How repressive was Austria's industrialization?

[Hygro]

For example, England kicked the peasants off the land with the enclosure acts and forced them to work in factories to jumpstart their industrialization. That's pretty bad. But how free or oppressive was Austria's industrialization?

 

[Agent327]

Moderator Action: Snarky, unhelpful post deleted. If you want to be helpful, please post: otherwise, please find something else to do. -FP
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Tahuti]

For example, England kicked the peasants off the land with the enclosure acts and forced them to work in factories to jumpstart their industrialization. That's pretty bad. But how free or oppressive was Austria's industrialization?

Most economic development in the Habsburg lands took place in Prague and one might even argue that Austria proper never truly industralised. Britain was already trading nation by the time industrialisation commenced, so the prospect of kicking peasants out of the lands to work in the industries for profit was appealing. A land enclosure movement in Austria would have likely backfired, so industrialists in Habsburg lands' simply established factories wherever workers were available; mainly in Bohemia and Moravia.

 

[Agent327]

Most economic development in the Habsburg lands took place in Prague and one might even argue that Austria proper never truly industralised. Britain was already trading nation by the time industrialisation commenced, so the prospect of kicking peasants out of the lands to work in the industries for profit was appealing.

English industrialists weren't interested in 'kicking peasants out of the lands', they were interested in labourers. A lot of English 'peasants' were landlords at large. It was the misery of the land labourers that drove them to the industrializing towns and cities, not any enclosure act, which would have no effect on labour. The effect of enclosure was primarily to increase average farm size, and thereby farm productivity.

 

[Traitorfish]

English industrialists weren't interested in 'kicking peasants out of the lands', they were interested in labourers. A lot of English 'peasants' were landlords at large. It was the misery of the land labourers that drove them to the industrializing towns and cities, not any enclosure act, which would have no effect on labour. The effect of enclosure was primarily to increase average farm size, and thereby farm productivity.

Enclosure absolutely had an effect on labour, it was just that the immediate effect was to turn peasant labour into wage-labour, rather than agricultural labour into industrial labour. The misery you refer to was specifically that of insecure wage-workers in an often over-supplied labour market, and the attraction of industry the fact that it could marginally higher and more stable wages. Hygro's description of this as a single act, peasants force-marched to the factory gates, may be an oversimplification - although it is a fair summary of much of the Highland Clearances- but his basic point, that the creation of the English class was an act of large-scale coercion by the land-owning and industrial classes, is basically accurate.

 

[Flying Pig]

Enclosure absolutely had an effect on labour, it was just that the immediate effect was to turn peasant labour into wage-labour, rather than agricultural labour into industrial labour. The misery you refer to was specifically that of insecure wage-workers in an often over-supplied labour market, and the attraction of industry the fact that it could marginally higher and more stable wages. Hygro's description of this as a single act, peasants force-marched to the factory gates, may be an oversimplification - although it is a fair summary of much of the Highland Clearances- but his basic point, that the creation of the English class was an act of large-scale coercion by the land-owning and industrial classes, is basically accurate.

I notice that you're putting landowners and factory owners together - how often were these the same people? Is it even correct to speak of industrialists and great landlords as the same class? In a Marxist way it might make sense, but then industrial wealth - the archetypal 'new money' - often came from a very different social place, and the people who had it were often totally different in how they talked, were educated, voted and thought to the traditional aristocracy.

 

[Agent327]

The industrialists obviously were a different type of people than the great landowners.

Enclosure absolutely had an effect on labour, it was just that the immediate effect was to turn peasant labour into wage-labour, rather than agricultural labour into industrial labour. The misery you refer to was specifically that of insecure wage-workers in an often over-supplied labour market, and the attraction of industry the fact that it could marginally higher and more stable wages. Hygro's description of this as a single act, peasants force-marched to the factory gates, may be an oversimplification - although it is a fair summary of much of the Highland Clearances- but his basic point, that the creation of the English class was an act of large-scale coercion by the land-owning and industrial classes, is basically accurate.

Oh, the coercion was there. But it was the result of wage depression rather than enclosures - which was the point.

 

[Tahuti]

I notice that you're putting landowners and factory owners together - how often were these the same people? Is it even correct to speak of industrialists and great landlords as the same class? In a Marxist way it might make sense, but then industrial wealth - the archetypal 'new money' - often came from a very different social place, and the people who had it were often totally different in how they talked, were educated, voted and thought to the traditional aristocracy.

Traitorfish point possibly was that capitalism could root well in Britain because aristocratic interests closely aligned with capitalist interests. That being said however, Austria had the practice ennobling important capitalists, the Rothschilds being an example (and no, I'm not referring to the conspiracy theories around them, they actually are a prominent example of intersection of capitalist and aristocratic interests).

The bourgeoisie Marx talked about were essentially the root of the French revolution. Somewhere, Marx must have adopted a Francocentric attitude in his economic analyses.

 

[Agent327]

Traitorfish point possibly was that capitalism could root well in Britain because aristocratic interests closely aligned with capitalist interests.

Actually, they didn't really. At least not in the broad sense that you seem to be referring to. To engineer an industrial revolution, two things were (and are) necessary: capital and labour. While, as you indicate, aristocrats might well be involved in the capital necessary for industrialization, that would still leave the need for labour and here the interests might conflict. The special case about England is that the start of the industrial revolution more or less coincided with an increase in agricultural productivity. That is, a decrease in demand for labour in agriculture more or less coincided wit an increase in demand for labour in industry. However, the controversy about the Corn laws (which kept bread prices artificially high) are a clear case of conflicting interests between industrialists (and workers) and the landowning class.

That being said however, Austria had the practice ennobling important capitalists, the Rothschilds being an example (and no, I'm not referring to the conspiracy theories around them, they actually are a prominent example of intersection of capitalist and aristocratic interests).

The Rothschildts were (and are) primarily financiers. and the practice of ennobling bourgeois wasn't specifically limited to Austria.

The bourgeoisie Marx talked about were essentially the root of the French revolution. Somewhere, Marx must have adopted a Francocentric attitude in his economic analyses.

Marx was well aware of the situation in England. After all, Engels was an industrialist, who published on England's industrialization.

 

[Flying Pig]

Traitorfish point possibly was that capitalism could root well in Britain because aristocratic interests closely aligned with capitalist interests. That being said however, Austria had the practice ennobling important capitalists, the Rothschilds being an example (and no, I'm not referring to the conspiracy theories around them, they actually are a prominent example of intersection of capitalist and aristocratic interests).

The bourgeoisie Marx talked about were essentially the root of the French revolution. Somewhere, Marx must have adopted a Francocentric attitude in his economic analyses.

The follow-up to that, in my mind, would be to ask why we ended up with two political parties - the Whigs/Liberals and the Tories/Conservatives - and an entire political system essentially based on pitting the interests and representatives of the landowning classes against those of the commercial classes. I suppose a fair response would be that the difference between Whig, Tory and Liberal wasn't all that great, at least compared with the difference between Tory and Communist or Whig and Fascist, but it seems a bit too much to say that they were fundamentally the same thing. If you look at the issue of trade, for instance, the Tories were really born out of their support for protectionism and for the Corn Laws, which went totally against the interests of those involved in manufacturing and commerce.

I think you may be on to something with the idea of ennoblement, or at least the point that there was often a more-or-less single idea of what it meant to be a member of high society. I'm thinking here of Disraeli, who was certainly not born a nobleman, but became more-or-less accepted in aristocratic society after acquiring a title and a country house. Even 'new money' people broadly accepted that 'doing well' meant looking and acting like the 'old money' people, in a way that isn't really true today. So that makes it much easier to put factory owners and dukes together in 1840 than it would be to put footballers and dukes together in 2016.

 

[Tahuti]

Actually, they didn't really. At least not in the broad sense that you seem to be referring to. To engineer an industrial revolution, two things were (and are) necessary: capital and labour. While, as you indicate, aristocrats might well be involved in the capital necessary for industrialization, that would still leave the need for labour and here the interests might conflict. The special case about England is that the start of the industrial revolution more or less coincided with an increase in agricultural productivity. That is, a decrease in demand for labour in agriculture more or less coincided wit an increase in demand for labour in industry. However, the controversy about the Corn laws (which kept bread prices artificially high) are a clear case of conflicting interests between industrialists (and workers) and the landowning class.

The follow-up to that, in my mind, would be to ask why we ended up with two political parties - the Whigs/Liberals and the Tories/Conservatives - and an entire political system essentially based on pitting the interests and representatives of the landowning classes against those of the commercial classes. I suppose a fair response would be that the difference between Whig, Tory and Liberal wasn't all that great, at least compared with the difference between Tory and Communist or Whig and Fascist, but it seems a bit too much to say that they were fundamentally the same thing. If you look at the issue of trade, for instance, the Tories were really born out of their support for protectionism and for the Corn Laws, which went totally against the interests of those involved in manufacturing.

It is perhaps more accurate to say that the dispute between Tories and Whigs during the Corn laws was one between two types of capital interests: Aristocratic agricultural capitalists against industrialists. If we do away with the idea that Capitalism is also about unfettered markets - someone always will have an interest to have those policed anyway - the dispute was primarily between whether Britain should cash in on agriculture or industry, the latter being easier when agriculture is outsourced. There are some parallels with the northerner and southerner dispute of the US too: Agricultural southerners want to import (cheaper) European machinery and thus free trade, whereas northern industrialists wanted to protect their own industries. Neither can be said to be outside of capitalism.

The Rothschildts were (and are) primarily financiers. and the practice of ennobling bourgeois wasn't specifically limited to Austria.

Nope, though it would make Austria an example of the integration of noble and capital interests. Britain went through that process already in the 1700s.

Marx was well aware of the situation in England. After all, Engels was an industrialist, who published on England's industrialization.

That doesn't mean Marx was right on that: He also predicted that the international proletarian revolution would happen in Britain. Instead, it happened in Russia - which was somewhere in capitalist-aristocratic metastasis like Britain was in the 1700s - though it was nationalised (in a cultural and political sense) and eventually adopted a capital accumulation for the Soviet state attitude. Sad for Marxist ideals, though it made sense in the sense of political survival.

I think you may be on to something with the idea of ennoblement, or at least the point that there was often a more-or-less single idea of what it meant to be a member of high society. I'm thinking here of Disraeli, who was certainly not born a nobleman, but became more-or-less accepted in aristocratic society after acquiring a title and a country house. Even 'new money' people broadly accepted that 'doing well' meant looking and acting like the 'old money' people, in a way that isn't really true today. So that makes it much easier to put factory owners and dukes together in 1840 than it would be to put footballers and dukes together in 2016.

Ennoblement means less in a legal sense, though it also has ceased to mean anything in a cultural or emotional sense.

 

[Flying Pig]

It is perhaps more accurate to say that the dispute between Tories and Whigs during the Corn laws was one between two types of capital interests: Aristocratic agricultural capitalists against industrialists. If we do away with the idea that Capitalism is also about unfettered markets - someone always will have an interest to have those policed anyway - the dispute was primarily between whether Britain should cash in on agriculture or industry, the latter being easier when agriculture is outsourced. There are some parallels with the northerner and southerner dispute of the US too: Agricultural southerners want to import (cheaper) European machinery and thus free trade, whereas northern industrialists wanted to protect their own industries. Neither can be said to be outside of capitalism.

That's my point, though: the Marxist way of framing class by where you stand in relation to the means of production ends up putting people with totally different backgrounds, ways of thinking and acting and so on, who were trying to do totally different and contradictory things, together as 'Capitalists'. I'm questioning whether that's a good thing to do, given the differences between them and the level of antagonism that often existed between them.

 

[Tahuti]

That's my point, though: the Marxist way of framing class by where you stand in relation to the means of production ends up putting people with totally different backgrounds, ways of thinking and acting and so on, who were trying to do totally different and contradictory things, together as 'Capitalists'. I'm questioning whether that's a good thing to do, given the differences between them and the level of antagonism that often existed between them.

I'm attempting to fine grain Marx' distinctions. In this case, to show that the transition between Feudalism and Capitalism isn't very clear cut and also that national political debates can revolve around matters of strategy for national capital accumulation. By the time of the Corn Laws, landowners definitely did co-opt capitalist mode of production in a different context. Their interests collided with industrialists, not because the landowners weren't capitalists, rather; because they became different groups of capitalists in competition which was sufficiently intense to cause a national political debate.

Industralists and landowners basically jockeyed for favourable legislation, trying to sell to Westminster that their undertakings were most favourable to Britain. However, I guess the industrialists had the better product, if we simply look at capital accumulation within the United Kingdom.

 

[Traitorfish]

I notice that you're putting landowners and factory owners together - how often were these the same people? Is it even correct to speak of industrialists and great landlords as the same class? In a Marxist way it might make sense, but then industrial wealth - the archetypal 'new money' - often came from a very different social place, and the people who had it were often totally different in how they talked, were educated, voted and thought to the traditional aristocracy.

The industrialists obviously were a different type of people than the great landowners.

The people who were initially involved in building and directing the factories were generally of a different background than the great landowners, that's true, but land-owners invested heavily in industrial enterprises, or in banks which in turn invested in industrial enterprises, and were active in pursuing the political and economic reforms that created and sustained the conditions for the industrial revolution. There wasn't a hard economic or political distinction between the two, only one of identity, and in practice, even that was more porous than is usually acknowledged, the majority of the landowning class being a provincial gentry of moderate wealth and no particular ancestry. This wasn't a class of such status or wealth that it could afford to let snobbery interfere with the practical business of remaining upper class, particularly if it preferred to keep itself at one step removed from the grubby business of actually buying and selling things.

Oh, the coercion was there. But it was the result of wage depression rather than enclosures - which was the point.

Wage depression was achieved by coercive means, both indirectly by the forceful appropriation of common land through enclosure, and directly by busting the heads of any plebian bright spark who suggested that, hang on a minute, this all seems a bit unfair.

 

[Agent327]

That doesn't mean Marx was right on that: He also predicted that the international proletarian revolution would happen in Britain. Instead, it happened in Russia - which was somewhere in capitalist-aristocratic metastasis like Britain was in the 1700s - though it was nationalised (in a cultural and political sense) and eventually adopted a capital accumulation for the Soviet state attitude. Sad for Marxist ideals, though it made sense in the sense of political survival.

It seems Marx, in his later years, changed his mind about the backwardness of Russia in this sense. Questioned by a Russian exile on the matter, he responded that possibly the Russian village commune system might be a fertile ground for the development of Communism. Things turned out quite differently, of course.

The people who were initially involved in building and directing the factories were generally of a different background than the great landowners, that's true, but land-owners invested heavily in industrial enterprises, or in banks which in turn invested in industrial enterprises, and were active in pursuing the political and economic reforms that created and sustained the conditions for the industrial revolution. There wasn't a hard economic or political distinction between the two, only one of identity, and in practice, even that was more porous than is usually acknowledged, the majority of the landowning class being a provincial gentry of moderate wealth and no particular ancestry. This wasn't a class of such status or wealth that it could afford to let snobbery interfere with the practical business of remaining upper class, particularly if it preferred to keep itself at one step removed from the grubby business of actually buying and selling things.

That doesn't really address anything I said. It's quite true that acquiring capital in Britain was never much of a problem for (starting or expanding) factory owners, but that's something entirely different from the positions industrialist and great landowners were taking politically. Sure, they could very well end up on the same side (as in the de-industrialization of colonial India, which profited both agricultural and industrial interests), but that doesn't disguise the fact that they were different interest groups.

What you are talking about seems to be the elevation of profit making members of society into nobility, a practice attested in both Britain and France, and Austria.

Wage depression was achieved by coercive means, both indirectly by the forceful appropriation of common land through enclosure, and directly by busting the heads of any plebian bright spark who suggested that, hang on a minute, this all seems a bit unfair.

That's a rather bold and, frankly, far too general of a statement. You'd first have to show that enclosures affected agricultural wages. I mentioned the Corn Laws for a reason, as they didn't allow for wage suppression on any significant scale. Bread was the primary expense for any labourer, agricultural or industrial. If bread prices are kept artificially high (a prime result of the Corn Laws), that actually prevents wage depression below a certain level. A worker who can't eat, can't work efficiently. This is why the abolishment of the Corn Laws was both in the interest of industry and labourers.

That's not to say that common folk never had any rights until they actually fought for and gained them, but that's a statement generally true everywhere.

 

[Traitorfish]

]It's quite true that acquiring capital in Britain was never much of a problem for (starting or expanding) factory owners, but that's something entirely different from the positions industrialist and great landowners were taking politically. Sure, they could very well end up on the same side (as in the de-industrialization of colonial India, which profited both agricultural and industrial interests), but that doesn't disguise the fact that they were different interest groups.

What you are talking about seems to be the elevation of profit making members of society into nobility, a practice attested in both Britain and France, and Austria.

Interest groups within a class, is what I'd contend. Agrarian capital and industrial capital: two different sectors- more, really, as if "industrial" can really encompass mine-owners, railway-owners, factory-owners and bank-owners- with occasionally diverging but more often and most ultimately convergent interests. If they appeared to be at loggerheads for much of this era, it only reflects how far the capitalists class went unchallenged, at least in polite society. Vanity of small differences and all that.

Additionally, I would distinguish sharply between the elevation of merchants to the nobility and the dissolution of clear boundaries between merchants and nobility. In the former case, social mobility meant divesting oneself of property, business contacts and social ties, but by the start of the nineteenth century in Britain, this was no longer necessary or even desirable for "new money" families.

That's a rather bold and, frankly, far too general of a statement. You'd first have to show that enclosures affected agricultural wages. I mentioned the Corn Laws for a reason, as they didn't allow for wage suppression on any significant scale. Bread was the primary expense for any labourer, agricultural or industrial. If bread prices are kept artificially high (a prime result of the Corn Laws), that actually prevents wage depression below a certain level. A worker who can't eat, can't work efficiently. This is why the abolishment of the Corn Laws was both in the interest of industry and labourers.

That's not to say that common folk never had any rights until they actually fought for and gained them, but that's a statement generally true everywhere.

The point isn't that enclosure affected agricultural wages, it's that it created them: it represents the process by which the bulk of the rural poor were transformed from tenant farmers to wage-labourers. This is a process which is initiated in the sixteenth century and has been thoroughly complete everywhere outside of the Celtic fringe by 1800, prior to and as a condition of the Industrial Revolution.

 

[Agent327]

Interest groups within a class, is what I'd contend. Agrarian capital and industrial capital: two different sectors- more, really, as if "industrial" can really encompass mine-owners, railway-owners, factory-owners and bank-owners- with occasionally diverging but more often and most ultimately convergent interests. If they appeared to be at loggerheads for much of this era, it only reflects how far the capitalists class went unchallenged, at least in polite society. Vanity of small differences and all that.

Interesting sidestep. But it doesn't disguise the fact that agricultural and industrial interests aren't necessarily the same - no matter how you lump the exponents of both into the same class. Possibly class isn't such a helpful distinction as it was once held to be?

Additionally, I would distinguish sharply between the elevation of merchants to the nobility and the dissolution of clear boundaries between merchants and nobility. In the former case, social mobility meant divesting oneself of property, business contacts and social ties, but by the start of the nineteenth century in Britain, this was no longer necessary or even desirable for "new money" families.

Makes one wonder why there still is a House of Lords, doesn't it. By golly, even pop stars can be elevated now. What is the world coming to...

The point isn't that enclosure affected agricultural wages, it's that it created them: it represents the process by which the bulk of the rural poor were transformed from tenant farmers to wage-labourers. This is a process which is initiated in the sixteenth century and has been thoroughly complete everywhere outside of the Celtic fringe by 1800, prior to and as a condition of the Industrial Revolution.

I'm fairly certain wages existed prior to enclosure. But that apart, I already acknowledged that the process of enclosure created larger farms. In fact, it was here that Britain was far ahead from the rest of the world. so the point that wage labour already existed prior to industrialization is a non-issue. However, your point wasn't about wage creation, but wage depression.

But we seem to be digressing hugely from the OP question, which was about Austria. I gave a clear hint on how that matter might be resolved, but oddly that hint is no longer. If memory serves, it was about books and web searches or something. (Not that I am expressing an opinion here; far from me would it be to do so. Merely stating a fact, as it were. After all, things go missing all the time.)

 

[Hygro]

I was two days of browsing google scholar and google books trying to find any information on the topic before posting here. There were few threads about Austria in the history forum when I searched here, so I wasn't optimistic but I was hopeful.

I'm not sure why you didn't assume I already performed such a search, but I could tell you certainly weren't moved to try yourself, as you would have quickly noticed the dearth of direct information and then would have realized why someone as active on CFC as I am yet with as low as a post as I have might be bothered to open a thread when a google search might have sufficed.

 

[Agent327]

Well, for one, the way the question is formulated doesn't suggest anything of the sort you just mentioned:

For example, England kicked the peasants off the land with the enclosure acts and forced them to work in factories to jumpstart their industrialization. That's pretty bad. But how free or oppressive was Austria's industrialization?

As you can see, a dearth of information contained therein as well. But if you're actually interested in the subject matter, there are actually various standard textbooks on Austria-Hungary, as well as o Austria proper. That would seem to be the first place to look, as they habitually contain a host of relevant literature references. You are asking a very specific question in a primary economic subject. That may indeed not result in a quick-and-ready answer, as it is in fact rather a complex subject matter.

Secondly, the way the question is formulated doesn't exactly endear me to perform such a search for you. Even though the formulation may have resulted from a hitherto fruitless search. (Again, no mention of this in the OP.) Now I'm not one to readily complain about snarkiness; in fact, I rarely complain about anything on these forums. They are, after all, forums, and, as they say, it takes all kinds. But since you specifically asked, I thought I'd clarify..

 

[Flying Pig]

I gave a clear hint on how that matter might be resolved, but oddly that hint is no longer.

I was two days of browsing google scholar and google books trying to find any information on the topic before posting here. There were few threads about Austria in the history forum when I searched here, so I wasn't optimistic but I was hopeful.

I'm not sure why you didn't assume I already performed such a search, but I could tell you certainly weren't moved to try yourself, as you would have quickly noticed the dearth of direct information and then would have realized why someone as active on CFC as I am yet with as low as a post as I have might be bothered to open a thread when a google search might have sufficed.

Well, for one, the way the question is formulated doesn't suggest anything of the sort you just mentioned:

Moderator Action: Let's have this as an example of why it's best not to make assumptions. And now let's get back to talking about industrialisation.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889