What were the differences between industrialization in the United States and Russia?

An open letter from the Strayer Blog:
Miss me? I just want you to know that I've slaved away, week after week, trying to help you with the Strayer tests in Mr. Bingham's class. But did you appreciate me? Did you bother to visit? God forbid you should post a comment here! So, I took some time off, let's just say I don't remember much and I don't want to talk about it. I'm back if you really want me. If not, I'm thinking of spending a little time Vegas.
Sincerely,
Your Lonely Friend

Bingham

30/1/2015 01:54:50

Wow, the blog really seems pissed off! I know this is creepy, but I've known the blog to stalk WHAP students who ignore him...her? Just saying. You don't need that kind of hassle, I mean the police won't do anything! You have to get shanked before they even get involved!

Bingham

30/1/2015 01:57:45

Just a friendly reminder that you have a comparative essay on either Monday or Tuesday, and it is for a grade in the essay category along with your DBQ. Anything in recent chapters is fair game, just remember, the evidence standard is only 7. I suggest you go over your notes, visit the AP writing page, and burn the rubric into your retina!

Caleb Crowder

30/1/2015 09:56:26

I'll start off by answering MQ#1: "In what respects did the roots of the Industrial Revolution lie within Europe? In what ways did that transformation have global roots?

To start off, the large number of small-competitive states within Europe prevented economic stagnation, for the disunity experienced within the several states meant increased competition which meant continuous innovation. Additionally, the need for revenue, due to a poor tax-collecting system, meant that it was in the best interest of the government to encourage commerce and innovation. This lead to an unusual degree of freedom from state control for European merchant and other innovators. Furthermore, competition from the Asian world also pushed Europe towards more economic growth in an attempt to gain or lessen the monopoly that certain Asian countries held. Lastly, Europe's cultural exchange and ability to draw upon vast numbers of raw materials from the Americas gave Europe the opportunity for increased economic innovation. now for the part about global roots I'm sure Strayer goes more into it within the "Why Britain" section and further but i haven't read that far yet, as i just wanted to get some work done today, but i will take a stab at it anyways. Since the other dominate societies at that time did have the economic foundations for the industrial revolution, the transformation in Europe meant that these ideas spread far and fast. Additionally, Europe's, already established, connections with the wider world meant that these ideas and innovations were put into use and spread about all throughout the world, especially in areas with more European presence. That's my guess based on the what Strayer has said so far, but I'm sure there is more to it so please feel free to add on.

I answered it in paragraph form so that i could avoid choppy sentences that would have come about had i listed it but i feel as if i overwrote a little, so if you find something that isn't necessary or that i missed then i would highly appreciate it if you told me. Thanks.

Olivia Cardenas

31/1/2015 06:23:47

great answer!
As far as addressing the global roots part of the question, I think Strayer is answering this by listing reasons why "Europe alone wasn't destined to lead the way to modern economic life."
Strayer goes onto explain that:
1.) Europe wasn't alone in its capacity for technological innovation because India, China and the Islamic empire have all experienced their own times of technological flourishing.
2.) Europeans didn't have any economic advantage that enabled their revolution over other advanced regions, there was "global economic parity"
3.)The rapid spread of industrialization all over the world in the past 25 years shows European culture wasn't specifically compatible with industrialization (like you mentioned)

Caleb Crowder

31/1/2015 09:01:35

Thanks. It's a lot easier to see when looking at it that way.

Olivia Cardenas

31/1/2015 07:01:44

This is my answer for margin question two-What was distinctive about Britain that may help to explain its status as the breakthrough point of the industrial revolution?

1.) Britain was the most highly commercialized out of all the large European countries--when the landlords enclosed land years before, the people were pushed to produce for the markets. A series of agricultural innovations increased output but most importantly freed up labor dedicated to farming (I think I get this but could someone explain strayer's point here more)

2.) The end of guilds allowed for employers to run their enterprises however they wanted; this coupled with pop. growth created a large
working class with few other alternatives

3.) British aristocrats supported commerce and the Royal Navy protected the large merchant class

4.) Britain offered a freer arena for private trade by...
-offering religious toleration which allowed for skilled workers of different religions to come work
-government created tariffs that protected British industry from cheap foreign products
-having roads and canals that allowed unified internal markets
-imposing checks on royal authority coupled with the growing power of the parliament

5.) Impacts of the Scientific Revolution
-While other European countries focused on logic and reason, Britain was concerned with mechanical devices and commercial applications of science.
-The inventors who were artisans/craftsmen worked with the scientists
-British Royal Society spread scientific knowledge and news

6.) Geographic/Historical Advantages
-had a supply of iron and coal ore near industrial centers
-because it was an island, it experienced less invasions than other countries in times of the French Revolution
-the fluid society adjusted to social changes w/o revolution

If some of these points don't answer these questions or if I'm missing information, please let me know.

Allie Elkhadem

31/1/2015 09:40:44

In the section called The United States: Industrialization without Socialism (pg 542 in the yellow book, Strayer states that "the United States relied on foreign capital." I'm confused as to what this means exactly. Could someone help me by explaining this?

Caleb Crowder

31/1/2015 09:47:04

This primarily means that a good portion of the wealth from which the United States built off did not come from the United States and it instead came from "British, French, and German capitalist." This capital, or wealth, was most likely obtained through loans and goods. Although the important part here is he says "initially" meaning that the U.S. was able to avoid becoming dependent on the wealth because of it's large economic strength that it created.

Bingham

1/2/2015 08:13:44

Good answer Caleb. An economist would argue the distinction, but for our purposes "capital" is financing for business enterprises.

Olivia Cardenas

1/2/2015 04:26:56

Below are my answers to Margin Questions 3 and 4. I would appreciate any help because the answers seem to overlap and I can't tell if I've included everything.

MQ #3: How did the Industrial Revolution transform British society?

1.) The landowning British aristocracy declined and experienced decreasing political clout when the government ended the use of tariffs that had previously protected their interests. Landowning stopped being the source of great wealth and businessmen rather than landowners led political parties. However, the aristocracy maintained their personal wealth and social prestige. Many became colonial settlers or administrators.

2.)The Upper middle class consisting if wealthy factory/mine owners, bankers, and merchants benefitted the most from industrialization and were assimilated into an aristocratic lifestyle.

3.)The distinctly middle-class grew to consist of smaller businessmen, doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers and journalists with their own social values.

4.) The laboring class consisted of manual workers who labored in mines, ports, factories, construction sites etc. They benefitted the least from industrialization.

MQ #4: How did Britain's middle classes change during the 19th century?

1. The upper levels of factory and mine owners were assimilated into aristocratic life.

2. The distinctly middle class society of doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers and scientists created a group with distinct values and outlooks.

3. They were liberals advocating for a constitutional government, private property, free trade and social reform.

4. Ideas of thrift and hard work, moral rigidity and cleanliness defined them.

5. Their central value was respectability that combined social status and virtuous behavior; women were educators of respectability, managers of consumption and moral centers of a family cast as homemakers

6. Lower middle class was made up of growing service sector jobs like clerks, salespeople, bank tellers, hotel staff, secretaries etc. This made new opportunities for women and men.

7. 70% or more of people made up the laboring class that benefitted the least from the revolution; they worked in mines, ports, factories, etc. Their lives were shaped by rapid urbanization in cities that were disease filled and unsanitary. Their lives were worsened by the monotony of working with machines and they created their own unions and "friendly society" that provided certain types of insurance.

Allie Elkhadem

1/2/2015 07:13:13

Are the laboring class apart of the middle class or are they their own distinct group? Should the laboring class be brought up in this question?

Bingham

1/2/2015 08:15:16

The middle class and the laboring class are different. Be sure you can make the distinction.

Bingham

1/2/2015 08:18:42

Okay, for MQ3, you should elaborate somewhat more on the horrible conditions imposed on the fate of the laboring classes in early industrialization.
To wit:The laboring classes lived in new, overcrowded, and poorly serviced urban environments; they labored in industrial factories where new and monotonous work, performed under constant supervision designed to enforce work discipline, replaced the more varied drudgery of earlier periods. Ultimately, members of the laboring classes developed new forms of sociability, including “friendly societies” that provided some insurance against sickness, a decent funeral, and an opportunity for social life in an otherwise bleak environment. Over time, laboring classes also sought greater political participation, organized after 1824 into trade unions to improve their conditions, and developed socialist ideas that challenged the assumptions of capitalist society.
Also: Artisans and those who labored in agriculture declined in prominence.

Bingham

1/2/2015 08:19:46

MQ4 looks good.

Allie Elkhadem

1/2/2015 05:29:28

Margin Question 6: What were the differences between industrialization in the United States and that in Russia?

1) Timing: In USA industrialization occurred earlier than in Russia.
2) How Change Happened: In USA, change came from free workers seeking opportunities and expressing themselves politically. The US government was very critical in industrialization with tax breaks and grants to railroads. In Russia change came from above; the government implemented an industrialization program.
3) Socialism: No major political party emerged in the United States to represent the interests of the working class nor did socialism attract many Americans. In Russia, and only in Russia, a socialist political party gained power.
4) Expressions of Social Conflict: In both Russia and USA, there were major class divisions between the rich and power and middle class and working class. Only in Russia did a violent social revolution occurred; in USA strikes and protests occurred (occasionally violent)

Please tell me if I'm missing something because I really feel like I am. Also if any answered it in a completely different way or format I'd love to see it.

Bingham

1/2/2015 08:24:10

/This looks good. Because it's a comparison question, I chose to answer it with as many direct comparisons as possible.

Industrialization in the United States took place in one of the Western world’s most exuberant democracies, while Russia’s took place in the last outpost of absolute monarchy, in which the state exercised far greater control over individuals and society than anywhere in the Western world.

n the United States, social and economic change bubbled up from society as free farmers, workers, and businessmen sought new opportunities and operated in a political system that gave them varying degrees of expression, while in autocratic Russia, change was far more often initiated by the state itself, in its continuing efforts to catch up with the more powerful and innovative states of Europe.

In the United States, working-class consciousness among factory laborers did not develop as quickly and did not become as radical, in part because workers were treated better and had more outlets for grievances in the United States than in Russia.

Unlike industrialization in the United States, Russian industrialization was associated with a violent social revolution through which a socialist political party, inspired by the teachings of Karl Marx, was able to seize power.

Allie Elkhadem

1/2/2015 05:47:24

Here's my answer for margin question 7 (why did Marxist socialism not take root in the United States?

1) The major union organizations in the USA were relatively conservatism. Unions never aligned with a political party and refused to accept radical, unskilled laborers.
2) In the USA there were many more and sharper religious, cultural, and ethnic divisions than in Europe which made it harder for an idea like socialism which depends on people feeling united to take hold.
3) USA had a higher standard of living for workers than in Europe. There were more home owners in USA than Europe and homeowners generally don't like socialism as much.
4) In the USA the white collar work force was growing with less factory workers. With less factory workers, socialism and other radical ideas were less appealing.

Let me know if I'm missing something.

Elizabeth

1/2/2015 06:14:10

Here's what I have for MQ5) How did Karl Marx understand the Industrial Revolution? In what ways did his ideas have an impact in the Industrial Revolution?
Understand
•He realized that while capitalism created more massive and productive forces that sought to end poverty, it was flawed because class hostility prevented the poor from gaining economic advantages as the rich became richer
•This led him to look forward to a communist future in which the greatness of industrial technology would benefit everyone and end the conflict of rich vs poor
•Expected industrial capitalists societies to have small wealthy class and larger impoverished working-class (proletariat)
•Had failed to accommodate for middle class that could be workers and still improve their living standards in a capitalist society
Impact
•Ideas echoed in trade unionists and some intellectuals in Britain and Germany, but wasn’t an overtly revolutionary working-class movement
•The Labor Party in the 1890’s in Britain rejected class struggle and Marxism ideas for ideas of socialism
Feel free to tell me if it needs to be edited

Jackson Wagner

1/2/2015 06:54:23

Here's what i got for BPQ#2

New technologies and sources of energy generated vast increases in production

Increase in urbanization-mass movements of people

As far as Class Structures go artisans and peasants declined as classes, while middle classes and factory working peoples grew in numbers and social prominence

Middle class women withdrew from paid labor altogether while working class women did so after marriage

Working class discontentment gave rise to trade unions and socialist movements.

Variations in other countries i saw were: when industry began, how fast it occurred, the type of industry, role of the state, social conflict, influence of Marxism

Bingham

1/2/2015 08:30:02

This is the key question in the set. You all should elaborate extensively on this as much as possible.

Bingham

1/2/2015 08:28:08

Glad to see (a little) action on the forum over the weekend.
BPQ4: In what ways might the Industrial Revolution be understood as a global rather than simply a European phenomenon?

The Industrial Revolution rapidly spread beyond the confines of Europe and was easily adopted across cultures.

Europe’s initial industrialization was influenced by its new position as a hub of the most extensive network of exchange in the world, by its extraction of wealth from the Americas, and by its dominance of the growing market for goods in the Americas.

Even areas that did not industrialize were affected by the Industrial Revolution, such as Latin America, where the economy was defined by exports of raw materials to supply the factories and the workforces of industrial countries in Europe and the United States.

Jackson Wagner

1/2/2015 08:43:32

This is what i got for MQ#9

The integration of new technology led to the rapid growth of Latin American exports to industrializing countries

Mexico continued producing over half the worlds silver trade up until 1860

Large amounts of raw materials were exported from Latin American countries, copper, guano, tin, wild rubber, and more, and in return they imported textiles, machinery, tools, weapons, and luxury goods

Latin America had over 10 billion alone invested in it by European countries form 1870 to 1919

Emma Singleton

1/2/2015 12:15:44

Here's MQ10, since I was having some trouble with it. Any feedback would be much appreciated:
In certain respects, Latin America followed the historical path of Europe during the 19th century. Economic growth, stimulated by the upper class's attempt to follow the European example, generated many patterns similar to European industrialization. The export-based economy generated more wealth, the population grew, and urbanization became more widespread. Similar social consequences also occurred; the upper class landowners gained capital, the middle class grew (although not early to the extent that occurred in Europe or North America), and a growing number of the lower class began working in an industrial setting, although the vast majority lived in rural areas. These members of the urbanized lower class also eventually created unions and worker strikes due to the stress of urban conditions and class divide. Although local protests and violence were frequent, only in Mexico did these vast inequalities erupt into a nationwide revolution, much like the Russian exception to the European industrial protests that were the result of similar conditions. Conversely, the the industrialization of Latin America differed greatly from The European or North American industrial movements in its capacity. Nowhere did an independent and thorough industrial Revolution occur. This is partially due to the profitability of agriculture in Latin America; the demand for raw materials and resources from industrialized countries to supply the manufacturing economy ensured that agriculture was just as or more profitable than manufacturing and that politically Latin American governments were dependent on free trade and export taxes. The large number of peasants still working in agriculture and the comparatively small growth of the middle class also generated a limited market for manufactured goods. So instead of an independent industrial revolution generated economic growth, such as that that occurred in Europe, Latin American was dependent on European and North American capital and industry, which is sometimes regarded as its own form of European colonization.

Bingham

1/2/2015 12:23:17

Really good answer Emma. The key points here are much smaller middle class, and the fact that independent industrialization never really occurred.

Leave a Reply.

Bingham

Here students interact about the WHAP class, ideas for learning, and Strayer's 1st edition.

Always read the posts above before asking a question.

Archives

April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014



RSS Feed

Categories

All