Ouroboros; or, the mechanical extension of mankind — John Shaqi
Ouroboros; or, the mechanical extension of mankindGarrett, Garet
Philosophy
Ouroboros; or, the mechanical extension of mankind
Garrett, Garet
Machinery; Machinery in the workplace
And this is by no means an impossible progression of events. It has
once taken place on a lesser scale. Beginning about 1870, there was
a sudden and uncontrollable increase in the output of industry from
two principal causes. One was the rapid rise of competitive industry
in Germany and the United States; the other—much more potent—was the
discovery of a new and cheaper way of making steel. This one discovery
transformed the aspect of industry by increasing its potential power as
much, perhaps, as one-hundred fold. Until then people spoke of the iron
age; after that it was the steel age. For a quarter of a century prices
fell continuously, while solemn economic bodies sat pondering the
phenomenon. In that time all the capital employed in industry was lost
at least once, probably twice or three times. The producer’s only hope
was to improve his machines and increase production, for as he did that
his cost per unit fell and for a little while he could undersell his
competitor. In methods of production and in the efficiency of machines
there was necessarily amazing progress; nevertheless, when all other
means of reducing costs had failed, it had to be taken out of labour.
In the United States it was not so bad because here the domestic
demand for manufactures was unlimited, and a tariff-wall protected
industry from foreign competition. In Germany it was very bad.
Germany then was where Italy now is. Her advantage was that the
German people would work harder and longer for less money than the
British. The competition was between these two. The British Government,
disturbed by her new rival’s success in foreign trade, made a study of
labour conditions in Germany. It found Sunday labour very prevalent in
the factories. “Only the hours of divine service are excluded”, said a
report from Saxony.
Commenting, _The_ (London) _Economist_ said: “The question of Sunday
labour is one of considerable interest for England, for it is
unquestionable that among the causes of Germany’s ability to compete
with England as a mercantile and industrial country the fact that here
more hours are worked for less money is not the least important. The
prohibition of Sunday labour would, of course, mean increased cost of
production, and every increase in the cost of production will render it
more difficult for Germany to outrival older manufacturing countries
in the markets of the world.”
What might have happened does not detain us. What did happen was very
fortunate.
First, the food-supply from free virgin land in North and South
America increased at the same time in a prodigious manner, so that,
notwithstanding the wild energy of the machine, the equilibrium between
agriculture and industry was fairly well maintained.
Second, there was still room in the world for colonial development on
a vast scale. This occurred, and the outlets thereby created for the
surplus product of machines were most timely.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account