For England to be able to have an industrialist economy that worked, they had to get past some growing pains, which were causing some friction between members of society. The area of concern for the readings of this week was around labor issues. In 1815, there were tariffs put on the imports coming to England to protect the landlords interest of renting out their fields to produce corn. This was to protect the home country when globalization was apparent, the landlords wanted the production of grain products to stay within England, and did not want another European country to undersell them by bringing in grain that could be sold cheaper than what England was selling it at.
On the other hand, the industrial capitalist were against these tariffs, which were called the corn laws, because they would have to give higher wages to the laborers producing the finished product. This would cut into the profits of the capitalists. The capitalists were for no government intervention for imports and exports because they wanted free-trade. In turn, the capitalists wanted the corn laws abolished for international trade to occur.
We read about Adam Smith, his philosophy was to have a division of labor which would make labor more specialized and a more effective way to produce commodities. With specialized labor there would be production of more commerce in a shorter amount of time, because there would be more than one person putting different parts of the product together. This would be similar to the assembly lines of the factories today. This way the people who worked in these specialized labor fields would be innovative in figuring how new machinery could be made for one man to do the work of many.
He was also a proponent of free-trade, and believed in no government intervention because he felt there are natural laws (invisible hand) that would guide commerce with other countries, and if the government intervened then it would break up the natural order of free-trade. This is why the capitalists were against the corn laws.
During these times in England, more and more people were moving to the cities where the manufacturing jobs were. As the industrial capitalist were making money from the labor of others, the workers were undeniably having problems with surviving on the income they were being paid. Many working class people were having families they could not afford thus putting people in danger of starvation. Malthus solution to the problem was the oppression of the poor. He believed there were winners in society and losers. If you were one of the losers, in which at this time they were starving, there would be an inevitable natural law which would be death. In Hunt and Lautzenheiser, a quote from Malthus reads, "It appeared, that from the inevitable laws of our nature some human beings must suffer from want. These are the unhappy persons who, in the great lottery of life, have drawn a blank." pg. 74 He saw the problem as people being in poverty, and that reproduction of the poor was causing England from feeding themselves. He argued that food production doubled mathematically (2+2), and that human production multiplies each year. Malthus population theory was an argument for the landlord class, and to keep the poor from advancing in life.
In the end the capitalists won out with the government, and the corn laws were abolished in 1846. In Hunt and Lautzenheiser says it best, "The dominant economic class has always eventually extended its economic dominance to political dominance." There is still a need to have less poverty, but if it is inevitable like Malthus proclaims, then we as humans must show respect for those who are less unfortunate so all of humanity is happy. All humans count for something even if they are not rich, and still today some carry opinions that the poor are lazy and worthless. Until our mentality changes there will be poverty, and it will not get better until human greed for luxury is contained.
I appreciate how you compared Smith's specialized labor to that of an assembly line. In many ways there has been this running theme in which people are trying to find ways in which to produce more efficiently. To me it shows that even back in that time people were trying to find the way to make things one step better much like we do today. First, we had mp3 players, then it was the ipod and beyond that I don't know, but I know there is something else out there that's new. The point is people were always trying to keep society advancing. I also like how you described Smith's theory and attitude toward the poor. This was a difficult read for me, so I had a hard time figuring out exactly what he was arguing. I got some very basic ideas, but I clearly missed the bigger picture, but things for once again recapping that part of his argument. It helps me better understand the rest of what he was saying.
ReplyDeleteThank you Karmen for responding to my blog. I have to try to put things in context to what I already know in term of terminology but the attitude of the poor you are talking about, is that Malthus or Smith? By what we heard today Smith believed if people were motivated by self-interest, they would try and better themselves. I also was a bit confused and went back to the arguments of the philosopher's over and over again to try and understand what I had read.
ReplyDeleteMary, I think you did an excellent job here summing up both Smith and Malthus--you're right on Malthus and his harsh attitude towards the poor population. Hunt and Lautzenheiser point out that even though these theorists say they are "scientific" and "objective," their theories just happen to represent the interests of *their* class. (What a handy coincidence!). This is especially true of Malthus, as well as Ricardo (to an extent).
ReplyDeleteTo dovetail into what you and Karmen were discussing, Smith doesn't address the problem of poverty and the poor as directly as Malthus did. Smith's theory made certain assumptions about wage levels and productivity that would have meant that a permanently poor underclass wouldn't have existed. But Malthus argued that this underclass *did* exist, and moreover, that it was a problem. This issue--what happens to the "losers" in the Industrial Revolution--will haunt the ideas and events we cover for the rest of the semester, so it's good to be introduced to it now.