Specialization and Consumption
Beginning with the observation of modern-day specialization offered by Adam Smith, Anonymous noted that there is diversification of functions in modern American society, leading to interdependency. Farmers can produce their own cloth and clothing, but it is far more efficient in terms of time taken (labor) and cost of materials, for the cloth to be produced by those working in a mill. Similarly, a mill worker can grow their own crops, but it requires much less labor (and the quality is likely to be higher) if the knowledgeable farmer grows the crops. (Anonymous, 1849, vol II, p. 9) Anonymous identifies this as “a natural tendency to have the producer of iron and cloth, and hats, to take his place by the side of the producer of food and wool.” (Anonymous, 1849, vol II, p. 11) Compelled by the move to specialization: “The first and great desire of man is that of association with his fellow-man, and it is so, because he feels that improvement of his condition, physical, moral, mental and political is its uniform accompaniment.” (Anonymous, 1849, vol II, p. 10)
At an even deeper level, we discover from Anonymous that the link between profit and consumption is critical: “Every producer is a consumer to the whole extent of his production, and by enabling these poor people to produce more, the planter [farmer] makes a market on the land for the products of the land, to the extent of the whole excess of production. The more there is produced, the more must be consumed.” (Anonymous, 1849, vol II, pp. 2-3). Thus, we find the foundation of a move from premodern emphasis on consuming that which is produced, to a modern emphasis on increasing consumption (via marketing) so that more can be produced (Bergquist, 1993).
Protection and Integration
The compelling desire to associate with other people resides at the heart of a harmony of interests. It operates as if it were natural law (according to Smith and Anonymous). However, this desire can be quite fragile. As it operates in human society, natural law is often elusive, and its dictates often are ignored in the face of demands for profit in modern commerce. Protection is needed:
“Throughout the country [USA], there is a want of combination. Men are perpetually fling from each other, scattering themselves over large surfaces, and wasting the labour that if saved would make them rich. This inability to combine their exertions is the result of artificial causes; and the adoption of the protective system has been produced by an instinctive effort to obtain by its aid that which, had these causes not existed, would have come naturally and without effort.” (Anonymous, 1849, vol II, p. 10)
Protection requires a valuing of all forms of labor (Anonymous, 1849, vol II, p. 24). As Anonymous notes: “To induce man to labour, he must feel confident of obtaining an equivalent; and the larger that equivalent, the stronger will be the inducement to exertion.” (Anonymous, 1849, vol II, p. 25). Given the history of slavery in the United States, and the wage slavery to be found in various enterprises in 19th Century America (such as the New England mills) (Sun and Bergquist, 2021), it is not surprising that Anonymous identifies a lack of full response—a lack of equivalence–for all forms of labor (especially manual labor) at this point in American history.
The lack of an equivalent inducement is even more challenging as those doing labor (individually and collectively) begin to ask for something more than just wages. Concerns about job security and workplace safety begin to emerge later in the 19th Century as expanded requirements of “equivalent” reward for the labor being offered. Harmony of interest is not easily attained or maintained without this expanded equivalence. Protection is required.
