Sign In Sign-Up

Chapter 22 Supplemental Material [Home][Chapter 22 Questions]

1. Cottage Industry

MAIN IDEAS OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
The Industrial Revolution started in England and the United States. It is a period in history when new inventions changed the way that people built things and changed where people worked and how they lived. The advances in technology changed the way people lived. Before the Industrial Revolution, people worked in their homes or on their farms in the country. They lived on farms or in small villages. They made the things they needed to live, and sometimes made goods to sell.
COTTAGE INDUSTRY
In the cottage industry, people crafted goods in their homes, or small cottages. That's why it's called "cottage industry." Workers in the cottage industry were everyday people, working for themselves. They normally made cloth, or textiles. The workers bought raw materials, usually cotton or wool, from merchants and would then make it into cloth. They would spin the raw materials into yarn and weave it by hand into cloth. This system worked, but it had its drawbacks. It was very slow, workers in the cottage industry had to make one item at a time. Since they usually worked with only their family or close friends, there weren't many people working on the job. All products were made by hand and production was very slow. Merchants paid the workers very little for the cloth and then sold it for a large profit.
Most workers in the cottage industry still had to grow their own food and make their own goods such as clothing and furniture. There weren't many railroads or highways to ship goods from place to place, so most things had to be grown or made at home. While people were making the things that they needed to survive, they were not able to make the goods they would sell. Think about it, if you have to go work in the fields all day, you won't be able to be making goods to sell. That was a reason why the cottage industry was slow and inefficient. Merchants could not always count on having their cloth available when they needed it.
This industry was about to change. People would move to cities and begin to work in factories. The cottage industry would soon be replaced by the factory system.

http://search.ebi.eb.com/ebi/article/0%2C6101%2C34702%2C00.html
INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
Most products people in the industrialized nations use today are turned out swiftly by the process of mass production, by people (and sometimes, robots) working on assembly lines using power-driven machines. People of ancient and medieval times had no such products. They had to spend long, tedious hours of hand labor even on simple objects. The energy, or power, they employed in work came almost wholly from their own and animals' muscles. The Industrial Revolution is the name given the movement in which machines changed people's way of life as well as their methods of manufacture.
About the time of the American Revolution, the people of England began to use machines to make cloth and steam engines to run the machines. A little later they invented locomotives. Productivity began a spectacular climb. By 1850 most Englishmen were laboring in industrial towns and Great Britain had become the workshop of the world. From Britain the Industrial Revolution spread gradually throughout Europe and to the United States.

From Cottage Industry to Factory
Cloth merchants, for instance, would buy raw wool from the sheep owners, have it spun into yarn by farmers' wives, and take it to country weavers to be made into textiles. These country weavers could manufacture the cloth more cheaply than city craftsmen could because they got part of their living from their gardens or small farms.
The merchants would then collect the cloth and give it out again to finishers and dyers. Thus they controlled clothmaking from start to finish. Similar methods of organizing and controlling the process of manufacture came to prevail in other industries, such as the nail, cutlery, and leather goods.
Some writers call this the putting-out system. Others call it the domestic system because the work was done in the home ("domestic" comes from the Latin word for home). Another term is cottage industry, for most of the workers belonged to the class of farm laborers known as cotters and carried on the work in their cottages.
This system of industry had several advantages over older systems. It gave the merchant a large supply of manufactured articles at a low price. It also enabled him to order the particular kinds of items that he needed for his markets. It provided employment for every member of a craft worker's family and gave jobs to skilled workers who had no capital to start businesses for themselves. A few merchants who had enough capital had gone a step further. They brought workers together under one roof and supplied them with spinning wheels and looms or with the implements of other trades. These establishments were factories, though they bear slight resemblance to the factories of today.
Why the Revolution Began in England
English merchants were leaders in developing a commerce which increased the demand for more goods. The expansion in trade had made it possible to accumulate capital to use in industry. A cheaper system of production had grown up which was largely free from regulation.
There also were new ideas in England which aided the movement. One of these was the growing interest in scientific investigation and invention. Another was the doctrine of laissez-faire, or letting business alone. This doctrine had been growing in favor throughout the 18th century. It was especially popular after the British economist Adam Smith argued powerfully for it in his great work 'The Wealth of Nations' (1776).
For centuries the craft guilds and the government had controlled commerce and industry down to the smallest detail. Now many Englishmen had come to believe that it was better to let business be regulated by the free play of supply and demand rather than by laws. Thus the English government for the most part kept its hands off and left business free to adopt the new inventions and the methods of production which were best suited to them.
The most important of the machines that ushered in the Industrial Revolution were invented in the last third of the 18th century. Earlier in the century, however, three inventions had been made which opened the way for the later machines. One was the crude, slow-moving steam engine built by Thomas Newcomen (1705), which was used to pump water out of mines. The second was John Kay's flying shuttle (1733). It enabled one person to handle a wide loom more rapidly than two persons could operate it before. The third was a frame for spinning cotton thread with rollers, first set up by Lewis Paul and John Wyatt (1741). Their invention was not commercially practical, but it was the first step toward solving the problem of machine spinning. (See also Spinning and Weaving; Invention.)

2. Domestic Industry

http://www.cssd.ab.ca/tech/social/tut9/lesson_1.htm

The diagram above shows the route of a merchant in the system of production known as "cottage industry," "domestic production," or "the putting out system". This was a method of industrial organization which was used before the Industrial Revolution. Work was carried out in the home of the worker. The diagram above shows how this took place in the textile industry. A merchant in a town or city would raise the capital needed for the venture. The merchant then proceeded into the countryside to buy wool. The raw materials were then distributed to a number of family farms where they were taken through the various stages of production until, at last, the merchant returned to the city (or town) to sell or export the final product.
Cottage industry took advantage of the fact that farming is seasonal labor. At certain times of the year, farming families had time to spare which they would gladly use to earn some extra money. Historians believe that cottage industry was an important warm up to the Industrial Revolution. It allowed countries like England to begin increasing their overseas trade before the Industrial Revolution began.

3. Industrial Revolution

From: historychannel.com
The term Industrial Revolution is used to describe profound economic transformations resulting from the introduction of new technologies of production. Although technological innovation has been a continuous process, in the transformation of societies from agricultural, commercial, and rural to industrial and urban, two revolutionary periods stand out.
The First Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain in the last decades of the eighteenth century. It resulted from the rapid adoption of three new technologies - the steam engine, relying on the energy of the fossil fuel, coal; machines for spinning thread and weaving cloth and increasingly driven by steam rather than water power; and furnaces - blast, puddling, and rolling - to make iron ore into finished metal by using coal. The Second Industrial Revolution began about a century later and was centered in the United States and Germany. It resulted from a wave of innovations in the production of metals and other materials, machinery, chemicals, and foodstuffs. The First Industrial Revolution altered the direction and hastened the growth of the American economy. The Second transformed that economy into its modern urban industrial form.
The coming of the First Industrial Revolution in Britain had as significant an impact on American economic life as did the contemporary political revolution that brought the country's independence. The significance of the economic transformation, however, became clear only after more than two decades of warfare between Britain and France ceased in 1815. Then the United States became the major source of cotton for Britain's yarn and the foremost market for Britain's finished yarn and cloth as well as a major market for its iron and hardware industries. The voracious demand of British mills for raw cotton drove the slave plantation westward, and the marketing and shipping of textiles and hardware into the country through New York quickly made that city the nation's largest commercial center.
Finally, the transfer of the new technologies across the Atlantic gave the United States its first industrial factories, large mills that integrated spinning and weaving machinery in a single building. Their output far surpassed that of the small water-powered spinning mills in Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts built between 1792 and the War of 1812. The first integrated factory was built in 1814 for the Boston Manufacturing Company by Francis Cabot Lowell who had brought from Britain plans for an improved power loom. Soon capitalized at $600,000, the corporation employed more than three hundred workers, mostly young women recruited from nearby farms. In 1822 Lowell's associates began to build on the Merrimack River an industrial town named for Lowell (who had died in 1817). A number of integrated mills owned by different corporations were soon operating in Lowell, as were similar groups of mills built at other locations on the Merrimack, the Connecticut, and smaller rivers. Then as coal became available in quantity with the opening of canals into the anthracite region of Pennsylvania in the late 1820s, steam-powered integrated mills appeared in Providence, Fall River, New Bedford, and other New England coastal towns.
The availability of coal permitted the use of British techniques of making iron, and the first anthracite coal furnace went into blast in 1840. By 1854, 45 percent of the iron made in the United States was being produced by coal-fired furnaces rather than by charcoal furnaces and water-powered forges. The new supplies of coal and iron permitted American manufacturers to produce their own machine tools and machinery. By the 1850s they were making firearms, sewing machines, and agricultural equipment through the fabrication and assembly of standardized parts - a technique that was soon called the "American system" of manufacturing.
By the time of the Civil War the technologies on which the First Industrial Revolution were based were fully rooted in the United States. In the years after the war, the nation's industrial energies were concentrated on completing the railroad and telegraph networks of the North, rebuilding those of the South, and expanding those of the West. Once the harsh depression of the 1870s was over, the stage was set for the Second Industrial Revolution.
That revolution rested on three major developments. Most important was the completion of the nation's modern transportation and communication networks - the railroad, telegraph, steamship, and cable - that made possible the high-volume flow of goods essential for the creation of modern industrial economies. The second was the coming of electricity in the 1880s, which provided a more flexible source of power than steam for industrial machinery, a new means of urban transportation (the trolley and the subway), and brighter, cheaper, and safer illumination in factories, offices, and homes. Electricity also transformed chemical and metallurgical processes. The third development was the beginning of the application of science to industrial processes and to the creation of new and improved consumer and industrial products.
The new industries of the Second Industrial Revolution employed new or greatly improved processes to turn out new or greatly improved products that included steel and other metals, light and heavy machinery, oil, chemicals, and in addition, packaged food, drug, and tobacco products bearing brand names. These industries were capital-intensive - that is, the ratio of capital to labor was much greater than in the older industries such as textiles, apparel, furniture, lumber, and shipbuilding. They were also the first whose technologies of production enjoyed the cost advantages of economies of scale or scope; the larger plants had substantially lower unit costs than smaller ones. Such economies, however, could be achieved only if the works steadily operated at close to full capacity. To exploit fully the cost advantages of scale and scope, entrepreneurs in the new industries had to build plants of optimal size (based on the minimum efficient scale of the technology and the extent of the market) and to create national and international sales and distribution organizations to sell the output. And they had to recruit teams of salaried managers to coordinate and monitor the flow of materials through the processes of production and distribution.
The first entrepreneurs who made such investments in manufacturing, marketing, and management quickly dominated their industries. In oil, John D. Rockefeller and his managers reduced the cost of producing a gallon of kerosene from five cents in the early 1870s to less than half a cent in the mid-1880s. In steel, Andrew Carnegie brought the price down from sixty-seven dollars a ton in 1880 to seventeen dollars at the end of the century. In both cases, as cost (and price) went down and volume went up, profits soared, creating two of the world's largest industrial fortunes. So too the entrepreneurs who introduced the new electrolytic processes in refining and smelting copper and aluminum achieved comparable cost reductions. The Aluminum Company of America reduced the cost of what had once been a precious metal to thirty-five cents a pound.
In light machinery produced by the American system of manufacturing, the first entrepreneurs to create large enterprises in office machinery (Remington in typewriters, Burroughs in adding machines, National Cash Register in its industry, and the forerunners of International Business Machines in time clocks and punch cards), in agricultural machinery (McCormick Harvester and its successor International Harvester), and in sewing machines (Singer) quickly dominated global as well as American markets. In 1913, for example, the two largest commercial enterprises in Imperial Russia were Singer and International Harvester. The pattern was much the same in the new food processing and packaging industries where Borden in canned milk and Heinz and Campbell in canned vegetables and soups achieved positions of comparable dominance, as did the American Tobacco Company in cigarettes.
In electrical equipment the earliest companies in the field in the 1890s, General Electric and Westinghouse, are still global leaders. And in chemicals, Du Pont, Dow, Monsanto, and the enterprises that became Union Carbide and Allied Chemical all dominated their different technologies. In both the chemical and electrical industries the leading companies from the beginning of the century recruited engineers, physicists, and chemists to concentrate on improving their products and processes. During most of the twentieth century close to half of the scientific personnel employed in American manufacturing worked in these two industries.
These capital-intensive and technologically advanced industries became, as Simon Kuznets points out in Economic Growth of Nations, the drivers of economic growth. Before World War II they helped make Germany the most powerful industrial nation in Europe and the United States the largest producer of industrial goods in the world. In the late 1920s the United States accounted for over 40 percent of the world's industrial output. In those industries most central to the growth and transformation of modern economies, the managers of a small number of large enterprises made operating decisions on output, product design, price, and services for a major share of their industry, and also the decisions on investment in facilities and research and development that determined the direction of the industry's future growth and its competitiveness in international markets.
In the interwar years the primary engine for economic growth and transformation was the automobile industry, and after World War II, the computer. The impact of these technologies was so profound that they seemed to contemporaries to be as revolutionary as the industries of the First and Second Industrial Revolutions. But their creation and growth followed a pattern strikingly similar to those that had made up the Second Industrial Revolution. In 1913, a little more than a decade after automobiles began to be sold commercially in the United States, two firms - Ford and General Motors - produced over half the annual output of passenger cars (Ford, 40 percent, and General Motors, 12 percent). In the 1920s Ford was successfully challenged by General Motors and then Chrysler. In 1929 the United States accounted for 85 percent of the world's output of automobiles with the Big Three enjoying the lion's share. And of the 15 percent produced abroad, subsidiaries of Ford and General Motors were responsible for a substantial amount.
The pattern in the postwar computer industry differed only in that many of the creators of that industry were established enterprises, not entrepreneurs like Ford, Rockefeller, or Carnegie. Business machine companies were the pioneers in establishing the industry's earliest product line, the mainframe computer. These included Remington Rand, Burroughs Adding Machine, National Cash Register, and Honeywell. International Business Machines, or ibm made a massive investment in production, distribution, and management for its System 360 and became and remained the industry's dominant company. By 1980 these firms accounted for over 80 percent of all mainframe production. The entrepreneurial firms that appeared were those whose founders developed new types of computers for new markets and then made the three-pronged investment in production, marketing, and management. But these companies, which included Digital Equipment in minicomputers and Apple in microcomputers, were soon challenged by ibm and other established firms. The products of these relatively few enterprises transformed production, distribution, and management throughout the American economy, much as the motor vehicle and electrical equipment industries had done in earlier years.
Computers, in fact, brought as many changes in the workplace and work force as had the technological innovations of the Second Industrial Revolution. In the older labor-intensive nineteenth-century industries - particularly those that relied on a male work force such as printing, shoe making, cigar making, specialized machinery, and metal making - the workers' skills gave them bargaining power. In the latter part of the century these workers successfully organized local and national unions that bargained with owners and managers on wages, hours, and working conditions.
In the new capital-intensive industries of the Second Industrial Revolution, machines replaced craft skills, and the work force became largely one of semiskilled workers carrying out simple routine tasks that required little training. The workers were unable to organize in the new mass production industries, and existing craft unions disintegrated. It was not until the Great Depression of the 1930s that the workers in the new industries, supported by the Roosevelt administration, began to organize along industrial rather than craft lines. In 1937 John L. Lewis's cio began unionizing the automobile, steel, electrical equipment, rubber, and other capital-intensive industries.
The computer-driven information revolution again replaced employees with machines. This time electronically controlled automated equipment operated by white-collar workers reduced both the number of semiskilled blue-collar workers and the influence of the unions in many industries.
With automation and the continuing growth of the labor-intensive service sector of the economy, the capital-intensive manufacturing industries provided a smaller proportion of jobs and of business profits than they had in the past. They remained, nevertheless, the central core of modern industrial economies, providing a constant and increasing flow of existing products and playing an essential role in the commercialization of new processes and products. Major new industries of the mid and late twentieth century - radio, television, man-made fibers, computers, pharmaceuticals, biogenetics - were developed and their products brought into everyday use by long-established enterprises in the older machinery and chemical industries.
This is why the Second Industrial Revolution had an even more profound impact on the evolution of modern economies than did the First. It set patterns of industrial operations and growth that the later transforming industries closely followed.
Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (1977); Peter Mathias, The First Industrial Nation: An Economic History of Britain, 2nd ed. (1983).

4. Protective Tariffs

(http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/j/r/jrs335/Art297b/Paper.html)
The Industrial Revolution signaled the decline of Mercantilism as the dominant global trade policy among the powerful nations. The term Industrial Revolution usually applies to the social and economic changes that mark the transition from a stable agricultural and commercial society to a modern industrial society. Historically, it is used to refer primarily to the period in British history from 1750 to 1850. During that time, dramatic changes in the social and economic structure took place as inventions and new technology created the factory system of large-scale machine production and greater economic specialization. The laboring population, formerly employed mainly in agriculture, increasingly gathered in great urban factory centers. The same process occurred at later times and in different degrees in other countries. The crucial development of the Industrial Revolution in Britain was the use of steam for power, made possible by the Steam Engine (1769) of James Watt. Textiles were the key industry early in this period. Multiple periods of development came with electricity and the gasoline engine, but by 1850 the revolution was accomplished, with industry having become a dominant factor economic life. The effects of the Industrial Revolution were worldwide. France (after 1830), Germany (after 1850), and the U.S. (after the Civil War) were transformed by industrialization. Europeans introduced the revolution to Asia at about the turn of the century, but only Japan eventually grew into an industrial giant. The Russian Revolution had as a basic aim the introduction of industrialism. The Industrial Revolution has changed the face of nations, providing the economic base for population expansion and improvement in living standards, and it remains a primary goal of less developed countries. But with it have also come a host of problems, including labor-management conflicts, worker boredom, and environmental pollution.
With countries becoming industrialized and specializing in manufacturing goods where a competitive advantage was possible, it became evident that a new trade theory would be necessary. Mercantilism was no longer feasible, so the idea of Laissez Faire [in French to leave alone] grew in response. Applying to both economics and politics, Laissez Faire is a doctrine suggesting that an economic system functions best when there is no interference by government. It is based on the belief that the natural economic order tends, when undisturbed by artificial stimulus or regulation, to secure the maximum well being for the individual and therefore for the community. Groups in France formulated the principles of laissez faire in the 18th century in opposition to Mercantilism. In Britain, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and J.S. Mill developed laissez faire into a tenet of classical economics and a philosophy of individualism. In time, laissez faire came to be perceived as promoting monopoly rather than competition and as contributing to "boom-and-bust" economic cycles, and by the mid-20th century the principle of state non-interference in economic affairs had generally been discarded. Nevertheless, laissez faire, with its emphasis shifted from the value of competition to that of profit and individual initiative, remains a bulwark of conservative political thought.
Protectionism was another economic approach used to address trade issues. Protectionists support the use of tariffs, or taxes and duties on imported and, more rarely, exported goods to protect domestic industry. Tariffs, unlike other taxes, often have a broadly economic rather than narrowly financial goal. They are designed less to increase a nation's revenue than to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. For that reason, advocates of free trade vehemently oppose protectionism and its tariffs. In ancient times customs duties were assessed for the use of trade and transportation facilities, but by the 17th century they came to be levied only at the boundary of a country and usually only on imports. European powers established special low tariff rates for their colonies. Britain and France in particular used preferential tariffs to regulate the flow of raw materials from, and domestic manufactured goods to, their colonies. Other European nations retaliated by raising their tariffs, ushering in a period of high protective tariffs that lasted through the Great Depression of the 1930's. Throughout most of its history the United States has followed high-tariff policies, but in the mid-1930's it signed reciprocal trade agreements with many nations that provided for selective tariff reductions. Today the U.S. is a relatively low-tariff nation, although it still maintains a fairly restrictive system of import quotas. Japan also has restrictive import quotas, as well as other curbs on imports, policies that have come under attack by its trading partners. Since World War II the trend has been toward freer trade. Customs unions and international governing bodies have lowered or even eliminated tariffs among large groups of nations and been responsible for generally lower tariffs around the world. The world has begun to move towards more liberal and even free trade.

5. Chartist Movement

Source: www.encyclopeida.com

Workingmen's political reform movement in Great Britain, 1838-48. It derived its name from the People's Charter, a document published in May, 1838, that called for voting by ballot, universal male suffrage, annual Parliaments, equal electoral districts, no property qualifications for members of Parliament, and payment of members. The charter was drafted by the London Working Men's Association, an organization founded (1836) by William Lovett and others, but the movement gathered momentum largely because of the fervor and rhetorical talents of Feargus O'Connor. He traveled widely, especially in the north, where recurrent economic depressions and the constraints of the new poor law (1834) had bred especially deep discontent, and recruited support for the charter. In Aug., 1838, the charter was adopted at a national convention of workingmen's organizations in Birmingham.

7. Real Wages

http://www.europarl.eu.int/dg4/wkdocs/econ/111/en/111en.htm

http://netec.wustl.edu/WoPEc/data/Papers/upfupfgen195.html

http://netec.wustl.edu/WoPEc/data/Papers/fipfedgfe1997-24.html

http://ideas.uqam.ca/ideas/data/Papers/upfupfgen195.html

8. Sexual Division of Labor

Labor, Division of, in economics, separation of the work involved in production and trade into processes performed by different workers or groups of workers. The separation may occur on several bases, the most frequent being geographical, or territorial, and occupational.
Types
A geographical division of labor develops when raw materials are found in one part of the world and the industries that use them are in another. Crude rubber produced in the Far East is compounded, vulcanized, and manufactured into automobile tires and other products in the U.S.; iron ore mined in the Mesabi Range, Minnesota, is used in the manufacture of steel in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and other cities. Geographical division of labor also includes the manufacture of component parts of a finished product in various places. The window glass and tires made in Pittsburgh and in Akron, Ohio, respectively, are used in the manufacture of automobiles that are produced chiefly in Detroit.

History
Division of labor has been a feature of production from the earliest times. In simple societies, men hunted, trapped, fished, and fought; women managed their households and tended crops. As civilization developed, a division of labor took place on a vocational basis. Different economic activities were performed by separate groups of producers. With the development of tools and productive techniques, handicrafts and agriculture were carried on by separate groups. The growth of cities fostered a wider specialization of artisans. Vocational division of labor became more widespread during the Middle Ages due to the development of the guilds.
During the later Middle Ages, technical division of labor appeared for the first time on an important scale, in connection with a widespread increase in the production of articles for sale. The Industrial Revolution that followed during the late 18th and early 19th centuries created the modern factory system of production; it gave a tremendous impetus to the development of the technical and geographical division of labor. The division of labor in modern industry into many thousands of individual processes and skills created complex technical, organizational, and personnel problems. To cope with these problems sophisticated and highly specialized industrial management techniques have been developed.

9. Separate Spheres

In economics, the specialization of the functions and roles involved in production. Division of labor is closely tied with the standardization of production, the introduction and perfection of machinery, and the development of large-scale industry.
Among the different categories of division of labor are territorial, in which certain geographical regions specialize in producing certain products, exchanging their surplus for goods produced elsewhere; temporal, in which separate processes are performed by different industrial groups in manufacturing one product, as the making of bread by
farmers, millers, and bakers; and occupational, in which goods produced in the same industrial group are worked by a number of persons, each applying one or more processes
and skills. Another division is that men and women were expected to have sexual division of labor. The women generally took care of the housework and were only offered pathetic wages when they worked out of the household. The men then took care and provided for the family.

10. Patriarchal Tradition

http://macserver.ius.indiana.edu/humanities/philosophy/programs/courses_f96/P394-j304.html

What is the Patriarchy?
The western tradition begins with the woman as second sex, as the woman created for the sake of man's loneliness, and as the woman carried away by the king of the gods. It begins with the captured woman, the monstrous woman, the hidden woman, the goddess woman, and the woman sacrificed. Philosophy, a fairly late expression of the western tradition, asserts the virtue of a reason that was considered until very recently an attribute belonging solely to men. Indeed, the first recognized woman philosopher appears centuries after the first woman painter, literary writer, or religious leader, even decades after the first woman scientist. One could, in fact, claim that only in the twentieth century do women become known as philosophers. In short, philosophy has seemed particularly resistant to the woman's touch.

This resistance is not the direct theme of our course. It does, however, suggest the direction we will take. For one answer to the question "Why do philosophical women appear so late?" is that philosophy's resistance involves a central theme of our tradition. In other words, philosophy can be seen as one of the fullest and most subtle expressions of our patriarchal tradition. What is the patriarchy? As a first working definition I offer the following: the western patriarchal tradition is that set of hierarchical priorities and structures which has at least up until the present manifested itself by the social, historical, and cultural historically subjugation of women and other groups.
Ironically, it is in the philosophical mode that many writers have either hinted at or directly pointed to the existence of the patriarchal project. In other words, philosophy is both an expression of the patriarchy and one of the patriarchy's fiercest critics. Thus, philosophy represents a fundamental seam of the western tradition, that disciplinary practice which both points to and denies the problem of a rationality that is decidedly masculine.

13. Andrew Ure

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1835ure.html
Modern History Sourcebook:
Andrew Ure: The Philosophy of the Manufacturers, 1835
Andrew Ure (1778-1857), a professor at the University of Glasgow, was an enthusiast for the new manufacturing system. Here he represents the views of a new class: the manufacturers whose wealth derived from ownership of factories.
This island is pre-eminent among civilized nations for the prodigious development of its factory wealth, and has been therefore long viewed with a jealous admiration by foreign powers. This very pre-eminence, however, has been contemplated in a very different light by many influential members of our own community, and has been even denounced by them as the certain origin of innumerable evils to the people, and of revolutionary convulsions to the state. If the affairs of the kingdom be wisely administered, I believe such allegations and fears will prove to be groundless, and to proceed more from the envy of one ancient and powerful order of the commonwealth, towards another suddenly grown into political importance, than from the nature of things....
The blessings which physio-mechanical science has bestowed on society, and the means it has still in store for ameliorating the lot of mankind, have been too little dwelt upon; while, on the other hand, it has been accused of lending itself to the rich capitalists as an instrument for harassing the poor, and of exacting from the operative an accelerated rate of work. It has been said, for example, that the steam-engine now drives the power-looms with such velocity as to urge on their attendant weavers at the same rapid pace; but that the hand-weaver, not being subjected to this restless agent, can throw his shuttle and move his treddles at his convenience. There is, however, this difference in the two cases, that in the factory, every member of the loom is so adjusted, that the driving force leaves the attendant nearly nothing at all to do, certainly no muscular fatigue to sustain, while it procures for him good, unfailing wages, besides a healthy workshop gratis: whereas the non-factory weaver, having everything to execute by muscular exertion, finds the labour irksome, makes in consequence innumerable short pauses, separately of little account, but great when added together; earns therefore proportionally low wages, while he loses his health by poor diet and the dampness of his hovel....
The constant aim and effect of scientific improvement in manufactures are philanthropic, as they tend to relieve the workmen either from niceties of adjustment which exhaust his mind and fatigue his eyes, or from painful repetition of efforts which distort or wear out his frame. At every step of each manufacturing process described in this volume the humanity of science will be manifest....
In its precise acceptation, the Factory system is of recent origin, and may claim England for its birthplace. The mills for throwing silk, or making organzine, which were mounted centuries ago in several of the Italian states, and furtively transferred to this country by Sir Thomas Lombe in 1718, contained indeed certain elements of a factory, and probably suggested some hints of those grander and more complex combinations of self-acting machines, which were first embodied half a century later in our cotton manufacture by Richard Arkwright, assisted by gentlemen of Derby, well acquainted with its celebrated silk establishment. But the spinning of an entangled flock of fibres into a smooth thread, which constitutes the main operation with cotton, is in silk superfluous; being already performed by the unerring instinct of a worm, which leaves to human art the simple task of doubling and twisting its regular filaments. The apparatus requisite for this purpose is more elementary, and calls for few of those gradations of machinery which are needed in the carding, drawing, roving, and spinning processes of a cotton-mill.
When the first water-frames for spinning cotton were erected at Cromford, in the romantic valley of the Derwent, about sixty years ago, mankind were little aware of the mighty revolution which the new system of labour was destined by Providence to achieve, not only in the structure of British society, but in the fortunes of the world at large. Arkwright alone had the sagacity to discern, and the boldness to predict in glowing language, how vastly productive human industry would become, when no longer proportioned in its results to muscular effort, which is by its nature fitful and capricious, but when made to consist in the task of guiding the work of mechanical fingers and arms, regularly impelled with great velocity by some indefatigable physical power. What his judgment so clearly led him to perceive, his energy of will enabled him to realize with such rapidity and success, as would have done honour to the most influential individuals, but were truly wonderful in that obscure and indigent artisan....
The principle of the factory system then is, to substitute mechanical science for hand skill, and the partition of a process into its essential constituents, for the division or graduation of labour among artisans. On the handicraft plan, labour more or less skilled was usually the most expensive element of production.... but on the automatic plan, skilled labour gets progressively superseded, and will, eventually, be replaced by mere overlookers of machines.
By the infirmity of human nature it happens, that the more skilful the workman, the more self-willed and intractable he is apt to become, and, of course, the less fit a component of a mechanical system, in which, by occasional irregularities, he may do great damage to the whole. The grand object therefore of the modern manufacturer is, through the union of capital and science, to reduce the task of his work-people to the exercise of vigilance and dexterity, - faculties, when concentred to one process, speedily brought to perfection in the young. In the infancy of mechanical engineering, a machine-factory displayed the division of labour in manifold gradations - the file, the drill, the lathe, having each its different workmen in the order of skill: but the dextrous hands of the filer and driller are now superseded by the planing, the key groove cutting, and the drilling-machines; and those of the iron and brass turners, by the self-acting slide-lathe....
It is, in fact, the constant aim and tendency of every improvement in machinery to supersede human labour altogether, or to diminish its cost, by substituting the industry of women and children for that of men; or that of ordinary labourers for trained artisans. In most of the water-twist, or throstle cotton-mills, the spinning is entirely managed by females of sixteen years and upwards. The effect of substituting the self-acting mule for the common mule, is to discharge the greater part of the men spinners, and to retain adolescents and children. The proprietor of a factory near Stockport states, in evidence to the commissioners, that, by such substitution, he would save 501. a week in wages in consequence of dispensing with nearly forty male spinners, at about 25s. of wages each....
Steam-engines furnish the means not only of their support but of their multiplication. They create a vast demand for fuel; and, while they lend their powerful arms to drain the pits and to raise the coals, they call into employment multitudes of miners, engineers, shipbuilders, and sailors, and cause the construction of canals and railways. Thus therefore, in enabling these rich fields of industry to be cultivated to the utmost, they leave thousands of fine arable fields free for the production of food to man, which must have been otherwise allotted to the food of horses. Steam-engines moreover, by the cheapness and steadiness of their action, fabricate cheap goods, and procure in their exchange a liberal supply of the necessaries and comforts of life produced in foreign lands.
Improvements in the machinery have a three-fold bearing: -
lst. They make it possible to fabricate some articles which, but for them, could not be fabricated at all.
2nd. They enable an operative to turn out a greater quantity of work than he could before, - time, labour, and quality of work remaining constant.
3rd. They effect a substitution of labour comparatively unskilled, for that which is more skilled.
From Andrew Ure, The Philosophy of Manufactures (London: Chas. Knight 1835), pp 5-8, 14-15, 20-21, 23, 29-31.
http://www.libertyhaven.com/thinkers/andrewur

14. Crystal Palace

http://victorianstation.com/palace.html
In 1851 Great Britain was arguably the leader of the industrial revolution and feeling very secure in that ideal. The Great Exhibition of 1851 in London was conceived to symbolize this industrial, military and economic superiority of Great Britain. Just representing the feats of Britain itself would have excluded many of the technological achievements pioneered by the British in its many colonies and protectorates, so it was decided to make the exhibit truly international with invitations being extended to almost all of the colonized world. The British also felt that it was important to show their achievements right alongside those of "less civilized" countries. The prevailing attitude in England at the time was ripe for the somewhat arrogant parading of accomplishments. Many felt secure, economically and politically, and Queen Victoria was eager to reinforce the feeling of contentment with her reign. It was during the mid-1850s that the word "Victorian" began to be employed to express a new self-consciousness, both in relation to the nation and to the period through which it was passing.
The exhibition was also a triumph for Victoria's German husband, Albert, whom she had married in 1840. Despite outbursts of opposition to Albert by the press the family life of the Victorian court began to be considered increasingly as a model for the whole country. Albert had appreciated the achievements of Prime Minister Robert Peel's political and military advances and publicly advocated the advancement of industry and science. These facts began to sway opinion in his favor as respectable foundations of family life and industrial supremacy were becoming rapidly acquainted with the monarchy of Victoria and Albert. Conceived by prince Albert, the Great Exhibition was held in Hyde Park in London in the specially constructed Crystal Palace. The Crystal Palace was originally designed by Sir Joseph Paxton in only 10 days and was a huge iron goliath with over a million feet of glass. It was important that the building used to showcase these achievements be grandiose and innovative. Over 13,000 exhibits were displayed and viewed by over 6,200,000 visitors to the exhibition. The millions of visitors that journeyed to the Great Exhibition of 1851 marveled at the industrial revolution that was propelling Britain into the greatest power of the time. Among the 13,000 exhibits from all around the world were the Jacquard loom, an envelope machine, tools, kitchen appliances, steel-making displays and a reaping machine from the United States. The objects on display came from all parts of the world, including India and the countries with recent white settlements, such as Australia and New Zealand, that constituted the new empire. Many of the visitors who flocked to London came from European cities. The profits from the event allowed for the foundation of public works such as the Albert Hall, the Science Museum, the National History Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum.
This "bigger and better" building was divided into a series of courts depicting the history of art and architecture from ancient Egypt through the Renaissance, as well as exhibits from industry and the natural world. Major concerts were held in the Palace's huge arched Centre Transept, which also contained the world's largest organ. The Centre Transept also housed a circus and was the scene of daring feats by world famous acts such as the tightrope walker Blondin. National exhibitions were also staged within its glass and iron walls, including the world's first aeronautical exhibition (held in 1868) and the first national motor show, plus cat shows, dog shows, pigeon shows, honey, flower and other shows.
The Crystal Palace itself was almost outshone by the park in which it stood, which contained a magnificent series of fountains, comprising almost 12,000 individual jets. The largest of these threw water to a height of 250ft. Some 120,000 gallons of water flowed through the system when it was in full play.
The park also contained unrivaled collections of statues, many of which were copies of great works from around the world, and a geological display which included a replica lead mine and the first attempts anywhere in the world to portray life-size restorations of extinct animals, including dinosaurs. Crystal Palace park was also the scene of spectacular Brock's fireworks displays.
After the Great Exhibition closed, the Crystal Palace was moved to Sydenham Hill in South London and reconstructed in what was, in effect, a 200 acre Victorian theme park. The new Crystal Palace park at Sydenham was opened by Queen Victoria on June 10th, 1854.
In 1911, the year of King George V's coronation, the Crystal Palace was home to the Festival of Empire. Three-quarter size models of the parliament buildings of Empire and Commonwealth countries were erected in the grounds to contain exhibits of each country's products.
In later years, the Crystal Palace became very closely associated with the development of television when John Logie Baird established his television company here. Based in the south tower (which also served as an aerial), the Palace itself and other buildings in the grounds, from June 1934 the Baird Television Company had 4 fully equipped studios at Crystal Palace. In 1935 transmission of 120 line pictures were demonstrated and a high definition picture of 500 lines was also shown. In 1937 Baird even demonstrated the color television, using a radio link from the south tower to the Dominion Theatre in London. The picture was clear on a 12ft by 9ft screen.
Today it is sport with which the name of Crystal Palace is most closely connected, but this is not a modern development. Important sporting events were staged there from the Palace's very early days. The Crystal Palace was built at a time when sporting activity was becoming more popular and more formally organized. Though Paxton's original design did not include any accommodation for sports, it was not long before all kinds of sports were being played in the name of Crystal Palace. As early as 1857 an area in the lower park had been designated as the cricket ground.
The first Crystal Palace football team was reportedly formed in 1861 and a representative from Crystal Palace was present at the meeting which formed the Football Association in 1863. Crystal Palace were among the 15 teams which took part in the first FA Challenge Cup competition in 1872. The highlight of Crystal Palace football history was the 20 FA Cup finals which were played in the grounds between 1895 and 1914. Crowds in excess of 100,000 watch teams such as Aston Villa, Newcastle and Tottenham.
A motor racing circuit was laid down in the park in 1936-37 and the first race meeting saw cars circulating at the fastest speed of 57 m.p.h. Race meetings were halted by the War and did not restart until May 1953, from when they continued until 1972. In modern times, it is athletics with which the name Crystal Palace is probably most widely associated throughout the world, but the Crystal Palace Athletics Club was formed as long ago as 1868, its members contributing to the purchase of dumbbells and other gymnastic equipment. Numerous other sports, such as polo, rugby, cycling, archery, fishing, croquet, quoits, ice skating, gridiron and even roller hockey have taken place at Crystal Palace over the last 140 years and continue to do so today, with the National Sports Centre being a key element of the modern Crystal Palace Park.
The Crystal Palace itself was destroyed by fire on November 30th 1936, following which the area lost much of its focus and began to decline. But many of the most important events in the history of the Crystal Palace took place in the grounds, which retain much of their original overall layout today and are a Grade II listed historic park. Thus, for 140 years, Crystal Palace park has been the scene of innumerable contributions to the nation's social, scientific and sporting history.
The London Borough of Bromley, who own the park today, together with the Crystal Palace Foundation, have recently submitted an outline proposal the National Heritage Lottery Fund to restore much of the park to its former glory. The proposals covered by this application aim not only to improve the park as an amenity, but also to restore a number of its major heritage features. This will include restoration of the Grand Central Walkway, which originally ran the length of the park, the preservation and restoration of the terraces, and the restoration of the geological islands.

16. Spinning Jenny

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TEXjenny.htm
http://www.woodberry.org/acad/hist/irwww/Textiles/Technology/Spinning_Jenny.htm

17. Zollverein

Website: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0853484.html
Zollverein [Ger.,=customs union], in German history, a customs union established to eliminate tariff barriers. Friedrich List first popularized the idea of a combination to abolish the customs barriers that were inhibiting trade among the numerous states of the German Confederation. In 1818, Prussia abolished internal customs and formed a North German Zollverein, which in 1834 became the German Zollverein after merging with two similar unions, the South German Zollverein and the Central German Trade Union, both founded in 1828. Customs barriers of member states were leveled, and a uniform tariff was instituted against non-members. The customs at foreign frontiers were collected on joint account, and the proceeds were distributed in proportion to the population and resources of the member states. A rival customs union, the Steuerverein of central Germany, was also organized in 1834. A series of treaties (1851-54) joined it to the Zollverein, which then comprised nearly all the German states except Austria, the two Mecklenburgs, and the Hanseatic towns. Prussia, despite the insistence of several states, was unwilling to admit Austria to the union, but the two countries negotiated a separate tariff treaty. After the Austro-Prussian War (1866) a new agreement was reached by the members of the union. The newly formed North German Confederation entered the Zollverein in a body, and the other German states also negotiated customs treaties with victorious Prussia. The constitution (1867) of the new Zollverein provided for a federal council of customs (Zollbundesrat), comprised of personal representatives of the several rulers, and for an elected customs parliament (Zollparlament). In both bodies Prussia exercised predominant influence. In 1871 the laws and regulations of the Zollverein passed into the legislation of the newly created German Empire. Alsace-Lorraine entered the imperial customs area in 1872, and the Hanseatic cities joined in 1888. The Zollverein promoted the economic unification of Germany.

18. Factory Act of 1833

http://learningcurve.pro.gov.uk/snapshots/snapshot13/snapshot13.htm

19. Credit Mobilier

The Bank of France was founded in 1800 by a group of parisian banks as a discount bank with a local monopoly on note issue. It subsequently acquired the central-banking responsability of protecting the country against domestic as well as international crises, having a special role in providing the Bank of England access to its gold reserves. In the nineteenth century, the Bank of France enjoyed a high degree of autonomy, but its intransigent anti-inflationary stance during the great depression caused the government to diminish its independence after 1935.
1. Domestic lender of last resort
As early as 1810, 1818, and 1826, the Bank of France responded to the shortage of money by discounting generously commercial paper. In 1830, it accepted almost any paper, although doing so violated its statute.
The Bank was accused of having acted primarily in its own interest in many crises. In 1848, it allowed all the provincial banks of issue to fail in a successful attempt to transform them into branches (Gille 1970). Moreover, some attribute the fall of the Pereires' Credit Mobilier in 1868 to the rivalry between the Currency-School ideas of the Bank and the Banking-School or "Saint-Simonian" ideas of the Pereires who had intended to compete with the Bank and its Rothschild allies by taking over the bank of issue of the annexed Kingdom of Savoy (Cameron 1961). The same is said about the Union Générale crash in 1882. But a close analysis of both episodes shows that the Credit Mobilier and the Union Générale were deeply involved in industrial speculations and that the Bank did not cause their failure (Levy-Leboyer 1976).
The Bank did save many other banks in difficulty, or organized their liquidation to avoid a general panic, as in the cases of Laffitte (1831), the Comptoir d'Escompte (1889) and the Banque Nationale de Crédit (1931). The 1931 bank crisis wasn't very serious, because of the conservative attitude of major French banks toward industrial operations and in the cover of all sight obligations. The Bank of France intervened in favor of many provincial banks with limited industrial commitment. However, the Bank was criticized for never intervening directly for commerce or industry, but only for great or medium-size banks, and for asking the large banks and the State to share in the cost of rescue operations. In the Great Depression, the banks protested against competition by the Bank of France through "direct discount" (maintained by the government since the founding of the Bank although the growth of the banking sector had made it unnecessary). But the main reason for hostility against the Bank, its very conservative attitude in supplying money for normal economic activity, was only indirectly related to the crises.
2. Macroeconomic policy
The Bank never publicly accepted responsibility for economic fluctuations: "the Bank", wrote the Conseil Général of the Bank in 1857, "does not regulate the price of money, it only records it officially" (Plessis 1985, 215). Throughout the nineteenth century, "the only service the Bank has to offer is to moderate business activity" (Plessis 1985, 165), by raising its discount rate, thus signalling the beginning of a crisis as well as dampening its impact. However, its practice was different, and for the entire century the Bank tried to keep its discount rate at a low level. Its method was also different from that of the Bank of England (even if the result was exactly the same mean rate in the long run): the Bank of France tried to keep its discount rate stable at a "normal" rather than at the lowest level possible. The four-percent rate did not change from 1820 to 1847 and the rate was never more than one point above or below three percent from 1882 to 1914. Such a policy was possible before 1870 because of the strict limitation of the money supply and of the liabilities of the Bank. It was facilitated thereafter by a balance-of-payments surplus.
The Bank oposed the founding of many banks (particularly provincial banks of issue before the Bank's privilege was extended to the entire country in 1848) until the liberty to incorporate was given in 1863. Before the new joint-stock banks started competing in the 1870s, the Bank's discount was limited to a small number of Parisian banks by severe conditions of admission. Its reluctance to issue notes of medium or small amount (because of fears of panic dating back to the 1720 Law experience and the Revolutionary Assignats) and the late (1865) legal recognition of the check by the government resulted in a low degree of monetization of the French economy and the continued use of gold coins (Cameron, 1967).
A flexible rate policy like that of the Bank of England from the 1840s was adopted only between 1857 and 1882, and did not match the frequency of the English variations. This was the only period in with a determined countercyclical macroeconomic policy was practiced.
The Bank's influence on the money market declined between 1880 and 1940 because its share of total discounts disminished, because the great deposit banks (that never required to rediscount at the Bank) had excess liquidity, and because the Bank refused twice to engage in an open market policy (in 1861 and 1928). After 1918, the supply of money from the Bank rose, not because of a change in its discount policy but because it was no able to limit its advances to the state budget. The belated resistance of Governor Robineau during the resulting franc crisis of 1925 was continued by his successors Moreau and Moret. But from January 1935, the Bank was obliged to discount Treasury bills and to make advances to the state, in an ever-growing subordination on the Finance Minister that is reflected by the frequent changes of the state-appointed governors of the Bank. These inflationary practicescombined with an increasing discount rate and a policy of strictly restricting lending to private business, which reflects the absence of a coherent macroeconomic policy, were continued after 1935, partly explaining the duration of the Great Depression in France.
3. Defense of the franc
Guaranteeing the franc was ever said to be the principal aim of the Bank. From 1800 to 1914, the convertibility of the notes it issued was guaranteed at an invariable rate, except in two cases of political origin, from 1848 to 1852 and from 1870 to 1878. Despite the preoccupation with convertibility, exchange-rate crises rarely required a high interest rate. In 1836, the Bank lost 55 percent of its reserves without raising its discount rate, preventing the international crisis from affecting France. In 1855, 1857, 1864, the solvency of the Bank was imperiled by high London rates, and its rate rose to 10% in 1857, the highest level of the century. But after 1866, high English interest rates did not attract enough gold to force the Bank of France to raise its rate.
The reason for the relative insulation of France from world crises was the very high reserves/liabilities ratio (often more than 80 percent) the Bank maintained until the 1930s, a consequence of its strict Currency-School principles and of the resulting limited monetization of France.
After 1918, the Bank was unable to prevent the fall of the franc, except briefly in 1924, with the help of the Morgan bank. But it assisted the Poincaré government in stabilizing the franc in 1926. During the Great Depression, its preoccupation with the franc led the Bank to favor deflationary policy. However, after 1935, the Bank could not prevent the growth of advances to the state and the subsequent recurrence of speculation, inflation and devaluations.
4. International policy
The Bank played an important international role in the nineteenth century, mainly because it was the only bank with enough gold reserves and international influence to help the Bank of England, providing assistance in 1825, in 1836-39, in the Baring crisis of 1890, in 1906-07, and in 1931 (by forbearing to convert its sterling holdings and arranging large credit for the Bank of England). The Bank may be considered the second center of the international monetary system from 1840 to 1914.
During the 1930s, the Bank of France was widely held responsible for the Great Depression and the devaluation of the pound in 1931. The Bank of England accused it of sterilizing the gold inflows to monopolize the world's gold. In fact, the Bank tried to return to its old Currency-School principles that required a large gold stock. From 1924 to 1928 the gold flows had been purely speculative, unrelated to differences in discount rates, which explains the reluctance of the Bank to let the money supply reflect those flows. But the inflows of 1926-1932 were consistent with the French economy's traditional wide use of notes issued by the Bank of France in preference to deposits, and with a Currency-School central-bank that rejected the use of open market operations as inflationary. But sterilization was not a cause of the Great Depression since the sterilization of capital inflows did not continue after the formal resumption of convertibility in June 1928. Thereafter, the ratio of gold plus foreign exchange reserves to the Banks liabilities stopped rising. A more likely cause is that the extent of exchange-rate speculation in the 1920s was to great for central-bank cooperation cope with, undermining the nineteenth-century equilibrium in which gold reserves were largely concentrated in the Bank of France. Credits organized by the Banks of France and England and the Federal Reserve Bank of New-York could not halt the crisis, because speculators soon suspected there were disagreements between the main countries, and no one could act as the international lender of last resort.
The Bank of France's policy against crises during the nineteenth century differed from the Bank of England's, beeing adapted to a country with limited international commitments like France. After 1918, many governments had no serious economic (and especially tax) policy: by stages, they limited the Bank to servicing the Treasury's financial needs. The Bank could not resist, which led to the prolongation of the Great Depression in France and the final loss of the Bank's autonomy. After 1945, the Bank was called on to finance the reconstruction and to prevent crises, while exchange control was used to protect the franc's stability. From then on, the Bank was simply the principal agent of the government in implementing its monetary policy.

22. Henry Cott

www.tilthammer.com/bio/cort.html
HENRY CORT
1740 - 1800

Henry Cort was born in Lancaster in 1740. His father was a builder and brickmaker.
In 1765 he was employed as an agent for the Royal Navy in London, a position that made him aware of the poor quality of British iron compared to the iron that was imported from abroad. British produced wrought iron was so poor in quality that the British government would not purchase it and the British produced cast iron could only be used for limited purposes. Britain was importing large quantities of Russian iron and were being made to pay very high prices.
Henry began experimenting on and improving the manufacture of English iron.
In 1775 he gave up his job as agent for the Navy and set up his own business, a forge and iron mill, in Portsmouth harbour.
Between 1783-4 he took out patents for the processes he had developed which improved the quality of bar iron. One patent process involved the production of bar iron by hammering at a perfect welding heat (constant temperature) and rolling out all the impurities. This produced iron that had been compressed into a tough and fibrous state.
Lord Sheffield recognised the significance of these processes when he stated the following in 1786
it is not asserting too much to say that the result will be more advantageous to Great Britain than the possession of the thirteen colonies (of America); for it will give the complete command of the iron trade to this country, with its vast advantages to navigation.
The second patent involved the manufacture of bar iron from ore or cast iron in a reverberating or air furnace without a blast. During this process the liquid iron was constantly stirred with iron bars burning off the carbon from the cast iron and the iron was separated from the slag. This was then hammered and rolled as stated above.
Henry Cort's achievements can be assessed from the following statistics:-
Production of British Iron
1700 = 12,000 tons
1750 = 18,000 tons
1780 = 90,000 tons
1820 = 400,000 tons
By the end of the 19th century Britain was producing 4 million+ tons of pig iron per year, which was more than the entire production of all the other European countries.
In 1820 there were at least 8,200 of Cort's furnaces operating in Great Britain and many of the actual iron iron manufactures considered the Cort's greatest achievement to have been his rolling process.
Cort never benefitted financially from his work. His partnership with the Jellicoes ended in financial disaster and he left his iron works in 1789, a ruined man.
Henry was finally granted a government pension in 1794 to support his wife and family of twelve children.
Henry Cort died in 1800.

23. James Hargraves

1. James Hargreaves
Born near Blackburn, Lancashire in 1720, James hargreaves worked as a handloom weaver at his home in Standhill, with his wife and children helping with the spinning.
In 1764 he invented the Spinning Jenny, after, it is said, observing a spinning wheel which had acccidentally been knocked over and was still turning. He realised that it was possible for one person to spin several threads at once by turning the process through 90 degrees and using a number of spindles in a row. His new machine, reputedly named after his daughter, was fitted with 8 spindles and resulted in the Hargreaves family being able to produce much more yarn than anyone else in the neighbourhood. Fearing for their livelihoods, other spinners attacked his home, and destroyed his frames, which he had begun manufacturing and selling to help support his family. He moved to Nottingham in 1768, where his safety was assured because demand always outstripped supply.In 1770, Hargreaves patented a 16 spindle machine. Hargreaves died in 1778.
http://freespace.virgin.net/allen.r/hrgrves.htm
2. http://65.107.211.206/victorian/technology/sj.html
3. http://tomwgrim.home.texas.net/WebPages/HargGrim.htm

25. James Watt

JAMES WATT, the grandson of a teacher of mathematics, and the son of a shipwright merchant of Greenock, was born in 1736. On the advice of a Glasgow Professor, he was sent to London in 1755 to be apprenticed to a mathematical instrument maker.1 However, on arriving in London he discovered that the seven years' apprenticeship rule of the gild was largely insisted upon, and it was only with difficulty that he could find any one who would take him for so short a time as a year This was finally arranged, and a Mr. Morgan was to give him a year's instruction for twenty guineas. 2
His stay in London was characterized by great frugality and occasional fears of the press-gang In a letter to his father, he writes: " They now press anybody they can get, landsmen as well as seamen, except it be in the liberties of the city, where they are obliged to carry them before my Lord Mayor first; and, unless one be either a Prentice or a creditable tradesman, there is scarce any getting off again, and if I was carried before my Lord Mayor, I durst not avow that I wrought in the City, it being against their laws for any unfreeman to work, even as a journeyman, within the liberties."3
When Watt had completed his training, he returned to Glasgow to set up in business for himself, only to be met by the same restrictions that existed in London; the gilds were still struggling to retain their control of the trade of the chartered towns,4 and as Watt was neither the son of a burgess nor the husband of the daughter of one, and not having served a regular apprenticeship, he was refused permission to open his shop. Watt's early friendship with the Glasgow professors now stood him in good stead. He was made mathematical instrument maker to the University, and given a shop within its walls, where he carried on his trade. Even in this small venture Watt lacked capital, and took one John Craig into partnership, the details of which give an insight into the scale of a small business in 1750, and the relatively small part fixed capital played. The journal of the partnership begins with the following entry: " An Inventory of tools, goods, etc., belonging to us, James Watt and John Craig, each one-half. Taken October 7th, 1759, at Glasgow," and then enumerates a variety of mechanical tools from a turning lathe to a flatting mill, with philosophical instruments, chiefly mathematical and optical, the whole to the value of which £91 I9S. 3.5d., with cash on hand, £I08 8.5d., made the total capital £200. 5
During the period dealt with in the journal, 1759-1765, the ready money sales brought in about £50 per month, or £600 per annum, a large portion of which went to pay wages and buy materials. Watt, himself, is credited with a salary of £35 per annum, rather more than twice the wage of a potter, and rather less than twice that of a miner. From employing one journeyman and occasional extra help, the business expanded so that in 1764 Watt employed sixteen men of various capacities.
In 1763, Watt left his rooms in the University, and in July of the following year married his cousin, Miss Miller. During this time, too, Watt made the acquaintance of Professors Black and Robison, of Glasgow University.
During his stay in the University, Watt looked after the mathematical instruments which belonged to it, and, " in the winter of 1763-4, having occasion to repair a model of Newcomen's engine, belonging to the Natural Philosophy class," his mind was again directed to the study of the steam-engine.6
He repaired it, but upon its being set to work, it was discovered that it would only go a few strokes at a time, though the boiler was big enough to keep it well supplied with steam. The large amount of water that it was necessary to inject to condense the steam, put Watt on the track of the theory of latent heat, which Dr. Black had already discovered.
Upon thinking the matter over, Watt saw that there was a great wastage of steam and power through the alternate heating and cooling of the cylinder, and, upon reflecting further, he perceived " that in order to make the best use of steam, it was necessary Ñfirst, that the cylinder should be maintained always as hot as the steam which entered it; and, secondly, that when the steam was condensed, the water of which it was composed, and the injection itself, should be cooled down to a 1OO degrees, or lower where it was possible. The means of accomplishing these points did not immediately present themselves; but early in 1765 it occurred to me that if a communication were opened between a cylinder containing steam and another vessel, which was exhausted of air and other fluids, the steam, as an elastic fluid, would immediately rush into the empty vessel, and continue to do so until it had established an equilibrium; and if that vessel were kept very cool by an injection, or otherwise, more steam would continue to enter until the whole was condensed. But both the vessels being exhausted, or nearly so, how were the injection water, the air which would enter with it, and the condensed steam, to be got out ? " This was eventually solved " by employing a pump or pumps to extract both the air and the water, which would be applicable in all places, and essential in those cases where there was no well or pit."7
This is Watt's great discovery Ñthe theory of separate condensation, it made the steam-engine a useful and economical source of power, and was so successful, that for a hundred years after his invention no drastic alterations were made in the type of steam-engines in common use. Following naturally from the main discovery were these corollaries. The piston in Newcomen's engine was kept air-tight by a supply of cold water on it upper surface- this was no longer possible, and Watt was forced to use " oils, wax, resinous bodies, fat of animals, quicksilver, and other metals in their fluid state." 8
Again, the cylinder being open, the air which entered to press down the piston in the old atmospheric engine would cool the cylinder. Therefore, he proposed to close the head of the cylinder, and to allow the piston rod to slide through a stuffing box, while the piston was to be forced down, not by the air, but by steam introduced above it.
The cylinder was cooled, too, by the open air on its side; this Watt remedied by enclosing the cylinder in a second case covered with wood, and filling the space between with steam. Thus, all Watt's improvements were economical of heat. Economy in heat meant economy in steam, and economy in steam meant economy in working costs, and, above all, in coal.
Watt now spent all his spare time in reducing the theory of his improvement to practice; he carefully thought out all the details, and calculated the amount of steam required. But, before long, he felt the need of an experiment on a large scale.
That is the story of the inventor, but the invention was a long way from being a commercial proposition, and much money had to be spent, and much capital laid out before Watt was in a position to supply " power to order."
Watt himself had no money to spend on experiments, and no capital with which to start manufacturing steam-engines, should his experiments prove successful. Therefore, he had to look elsewhere for his capital, and the two men who provided it, and made possible the successful development, were Roebuck and Boulton. Their story forms an important chapter in the history of capitalism, and in their careers can be seen most of the difficulties and opportunities that faced the men who became the leaders of the Industrial Revolution. http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/lord/4-1.htm

Watt, James (1736-1819), Scottish inventor and mechanical engineer, renowned for his improvements of the steam engine. Watt was born on January 19, 1736, in Greenock, Scotland. He worked as a mathematical-instrument maker from the age of 19 and soon became interested in improving the steam engines, invented by the English engineers Thomas Savery and Thomas Newcomen, which were used at the time to pump water from mines.
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?ti=03154000

26. Friedrich List

The response to Chris Trotter's piece (Who's Winston's Economic Guru? 26 July, 1996) on Friedrich List - the early 19th century German political economist - suggests that List might not be as little known or as little rated as has been suggested. List is in fact one of those political economists, like Adam Smith, whose place in history is distorted by bumper-sticker misunderstandings about what he was really arguing.
Perhaps 99% percent of all texts on political economy from the 17th to the 19th century could be classed as nationalist, in that they sought policy changes that would improve the economic performances of the writers' nations. List was certainly no exception. Having said that, List was in essence an economic liberal and a free trader, both in public life and in his writings. While he was no supporter of laissez-faire, he was by no means a spokesperson for the collectivist left, nor a precursor of fascism. He believed that governments had a positive role to play in improving the efficacy of markets.
In the early 19th century, German governments were much less protectionist than were British governments. Furthermore, Palmerstonian nationalism in 1830s' to 1860s' Britain was no less vehement with the introduction of free trade in the 1840s. Politicians such as Disraeli and economists such as Cairnes continued to talk about 'tribute' as the purpose of empire. As late as the 1900s, the world's most eminent economist - Alfred Marshall - was asked to give policy recommendations about how a commercial policy could be designed so as to get foreigners to pay an increased share of British taxes. The political commitment to British commercial interests on a world stage, while not a "conspiracy", was real.
As Trotter noted, List's nationalism was accentuated during his time in America. In Philadelphia in the 1820s, the main influences on List were the late Alexander Hamilton, who as Federal Treasurer in the 1790s became the focus of American support for manufacturing development, and the more radical Daniel Raymond, whom some say List plagiarised. Hamilton's two main influences were Adam Smith and an anti-physiocratic banker from Geneva, Jacques Necker, who had two stints as French finance minister in the 1770s and 1780s. Necker was in power at the time of the storming of the Bastille, but was not regarded as an enemy of the revolution and was never threatened with the guillotine.
Indirectly - ie through Hamilton - Smith was a major influence on List. It was a long serving Edinburgh economics professor - J.S. Nicholson, an unreserved fan of Adam Smith - who noted as much when in the 1900s he wrote a forward to a reprint of List's National System of Political Economy. The main weakness of List's book was seen by Nicholson as its anti-Smith rhetoric, suggesting that many of List's statements about Smith reflected popular interpretations rather than careful study. Indeed, most people today who have strong views about Smith have not read his Wealth of Nations, let alone his equally important Theory of Moral Sentiments. It was the physiocratic elements of Smith, portraying agriculture as the backbone of the national economy, that List, like Hamilton before him, disagreed with.
Nicholson made other key points about List. List's most important contribution to economic thought was his emphasis on the importance of "intangible capital" to modern economic growth. Indeed, it is only in the 1980s and 1990s that modern economics is coming to appreciate the contribution of intangibles to GDP. At a political level, List's text could give no support whatsoever for British protectionist opinion. In the 1900s the Tory party was advocating retaliatory protective tariffs as a means by which Britain might retain its economic lead over Germany and the USA. It was only because the political left strongly supported free trade that Britain was able to fend off protectionism until the collapse of the Labour Government in 1931.
List was what would be called today a 'development economist'. He argued that both undeveloped and industrialised countries would be best served by a free trade policy, regardless of the policies of other countries. But he also argued that newly industrialising countries, having commenced a process of development under free trade, would need to go through a period of national 'producer sovereignty' (to pick up on a term used by Owen McShane [August 2]) if they were to complete the transition to large scale industrialisation. List accepted that the process would involve efficiency losses, but believed that dynamic gains would offset those losses.
List, like Smith, Marx and many others, offered a 'stage theory' of economic history. His theory advocated commercial policies appropriate to each stage of development; List was a 'relativist' in that he believed a nation's policies should reflect its circumstances.
History has largely proved List right, in that all bar none of today's major industrial powers followed protectionist policies during their critical 'take-off' stages. It is a moot point whether List is relevant to New Zealand today, however, depending on one's view of our present stage of development and our place as a very small country in a big world.
List was regarded by the most eminent of the early neoclassical economists as an important advocate of what would become American institutionalism. Marshall respected List's views. Marshall's successor as Cambridge economics professor, Pigou, stated in the 1900s: 'Of the formal validity of List's arguments there is no longer any dispute among economists'.
List lived in an era of nascent national empires. Today's international economy is different. All nations are seeing their sovereignty challenged by international forces that are little understood. National governments are increasingly prepared to pay homage to international markets as a de facto sovereign. Under these circumstances, it is perhaps another, more recent, German economist who we should be looking to for guidance: Rudolf Hilferding who published Finance Capital in 1910.
While there is nothing wrong with looking to specific economists of the past for inspiration and understanding, we should also seek new understandings of new situations. We should seek to address today's burning issue, the determination of economic sovereignty, in a disinterested way, through scholarship and informal public debate. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for people to present or even listen to arguments that undermine their immediate interests, especially within an adversarial culture such as our own which equates concession in argument with weakness.
Economics is controversial for one basic reason: economic debate is not simply academic, participants and audiences have interests to protect. For example, today's executives on very high salaries do have an interest in stifling debate about why 1990s' markets deliver them incomes vastly in excess of normal market remuneration. Historically, private economic rents are evidence of protected markets, of producer sovereignty, of insider coalitions. While today's successful distributional coalitions differ from those of List's day, it remains true that markets are more healthy when economic surpluses are more evenly distributed.
List, Friedrich, 1789-1846, German economist. The first professor of economics at the Univ. of Tübingen, he was elected (1820) to the Württemberg legislature. For his advocacy of administrative reforms he was sentenced to imprisonment but was released on condition that he would emigrate to the United States. There he engaged in various enterprises, and in 1832 he was returned to Germany as U.S. consul at Leipzig. Insisting upon the necessity for a commercial association of German states and the full development of productive powers in those states, he became a ceaseless advocate of a customs union (Zollverein). He urged a policy of economic protection for young industries and nations. Many of his influential ideas were subsequently adopted by the U.S. government. List's most important work is The National System of Political Economy (1840, tr. 1904).
http://cepa.newschool.edu/~het/profiles/list.htm

27. George Stephenson

George Stephenson (1781-1848), English engineer, noted as a locomotive builder. He learned to read and write in night school at the age of 18, while working in a colliery. He constructed (1814) a traveling engine, or locomotive, to haul coal from mines and in 1815 built the first locomotive to use the steam blast. He also devised (c. 1815) a miner's safety lamp at about the same time as did Sir Humphry Davy, whose lamp was adopted in 1816; it embodied some features of the Davy lamp and is considered by some to have antedated Davy's invention. His locomotive the Rocket bested the others in a contest in 1829 and was used on the Liverpool-Manchester Railway. He became engineer for several of the railroads that rapidly grew up and was consulted in the building of railroads and bridges in England and in other countries.

28. The Grand National Consolidated Trade Union
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/mbloy/peel/gnctu.htm

taken from H. Pelling, A History of Trade Unionism.
The more long-term intentions of the founders of the 'Grand National' (as we may call it) were to rationalise the structure of combinations, to achieve a general control of movements for an advance of wages, and to co-ordinate assistance for strikes, especially strikes against a reduction of wages.
Such assistance could either be financial, in which case it might take the form of a general levy upon the membership, or it could be organisational, such as by making arrangements for co-operative production by those thrown out of employment. The 'Grand National' grew with great rapidity, and may have temporarily numbered as many as half a million members; but only a tiny proportion of these ever paid any fees to its headquarters, so the figures have little real significance. At least there appears to have been some widening of the boundaries of combination at this time, to include previously unorganised groups, such as agricultural labourers, and even a few women, such as those who joined the 'Lodge of Female Tailors'.
Within each trade the local clubs were to be organised nationally under a 'Grand Lodge'; and the naive enthusiasm with which many such clubs joined in the movement is well illustrated by an account which we have of the behaviour of the Nantwich shoemakers.

After paying entrance fees our society had about forty pounds to spare, and not knowing what
better to do with it we engaged Mr. Thomas Jones to paint for us a banner emblematical of
our trade, with the motto 'May the manufactures of the sons of St. Crispin [the patron Saint of
shoemakers] be trod upon by all the world', at a cost of twenty-five pounds. We also purchased
a full set of secret order regalia, surplices, trimmed aprons, etc., and a crown and robes for
King Crispin.
The 'secret order regalia' and the denomination of the local clubs as 'lodges' indicate the prevalence at this time of various mystic rites probably based on masonic practice. At a time when unionists could easily be victimised by their employers for the mere fact of membership, such ritual no doubt played its part in maintaining the privacy of the proceedings. It had the disadvantage, however, that it persuaded the Government that a conspiracy
was afoot; and consequently the police were required to take action against any persons suspected of propagating it. A couple of 'delegates' of the
union were arrested by the police at Exeter and held when found to be carrying

'two wooden axes, two large cutlasses, two death masks, and two white garments or robes, a
large figure of Death with dart and hourglass, a Bible and Testament'.

The concern of government at this time was heightened by the incidence of a good deal of rural unrest, including rick-burning and machine breaking,
which could easily be attributed to the growth of unionism among the agricultural labourers. In 1834 Lord Melbourne, who was Home Secretary in
the Whig government, chose to make an example of six labourers from the village of Tolpuddle in Dorset, who had been found to be using a form of
ritual, though it was not one derived directly from the 'Grand National'. The six men were tried at Dorchester and were found guilty under an Act of
1797 which forbade the 'administering or taking of unlawful oaths' for seditious purposes. This was straining the statute, for there was no evidence
that the labourers had a seditious purpose in mind; nevertheless, they were given the maximum sentence permitted under the Act - transportation for
seven years, and they were all duly shipped off to Australia. The harsh treatment of the Dorchester labourers, or the 'Tolpuddle Martyrs' as they have
often been called, aroused vigorous protests all over the country; and even The Times felt moved to declare,
'The crimes which called for punishment were not proved - the crime brought home to the
prisoners did not justify the sentence.

An enormous procession of trade unionists, all carefully marshalled behind their respective banners, marched through the streets of London to present
a petition to Lord Melbourne at the Home Office. The demonstration had no immediate effect, but it set a pattern for peaceful political agitation in the
metropolis.

This, however, was the prelude to a rapid decline of the 'Grand National' and of unionism in general. The 'Grand National' began to break up owing
to its inability to provide adequate support for sections of its membership who were on strike. This was especially unfortunate at a time when the very
principle of trade unionism was so much on the defensive. Taking advantage of public alarm about the spread of unionism, many employers tried to
eliminate it from among their own employees. In the London building trades, for instance, a good opportunity occurred when some craftsmen
employed by Messrs. Cubitt were locked out owing to having boycotted beer supplied by a non-union brewery. All the London building contractors
united to demand that their employees should sign 'the Document' - a pledge not to join or belong to a trade union. In the Leeds area, the same
practice was being adopted; in fact, it was common form in trades where the small master was no longer predominant. Owen, who had not
previously been a member of the 'Grand National', after the Dorchester trial accepted the office of president, but he could not hold the union
together, and its final collapse came at the end of the year, when the treasurer absconded with most of the remaining funds. The Builders' Union
faded away at about the same time. The Dorchester labourers were given a free pardon in 1836, and gradually made their way back to England; but
this concession was probably due more to the change of Home Secretary - it was now Lord John Russell - and to the greater dependence of the
Whig government on Radical support in the Commons, than to any extra-parliamentary pressure. In the collapse of their high hopes of general
organisation and co-operative manufacture, and in the worsening trade conditions of 1837, the skilled artisans fell back where they could on the local
clubs and craft societies, which had existed within or outside the 'Grand National'. They had learnt their lesson from the failure: henceforward we hear
comparatively little of co-operative production or of the industrial union of all trades, and even less of secret oaths and ritual.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2522/tuorg.htm

Trade Union Organisation

By Bill Godwin, adapted from a talk given at the Insurrection 2000 event, 10 July 2000, Nottingham.

Most of us have to work and trade unions are about opposing the oppression of the employer. The problem is that the structure of trade unions themselves can be
oppressive.

This piece is about trade union organisation and non-hierarchical forms, past, present and future. In it I will ask the questions, "what is syndicalism?" and "is
syndicalism the only method of trade union organisation for people against hierarchy (anarchists)?"

How did we get to where we are now in Britain?

Non-hierarchical forms of organisation have not always been the minority type. Trade unions arguably began in the 18th century. They reached the zenith of their early
history in the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union (GNCTU) of 1834. The GNCTU was a revolutionary union(1) with aims of creating a co-operative
commonwealth by workers taking control of the means of production and distribution. These aims are clearly analogous with the later ideology of twentieth century
syndicalists. During the chartist period of the 1840s similar attempts were made.

The failure of both of these initiatives led to the New Model trade unionism of the 1850s using bureaucratic structures to achieve 'respectability' and permanence(2).
This was the direct precursor of today's bureaucratic mainstream unions. In fact the Amalgamated Society of Engineers which was formed in 1850 is the direct ancestor
of the modern Amalgamated Electrical and Engineering Union (AEEU).

The next significant stage was twofold. In the 1890s in Britain New unionism was the spreading of trade union organisation to unskilled workers(3). In France the first
stirrings of revolutionary or anarcho-syndicalism were occurring.(4) For the purposes of this piece, I define syndicalism as the idea of organising society around a
trades union structure, that is workers control. This is to be achieved by revolutionary direct action.

A synthesis of new unionism and syndicalism led to the massive upswing of direct action and organisation around the goal of workers' control in the period between
1910 and 1920. The forward march of British syndicalism was halted by two devastating historical events. The trade downturn in the 1920s leaving 1 million unemployed
for a decade and the success of the centrally controlled Russian Bolsheviks who were then emulated by British revolutionaries in their form of organisation.(5)

Since then unions have developed twin structures mirroring those of bourgeois liberal democracy. That is they have democratically elected representative construction
usually with a national delegates conference as the supreme decision making body. However, the real power lies in the bureaucrats in un-elected paid positions. Their
declared aim is to get the best deal under capitalism for their members by negotiation with employers rather than by overthrowing capitalism.

So where does that leave us?

Communist unions such as TAS have all gone in the UK now. So revolutionary unionism is again back in the syndicalist arena. Syndicalist unions such as Solidarity
Federation and the Industrial Workers of the World officially take the line of dual unionism. That is they want to become mass membership revolutionary organisations.
However, given their small existing memberships, counted in the hundreds (a generous estimate) compared to the 7 million members of bureaucratic unions this seems
an unrealistic goal. Many members of these syndicalist unions are in fact active within mainstream unions. Their motives range from wanting to subvert the existing
structures to a desire to do something positive for their fellow workers now. This tactic is akin to the entryism associated in recent times with Trotskyist groups.
Nevertheless, the first protagonists of this method were the British syndicalists of the 1910s and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

Why do unions organise as bureaucratic hierarchies?

Most anarchists would say that it is simply a cynical ploy on the part of privileged officials. That is it provides them with cushy jobs, good salaries and power over the
membership.(6) There can be no doubt that many trade union bureaucrats do want these things and will fight to keep them. However, if this is the full story, why do
millions of people join them? I would suggest that it is because there are a number of advantages to a hierarchical bureaucratic structure.

Firstly, bureaucracy provides full time experts who are employed by the union. This allows them much greater freedom to be critical of their members' bosses (because
they can't be victimised or sacked) and gives them the time to develop negotiating skills equal to those of full time managers.

Secondly, bureaucracy provides funds to buy essentials such as research, legal services and buildings.

Thirdly, technological advances and anti-trade union laws have reduced the power of collective action within the bourgeois liberal democratic framework. This means
that much more emphasis must be put onto negotiation and legal action if that framework is broadly supported by the organisation.

Where next for anarchist trade unionists?

Despite these advantages to bureaucracy, I oppose it wholeheartedly because it creates oppression of the membership by its very nature and far from challenging
capitalism it mirrors and supports it.(7) So, we need to find non-hierarchical alternatives which can offer a useful and workable replacement for the existing oppressive
hierarchies.

Its no good proposing grandiose schemes of building new mass membership organisations out of thin air. The existing structures flawed as they are can offer members
better protection from their bosses than a bunch of idealistic utopians (us) winging on about the oppression of bureaucracies. This doesn't mean we can't do anything
though, it just requires a bit of humility and understanding. The working class has had the option to organise without hierarchy in a revolutionary organisation many
times before (see history bit above). Trade unionists chose bureaucracy because it had advantages not because of a lack of vision on their part. We can turn some of
those advantages around now.

Technology doesn't just allow employers to replace people with machines, it also means information can be communicated without the need of a bureaucratic structure. This has become a cliché following the success of J18 etc.

The anti-union laws make conventional unions holding huge reserves of members money powerless to resist without losing their (that is their members') assets as
miners' and communications workers found out in the eighties.

The forms of organisation we need to use to forward the cause of non-hierarchical union organisation are not new. However, they are made more achievable by
technology and the retreat from grass roots organisation by existing unions which anti-union laws and general disillusionment with sham democracy have brought
about. I don't think syndicalism holds all the answers. That's why I think that TUNA is right to advocate anarchist worker networks within unions, industries, and
localities. Also and perhaps most importantly links with anarchist organisations and activities with the community outside the workplace. There is no magic formula for
achieving the end of oppression but ended it must be.

Endnotes
1 W. H. Oliver, 'The Consolidated Trades' Union of 1834', in Economic History Review, 2nd series, Vol. XVII, 1964-1965
2 S. and B. Webb, The History of Trade Unionism, London, Chiswick, 1920
3 Henry Pelling, A History of British Trade Unionism, 5 th ed., London, Penguin, 1992
4 Barbara Mitchell, The Practical Revolutionaries: A New Interpretation of the French Anarchosyndicalists, New York, Greenwood, 1987
5 Branko Pribicevic, The Shop Stewards' Movement and Workers' Control: 1910 - 1922, Oxford, Blackwell, 1959; Bob Holton, British Syndicalism, 1900-1914: Myths and
Realities, London, Pluto Press, 1976; James Hinton, The First Shop Stewards Movement, London, George Allen and Unwin, 1973
6 See any issue of Class War, Organise, or any Crass record.
7 Robert. Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, New York, Free Press, 1962

[Home][Chapter 22 Questions]