The changes in people’s lives caused by the two industrial revolutions in Britain and China

1. The industrial revolution caused changes in the form of production organization, and the factory system based on machines replaced

manual workshops.

2. The Industrial Revolution brought urbanization and population transfer to cities.

3. The industrial revolution brought huge changes to people’s daily lives and ideas.

4. However, industrialization and urbanization have also created new social problems. For example: the polarization between rich and poor, urban population expansion, crowded housing, environmental pollution and other disadvantages.

5. The industrial revolution also caused changes in social structure.

6. Fundamentally speaking, the magnificent international communist movement that emerged later was an indirect product of the Industrial Revolution.

7. Leap of productivity

8. Two directly opposing classes emerged: the industrial bourgeoisie and the industrial proletariat.

The impact of the industrial revolution on social thought

1. The industrial revolution made people feel that "man can conquer nature", and various materials had a great impact on people's thoughts;

2. The materialization of large-scale industry in the Industrial Revolution and social contradictions led to the emergence of Marxism;

3. The massive material surplus and the relative poverty of the people intensified social contradictions and surged revolutionary thoughts. Britain Countries such as China implemented "democracy" through reforms, allowing the modern state system to truly emerge;

The impact of the industrial revolution on the social structure

1. The people in industrialized countries are increasingly divided into the bourgeoisie and the workers Class;

2. Capitalists increasingly have stronger economic and political strength, gaining advantages in confrontations with aristocrats;

3. Human beings have produced a large number of industrial gatherings since then, And affects the relationship between humans.

Impact on European relations

Britain became more powerful because of the Industrial Revolution, France also maintained its position in Europe because of the Industrial Revolution, Prussia became more powerful, and Austria, Russia, and Spain were in decline.

Impact on the environment

1. After the industrial revolution, the total amount of coal in the world dropped rapidly; as well as oil, natural gas (biogas) and so on

2. Industrial development has caused a sharp increase in the emissions of carbon dioxide, Freon, and carbon monoxide.

3. The increase in production land has caused a large number of animals to be endangered or extinct, and the biological chain has been destroyed. Vicious cycle.

Impact on production methods

①The industrial revolution greatly improved labor efficiency, greatly increasing the ratio of product value to labor value

②The industrial revolution greatly improved It reduced labor intensity and labor time, and made labor increasingly single

③ It caused the transformation of manual workshop industry to factory industry

④ It ushered in the era of manufacturing large machines

Impact on the world structure:

① It has greatly improved productivity and consolidated the basis of the rule of capitalist countries;

② Closed the connections between all parts of the world and changed the changed the face of the world and established the rule of the bourgeoisie over the world;

③ Objectively spread advanced production technology and production methods, violently impacting the old colonial system and old ideas;

④ Western colonial plunder has intensified, and the colonial people have become poorer and more difficult, making the East subordinate to the West;

⑤ Britain has become the "world's factory" and has mastered the world's economic hegemony;

⑥ Marks the initial formation of the world market

Impact on Western social structure

1. Causes major changes in social structure, causing society to increasingly split into two opposing classes - the industrial bourgeoisie and the proletariat;

2. Liberalism replaced mercantilism;

3. Marked the initial formation of the world market;

4. Promoted the development of modern cities With the rise of urbanization, the urbanization process accelerated, the population grew rapidly, and people's lifestyles and ideas changed;

5. The Sino-British Opium War caused China to become a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society.

Impact on the social environment:

Civilians in the industrial society era are facing new social problems such as poverty, environmental pollution, and crime.

Later impact

In the period before 1763, the European powers only had a few footholds in Asia and Africa, and their main possessions were in North and South America. After 1763, they politically controlled most of Asia and almost all of Africa. In North and South America, however, they can do much more than that. They took advantage of the relatively sparse population of the Americas and literally Europeanized North and South America. This is not possible in Asia and Africa, where the indigenous populations are too numerous and highly developed. However, in North and South America and Oceania, especially in Australia, Europeans transplanted Western capitalist civilization in all aspects - racial, economic and cultural.

The Industrial Revolution was largely responsible for this Europeanization. We have seen that productivity growth and medical advances led to a dramatic increase in European population during the 19th century. The resulting population pressure found its way out through overseas migration. Railroads and steamships efficiently moved large numbers of people across oceans and continents, and racial persecution further facilitated migration; in the 15 years before World War I, 1.5 million Jews fled from Russia in eastern Europe to the North American continent. A prime example of this. This combination of factors resulted in unprecedented large-scale migration. Every decade that passes, there is a huge increase in population migration. In the 1820s, only 145,000 people left Europe in total. In the 1850s, about 2.6 million people left Europe. Between 1900 and 1910, the number of immigrants was as high as 9 million, that is, 9 million immigrants per year. Nearly one million immigrants.

Before 1885, most immigrants came from northern and western Europe; after that time, most immigrants came from southern, eastern and southeastern Europe. Generally speaking, British immigrants went to the Dominions of the British Empire and the United States; Italians went to the United States and Latin America; Spaniards and Portuguese went to Latin America; Germans went to the United States, and a smaller number went to Argentina and Brazil. From a world historical point of view, the significance of this extremely huge migration is that, except for a large part of the people who flowed into the Russian region of Asia and a small number of people who slowly flowed into South Africa, the goal of the migration was completely towards the Americas and Oceania. As a result, North America and Australia were almost completely Europeanized in racial terms. Although the Indians of South America managed to survive, only a few survived. In other words, the colonial offshoots of the period before 1763 became, during the nineteenth century, several new Europes alongside the old.

North and South America and Australia were not only racially but also economically Europeanized. Before 1763, European colonies on these continents were mainly limited to the coastal areas. But in the latter century the interior of the continent was traversed. The Industrial Revolution made invasion by land possible by providing the necessary machinery and technology. Without roads leading inland from the coast, without canals connecting rivers, without transcontinental railroads and telegraphs, without steamboats plying the great rivers and coastal waterways, without agricultural machinery to mow prairie turf, without the conquest of indigenous peoples With a repeating gun, the wilderness could not be conquered. These mechanisms for conquering vast areas of the continent were as indispensable to Latin Americans and Australians as they were to the American frontiersmen. For example, an Argentinian commented in 1878: "The military power of the Indian savages was completely destroyed, because Remington had made them realize that an army could cross the entire South American prairie and cover the ground. The corpses of those who dared to oppose it.”

The colonial and economic development of the New World also naturally led to the transplantation of European culture. It is true that culture changes during transplantation. Culture is not only adopted, it is changed. Today, Canada, Australia, and the United States are not identical to Great Britain, nor is Latin America an exact replica of the Iberian Peninsula.

However, the fact remains that the language is essentially the same, although the American slang fascinates the British and the archaic French Canadian dialect intrigues the French. The same goes for religion, despite the existence of Camp Fire Revivals and Mormons. Literature, schools, newspapers, government - all have roots that go back to France, Spain, France and the rest of Europe.

Of course, there are also cultures in North and South America and Australia that did not originate in Europe. Black people in America retain some remnant of their African background. The surviving indigenous peoples, especially the Indians of Latin America, contributed to a hybrid culture. Nor should we forget the influence of the wilderness; it left an indelible mark on European settlers and their customs. All these forces explain why New York, Melbourne, and Tudor are so different from London, and why Buenos Aires, Brasilia, and Mexico City are so different from Madrid.

However, from a global perspective, the similarities appear to outweigh the differences. As the Arab peoples expanded westward from their homelands in the Middle East, they expanded beyond North Africa to the Atlantic coast. Today, the culture of Morocco differs from that of the Arabian Peninsula in far more ways than American culture differs from British culture or Brazilian culture differs from Portuguese culture. However, Morocco is now seen as part of the Arab world, and undoubtedly sees itself as such. In the same sense, North and South America and Australia are now part of the European world.

The Industrial Revolution was not only the main reason why America and Australia were Europeanized, but also the main reason why Europe's huge colonial structures were established in Asia and Africa. This empire-building proceeded steadily in the decades after the huge colonial settlement appeared in 1763. Indeed, in the early 19th century, there was a lot of anti-imperialist sentiment among certain groups in Britain and France. Advocates of free trade believed that the colonies had little economic value, and Britain's experience with the 13 colonies seemed to provide evidence for their opinion. However, the fact remains that Britain and France continued to acquire possessions during those decades. For example, Britain acquired the Cape Colony and Ceylon in 1815, New Zealand in 1840, Hong Kong in 1842, and Natal in 1843. Likewise, France conquered Algeria from 1830 to 1847, launched an expedition to Indochina from 1858 to 1867, and in 1862 tried without success to gain a foothold in Mexico. However, these gains were insignificant compared with the huge wave of empire-building after 1870; after 1870, "new imperialism" made a large part of the earth's surface become the dependency of a few European powers.

Colonies served as markets for an increasing number of manufactured goods; the close connection between the new imperialism and the Industrial Revolution can be seen in the growing desire to acquire colonies. Several European and overseas countries that began to industrialize during the 19th century were soon competing for each other's markets, and in the process, they raised their own tariffs to boycott other countries' products. Soon it was argued that every industrialized nation should have colonies that could provide its manufacturers with "markets free from foreign competition." In 1898, U.S. Republican Senator Albert Beveridge gave a representative explanation of this view to a group of businessmen in Boston:

American factories are manufacturing more There is more that the American people can use; the land of the United States is producing more than the American people can consume. Destiny has formulated our policy for us; the trade of the world should and must be ours. Therefore, we will get the trade of the world as the mother country (Britain) tells us. We will establish trading posts throughout the world as distribution points for American products. We will send our merchant fleet across the ocean. We will build a truly great navy. Vast colonies will grow around our trading posts that are self-governing, fly our flag and trade with us.

The Industrial Revolution also produced surplus capital, which in turn caused powerful countries to look for colonies as a place to invest.

The more capital accumulates at home, the lower profits fall, and the greater the need for more profitable investment markets abroad. In fact, major powers, especially Britain, France and Germany, invested heavily in foreign countries. For example, Britain, by 1914, had invested 4 billion pounds abroad, equivalent to a quarter of its total national wealth. At that time, France had also invested 45 billion francs abroad, approximately one-sixth of its national wealth. Although Germany is a latecomer and has been investing most of its capital in domestic industrial development, it has also invested 22 billion to 25 billion marks overseas, which is about one-fifteenth of its national wealth. Thus, by 1914, Europe had become the world's banker. In the first half of the 19th century, most of these overseas investments were in North and South America and Australia—in the white world. However, in the second half of the 19th century, most of these overseas investments were in non-white, relatively unstable countries in Asia and Africa. The tens of thousands of small private savers and some large financial organizations that provide capital are naturally concerned about the security of their capital. They would rather have "civilized" administration in the areas where their investments are located, preferably by their respective governments. In this way, the need to invest surplus capital promoted neo-imperialism.

The origins of the new imperialism are not entirely economic; nor are they solely related to the Industrial Revolution. There were various other factors at play at the time. One factor is the desire to secure strategic naval bases such as those in Malta and Singapore to enhance national security. Another factor was the need to obtain additional sources of manpower, as the French had done in North Africa. Another factor was the influence of missionaries, who were particularly active in the 19th century. These missionaries had been trying to convert the natives, and they were sometimes mistreated and even killed by the natives. Although the missionaries themselves may be willing to tolerate such dangers as acceptable for the sake of their own careers, public opinion often demands a counterattack. Governments therefore know that they can use such incidents as a pretext for military intervention. Finally, the popularity of social Darwinism and its doctrines of the struggle for survival and the survival of the fittest naturally led to the idea of ??racial superiority and the idea that white people had a "responsibility" to rule over the "inferior" colored peoples of the world. Cecil Rhodes, the great empire-builder, was very candid on this issue.

The net result of these economic, political, and ideological-psychological factors was to result in the largest land grab in world history, a land grab not even matched by the conquests of Genghis Khan. of. In the 30 years from 1871 to 1900, Britain added 4.25 million square miles to its empire and 66 million people, France added 3.5 million square miles to its empire and 26 million people, and Russia added 5 million square miles to Asia. land and 6.5 million people, Germany added 500,000 square miles of land and 13 million people. Even tiny Belgium managed to acquire 900,000 square miles of land and 8.5 million inhabitants. These conquests, combined with the original colonies, created a strange and unprecedented situation: a small part of the world dominated the rest.

The industrialized European powers not only owned these huge colonies outright. It also controls economically and militarily weak areas that are not actually included due to various reasons. China in the late Qing Dynasty, the Ottoman Empire, the feudal theocratic empire that once spanned Europe, Asia and Africa, and Persia on the Iranian plateau in Asia are examples; they are all nominally independent countries, but in fact, they are often plundered and humiliated. , controlled by the capitalist powers in various direct and indirect ways. Latin America was also an economic appendage of the major powers, but in this region, European military operations suffered setbacks due to the Monroe Doctrine. However, the Monroe Doctrine did not prevent the United States Marine Corps from repeatedly carrying out armed intervention to "restore law and order." The Russian Empire was also largely under Western European economic control, but at the same time, the military power of the Tsarist regime was strong enough to prevent external economic influence from spreading to other areas.

The important point, however, is that India's economy was not only boosted but also rebuilt and rendered ineffective in the latter phase. British textiles were so cheap that they could be distributed across the country via the railway network, thus mercilessly bankrupting the native craftsmen just as they had bankrupted the British craftsmen a century earlier. However, there is one extremely important difference between the two situations. British craftsmen went to work in the factories that sprung up in the cities, but Indian craftsmen had nowhere to go because there were no factories in their cities. The British naturally did not wish to establish a competing industrial structure in India.

This is a natural and understandable arrangement, but it deeply affects the Indian people. They have traditionally made a living through agriculture and handicrafts. At this time, craftsmen have to cut prices to compete with competitors and have no alternative source of livelihood. Farmers could not remain unaffected, as many of them became involved in the production of jute and other commodities for British factories. This means they no longer just feed themselves and the people in nearby towns. At this time, they have become an integral part of the world economy and are subject to its fluctuations and crises. Europe also fundamentally influenced India through the introduction of medical science and various sanitary measures, which led to a sharp decrease in population. This had happened earlier in Europe, but millions of people in Europe moved into cities or Went overseas, but Indians couldn't do that. Therefore, the final result is population growth and economic development being hindered.

This is the nature of the impact of new imperialism on colonies and dependencies. India has been used as an illustration of this influence, but, in other areas, the general pattern is the same, with some natural variations. This pattern should be remembered because it explains why the world today is divided into the developed world and the underdeveloped world, why there is such an astonishing difference in the living standards of the two worlds, and why the people of the underdeveloped world gained political independence. , whose primary goal is to become a developed world—to reach the economic level of the West as quickly as possible.

A review of new imperialism should not lead to the conclusion that new imperialism is a complete disaster for the world, even for subordinate colonial nations. From a historical point of view, the new imperialism will undoubtedly be regarded as a great progress for the world, just as the Industrial Revolution was a great progress for Europeans. In fact, the historical role of new imperialism is to advance the industrial revolution to its logically inevitable conclusion - to enable industrial countries, that is, industrial capitalism, to function on a world-wide scale. This has resulted in a far more extensive, coordinated and efficient utilization of the world's physical and human resources. There is no doubt that world productivity increased immeasurably when European capital and technology were combined with the raw materials and labor of underdeveloped regions, leading for the first time to a complete world economy. In fact, world industrial production tripled between 1860 and 1890 and increased sevenfold between 1860 and 1913. The value of world trade rose from ￡641 million in 1851 to ￡3,024 million in 1880, to ￡4,045 million in 1900, and to ￡7,840 million in 1913.

There is no disagreement about the benefits of increased cake size. Rather, the debate centered on how the cake should be cut. Colonial nations have felt that in the past, they received less than their fair share. The total amount they received had increased significantly, without which their growing population would not have been able to be supported. For example, a British economist pointed out that in 1949, European companies engaged in mining in mineral-rich Northern Rhodesia sold their products for a total of 86.7 million pounds. Of this money, they spent only ￡12.5 million in Northern Rhodesia; this meant that two-thirds of the money was transferred abroad. Moreover, of the ￡12.5 million spent on Northern Rhodesia, ￡4.1 million was paid to Europeans living and working there. Of the ￡36.7 million, only ￡2 million was given to Africans working in the mines. However, these workers received an average of ￡41 a year, while the average income per adult African in the colony was ￡27 a year.

Obviously, there is a parallel between the reaction of Western workers to industrial capitalism and the reaction of colonial peoples to the new imperialism. Both were dissatisfied with their lot, and both supported movements aimed at bringing about fundamental change. However, there is another basic difference: the colonial nations did not oppose their own emperors, but rather opposed foreign rulers. Thus, at least initially, their opposition movement was not socialism but a set of Western political doctrines—liberalism, democracy, and especially nationalism.

The industrial revolution, different from the technological revolution, can refer to:

The first industrial revolution was marked by the improvement of steam engines, and the second industrial revolution was marked by the widespread application of electricity. The third technological revolution is marked by the invention and use of electronic computers.

Please adopt