Urban Artisans
In the first half of the 19th century, the emergence of a market economy reshaped the lives of working Americans, both free and enslaved. Industrial and agricultural developments not only changed the status of workers and the organization of work, but also transformed the work process itself, an observation for which Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville offer competing views.
These developments changed the nature of work for urban artisans and journeymen. The emergence of market economy changed the lives of people as well as the nature of work for artisans and journeymen. Workers earned more from their work while employers maximized on human resources.
The invention of cotton gin affected the nature of work for Northern and Southern slaves as well as the Native urban Americans. Initially, the artisans and journeymen used to work for the sake of working, that is, they did not take their work with the seriousness it deserved. However, with the introduction of the market economy, work was highly specialized, that is, artisans became specialists in various areas of the production process.
Some specialized in production of the raw materials while others specialized in manufacturing and others in marketing. This led to emergence of inequalities in the sense that some artisans rushed to own the means of production and employed more casuals. This led to the emergence of social classes among the artisans (Foner 27).
Journeymen in the North
According to Smith, division of labor is the best way of improving efficiency and increasing productivity. Smith in ‘the wealth of nations’ argues that employers are justified in maximizing the utilization of their resources, including human resources in form of labor. The maximization increases the profits, which in turn enables the employers compensate the employees properly.
The employees are not supposed to question how the state appropriated or distributed income between them and the employers (Smith 1). Accordingly, employees derive joy and satisfaction from their work, the remunerations that they get as well as also from specialization. In other words, specialization makes them do what they are best at and therefore, there is no possibility of boredom (Smith 4).
Southern Slaves
In the south, the introduction of market economy and cotton gin led to small acts of rebellion on daily basis. Examples of such rebellions by the slaves include the Turner’s and the Planters rebellions. The westward expansion led to enactment of legislations such as the Indian removal Act that led to the driving away of the Indians from their native land. The native Indians also engaged into massive investments, which made them to run into debts as they borrowed money to finance their investments (Foner 28).
Smith argued that productive labor fulfils two requirements namely the production of tangible objects and the creation of surplus. The country is supposed to re-invest to this surplus into the business to generate more profits. He also argued that there are two forms of value namely the exchange value and use value.
He argued that the source of labor is the value itself, to mean people labor themselves due to the value of their laboring activity. Smith is of the view that inequalities in the society are justified because the employers are justified in pursuing division of labor and specialization, which increases efficiency and enhances the maximization of resources in the production process, thus increasing surplus value. The employer and employee appropriate the surplus value fairly between them (Smith 6).
Native Americans
The market economy and the invention of the cotton gin intensified inequalities in the society leading to displacement of the native Indians and several acts of rebellion by the slaves. These displacements did not auger well with the Native Americans, hence the constant conflicts.
Groups’ Response to these Changes
Urban Artisans
The introduction of the market economy in early 19th century had both positive and negative effects on the nature of work and the lives of artisans and journeymen. The positive effect was that it increased levels of income for workers and led to increased profits for employers. The negative effect was the exploitation of human resources, especially the slaves by their owners.
Journeymen in the North
Tocqueville viewed the emergence of the market economy from the lenses of creation of an aristocracy. He argued that the emergence of the market economy led to a situation in which men did specific tasks to deliver specific results.
He gives the example of a man who specializes in making pin heads. If for example the person performs this task for a period of twenty years, he learns to focus on the task up to a level whereby he perfects the work while the worker slowly weakens. The worker also becomes narrow minded and depended on the task for his entire life. This, he argues is synonymous to losing oneself to the task (De Tocqueville 2).
Southern Slaves
The groups did not respond to the emergence of the market economy in a similar manner. While the Northern and Southern slaves did not enjoy full human rights, their counterparts in the Native America did actually enjoy the same.
What this meant for the slaves is that they had to prepare for hard times ahead especially because the new market economy put more emphasis on exploitation of human resources for the benefit of the employers. At the beginning, however, the new development overwhelmed them. Nevertheless, with time, they realized it was actually intended to exploit them. However, they had no options rather than to embrace the new order (Wilentz 12).
Native Americans
The Native Americans on the other hand responded to the new developments with anxiety and seized the opportunity to become real capitalists. They were engaged in serious exploitation of human labor for the purposes of creation and multiplication of wealth (Wilentz 12).
It also led to the displacement of the native Indians as well as the creation of the aforementioned social inequalities within the American society. According to Tocqueville, the market economy creates two sets of people in the society. One set comprises the manufactures while the other set comprises the workers.
The manufactures are able to control the process of production through the workers. This creates a precedence of inequality in the sense that only those who are able to control the process are able to continue holding onto power. This leads to the creation of an aristocracy, which is a government of some few elite who have met certain standards in education, wealth, and ownership of means of production. The aristocratic government takes leadership with a view of perfecting the inequality between them and the workers.
However, the unfortunate thing is that the workers are not able to realize this because they are ever busy in their daily chores, which makes them lose focus on their ambitions and aspirations of becoming wealthy one day. In fact, the workers, in a way, stagnate in thinking and cannot think anything beyond what they do. If for example a person works as a driver of a manufacturing company, this person cannot think that he can do any other task except that of driving (Foner 27).
Conclusion, Sharing Nations Prosperity
The emergence of the new market economy obviously came with nation’s prosperity. This was attributable to the fact that people focused more on the production process with a view of creating more wealth. The result was expansion of industrialization, which further led to increased rural to urban migrations. The aggregate result was an expanded economy as measured by Gross Domestic Product as well as Gross National Product.
The export and import industries expanded significantly due to increased agricultural production. Agriculture was transformed from subsistence to commercial. The plantations employed many people as casuals leading to more job creation and reduction of poverty. Therefore, it can be argued that the nation experienced some degree of prosperity which could not have been witnessed if the market economy had not been introduced (Wilentz 12).
However, a critical look at the effects of the market economy on the distribution of the nation’s wealth reveals that the nation did not distribute the wealth created equally. Obviously, the market economy, which is synonymous to capitalism created social inequalities. Arguably, the market economy led to the emergence of two social classes in the American society namely the bourgeoisie and proletariat (Clark 34).
The bourgeoisie were rich, powerful, oppressors, exploiters and they always won elections. On the other hand, the proletariats were the workers, owners of labor and were the majority. However, the rich oppressed and exploited. This rendered them completely powerless. Additionally, they always lost in election whenever they contested. The proletariat was a class in itself in the sense that they shared similar objectives and relationships to the means of production. That is, they were laborers whose form of payment was in wages (Clark 34).
Works Cited
Clark, Christopher et al. Who Built America? Working People and the Nation’s History. Volume One: To 1877. New York: Bedford St. Martin’s, 2008. Print.
De Tocqueville, Alexis. How an Aristocracy May be Created by Manufactures. New York: Oxford Press. 2008. Print.
Foner, Eric. Tom Paine and Revolutionary America. New York: Oxford Press, 2004. Print.
Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. Web.
Wilentz, Sean. Metropolitan Industrialization. New York NY: Oxford Press, 2003. Print.