VIITHE FACTORY AND SOCIALPROGRESS
We have now traced the history of the factory, from its beginning with the inventions of Arkwright down to its permanent establishment in the first half of the last century, and we have noted its influence upon the social life of England. We have seen how, as early as the fifteenth century, the introduction of manufactures assisted in breaking down the feudal system, and how, by making possible the accumulation of wealth by men of humble birth, it contributed to the rise of the middle class. We have further seen that at the close of the eighteenth century the introduction of machinery intensified thesetendencies and exerted a powerful influence on the development of our modern democracy.
We have, however, confined our attention to a single industry as it developed in a particular nation,—we have taken the cotton factory as typical of all factories and its growth in England as typical of its growth throughout the Western world. But the factory has developed differently in each industry and its social influence has never been quite alike in any two nations. When, for instance, Samuel Slater introduced cotton manufacturing into America, he set up in Rhode Island an exact counterpart of the English factory. When, later, other factories were built in New England there took place the same transition of a vast laboring population from the rural districts to the manufacturing towns;—but this population was very unlike the manufacturing population of England. The American factories wereoperated by the sons and daughters of Yankee farmers, reared in the atmosphere of democracy and springing from a race unaffected by the traditions of feudalism; for them political equality had been already won, yet even in America the factory became an instrument for social progress. In the rapidly growing manufacturing towns these country folk found a new life of opportunity for social advancement; they did not remain operatives long, but advanced to higher callings; and to take the places which they left, thousands of workers came from Lancashire here to enjoy that civic freedom for which their brothers in the Old World were still contending. To-day in our Southern States we see a similar process at work,—another race of men advancing in the social scale by means of the factory; from the mountains of the Carolinas thousands of young men and women, reared in a civilization almost unbelievably primitive, are flocking to the manufacturingtowns, there to enjoy the advantages of modern life. But however varied have been the phases of the development of the factory in different parts of the world there has always been this common phenomenon—the concentration of the laboring population in manufacturing cities and the development of social discontent leading to social progress.
The nineteenth century was the age of Power Discovered; mechanical inventions, the concentration of industry, the extension of the factory system, new means of transportation destroyed the last vestige of the feudal world and left the democratic ideal triumphant but unfulfilled: a new century dawns,—the age of Power Humanized. The industrial world in which we live, with all its peculiar characteristics, has been built upon the ruins of the feudal order, and in due time will give place to a newer and better civilization. Radicals of to-day see visions of to-morrow; reformersfired by the visions seek to make them real; while conservatives, clinging to the traditions of a dead past, strive to stay the inevitable progress of mankind. Truth never changes, but the knowledge of truth grows deeper with each age; no political institution, no social institution is sacred unless it is founded upon some eternal truth, and all human institutions must change with the increasing knowledge of mankind. Everywhere in the Western world the condition of the laboring population is vastly better to-day than when, a century and a half ago, the factory was established; vastly better than when, sixty years ago, the governments of Europe trembled before a working-class revolt,—when British Chartism triumphed in reform; when Karl Marx, exiled from Prussia, called upon the workingmen of the world to unite; when Mazzini, another exile in London, preached to the toilers of Italy the gospel of God and humanity,of progress through education. But the evolution is incomplete, and the discontent of the laboring population still remains a vital force in the upward progress of mankind.
To-day we in America are confronted by the amazing spread of Socialism; Socialism which the radicals preach, the reformers seek to establish, and the conservatives fear. We cannot evade its issues, for Socialism is something more than a political creed,—it is the modern expression of that same spirit of human progress which destroyed slavery in the ancient world, serfdom in the middle ages and, creating modern democracy, cannot rest until it has guaranteed to all men not only equal political rights but equal social rights. Two men, smoke-room companions of mine during a Pacific voyage, stand for the contending ideals of the feudal and the modern world. One was a noble earl, the other a British tea merchant; both weremen of wealth,—the one of large but unproductive estates, the other of a great business giving employment to thousands of men. Of the two, the tea merchant, though lacking in fine manners, was the more important person; yet he would not have exchanged those hours of familiar gossip with the noble earl for more chests of tea than would fill the hold of the ship. And there was a reason for this feeling, because the Groom of the Bedchamber stood for that aristocracy of culture and good manners which has an important value in any society. Under the militant structure of society this value belonged to the few; in our present democracy it has become increasingly the privilege of the many. Public education, public libraries, public art galleries, the perfected art of printing have opened the highest culture to children of the humblest birth. May we not, then, look forward to the time when “the best that has anywhere been in theworld shall be the lot of every man born into it”—that is to say, the lot of every man who desires the best?
Every thinking man must admit that there is something wrong in our present industrial régime. The progress of avowed Socialism and the more rapid progress of particular socialistic ideas indicate quite clearly that we Americans are alive to the unequal social conditions which now exist and are anxious to find a remedy. But whatever may be the utopian dreams of the reformers, all immediate progress must be made in the industrial world as we find it to-day; the industrial state of the Socialist is too remote in time,—our task is with social conditions as they now exist. The splendid machinery of production created during the last century must not be destroyed, but utilized for the benefit of mankind. The question which we have now to ask ourselves is this: What is the ultimate purpose for which the businessof the world is conducted, what the real purpose of all this planting and reaping, this mining and manufacturing, this exchanging of commodities? Is it not, primarily, to furnish each human creature with food, shelter, and clothing,—the means of supporting life? Men require something more than the mere means of subsistence; but before the individual can cultivate his mind and soul his body must be made comfortable, and this, after all, is the whole end of our complex commercial régime. The test of right and wrong conduct in business refers to this fundamental purpose,—that conduct only is praiseworthy which advances the time when every man capable of industry shall be rewarded for his labor, not only with a loaf of bread, but with hours of fruitful leisure.
Captains of Industry! that was a noble title Carlyle gave to the prosaic business man, when gazing beyond the squalidturmoil of his day with its dominant industrialism, triumphant mercantilism, doctrines oflaissez-faire, overproduction, surplus population, he with clear vision foresaw the future freedom of the masses won through their own strength and the ability of their leaders. Until Richard Arkwright was born, the leaders of men in their progress towards human freedom had been soldiers; henceforward they were to be men of affairs. Great soldiers won their victory by the loyalty they inspired in their followers; no adventurer seeking personal glory ever won a lasting victory, but only those heroes, forgetful of themselves who consecrated their service to the cause of freedom. In such wise must Captains of Industry win their victories; the adventurer can but for a time prevail; fame is secure only to those leaders who see in wealth accumulated a treasure held in trust from which they are to feed and clothe the armies that they lead to peacefulconquests. Social reformers of sentimental temper have deemed the comparison between the modern employer of labor and the feudal lord as ill-chosen, but history seems to justify it. Yet we have, indeed, gone far since the Middle Ages. When the feudal lord demanded loyalty from his retainers the demand was alone sufficient, but the Captain of Industry, in order to obtain the loyalty of the toilers, must not only demand but deserve it; he too must be loyal to the great cause he serves—the eternal cause of human freedom.
THE END