Carl Marx theorized that social change is driven by changes in the means of production. His theories are supported in Germany during the Vormarz period of revolution. In the 1800s, increasingly efficient technology had completely changed the face of industrialization across Europe replacing human labor with machines and huge factories. With this increase in technology, one man was able to supervise the machines that could be producing at a rate faster than 10 wage laborers. This left 9 unskilled workers without jobs. Also, this increase in supply of labor lead to a decrease in wages, so even those who were lucky enough to be employed often did not make enough money to support their families.
Marx's theory is best displayed in the weaving industry. Weaving had often been a domestic occupation that many families would take advantage of to earn extra money. With the industrialization of the weaving industry, machines were able to produce such large amounts of superior quality fabric that the price for the domestically woven cloth fell significantly which took away a vital source of income for many working class families. These factories could also produce more with fewer workers because the machines beared the brunt of the work. This left weavers unemployed with skills that had been made obsolete by these new machines. Furthermore, the employed supervisors would often have to accept low compensation for their work because there was such a surplus of unemployed workers willing to work for low pay. Even employment did not guarantee financial security. The “wholesaler (had become) the aristocracy of money” in this increasingly capitalist system because he had the ability to produce huge amounts of goods at a huge profit with little concern for the workers because of their relatively unlimited supply.
These unemployed weavers soon became migratory workers who would travel in search of any job large or small, which most often led them into the cities. Here they met an even larger group of unemployed and unskilled laborers who are just as desperate as him. This “overpopulation” or urbanization creates a pandemic of “wantonness and laziness” and leads “forms of alcoholic recreation” and “moral decay.” With little to no property, these workers fell deeper into demoralization because they did not have the connections to a community that held them accountable as a productive citizen.
Though there are many causes for the 1848 revolutions in Germany, the desperation, moral decay, and unemployment that plagued many lower class unskilled laborers due to their occupational replacement by machines beckoned for social change. The means of production had changed displacing the wage laborer and leaving him with obsolete skills with little possibility of employment.
Although I see your point about Marx and bringing about social change I disagree that the social change that went on in Germany during this time period was perhaps the change that Marx would have expected. Social change is just one of the aspects of life Marx felt would change if the economics of a nation changed, if fact I’d venture to say Marx expected most aspects of society would experience some sort of change due to the shift from controlled nearly feudal economics to a more capitalist system. Marx believed that everything rode on the economic system, all government, culture beliefs, and social relations and as such when the economics of a nation changed all these things would also change. For this reason I’m not so sure the German vormarst case really supports Marx’s claims. Although there was plenty of change in Germany during the time period none of the changes were radical nor were the changes really implemented in practice. Sure, Germany got a parliament of sort, but it had no power. There was more equality between classes, but this was mostly on paper, as we discussed in class the old establishment still had the money and the power and as such were still of the highest social class and still held the most power, the simply went from owning the peasants to employing the proletariat. If these changes were truly coming from the economic changes I feel as though it would have been harder for Bismarck to implement his white revolution from above.
ReplyDeleteBased on the overall lack of change because of the economy, I have to agree. Most of the changes that did occur were not profound, in fact most of them were relatively ineffective. While Germany recieved a Constitution, universal suffrage wasn't granted. Because power and wealth were still dominated by the highest social class, so the proletariat were ultimately employed by the aristocracy. Although there were changes during the time period, it seems the capatalist system is still controlled in the end. If capatalism truly had been overtaken, as mentioned above, Bizmarck's revolution would have been more difficult to implement.
ReplyDeleteNicely argued but two key points: 1)historians are increasingly backing away from the notion of such rapid industrialization and promoting a more nuanced view of industralization as a slower process (work did not change from artisanal workshops to giant factories over night) 2)be careful about who is making claims about 'the desperation, moral decay, and unemployment that plagued many lower class unskilled laborers'. Is that a perception of middle classes or a 'reality'? Did economic change truly result in moral decay or simply the breakdown of older bonds of deference? (ie think about the argument that Anderson makes: people aren't just mad because Catholics are voting but because poor ignorant Catholics are voting again against their social betters)
ReplyDelete