Carlyle and Marx Views on the 19th-century Industrialization society
The 19th-century industrialization saw a significant change in the construct of society. These changes were through the means of production and exchange introduced, which precipitated from previous feudalism. As a result, large industries working like machines developed with ownership and control in a few hands. Consequently, their emerged owners of capital and labours classes. The former exploiting the latter in exchange for the labour they offered. This paper will show how Carlyle’s “Signs of the Times” and Marx The Communist Manifesto concurs with the observations of the nature of this period and their differing stance as to how such problems would be addressed.
They agreed of the looming crisis in the offing that of the class system. The tension in the society between these two opposing sides is ever at play. Carlyle lays claim that the United States Civil War was the hallmarks manifestation of these conflicting struggles. Marx asserts that the bourgeoisie magical control of the factors of production and unequal distribution of the created wealth is bound to fail with the proletariat inevitably having their way.
They all agreed that the industrialization of this period resulted in the mechanization of the industry devoid of soul. Carlyle notes that society and man had lost senses of humanity. He laid the reason for the nature of the organization of the industries stripped naked man to a condition of mere relation based on money. What he labelled dynamic and mechanical nature of man. Max saw this unbalanced nature of the man and society as the catalyst for class strugglers. Hence, man’s lost sense of meaning in light of this outright exploitation of the ruling class pushed the exploited to regain their dignity.
They again concur that this class struggle promoted industrial development. Continuous technological advances were constant phenomenal, which inevitably lowered wages. Carlyle agrees on the pros of these technologies on the life of humanity feeding, dressing and housing habits. As Marx points out, the means of communication development aided the combinations of workers in their redress against the ruling class. For communication technologies assisted workers to reach out efficiently across the landscape their organizing efforts. Consequently, these advancements incited labour class actions like strikes.
They also note that institutionalization of the society proceeded to deal with emerging issues and to carry on with them over the years. As Carlyle saw, each institution published monthly, bi-monthly or annually periodicals to capture sentiments the institutions stood for. Hence, the political organization grew from the division of the opposing interests. As much as civil liberties were present morality was lost in such industrial organization. Thereby politics in such matter was widely practised.
They differ in the way this problem needs to be solved. While Marx sees technology as a problem, Carlyle does not. However, he presses on the notion that for man to change the society, man must change themselves first. This would be possible through a balance of dynamic and mechanical nature being in a constant union. On the other hand, Marx sees that the only change would be a fall of the ruling class and a never-ending see-saw between the types.
Summing up, Carlyle and Marx were prominent individuals who wrote of the modern period times concerns. They shared the majority of the views of the nature of the problem that manifested at times. There approach, though different nonetheless accurately captured the prevailing sentiments in their writings. As Marx advances whole classes tag of war nature of the class system is the solution whereas Carlyle singles out individual changes as a source of this solution.