What was the Alternative to Industrialization?
by John Reit (April 24, 2006)

I recently found a postcard that an ex girlfriend once gave me. It's a picture of Charlie Chaplin in his movie Modern Times. I was a film student in college and my ex knew that I am a big fan of Charlie Chaplin's work. In my liberal days, I was even an admirer of his philosophies and politics. The postcard depicts probably the most famous scene in the film - his Big Brother-esque boss makes him fix the "big industrial machine," and consequently, the Little Tramp gets caught up in the giant gears. The entire movie, and that scene in particular, was Chaplin's commentary on how the corporate world takes advantage of the average worker in exchange for very little reward. One thing that never dawned on me until I became more economically educated was something that seems to have never dawned on Charlie, and still doesn't occur to those on the left - what's the alternative?

Chaplin's blue-collar empathy isn't surprising as he spent his entire childhood in an English factory town living in very poor conditions. He saw families work long hours every day and still struggle to get by. His affection for the working man's plight was certainly evident when he became famous later in life - his Little Tramp character became a symbolic way for Charlie to stick it to "the Man." But for all the revolutionary film technique that Chaplin pioneered and the genuine comedic brilliance he gave to millions, he never commented on the fact that the alternative to industrialization was far more turbulent and uncertain.

Whether the left knows it or not, there was very little choice for the common man before the Industrial Revolution. Up until the start of the 19th century, about 95% of the population owed its income to agriculture. Life for most was confined to small towns and villages. If a man didn't farm, manufacture farming tools, or sell the a farmers' products, his chances of making a living were slim to none. Food, for the most part, was produced locally. Farmers could provide for only a few of the larger commercial towns and cities. There were no department stores in these small towns, so people made their own clothing.

And talk about risky, backbreaking work. The average farm worker could count on working at least 14 hours a day with very little leisure time and very little pay. For the most part, hired hands had to live in a shack on the farmer's property because they could not afford their own room and board. Add to that the risk of losing a body part to farm equipment or the very real possibility of being kicked or bitten by some large animal every day.

And this is assuming that the weather cooperated the entire season. A family might very well go hungry if a prolonged drought prevented them from producing a profitable crop.

A well-paying, less strenuous job was attainable with a good education. But education beyond the elementary level was a luxury confined strictly to the privileged members of society.

In short, there was no such thing as a middle-class. You were either rich or you were poor. If you weren't part of the aristocracy and your livelihood didn't somehow involve agriculture, you were probably a beggar or a prostitute. Had this trend in human society continued, most of us would probably be toiling in the fields today. Instead, we enjoy a lifestyle that we also completely take for granted. Most of us have a roof over our heads that we either own or rent. Most of us own a car. We can easily afford necessities like food, water, clothes, heat, etc. Most of us can even afford those non-necessities we enjoy everyday - televisions, DVD players, cell phones… can you remember the last time you saw anyone, even a poor person, without a cell phone?

The proper credit never bestowed on Industrial Revolution by liberals is that it created the middle class. It gave the average man opportunities that would not have been available otherwise. Laborers experienced shorter working days and more pay than they would have in the fields. They were also exposed to a greater selection of affordable products than ever before, like soap, coffee, sugar, fine linens, exotic spices, clothing, and countless other goods. And we are still reaping the benefits of this economic evolution today.

Unfortunately, the left only focuses on the misery that came with the Industrial Revolution, acting as if there were no positives to this historical milestone. Were living and working conditions perfect? Not at all. The influx of hundreds of thousands of workers to the cities caused many to be cramped in small apartments and work in quickly constructed factories that weren't optimal for happy, healthy employees. But no rapid migration or societal change in history ever came with an easy transition. The change happened so quickly, it would be decades before more workers and their employers became aware of the need for proper working and living conditions. At the birth if industrialization, accommodation quickly became a priority. As with any fledgling endeavor, standards for what could be considered "proper" working conditions would have to be analyzed later.

I don't know whether it's a lack of economic knowledge or just sheer denial that causes liberals to misunderstand that capitalism never came with a guarantee. It never promised that everyone would live in large amounts of wealth and splendor. It merely provides the best outcome based on skills, work ethic, and behavior. Even more beguiling, with a century's worth of evidence that proves otherwise, many still believe that socialism is a viable solution.

I will always be a fan of Charlie Chaplin's films. Like many of those I disagree with, I believe that his politics were the result of a genuine desire to help the less fortunate. However, I also think it's unfortunate that this great artist could not get past the emotional memories of his childhood to see the benefits to human society that came with industrialization and the capitalists who made it possible.

Every time a film like Modern Times is made that satirically criticizes capitalism, the story of the alternative goes untold. Charlie Chaplin never made a film about agrarian life pre-Industrial Revolution to show people what their lives could have been like. Robert Greenwald can make a movie like Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, but he'll never make a movie about the hundreds of people who don't have a job because Wal-Mart has been prevented from building a store in their area.

The examples are endless. And in a free society, I guess we have the right to criticize even our greatest institutions, like free market capitalism. I'd just like to see equal time given to the alternate possibilities and their consequences.