Lynn, Massachusetts provides the setting for Alan Dawley’s
community study of nineteenth century laborer’s response to industrialization
in Class and Community: The Industrial
Revolution in Lynn. Using a Marxist
framework of social class, Dawley argues that Lynn’s community of shoemakers
organized in opposition to capitalists in order to retain the social status
they had as artisans. Dawley’s thesis is
that capitalist development broke down the traditional links of home and market
in communities such as Lynn, and replaced independent master artisans with wage
earners working in factories. Although
the shoemakers were militant labor activists, they were not class conscious in
the same manner European factory workers due to the early development of
universal male suffrage in the United States.
Dawley also contends that feeling of national unity during the Civil War
years prevented the labor movement from organizing and becoming a national
political movement.
Dawley chose a community study because it allows more
focused analysis of changes in the community over time than a study of an
entire nation. By selecting a community
that is representative of other towns, Dawley claimed that he could generalize
about the development of labor movements in throughout New England. He selected Lynn because its shoemakers
provide a representative sample of a community of artisans that are
marginalized economically and politically by the development of merchant
capitalism and factory work starting in the second decade of the nineteenth
century. Dawley asserts that Lynn is
more typical of the experience of American artisans than Massachusetts’ textile
communities due to its large system of putting-out piece work to rural areas
surrounding the town.
Lynn’s economy was typical of many New England communities
in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In addition to the surrounding farms, it was
the home to a large group of shoemakers organized in households with a master
and multiple journeymen. Each master
owned property, purchased raw materials, and marketed them to shopkeepers and
ship captains. Masters and journeymen
worked according to their own schedules, choosing when to work and when to
relax. The booming post-war economy in
1814 led Lynn’s shopkeepers to enter the production end of the shoe trade by
creating the central shop, and arrangement in which shopkeepers set aside room
in their businesses to cut uppers and sole shoes. As their demand for labor
exceeded the number of laborers in Lynn, shopkeepers put out the shoes to rural
families for binding, or stitching together, and then returned to the central
shop for soling. The laborers in the
central shops were journeymen who were paid wages either by the hour, or by the
piece. By working in the central shops,
the journeymen lost control of their work schedules.
Dawley argues that from the shopkeepers’ perspective, the
central shop arrangement suffered from significant limitations. The shopkeeper had no control over the
quality of the shoes bound by his rural contractors, and no control over their
work schedules. The farm families that
bound shoes in the central shop system worked to their own schedules, setting
them aside to plant or harvest crops, to go fishing, or just to relax. As demand grew, the shopkeepers had to send
shoes further from Lynn for binding, increasing transit times required to
deliver cut shoes to binders and finished products to Lynn. Turn-around time for finished shoes reached
nine months from putting-out to finishing.
The advent of the sewing machine provided shopkeepers with a
technological solution to the limitations of hand-stitched shoes. Although relatively expensive at $75.00 in
1850, prices for sewing machines fell to $25.00 by 1860, allowing most families
to purchase one. The increase in
productivity allowed shopkeepers to return to more local sources of labor, and
ultimately staff workrooms with dozens of sewing machines. Bringing shoe binding into a central
location, along with cutting, allowed more control over work schedules and
product quality. The sewing workshops
quickly gave way to factory settings, particularly once machines could attach
soles to bound shoes. The development of
factories turned journeymen and master artisans into wage earners.
Dawley contends that the economic disruptions created by the
development of factory capitalism in Lynn combined with the Panic of 1857 to
cause the shoemakers of Lynn to organize labor unions and strike in 1860. Lynn’s shoemakers sought social equality
according to the Equal Rights doctrine.
For the shoemakers, equality meant equality of social status with the
factory owners. Dawley argues that this
particular interpretation of equality meant that the shoemakers believed that
labor produced all capital, and that the shoemakers were striking in order to
secure their fair share of the wealth developed through their labor.
This reasoning flows from Dawley’s Marxist theoretical
perspective, in which labor in Lynn was in contention with capitalists and the
concentration of wealth. Dawley asserts
that the shoemakers of Lynn rejected the American myth of social mobility based
on economic success because they had little opportunity to create a savings or
own property after the development of the factory system. Once this is established, his main concern is
to trace the development of the labor movement in Lynn and the United
States. Dawley’s particular concern is
explaining why Lynn’s militant labor activists, and by extension other laboring
Americans, did not embrace socialism.
Dawley believes that
Lynn’s shoemakers did not become socialists due to uniquely American
phenomena. Rejecting Franklin Turner
Jackson’s suggestion that the frontier acted as a safety valve, Dawley argues
that residential and employment mobility acted as safety valves preventing
revolutionary ideologies from taking root.
However, the most critical safety valve for laborers was the United
States’ early adoption of universal suffrage, which allowed workers to believe
that they had influence on the political process. The outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 and the
resultant focus on national political unity further undermined socialism in the
United States. Afterward, Lynn’s
laborers accepted the ideal of the United States as pluralistic society, or
which both labor and capital had a part.
Finally, Dawley claims that trade unionism dominated the American labor,
which also suffered from a lack of unity among laborers and from weak
leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment