text: the growth of socialism during the industrial revolution?   the industrial revolution had many profound effects on european civilization. it rendered much of the old aristocracy irrelevant, boosted the bourgeoisie to economic and political power, and drafted much of the old peasant class into its factories. the result was naturally a shift in attitude toward wealth. capitalist wealth seemed to have no natural limits. partly because the new industrial modes of production had no preassigned place in feudal order of things, the industrialists viewed themselves as the creators of their wealth and considered it something to be proud of.  this class also created the various movements for democratic government which swept across europe; and it was only natural that they should have viewed their economic and political ideals as functioning hand in hand. democracy was necessary to wrest power from the old nobility, to pass laws enabling business to thrive, and to guarantee their property rights.  rousseau had argued in his social contract that true democracy could not thrive in a society with great extremes of wealth and poverty because power always naturally flows toward the wealthy, whatever the electoral system; but the sort of democracy the bourgeoisie advocated was for a long time reserved for property owners: merchants, manufacturers, landlords and bankers. one of the great struggles of the 19th century was for the gradual expansion of the vote, first to working men, and--much later--to women.  the notion of liberty promulgated by the "liberals" of the 19th century (who held opinions now called "conservative") was based on the concept that only on the basis of economic independence and security could freedom be secured; and that liberty was a product of natural law, not of a christian theology which had sometimes censured excessive wealth. indeed, greed itself was often celebrated as the engine that drove the economy and provided work and prosperity for all. dependency was considered self-destructive, so the poor were punished for their poverty by harsh laws designed to drive them to work.  these ideas are very familiar to us today: just consider how the news eagerly reports increases in consumer spending as a sign of a healthy economy, how the current movements for "welfare reform" use much the same concepts that justified the draconian "poor laws" of 19th-century england. investment is viewed, now as then, as the engine that drives the economy. any measure which can encourage investors to buy more stock is viewed as beneficial to society as a whole.  but such a profound revolution was bound to cause negative reactions as well as positive ones. not everyone agreed that the shift of power into the hands of the new rich was entirely benign.  in the first half of the 19th century the working classes in the newly industrializing countries of england and germany suffered under many forms of exploitation. the old feudal restrictions which had fixed peasants in place on the land and limited their income had also guaranteed them a place in the world. they may not have prospered, but they were often able to fend off starvation and homelessness simply because they had been born onto estates from which they could not be removed against their wills.  the dissolution of this old order meant that workers could be hired and fired at will and had to sell their labor for whatever the going rate was--and that rate was determined by their competition with each other to work cheaply enough to gain them an advantage in the job market. traditional rules and protections went by the board in the new factories, which often ran for twenty-four hours a day (two twelve-hour shifts), seven days a week under the most inhumane conditions. women and children were absorbed into the work force as well, often preferred because they cost much less than men. living standards and educational levels actually declined in many areas.  many of the industries severely pollut