Thomas Carlyle's Political Activism

After reading Carlyle's Past and Present, the Condition of England, I am reminded of the written responses to the French Revolution in the earlier readings. It has the same pragmatic, assertive, and stubborn tone characteristic of war enthusiasts safe in England. "The Condition of England" deals with two major issues: what England should be and what England is. He begins his arguement by saying that, "England is full of wealth, of multifarious produce, supply for human want in every kind, yet England is dying of inanition (477)"--Inanition meaning exhaustion from lack of nourishment, starvation, and lack of vigor (or so says Webster). Using the idea of England starving while food is clearly in reach, he makes this assertion, "Touch it not, ye workers, ye master-workers, ye master idlers; none of you can touch it, no man of you shall be better for it; this is enchanted fruit (477)."

Our attention is immediately drawn to this seemingly Biblical allusion of "enchanted fruit." We think of the serpent tempting Eve to enlighten herself with genius that is not meant for her own self-understanding. Carlyle mimicks the command of God, urging the workers (in a sarcastic manner) to keep themselves away from the fruit--the product of their labor--stating that they will be better off not touching, or indulging, in it.

It's interesting how Carlyle begins his writing (which seems very appropriate for a pamphlet of sorts) with a satirical stance on the picture he paints of God in relation to the Wealthy. If anything, it is an affective allegory to the way in which the working class really viewed themselves. They were used to looking toward the wealthy in the manner of a feudal lord, and assumed that their master would maintain the servants' well being, since doing so would ensure a healthy workforce.

Learning about the drawbacks to the industrial revolution reminds me of the gradual decline and eventual disappearance of "mill towns" in the Southern states. A company would settle into an area and build their primary production plant in the central part of a town. They would, in turn, build housing, resturants, supermarkets, and gas stations, providing everything its employees would need to be close to the workplace and never again have a reason to relocate. This suolidifies retention. Families would settle into these mill towns for generations, always remaining loyal to "the company." However, what happens when the company fails? The worker who built their lives upon job security and stability were suddenly forved to enter into a new world of decentralized living conditions. Perhaps it is socialist in practice, relying on one central provider to foster an enviornment that allows work and production to flourish. When the mill towns disappeared, so goes the quality of living conditions. Maybe this is the same thing that happened with the demise of feudalism.

The new industrial ventures seemed to be fruitful substitutes for the stable oppression that sprouted from feudalism. However, industrialism's decentralization of power resulted in poor working conditions and meager pay. This poverty reaped from the harvest of industrial change sparked radical responses on the part of activists. One of Carlyle's more disturbing passages ends with this:

"The Stockport Mother and Father think and hint: Our poor little starveling Tom, who cries all day for victuals, who will see only evil and not good in this world: if he were out of misery at once; he well dead, and the rest of us perhaps kept alive? It is thought, and hinted; at last it is done. And now Tom being killed, and all spent and eaten, Is it poor little starveling Jack that must go, or poor litter starveling Will?--What a committee of ways and means (479)!"

If anyone could see the horrific and animal-like situation of the impoverished, it was the impoverished themselves. However great their awareness, they were absolutely incapable of breaking away from their destitution. They dutifully capitulated to industrialism's call.

Carlyle sums up his arguement for the inescapable and unjust ignorance of the poor by adding: "We have sumptuous garnitures for our Life, but have forgotten to live in the middle of them. It is an enchanted wealth; no man of us can yet touch it. The class of men who feel they are truly better off by means of it, let them give us their name (479)!"