Category: British Industrial Revolution

The world began to change drastically in 1760, when the First Industrial Revolution began in Britain. Society began to rely more and more on mechanized production, followed by mass production (due to electric power) during the Second Industrial Revolution (1880-1950), and automotive production (due to new technologies and electronics) during the Third Industrial Revolution (1950’s-2000’s). Industrialized countries with capital are currently entering the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the digital revolution. According to Klaus Schwab, we will begin to see the world drastically change, with the “fusions” of different technologies, the new innovation will completely transform the world in ways we never thought possible or could have ever predicted. The split between socioeconomic classes and the power gap between industrialized countries and less developed countries will continue to grow.

The possibilities for the future are endless. Technology has come so far since the steam engine during the First Industrial Revolution. During the Third Industrial Revolution in the 1960’s when Star Trek was on the air, people saw Captain Kirk on a remote planet talk to Scotty who was aboard the Enterprise with his communicator. The idea of a mobile phone was revolutionary, it was something from the future. In today’s world it is uncommon to not have a cell phone in industrialized countries. Cell phones have radically improved since 1973, all technology has been expanded upon and improved throughout the twentieth century and even more so during the twenty-first century, and will only continue to.

People are more connected with new and more powerful technology. There is a greater access to knowledge and the possibilities are unlimited. Every single industry and market are evolving with technology. Markets will become more efficient with the new innovation the Fourth Industrial Revolution will have to offer, and will be able to exponentially produce more supplies. New markets will emerge (markets that do not adapt to technology will become obsolete) and industrialized economies will continue to grow due to more effective global supply chains and cost of trade lowering because of innovation and competition (prices in transportation and communication will decrease and distribution will increase because of intensified globalization). The battle to meet the new demands for superior production and service quality, speed, and cost will be the driving force for new and better innovation amongst competitors. Consumers are more engaged in the digital “on demand” economy, and businesses will have to become more transparent and innovative to meet the new societal norms of consumerism. There will be greater competition and between industrialized countries and emerging states for resources, markets, and labor (global power). Meanwhile, highly indebted poor countries will remain exploited (similar to colonies for many reasons; “and by the slowing rate of population growth in most of the industrial world, which inevitably increased competition for workers. At the same time, population explosions in much of Asia, Africa, and Latin America extended the possibility of finding workers whose desperation would drive them to accept abusive conditions” (Sterns 2013, pg. 231) and not able to have innovation on the same scale because innovation requires capital (investment) to create change and expand markets. They will remain indebted and in bondage while industrialized countries improve their processes, products, and transform their technology. “Capital moves almost instantaneously into countries with stable governments, progressive economies, open accounting, and honest dealing, and out of countries lacking those qualities” (Waltz 2006, pg. 336; Schwab, 2015; Benney Class 13, 15, 16).

There will be an innovation boom in industrialized countries like the United States, there has not been this big of a boom since 1850-1915 (Benney Class, 16). There will be new innovation and growth in the economy and inequality. The middle class is currently disappearing, and new innovation will create a larger divide in the job market. It will “increasingly segregated into “low-skill/low-pay” and “high-skill/high-pay” segments, which in turn will lead to an increase in social tensions” (Schwab 2015, pg. 2). There will be a large displacement of labor by mechanization, machines will eventually replace low skill workers. The wealthy will be the beneficiaries, they have the liquidity to invest their capital, while the lower socioeconomic classes’ (the majority of the population) incomes will become stagnate and, or decrease. The job market will demand a more educated labor source and lower skilled jobs will be eliminated over time (Schwab, 2015).

Increased communication and connectivity through this new form of digital globalization will also increase social tensions through the spread of information. “More than 30% of the global population now uses social media platforms to connect, learn, and share information” (Schwab 2015, pg. 3). Propaganda and different ideologies spread through social media like wildfire, and it will change how we identify ourselves and with the world. Our privacy, patterns of consumption, work and leisure time, relationships, and governments will be affected. New legislature and regulation policies (which could allow for more or less innovation) will have to be created nationally (to maintain the growing wage gap) and internationally (to maintain security and protection in cyberwarfare, war has always been a strong source of innovation). Industrialized countries will have to have their public and private sectors collaborate, it will take both the government and regulatory agencies (example: EPA) to work together to maintain socioeconomic success (Schwab, 2015).

Collaboration within the private and public sectors is crucial. We can compare the success of Denmark and the failure of the United States to successfully collaborate in their renewable wind energy (turbines) programs. Both countries began to develop wind energy in 1977, but the United States only used their private sector. They were unable to have innovative success even though they had an advantage in capital, resources, and space. No standardizations were made and therefore commercialization was a failure and there was little investment. The projects became too costly for the private sector to handle alone. Denmark was successful because they allowed for slow growth (they balanced the supply and demand), had further research, garneted a competitive price, established subsides (public sector), supported the wind energy market with investment targets (private sector), and standardized quality (public sector). Their wind energy program was a part of the global market (developed countries do most of their international business, trade, and investing with each other. This is one more reason their dependency for products they cannot produce is lowered, it is not on the same scale as less developed countries because they still have a lot of purchasing power (Benney Class 16; Waltz, 2006).

The role of the state will drastically change, it will have to become more involved to achieve innovative and economic success (commitment to internal change, a combination of political resources to support the process, shared public and private vision, specialized facilities for research, and standardized policy) (Benny Class 16). The compromised, modern welfare state (according to Lindert, 1999), welfare expenditures do not create a loss in productivity or efficiency, which means there is no loss in innovation has changed the standard of living and the stigma associated with receiving state aid. The state will have to play a more active role in the protection and promotion of their citizen’s socioeconomic wellbeing with increasing innovation. States that can adapt to survive in the fierce competition in the digital globalization age will have the biggest advantage (countries with strong economies do most of their business in-house). The states that can not adapt (the least developed countries and highly indebted poor countries) will remain dependent on industrialized states’ purchasing power (Waltz, 2006; Benny Class 14, 15).

The industrialized welfare states that have a great deal of self-reliance will have a very broad range of markets and industries that will fuel consumerism and motivate capitalism. They will always seek the cheaper labor sources (their standards of living are higher which means higher wages and the population rate is lower) in other less developed countries (Waltz, 2006; Sterns, 2013). Competition for lower skill labor will increase, with more of those positions being terminated by electronics. It will become extremely hard for less educated people to have a career, they will be working to live while the upper-class thrive (similar to the Bourgeoise lifestyle). The conditions for lower class citizens of every country will become worse as jobs disappear. It is much easier to exploit people in a much higher desperation for a job. The power gap between industrialized countries and developing countries will continue to grow while industrialized countries have more class separation internally.

Klaus Schwab is absolutely correct. The Fourth Industrial Revolution will be like nothing the world has ever seen. Technology is improving exponentially, before it was developing on a linear path. Technology is a constant surprise. Where new innovation and technology will take us can not be predicted. There will be continuous debates about the use of technology with the growing polarization of the world, especially in industrialized countries like the United States. There will revolutions of all kinds and people will have to reexamine their morals and economic stature. The wage gap has already begun to increase and the middle class is disappearing, but there is hope through government and regulatory agency intervention (and the combination of public and private sectors) to shape the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Our survival depends on the capability of industrialized governments to adapt; maintain transparency, efficiency, and productivity. We still have the chance to create a world with more economic liberty and equality through our means of consumption (we can balance demand and supply to create innovative success and ensure more equality).

Bibliography

1. Benny, T. (2018). Third Wave, The Rise of Global Capitalism, Class 13. [PowerPoint and Oral Notes]. https://utah.instructure.com/courses/504619/files/folder/Course%20Powerpoints?preview=81798730
2. Benny, T. (2018). The Role of the State, The Rise of Global Capitalism, Class 14. [PowerPoint and Oral Notes]. https://utah.instructure.com/courses/504619/files/folder/Course%20Powerpoints?preview=81798731
3. Benny, T. (2018) Economic Development, The Rise of Global Capitalism, Class 15. [PowerPoint and Oral Nots]. https://utah.instructure.com/courses/504619/files/folder/Course%20Powerpoints?preview=82103423
4. Benny, T. (2018) Innovation and Growth, The Rise of Global Capitalism, Class16. [PowerPoint and Oral Notes]. https://utah.instructure.com/courses/504619/files/folder/Course%20Powerpoints?preview=81693559
5. Schwab, K. (December 12, 2015). The Fourth Industrial Revolution What It Means and How to Respond. The Magazine ~ Science & Technology file:///C:/Users/Sbithell/Downloads/Schwab%20(2015)%20The%20Fourth%20Industrial%20Revolution.pdf
6. Stearns, P. N. (2013). The Industrial Revolution in World History (Vol. 4th ed). Boulder, CO: Routledge. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=d199c809-ea00-4982-b7ac-89b088ca8bd1%40pdc-v-sessmgr01&vid=0&format=EB
7. Waltz, K.N. (2006). Globalization and Governance. Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues (Eighth Edition), International Politics. Pearson and Longman. file:///C:/Users/Sbithell/Downloads/Waltz%20(2006)%20Globalization%20and%20Governance.pdf

Revolutionary war refers to the seizure of political power by the use of armed forces. Not everyone would accept such a simple definition, and indeed the term has other connotations: that the seizure of power is by a popular or broad-based political movement that the seizure entails a fairly long period of armed conflict, and that power is seized in order to carry out a well-advertised political or social program. Revolutionary war is also distinguished by what it is not. It is not “war” in the general understood sense of the word, not international war or war between nations, with its usual (though not invariable) expectation that fighting will lead, sooner or later, to some negotiated settlement between the belligerent powers. Revolutionary wars occur within nations, and have as their aim the seizure of power. But once the definition moves beyond this simple distinction between the international ‘war’ and ‘revolutionary war’, clarity way to murkiness.

This shows that revolutions are complex processes that emerge from the social order becoming frayed in many areas at once. There are popularly five known causes that can lead to an unstable social equilibrium which are; economic or fiscal strain, alienation and opposition, widespread popular anger at injustice, a persuasive shared narrative of resistance and favourable international relations.

Firstly, the economic or fiscal strain which can be seen as one of the causes can be linked to the Industrial Revolution. The first Industrial Revolution (1760-1870) was that phenomenal economic transformation in Europe when the people change from their basic agrarian-cum-handicraft based economy to an industrial one, dominated by mass production of capital goods, equipment and machinery. The first Industrial Revolution started in England in 1760. And, aware of their strategic head start in the acquisition of their new technology, the British prohibited the exportation of manufactured products or the transfer of their nascent skills. However, this restriction was broken by two Britons, William and John Cockerill, who could not resist the lucrative opportunities of marketing their products in continental Europe.

The Industrial Revolution transformed economies that had been based on agriculture and handicrafts into economies based on large-scale industry, mechanized manufacturing, and the factory system. New machines, new power sources, and new ways of organizing work made existing industries more productive and efficient. New industries also arose, including, in the late 19th century, the automobile industry. The primary features of these revolutions were; the discovery and use of new basic materials such as iron, steel, coal, petroleum and electricity, the invention of the steam engine, and the internal combustion engine, steamship, automobile, airplane, telegraphy and radio as well as the spinning jenny and other powerful looms, the mass production of food encouraged by the emergence of a new working class, a wider distribution of wealth; the growth of cities and the decline in the value of land as a source of wealth now being challenged by rapid industrialization and international trade. Another thing that happened was the shift from the oligarchical ownership of the means of production to the people-oriented through sale or appropriation of shares in the second Industrial Revolution. In general, The Industrial Revolution increased the overall amount of wealth and distributed it more widely than had been the case in earlier centuries, helping to enlarge the middle class. However, the replacement of the domestic system of industrial production, in which independent crafts persons worked in or near their homes, with the factory system and mass production consigned large numbers of people, including women and children, to long hours of tedious and often dangerous work at subsistence wages. Their miserable conditions gave rise to the trade union movement in the mid-19th century.

Secondly, opposition of the people can be seen as a major cause that can lead to revolution. The minority and low class of Russia had endured centuries of oppression. 75% of the Russian population was made up of poor peasants who, prior to 1861, were called serfs. After finally being emancipated in 1861, the peasants were given land, but were required to pay for it. However, 25% of Russia’s land still elongated to 1.5% of the population. The quality of life failed to improve for Russia’s poor. Peasants made little money, and revolts and labor strikes among peasants were common. They had practically no voice at all in government affairs. The high levels of inequality in Russia prevailed, and the common people resented the wealthy aristocracy for this. While the wealthy upper class lived lives of luxury, the common people endured deplorable living and working conditions and hopelessly suffered in poverty. Furthermore, the people angered by Tsar Nicholas II’s refusal to reform and oppression of the low class, in January of 1905, a group of 150,000 people led by the radical priest Georgy Apollonovich Gapon went to the tsar’s Winter Palace in St. Petersburg to protest. The tsar’s troops opened fire on the crowd, killing thousands of peaceful protestors in the streets. Strikes and riots broke out throughout the country in outraged response to the massacre.

The third reason is widespread popular anger against injustice. A good example is the French revolution of 1989. The French Revolution was basically a war of injustice. The middle class believed that in order to gain equality they had to get rid of the privileges that were stopping the progress of their rise in society. To do this they had to gain power within the government and make changes, such as, improving the tax system, creating a fair system of production where profits went to the producer, improving the whole economic system of the government, and plus many more.

A shared idea on resistance is also one of the causes that will be discussed in this term paper. In a situation where is a wide spread of a certain ideology or misconception, it may also lead to a revolution. A good example is the Revolutions of 1848, known in some countries as the Spring of Nations, People’s spring, springtime of the Peoples, or the Year of Revolution, were a series of political upheavals throughout Europe in 1848. It remains the most widespread revolutionary wave in European history. The revolutions were essentially bourgeois revolutions and democratic and liberal in nature, with the aim of removing the old monarchical structures and creating independent nation-states. The revolutions spread across Europe after an initial revolution began in France in February. Over 50 countries were affected, but with no significant coordination or cooperation among their respective revolutionaries. Some of the major contributing factors were widespread dissatisfaction with political leadership, demands for more participation in government and democracy, demands for freedom from press, other demands made by the working class, the upsurge of nationalism, and the regrouping of established government forces.

Conflicts between states can also be seen as a reason. A good example can be seen in the Cuban revolution also known as Bay of Pigs. It was an armed revolt conducted by Fidel Castro’s revolutionary 26th of July revolution and its allies against the military dictatorship of Cuban President Fulgencio Batista. The revolution began in July 1953, and continued sporadically until the rebels finally ousted Batista on 31 December 1958, replacing his government with a revolutionary socialist state. 26 July 1953 is celebrated in Cuba as the Day of the Revolution. The 26th of July Movement later reformed along communist lines, becoming the Communist party in October 1965. The Cuban Revolution had powerful domestic and international repercussions. In particular, it transformed Cuba’s relationship with the United States, although efforts to improve diplomatic relations have gained momentum in recent years. In the immediate aftermath of the revolution, Castro’s government began a program of nationalism, centralization of the press and political consolidation that transformed Cuba’s economy and civil society. The revolution also heralded an era of Cuban intervention in foreign military conflicts, including the Angolan Civil War and the Nicaraguan revolution. Several Escambray mountains, which were repressed by the Revolutionary government.

In conclusion, we can see that various factors can lead to revolution. These causes can either be caused by one’s personal feeling and interpretations, it can be caused by the society as well as the government, it can also be caused by inter relations with other states of the world.

References

1. Peter Paret, & Gordon, A.C, Felix Gilbert. (1998). Makers of Modern Strategy (2nd ed.) Oxford, Great Britain: Clarendon Press.
2. Brigadier General Momah, S. (1994).Global Strategy. Lagos, Nigeria: Vista Books Limited.
3. Gizachew, T. (2014, September 18). Social Revolutions. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com
4. The Editors of Encyclopedia Britanncia. French Revolution. Retrieved from www.britanncia.com
5. https://en.m.wikipedia.org

The Industrial Revolution is regarded as one of the most significant historical events to initiate the Romantic movement of the 18th Century. In the literary and historical sense of the word Romanticism, it serves a purpose to label certain writers and thinkers of the later 18th and early 19th Century, who, however, did not at that time used that term to define themselves or their work. The Romantics, did not adhere to the modernised industrial practises in the fields of manufacturing, agriculture and transportation immersed in the 18th Century in Europe and in the New World across the pond. In other words, the Industrial Revolution did not conform to the romantic spirit of that time. The literary movement favoured things such as ‘emotion over reason’ and was against materialism in general. It emphasised romantic emblems such as the individual, the subjective, the imaginative, the visionary and most eminently, the transcendental. The common people were forced to endure devastating living conditions, excessively low wages and child labour following the industrialisation and urbanisation of Great Britain. Simply put, the drastic socio-economical shifts enhanced the feeling of frustration and perhaps repulsion that the poets felt towards what the new world had to offer. In this essay, we are going to analyse the numerous aspects of the cultural and societal changes in Great Britain during the time of the Industrial Revolution. Further, we are going to investigate what the romantic movement wished to convey in regard to these profound social shifts, as well as the writings of its representative poet, such as William Blake.

The most apparent effect of the Industrial Revolution is that it generated a new wave of overcoming the centuries-long economic oppression by the British aristocracy. The low and middle classes could somehow become more financially independent as opposed to what they’ve known before the time of industrialisation. Whilst the average man could benefit from the new working opportunities, and thrive economically, the working conditions which the population had to accept, were inhumane and demeaning towards the individual. Though the earnings generally increased, people could not afford to live off from what they brought in. With the innovative steam-powered factories, resulting new job opportunities, cities of the British Isles were expanding at an exponential rate. The industrialisation would setback the craftsmanship of the 18th Century Britain, and indirectly impose on its citizens to move from the rural countryside to the cities. There was a strong demand for cheap labour in the factories which as a consequence, resulted an overwhelming influx of people settling in the city. Conditions in which the lower class had to labour were to our modern understanding disgraceful, if not deadly. Child labour was perceived as a normality as well as cruelly letting a child die of exhaustion.

The concept of child exploitation was contextualised in William Blake’s two parts poem, ‘The Chimney Sweeper’. His collection of composed poems, ‘Songs of Innocence’ and ‘Songs of Experience’, is a reflection of the devastating conditions within cheap labour workers and the abuse of children in time of urbanisation.

In the wake of the Industrial Revolution, the Romanticism period is broadly recognised as a shift from the guiding principles of the Enlightenment – as the foundation of all knowledge – towards the importance of emotional sensitivity, individual subjectivity and nature as the trigger component of human interconnection. The upsurge of mechanisation is viewed as an abomination of the sublime experience, which for Edmund Burke form the ‘leading passions’ of one’s ‘self-preservation’, meaning that the concept of the sublime in regard to thoughtful reflection, is fundamental for personal development. Romantic poets, as well as artists and intellectuals, judge the modern industrialisation as unnatural and deteriorating for human beings. The idea of the sublime was first and foremost a tool of reconnection to nature. The individual was to be in awe of nature by the writer’s thorough portray of nature’s overwhelmingly picturesque imageries and therefore enhancing the feeling of acknowledgment towards nature.

The psychological and physical exploitation due to the capitalistic establishment and the working structure which it permits, is brutal in the eyes of the followers of the romantic movement. The poet and politician Lord Byron, expressed in his speech to the House of Lords in 1812, the economic endeavours which the mechanisation has created amongst the working class, as ‘circumstances of the most unparalleled distress’. Byron also states the emotional exploitation of the working class: “The perseverance of these miserable men in their proceedings, tends to prove that nothing but absolute want could have driven a large and once honest and industrious body of the people into the commission of excesses so hazardous to themselves, their families, and the community”(Byron, p. 205).

In Blake’s ‘The Chimney Sweeper’, the first poem begins with the child sweeper’s reflecting on his mother’s death, however, the narration of the poem focuses on the comparison between Tom’s phantasm of angel-like sweepers, as they run ‘down a green plain, leaping, laughing’ as opposed to reality of his life, where ‘in soot’, they sleep ‘locked up in coffins of black’. The second poem, a more mature narration points out who benefits from the exploitation as the children are sold to child labour. Blake, in his writings, suggests that childhood is a state of pure innocence – therefore goodness – as it symbolises childhood with hopes and virtue, despite the fear and the danger of corruption.

The poet considered the Songs of Innocence collection to be mostly idyllic poems, written either from a child’s perspective or about children, although they underline other aspects such as incorporate evil, death, inequalities and unjustified suffering. As an antithesis to the above mentioned collection, the Songs of Experience serve as a representation of a state, whereby the soul is defined by experience. In addition to this, this collection contains poems where the adulthood is being emphasised by a darker, unsettling tone, and where the soul is terrified and no longer pure as a result of poverty as well as political and institutional repression.

The term industrial revolution is an expression many historians use to define periods of technological changes that had its footprint on society and industry. In each Industrial Revolution, there were primary developments, principle advancements, and fundamental energies, occurring in driving nations. The underneath section gives a concise survey of each Industrial Revolution.

The First Industrial Revolution

The First Industrial Revolution was noted between 1784-1870, it started in the United Kingdom between. It emancipated the development of machines that replaced farms with industries. Industries became the foundation of the economic structure of society. At this period, there was the introduction of rails as a result of the successful invention of the steam engine which was a new type of energy that supports the development of the railroad. This development facilitated the transportation industry as the movement of human and material were ease.

The Second Industrial Revolution

The Second Industrial Revolution had the United States at the forefront as at the end of the 19th century. At that time, electricity has been invented as a new source of energy. This gave pace to mass production that increased output. As a result of the evolution of the combustion engine, new resources were set to use to their full potential. Techniques for correspondence were likewise reformed with the creation of the telegraph and the phone. Likewise, the development of the vehicle and the plane were primary source transportation that helps both merchandise and individuals.

The Third Industrial Revolution

The Third Industrial Revolution began in 1969. It is also attributed to the United States. This transformation is described by utilizing hardware and information technology to mechanize fabrication which brought a stage change in data theory and the intensity of data. It blossomed alongside with improvement of atomic power. It also created the link within the planet’s social orders through new infrastructure and applications, which made new streams of data sharing. For industry, this revolution ascends to the time of high level of automation, which was recently executed physically, likewise planning and control which gave an increase to productivity.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industrial 4.0)

The main modern industrial revolution used water and steam to motorize production of resources, the second utilized electricity to make large scale manufacturing and the third utilized electronics and data innovation to computerize creation. The fourth industrial revolution evolved in a different dimension as a strategic digital approach was through internet technology was in vogue. Information sharing became easier through the internet. People and products can be shared without the physical presence of the people involved. It was such a complex development. the Germans have it in mind to implement a high-tech strategy to meet with the challenges of the 21st-century society.

The technology landscape is far richer and promising than it has ever been. In several ways, big data, autonomous robots, additive manufacturing, simulation, Internet of Things (IoT), and cloud computing, these are tech pillars identified by Rubmann which present new frontiers in technology. These technologies are effective in the development of quality services as well as the improvement of products and services. They have also enhanced organizational performance. Some of the latest innovations in technology are already used in manufacturing, but with Industry 4.0, they are sure to lead the current production a fully automated and integrated production flow, which in turn would lead to greater efficiencies and alteration of traditional production relationships among producers, suppliers, and customers.

Nowadays, as a result of the rapid development of the Internet, larger information is produced and collated on a daily basis. The processes and analysis involved are beyond the capabilities of traditional tools. Big Data permits possible analyzes data at a more advanced rate much better than traditional tools allowed. With this machinery, data that has been merged from mutually incompatible systems, databases and websites can be processed and combined to give the account of the situation in which there is a specific company or person. Big Data encloses four dimensions, volume, variety, velocity, and value. Associating the four dimensions, Big Data helps mainly in decision-making processes.

According to Moh’d Ullah, Robots are machines designed for the purpose of performing specific tasks autonomously or by means of remote control commands. Robots present diverse degrees of self-rule as indicated by the reason for their development. In this unique situation, while a few robots are customized to perform a repetitive, institutionalized, and exact task, different robots are very adaptable with regards to the orientation of the object and the assignment to be performed. In industry 4.0, the cooperation and escalation of independent robots in ventures is a reality. This happens for a few reasons, one of them being the quick mechanical development.

Simulation is the way toward making and structuring a genuine or imaginary framework by utilizing physical or scientific models, or models of other kinds, for demonstrating, so as to assess and foresee framework conduct. The utilization of simulation in line with other computational assets and three-dimensional instruments empowers creation procedures and products concurrently and brings favorable circumstances, for example, cost decrease, item or procedure quality upgrade, and satisfactory information management, among others. In industries, recreations of items, materials as well as procedures in three-dimensional situations are now grown, yet throughout the years they will heighten and incorporate information progressively. So as to address the issues of savvy enterprises, where computer frameworks can be utilized to design, reenact and screen coordinated physical procedures, new simulation instruments are built up, whose primary target is to make progressively precise virtual maps of reality and encourage the basic decision-making process.

The Internet of Things (IoT) consists of intelligent communication systems using IP addresses, which allows the interconnection of objects to the network. Although in industries some technologies are already connected to machines and the network, with the internet of things, a greater number of devices and sensors will be incorporated into the processes and connected to the network, providing real-time responses. According to Porter and Heppelmann (2014), intelligent products connected to the network offer exponential expansion opportunities for new features.

Companies have aligned themselves to cloud-based software for some enterprise and analytics applications, be that as it may, with Industry 4.0, more production-related endeavors will require expanded information sharing crosswise over locales and companies limits. In the meantime, the execution of cloud innovations will improve, accomplishing response times of only a few milliseconds. Subsequently, machine information and usefulness will progressively be sent to the cloud, empowering more information-driven services for production frameworks. Indeed, even systems that screen and control procedures may progress toward becoming cloud-based. With the expansion in information and data sharing, the savvy industry will demand cloud advancements with a higher exhibition, so as to give suitable preparing, stockpiling, and availability.

Industries now utilize principles of the assembling of added additives, for example, a 3D printing of models; be that as it may, will likewise be utilized in the production of little volumes of batches custom items. In industry 4.0, new production systems will be created and strengthened, for example, imprinting in 3D advances, which offers more noteworthy adaptability in making item models quicker and with better expenses, just as advantage products developmental stages, prototyping, and creation. For example, aviation organizations are now utilizing added substance assembling to apply new structures that lessen aircraft weight, bringing down their costs for crude materials, for example, titanium.

The fundamental focus of IR4.0 is to improve the esteem added forms and to grow new plans of action for reinforcing competition in industries. Assembling cost, item quality and lead time for assembling are three components of suppliers’ collection criteria that will be upgraded by applying and executing the idea of IR4.0 when incorporated adequately.

Making models by using 3D printing will without a doubt diminish the cost, time and crude material utilized for the actual simulation process. The robot, for instance, develops increasingly precise and amazing work, produce more items in a shorter measure of time, commits fewer errors and works at a consistent and continuous speed. This thus will spare time because of higher profitability for a specific period just as decrease squandered crude material because of high creation precision.

Additionally, the utilization of Big Data in the analysis has as of late developed in certain enterprises, meaning to improve the creation and efficiency of item quality, guarantee equipment proficiency and aid continuous basic decision making which thus decreases time consumption.

Research conducted by Forrester Consulting in 2014 for the benefit of Zebra Technologies, the greater part of respondents expect that Internet technology will ameliorate the supply chains. With the IoT, it is conceivable to direct the procedure of production. If there should arise an occurrence of deferral, the client can be tipped ahead of complications.

At manufactural warehouses, intelligent shelving and pallets become the energy of modern inventory management. In regard to transportation of goods, tracking and locating turns out to be quicker, exact, predictable and secure. Investigation associated with control helps to anticipate disappointment and consequently plan moves targeted at improving the production network and diminish the lead time.

The world is rapidly expanding more than ever. New discoveries in technology allow us to do things like automate the production of cars, produce mass amounts of smartphones that allow us to interact with daily life, and even have cars that drive us around on its own. We have optimized workflows so much that McDonald’s burgers can somehow cost $1.00, even considering the amount of work to cultivate crops, raise cows, and ship all of that to your local McDonald’s. However, this didn’t just magically appear out of nowhere. We can trace the origins of this all the way back to the 1800s, also known as the Industrial Revolution. From there, the Industrial Revolution massively impacted the American way of life, from work to consumption.

The origins of the Industrial Revolution can be traced back to Great Britain. With their large deposits of coal and other ore, their position in the global landscape as a colonial superpower, and their massive trading economy with other countries, it was the perfect breeding ground for the Industrial Revolution. This first version was called The First Industrial Revolution. Britain noticed their dominance with such technology over other countries, and banned the export and spread of inventions, workers, and patents. There is still hot debate over why the Industrial Revolution started in Europe, instead of another country like China. Although Britain banned the export of product of the Industrial Revolution, investors and company owners would seek to gain more profit and would expand to further parts of Europe and eventually, North America.

The Industrial Revolution sparked a period of economic development unprecedented in human history. The Industrial Revolution helped build the modern-day capitalist system which is still used today. All the basis of what happens in today’s capitalist society was built on these foundations. It caused a migration from rural areas to urban cities where people found work in factories and eventually became the new working class. It created a dependency on the working class compared to rural times when workers were easily replaceable. Production began to shift; people worked in small factories as opposed to their homes. As the revolution progressed the number of goods and services began to grow. The goods produced in these factories were made cheaper and faster than anything before the Industrial Revolution. This increased the supply of many products, and highly benefitted consumers. Owners of good and services began to realize that they could expand their production through factories which led to companies benefiting the government. While the economy improved, the environment deteriorated because of the large amounts of fossil fuels emitted into the atmosphere. The increase in substances such as coal released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing the greenhouse gas effect which trapped heat in earth’s atmosphere, and the use of toxic substances polluted local water sources and ultimately degraded habitats. These fossil fuel emissions lead to an environment full of pollution. This was the first time in humanity’s history that pollution began to change the landscape of the world’s climates. From the Industrial Revolution onward, we have had to deal with pollution and greenhouse gases as a threat to our health. During the Industrial Revolution, the population began to increase. Ultimately, the population grew about 57% during the industrial revolution (roughly to 700 million). With more people, naturally, the air started to become more polluted causing the actual quality of life to go down. The environment took a toll during the industrial revolution. Industrialization normally adds to pollution in air, water, soil, due to the waste products it produces. Raw materials from the land, water, perhaps wood and plants, fossil fuels, etc. This has an effect on the environment, since demand for all these goes up, and more quantities are extracted from the land. Industrialization needs people to work in factories. So, people move from rural/agricultural areas, that are spread out, to industrialized cities, that are concentrated. A higher population puts added pressure on the local environment. Industrialization produces a greater amount of waste, both directly as a result of the production of goods, as well as the disposal of those goods once their purpose has been served. For example, if a factory makes plastic furniture, it produces plastic waste, and once the plastic furniture is worn, it is added to the rubbish pile too.

The living conditions during the Industrial Revolution helped pave the way for workers to be treated fair and justly. Rich factory owners began to realize they could pay low wages and not face repercussions for taking advantage of the lower class. Workers employed in factories made little money, so they cared little about their living conditions and the money made in the factories barely covered the rent families paid. Because owners knew there was a surplus of workers, they began to take advantage of them. Wages began to drop as a result of this. Some companies even took advantage of this by developing a company town. A company town is a place where the company owns all the housing, stores, and more. Workers would frequently live in a company town. Some companies would even give out vouchers for their stores, instead of monetary cash. This resulted in a massive monopoly; companies were allowed to charge whatever they want, instead of paying enough to feed a family. The working conditions at the time were also subpar. Workers would have to suffer long hours, dangerous work, and unsafe facilities. Women would be paid unfairly, gaining about half to a third of what men would make, satisfying owners because profit was all that was on their mind. Aside from that, child labor was rampant and the living conditions were poor. Children were paid fractions of what older men would receive and be required to work a strenuous work schedule. This would cause children to get deformities from their lack of sleep and sun. Workers would frequently strike to protest against unsafe work conditions. From this, workers began to form unions. Many believed that there is more power to the workers, as they are the means of production. Without the workers, there would be no production. Unions were formed to band together the workers, and provide power in numbers when negotiating wages, work conditions, and more. The work philosophy of workers banding together would eventually inspire the economic system known as communism. The union workers utilized strikes to force businesses and even the government to focus on what their problem was. Once the government saw how drastic the problem was with work conditions, they started to step in. Government regulation drastically increased the quality of life for these workers. Work week hours were drastically reduced and the conditions of the factories began to rise. This caused the government to keep a close eye on workers and make sure their employers are treating them properly.

The Industrial Revolution also started a shift in where the population lives in the United States. The most common way to get income was through farming. People made farms in far-out places in America. However, with the industrial revolution, factories were starting to appear. Workers would have to live near factories to get to work. This caused a major shift in population from the farmlands to cities. Before the Industrial Revolution, over 80% of Americans lived in rural areas. With the introduction of factories, small towns turned into bustling cities, where workers would go to factories and get wages from a boss, instead of farming produce like their previous homestead. Cities didn’t have the necessary infrastructure to handle this mass migration. As people poured into cities looking for work in factories, they found that cities were already over capacity. They couldn’t comfortably fit any more people. However, these cities weren’t always as clean as we think of current cities today. Neighborhoods where workers would live were often very dirty, worn out, and polluted with trash and garbage. Workers packing into apartment buildings and such would often accelerate the decaying of the buildings. Frederick Engels, a journalist, philosopher, and critic of industrialization, writes, “In one of these courts there stands directly at the entrance, at the end of the covered passage, a privy without a door, so dirty that the inhabitants can pass into and out of the court only by passing through foul pools of stagnant urine and excrement”. The migration of workers from rural areas to more urban areas resulted in dirty neighborhoods where the workers would live.

The Industrial Revolution was also a time of innovation. Inventions like the Telegraph are the foundation of our current mobile infrastructure. Letters were no longer required to communicate across the country; companies could now expand even further with a much more efficient form of communication. The train allowed the US to transfer massive amounts of goods across state lines. Factories were beginning to pop up with the popularity of the assembly line. Arguably, the most important invention of the Industrial Revolution was the steam engine. The steam engine allowed us to use coal to massively increase the productivity of such factories. The US was more productive than ever, and we were starting to become a global superpower. Economic growth was at an all-time high, and we were starting to produce manufactured goods to trade, instead of farmed fruits and vegetables. America was a trading force to be reckoned with. Without these vital inventions, we would not be where we are today.

Ultimately, the Industrial Revolution was vital for America’s economic growth prior to the 20th century. However, the effects of the Industrial Revolution are continuing to manifest in the current day. Climate change is a topical issue in the current day, and many believe that it first originated in the Industrial Revolution, with the burning of fossil fuels like coal, and oil. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by over 40% since pre-industrial times, and the summers get hotter while the winters get colder. The growing threat of climate change is starting to put pressure on local lawmakers. Without action, many problems in the world will start to amplify, such as famine, mass migration, and fatalities by heat. The world as a whole must come to a conclusion on what to do with the growing epidemic that threatens to massively impact our way of life.

The Industrial Revolution was a turning point in America’s history. It was the beginning of modern-day capitalism as we know it and is largely responsible for many of the technology we still use today. It was the start of modern day capitalism and helped usher in government regulation to help the workers, rather than the rich owners of the factories. Without the invention of such things like the lightbulb, the steam engine, the production line, and the cotton gin, we would not be as technologically advanced as we are today. However, we must tread carefully in the current day, as the less-than-ideal impact of the Industrial Revolution starts to show its scars. We can attribute the Industrial Revolution as the biggest impact on American life, from the way we work to the way we live.

Britain’s Domination of the Industrial RevolutionBritain was the leader of the industrial revolution in the 17th century while the rest of the modern world was struggling to catch up. The industrial revolution was made possible due to the many changes and innovations in the agricultural industry.

The Agricultural Revolution did away with the old medieval communal method of farming, privatized the land, and introduced scientific breeding and farming techniques which increased the agricultural production significantly. These new processes created a decline in both the intensity of the work and the number of agricultural laborers needed. At the beginning of the agricultural revolution farm, people chose to migrate to the city to work industrial jobs. Also, the increased food supply resulted in an unprecedented population increase, thus providing more able workers for the industrial labor force. Other contributing factors were that Britain had great deposits of coal and iron ore, which proved essential for industrialization. Also, Britain was a politically stable country, as well as the world’s leading colonial power, which meant that its colonies could now provide raw materials, as well as a marketplace for the manufactured goods.

The iron and textile industries, along with the development of the steam engine, played central roles in the industrial revolution, which also saw improved transportation systems, communication, and banking. As demand for British goods increased, merchants needed more cost-efficient methods of production, which led to the rise of mechanization and factory system. Mechanized agriculture is using machinery and thus reducing manual labor and improving production.

A factory system is a capitalist form of production whereby the owner provides all machinery, buildings, management and administration, raw materials, and is responsible for the sale of all products as well as any resulting loses. The growth of the industrial revolution depended on the ability to transport raw materials and finished goods over long distances. There were three main types of transportation that increased during the industrial revolution: waterways, roads, and railroads. At that time, transportation by water was the cheapest way to move heavy products such as coal and iron.

There were many navigable rivers and canals and the coal deposits tended to be near those waterways. Also, Britain has a long and jagged coastline that made transportation by sea easier. Scottish engineer John McAdam developed a new process for road construction.

His technique, which became known as the “macadam” resulted in roads that were smoother, more durable and less muddy. Communication became easier during the Industrial Revolution with such inventions as the telegraph. The industrial revolution also saw the rise of banks and industrial financiers, as well as a factory system dependent on owners and managers. A stock exchange was established in London in the 1770s. In 1776, Scottish philosopher Adam Smith published “The Wealth of Nations.” In it, he promoted an economic system based on free enterprise, the private ownership of means and production, and lack of government interference.

With technological innovations rising as quickly as the population, the Industrial Revolution not only symbolizes a period of expansion and advancement, but it also reflects the dramatic changes on the economic and social structure of England. Frederic Engels’ The Conditions of the Working Class of England discusses the binary effects of the Industrial Revolution by examining the progress and setbacks of the new England. Through analyzing the rhetorical elements employed in the writing, Engels suggests that the Industrial Revolution is both a humanitarian disaster as well as a necessary stage in human progress. Through analyzing the imagery, depictions, and descriptions in the comparison of the working area to the wealthy in Manchester, Engels depicts the advantages and disadvantages of the Industrial Revolution and how both contribute to dissonance in the social realm of England. Ultimately, through analyzing the distinctions and separations of geography described by not only the language, but also the structure of the writing, Engels claims that the developments in industry and commerce in the 19th century come with a price of separation: the union of the aristocrats divides the proletariat; the creation of the great towns leads to social inequity.

In The Conditions of the Working Class of England, Engels utilizes rhetorical techniques of anaphora and rhetorical questioning to manifest the Industrial Revolution as having opposing effects of a humanitarian disaster and an essential change for England. In the opening paragraph to the chapter entitled The Great Towns, Engels claims that “Here [England] the manners and customs of the good old days have been most effectively destroyed. Here the very name of “Merry England” has long since been forgotten, because the inhabitants of the great manufacturing centers have never even heard from their grandparents what life was like in those days” (1565). By starting these two sequential sentences with the word “here,” there is a greater emphasis on how the changes resulting from the Industrial Revolution is impacting England. The breaking of old tradition strips England from its innate quality, customs, and manners, epitomized by the capitalization of the word Merry as now the name has disappeared. In addition, Engels uses phrases such as “the great manufacturing centers” and “most effectively destroyed,” to show the advantages and essentiality of the industrial developments.

The anaphora then establishes a tone of opposition even though the two sentences begin with the same word. When Engels refers to the thousands of men and women coming from different social classes and ranks into one city of London, he questions, “Are they not all human beings with the same innate characteristics and potentialities? Are they not all equally interested in the pursuit of happiness? And do they not all aim at happiness by following similar methods?”(1566). In this knit of questions, Engels intertwines again the use of anaphora with the rhetorical questioning, causing a quickening in the pace of Engels arguments and establishing a tone of frustration. By starting the questions with the phrase “Are they not,” in the form of rhetorical questioning, Engels crescendos the unifying factors of society only to have it come crashing down into the simple statement that “they rush past each other as if they had nothing in common” (1566). Through the rhetorical techniques of anaphora and rhetorical questioning, Engels first affirms the unity of the people brought together as having the same innate characteristics, potentialities, and pursuit of happiness, only to exude a world of discord in the end, thereby showing how the Industrial Revolution can be deemed as a humanitarian disaster as well as a necessary stage in human progress.

Because Manchester is deemed the “masterpiece of the Industrial Revolution and at the same time the mainspring of all the workers’ movement,” Engels utilizes clear descriptions with specific word choices and vivid delineations of the “classic home of English industry” to reveal the dissonance in the social realms of England (1567). Emphasizing the overpopulation of people and the limited size of the land, Engels delineates the working class distracts of Manchester as having houses that are “dirty, old, and tumble-down,” following a “policy of cramming as many houses as possible onto such spaces,” so “that today not an inch of space remains between the houses and any further building is now physically impossible” (1568-69). Engels also illustrates the lack of hygiene as “filth and garbage abounded” and dirty water is the only available means of washing. On the other hand, Engels paints a picture of the evolution of the modern system of manufacture with emphasis on the word “replace.” In a pattern of the new replacing the old, the “water and steam power first replaced hand machines;” “the power-loom and the self-acting mule replaced the old handloom and spinning wheel” (1567). Therefore, although technological developments have shaped England into an industry of modernity and efficiency in the clear portrayals of replacements, Engels does not allow his readers to stray from the image of degradation into which the working classes sink to. As factories and cities are created, Londoners are forced to be packed into tiny spaces, consequentially leading to the brutal indifference with which they ignore their neighbors and selfishly concentrate upon their private effects” (1566). Therefore, even in Engels’ account of Manchester through imagery is there separation. Manchester is not only the “heart of industry in the United Kingdom,” but it also symbolizes a society of forced class relations (1567). As a result of creating corporate buildings and living spaces, street pavements and bridges, overpopulation and overcrowding of people and material object become a severe consequence.

Lastly, by analyzing the clear-cut distinctions and separations in not only the geography of Manchester and the social classes through its language of paradox, but also the structure of the work, Engels shows that there is separation amongst the developments that are thought to unify differences. Juxtaposing the upper class with the proletariat, Engels reveals through the geographical setting, the upper class as living in “luxurious and comfortable dwellings which are linked to the center of Manchester by omnibuses…[and] can travel from their houses to their places of business in the center of the towns by the shortest routes, which run entirely through working-class districts” (1568). Not only is there a lack of convergence between the various social classes, but there is also a clear division of space in the geographical structure of the city. Similarly, playing with the language of paradox, Engel writes “the strongest of all, a tiny group of capitalists, monopolize everything, while the weakest, who are in the vast majority, succumb to the most abject poverty” (1566). How come the majority can overrule and/or overthrow the minority? While Manchester is indeed a “great town,” it is a place where one finds “the most barbarous indifference and selfish egotism “and “the most distressing scenes of misery and poverty” (1566). Not only has the Industrial Revolution led to a geographical construction that ostracizes the slums from the country side, but it has also created a social order in which class warfare is prevalent and inextinguishable.

Ultimately, the structure of Engels’ work is unique in how it is laid out. Engels never seems to interlace the rich and the poor together in one paragraph, but rather writes in separated paragraphs descriptions of each class. For example, Engels lays out the structure and details of the wealthy aristocrats residing in the countryside in one paragraph, but introduces the proletariat in a separate paragraph, beginning with “I will now give a description of the working-class districts of Manchester” (1568). The clear separation of form, geography, and class structure shows that even though necessary progress and advancements have been made in a rapidly growing country, social conflicts and divisions have been created, the working-class have suffered tremendously through their toils and hardships. In the end, the comforts and luxuries of industry is solely associated and experienced by the gentry, but these privileges come at the cost of the working-class and an even more divided country

By examining the various rhetorical devices and formal elements utilized in Frederic Engels’s writing, The Conditions of the Working Class of England, one can see the binary effects created by the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution, marked by new developments and advancements in technology and machinery, strengthened the society as a whole in commerce and economics, but ultimately shattered the lives of the working-class. Written in the perspective of a person traveling through the streets of London, one can only see the price paid for the magnificence of the city if he endures a visit to the slums. Everything has a price: “The inhabitants of modern London have had to sacrifice so much that is best in human nature in order to create the wonders of civilization with which their city teems” (1566).

Britain was the leader of the industrial revolution in the 17th century while the rest of the modern world was struggling to catch up. The Industrial Revolution was made possible due to the many changes and innovations in the agricultural industry. The Agricultural Revolution did away with the old method of farming. It increased investment in technical improvements, such as new machinery; it privatized the land, provided better drainage, experimented with new crops, and introduced scientific breeding and farming techniques which increased the agricultural production significantly. These new processes created a decline in the number of agricultura laborers needed. Consequently, lots of farm people started to migrate to the city to work industrial jobs. Also, the increased food supply resulted in an unprecedented population increase thus providing more able workers to the industrial labor force.

Another contributing factor was that Britain is full of coal. As such coal was burned as fuel, long before the industrial revolution. This signified that coal mining was already a vast industry in Britain, with the industrial revolution growing out of it. Also, the country had large deposits of iron ore which as well proved essential to the development of all new machines made of iron or steel and powered by coal—such as the steam-powered machinery in textile factories, and the locomotive.

Besides being politically stable, Britain had another advantage, namely it was the world’s leading colonial power. As such, its colonies could provide raw materials, as well as a marketplace for the manufactured goods. Britain got most of its raw cotton from Southern United States as it could not grow it locally. The spinning of cotton into threads for weaving into cloth had traditionally taken place in the homes of textile workers. During the industrial revolution, however, an inventor Richard Arkwright patented his ‘water frame’, which meant that large-scale spinning was done on just a single machine. Shortly thereafter, another inventor, James Hargreaves’ ‘spinning jenny’ or spinning engine improved the process even further. With eight spindles, the spinning engine increased the amount one worker could produce by eight times. Many other investors followed bringing new machinery to the market.

As demand for British goods increased, merchants needed more cost-effective methods of production, which led to the rise of mechanization and the factory system. The spinning of cotton into threads for weaving into cloth had traditionally taken place in the homes of textile workers. In 1769, however, Richard Arkwright patented his ‘water frame’, that allowed large-scale spinning to take place on just a single machine. This was followed shortly afterwards by James Hargreaves’ ‘spinning jenny’, which further revolutionised the process of cotton spinning.

The weaving process was similarly improved by advances in technology. Edmund Cartwright’s power loom, developed in the 1780s, allowed for the mass production of the cheap and light cloth that was desirable both in Britain and around the Empire. Steam technology would produce yet more change. Constant power was now available to drive the dazzling array of industrial machinery in textiles and other industries, which were installed up and down the country.

New ‘manufactories’ (an early word for ’factory’) were the result of all these new technologies. Large industrial buildings usually employed one central source of power to drive a whole network of machines. Richard Arkwright’s cotton factories in Nottingham and Cromford, for example, employed nearly 600 people by the 1770s, including many small children, whose nimble hands made light-work of spinning. Other industries flourished under the factory system. In Birmingham, James Watt and Matthew Boulton established their huge foundry and metal works in Soho, where nearly 1,000 people were employed in the 1770s making buckles, boxes and buttons, as well as the parts for new steam engines.Scottish inventor James Watt’s refinements to the steam engine in 1775 that began the revolution. Up until that point, such engines were crude, inefficient, and unreliable. Watt’s first engines were used primarily to pump water and air into and out of mines.

As more powerful and efficient engines were developed, which would operate under high pressure and thus increase output, new forms of transportation became possible. In the U.S., Robert Fulton was an engineer and inventor who had become fascinated with Watt’s engine while living in France at the turn of the 19th century.

After several years of experimenting in Paris, he returned to the U.S. and launched the Clermont in 1807 on the Hudson River in New York. It was the first commercially viable steamboat line in the nation.

As the nation’s rivers began opening to navigation, commerce expanded along with the population. Another new form of transportation, the railroad, also relied on steam power to drive the locomotives. First in Britain and then in the U.S., rail lines began appearing in the 1820s. By 1869, the first transcontinental rail line linked the coasts. If the 19th century belonged to steam, the 20th century belonged to the internal combustion engine. American inventor George Brayton, working on earlier innovations, developed the first liquid-fueled internal combustion engine in 1872. During the next two decades, German engineers including Karl Benz and Rudolf Diesel would make further innovations. By the time Henry Ford unveiled his Model T car in 1908, the internal combustion engine was poised to transform not just the nation’s transportation system but also spur 20th-century industries like petroleum and aviation.

1. What have been the main debates in historiography over the rise of the West? Describe how two historians have approached these ideas. Compare and evaluate their claims.

The main debates in the historiography over the rise of the West include whether the West imitating the East proves superiority or inferiority over other civilizations, whether the main ideas; events, and innovations that shaped world history and our world today emerged from the West or the East, how much did other civilizations contribute to the West and to their rise, whether the West really did rise to the top by its own means or whether it used violence and imperialism to do so. This essay will discuss how two authors, Ricardo Duchesne and John M. Hobson have approached these ideas. Their claims will also be compared and evaluated. The main sources that will be used in this essay are Ricardo Duchesne’s Journal article ‘Asia First?’ and John M. Hobson’s journal article ‘Explaining the Rise of the West: A Reply to Ricardo Duchesne’. Other secondary sources will also be discussed.

One of the points that Duchesne and Hobson disagreed on regarding the rise of the west was whether Europe imitating or copying the East proves how they were not as innovative as them or if it proves their ability to adapt and take something and renovate it making it better than it was. Duchesne said, ‘A distinctive trait shown by Europeans was precisely their willingness to imitate inventions made by foreigners, in contrast to the Chinese who ceased to be as inventive after the Sung era, and showed little enthusiasm for outside ideas and inventions.’ This quote illustrates how in Duchesne’s point of view the European’s ability to imitate and improve on Eastern inventions has led them to become superior and rise to the top. While Hobson said, ‘The sixteenth century in European history saw not the rise of Europe to the top (as Duchesne concedes), since Europe was still far behind China, India, Islamic West Asia, and an emergent Japan under the Tokugawa (after 1600), but the rapid rise of a new aggressive European identity.’ This illustrates his opposing point of view, and that, unlike Duchesne, he does not believe that the European’s ability to imitate inventions makes them better than others. Furthermore, he clearly mentions his belief that the Easterners including the Muslims and Asians were far superior than the Europeans who actually used violence, aggression, colonization, and imperialism to rise and become on top.

Drawing further on the point from the first body paragraph, Duchesne discusses even further how the Europeans improved on Eastern inventions and ideas. ‘It must also be noted that when Europe absorbed new ideas from outside, it did not do so in a purely passive and imitative manner, but often adapted them to local conditions or to new uses with distinct elements of originality.’ This quote suggests how Duchesne believes that when it came to inventions that were imported, as opposed to the ones that were entirely created within the West, they were further improved on or adapted to a more suitable manner by the Europeans. These changes or adaptations considered things such as their needs, geographical areas, climate, or other conditions that differ from the East. When discussing whether Gutenberg in Germany invented the first printing press or whether it was the Chinese and the Koreans years before, Duchesne says ‘The Chinese script (and by extension the Korean script) could not be readily adapted to mechanical use’. This further illustrates Duchesne’s point of view that the Europeans were able to find the problems or issues with Eastern inventions and worked on improving them.

Duchesne discusses how by the end of the thirteenth century, the Islamic and Chinese were well beyond their peak while Europe was just starting their journey to the top and that they did so without conforming to the Islamic culture and emulating Chinese inventions. He also mentions that there are many sources that focus on discussing this but that they have been ignored by historians Hobson, Andre Gunder Frank, Jack Goldstone, and Kenneth Pomeranz. He then uses the quote ‘Persian, Byzantine, Chinese, Indian, African, and Islamic cultures were essential ingredients in Europe’s ascendancy. Affirming the uniqueness of Western civilization in no way implies the idea that Europe can be viewed as a self-contained civilization. A major secret of European creativeness is precisely its multicultural inheritance and its wider geographical linkages with the peoples of the world’ to show that while his main argument may be Eurocentric, he does admit that the East greatly helped Europe rise to the top and that the West took many ideas and inventions from the East. Though at some point in his article, he does ignore some of the Eastern contributions to the Western civilization. He mentions a quote from historian David Landes ‘from about 750 to 1100 … Islam was Europe’s teacher’. Hobson answers this by saying ‘In response, I argue that in this context Landes deploys the standard Islamic Oriental Clause which asserts that the Muslims were simply passive holders or translators of the Ancient Greek texts and that all the Muslims did was simply return them unchanged to the Europeans once the latter had emerged out of the Dark Age “interlude”’. Through this quote, Hobson points out how such thoughts like Landes’s, Duchesne’s, and Margaret Wertheim’s completely ignore how even though Islam might have imitated the sciences and ideas of Ancient Greece, they worked on improving them even more and did not return them back to the Europeans as they came to them. Furthermore, Duchesne discusses how he believes that China contributed the most in terms of innovations, ideas, and technologies during the Sung era and that everything that came after was not very valuable or worthwhile. Duchesne said this to refute Hobson’s claim that the great events and ideas of the West such as the Renaissance, the age of Oceanic exploration, the European military revolution, and even the British industrial revolution were all established long before in the East, especially in China.

Continuing on from the discussion of oceanic exploration, Duchesne mentions Hobson’s belief that the Chinese were more innovative than the Europeans in terms of their ships and sailing techniques for as late as 1800. He also points out how many Scholars have been enthralled for a long time by the series of voyages that were conducted by Cheng Ho between 1405 and 1433. He mentions that the reasons that drove both of these civilizations into the oceans were extremely different. According to Landes, the Chinese did not voyage for reasons of trade or exploration but for want to show themselves and establish their presence, as well as, to receive homage and payment. This differs from the Europeans who went on voyages for trade and imperialistic means among others. When discussing the enlightenment, Hobson mentions how many of the Chinese ideas such as rationality and laissez-faire which had existed for nearly 2,000 years in China started becoming more well known in Europe by the eighteenth century. Many of the philosophers of the enlightenment, such as Voltaire and Quesnay, gave full credit to the Chinese for their ideas. It was the oceanic explorations of the Europeans especially the visiting friars to China that led to this sharing of ideas. one of these friars who visited China during the thirteenth century was the infamous Marco Polo. Within the previous paragraph, the European Military Revolution was also discussed. Between 1550 and 1660, this revolution focused on the distribution of guns, gunpowder, and cannon which helped in Europe’s expansion of military power. Hobson actually alleges that these were not invented during that time by the Europeans, but long before during China’s Military Revolution (c. 850–c.1290). These were then later assimilated and further improved on as the Europeans became fixated on colonizing different parts of the world.

This paragraph will discuss how Hobson used the work of other historians to prove his ideas. Both Janet Abu Lughod and Andre Gunder Frank argue that the rise of the West occurred because the East suffered from low-wage economies while the Europeans high-cost labor permitted industrial advancement as it made it essential for them to develop labor-saving technologies in order to adjust to the global recession. Still Abu Lughod and Frank maintain that this would not have been achievable without the money that poured into Europe in the form of silver and gold that was imperially looted from the Americas. They believe that without this non-European help, time would have gone by and the East would have remained in the lead. Another major approach is established on a “contingency perspective” and is reinforced by two distinguished scholars James M. Blaut and Kenneth Pomeranz. Blaut’s argument is that before 1492 Europe and Asia were on the same developmental level. The divergence happened when the Europeans came across an unplanned contingency and that is that Europe was closer to the Americas than it was to any other continent. Accordingly, having stumbled by chance on the Americas, where they unexpectedly found gold and silver that they ended up robbing helped provide them with the money that was required to trigger the capitalist expansion in Europe. Europeans also benefited from this as the Native population of the Americas were not resistant to the diseases that the Europeans carried along with them. These natives were also not united. Both of these reasons that were not established or controlled by the Europeans ended up helping them significantly. Another point of advantage was that the African slaves who the Europeans used for labour were not immune to the European diseases as well. The African slave’s labour was exploited greatly hence providing the resources that were used to power Britain’s industrialization. The transfer of land-saving items from the Americas was also an important contributor to the British Industrial Revolution.

This essay discussed the main debates that surround the historiography over the rise of the West, these include the West imitating the East, where the main ideas and innovations that shaped world history emerged from, the contribution of other civilizations to the West and to their rise, whether the West rose to the top by itself or used violence to do so. Ricardo Duchesne’s journal article ‘Asia First?’ and John M. Hobson’s journal article ‘Explaining the Rise of the West: A Reply to Ricardo Duchesne’ were used to illustrate how two historians have approached this topic. Duchesne and Hobson had many disagreements in the way they viewed things as Duchesne’s could be seen as Eurocentric while Hobson’s seems to favour the East more. Other historians and their ideas were also discussed in this essay. Both of the main texts were written as a response to each other and to their differing ideas and opposing viewpoints. When evaluating both of their work, it seems like they both lack certain things. These include that they have specifically picked scholars who agree with their ideas, and their interaction seems very hostile as it is obvious that they are both attacking each other because of their disagreements.

The Industrial Revolution was the emergence of modern economic growth. This created the largest and most prolonged rise in living standards seen at the time. It originated in Britain during the nineteenth century with inventions such as the steam engine and the spinning jenny. There are two main arguments for what caused the Industrial Revolution and why it happened in Britain. The first is the incentives argument from people such as Allen. He argues high real wages in Britain and access to cheap coal incentivised firms to replace labour with capital and coal energy. This led to the invention of labour-saving technologies, such as the spinning jenny, that initially were only cost-effective to create and use in Britain. The second argument for the Industrial Revolution is based on a culture shift leading to innovations and inventions.

Mokyr in his book argues that the European Enlightenment was necessary for the Industrial Revolution firstly because of the increase in technological creativity and secondly by changing the institutions within Britain and the rest of Europe. Mokyr also says without Britain, “another Western economy could have led,” the industrial revolution and therefore Britain was not necessary because the Enlightenment was a north-western European phenomenon. The second part of Mokyr’s book looks at different aspects of the British economy and British society between the Glorious Revolution and the Crystal Palace exhibition. He covers agriculture, industry, transport, services, demography, gender, factories and firms, social norms, institutions, living standards and inequality. Mokyr’s main arguments are that the European Enlightenment made the Industrial Revolution possible, through technological change and by reforming institutions. He also explains why the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain first.

Mokyr’s first main argument is that social and economic progress was led through the expansion of useful knowledge. The idea of useful knowledge became different at the time as it began to give people power over nature rather than just over other people. Mokyr proposes the term “Industrial Enlightenment” to define the idea that economic growth was achieved by increasing human knowledge of natural phenomena and making this knowledge accessible. Mokyr acknowledges the necessity of artisans but argues the “ideas of intellectuals, scientists, skilled mechanics, inventors and entrepreneurs may have mattered more,” than policymakers and were necessary for the Industrial Revolution. He argues inventors did not work solely for financial gain and the ability to share their ideas in societies and across Europe was central. He explains scientific societies in English towns and the universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow were often located near centres of industry and were a source of useful knowledge between philosophers, engineers, and entrepreneurs. Mokyr accepts that the Enlightenment was not the cause in itself of the Industrial Revolution. Mokyr also importantly recognises that the major inventions of the late eighteenth century were the result of the ingenuity of British mechanics and not the “Baconian programme.” Mokyr, however, argues that lowering access costs to knowledge and growing useful knowledge is why the Industrial Revolution led to modern economic growth and was not, “another flash in the technological plan.” This would agree with O Grada who suggests scientific knowledge was more important for the second Industrial Revolution.

The second part of Mokyr’s argument is the Enlightenment led to modern economic growth through rational reform of institutions as well as the expansion of useful knowledge. He argues that “institutions that eliminated piracy, improved enforcement of contracts and property rights, reduced risk and provided credit, insurance information and the reasonable assurance that trading partners would meet their commitments,” which was a major factor of Smithian growth. Mokyr goes on to argue this became more important as technological development overtook Smithian growth as the prime driver of economic growth. Enlightenment thinkers rethought the role of the state and created rules for government and law based on ideas such as “social contract” and civil society.” This cultural shift focusing on logic and morality caused a cultural change which encouraged technological creativity. Mokyr also argues the “mother of all institutional changes” was the move to rely on the free market. This in his eyes was a necessary change for modern economic growth to become possible but Mokyr does not make it clear why this is the case. He also suggests rent seeking in Britain had nearly disappeared but Marx would argue a laissez-faire economy would lead to the exploitation and rent-seeking of workers by factory owners.

Mokyr states institutions needed to be flexible as circumstances change. He discusses the need for meta-institutions that can change institutions and whose decisions will be accepted by everyone including those who stand to lose from them. This in the context of Britain would be its Parliamentary Democracy and shift away from an all-powerful monarch after the Glorious Revolution and the 1689 Bill of Rights. I would say these things made Britain unique at the time and if Mokyr is correct that having flexible institutions was one of the necessary precursors to the Industrial Revolution then his argument that the Industrial Revolution would have happened without Britain seems uncertain.

The final part of Mokyr’s argument is that the Industrial Revolution was a European event and merely started in Britain by chance. He goes on to say the Industrial Revolution would have happened without Britain, only later and perhaps in a different form. The advantages Britain had were typically on the supply side of the economy. Britain had an advantage in having a large number of skilled craftsmen who supplied the necessary workmanship and innovation. Mokyr mentions some such as John Wilkinson and Charles Gascoigne. He also claims Britain had this supply of skilled artisans earlier than the continent and was not side-tracked by events such as the French Revolution had side-tracked France. Mokyr goes on to discuss the importance of Britain’s open economy, partly because of its empire, the importance of transport, Britain having a relatively high urbanisation rate and a low proportion of people in agriculture for the time. All these things helped Britain have the Industrial Revolution as well as others but these advantages according to Mokyr were shared with Europe or were happening in Britain faster than they otherwise would have somewhere else in Western Europe. Mokyr mentions but seems to gloss over some of the other factors that made Britain unique. The fact Britain was an island and had not been invaded by a foreign power since 1066 seems overlooked. Also, Mokyr brushes over the fact Britain had large coal supplies and high labour costs which would have incentivised the substitution of labour for automation fuelled by coal. Even Britain’s Enlightenment Mokyr admits was unique in that it had a religious revival and the preservation on conservative values compared to the typical idea of the Enlightenment which sought to replace religion with “rational thought.” Religion did become a matter of moral choice rather than the intellectual foundation, however, Mokyr discusses the importance of informal institutional change which relied on fairness and politeness. It seems these informal institutions depended on the religious revival in Britain and its unique Parliamentary system. It would also seem logical to think Britain was only able to develop these institutions because it was an island separate from the rest of Europe and was able to have a continuous evolving state.

In conclusion, Mokyr convincingly argues that the Enlightenment was necessary for the Industrial Revolution to take place. This was due to the increase of useful knowledge and the falling access costs to it as well as the creation of institutions that incentivised innovation. It seems Mokyr is saying without the Enlightenment there would have been a large boost in growth in the nineteenth century because of the invention of the spinning jenny and possibly the steam engine but growth would have quickly fizzled out just as it did after the discovery of agriculture. However, Mokyr underestimates how unique Britain was not just economically but socially and geographically and it is hard to agree with him that the Industrial Revolution would have happened without Britain unless there had been a large change in Europe’s circumstances. In the end, it seems the Enlightenment set the stage and made the long-term effects of the Industrial Revolution possible but was not in itself the spark.

Bibliography

1. Allen, Robert C. The British Industrial Revolution In Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
2. Mokyr, Joel. The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History Of Britain, 1700-1850. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
3. Ó Gráda, Cormac. ‘Did Science Cause The Industrial Revolution?’. Journal Of Economic Literature 54, no. 1 (2016): 224-239. doi:10.1257/jel.54.1.224.