If you were absent on Friday, this is the BBC Documentary on the Industrial Revolution that we viewed.
Please read the following two documents:
“Testimony for the Factory Act of 1833: Working Conditions in England”
The Condition of the Working Class in England” – Engels
Please in the comments (you can log in with your Google account or by signing up for a WordPress account, please posit two discussion questions based on the documents for your classmates to answer. Each person should select two questions to respond to – they don’t have to be two from the same person. I have comments set to post after I approve them, so if you don’t see them ASAP, please don’t worry.
Have the docs read and two questions submitted by Tuesday, 3/17 at 11:59. Please respond to two questions by Thursday, 3/19 at 11:59 PM.
Dr. Astorian's AP Consortium 
Taze Lamb
March 17, 2020
1. What do these physicians gain by supporting the working class instead of the wealthy factory owners? Do they really care about the well-being of the working class?
2. How would an individual who is pro-capitalism respond to the terrible conditions of the working class illuminated by Engel?
Vivek Raman
March 17, 2020
1. Physicians likely gain notoriety among the working class and parliament members, giving them higher social status through charity. It could also be a form of morality associated with being a physician, due to the selfless nature of their profession. In the first case, they likely don’t care about the working class, in the second case, they do.
2. In our time, with disgust and disdain, as many pro-capitalism advocates of our era believe that capitalism is the key to better working conditions, as companies will be incentivized to provide a better working environment in order to increase productivity (modern research has shown this to be true). During the Industrial Revolution, however, manufacturers would have likely seen this as a necessary evil, as something that needed to happen in order to turn a profit. Their argument would likely be along the lines of “as profits increase, so will working conditions,” even though they would likely keep excess profits to themselves.
dan kerik (@dkerik4)
March 18, 2020
2. The individuals who were pro-capitalism were generally the factory owners and people with economic power. Their goal was not to help the working class but to exploit them as much as possible to maximize their profit margins. This is why working-class people began paying attention to Marx & Engels’ ideas regarding social and economic structure and the changes that could be made.
Neha Vennapusa
March 17, 2020
1) Do you think Harter’s testimony was adequate in response to the other two testimonies? Why do you think he chose to answer in the way that he did and how does it reflect upon him?
2) In Engel’s writing, how might his descriptions of the poor affect his later collaborative work, the Communist Manifesto? Are there any direct parallels we can draw?
karinachatha
March 19, 2020
1. I think Harter was someone who was in a very good position during the Industrial Revolution- economically speaking. He was making lots of money, and when people start to make money, they don’t want to stop. It also doesn’t seem like he was going to face any consequences for abusing this workers, so his response seemed very straightforward- his goal was to make money and that was what he was going to do. Like every factory owner in this time, he was greedy and reaped rewards from abusing those beneath him.
Vivek Raman
March 17, 2020
1. In the Testimony of William Harter (Doc 1), he states that reducing his hours of labor to ten would instantly reduce the value of his mill and machinery. Does his view of profit/utility over proper working conditions prevail among manufacturers? If so, does this view remain the same among manufacturers today? What has been done to combat this profit-centric view in favor of workers back during the Industrial Revolution and now?
2. In Doc 2, Engels states that “the physical condition of workers shows a progressive deterioration.” How did the Industrial Revolution worsen the conditions for the working class over time? Was this deterioration necessary in order to innovate and produce at the levels we do today, or could working conditions for Industrial Revolution workers been better?
Neha Vennapusa
March 19, 2020
1. I think that every manufacturer will prioritize profit/utility given the chance, but these days companies are held more accountable through various measures. The coal industry has had quite a few instances of shirking responsibility towards their employees for the sake of profit. For instance, there was proposal to pay miners bonuses if they increased the amount of coal they produced. Several employees voted down the proposal because of health concerns (black lung disease for one) but the company went through with it anyway. Furthermore, the same company has lobbied against bills that would limit their employees’ exposure to coal dust, as it would restrict the company’s output. It’s disheartening but EPA/OSHA regulations and local legislation have helped keep American companies in check, though corporate lobbying makes this difficult.
(If any of this sounds familiar, admittedly my source was John Oliver.)
karinachatha
March 17, 2020
1. What were the long term affects of children working in factories from a very young age? Could this have greatly affected the following generations?
2.The impacts of cramming everyone into cities was clearly catastrophic- what was the catalyst to change these conditions for the better? Eventually, the workforce had to have decreased from people dying in those horrible conditions, could that have helped?
pranavm6
March 19, 2020
1. Children working in factories from a young age had a plethora of detrimental impacts, both physically and mentally. The medical examiner’s testimony revealed that children had various cases of physical deformity, including stunted growth, relaxed muscles, twisting of bones, and relaxed ligaments. These children suffered horrendous treatment and physical fatigue from the grueling lifestyle of factory life; this led to lower life expectancy for these children and often work barring injuries. These occurrences had a great impact on the next generation, as they took cues from what not to do and enacted labor restrictions such as the Factory Act of 1833.
2. Society as a whole came to a realization that these conditions were not benefiting anyone except those at the top of the wealth ladder. The workers themselves came to the realization that they could band together and work to get rid of such horrendous conditions. Certain advocates of social change like Engels helped show the rest of the society how bad it truly was for the poor, and this was influential in sparking change. The workforce decreasing could have also served its purpose in changing the working conditions, as factory Barrons understood the value of their workers and they also slowly understood the mistreatment which they were partaking in.
dan kerik (@dkerik4)
March 17, 2020
1. How did the rising importance of machinery change how workers saw their jobs in the industrial revolution?
2. Did society challenge the harsh conditions in child labor, as mentioned by Engels, or was society at peace with child labor as it was?
pranavm6
March 19, 2020
1. The overarching role of machinery in the factories of the industrial revolution drastically changed the value of the workers’ jobs. The machinery was a more valuable commodity than the workers themselves in the eyes of the factory owners. Workers could easily be replaced and let go, whereas the focal point of the operation was the machinery. Therefore many workers, young and old alike, went to great lengths in order to protect their job and standing, often leading in injury or death.
2. Society as a whole did nothing to question or doubt the inhumane practices of child labor. Many of the adults themselves dealt with struggles on a daily basis, and they didn’t have enough vested interest or time in their children to worry about the dangers of child labor; it was simply about making enough capital to make ends meet. The rich and prominent also kept quiet during this time as they were often profiting off of children and the poor in factories.
Taze Lamb
March 19, 2020
1. The rise of machinery saw the importance of human capital diminish. New skills were needed that revolved around the servicing of machinery rather than craftsmanship. With extremely low wages and virtually no labor rights, people were resigned to being cogs the machine rather than people. Society as a whole was enamored with constantly pushing the maximum production and wealth that the country could bring in rather than focusing on the role of people and how this may physically and psychologically impact them.
2. Society was most likely advancing so quickly that these child labor practices and their effects weren’t fully understood until later in the revolution. Industrialization was moving at such a break-neck pace that morality in business was swept under the rug. Most individuals did not agree with the practices, however, with ten to twelve hour shifts in virtually inhumane conditions themselves, people most likely did not have the time or were not alarmed to see children doing the same. It wasn’t until the period around 1833 that people began to see the negative effects of such labor practices and thus people’s perspective on how this revolution should take place began to shift.
pranavm6
March 18, 2020
1) How did the industrial revolution’s way of almost recycling workers lead to the breakdown of a stable, healthy workforce in Europe? How did this constant need for workers change the roles of children in society?
2) According to Engels, the poor could only express pleasures through two forms; alcohol and sexual indulgence. How does the overindulgence of these pleasures lead to further deterioration of the poor’s condition?
dan kerik (@dkerik4)
March 18, 2020
2. The over-indulgence of alcohol led to a lower life expectancy, leaving their children to have to fend for themselves and furthering their descent into poverty. Also, the over-indulgence of sex would lead to the birthing of more children for whom they couldn’t provide. This also led to more child labor, leaving the working class in a vicious circle. The increase in population due to over-indulgence in sex also led to pollution and unhygienic conditions. To sum it up, the working class could not rise out of poverty.
karinachatha
March 19, 2020
2. It seems like alcohol was readily available, but an excessive use (by typically men, I think) would lead to problems in the house, as men would be volatile and violent, or didn’t do much. I would imagine this would lead to a cycle of abuse and domestic problems, only ending with regulation of alcohol in some form. In America, this led to Prohibition. As for sexual indulgence, eventually couples would have so many kids they wouldn’t be able to care for them, and only if children started to gain some rights and protection would this start to decline.
Neha Vennapusa
March 19, 2020
1) Recycling workers meant that people had very little stability/job security because they were constantly at risk of getting cycled out and replaced. This leads to people overworking themselves to keep their jobs, leading to the degradation of their quality of life which in turn means there’s a smaller able-bodied workforce. Ironically, just went the idea of childhood starts to become popular as shown by earlier artwork (perhaps this was only amongst the rich and noble), the start of the industrial revolution had society turn back to viewing children as small adults that are responsible for earning money to feed their families.
Laura Astorian
March 20, 2020
This was excellent! I miss you guys. 😦 Hopefully we can be back soon to have actual discussions face to face.