Poverty and riches; a study of the industrial régime

Front matter

THE LIBRARY

OF THE

NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL

Introduction

PAGE

The Ordeal of Firej 9— Intellectual Individualism, 12— The Industrial Regime in England and the United States, 13 — Laissez-Faire, 15 — ^Legislative Interference, 21 — Laissez- Faire Justified, 23— The Prophets of Better Things, 25— The Deluge, 32 — Individualism versus Liberty, 41 — The Message of Social Science, 42.

Chapter I

The Tool Maker, 45— The Tool and the Machine, 46— The Possibilities of the Machine, 49 — The Fruits of the Machine, 51 — The Industrial Revolution, 56— The Growth of Riches, 62 — Man — ^The Machine Tender, 64 — Caught in the Levers and Cogs, 70 — Worker and Product, 78— -Spiritual Values, 81— The Lilies of the Field, 84— The Machine and the Future, 86.

Chapter II

Material and Spiritual Values, 89 — The Greatest Number, 90— What are Men Worth? 91— Does the Laborer Get Enough, 95 — ^The Measure of Wage Adequacy, 97 — What is the American Wage? 101 — The Phases of Wage Adequacy, 106 — ^Wages and Physical EfiBciency, 106 — TUss American Wage as a Business Proposition, 114— rThe Social Implications of the American Wage, 119 — ^The Penalty of Labor, 122.

6 CONTENTS

Chapter III Page

The Call for Leadership, 124 — The Qualities of Leadership, 127 — ^America's Leader^p Heritage, 129 — ^The Duties of Leadership, 132 — ^The Opportunities for Leadership, 134 — The Position of the Industrial Leader, 139 — The Class Consciousness of the Leaders, 140 — The Men Half Way Up, 143 — ^The Methods of Securing Leaders, 146 — The Training of Industry, 148 — Leadership throu^ Education, 149— The Denial of Opportunity, 155.

Chapter IV

Progress and Poverty, 161— What is Poverty? 163 — The Trail of Poverty, 165— The Burden of Poverty, 172— Crime Begins in Poverty, 175 — Poverty and Disease, 177 — "Let Him be Poor," 183 — Dives and Lazarus, 184 — Why are They Poor? 187— The Challenge of Poverty, 194— We Must Get Oft Their Backs, 197,

Chapter V

The Heaven of the Rich, 199— The Wealth Machine, 201— Wealth and the Wealthy, 207 — Riches and Self-Respeot, 209— The Pauperizing Power of Riches, 210— The Isolation of Riches, 211 — Spending as Philanthropy, 215 — ^We Cannot Serve Mammon, 219— What is Riches? 222— The Maximum Inequality, 224.

Chapter VI

The Impatience for Constructive Work, 227 — ^The Ideals of Democracy, 228 — Democratic Ideals and the Industrial Regime, 230 — Equahty of Opportunity, 232 — Liberty as Opportunity, 238 — (^portimity and Pursuit of Happiness, 242 — Workers and Eaters, 245 — ^A People's Government, 247— Taxation and Representation, 252— The Man above the Dollar, 253.

Index 257

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FAGS

Child Labokers of the Coal Mines 14

Children of thu Slums of New York City .... 37

Mammon 44

Women Workers in a Lynn Shoe Factory 69

Workrooms of the Poor and the Rich. . l 76

Chateau and Tenement 101

The Coal Famine 108

Ejng Canute 133

The Hand of Fate 140

Two Ways of Getting Fed 165

A Contrast in Bedrooms 172

The Vampire 197

Different Kinds op Dining Rooms 204

Destitution and Luxury 229

A Notorious Slum near the National Capitol 236

INTRODUCTION Theory and Practice

1. The Ordeal of Fire

'C'VERY theory of human conduct must withstand ■*-* the fires of experience. Otherwise it is a useless theory. The philosophies of nations and of individuals are constantly reshaped in the light of events. At some times the process is gradual; at other times great crises menace, and the most momentous consequences hang upon the decision.

The war that swept over Em-ope in the summer of 1914 soon resolved itself into a struggle between the English and the Germans. Two types of culture were brought into conflict. The names most often appUed to these types are "individualism" and "socialism."

Unfortimately the words are not accurately descriptive, nor are they mutually exclusive. England is to a degree socialistic, while individualism finds a place in every phase of German life. Furthermore, the English variety of individualism is almost as far from Spencerian individualism as the German variety of socialism is far from Marxian Socialism. At the same time the words convey an idea that is firmly fixed in the public mind. The United States, as the offspring of England, is committed, by heredity and by training, to espouse the cause of "individualism" and "freedom" wherever they appear.

The people of the United States are in sympathy with the Allies for many reasons, and among them is the strongly marked feeling that the United States is a Uneal descendant of individualized, democratic England.

At that point several questions present themselves. What is individuaUsm? Is it right or true? Will it work?

Spencerian individualism regarded the human being as the basic unit of society. Intellectually, that premise is sound. Biologically and socially, it is unsound. The human being uses his mind as an individual, but he cannot reproduce himself without a mate. The biologic unit is therefore a male and female. Speaking in terms of race perpetuation, "individualism" must refer to the unit of a man and a woman.

Socially, the unit is the family. Society depends for its future upon the care given by a man and a woman to their offspring. The family, in its home, thus becomes the center of social life; hence individuaUsm, in social terms, relates to a family.

The idea of the individual unit may be carried further into social Ufe — to the commimity, town, city — ^that has an individuality of its own, quite as clearly marked as the individuality of a human being. The same idea may be carried into industrial life, where railroads, telephone systems, factories, mines, and stores, employing hundreds and thousands of persons, are operated as units. In the industrial city, the railroad organization or the factory organization, the individual human being is helpless and useless unless he is willing to co-operate actively in making the work of the whole group a success. No individual can manage a city, a railroad or a factory unless there are others who will subordinate themselves to his direction. Speaking in terms of modem community or of modem industrial life, the individual human being does not count. The thing that does count is the group, working in intelligent harmony. The individuaUsm of the Industrial Regime is an individualism of large imits of co-operating workers.

The same thought may be amplified in the case of the human body. The body is an individual, composed of numerous individual organs, which, in turn, are composed of numerous individual cells. The hand is a vmit; each finger is a unit; the nerves, capillaries, bones and hairs of the fingers are units, as are the cells of which they are all composed.

EngUsh individuahsm deals with the individual human being — ^it is intellectual individuahsm. Thinking in such terms, and applying their thought to the affairs of the state, the Enghsh-speaking world built up a social system on the supposition that the greatest sum of human happiness and nobility can be thus secured.

2. Intellectual Individualism

Will intellectual individualism work? Can a nation succeed that permits the individual citizens of which it is composed to extend the field of their activities so long as they do not interfere with their fellows? Some light is thrown on that question by the events that have transpired in Europe during the past few decades.

The author holds no brief for either England or Germany, nor will any effort be made to discuss the war of 1914. The one problem that will be presented at this point relates to the experience which England has had with the intellectual individuahsm that has been made the comer-stone of her social philosophy. This does not in any way involve the question of the success of the system adopted by Germany. It merely raises the issues that are involved in the experiences of England and suggests some of the problems that America must face if she follows the English example.

Many people assumed that the war of 1914 would end quickly and easily. There was, throughout England, an easy optimism. A few weeks, at most a few months, and all would be over. The German fleet swept from the seas, the Austrians humbled, Germany pushed back from Paris, Belgian soil freed from the invader — all this was to be accomplished by the army and navy, with that deliberate dispatch which for time out of mind had marked the triumphs of British arms. Weeks drew themselves into months and months into years. During the frightful interval, criticisms were piled high. The members of the cabinet, the field leaders, and the other ofl&cers of administration all came in for their share of censure. Here and there a voice was raised, crying that England was suffering — ^nay, some even said dying — of individualism.

Is individualism a disease? Will nations die of it? We, in America, have it in generous plenty. Will it prove fatal to the United States? Has it been a curse in England?

3. The Industrial Regime in England and the United States

The same forces that have placed the industrial leaders of England in a dominant position have placed the industrial leaders of the United States in a dominant position. The position occupied by the American leaders is perhaps a little more dizzy, because in one sense it is higher and less secure. In the main, however, the individualistic doctrines advanced in both countries have led both in the same direction and toward the same end — the preeminence of industrial power.

The sub-title of this book, "The Industrial Regime," was chosen with a purpose. First, it is perfectly evident to even the casual observer that the ruling power in the world today is the power of industry. The word "Regime" is used in recognition of this rulership or leadership of industry.

Second, the crucial question before the nation today concerns the effectiveness of the industrial rule. The industrial leaders are directing national affairs. Are they directing wisely? The industrial machine has dominated the community. Has this industrial domination proved socially advantageous?

There are people, not a few, who beUeve that the industrial order has justified itself; who are for letting things stand as they are. But will they stand? England was looked to as the mightiest power in the world, yet in the great world tourney she did not immediately demonstrate her superiority.

This individuaUsm, that was, looked to as a source of the robust national health without which a nation must cease to exist, has not played fair with England. For two centuries individuahsm has held a firm grip on the Enghsh people, and now it seems to have drained them of much of their vitaUty.

The ideal of individualism developed during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in opposition to the oppressive treatment that was being exercised by a decaying Feudalism, held that the individual must be left free to follow his own inclinations, which are necessarily good. Nature's man is a good man, according to this philosophy, and the important thing is to let man be free, as he was imder natiu-e, so that he might live out the yearnings of his heart.

CHILD LABOPJ-IRS OP THE COAL MINES These boys are employed as "slate pickers." As the coal comes down the slide they must pick out each piece of rock or slate and put it in a separate chute. It is constant hard work, — le.ss agreeable than going to school, or fishing or playing baseball. (Copr., Underwood & I'nderwood, New York.)

4. Laissee-Faire

The idea of individualism, applied to industry, took the form of the "laissez-faire" doctrine. Industry will necessarily develop most advantageously if it is unrestricted. Therefore it mjust be "let alone."

This doctrine of the French School of Physiocrats was forced upon the attention of England by the economist, Adam Smith, at the time (1776) when^the modem method of factory production was getting its start in the British Isles. The doctrine offered marked advantages to the manufacturer, because it left him free to follow his own devices. The scheme therefore won the cordial support of the industrial class at the time that it was ascending to a position of domiuating importance.

The laissez-faire idea gave the manufacturers exactly what they most desired — opportunity to develop their new projects, free from hampering influences. They seized the idea eagerly. They taught it, preached it, defended it. Industry, must be free to grow; only as it was let alone, could it demonstrate its full possibilities.

So plausible was the doctrine; so able and powerful were its advocates; so completely had men reacted against tyranny and oppression; so eager were they for liberty in whatever form it might appear, that for a half a century the laissez-faire idea held complete sway over the policies of England. The English manufacturers had a splendid chance to show what the real merits of the laissez-faire idea were. Factory industry grew up in England, unhampered by legislative restrictions. There was none of the governmental interference that in these days arouses such bitter opposition in many industrial circles. No social idea ever had a better tryout than this of laissez-faire. And the results? Words almost fail. The more revolting details do not bear printing outside the realm of technical Uterature. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, with the English manufacturers in full control, with a domination of the world markets, and wholly free from any government restrictions, the conditions in the factory districts are thus described by a careful student of the problem who is writing of the manner in which the workhoxise children were sold to the mill owners: "Sometimes regular traflfickers would take the place of the manufacturer, and transfer a number of children to a factory district, and there keep them, generally in some dark cellar, till they could hand them over to a mill-owner in want of hands, who could come and examine their height, strength, and bodily capacities, exactly as did the slave dealers in the American markets.

After that the children were simply at the mercy of their owners, nominally as apprentices, but in reality as mere slaves, who got no wages, and whom it was not worth while even to feed and clothe properly, because they were so cheap, and their places could be so easily supplied. . . . The hours of their labor were limited only by exhaustion, after many modes of torture had been unavailingly applied to force continued work. Ilbiess was no excuse: no child was accounted ill till it was positively impossible to force him or her to continue to labor, in spite of all the cruelty which the ingenuity of a tormenter could suggest. Children were often worked sixteen hours a day, by day and by night. Even Sunday was used as a convenient time to clean the machinery. The author of 'The History of the Factory Movement' writes: 'In stench, in heated rooms, amid the constant whirring of a thousand wheels, little fingers and Uttle feet were kept in ceaseless action, forced into unnatural activity by blows from the heavy hands and feet of the merciless overlooker, and the infliction of bodily pain by instruments of punishment, invented by the sharpened ingenuity of insatiable selfishness.' They were fed upon the coarsest and cheapest food. . . . They slept by turns, and in relays, in filthy beds which were never cool, for one set of children were sent to sleep in them as soon as the others had gone off to their daily or nightly toil. There was often no discrimination of sexes; and disease, misery, and vice grew as in a hot-bed of contagion. Some of these miserable beings tried to run away. To prevent them from doing so, those suspected of this tendency had irons riveted on their ankles, with long links reaching up to the hips, and were compelled to work and sleep in these chains, . . .

Many died, and were buried secretly at night in some desolate spot, lest people should notice the number of thegraves; and many committed suicide." There Gibbins stops with the remark, — "One dares not trust oneself to try and set down calmly all that might be told about this awful page in the history of industrial England."*

The instances adduced in the course of Parliamentary inquiries, and cited by Gibbins on subsequent pages, bum hot into the imagination of one schooled to the elements of humanitarian feeling. In one section (230) on "EngUsh Slavery" are set down the records of case after case of little children who were never employed "Under five," chained, beaten and in some cases dying of exhaustion brought on by excessive toil.

These statements are corroborated and amplified by the historians of the early factory system. Thus Lecky, in his "England in the Ei^teenth Century,"" writes: "In the very infancy of the system, it became the custom of the master manufacturer to contract with the managers of workhouses throughout England, and of the charities of Scotland, to send their young children to the factories of the great towns. Many thousands of children between the ages of six and ten were thus sent, absolutely uncared for and unprotected; and left to the com-

I" Industry in England," H.deB. Gibbins. New York: Scribner's 1897, pp. 388-90. « ""w»,

•Volume VI, pp. 224-25.

plete disposal of masters who often had not a single thought except speedily to amass fortunes, and who knew that if the first supply of infant labor was used, there was still much more to be obtained. Thousands of children at this early age might be foimd working in the factories of England and Scotland, usually from twelve to fourteen, sometimes even fifteen or sixteen, hours a day. Not infrequently diu-ing the greater part of the night. ... In one case brought before Parhament, a gang of these children was put up for sale among a bankrupt's effects, and publicly advertised as part of the property. In another, an agreement was disclosed between a London parish and a Lancashire manufacturer, in which it was stipulated that with every twenty soxmd children one idiot should be taken. Instances of direct and aggravated cruelty to particular children were probably rare, and there appears a general agreement of evidence that they were confined to the small factories. But labor prolonged for periods that were utterly inconsistent with the health of children was general. In forty-two out of the forty-three factories at Manchester, it was stated before the Parhamentary Committee in 1816, that the actual hours of daily labor ranged from twelve to fourteen, and in one case they were fourteen and one-half. Even as late as 1840, when the most important manufacturers had been regulated by law. Lord Ashley was able to show that boys employed in carpet manufactories at Kidderminister were called up at three and four in the morning, and kept working sixteen or eighteen hours; children five years old were engaged in the unhealthy trade of pin making, and were kept at work from six in the morning to eight at night."

The desperate straits to which a part of the working population of England was subjected as a resiUt of developing the factory system, are described by Lecky in these terms:'

"The woolen manufacturing in the eighteenth century was carried on by numbers of small masters in their own homes. They usually employed about ten journeymen and apprentices, who were bound to them by long contracts, who boarded in master's house, and who worked together with him, under his immediate superintendence. In Leeds and its neighborhood, in 1806, there were no less than 3,500 of these estabUshments. But the gigantic factory with its vast capital, its costly machinery, and its extreme subdivision of labor, soon swept them away. (See Howell's ' Conflicts of Capital and Labor,' pp. 84-88.) Hand-loom weaving, once a flourishing trade — long maintained a desperate competition against the factories, and as late as 1830 a very competent observer described the multitude of weavers, who were living in the great cities, in houses utterly unfit for human habitation,

' "England in the Eighteenth Century," Lecky. Vol. VI, pp.

working fourteen hours a day and upwards, and earning only five to eight shillings a week. (See Kay's 'Moral and Physical Condition of the Working Classes,' p. 44; Wade's 'History of the Middle and Working Classes,' p. 571.)"

Even more revolting are the descriptions written of the conditions that surroimded the lives of the mine workers in the early part of the nineteenth century. Women as well as men were taken into the mines, and there subjected to the most fearful hardships. In some cases, as the reports of the Parliamentary investigation showed, the women dragged the cars through passageways that were too low to admit of the use of ponies or mules.

These are but examples of the many passages that might be cited of the monstrous conditions of labor prevailing in English industry at a time when there was no vestige of governmental interference. The profits of the business were immense, and to these immense profits some of the manufacturers sacrificed every consideration of humanity and decency. Laissez-faire at its best, was indescribably, unthinkably frightful.

5. Legislative Interference

Faced by such conditions at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the more far-seeing of EngUsh statesmen saw the danger to British national supremacy in a system of such fearful exploitation. Beginning in 1802, with the first Factory Act, law after law was passed, safeguarding the health, first of the children, and later of women and men. Even the earliest of these laws, which contained little more than a theoretical departure from the policy of laissez-faire was carried, to use Lecky's phrase, "in the teeth of a fierce class opposition." The manufacturers banded themselves together and fought the acts one by one. They alleged foreign competition, the danger to the existence of British industry, dwindling profits, and finally, the right of Britons to full individual liberty.

Parliamentary investigations succeeded one another, and revelations that they made were so terrible that some action became imperative. This was particularly true of the investigation of the mines. The findings led at once to the passage of legislation forbidding the work of women imderground.

The Act of 1831 forbade night work for persons between nine and twenty-one years of age, and limited the working day of persons under eighteen years to twelve hours a (lay and nine hours on Saturday. This law, applying to cotton factories only, was passed after a third of a century of ceaseless agitation. Under it, children of nine could be called upon to work sixty-nine hoiu:s a week. "The hours of black slaves' labor in our colonies were at that very time carefully limited by law (Orders in Council, November 2, 1831) to nine per day for adults, and six for young persons and children, while night work was simply prohibited."* Not until 1847 was a ten-hour day for women and children secured.

6. Laissez-Faire Justified

The debates in Parliament over the early factory acts sound wierd and uncanny in twentieth century ears. The imspeakable working and Uving conditions of the industrial population were explained and justified in the name of liberty and individual freedom.

The revolting conditions surrounding the Uves of the working population were more than offset, in the eyes of English statesmen, by the cheapness of the product, the profits of the industries to the manufacturers and the splendid trade balances that were growing in favor of England.

England was prosperous. She had developed the factory a generation in advance of the rest of the world; consequently she was able to imdersell her competitors in the world markets. It is probably true that Napoleon was beaten in the weaving sheds of England. The English factories threw the French hand-weavers out of emplosrment, while they took the French markets.

England was rapidly insuring her place as the premier commercial nation of the world. Her factories captiu"ed markets through the low-priced goods that she turned out. Her ships were engaged

* "Industry in England," op. cU., pp. 398-99.

in carrying these products to all parts of the world and bringing back raw material which, in turn, would be manufactured and sent out. England bought cheap and sold dear. She made a manufacturer's and a trader's profit. The British nation was rapidly growing rich.

Political economy, in those early days, measured prosperity in terms of trade balances. Profits were high — they were often equal to hundreds of per cent on the investment. Engaged as she was, in the importing of raw materials and exporting finished goods, England, from the standpoint of classical political economy, was in a superb position.

The factory acts improved working conditions somewhat. Still the exploitation of labor continued. Wages were low. Rents were high. The manufacturers grew rich while their employees lived, for the most part, in the depths of poverty.

The yeomanry of England had disappeared. Agricultural land had been bought up, compmons had been enclosed, and the large sheep raisers had taken over the land. Now, under the impetus of factory organization, the people were moving rapidly into cities and towns, and while the country villages became "rotten boroughs," the manufacturing centers swarmed with human beings. Housing was inadequate; sanitation was primitive; disease floiuished.

Still England was prosperous. Her trade was increasing; her manufactures were growing even faster; profits were large; wealth was piling up at a phenomenal pace. Trade, manufacture, profits, wealth — these were prosperity. Economists and statesmen alike rejoiced in their country's progress.

7. The Prophets of Better Things

The prosperity-enthusiasts did not have the field entirely to themselves. During the early years of the exploitation of EngHsh labor by the newly created system of factory industry, there were not lacking voices that uttered vehement warnings and earnest prophesies concerning the outcome of a system of industry that built prosperity upon poverty. Thus, Ruskin in one of his analogies, points out the similarity existing between a national household and a domestic household. In the one, as in the other, the prosperity of the institution must be analyzed in terms of the well being of the members. If any do not share in the prosperity of home^or state, perhaps, after all, the prosperity is not real. Applying this proposition to England, that was called prosperous by the classical economists of his time, he says: "The power of our wealth seems limited as respects the comfort of the servants, no less than their quietude. The persons in the kitchen appear to be ill-dressed, squalid, half-starved. One cannot help imagining that the riches of the establishment must be of a very theoretical and documentary character."* Again he notes the

« "Unto This Last," John Ruskin.

"beautiful arrangement of dwelling-house for man and beast, by which we have grouse and blackcock, so many brace to the acre, and men and women, so many brace to the garret."^ Throughout his discussion of pohtical economy, Ruskin makes similar comparisons, and from each one he draws the conclusion that true national prosperity can never be built upon poverty and squalor. Where wealth accumulates and men decay, there can be but one final result.

Carlyle, too, had nothing but contempt for the widening abyss between poverty and riches. It was in 1831 that he wrote: "Does not the observant eye discern everywhere that saddest spectacle: The Poor perishing, like neglected, foundered, Draught-Cattle, of Hunger and Over-work; the Rich, still more wretchedly, of Idleness, Satiety, and Over-Growth."" No one was more scornful of the new regime than was Carlyle, who found in it the negation of many of the social principles that were to him most dear. At a time when they "on all hands hear it passionately proclaimed: Laissez- Faire," Carlyle found nothing but condemnation of the doctrine in the events that were transpiring about him. It is because of this that he makes Teufelsdrockh exclaim: "Call ye that a Society where there is no longer any Social Idea extant; not so much as the Idea of a common Homej but

' "Crown of Wild Olive," Ruskin. ' "Sartor Resartus," Chapter 5.

of a common over-crowded Lodging House? Where each, isolated, regardless of his neighbor, turns against his neighbor, clutches what he can get, and cries 'Mine!' and calls it peace because, in the cutpurse and cut-throat Scramble, no steel knives, but only a far cunninger sort can be employed?"' Again and again he records his vigorous protests against the abuses of the new industry that was preaching natural law while it multiplied profits.

There were splendid true things said by Ruskin; Carlyle scattered his invective over the fields of social wrong that he saw about him; but perhaps the fiercest attacks against the abuses of the profit system were made by Charles Dickens. "Hard Times" reveals him at his best in his analysis of "Prosperity." He holds the thing up, looks at it, laughs at it, and then throws it from him, shuddering at its noisomeness and dirt.

When Mr. McChoakimichild, the schoolmaster, assays to teach about "National Prosperity," Uttle Sissy Jupe, who has been raised in poverty, fails completely to understand his point of view. "Girl number twenty," he says, "Now this schoolroom is a nation. And in this nation there are fifty milUons of money. Isn't this a prosperous nation, and ain't you in a thriving state?" Poor Sissy was sadly puzzled, but she gave the wrong answer, for she said, "I couldn't know whether it was a prosperous nation or not, and whether I was in a thriving state

« Sartor Resartus, Chapter 5.

or not, unless I know who had got the money, and whether any of it was mine." So the teacher stated the question differently. Said he: "This schoolroom is an immense town, and in it there are a million of inhabitants, and only five-and-twenty are starved to death in the streets in the course of a year. What is your remark on that proportion?" Again, Sissy was wrong, for she said she "thought it must be just as hard on those that were starved, whether the others be a million or a milhon milUon." So the teacher tried once more to give his point of view. "I find," he explained, "that in a given time a hundred thousand persons went to sea on long voyages, and only five hundred of them were drowned or biamt to death. What is the percentage?" "Nothing," Sissy replied, "to the relations and friends of the people who were killed." And she was wrong again!