工业革命时期社会结构和社会关系的变革

根据米歇尔-奥利斯（Michel Oris）的课程改编

Languages

Deutsch

Español Français Italiano

Português 中文（简体)

全球化的经济和社会史，16-21 世纪

地结构与乡村社会： 前工业化时期欧洲农民分析 ● 旧政体的人口制度：平衡状态 ● 十八世纪社会经济结构的演变： 从旧制度到现代性 ● 英国工业革命的起源和原因] ● 工业革命的结构机制 ● 工业革命在欧洲大陆的传播 ● 欧洲以外的工业革命：美国和日本 ● 工业革命的社会成本 ● 第一次全球化周期阶段的历史分析 ● 各国市场的动态和产品贸易的全球化 ● 全球移民体系的形成 ● 货币市场全球化的动态和影响：英国和法国的核心作用 ● 工业革命时期社会结构和社会关系的变革 ● 第三世界的起源和殖民化的影响 ● 第三世界的失败与障碍 ● 不断变化的工作方法： 十九世纪末至二十世纪中叶不断演变的生产关系 ● 西方经济的黄金时代： 辉煌三十年（1945-1973 年） ● 变化中的世界经济：1973-2007 年 ● 福利国家的挑战 ● 围绕殖民化：对发展的担忧和希望 ● 断裂的时代：国际经济的挑战与机遇 ● 全球化与 "第三世界 "的发展模式

1850 年至 1914 年期间，人类互动以及社会与环境之间的关系发生了翻天覆地的变化。这一时期标志着第一个全球化时代的到来，各国经济日益一体化，社会结构和社会关系发生了深刻变革。在新技术出现、创新型工业部门崛起以及相互关联的全球市场形成的刺激下，这一时期出现了前所未有的经济增长和发展。与此同时，这一时期也发生了重大的社会动荡，特别是劳工运动的兴起以及民主理想和人权的传播。全球化时代为世界各地的人们带来了众多机遇和挑战，其遗产也继续影响着我们的当代社会。

在 1880 年之前，雇主和雇员之间的权力平衡极不对称，雇主掌握着相当大的权力。法国于 1791 年通过了《沙佩利埃法》，英国也于 1800 年通过了类似的法律，禁止在同一行业工作的个人之间建立任何形式的协会或联盟。直到 1850 年左右，这项法律一直对雇主十分有利，使他们在与雇员的纠纷中占据上风。与此同时，任何集体行动的尝试都受到系统的压制。

大公司

18 世纪下半叶标志着工业革命的开始，这是一个重大的历史转折点，主要发生在欧洲。这一时期的特点是令人眼花缭乱的经济和技术变革，彻底改变了生产方式。新机器的出现和创新制造工艺的采用是这场变革背后的驱动力。工业革命对创业环境产生了巨大影响。许多以前生产能力和规模有限的小企业抓住了这些技术进步带来的机遇。由于这些创新提高了效率，降低了生产成本，这些企业得以迅速扩张，发展成为更大的商业实体。这种企业扩张不仅重塑了经济格局，也对整个社会产生了深远影响。大公司的发展导致了城市化的加剧、工作结构的变化以及社会和经济动态的转变。工业革命为现代工业时代铺平了道路，为我们今天所熟知的商业实践和组织结构奠定了基础。

工业革命期间大公司的出现在很大程度上得益于资本供应的增加和劳动力的充裕。随着经济的增长，大量资本可供使用，使公司能够大规模投资于新技术并扩大业务。这些投资对蒸汽机和大规模生产设备的采用至关重要，在企业扩张中发挥了关键作用。金融市场，包括银行和证券交易所，在促进资本获取方面发挥了至关重要的作用。与此同时，人口增长导致劳动力过剩。从农业经济向工业经济的转型导致大量农村人口涌入城市，在新工厂中寻找工作。充足的劳动力供应对工业企业的运营和扩张至关重要，使生产实现了前所未有的增长。这些有利条件，加上技术创新和有利的政治环境，为大公司的发展创造了最佳框架，标志着这一时期经济和社会的彻底转型。

18 世纪下半叶，大企业的出现是经济、技术和社会变革共同作用的结果。这一时期以工业革命为标志，世界经济发生了惊人的蜕变，主要发生在欧洲。资本供应的增加发挥了关键作用，使公司能够投资于创新技术并扩大业务范围。与此同时，人口增长带来了大量劳动力，这对这些新兴企业的运营和扩张至关重要。技术进步，尤其是机械化和工业生产方面的技术进步，也是这一变革的重要推动力。蒸汽机的引入、新制造工艺和工作方法的改变彻底改变了生产方式。伴随这些经济和技术变革的还有重大的社会变革。大量农村人口迁往城市中心寻找工厂工作，导致城市化迅速发展，并改变了社会结构。这些因素加在一起，不仅促进了大企业的发展，也为我们今天所知的现代经济和工业社会奠定了基础。

1870 年，公司的平均规模约为 300 名员工，但从 1873 年起，开始出现组建规模更大甚至是巨型公司的趋势，尤其是在美国。这一时期正值 19 世纪下半叶，美国正处于工业革命时期。这一经济和技术变革时代促使某些关键行业出现了垄断。垄断是指一家公司或组织独家控制特定产品或服务的生产或分销的市场状况。在这种情况下，在没有明显竞争的情况下，单个公司有权支配价格和市场条件。在美国，垄断的兴起得益于多种因素。技术进步、获得资本的机会增多以及劳动力不断增长，使公司能够以前所未有的规模发展。此外，当时缺乏严格的竞争法规也对这些垄断的形成起到了至关重要的作用。这些垄断企业对美国经济产生了深远影响，不仅影响了市场动态，还影响了工作条件、贸易政策和社会结构。它们引发了关于市场监管和反托拉斯法必要性的重要辩论，成为 20 世纪初经济政策和改革的核心问题。

美国在工业革命期间出现的垄断企业在很大程度上得益于多种因素的综合作用，其中包括大量的可用资金和较低的政府监管水平。美国建国初期，商业行为的监管框架相对有限。由于缺乏严格的法律，公司可以从事在其他环境或国家会被视为反竞争的行为。这种情况为在几个关键领域建立垄断铺平了道路。铁路、钢铁和石油等行业尤其有利于形成此类垄断。这些领域的公司几乎能够完全控制各自的市场，对价格、生产和分销施加强大的影响。某些公司的这种支配地位导致了经济力量的集中，并经常导致不公平的商业行为，限制了竞争，减少了消费者的选择。这些事态发展最终引起了政府和公众的关注和反应，导致通过了反垄断法，并出台了更严格的法规来管理公司活动，保护消费者和小企业的利益。这些改革标志着美国竞争管理和市场监管的转折点。

大萧条始于 20 世纪 20 年代，在 30 年代达到顶峰，是影响世界许多国家的重大经济衰退时期。这场经济危机是由几个相互依存的因素引发的。触发因素之一是农业和工业等部门生产过剩。供过于求导致价格和收入下降，农民和工业生产商受到沉重打击。同时，收入分配不均限制了大多数人的购买力，导致消费需求下降。此外，大萧条的特点是国际贸易明显下降。高关税等保护主义政策阻碍了贸易的发展，加剧了这种放缓。贸易的减少对各国经济产生了不利影响，加剧了经济衰退。1929 年股市崩盘，尤其是美国股市的崩盘，也是引发大萧条的关键因素。股票市场价值的急剧下降导致了重大投资的损失，打击了消费者和投资者的信心，减少了支出和投资。这些因素加上其他经济和金融困难，导致数百万人长期处于高失业率、破产和经济困境之中。大萧条的影响是深远的，促使经济和社会政策发生重大变化，并改变了政府管理经济和干预金融市场的方式。

从 1914 年起，尤其是在随后的几年里，许多企业在艰难的经济环境中挣扎求存。这一时期的特点是兼并和合并浪潮，一些公司被迫与其他公司合并，以维持生存。这一整合过程催生了寡头垄断，即由少数公司主导行业的市场结构。这些寡头垄断已在几个关键领域形成，少数几家大公司在这些领域获得了重大影响力，控制了其领域内生产、销售或服务的很大份额。这种经济力量的集中产生了若干影响。一方面，它使这些占主导地位的公司能够实现规模经济，优化运营效率，加强市场地位。另一方面，它往往导致竞争减少，影响产品和服务的价格及质量，并可能限制消费者的选择。寡头垄断的形成也引起了经济监管和反垄断政策的关注，因为经济力量过度集中在少数几个参与者手中可能会导致滥用商业行为和对市场的不公平控制。因此，这一时期对于经济政策和监管框架的演变至关重要，其目的是平衡大公司与消费者之间的利益，同时维护全球经济的健康和竞争力。

在 20 世纪 20 年代的经济衰退期间，寡头垄断的出现主要是由于许多公司无力与规模更大、更成熟的公司竞争。在岌岌可危的经济环境中，中小型企业面临着财务和运营方面的挑战，往往难以保持竞争力。面对这些挑战，与其他公司合并已成为一种可行的生存策略。这些合并产生了规模更大、实力更强的企业实体。通过整合资源、专业知识和分销网络，这些合并后的公司获得了主导各自行业的更大能力。它们受益于规模经济、更大的市场份额，而且往往对定价和行业标准有更大的影响力。这些大公司的形成改变了许多行业的市场动态，少数几个占主导地位的企业开始行使相当大的控制权。经济力量的集中也引发了对竞争、消费者选择多样性和市场公平性的质疑。因此，这一时期是反托拉斯政策演变的关键因素，也是规范商业行为以维持良性竞争和保护消费者利益的需要。

第一个原因：造成垄断

形成经济垄断背后的逻辑是，单一公司或组织可以对特定产品或服务的特定市场实施全面控制。这种支配地位为垄断公司提供了几大优势。首先，拥有垄断地位的公司可以制定其产品或服务的价格，而不必担心竞争。在没有竞争对手的情况下，垄断企业可以收取更高的价格，从而获得更高的利润率。由于不受竞争市场压力的限制，这也使其在定价策略方面具有相当大的灵活性。此外，垄断还可以限制市场竞争。由于没有竞争者挑战其地位或向消费者提供替代品，垄断公司往往对行业拥有广泛的控制权，包括与质量、创新和产品或服务分销有关的方面。此外，垄断企业还能创造巨额利润，因为它们的产品或服务占据了非常大的市场份额，甚至是全部市场份额。这些高额利润可以再投资于企业，以刺激研发或进一步扩大其市场影响力。然而，尽管垄断可以为拥有垄断权的公司带来好处，但从消费者和整体经济健康的角度来看，垄断往往会引起人们的担忧。单一实体主导市场会导致创新减少、消费者价格上涨以及市场选择多样性减少。这些担忧促使许多国家制定了反垄断法律法规，旨在限制垄断的形成，促进市场公平竞争。

某些公司制造垄断的野心往往是出于保护其市场份额和延续其在特定行业中的主导地位的愿望。通过完全控制特定产品或服务的市场，公司可以有效地阻止潜在竞争者进入市场，威胁其利润。这种对市场的控制为垄断公司提供了相当大的安全感。通过消除或严格限制竞争，公司降低了其市场份额被新进入者或现有竞争者侵蚀的风险。这使它能够在其行业中保持稳定的支配地位，这通常会转化为不断创造利润的能力，有时甚至是巨额利润。处于垄断地位的公司还可能对市场的关键方面拥有更大的控制权，如产品或服务的价格、质量和可用性。这种支配地位可以使公司获得巨大的财务优势，使其能够在最大限度地减少竞争挑战的同时实现利润最大化。

公司寻求建立垄断的一个主要动机是增加利润的前景。当一家公司独家控制了某一特定产品或服务的市场时，它就获得了在没有通常竞争压力的情况下制定价格的能力。这种特权地位使它能够收取可能高于竞争市场的价格，从而最大限度地提高利润率。在没有竞争者能够提供更便宜或质量更好的替代品的情况下，垄断企业可以实行不仅反映生产成本，而且还反映大量盈余的价格。这些较高的价格转化为更高的利润，通过更高的财务回报使公司股东和投资者受益。对股东和投资者来说，垄断企业是稳定可靠的收入来源，因为占支配地位的企业不太可能受到市场波动或新竞争者出现的影响。这种财务稳定性使对这类公司的投资特别具有吸引力。

经济垄断的形成是基于一种逻辑，这种逻辑强调了成功建立经济垄断的公司的几种潜在优势。首先，垄断为公司提供了保护和维持市场份额的能力。通过控制特定产品或服务的整个市场，公司可以保护自己免受竞争对手的入侵，从而维护其主导地位。其次，通过消除或大大减少竞争，垄断使公司在管理市场方面拥有很大的自由度。这包括对价格、销售条件和产品或服务分销的控制。由于没有竞争者提供替代品或对价格施加压力，垄断公司可以制定使其利润最大化的定价策略。第三，垄断所取得的市场支配地位往往会增加公司的利润。通过制定高于竞争市场承受能力的价格，公司可以获得可观的利润率。这些高利润不仅对公司本身有利，对其股东和投资者也有利，因为他们可以从更高的财务回报中获益。简而言之，垄断可以为公司在市场控制和财务盈利方面带来巨大优势。然而，公司的这些优势可能会与消费者的利益以及健康、竞争性经济的需要相冲突。因此，对此类垄断的监管往往被视为在企业利益和社会整体利益之间保持平衡的必要手段。

第二个原因：提供新的消费市场

扩大消费市场并使之多样化是经济和商业发展的一个核心目标。从历史上看，市场上的许多产品在设计和制造上都相对简单，因此可以很容易地广泛销售。这些产品往往是日常生活所必需的基本产品，因此被大量生产，以满足广泛的需求。然而，对于那些需要先进技术、专用材料或特殊技能的复杂产品，其销售则受到很大限制。由于生产成本较高、产品复杂或专业性较强，这些产品通常只进行小规模生产，只面向有限的一部分市场。随着时间的推移和技术的进步，生产更复杂、数量更大的产品成为可能，从而使更多的人能够获得这些产品。技术创新、生产方法的改进和分销链的扩大在这一转变中发挥了至关重要的作用，使过去仅限于小众市场的产品得以广泛供应。这一发展为创造新的消费市场铺平了道路，在这些市场中，可以向广大消费者提供多种多样的先进产品。它还改变了消费习惯、客户期望和市场动态，刺激了许多行业的创新和竞争。

19 世纪末，主要在美国出现了现代百货商店的先驱，这一现象与消费民主化和多样化密切相关。在这一时期，消费者可以购买的商品种类大大增加，远远超出了面包等基本商品的范围。当时的百货商店开始提供种类繁多的产品，包括烤肉和奶酪等专业食品。产品的多样化给物流和管理带来了巨大挑战。每家百货公司不仅要管理各种产品的大量库存，还要协调各类产品的供应链。这意味着要为从烤肉到奶酪等各类商品寻找可靠的供应商，并管理运输和储存这些商品的复杂物流。因此，经营这样的商店需要缜密的组织和规划。这个时代的百货公司是最早采用创新管理和商品销售技术来应对这些挑战的公司之一。它们在零售业的变革中发挥了先驱作用，提供了更加多样化的购物体验，使消费者在同一屋檐下更容易获得更多种类的产品。这一演变不仅改变了产品的销售和购买方式，也对消费者的习惯产生了深远影响，标志着零售业历史新纪元的开始。

19 世纪末 20 世纪初食品零售业的演变反映了消费品供应和销售方式的重大转变。面对日益增长的需求和不断扩大的消费市场，这些公司必须做出调整，成为能够管理国内和国际复杂供应网络的大型实体。这些公司的扩张需要大量员工来管理从供应物流到销售点管理等各方面的业务。建立国内和国际供应网络意味着要协调广泛且往往复杂的供应链，包括选择供应商、谈判合同、运输货物和有效储存货物。除了管理供应链，店铺数量的增加也增加了运营的复杂性。每家商店都必须定期进货，有效管理，并适应当地消费者的需求和偏好。这种扩张导致了大型分销和销售公司的诞生，它们不仅满足了消费者不断变化的需求，而且还通过引入更广泛、更易获得的产品系列来帮助塑造这些需求。因此，这一时期的特点是消费市场的重大发展，各公司的对策是将自己组建成能够有效管理日益复杂的食品零售业的大型实体。这些变化在塑造现代分销和零售格局方面发挥了关键作用。

飞利浦公司最初以生产照相机而闻名，后来扩展到电子产品领域，它为我们提供了一个精彩的例子，说明公司是如何在技术产品日益复杂的背景下发展壮大的。随着摄影变得越来越流行，对相机的需求也随之扩大，导致许多城市开设了专卖店。这种扩张不仅增加了相机的供应量，还提高了公众对这些技术的认识。随着销售量的增加，另一个至关重要的方面出现了：维护和修理。照相机作为一种复杂的技术产品，很容易出现技术问题或故障。这一现实凸显了对专业维修服务的需求。因此，除了简单地销售照相机外，还需要建立一个由经销商和技术人员组成的网络，以便在照相机出现故障时能够进行拆卸、诊断和维修。建立这一动态系统意味着要建立一个广泛的销售网络，不仅包括设备的分销，还包括设备的服务和维修。这就形成了一个更加复杂和综合的价值链，分销商、维修商和零部件供应商都在保持客户满意度和忠诚度方面发挥着至关重要的作用。在这种情况下，菲利普斯的发展轨迹代表了技术公司必须如何调整和发展，不仅要满足创新产品的分销需求，还要提供必要的购后支持，确保完整和令人满意的客户体验。

第三个原因：绕过保护主义

欧洲保护主义卷土重来

19 世纪末，欧洲的经济保护主义明显抬头，这是工业化兴起和世界市场竞争加剧的直接反应。欧洲各国采取关税和贸易壁垒等保护主义政策，主要是为了保护本国工业免受外国竞争者的侵害，并鼓励本国经济发展。这些保护主义政策被普遍认为是支持本地产业的有效方式，可以保护这些产业免受进口产品的竞争，因为进口产品的售价通常较低。通过对进口产品征收关税，欧洲各国政府旨在降低外国产品对国内消费者的吸引力，从而为本地产品创造更有利的市场。除促进经济利益外，这些政策还出于政治和战略考虑。欧洲各国不仅在经济上，而且在政治上都力图保持和加强自己的实力和影响力。保护民族工业也是在欧洲列强之间的竞争和联盟起伏不定的背景下维护独立和经济安全的一种方式。与此同时，这一时期人们越来越相信政府在经济中的关键作用。人们认识到，为了确保公民的经济福祉，尤其是面对全球化和国际竞争带来的挑战，国家干预可能是必要的。19 世纪末欧洲的经济保护主义可被理解为一种多极战略，旨在保护民族工业，维护国家的经济和政治权力，并承认政府在管理经济事务以造福社会方面发挥着更大的作用。

自 1873 年起，除英国外，欧洲各国都采取了保护主义，以应对当时的经济和政治变革。这种保护主义政策旨在通过设置关税等贸易壁垒来限制外国进口，从而保护本国工业。然而，英国选择维持自由贸易政策，部分原因在于其在世界贸易中的主导地位及其殖民帝国的实力。对其他欧洲国家来说，保护主义被视为促进国内工业发展、保护本国市场免受英国和其他工业国家产品冲击的一种手段。即使在经济恢复增长后，这些国家仍继续坚持保护主义政策。这种顽固性可归因于几个因素。首先，保护主义有助于巩固和加强新生产业，否则这些产业很容易受到外国竞争的影响。其次，关税带来的收入对国家预算非常重要，为各种政府计划提供了资金来源。最后，在政治层面上，保护主义符合某些有影响力的群体的利益，如农民和工业家，他们直接受益于针对外国竞争的保护。这种保护主义趋势对欧洲的国际贸易和经济关系产生了重大影响。它影响了贸易的动态和公司的扩张战略，并在 19 世纪末 20 世纪初世界经济的演变中发挥了作用。

欧洲国家在 19 世纪末重拾保护主义可归因于多种战略动机，其中包括保护新兴产业免受国际竞争影响的愿望。到 19 世纪中叶，许多欧洲国家积极发展工业部门，政策制定者热衷于支持这些产业的增长和繁荣。对进口商品征收高额关税等保护主义措施被视为保护国内产业的重要手段。通过提高进口商品的成本，这些关税降低了外国产品在本地市场上的竞争力，从而为国内生产商带来优势。这一战略旨在为本地产业创造更有利的环境，使其在面临国际竞争之前能够发展并巩固其在国内市场的地位。此外，这些保护主义政策还旨在使国内产业在全球范围内更具竞争力。通过提供一个受保护的成长和成熟空间，保护主义理应帮助本地产业提高效率、质量和创新能力，从而为它们将来更有效地参与国际市场竞争做好准备。这种做法反映了对全球经济的理解，即工业竞争力被视为国家实力和繁荣的关键因素。因此，保护主义作为一种经济政策，在这一时期的欧洲工业和经济发展中发挥了重要作用。

19 世纪末，欧洲重新采用保护主义也是出于社会和政治方面的考虑，尤其是认为这种政策可以促进国家统一和凝聚力。这一时期，许多欧洲国家内部关系紧张，包括地区冲突和教派分裂。当时的政治家们认识到加强民族认同感和团结的重要性。他们将保护主义视为一种手段，通过将注意力和精力集中于国内经济发展来促进团结意识。通过保护和促进民族工业，政府不仅可以刺激经济增长，还可以在民族工商业的成功中营造一种集体自豪感。促进民族工业被视为将公民团结在国家繁荣和进步这一共同目标周围的一种方式。通过支持本地企业和工人，政府希望缓解国内紧张局势，加强国家内部的团结。这一战略旨在建立坚实的经济基础，进而促进政治和社会稳定。除了经济目标之外，经济保护主义还被视为巩固国家统一的工具，因为它提供了一个共同点，使国家内部的不同地区和群体能够团结一致。保护主义的这种政治和社会维度反映了经济政策背后动机的复杂性，突出了如何利用经济政策来解决严格意义上的经济以外的问题。

19 世纪末欧洲保护主义的复兴也受到直接经济因素的强烈影响。面对经济低增长和高失业率等挑战，欧洲领导人寻求振兴本国经济的解决方案。保护主义措施被视为刺激内需和推动经济增长的潜在有效途径。通过对进口商品征收关税，欧洲各国政府希望鼓励消费者转而购买本地生产的商品。这一战略旨在减少对进口的依赖，同时支持国内产业。通过保护本地市场免受外国竞争的影响，国内产业有更好的机会发展壮大并提高产量，这反过来又能促进就业和国内消费。更重要的是，通过扶持本地企业，政府希望创造经济增长的良性循环：成功的企业创造更多的就业机会，这反过来又会提高人们的购买力，刺激对其他商品和服务的需求，支持整个经济。因此，这些保护主义政策被视为加强国民经济的杠杆，为当地企业的发展、创造就业机会和提高生活水平创造了更有利的环境。然而，虽然这些措施可能会给一些经济体带来短期利益，但也可能导致国际贸易紧张局势，并对国家产业的效率和竞争力产生长期影响。

联合王国的逆转：自由贸易的选择

19 世纪末 20 世纪初，英国走上了一条与许多其他欧洲国家不同的道路，坚定地奉行自由贸易政策。这种做法是英国悠久的自由贸易传统的一部分，这一传统始于 19 世纪 40 年代《玉米法》的废除。英国坚持自由贸易可归因于几个关键因素。首先，作为当时世界领先的工业强国和庞大的殖民帝国，英国从国际贸易中获益良多。自由贸易政策有利于英国的出口，并提供了获得各种原材料和殖民地产品的机会。其次，自由贸易的理念在英国经济和政治思想中根深蒂固。人们坚信，自由贸易不仅有利于英国经济，还能通过促进国家间的经济合作，为国际和平与稳定做出贡献。与德国、法国和其他欧洲国家采取保护主义政策支持本国新兴产业和应对国内经济挑战不同，英国继续推动自由贸易。这一立场反映了英国对自身经济实力的信心以及保持其世界贸易影响力的愿望。英国的自由贸易政策在当时的国际贸易中发挥了重要作用。它还影响了国际经济关系，往往与欧洲其他地区日益增长的保护主义倾向背道而驰。

虽然英国在 19 世纪末 20 世纪初大力倡导自由贸易，但应该指出的是，其贸易政策并非完全没有保护主义措施。事实上，英国在特定行业采取了某些关税措施和补贴，尽管与其他欧洲国家相比，这些措施一般较为温和。英国对某些进口产品征收关税，特别是在农业领域。这样做的目的是保护英国农民免受外国竞争的影响，尤其是在进口产品威胁到当地农场生存能力的时候。同样，为了刺激经济发展、支持创新或应对特定的经济问题，对某些行业给予补贴。虽然这些措施代表了一定程度的保护主义，但与其他欧洲国家实施的更严格、更广泛的政策相比，这些措施是有限的。英国的经济主要面向国际贸易，因此继续支持自由贸易方式，开放市场，减少贸易壁垒。

为了克服保护主义壁垒，促进国际贸易，各国政府通常会签订自由贸易协定（FTAs）。这些由两个或两个以上国家谈判达成的国际条约旨在减少或消除关税和其他贸易壁垒，为贸易和经济带来多重好处。首先，自贸协定有助于降低或取消关税，使进口产品更实惠、更具竞争力。关税的降低使消费者和企业能够以更低的价格获得更多的商品和服务。除了降低成本，这些协定还简化了贸易规则和法规。统一标准和认证互认减轻了官僚主义负担，使企业更容易驾驭国际贸易。自贸协定还打开了通往新市场的大门，使企业有机会将业务扩展到国界之外。这刺激了国际增长和扩张，为贸易和投资创造了新的途径。同时，这些协定通过创造更加开放和可预测的商业环境来鼓励外国投资。稳定和透明的商业框架会吸引国际投资者，从而促进经济发展。最后，通过让外国公司更容易进入国内市场，自由贸易协定刺激了良性竞争。这鼓励了创新，提高了产品和服务的质量，使消费者和整个经济受益。总之，自由贸易协定是各国寻求境外贸易便利化的重要工具，有助于全球经济更加一体化和更具活力。

虽然自由贸易的概念长期以来一直得到经济学家和政策制定者的支持，但将自由贸易协定（FTA）作为促进国际贸易的工具只是在 20 世纪中叶才逐渐兴起。19 世纪末，虽然自由贸易的理念已经得到讨论和推广，尤其是英国等国家，但我们今天所熟知的自由贸易协定还不是一种常用的规避保护主义的机制。在此期间，国际贸易更多地受到双边或单边政策的制约，正式的贸易协定较少。实行自由贸易的国家，如英国，往往是独立地实行自由贸易，而不是通过与其他国家签订有组织的协议。直到第二次世界大战后，特别是 1947 年关贸总协定（GATT）以及后来 1995 年世界贸易组织（WTO）的成立，自由贸易协定才开始作为促进国际贸易的重要手段得到广泛应用。这些协定和组织旨在减少关税和非关税贸易壁垒，促进公平竞争，并建立解决贸易争端的法律框架。因此，虽然自由贸易的理念在 20 世纪中叶之前就已经存在并引起了争论，但在世界经济史的后期，利用自由贸易协定作为促进自由贸易和规避保护主义措施的主要工具却占据了主导地位。

19 世纪末，保护主义是许多国家的普遍经济政策。这种做法涉及采取各种措施，包括征收关税、设定配额和建立其他贸易壁垒，以限制进口。保护主义的主要目的是保护国内产业免受外国产品的竞争。这种做法基于这样一种信念，即本地产业，特别是那些新兴或欠发达的产业，需要得到保护，以抵御外国公司的竞争，因为外国公司往往更先进、更具竞争力。通过税收和关税提高进口产品的成本，使本地产品变得相对便宜，从而对国内消费者更具吸引力。保护主义也被视为支持国民经济的一种方式。通过扶持本地产业，政府希望刺激国内生产，创造就业机会，促进经济自给自足。保护主义还通过对进口产品征收关税为国家创造收入。然而，尽管保护主义的初衷是支持民族工业，但它也有其弊端。它可能导致消费者成本上升、选择减少，从长远来看，还可能因保护本地产业免受激励改进和创新所需的竞争而扼杀本地产业的创新和效率。

在保护主义盛行的 19 世纪末，我们今天所知的自由贸易协定（FTAs）还不是减少贸易壁垒的常用工具。当时，各国倾向于采用其他方法来促进国际贸易和减少贸易壁垒。双边贸易谈判是一种常见的方法。这些谈判涉及两国之间降低关税和相互开放市场的直接协议。这些协议可能仅限于某些产品或部门，也可能涵盖更广泛的商品和服务。除这些双边谈判外，一些国家还探索了更具全球性的经济合作形式。这包括建立自由贸易区，即某一特定地区的几个国家同意减少或消除它们之间的贸易壁垒。同样，关税同盟也是另一种合作形式，成员国不仅消除彼此之间的贸易壁垒，还对非成员国征收共同的对外关税。这些不同的方法反映了人们日益认识到国际贸易的重要性，即使是在普遍实行保护主义的环境中。虽然保护主义盛行，但人们对促进贸易和经济合作的方式越来越感兴趣，尽管这些努力往往受到国家保护主义政策和个别国家相互竞争的经济利益的制约。

在多种因素的推动下，19 世纪末出现了明显的保护主义趋势。一方面，人们强烈希望支持国内产业，特别是那些处于发展阶段或面临外国产品激烈竞争的产业。保护本地工业被视为通过创造就业机会和促进工业自给自足来刺激经济增长的一种方式。对外国竞争的担忧也在这种保护主义趋势中发挥了重要作用。许多人担心，向通常以较低成本生产的外国产品开放市场会损害国内生产商的利益。因此，高关税和进口配额等措施被用来限制这种竞争的影响。然而，20 世纪初，世界贸易政策逐渐发生了变化。自由贸易的理念开始流行起来，其经济论据是，降低贸易壁垒将鼓励更有效的资源配置，刺激创新，并通过降低价格和提供更多选择使消费者受益。在向更自由的贸易政策转变的过程中，关税逐步降低，各国市场向国际贸易进一步开放。人们日益认识到国际贸易的经济效益，而且全球环境不断变化，经济合作和多边贸易协定开始被视为确保全球经济繁荣和稳定的重要手段，这一切都鼓励了自由贸易的发展。

科布登-切瓦利埃条约：自由贸易的转折点

1860 年英国和法国签署的《科布登-谢瓦利埃条约》是欧洲自由贸易史上的一个重要里程碑。该条约尤其值得一提，因为它标志着当时欧洲贸易政策的一个决定性转折点，为该地区减少贸易壁垒和采取更广泛的自由贸易政策铺平了道路。该条约以英国议员理查德-科布登和法国部长米歇尔-谢瓦利埃的名字命名，在多个方面具有创新性。它大大降低了两国间各种商品的关税，鼓励了双向贸易。最重要的是，该条约引入了 "最惠国待遇"（MFN）的概念，即一个国家给予一个国家的贸易优惠必须扩大到所有其他国家。这有助于创造一个更加平等和可预测的贸易环境。科布登-切瓦利埃条约》产生了重大影响。它不仅刺激了英国和法国之间的贸易，还成为欧洲其他自由贸易协定的典范。在随后的几年里，其他几个欧洲国家也缔结了类似的协议，推动了该地区自由贸易趋势的增长。通过开放市场和降低关税，英国和法国树立了榜样，在促进欧洲国际贸易和经济合作方面发挥了关键作用。因此，《科布登-谢瓦利埃条约》被视为经济史上的关键时刻，标志着向自由贸易迈出了重要一步，并影响了未来几十年的欧洲贸易政策。

1860 年签署《科布登-谢瓦利埃条约》时，欧洲正处于保护主义倾向的主导下。许多国家积极寻求保护本国的新生产业和发展中产业，使其免受外国进口产品的竞争。这种做法被广泛视为支持国民经济和促进工业化的一种手段。在此背景下，《科布登-谢瓦利埃条约》代表着与现行保护主义政策的重大决裂。通过承诺大幅降低一系列产品的关税并取消部分关税，英国和法国毅然决然地选择了不同的方向，接受了自由贸易的原则。该条约不仅标志着这两个经济大国在贸易关系上迈出了一大步，也为其他欧洲国家树立了先例。除了降低关税，该条约还为英法两国更紧密的贸易合作建立了框架，为进一步的经济一体化奠定了基础。该条约最具创新性和影响力的一点是采用了 "最惠国待遇 "原则，规定一国给予另一国的任何贸易优惠都应扩大到所有其他国家。这一条款对国际贸易产生了深远影响，因为它鼓励采取更公平、更透明的贸易政策。因此，《科布登-切瓦利埃条约》为欧洲贸易关系的新时代铺平了道路，对欧洲各国随后几十年的贸易政策产生了重大影响，并推动了该地区逐步走向自由贸易的趋势。

科布登-谢瓦利埃条约》对英国和法国之间的贸易产生了重大影响，并为欧洲和欧洲以外的其他自由贸易协定树立了典范。该条约于 1860 年签署，以其主要起草人英国政治家理查德-科布登和法国经济学家米歇尔-谢瓦利埃的名字命名。两人都是自由贸易的狂热支持者，他们的合作促成了最早的现代贸易协定之一。通过降低两国之间的关税，该条约不仅刺激了双边贸易，还鼓励了更大的经济开放。这导致货物贸易大幅增长，促进了英国和法国之间的货物流动。受益行业包括英国纺织业和法国葡萄酒生产商等。除了对英法贸易的直接影响，《科布登-谢瓦利埃条约》还产生了更广泛的影响。该条约成为其他自由贸易协定的典范，表明减少贸易壁垒有利于国家经济。其他欧洲国家受到这一范例的启发，纷纷寻求缔结类似的协定，从而推动了该地区逐步走向自由贸易的趋势。条约中采用的 "最惠国待遇 "原则也对国际贸易惯例产生了持久影响。通过确保给予一国的贸易优惠也能惠及其他国家，该原则营造了一个更加公平、更可预测的贸易环境，从而鼓励了更广泛的国际经济合作。科布登-切瓦利埃条约》被视为国际贸易史上的关键时刻，标志着走向自由贸易的转折点，并在随后的岁月里对欧洲和世界贸易政策产生了重大影响。

跨国公司的发展

19 世纪和 20 世纪初，跨国公司的崛起标志着全球经济格局的一个重要转折点。然而，尽管这些公司不断扩张，影响力与日俱增，它们也未能幸免于当时盛行的保护主义政策。保护主义的特点是实施关税、配额和其他贸易壁垒，目的是保护国内产业免受外国竞争的影响，跨国公司在不同国家开展业务时，不得不绕过这些复杂的监管水域。跨国公司直接受到关税和非关税壁垒的影响。高关税会大大增加其产品在国外市场的成本，降低其竞争力。同样，进口配额和严格的法规也会限制它们进入某些市场。这些障碍迫使他们投资于本地生产和分销战略，增加了他们的运营成本，需要不断调整。为了克服这些挑战，跨国公司往往不得不制定适应战略，如与当地公司建立伙伴关系，在目标国家建立生产基地，或根据当地市场的具体要求调整产品。尽管存在这些困难，一些跨国公司还是有足够的影响力与当地政府谈判达成有利条 件，尽管这取决于每个国家的政治和经济背景，差别很大。19 世纪末 20 世纪初，尽管跨国公司在全球经济中发挥着越来越重要的作用，但它们也面临着国际贸易环境限制的挑战。它们的扩张和成功需要不断适应并采用创新战略，才能在保护主义的复杂环境中茁壮成长。

19 世纪末 20 世纪初，全球化和贸易政策自由化的不断推进极大地促进了跨国公司的发展。这一时期，世界经济逐渐走向更加开放和一体化的环境，为国际贸易和投资提供了新的机遇。推动市场全球化的因素很多，其中包括运输和通信技术的进步，这降低了国际贸易的成本和有形障碍。此外，铁路和汽船等运输基础设施的扩建也促进了货物的跨境流动。与此同时，贸易政策自由化的趋势开始出现，逐渐挑战了主导世界经济的保护主义原则。尽管保护主义仍在广泛推行，但支持自由贸易的运动开始获得影响力，特别是在英国与法国签订《科布登-谢瓦利埃条约》等协定之后。市场的逐步开放和贸易限制的减少为跨国公司创造了更有利的环境，使它们能够扩大业务范围并进入新的市场。经济一体化的加强被视为打破了以往的保护主义政策，为一个更加畅通的跨境贸易和投资时代铺平了道路。跨国公司的崛起与全球经济转型时期相吻合，并得到了这一时期的支持，其特点是市场更加开放，经济一体化程度不断提高。这为企业提供了向境外扩张的新机遇，在塑造现代全球经济方面发挥了至关重要的作用。

随着跨国公司（MNCs）在全球范围内的扩张，它们能够利用规模经济的优势，进入新的市场，增强与当地企业竞争的能力。面对保护主义政策，这种国际扩张给了跨国公司一些喘息的空间，使它们能够打入新的市场，获得以前无法进入的新的供应来源。庞大的国际网络使跨国公司能够实现原材料和生产来源的多样化，减少对特定市场或供应商的依赖。此外，通过在多个国家建立生产基地，跨国公司可以直接在其希望销售的国家进行生产，从而规避某些进口关税和限制。然而，即使进行了这种国际扩张，跨国公司在其开展业务的不同国家仍然受到各种法规和限制的制约。它们必须不断适应当地的立法和监管框架，而各国的立法和监管框架可能有很大差异。这不仅包括关税和贸易法，还包括外国投资法规、环境和劳工标准以及税法。

19 世纪末 20 世纪初，大公司、寡头垄断企业和跨国公司的出现标志着全球经济格局发生了重大变化。面对保护主义政策，这些公司制定了创新战略，以维持和扩大其在国际市场上的存在。其中一项战略就是不通过出口产品，而是直接在目标国家建立自己的企业，从而规避保护主义。比利时的 Cockerill 公司就是这种方法的一个显著例子。在俄罗斯，贸易壁垒可能会阻碍其活动或使其成本增加，但 Cockerill 公司并没有局限于向俄罗斯出口，而是选择在俄罗斯当地建立自己的企业。通过在俄罗斯境内建立生产基地，该公司可以直接向俄罗斯市场销售产品，而不必跨越与进口相关的海关和贸易壁垒。这种本地化生产战略不仅可以绕过关税和其他贸易限制，还提供了许多其他优势。它使企业更接近目标市场，降低物流成本，更容易适应当地消费者的喜好和要求。此外，通过在当地设立机构，公司可以为东道国的经济做出贡献，例如创造就业机会和投资当地基础设施，这也可以促进与当地政府和社区的关系。在保护主义政策的背景下，跨国公司寻求扩大影响力和有效进入外国市场，在当地设点成为一项重要战略。这种方法在商业全球化中发挥了至关重要的作用，并帮助塑造了现代国际经济。

19 世纪末 20 世纪初，商业的性质和结构发生了重大转变。许多大公司发展成为资本主义实体，其结构为公共有限公司，并在证券交易所上市。这标志着与传统商业模式的重大差异，在传统商业模式中，公司通常由创始人的家族拥有并直接管理。在此期间，这些公司通过向公众出售股份，获得了更多的资本。这一变化促进了企业的大幅扩张，使这些公司能够在发展、创新和地域扩张方面进行大规模投资。与此同时，企业管理变得更加专业化，需要专业技能来管理日益复杂和广泛的业务，这与前几代人的家族式管理形成了鲜明对比。此外，股票市场上市和股东多元化也导致家族所有权大幅稀释。创始人及其后代发现自己在公司中的股份减少了，而所有权现在分散到了更多的股东手中。这种形式的公司还具有有限责任的优势，这是吸引投资者的一个重要因素。这种转变在一定程度上是对市场扩大和竞争加剧的回应。公司需要更大的灵活性和财务资源，才能在瞬息万变的商业环境中保持竞争力。在这一时期，企业的性质发生了根本性的变化，从以家族和地方结构为主转变为大型资本主义实体，由专业人士管理，并得到众多股东的资金支持。这一演变对现代经济格局的形成起到了关键作用，其特点是大型企业在全球范围内运营。

无产阶级的形成

工业革命标志着许多社会的社会和经济结构发生了深刻而迅速的变化。随着工厂和工业化的兴起，在这些新兴工业部门就业的人数大幅增加。这导致了工人阶级的大幅增长，其主要原因是新兴工业提供的就业机会吸引了农村地区和其他行业的人口向城市迁移。与此同时，工业革命还出现了一个新的工业资本家阶层。这些人拥有工厂、机器和其他生产资料，成为经济的主要力量。工业化使他们的财富和权力成倍增长。然而，这一时期的经济转型也为这两个阶级之间的冲突创造了肥沃的土壤。一方面，工人或工人阶级争取更高的工资、更安全的工作条件和对自身权利的尊重。面对漫长而疲惫的工作日、低工资和往往危险的工作条件，他们开始组织起来要求改善。

另一方面，工业资本家自然而然地追求利润最大化，这往往意味着生产成本（包括劳动力成本）最小化。这种利益分歧导致了所谓的阶级斗争，这是工业革命历史的基本动力。这种阶级斗争是现代工人运动发展的主要动力。工人们成立了工会和其他形式的集体组织来争取自己的权利，从而导致了重大的社会改革和保护工人的法律的出台。因此，这一时期为延续至今的工人权利斗争奠定了基础，凸显了现代经济中劳动与资本之间复杂的动态关系。

城市和工业区：工人阶级的摇篮

城市和工业区是工业革命的核心，作为工人阶级的摇篮发挥着至关重要的作用。这些地区提供了必要的基础设施和就业机会，吸引了大量人口涌入工厂、写字楼和其他类型的工业。大量工人涌入这些地区，不仅改变了城市面貌，也塑造了当时的社会和经济动态。在这些城市和工业中心，工人的高密度创造了一个有利于工人阶级形成社区和团结的环境。工人们的生活和工作条件往往十分艰苦，而且彼此距离很近，他们有着共同的经历、挑战和愿望。这种近距离有助于形成集体认同感和同志情谊，对工人的组织和动员至关重要。

此外，城市和工业区往往是工会活动频繁的温床。工会在组织工人、维护工人权利和改善工人工作条件方面发挥着重要作用。这些组织是工人代表、集体谈判，有时甚至是抗议和罢工行动的平台。这些地区的工会运动不仅有助于改善具体的工作条件，还在制定社会政策和劳动法方面发挥了重要作用。通过集体行动，工人们能够施加相当大的影响，推动立法改革，逐步改善工作条件，实行公平工资，加强职业保障。城市和工业区是工人阶级发展和巩固的催化剂。城市和工业区不仅为工业工作提供了物质环境，也是阶级意识、工人团结和工会运动兴起的场所，因此在劳工和工人权利史上发挥着决定性作用。

工业革命是一个深刻的社会变革时期，其特点是工人阶级的出现和壮大，以及新的工业资本家阶层的形成。这些发展导致形成了具有各自文化和生活方式的独特社会群体。在工厂和工业中，来自不同背景的人们聚集在一起工作。这种汇聚形成了独特的工人阶级文化，它由工人的经历、斗争和共同愿望塑造而成。在这种工业环境中，工人们往往有着相似的生活和工作条件，面临着诸如工时长、工资低、工作条件不安全或不健康等挑战。这些集体经历增强了工人的共同认同感，以及以团结、正义和公平为核心的共同价值观和信念。工人团结体系的发展在加强这种工人阶级文化方面发挥了至关重要的作用。面对逆境和共同的挑战，工人们往往成立工会和其他类型的组织，以相互支持。这些组织不仅是争取更好工资和工作条件的手段，也是发展工人阶级社区和文化的论坛。通过这些工会和组织，工人们能够集体表达自己的意见，捍卫自己的权益，并在社会中发挥更大的影响力。这种工人阶级文化及其价值观、传统和组织形式是工业革命的核心要素。它不仅影响了工人的日常生活，还对工业社会的社会和政治发展产生了重大影响。这种文化的形成和巩固在劳动史上发挥了至关重要的作用，标志着阶级意识的萌发以及工人为争取权利和尊严而进行的持续斗争。

在工业革命期间，工人集体意识的形成是一个至关重要的发展。面对工作条件不稳定、工资不足和权利缺失等共同挑战，工人开始形成认同感和共同利益。这种集体意识受到他们在工厂和行业中所面临的日常斗争的强烈影响和强化。随着时间的推移，这些共同的经历在工人中形成了共同的社会斗争史。由于意识到自身的地位和权利，工人们越来越多地组织起来捍卫自己的利益。这种组织往往表现为工会和其他工人团体的成立，它们为团结、集体谈判，有时甚至是抗议和罢工行动提供了平台。这些集体运动在争取改善工作条件、更公平的工资和承认工人权利的斗争中至关重要。因此，集体意识和共同的社会斗争历史在现代工人运动的发展中发挥了关键作用。这场运动不仅寻求改善工人的具体条件，还推动了更广泛的社会和政治变革，争取改革，最终建立了一个更加公平和公正的社会。归根结底，工人集体意识的萌发及其社会斗争史是塑造现代社会和政治格局的推动力，在劳工和工人权利史上留下了永恒的印记。

工人阶级的组织

阶级斗争的结构和发展

The development of socialist thought in the 1840s is closely linked to the ideas of Karl Marx, a German philosopher and economist whose theories were profoundly influenced by the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism. Marx criticised the capitalist system, which he saw as based on the exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production, the capitalists. In his view, this exploitation was the source of profound social and economic injustice. Marx advocated a radical change in the way society was organised. He envisaged a socialist system in which the means of production would be collectively owned by the workers, rather than by a capitalist class. In such a system, production would be organised according to the needs of society, not the pursuit of profit. The wealth generated by collective labour would be distributed more fairly, putting an end to the polarisation of wealth and class struggle.

Marx's ideas had a considerable impact on socialist thought and on the formation of workers' movements. He laid the theoretical foundations of the struggle for a more just and egalitarian society, influencing many socialist movements and political parties around the world. His writings, in particular the "Communist Manifesto" co-authored with Friedrich Engels, and "Capital", offered a critical analysis of capitalism and a vision of a socialist alternative. Marx's influence was not limited to his own time, but continues to shape contemporary political thought and action. His theories on capitalism, class struggle and social revolution remain important references for critics of the current economic system and for those seeking to promote wider social and economic change.

The year 1848 marked a historic turning point in Europe, characterised by a series of radical revolutions that challenged the existing political and social order. These revolutions, known as the Springtime of the Peoples, were motivated by a complex combination of factors, such as economic inequality, political repression and the desire for national unity. These uprisings took place against a backdrop of deep social and economic tensions in Europe. Rapid industrialisation and the development of capitalism had created great disparities in wealth and difficult living conditions for the working class. At the same time, the political regimes of the time, often absolute monarchies or oligarchies, were seen as out of touch with the realities and aspirations of the people. One of the most significant aspects of the revolutions of 1848 was the emergence and spread of new political ideologies, such as socialism and republicanism. These ideas offered an alternative vision of the established political and social order, advocating greater equality, democratic participation and the sovereignty of the people. The revolutions saw many republican activists mobilise to promote their ideas. In many cases, these uprisings succeeded in overthrowing existing monarchical regimes and establishing republican governments, although many of these new regimes were short-lived. However, the impact of these revolutions was long-lasting. They helped to popularise republican ideas and paved the way for the adoption of more democratic and republican forms of government in many European countries. The year 1848 was a period of major upheaval and change in Europe. The revolutions not only highlighted the economic and political challenges of the time, but also marked a milestone in the struggle for a more just and democratic society, leaving a profound legacy that has shaped the political and social future of Europe.

The year 1848 was marked by the publication of the "Manifesto of the Communist Party", written by the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This document became one of the most influential political treatises of the 19th century, exerting a profound impact on the political and social landscape well beyond that period. The Communist Manifesto presents a critical analysis of capitalism and its social implications. In it, Marx and Engels describe how capitalism, characterised by relations of production based on private property and the pursuit of profit, generates class conflict and exploits the working class. The manifesto puts forward the idea that this class struggle is the driving force of history and that it will inevitably lead to proletarian revolution. The authors argued for the establishment of a socialist society, in which the means of production would be owned collectively, rather than by a capitalist class. They imagine a society where production would be organised to meet the needs of the community rather than to maximise private profit, and where wealth would be distributed more fairly. Published in the midst of the revolutions of 1848, the 'Manifesto' resonated with the aspirations and struggles of the working classes and socialist movements across Europe. Its ideas helped shape political debate and inspired generations of activists and political thinkers. The "Manifesto" was not only a critique of capitalism, but also a call to action, urging workers to mobilise for social and economic change. In the decades that followed, the ideas of Marx and Engels continued to influence many social and political movements. The "Manifesto of the Communist Party" thus became a founding work for many socialist and communist movements, playing a decisive role in the development of left-wing political thought.

The decade of the 1860s was a period of major upheaval and change throughout the world, marked by important political and social movements that profoundly influenced the course of history. In the United States, the American Civil War, which lasted from 1861 to 1865, was a crucial event, leading to the abolition of slavery. This war not only transformed American society, but also had international repercussions, influencing discussions on human rights and social justice. In Europe, the rise of the labour movement was a major development during this period. The creation of trade unions and other workers' organisations marked a significant step forward in the struggle for fairer working conditions, more equitable wages and better social protection, helping to improve the lives of the working classes. Meanwhile, in Japan, the Meiji Restoration, which began in 1868, signalled the start of an era of rapid modernisation and industrialisation. This process of transformation not only altered Japan's economic landscape, but also laid the foundations for its rise as a world power. In Italy, the unification of the country, completed in 1871, was a landmark event, symbolising the formation of a new nation state after centuries of division and foreign domination. At the same time, the rise of socialist and communist ideas challenged the structures of the capitalist economic system, proposing alternative visions for a more just and equitable society. Overall, the decade of the 1860s was a period of great upheaval and change, marked by a challenge to the existing social, political and economic order. These events shaped not only the regions concerned, but also had a lasting impact on global dynamics, influencing the pursuit of a more just and equitable society worldwide.

Structuring social conflicts

A strike is collective action by a group of workers who stop work in order to put pressure on their employer to meet certain demands. These demands may vary, but they often concern crucial issues such as better pay, improved working conditions or job security. Strike action is a powerful tool in the hands of workers, allowing them to demonstrate their collective strength. When a group of workers goes on strike, they interrupt their daily work, which can significantly affect the employer's operations. This interruption is designed to show the employer the importance of the role played by the workers and the seriousness of their concerns. By depriving the employer of the manpower needed for production or service, the workers hope to push the employer to negotiate and respond positively to their demands. Strike action is also a way for workers to show their solidarity in the face of a common problem. By acting together, they demonstrate their unity and commitment to their demands, thereby strengthening their position in negotiations with the employer. This form of protest has played a crucial role in the history of the labour movement, contributing to many improvements in the rights and working conditions of employees around the world.

Strike action, as a tactic of workers' protest, can take different forms, each adapted to specific objectives and particular contexts. Collective walkout is a direct and visible form of strike action where workers leave their workplace together. This action has an immediate and obvious impact on production or services, marking a clear break in the company's normal activities. It is an effective way for workers to show their solidarity and the seriousness of their concerns. Another form of strike is a reduction in productivity, sometimes called a work-to-rule strike. In this case, workers continue to report to work but deliberately reduce their work rate or efficiency. This method may involve scrupulously following all rules and regulations, thus slowing down the production process. Although more subtle, this form of strike can be effective in disrupting operations without stopping work altogether. Rotating strikes involve successive work stoppages by different groups of workers. This approach allows pressure to be maintained on the employer over an extended period, with different groups of workers striking at different times. A general strike is a broader action, involving workers from several industries or sectors. It is a large-scale demonstration that often goes beyond the boundaries of a single company or industry, affecting a large part of the economy and having significant societal implications. Finally, a walkout is a short strike, usually lasting a few hours. This form of strike aims to draw attention to specific demands without a prolonged stoppage of work. It can serve as a warning signal to the employer about workers' concerns. Each of these forms of strike action represents a different strategy that workers can use to assert their rights and fight for better working conditions. They reflect the diversity of methods available to workers to express their discontent and to negotiate change with their employers.

The emergence of the labour movement has been a gradual and complex process, faced with various challenges of structuring and organisation. Switzerland, for example, illustrates this progression well, with a significant increase in the number of work-related disputes between the periods before 1880 and between 1880 and 1914. The rise in the number of disputes in a predominantly urban population reflects the increase in industrial tensions and the rise in class consciousness among workers. Before 1880, with 135 recorded conflicts, the labour movement in Switzerland, as in many other regions, was in its early stages of development. Workers were only just beginning to organise and fight for their rights and interests. However, towards the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, the labour movement gained in strength and organisation, as evidenced by the considerably increased number of conflicts (1426 between 1880 and 1914). This increase indicates an intensification of workers' demands and a better organisation of workers. Despite the rise of these movements and the spread of socialist and communist ideas, advocated by theorists such as Karl Marx, a communist revolution as imagined by Marx did not take place in Eastern Europe, nor in most other parts of Europe. Several factors can explain this absence of communist revolution. Among these, the ability of governments and employers to bring about gradual reforms, thus mitigating some of the most pressing demands of workers, played an important role. In addition, cultural, economic and political differences across Europe led to a diversity of approaches in the workers' struggle, rather than a unified revolutionary movement.

The Geneva tram workers' strike of 1902, involving the Compagnie Générale des Tramways Électriques (CGTE), nicknamed "Madame sans-gêne", was a significant episode in the history of the Swiss labour movement. The dispute, which arose from an impasse between CGTE management and the workers' union, erupted against a backdrop of growing tensions caused by unsatisfactory working conditions, low wages and authoritarian management of the company. The workers, demanding a pay rise and better working conditions, were met with refusal from management, leading to the declaration of strike action on 30 August. The strike had an immediate impact on CGTE operations, paralysing the tram network. The situation escalated with retaliatory dismissals by the CGTE, exacerbating tensions and calling into question the effectiveness of the Geneva law of 1900, which provided for arbitration by the Council of State in the event of a dispute between employers and workers. Despite the CGTE leadership's demand that the strike be deemed illegal and that arbitration be requested, the strike continued until 28 September, before resuming and continuing until 15 October. State and military intervention was necessary to maintain order and protect CGTE operations. In the end, the union managed to negotiate some gains, although the strike ended with some dismissed workers not being rehired, leaving a sense of injustice. The strike illustrated the challenges faced by workers in their struggle for better wages and working conditions at the dawn of the 20th century and highlighted the potential role of the state in mediating industrial disputes, as well as the difficulties faced by unions in protecting their members. It has become a symbol of the struggle for workers' rights, underlining the importance of constructive dialogue between the parties and the need for effective government intervention to ensure fair working conditions and resolve industrial disputes.

The 1902 strike in Geneva, which had initially broken out within the Compagnie Générale des Tramways Électriques (CGTE), took on an even more significant dimension when it was temporarily suspended before resuming a month later. This renewal of the strike developed into a broader solidarity movement, involving a large part of the working population of the canton of Geneva. This extension of the strike revealed the depth and breadth of social tensions and the solidarity of workers across the canton. The political context played an important role in the development of the strike. A recently enacted law on collective disputes, which required compulsory arbitration before a strike could be called, was a point of contention. Some workers and unions opposed the law, seeing it as a restriction on their right to strike. The American director of the CGTE, Bradford, was a central figure in this conflict. His management of the dispute and his attitude towards the workers were perceived as confrontational and unpopular, which contributed to hostility towards the company, nicknamed "Madame Sans-Gêne". The conflict was finally resolved through negotiation and the intervention of the Council of State. However, the terms of the agreement did not fully satisfy the workers' demands. Although some of their demands were taken into account, some of the dismissals carried out during the strike were upheld, leaving the workers with a feeling of injustice. This strike marked a crucial moment in the history of the labour movement in Geneva, demonstrating not only the ability of workers to unite and fight for their rights, but also the complexities and challenges associated with negotiating labour disputes in a context of changing laws and regulations.

The 1902 strike in Geneva, a crucial conflict in the history of the Swiss labour movement, was marked by episodes of violence and repression, illustrating the deep-rooted tensions between workers and the authorities. Clashes between strikers and the forces of law and order, including police and military troops, resulted in numerous injuries and arrests, testifying to the intensity of the conflict. Triggered by a disagreement over wages and working conditions at the Compagnie Genevoise de Tramways et d'Électricité (CGTE), the strike ended without a clear victory for the workers. Employees dismissed during the strike were not reinstated, and some union leaders were prosecuted. These outcomes represented significant setbacks for the labour movement. The strike also had significant political repercussions. It contributed to the disintegration of an alliance between the socialist and radical parties, marking a period of transition in Geneva's political landscape. This period was characterised by a decline in the commitment of Genevan radicalism to social issues, signalling a change in local political dynamics. However, despite these negative results, the 1902 strike had symbolic importance for the working class. It was seen as a defence of workers' dignity and played a crucial role in consolidating local trade unions. The strike also clarified the roles and positions of the different political forces regarding labour issues and workers' rights. Although the strike did not result in tangible gains for workers, it marked an important moment in the struggle for the recognition of workers' rights in Geneva, helping to shape the evolution of the labour movement and the political landscape in the region.

The perception of the 1902 strike in Geneva by the right illustrates the polarisation of opinions on workers' movements and strike action in general. For right-wing parties and individuals, the strike was often seen as an attack on democracy and the established order. This view is representative of a conservative tendency to value stability, public order and social hierarchy, seeing any form of labour protest, particularly when accompanied by violence or significant disruption, as a threat to these principles. For the right, actions such as strikes, especially when they become confrontational and disruptive, are often seen as unacceptable challenges to legitimate authority and the economic structure. In the context of the CGTE strike, where violence and repression were present, these concerns were probably exacerbated. Members of the right could have interpreted these events as a sign of social disorder and a challenge to law and order, essential to a functional and democratic society from their perspective. This divergence of opinion on the strike and workers' movements reflects fundamentally different conceptions of social justice, workers' rights and the role of the state in mediating economic and social conflict. For the right, preserving stability and the status quo can often be seen as more important than workers' demands, especially if those demands are presented in a way that disrupts public order or challenges the authority of existing structures.

The Waldeck-Rousseau law

Pierre Waldeck-Rousseau photographed by Nadar.

The Waldeck-Rousseau law, adopted in France in March 1884, represents a significant turning point in the history of French workers' rights. Named after the Prime Minister of the time, Pierre Waldeck-Rousseau, the main aim of this series of laws was to improve workers' rights while rebalancing power relations between employees and employers. This legislation introduced fundamental provisions that changed the dynamics of work in France. Among the most notable was the legalisation of trade unions. Prior to this legislation, trade unions in France often faced legal restrictions and repression. With this law, workers gained the legal right to form trade unions, enabling them to bargain collectively and fight more effectively for their rights and interests. The Waldeck-Rousseau law also included provisions on the right to strike, officially recognising this means of protest as a legitimate tool for workers seeking to assert their demands. In addition to these aspects, the law brought in regulations on working hours and conditions, helping to improve the general working environment.

The law was aimed at all professional groups, not just employees' unions. This broadened its impact, allowing for greater organisation and representation in various professional sectors. Considered a major victory for the labour movement in France, the Waldeck-Rousseau law marked an important step towards recognising and strengthening workers' rights in the country. It laid the foundations for modern labour relations in France and played a crucial role in promoting social justice and fairness in the world of work.

The Waldeck-Rousseau law represented a major development in workers' rights, although it did not specifically repeal the Le Chapelier law of 1791. The Le Chapelier law, introduced shortly after the French Revolution, had banned guilds and any form of professional association or trade union, severely restricting workers' rights to organise and take collective action. The Waldeck-Rousseau law, introduced almost a century later, marked a decisive turning point in legislation on workers' rights in France. Although it did not explicitly repeal the Le Chapelier law, it did introduce new provisions that enabled the legal formation of trade unions. The law gave workers the right to organise themselves into professional associations, paving the way for collective bargaining and the right to strike under certain conditions. This legislative change marked an important step in weakening the restrictions imposed by the Le Chapelier law and represented a significant advance in the recognition of workers' rights. The Waldeck-Rousseau law is therefore regarded as a milestone in the history of the labour movement in France, laying the foundations for modern industrial relations and labour legislation in the country.

The Waldeck-Rousseau law represented a historic turning point in France, marking the legalisation of the formation of trade unions. This legislation was a crucial element in a European context where, towards the end of the 19th century, countries gradually began to recognise and authorise trade unions despite an increase in social conflicts. The emergence of trade unions considerably transformed the way strikes were organised and conducted. As organisations representing the interests of workers, trade unions play a central role in negotiations with employers. Their presence enables workers to pool their resources and exert collective strength, strengthening their ability to negotiate better pay, improved working conditions and other benefits. Unions have also brought a dimension of regulation and discipline to the organisation of strikes. They don't just organise strikes; they structure them, coordinate them and ensure that they are conducted in an effective and orderly manner. This coordinated approach makes strikes more effective, as unions can bring together large numbers of workers and negotiate with employers in a unified way. Unions also provide vital support to striking workers, whether in the form of financial assistance or solidarity actions. The institutionalisation of disputes by the unions has also helped to make them more controlled and reasonable. This has made workers' demands more credible and rationalised, encouraging more constructive dialogue with employers and the authorities. In short, the emergence of trade unions has been a determining factor in the evolution of industrial relations, playing an essential role in the organisation, management and success of strike action.

The acculturation hypothesis

The acculturation hypothesis in the context of trade unions offers an interesting perspective on how these organisations can influence the culture and values of a society. This theory suggests that trade unions, by bringing together workers from diverse backgrounds and mobilising them around common goals, play an important role in disseminating progressive values and ideas within society. By encouraging solidarity and developing a shared identity among their members, trade unions help to create a space where individuals can be exposed to new ideas and perspectives. This exposure can lead to a change in the personal cultural values of union members. For example, notions such as equity, social justice and workers' rights can be reinforced and promoted within the group. Furthermore, the acculturation hypothesis implies that unions, in representing their members, also integrate certain values traditionally associated with the bourgeoisie, such as order and stability. This process of integration can lead to a balance where progressive values are mixed with a degree of respect for existing structures and norms. This allows trade unions to be both agents of change and stabilisers within society. In this way, unions are not limited to negotiating wages and working conditions; they can also play a key role in shaping social and cultural attitudes. Over time, this can lead to a wider adoption of progressive values in society at large, influencing not only the workplace but also the wider social and cultural fabric.

Criticisms that trade unions have become 'bourgeoisised' reflect a serious concern about the way in which these organisations represent workers' interests. These critics argue that trade unions, over time, have moved away from their original mission of defending the rights of the working class to focus more on protecting the interests of their existing members. This is seen as a departure from the ideal of fighting for equality and social justice for all workers. According to this perspective, by focusing on the needs of their members, unions have neglected the struggles and needs of the wider working class, particularly those of non-unionised workers or those in less organised sectors. This would have led to a certain disconnection from the realities and challenges facing the working class as a whole, with unions becoming more preoccupied with maintaining their own power and influence. Another criticism raises the issue of the closeness between unions and political parties or other organisations. This proximity is seen as having potentially undermined the independence of unions, making them less effective in representing workers' interests impartially and forcefully. Alliances with political parties can lead to unions adopting positions that are more in line with political interests than with the real needs of the workers they represent. These criticisms highlight a wider debate about the role of trade unions in contemporary society and how they can remain true to their founding principles while adapting to an ever-changing economic and social landscape. This is an important issue for trade unions, which must strike a balance between effectively representing their members, maintaining their independence and pursuing their historic mission of promoting social justice for the working class as a whole.

Initiating social policies

In the United Kingdom

Peel's Factory Act of 1802 is considered to be one of the first landmark pieces of social legislation in England. Named after Sir Robert Peel, who was its main promoter, the Act played a pioneering role in regulating working conditions in the textile industry, a key sector of the industrial revolution underway at the time. The background to this legislation was the alarming state of working conditions in textile factories, particularly cotton mills, where workers, including large numbers of children, were subjected to gruelling working hours and dangerous conditions. Peel's Factory Act was designed to improve these conditions by introducing specific standards for the health and safety of workers. One of the key provisions of the Act concerned the limitation of working hours for children. The law stipulated that children should not work more than 12 hours a day, which, although still extreme by modern standards, was a significant improvement on previous working practices. This limitation on children's working hours was an important recognition of the need to protect the most vulnerable workers in factories. Peel's Factory Act of 1802 set an important precedent for future factory safety legislation and marked the first step towards government regulation of working conditions in England. Although limited in scope and effectiveness, it paved the way for further reforms and marked the beginning of an era of more extensive and protective social legislation in the UK.

The Factories Act of 1833 represented a major advance in social and labour legislation in the UK, particularly with regard to the protection of factory workers, and more specifically children. The Act introduced stricter regulations on working conditions in factories, including restrictions on working hours and measures to protect workers' health and safety. One of the most important provisions of the 1833 Act was the establishment of a minimum age for factory work. It prohibited the employment of children under the age of 9 in factories, a measure that recognised the need to protect children from the dangers and abuses associated with industrial work. For children aged between 9 and 13, the law limited working hours to 9 hours a day, a significant restriction compared with previous working practices. For adolescents aged 13 to 18, working hours were limited to 12 hours a day. In addition, the law provided for a one-and-a-half hour break for meals, which was an important advance in terms of working conditions. The law also stipulated that the working day should not begin before 5.30 a.m. and end after 8.30 p.m., thus limiting working hours to a reasonable period of the day. In addition, it prohibited the employment of children at night, a crucial measure for the protection of their health and well-being. These regulations were applied in a wide range of factories, including cotton and wool mills, marking an important step towards improving the rights of factory workers. The Factories Act of 1833 paved the way for subsequent labour legislation in the UK, setting standards that influenced labour legislation in other countries too. The Act therefore played a crucial role in establishing more humane and fair labour standards during the Industrial Revolution.

The Factory Act of 1844, adopted in the United Kingdom, represented a significant step forward in the regulation of working conditions in factories, with particular emphasis on the protection of children and young workers. The Act was a milestone in the development of labour legislation and played a crucial role in defining workers' rights during the Industrial Revolution. The 1844 Act imposed stricter limits on children's working hours. It banned the employment of children under the age of nine in factories, recognising the importance of protecting the youngest members of the workforce. For children aged between nine and thirteen, working hours were limited to eight hours a day. This provision was a significant step forward in reducing the exploitation of children in an industrial working environment. For young workers aged between thirteen and eighteen, the law set a limit of twelve hours' work per day. In addition, it specified that these working hours had to be between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., with shorter hours on Saturdays (6 a.m. to 2 p.m.). These restrictions were designed to protect the health and well-being of young workers, while allowing them time for rest and personal activities. In addition to age limits and time restrictions, the Factory Act of 1844 also introduced improved health and safety regulations for factories. These measures aimed to ensure a safer and healthier working environment for all employees. The Factory Act of 1844 was an important milestone in the history of employment rights in the UK, setting fundamental standards for the protection of the most vulnerable workers and influencing the development of future employment legislation.

The Elementary Education Act 1880, also known as Forster's Education Act, was a crucial milestone in the history of education in the UK. Named after William Forster, who played a key role in its development, the Act marked a significant change in British education policy, laying the foundations for a more inclusive and accessible education system. One of the main aims of the Act was to improve access to education for all children, regardless of their social background. Prior to the Act, education in England was unequal and largely inaccessible to children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Forster Act sought to change this by making elementary education available to all children in the country. The establishment of the first system of publicly funded elementary schools was a major step forward. It created schools where children could receive a basic education, regardless of their parents' ability to pay school fees. This initiative opened the doors of education to a much wider segment of the population. The law also introduced compulsory schooling for children aged between 5 and 10. The aim of this measure was to ensure that all children received a minimum education, which was essential not only for their personal development, but also for the progress of society as a whole. The Elementary Education Act of 1880 was a fundamental step in the democratisation of access to education in the UK. It played a key role in ensuring that education was no longer a privilege reserved for the elite, but a right available to all children, laying the foundations for a fairer and more enlightened society.

In Germany

Otto von Bismarck, as Chancellor of Prussia in the 1880s, played a pioneering role in the development of the first modern welfare state system. The social reforms he implemented were innovative for their time and laid the foundations for modern social security systems.

In 1883, Otto von Bismarck introduced the world's first compulsory health insurance system in Germany, marking a revolutionary step in the social protection of workers. This initiative, part of a package of social reforms, aimed to provide health cover and financial security for workers in the event of illness. The system devised by Bismarck enabled workers to access medical care without being burdened by the costs, thus ensuring that illness did not turn into a financial crisis for workers and their families. At the same time, it provided for financial compensation during periods of inability to work due to illness, ensuring that workers did not lose their entire income during their convalescence. The system was funded by compulsory contributions, shared between employers and employees. This shared funding approach was not only innovative, it also ensured the viability and sustainability of the system. By sharing the costs between the various stakeholders, Bismarck established a model of health cover that was both fair and sustainable. The introduction of health insurance in Germany under Bismarck had a profound impact, not only for German workers but also as a model for other countries. It demonstrated the feasibility and benefits of a publicly funded and regulated health system, laying the foundations for modern public health systems and influencing health and social policies around the world. This reform made a significant contribution to redefining the role of the state in guaranteeing the welfare of its citizens, setting a precedent for future social protection policies.

The introduction of accident insurance in Germany in 1884, at the instigation of Otto von Bismarck, represented another major advance in social legislation at the time. The aim of this reform was to provide additional protection for workers, by offering them compensation for injuries sustained in the course of their work. Prior to this law, workers who were injured in the workplace often found themselves without financial support, which exposed them to significant economic hardship, especially in the event of prolonged inability to work. Accident insurance changed this situation by guaranteeing that injured workers would receive financial compensation to help cover their living expenses and the medical costs associated with their injuries. This insurance operated on the principle of compulsory contributions, to which both employers and employees contributed. This system helped to spread the risks and costs associated with accidents at work, thereby reducing the financial burden on individual workers. The introduction of accident insurance not only provided essential financial security for injured workers, but also encouraged employers to improve workplace safety measures to reduce the frequency of accidents. Indeed, by being financially responsible for accidents, employers had a direct economic interest in maintaining safe working environments. This reform, part of Bismarck's initiatives to establish a social security system in Germany, played a crucial role in the recognition of workers' rights and dignity. It also laid the foundations for modern workers' compensation systems, influencing social protection policies around the world.

In 1889, Otto von Bismarck introduced another essential element as part of his social reforms in Germany: the establishment of old-age pensions. This was an innovative measure aimed at providing financial support for the elderly, recognising the importance of ensuring economic security for citizens in their later years. Prior to the introduction of this reform, many elderly people found themselves in a precarious economic situation once they could no longer work. The lack of financial support meant that older people were often dependent on their families or had to continue working, even when they were no longer physically able to do so. Old-age pensions changed this paradigm by providing a form of income security for the elderly, enabling them to live with dignity without depending entirely on their family or their ability to work. This pension system was financed by contributions from workers and employers, as well as by contributions from the State. This shared funding model reflected the commitment of society as a whole to supporting its older members. By establishing a fixed retirement age and guaranteeing a basic income for the elderly, Bismarck laid the foundations for modern pension systems. The introduction of old-age pensions in Germany under Bismarck was a major step forward in the creation of a comprehensive welfare system and had a significant impact on the way other countries would subsequently approach social security. This reform not only emphasised the importance of caring for the elderly, but also established the principle that social protection is a collective responsibility, a concept at the heart of modern welfare states.

Otto von Bismarck's introduction of health insurance in Germany, first introduced in 1883, was another key component of his social reforms. This insurance was designed to provide medical care not only for workers, but also for their families, marking an important step towards universal access to healthcare. Bismarck's health insurance system provided cover for medical expenses, including visits to the doctor, medicines and, in some cases, hospital treatment. This represented a significant advance at a time when healthcare costs could be prohibitive for average working people and their families. The insurance was funded by a system of contributions, with costs shared between employers, employees and the state. This model of collective financing was innovative for its time and served as a model for public health systems in other countries. The introduction of health insurance had a profound impact on German society. Not only did it improve access to healthcare for large sections of the population, it also helped to improve the overall health and productivity of workers. In addition, it increased the economic security of families by reducing the financial burden of unexpected health expenses. Bismarck's health insurance initiative is often seen as a fundamental step in the development of the modern welfare state, and has played a crucial role in the evolution of public health policies around the world. It demonstrated the importance of a collective approach to managing health risks and established the principle that access to healthcare is an essential social right.

The introduction of the eight-hour working day was a major step forward in improving working conditions for workers, although this reform was not one of the specific social measures initiated by Otto von Bismarck in Germany. The campaign for an eight-hour working day was a worldwide movement that gained momentum towards the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. The idea behind this demand was to divide the 24-hour day fairly into three parts of eight hours each: eight hours of work, eight hours of leisure and eight hours of rest. This reform was intended to replace the long, often exhausting and unhealthy working days that prevailed in industry during the Industrial Revolution. The implementation of the eight-hour working day varied from country to country and from industrial context to industrial context. In the United States, for example, the demand for an eight-hour working day was a central feature of the demonstrations on 1 May 1886, which culminated in the events in Haymarket Square in Chicago. In Europe and elsewhere, similar movements pushed governments to pass laws limiting working hours. The adoption of the eight-hour working day has had a profound effect on working conditions, improving the health and well-being of workers and contributing to a healthier work-life balance. It also played an important role in the organisation of modern work, setting a standard for working hours that is still widely respected today. Although Bismarck was a pioneer in establishing the welfare state and social insurance, the eight-hour working day was the result of separate labour movements and legislative reforms in different countries, reflecting a major shift in attitudes towards work and workers' rights at the turn of the 20th century.

The social reforms undertaken by Otto von Bismarck in the 1880s in Prussia were instrumental in improving the living conditions of the population and established a model for social protection policies worldwide. These reforms, which included the introduction of health insurance, accident insurance and old-age pensions, provided unprecedented protection against the risks associated with illness, accidents at work and old age, thereby significantly improving the quality of life of workers and their families. These initiatives also marked a turning point in social policy, demonstrating that the state could and should play an active role in the social protection of its citizens. Bismarck's approach not only helped to shape the modern welfare state, but also influenced social policy internationally. By recognising the state's responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, Bismarck's reforms encouraged other governments to adopt similar measures, leading to the establishment of more elaborate social security systems in many countries. In this way, Bismarck's social reforms had a profound and lasting impact, not only on Prussian society, but also on the way governments around the world viewed the welfare and protection of their citizens.

In Switzerland

The statement that Switzerland is both "pioneer and laggard" can be interpreted as reflecting the complexity and nuances of its historical development, particularly in terms of social policy and reform. Switzerland's position as both pioneer and laggard is indicative of the unique way in which the country has approached its economic, social and political development. This duality highlights the balance between innovation and tradition, rapid development in some areas and caution or delay in others.

During the 19th century, Switzerland, like many other nations at the time, relied heavily on child labour, particularly in the agricultural and domestic sectors. Hundreds of thousands of Swiss children were routinely sent to work on farms, where they performed a variety of arduous tasks, often under difficult conditions and for little or no pay. Similarly, in the home, children were frequently employed for housework and other forms of manual labour. This practice was widespread at the time, reflecting the social and economic norms of the time, when children's contribution to the family economy was often seen as essential. Faced with this situation, the Swiss government began to recognise the harmful effects of child labour on children's health, education and general development. In response, several laws were passed during the 19th century to protect children's rights and regulate child labour. These laws marked a significant turning point in Swiss labour policy, introducing measures such as restrictions on working hours, bans on work by children under a certain age, and improved standards for working conditions. These legislative reforms in Switzerland were part of a wider movement in Europe and the United States, where voices were increasingly being raised to reform child labour practices. This movement was driven by growing concerns about the welfare of children and recognition of the importance of education. The influence of various groups, including labour movements and children's rights organisations, also played a crucial role in bringing about these changes. Although Switzerland initially resorted to child labour, the country has gradually moved towards better protection of children's rights, reflecting a change in the social perception of child labour and a commitment to the healthy development and education of all children. These reforms marked the beginning of a new era in which children's rights and welfare began to be recognised and protected by law.

From the beginning of the 19th century, Switzerland began to recognise the need to regulate child labour, a major issue at a time when the exploitation of children at work was widespread. Laws passed in 1815 and 1837, particularly in the canton of Zurich, represented important efforts to protect children's rights and safeguard them from exploitation in the world of work. In 1815, Zurich took the pioneering step of banning night work for children and setting a minimum age of nine for work in factories. The law also limited children's working hours to 12 or 14 hours a day. Although these restrictions may seem excessive by today's standards, they were a significant step forward at the time, recognising the need to protect children from the most serious abuses of industrial work. The application of these laws was often uneven and, in practice, many children continued to work in difficult conditions. Despite these shortcomings, the legislation marked the beginning of a more sustained commitment to child protection in Switzerland. In 1837, this trend was reinforced by the adoption of similar laws in other Swiss cantons. These laws gradually broadened the framework of protection for children in the world of work and began to shape a more consistent and humane approach to child labour across the country. These first laws on child labour in Switzerland, although limited in scope and effectiveness, were important steps in the fight against child exploitation. They laid the foundations for future legislation and contributed to the gradual evolution of standards and attitudes towards child labour, not only in Switzerland but throughout Europe.

The laws on adult working hours adopted in Switzerland in 1848 and 1864 were significant milestones in the development of workers' rights and the regulation of the world of work. These laws, which were part of a European context of reforms linked to the Industrial Revolution, reflected a growing awareness of the needs of workers and the importance of labour regulation for their well-being. In 1848, Switzerland passed a law to limit excessive working hours for adults. This legislation was a direct response to the difficult and often dangerous working conditions of the time, characterised by long hours in unhealthy environments. By setting limits on working hours, the 1848 law marked a first step towards improving working conditions and recognising the rights of workers in Swiss industry. The Act of 1864 built on this, making changes and improvements to existing regulations. This could include further reductions in working hours or more effective enforcement of regulations, underlining Switzerland's ongoing commitment to improving working conditions. These adjustments were crucial to ensure that legislative changes were relevant and effective in meeting the challenges of the ever-changing world of work. These laws were important in that they set a precedent for future reforms and highlighted the increasing responsibility of the state in regulating the labour market. Although these reforms did not immediately transform working conditions, they laid the foundations for continued progress towards a more humane and equitable working environment in Switzerland. They also reflected a wider trend in Europe, where governments have begun to recognise the importance of regulating working conditions to protect workers' health and safety.

The Swiss Factory Law of 1877 was a crucial step in legislation designed to protect children from exploitation in the Swiss industrial world. The law was part of a wider European movement to recognise and protect children's rights, particularly in relation to factory work. Prior to the adoption of this law, children were frequently employed in Swiss factories, often in difficult conditions and for long hours. This practice was common in the context of the industrial revolution, when cheap and flexible labour, including children, was widely exploited in the manufacturing sector. The 1877 Act introduced specific regulations to improve working conditions for children in factories. It aimed to limit excessive working hours and ensure that working environments were suitable for children's age and ability. By establishing standards for the employment of children, the law helped to reduce the most flagrant abuses of their exploitation in the industrial sector. The adoption of the Factory Law in 1877 marked Switzerland's recognition of the need to protect children in a rapidly industrialising world. It also emphasised the importance of children's education and welfare, as opposed to their use as labour in conditions that were often detrimental to their healthy development. This law was an important milestone in the history of children's rights in Switzerland, reflecting a change in social and political attitudes towards child labour and laying the foundations for future reforms in this area.

The Swiss Factory Act of 1877 marked a turning point in the protection of children working in industrial environments. By tackling several key aspects of child labour in factories, this legislation played a crucial role in ensuring their safety and well-being. One of the central points of this law was to limit the number of hours children could work. By imposing clear limits, the law aimed to prevent the excessive exploitation of children and to ensure that their workload was compatible with their development and education. This represented a significant step forward in recognising the specific needs of children in terms of work and rest. The law also prohibited the employment of children in conditions considered dangerous. This measure was intended to protect them from the risks inherent in industrial environments, which are often marked by health and safety hazards. In addition, the law stipulated that children should be given sufficient breaks and rest periods, recognising the importance of rest for their physical and mental health. The legislation also included provisions for the supervision of children in factories, ensuring that their work was carried out in suitable and safe conditions. Employers who failed to comply with these standards were liable to penalties, which strengthened the effective application of the law. The Factories Act of 1877 was a major milestone in the development of Swiss legislation on child labour. By addressing issues such as working hours, working conditions, breaks and supervision, this law not only improved the situation of working children in Switzerland, but also reflected a significant change in the way society perceived and treated children in the world of work. The legislation placed a strong emphasis on protecting their health, safety and welfare, setting a precedent for future reforms in this area.

The social situation around 1913

In 1913, just before the outbreak of the First World War, Europe was characterised by profound social and economic inequalities and a notable lack of institutional support for those in need. This period, following the rapid transformations of the industrial revolution, saw large segments of the population living in conditions of poverty. Socio-economic disparities were particularly marked, with a large proportion of the population, especially in urban and industrialised areas, living in precarious conditions. Despite economic and industrial progress, the benefits of this growth were not equitably shared. Many European citizens faced challenges such as substandard housing, limited access to quality education, and a lack of appropriate healthcare. At the same time, government programmes to help those in need were either very limited or non-existent. The structures of the welfare state, as we know them today, were still in the conceptual or initial implementation phase in only a few countries. People who were unable to work, whether elderly, sick or disabled, often found themselves without any social safety net or government support. In this context, reliance on charitable and private organisations was common, but these institutions could not always respond effectively to the scale of need. Their assistance was often uneven and insufficient, leaving many people in precarious situations. What's more, Europe in 1913 was already in the grip of political and military tensions that would soon lead to the First World War. The repercussions of the war would exacerbate existing socio-economic problems, posing even greater challenges for the people of Europe. Europe in 1913 presented a complex social landscape, marked by significant inequalities and a systematic lack of support for the most vulnerable. This period underlined the need for social reform and paved the way for future developments in social welfare and public policy.

Prior to the outbreak of the First World War, European society was characterised by a pronounced lack of social mobility, contributing significantly to the widespread inequality of the time. This period saw the majority of individuals remain in the social class in which they were born, with little chance of moving up or down the social ladder. In this stratified society, the barriers between social classes were deeply entrenched. Education systems, which were largely inaccessible to the lower classes, played a key role in maintaining these barriers. As education was an essential factor in social mobility, its inaccessibility to disadvantaged groups considerably limited their opportunities for advancement. At the same time, economic opportunities were unevenly distributed, often favouring those who were already in a position of privilege. Existing political and economic structures were designed to favour the upper classes and maintain the status quo, creating a cycle that was difficult to break for those seeking to improve their situation. This lack of social mobility had profound consequences for European society, reinforcing existing inequalities and fuelling social tensions. The working class and disadvantaged populations were often deprived of avenues to improve their economic situation, while the elites retained their positions and advantages. This dynamic led to growing frustration and discontent, laying the foundations for social and political conflict. Nevertheless, towards the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, changes began to emerge. Social reforms, workers' movements and economic developments began to create new opportunities, although these changes were gradual and often uneven. Despite these developments, pre-war European society remained largely marked by rigid class divisions and a lack of social mobility, contributing to a complex and often unequal social landscape.

Before the First World War, Europe's social landscape was marked by a notable lack of political and social rights for several groups, particularly women. This period was characterised by social and political structures that severely restricted the participation of certain groups in public and political life. Women were particularly affected by these restrictions. Their right to vote was almost universally denied across Europe, excluding them from political decision-making and governance. This political disenfranchisement reflected the social attitudes and norms of the time, which saw politics as a male preserve. In addition, opportunities for women to hold political office were extremely limited, if not non-existent, reinforcing their exclusion from the political sphere. Beyond politics, women were often excluded from many aspects of public and social life. They faced significant barriers in accessing higher education and professional opportunities. In many cases, they were confined to traditional roles centred on the family and the home, and their participation in public and social life was often limited by rigid societal norms and expectations. However, this period also saw the emergence and growth of suffragette movements and other women's rights groups across Europe. These movements fought for equal rights, including the right for women to vote, and challenged the social structures and norms that perpetuated gender inequality. Although their efforts were met with resistance, they laid the foundations for the reforms that would follow in the decades to come. European society before the First World War was characterised by the significant exclusion of certain groups, particularly women, from political and social life. This exclusion reflected the social norms and structures of the time, but it also served as a catalyst for movements to achieve equality and rights for all citizens.

Prior to the outbreak of the First World War, Europe was marked by significant social and economic inequalities, and a distinct lack of support for the most vulnerable. This period, characterised by the rapid transformations of the industrial revolution, saw a large proportion of the population living in conditions of poverty, while social protection structures were inadequate or non-existent in many countries. Inequalities were particularly striking in industrialised urban areas, where a relatively small elite enjoyed wealth and power, while the majority of the population faced difficult living conditions. Workers, in particular, often suffered from long working hours, low wages and a lack of social insurance. At the same time, the elderly, sick and disabled often found themselves without any safety net, depending on charity or their families for survival. In addition, many social groups were excluded from the political process. Women, for example, were generally denied the right to vote and were excluded from active political participation. This exclusion contributed to a general sense of injustice and alienation among large sections of the population. These inequalities and lack of institutional support fuelled growing social and political tensions in Europe. The gap between rich and poor, the lack of political rights for large groups and the inadequacy of measures to improve living conditions have created a climate of discontent and instability. These factors, combined with other political and military dynamics of the time, helped to lay the foundations for the social and political unrest that eventually led to the outbreak of the First World War.

Before the First World War, working conditions in Europe were often difficult and precarious, particularly in the booming industrial sectors. Workers had to put in long hours, sometimes up to 12 hours or more, and wages were generally low, not always enough to cover the basic needs of working families. These conditions were exacerbated by often dangerous working environments, where safety measures were inadequate or non-existent. Accidents and occupational illnesses were common, and workers had little recourse to compensation or protection. Power in these working environments was heavily skewed in favour of the employers, who were often large industrialists or major companies. These employers had considerable influence over the day-to-day lives of their employees, dictating not only working conditions but also, in some cases, influencing aspects of their personal and family lives. Workers, for their part, had little control over their working environment and conditions of employment. At the time, legal protections for workers were limited. Trade unions and workers' movements were developing, but their ability to influence working conditions and negotiate with employers was often hampered by restrictive laws and employer resistance. As a result, many workers were left defenceless in the face of abuse and exploitation, and strikes and protests were common, although often suppressed. In this context, working conditions and social injustice were major sources of discontent and tension. This situation helped fuel social and labour reform movements that sought to improve employees' rights and working conditions. This social dynamic also played a role in the wider context of tensions leading up to the First World War, as social inequalities and frustrations exacerbated political divisions and conflicts within and between European nations.

By 1913, trade unions were playing a crucial role in defending and promoting workers' rights in Europe. At a time of difficult working conditions, low wages and gruelling working hours, trade unions became an essential tool for workers seeking to improve their working conditions. Formed by workers united by common interests, unions sought to negotiate better working conditions, higher wages and greater job security for their members. They used a variety of tactics to achieve these goals, the most notable of which was collective bargaining. Through this process, union representatives negotiated directly with employers to reach agreements on wages, working hours and other terms and conditions of employment. In addition to collective bargaining, unions often used other forms of action, such as strikes, demonstrations and other forms of protest, to put pressure on employers and draw attention to workers' demands. These actions were sometimes met with strong resistance from employers and government authorities, but they played a key role in achieving significant change. Trade unions also helped to raise awareness of issues of social and economic justice, placing workers' concerns in a broader context of rights and social reform. By 1913, trade unions were increasingly recognised as important players in social and economic policy debates, although their influence varied between countries and sectors. In 1913, workers' unions were key players in the fight to improve working conditions and workers' rights in Europe. Their action played a decisive role in the progress towards fairer and safer working conditions, and in the evolution of relations between employers and employees.

Before the First World War, workers' unions in Europe made significant progress in negotiating better conditions for their members. Their ability to successfully negotiate better wages was a major achievement. These wage increases were crucial in improving the standard of living of workers, many of whom had previously been living in precarious conditions due to inadequate incomes. In addition, trade unions have played a key role in reducing working hours, helping to improve the health and general well-being of workers, as well as promoting a better work-life balance. Improving working conditions, particularly in terms of health and safety in the workplace, has also been an important aspect of their work. Trade unions have worked for safer working environments, reducing the number of accidents and occupational illnesses. These efforts have not only benefited the workers themselves, but have also had a positive impact on the economy as a whole. Better-paid and healthier workers have stimulated consumption and contributed to greater economic stability. These improvements have not only benefited individual workers, but have also had a considerable impact on the economy and society as a whole. A better paid, healthier and more balanced workforce has contributed to increased economic growth and greater social stability. So the actions of trade unions before the First World War not only marked a step forward in working conditions, but also laid the foundations for a fairer and more equitable society. Their commitment to improving workers' rights and working conditions had a lasting impact on Europe's social and economic landscape.

Before the First World War, workers' unions in Europe were not limited to negotiating wages and working conditions. They also engaged in a wide range of activities that had a significant impact on the lives of workers and on society as a whole. Education and training of members was an important part of these activities. Unions understood the importance of education in the emancipation of workers and the fight against exploitation. They therefore often organised training programmes and workshops to educate their members about their rights, workplace safety issues, and the skills needed to improve their employability and efficiency at work. At the same time, unions played an active role in defending workers' rights. They not only negotiated fairer working conditions, but also fought against abusive practices by employers and sought to ensure fair treatment for all workers. This advocacy often went beyond the workplace and touched on wider aspects of social justice. Unions were also frequently involved in promoting social and political reform. They recognised that legislative change was essential to ensure sustainable rights and fair working conditions. As a result, they actively participated in political and social debates, arguing for laws that would improve the lives of workers and their families. These various activities carried out by the unions helped to improve the lives of workers considerably. By providing education, training and advocacy, trade unions helped to raise the status of workers and promote a more just and equitable society. Their impact therefore extended far beyond wage negotiations and working conditions, touching on fundamental aspects of social and political life.

Over time in Europe, the labour landscape has undergone significant change, particularly with the rise of workers' unions. As more and more people joined trade unions, these organisations gained greater influence and capacity to negotiate tangible improvements for their members. Growing union membership has strengthened their position in negotiations with employers. With more workers united under one banner, unions have gained in legitimacy and bargaining power. This greater solidarity has enabled unions to obtain higher wages, more reasonable working hours and safer working conditions for their members. These improvements have had a direct and positive impact on workers' lives. Higher wages have improved employees' purchasing power and living conditions, while better working conditions have contributed to better health and well-being. In addition, shorter working hours have enabled workers to spend more time with their families and in their communities, contributing to a better quality of life. What's more, these changes have not only benefited workers, but have also had a positive impact on the economy as a whole. A better paid and more satisfied workforce has stimulated consumption, which in turn has contributed to economic growth. In addition, improved working conditions have led to increased productivity and reduced absenteeism, benefiting businesses and the economy as a whole. The rise of workers' unions and their success in negotiating better conditions for their members have played a key role in improving the lives of workers and in economic development in Europe. These changes marked an important evolution in labour relations and helped to establish a fairer and more balanced framework for employees and employers.

After the First World War, Europe witnessed a considerable expansion of the welfare state, a change that had a major impact on the lives of workers and on society as a whole. This period saw European governments adopt a more interventionist approach to welfare, putting in place policies and programmes to support those who were unable to work or who found themselves in need. One of the most significant changes brought about by the rise of the welfare state was improved access to healthcare. Governments began to establish public health systems, offering accessible medical care to a larger proportion of the population. This initiative not only improved public health, but also played a crucial role in improving the quality of life of workers and their families. At the same time, education has become a priority for governments, with public education expanding and becoming more accessible. This has opened up opportunities for learning and skills development, promoting social mobility and offering better prospects for workers and their children. State intervention in areas such as health, education and housing has made a significant contribution to reducing poverty and inequality. Social security systems have provided an essential safety net, protecting workers and their families from economic instability. These measures have helped to alleviate the economic vulnerability of many citizens. In the years following the war, these initiatives laid the foundations for the development of more comprehensive and robust social protection systems. European countries continued to develop and strengthen their welfare state programmes, establishing models of social and economic care that have profoundly influenced contemporary policies. The rise of the welfare state in Europe after the First World War was instrumental in creating fairer and more egalitarian societies. These advances not only improved the lives of individual workers, but also contributed to the economic stability and prosperity of Europe as a whole.

Before the First World War, the concept of the welfare state as we know it today was underdeveloped, and many European countries had not yet established comprehensive and structured social protection systems. This period was characterised by a limited role for government in supporting vulnerable or distressed citizens. At that time, government assistance for those unable to work, whether due to illness, disability, old age or unemployment, was generally inadequate or non-existent. State social policies and programmes were often limited in scope and effectiveness, leaving many people without adequate support. In the absence of state social security systems, individuals and families often found themselves in a very precarious situation. Many depended on private charities, which played an essential role in providing assistance to the most disadvantaged. However, this aid was often unpredictable and insufficient to meet the growing demand, particularly in densely populated urban areas. In addition, families often had to rely on their own savings or community support to meet their basic needs. This reliance on personal or community resources left many people vulnerable, particularly in times of economic crisis or personal hardship. Prior to the First World War, the absence of a well-defined and structured welfare state in Europe left many citizens without the necessary support in times of need. This situation contributed to a growing awareness of the importance of developing stronger welfare systems, leading to major reforms in the years following the war.

Although the concept of the welfare state was not fully developed before the First World War, there were some notable exceptions to this general trend. Countries such as Germany and the UK had begun to introduce limited welfare programmes, targeting certain sections of the population, notably the elderly and the disabled. In Germany, under the leadership of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in the 1880s, an innovative social security system was introduced. It included insurance for accidents at work, health care and a form of pension for the elderly. These measures represented the first steps towards a system of social protection organised and financed by the State, and served as a model for other countries. In the UK, the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the introduction of progressive social reforms. The Old Age Pensions Acts, passed in the early 1900s, provided financial support for the elderly. Although these programmes were relatively limited in scope and generosity, they marked an important beginning in the recognition of the government's role in supporting vulnerable citizens. These programmes were generally funded by taxes or other sources of government revenue. They were intended to provide a minimum safety net for people who were unable to support themselves because of age, disability or other circumstances. Although not as comprehensive as the social security systems developed later, these early initiatives laid the foundations for more structured and systematic government support for citizens in need. So, although pre-war Europe largely lacked extensive welfare systems, the initiatives taken by countries such as Germany and the UK were important steps towards establishing the welfare state as we know it today. These programmes played a key role in the transition to the state taking more active responsibility for the welfare of its citizens.