In 1800s Britain, the Industrial Revolution resulted in the development of a new class society. Change in the definition of societal classes is often credited to class feeling, defining society based on a common source of income (Perkin, 176). In the relevance of socialism, it is important to understand the most crucial class in economic and political change: the working class. One major cause of socialism in the nineteenth century is related to the increase in population. In 1800, Europe’s population consisted of less than 200,000,000 people and would increase to around twice that over the duration of the nineteenth century (Checkland, 4).
Britain alone increased its population more than three times its previous count in the eighteenth century. Unfortunately, as the public expanded, so did cases of starvation and poverty. However, during this time, the per capita industrial production and real income more than quadrupled. This fact in itself displayed the disproportionate monetary division among society. With consideration of population increase, the accrue of society directly corresponds with an increased need of societal change. It needed to review the size of its society and distribution among its members, and adjust its social structure and organization (Perkin, 3-4).
During the Industrial Revolution, roughly expanding from the 1760s to the 1840s, mankind in Britain experienced an economic growth. Compared to other nations, Britain was rapidly industrializing, heading towards a more modern industrial growth (Perkin, 2). With an increase in population arising during revolution, this created the potential for an expanding working class (Perkin, 8). Besides economically increasing its profit from industrialization, the Industrial Revolution is also a precursor to the development of socialist ideas.
It provided a platform for the working class to develop new ideas concerning the right to establish their own economic standing and thus lessening the gap between common man and affluent society. The Industrial Revolution exhibited a strong increase in human productivity, and from there, assisted in providing employment for a flourishing population (Perkin, 3). While an increase in employment alleviated tension for an expanding population, the issue of division between social classes grew. The increase in population forced society to deal with new social problems, and agitated frustration with the old ones.
With the expanding society, worry grew that the fluctuation of employment would negatively affect those of lower class. This caused an increase in crime and prostitution during an economic slump. Those with a low wage income were forced to move into areas of poverty, denied the privilege possessed by the upper class. Privies, cess-pools and drains over flowed, along with foul water supplies, and created an excessive amount of diseases and deaths. With a sizeable difference in living qualities between classes, those of the lower class became agitated with the imbalance and felt the need for change (Perkin, 162-163).
Hereby accelerating some of society towards socialist thought. Another reason for socialism forming in Britain pertains auto the ascending agitation towards Parliament. Society did not see fair the domination of Parliament by the wealthy. Although the idea of reforming Parliament faced a halt in 1819, it revived its verbal discontent with Parliament in the 1830s. The working class believed that they should represent themselves in Parliament and be given the same privileges as those of the upper class. Following the vocal displeasure of malcontent society members, the amount of reform literature inclined.
At the foot of a political reform, the Whig government, whom took over in 1830, failed to carry out their promise in dealing with the reform of Parliament. Although Whig leaders wanted to eradicate the leverage held by the Court and Cabinet, they wished not to interfere with power among great land-owners, whom outnumbered them greatly in Parliament. In an attempt to avoid further agitation, the government generated a Bill, stating that the abolishment of around 120 nomination boroughs would be cleared, in order to provide seats for the majority of the population at the expense of the Commons.
Although the Bill showed high favorability among those in the nation, once it reached the Commons in Parliament, it fulfilled its stagnant fate and diminished along with Parliament (Checkland, 338-339). In the sudden dismantlement of Parliament, an election followed to appoint not only the men who would govern, but also the form of government. The Whig party, with heavy support of the majority, governed once again and attempted to reinstate the idea of the Bill. Although modified, the Bill was disregarded by the Lords during the nights of October 7-8, 1831. The reaction of society was nothing short of hectic, raising a fear of revolution.
Anti-Bill bishops were the main target of public execration, resulting in the destruction of The Palace of His Grace of Bristol. After a third attempt, a reformed Bill containing the same principles, made its way to Parliament. With a threat of revolution feasible, the King agreed to alter the Bill for the Lords in order to eradicate new members’ peerage. This compromise resulted in the passing of the Bill. (Checkland, 339-340). The strong desire and persistence of Britain’s society to overcome the bias of Parliament and attain authority, lie within the socialistic idea that society works together as a whole.
During the 1830s, amidst the reformation of Parliament, arose Robert Owen, implementing an ideal sociological movement, often referred to as Owenism. He believed that men should come together in terms of unity to help one another in society and to further increase efficiency. This idea of cooperative socialism ensured diminishment of tension among social classes due to the high support of both aristocratic and middle class. The idea of a cooperative society differed notably from the competitive society of which Britain had.
With an increase in output and social peace between classes, most of the British society, favored the Owen form of socialism. In an unfavorable outcome to so many in society, Owenites suffered failure for not all of society agreed with its ideas (Checkland, 345-346). Following the failure of Owenism, came the rising of the trade union movement. The trade union movement promoted the idea of unity on a national basis. This created an almost harmonious work environment, for competitive society ceased and each enterprise joined together in a brotherly fashion.
More militant socialists compared to Owen, unionists favored the idea of public demonstration, insisting that exhibition of their solidarity could strife political change. However, the trade union movement did not define it what ways it was going to create this unity among workers. How would it balance the power between both employee and employer? Yet still, in 1833, the trade union movement attracted many of the working class resulting in the formation of the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union. This trade union consisted of over 800,000 unionists.
Unlike Owen’s ideas of a cooperative society, unionists felt the need for direct action and applied doing so in expressing discontent. Concerned the formation of strike would develop, Owen tried to reinstate his idea of a cooperative society in order to desist reformation. While the trade union advocating unity applied a more militant style of socialism, Owen’s socialist ideas carried over into the trade union, bringing society together (Checkland, 345-348). Employers, also referred to as masters during this time, felt this union movement was irrelevant.
In order to demonstrate their dominance over the working class, masters performed lock-outs. This action expresses a form of mockery. Masters wanted to prove, that with little organization, they too could form a team of people and assert union. This signified the end of the working class’s faith in the trade union movement. In 1834, a document was signed by workers stating that the idea of strike among the unionists would discontinue. While the ideas of socialist unity among workers failed to properly integrate within society, this did not end the working classes yearn for political change (Checkland 348-349).
