. Moreover, the czar of the period had introduced the railways in Russia with the aim of integrating the economy. Finally, the other states that he attempted to apply this model to was Italy, which even in the 20th century showed great signs of backwardness. 

Clive Trebilcock has divided the whole phase of European industrialisation into 3 phases. Each phase had different characteristics, leading centers and requirements for industrialisation to take place. The first phase, according to him, started in Britain between 1780s and 1820s. This industrialisation was based on a strong agrarian base and cheap and simple innovations in the field of cotton textiles and iron-making. This premier industrialisation had set the tone and requirements for its successors: (1) application of new sources of power to production; (2) organisation of manufacturing in full-scale units of factories; and (3) structural changes within the economy. Countries like France and Germany attempted to emulate Britain. France produced woollens, silks and linens in greater quantity than Britain, while, the German states were showing increasing efficiency in textile and weapon production. However, both countries, France in particular, were plagued by non-economic interference that set back their industrial development by a few decades. Moreover, the British Industrial supremacy also prevented the industrial growth of other European countries both at home and abroad.

However, it was the second wave of industrialisation that witnessed the industrial take-off of France, the Germanic states and the USA in the 1840s and 50s. Trebilcock argues that by this time the requirement for industrial development had advanced. While, the three central requirements of power, scale and structure remained the means of achieving them had altered drastically. While, the ‘first Industrial Revolution’ may have occurred because of the use of canals, cotton spinneries and the iron puddling process, however, the ‘second industrial revolution’ required more advanced technology like the railways, engineering works and steel mills in order to break into the markets already occupied by their predecessors. He goes on to say that it was Railways that were the most basic requirement and France and Germany’s curve of railway construction was directly linked to the curve of their industrial growth. The third wave could be noticed in the two decades preceding WW1.

Thus, it can be seen that this industrialisation of Europe was not uniform throughout the 19th century nor did it undergo similar patterns in different countries. However, despite this fact, there are certain features that are common to the entire process. W.O.Henderson analysed these features in his famous work “Industrial Revolution of the Continent”. The first important change according to him that was triggered by this new phenomenon was the change in the system and organisation of production. Earlier the craftsmen could work from home or in primitive workshops. However, in this setup he needed to work in a new environment that ultimately led to the development of the factory and eventually to the emergence of the factory system. The labour was now hired in return for fixed wages and the workers were placed under the control of a supervisor. It ensured production in a more orderly and organised manner but it also led to the emergence of a working class. The entire purpose of this factory system was to increase productivity and decrease the costs. This was ensured through low wages, long working hours and abandonment of welfare schemes for workers. However, the most significant way of achieving this was by the mechanisation of the production process, which continued unabated during this period.

Another significant change was the specialisation and division of labour. Earlier all the work was carried out by one person but now the entire production process was divided into phases and each was carried out by a different person, who specialised in that particular area of work. This enhanced efficiency and led to increasing economies of scale.

Another significant feature of this period was the decreasing dependence on natural forces. There was an increasing use of water, steam and at a much later stage electrical power in the production systems. Thus, this period was marked by the emergence of new sources of power or at least their application to the production process. These sources had the capability of generating more power, a smaller quantity could produce much more and hence these sources helped in ensuring greater cost effectiveness. Closely linked to the increasing use of these sources of power was the increasing efficiency of the metallurgical process. The improvement in the mining and smelting techniques had made it possible, in turn, to extract these elements and then improvements in the refining technique enabled the proper and efficient utilisation of these sources.

The entire transport system was revolutionised. It was the railways that had become the chief means through which a country could achieve industrialisation by the mid-19th century. In fact, Britain was the only country to have industrialised without them but the new entrants during this period required the railways. The railways were not only the central innovation of this wave of industrialisation but also influenced it significantly for its further expansion. They facilitated the integration of disparate economic regions into reasonably effective markets and could link production sites with distant raw materials. The railways also forced a wholly new type of investment, which brought into being a new type of investment bank to provide this capital. Finally, the railways also provided a ready market for heavy industries like engineering, steel and iron, coal etc Thus, the railways not only helped in the economic unification of the country but also provided an impetus for other sectors of the economy to grow.

There was a shift in the nature of capital as well. In the initial phases of industrialisation, the capital that was invested in the industrial sector was accrued from the agricultural sector or from trade and commerce. Thus, the concept of industrial capital was the dominant feature of the early years of industrialisation. It was only with the spread of this process that industrial capitalism began to grow in significance by the 1840s and 50s. Industrial Capital implied the investment of the capital in the manufacturing industry, with a subordination of labour to such investments with the aim of maximising profits as returns on investment.

Just as railways were the most important technological innovation of this period, banks were the most important financial innovation and the financial engine of the 19th century development. It was France and Germany that benefitted the most from the development of this banking network. French investment banks were setup in Lille, Lyons and Marseilles, while, their German counterparts were thriving in Cologne and Berlin. It was the capital provided by these banks that ensured the development of capital intensive heavy industries like iron and steel, metal fabrication and coalmining. In fact, Germany soon had the leading shipbuilding industry in the world, outranking the British industry. However, the French banking initiative suffered from the problem that they invested heavily in the railways to the extent of neglecting other sectors, unlike, Germany because of which the German development was more complete and more rapid.

Finally, Henderson says that the European society witnessed the beginnings of the capitalist cycle of boom and recession in the Industrial sector. D.H. Robertson argued that this upward swing and downward fall in the industrial sector was an outcome of the emergence of Industrial capital. The major slump that took place in the industrial sector was between 1873 and 1896. There was a fall in prices due to overproduction that led to deflation, thereby, squeezing the profits of the producers in Europe. According to Trebilcock, it was this period that highlighted the shortcomings of the British industrialisation. As they continued to stick to their older traditional system of production, industrialisation in Britain had become extremely inflexible preventing them from facing the competition from new entrants like Germany and USA. Thus, Germany fared much better during this period as compared to Britain’s lacklustre performance. 

Hoffsman has also divided the industrialisation phase into three stages to explain its evolution. In the first stage, he argues, that it was consumer industries like textiles, food production, handicrafts etc that were growing rapidly. However, following the increasing demand of modernisation and advance it was the industrial sector that witnessed a major boom during the second stage. However, the consumer industries still continue to hold the dominant place in the economy. It is finally in the third stage that both heavy industry and consumer industries develop at the same pace, thereby, highlighting the growing diversification and advancement of the economy.

While, drastic new changes were being witnessed in the European economy during this period it would be wrong to assume that the old economic order was completely done away with. Thus, despite the growth of the industrial sector, the traditional sectors comprising of agriculture and non-factory craft manufacturers survived in all European economies right upto 1914 and some they retained considerable social and political power. Even in Britain the factory didn’t become the dominant form of industrial organisation until after 1830 and France remained a country of market-town economies and rural industry into the late century. Even in case of Germany, where the introduction of cartels in the 1870s and 1880s helped to carry large-scale industrial organisation further than anywhere else in the continent, traditional methods of production were by no means extinguished and infact in 1882 one-third of all German textile workers were still employed within the domestic sector of manufacturing. Such features also existed in Italy and Russia. Around 1910 it was only in Britain that the process of industrial change had reduced the agricultural share in the national output to a modest amount. In France, Italy and Germany the agricultural produce accounted for 25% of the national output and the figure was much larger in Russia. Thus, while transition towards large-scale organisation was an essential feature of this industrial growth it was not a sweeping transition. Traditional technologies continued to exist and most European economies came to be characterised by this ‘technological dualism’. Trebilcock, however, does admit that these traditional forces either co-existed or were crushed but they never impeded the progress of the modern sector.

Finally, one can understand the phenomenon of industrialisation as both an international and a regional experience. It was an international experience as countries could borrow technologies or capital from already industrialised countries. It was a regional experience as within each economy as well there were pockets where industrial sectors were concentrated. For instance, the main industrial pockets were situated in Northern Britain, northern and eastern France, the Rhine-Ruhr triangle of Germany, North Italy, Southern Russia etc. However, as opposed to the earlier economies these areas used to interact with one another and their fortunes were interlinked. Thus, in the early 19th century, cotton yarn spun in Lancashire could be purchased as an input by the cotton weavers of the Rhineland and Krupp of Essen would secure iron ore from mines in Spain and Thyssen would cultivate parallel connections in France.

Thus, it can be seen that 19th century Europe witnessed a process of industrialisation that began in England towards the end of the 18th century and by the end of the 19th century had spread to other parts of the continent as well. This period was accompanied by a number of drastic economic changes in the mode of production, nature of capital invested and the organisation of production. However, it would be wrong to call this process a revolutionary one as these changes were neither sudden nor sharp. Instead, it would be better and more appropriate to see these changes as part of a long-drawn out gradual process.

Many scholars have argued that the Industrial ‘Revolution’ was accompanied by another revolution apart from the economic one. The second revolution was a broader and at times less tangible, but equally significant. This involved the human experiences produced by industrialisation: the rise of new social relationships, new forms of sufferings, new possibilities and new identities and ideologies.

The experience of industrialisation led to an unprecedented ruralisation of the villages, and a huge decline in autonomous village manufactures. The textile industry, and other part time industrial activities were thoroughly urbanised and the relative self-sufficiency of the villages were destroyed. It was the presence of technology and the increasing efficiency in the countryside that decreased the need for people resulting in a steady migration of people from villages to cities. The village was now more thoroughly integrated with wider markets than it had ever been, even as it underwent the experience of ruralization. John Merrington has pointed out that industrial capitalism is the first economic system to achieve a genuinely thoroughgoing subordination of country to town, and this insight holds in the case of nineteenth-century Europe.

This naturally led to the growth of urbanism. In 1750, only Edinburgh and London had populations over 50,000 but by 1850 this number had gone up to 29. Besides important port towns like Liverpool and Bristol that had been significant ever since the beginning of the overseas empires more industrial towns like Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham sprang up. Similarly, in France Paris emerged as a major urban center. However, for France, Germany and Italy the pace of urbanisation was much slower than what it was for Britain and Belgium. In Eastern Europe, Kiev and Moscow emerged as important urban centers but there were fewer and smaller towns as compared to Western Europe. This was due to the fact that rural nobles retained control over agricultural exports and over people through serfdom, which tied the peasants to the land. Moreover, the manufacturing sector had not properly developed in Eastern Europe by the middle of the 19th century and thus, it had very few industrial towns.

Europe had been transformed into a modern class society by the 19th century. Palm had argued that the society was earlier divided on the basis of order but now it came to be divided on the basis of classes. New classes emerged like the middle class, which attacked the existing privileges, while, the existing classes like the peasantry and working class underwent significant changes. However, a number of scholars have questioned whether such changes can be attributed to industrialisation alone. Many scholars believe that the emergence of a class based society has its roots in the French Revolution. It was the French Revolution, they argue, that freed the bourgeoisie and other professional classes enabling them to wield influence over the rest of the society. However, Pamela Pilbeam has argued that while the role of the French Revolution is definitely important it cannot be used to describe such a change all over Europe- in places unaffected by this event. Thus, she argues that while the French Revolution may have contributed in this regard, it was the industrialisation process that intensified such divisions and class consciousness.

As Trebilcock had argued that the growth of the new economic order did not necessarily imply the extinction of the older order. Thus, in the first half of the 19th century landed property continued to remain the principle form of wealth and the landlords continued to exercise political power. However, gradually they got integrated into the growing capitalism in agriculture and industry and the economic bases of their dominance was transformed. For instance, in Britain the landlord class increasingly invested in commerce, canals, urban real estate, mines and sometimes industrial ventures as well. All this ensured the a smooth transition for the English aristocracy into the capitalist economy but also a smooth transition for the English aristocracy into modern landlords deriving their wealth from capitalist ground rent and other diversified ventures rooted in capitalism. This transformation of the landlords into modern landlords also coincided with the changing social composition of the gentry class that came to include within it members of the commercial and bourgeoisie class, who invested in land. In France, however, the situation was quite different. They had continued to hold on to their feudal privileges in order to seek extra wealth and hence, when political changes started coming about in France it was unable to change its basis of dominance. Thus, it was at the mercy of the constitution and the court making it a much weaker class as compared to the British or the East German landed aristocracy.

There was an important change in the nature and composition of the peasantry. The development of capitalism in agriculture and modern class society meant the break up of the egalitarian peasant societies and the differentiation of the peasantry into classes ranging from the peasant petty bourgeoisie to the rural proletariat. Thus, the determining feature of peasant behaviour and its place in modern rural society became the assets held by the peasant. In Britain, the peasantry as a social entity no longer existed as the major elements in agricultural production became the capitalist farmers and the rural labourers. Even in case of France, the peasantry became divided into different classes reacting differently to prices, markets or food shortages. In case of Germany, the perception of commonality disappeared with the commercialisation of agriculture and a similar differentiated peasantry was also created in agriculture with only a very small section of it being opposed to the landed aristocracy. Moreover, a number of the peasants had also become a part of the working class.

The growing significance of the Industrial capital had led to a rising dominance of the bourgeoisie class. Their success and rise was more pronounced in Western Europe- in countries where industrialisation was more rapid and early. After the 1850s, the most influential and wealthiest sections of the bourgeoisie were the bankers, factory owners and mine owners i.e. capitalists. This class invested in urban property, land and they were no longer confined to the status of being early journeymen or owners of small industries whose rise to eminence depended on the slow accumulation of capital from below. The rise of the banking and finance sector, mining, cartelisation etc had all made it possible for them to earn huge amount of wealth.

It was the accumulation of this wealth that soon became the index of social advance. It was this upper middle class that soon became highly influential in society. As they grew in strength and influence the entire bourgeoisie-which included salaried professionals like doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists etc all of whom benefitted by the growth of these sectors-began to unite against the landlords and the aristocracy and then increasingly against the working class. It was this bourgeoisie that spread the virtues of capitalist ethos- individualism, thrift, hardwork, competiton, use of money power etc, which were to become the characteristic features of most European societies henceforth. Moreover, it was this rising middle class that took the lead in initiating reform and protest movements against the existing systems and ills. For instance, doctors in France lead the movements for social reforms and lawyers were instrumental in triggering off the revolution of 1848 in Prussia. Similarly, they took up causes of women, workers and child labourers with varying degree of success.

However, Pamela Pilbeam argues that it would be wrong to think that the rise of this bourgeoisie class highlighted significant changes in the social structure. She stated that these entrepreneurial elements were hardly self-made and most businesses and enterprises were created by established families. Nor were entrepreneurs as numerous or as dominant in the political life as they have been made out to be.

Industrialisation had widened the gulf that already existed between the middle classes and the labouring sections. This was reflected in the living conditions of the working class, which was characterised by one-roomed houses inhabited by 2-3 families, little sanitation, poor transportation etc On the other hand, the middle classes lived in luxurious spacious houses in the middle of the cities with access to parks, cafe, libraries, concert halls etc. Moreover, the mechanisation of the industrial process had seen a number of artisans and handicraftsmen being thrown out of their jobs. However, this was also the period that witnessed a growth in the working class. It came to include women, who became an integral part of the working class and peasants, who migrated to towns in search of new jobs.

A very important debate that has ensued between a number of contemporary and modern historians regarding the impact of the Industrial Revolution pertains to the concept of the standard of living. One group, the pessimists such as Engels, Marx, Eric Hobsbwam, argues that the living standards of ordinary people fell, while another group, the optimists like Porter, Hartwell and Clapham, believe that living standards rose. Marx and his followers had asserted that Industrialisation had brought about the oppression, enslavement and exploitation of the workers and it was this arguement that formed the ideological foundation for the critics of industrialisation. They argue that the working conditions were extremely terrible and hazardous, even for women and children, the working hours were long (15-16 hours, later 12 hours), low wages and they were mistreated by the supervisor. All this implied misery and a horrible existence for the worker class.

However, the supporters of the industrialisation process believe that the industrial development of Europe had led to more and more consumer goods being available to ordinary people with each passing year. The ideological foundation behind the pessimist school has now more or less faded and most economic historians today believe that industrial revolution began the transformation that has led to extraordinarily high (compared with the rest of human history) living standards for ordinary people throughout the market industrial economies. Thus, the debate evolves more around ‘when’ industrialisation made the people better off and not whether it did or not. The pessimists claim no marked improvement in standards of living until the 1840s or 1850s. Most optimists, by contrast, believe that living standards were rising by the 1810s or 1820s, or even earlier. However, this debate is far from resolved as fresh evidence keeps coming up from time to time.

Thus, it can be seen that industrialisation had given rise to class consciousness between classes and within classes themselves as well as there was a great deal of differentiation. This class consciousness came to be reflected through a variety of political affiliations and agitations. The landed elements formed political alliances like the Agrarian League (Germany), The House of Lords (England), United Nobility (Russia) in order to protect their interests and fight for their predominance. As already stated above, the bourgeoisie protested against the landlord and the worker class and fought for economic policies that would favour their position in society. It supported centrist and right-wing parties to counter the working class pressure. However, it was the working class that was the most active during this period. It was their most immediate and appalling working conditions that compelled them into rioting or undertaking protests. The first half of the 19th century is full of examples of the working class protests like among the tailors and printers in Paris and Berlin in 1830 resulting in chartism in Britain and culminating into the revolution of 1848; among silk weavers in Lyons in 1831 and 1834 etc The target of such protests were the government, who they claimed were responsible for their miserable condition due to their desire to protect the traditional economy. Hence, scholars like LCB Seaman, Eric Hobsbwam and Karl Marx have attributed the revolutionary period of 1830-48 to the working class.

However, the working class had also begun to organise themselves into peaceful unions and such violence was confined only to the time of crisis. John Merriman believes that this was the first time that the workers began to think of themselves as a class having interests distinct from their masters and it was this realisation that led them to organise themselves into associations, which further facilitated the rise of class consciousness. Specific trade unions and workers’ unions came up during the 19th century. For instance, in Britain Robert Owen planned a Grand National Consolidated Union in 1834 that attracted the support of shoemakers and tailors. In Britain, France and Germany mutual-aid insurance associations and retail cooperative associations took off. In Britain alone there were about 1,000 such groups with a total membership of 300,000 by 1872. It was through the constant agitation, strikes and activities taken up by such associations that in most countries such unions and associations came to be recognised as legitimate forms of associations towards the end of the 19th century.

This period witnessed an improvement in the condition and status of the women. The increasing significance of wage-labour and additional avenues for employment encouraged women to come out of their economic dependence on their relatives and fend for themselves and also contribute to the family income. While, women had been allowed to work in the pre-industrial era as well they were usually relegated to working from homes without being able to contribute significantly to the family income. Female labour remained central to a large-scale industrialisation as they were employed all over the continent, both in the rural and the urban center. There were instances of women working in male dominated industries like iron production, leather trades, building and mining etc In Western Europe, domestic service remained the largest category of female occupations in the middle of the 19th century, closely followed by the textile industry that employed 22% of the female work force. Although, a relatively small percentage of women’s work was organised in factories, a gradual shift to larger textiles and clothing workshops and factories occurred in England as well as in parts of France, Belgium and several Germanic states. However, it is interesting to note the demographic nature of these women; they belonged to the peasant and artisan class while the upper bourgeoisie and nobility women hardly stepped out of their households. Some middle class women also worked in commerce, as unpaid clerks or receptionists in their family business.

Finally, this period and the changes associated with also contributed to the rise of a number of intellectual thought. It was the plight of the people-the working class in particular- that prompted thinkers like Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels to propagate their theories on the upliftment of the people, equality and a more equitable distribution of power, wealth and privileges. Thus, it was this period that witnessed the beginnings of the socialist thought and of Marxism.

Thus, to conclude one can see that even though the industrial process in Europe during the 19th century was not a revolutionary one it had brought about a number of drastic changes in both the economic and the social sphere. It was the economic changes that had led to a great deal of urbanisation and accumulation of wealth, power and influence. Thus, there was a great deal of differentiation and gap that had come about between different sections of people, which was instrumental in giving rise to class consciousness. It was the 19th century Europe that witnessed the emergence of a working class consciousness for the first time and this in many ways was also instrumental in increasing the significance of socialist and communist thinkers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  • Oxford Illustrated History of Europe
  • Clive Trebilcock- Industrialisation of Modern Europe
  • Pamela Pilbeam- From Orders to Classes- European Society in the 19th Century
  • John Merriman- Industrialisation (1800-1850)
  • Clark Nardinelli- The Industrial Revolution and the Standard of Living
  • Gary Hawke-Reinterpretations of the Industrial Revolution
  • Eric Hobsbwam- Age of Capital
  • IGNOU readings
  • Class notes