Fast forward to New York City, March 25, 1911. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, located on the upper floors of the Asch Building, was a typical garment factory of the era – crowded, with flammable materials everywhere. Tragically, a fire broke out. As flames and smoke engulfed the factory, the workers, mostly young immigrant women and girls, found their escape routes blocked. The owners had locked one of the main exit doors to prevent theft and unauthorised breaks. Firefighters arrived, but their ladders were too short to reach the upper floors. In desperation, workers jumped from the windows to their deaths to escape the inferno. Within half an hour, 146 workers had perished. The sheer horror of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire shocked the nation. It wasn't just the loss of life, but the realisation that these deaths were preventable, a direct result of abysmal safety standards and a disregard for workers' lives. This tragedy became a galvanising force, fueling the movement for better working conditions, fire safety regulations, and stronger labour laws, forever marking a dark yet pivotal moment in labour history. Frances Perkins, who would later become Secretary of Labor, witnessed the fire and cited it as a crucial moment that inspired her lifelong dedication to workers' rights.
The movement for better working conditions and safety regulations began in Europe during the Industrial Revolution, which spanned roughly from the late 18th to the mid-19th century. As industrialisation rapidly increased, particularly in Great Britain, harsh and dangerous working environments became prevalent in factories and mines.
One of the earliest legislative responses to these conditions was the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act of 1802 in the United Kingdom. This act, also known as the Factory Act, aimed to improve the conditions for apprentices in textile mills, addressing issues like working hours, hygiene, and basic education. While limited in scope and enforcement, it is considered a significant early step in regulating workplace conditions.
Growing public awareness and pressure led to further legislation throughout the 19th century in the UK, such as the Factory Act of 1833, which extended regulations to more textile mills and introduced government-appointed factory inspectors for enforcement. Similar concerns and movements emerged in other parts of Europe and eventually in the United States.
According to "Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Health" (2007, Government Institutes) by Mark A. Friend and James P. Kohn, the historical perspective on the development of safety regulations and practices is rooted in the recognition of workplace hazards that emerged significantly during the Industrial Revolution. The authors likely detail how the rise of factories and industrial processes in the 18th and 19th centuries led to increasingly dangerous working conditions, prompting initial concerns and responses.
The Industrial Revolution introduced advanced machinery such as mechanical textile equipment, foundry furnaces, and steam engines, creating complex and dangerous workplace environments. Factories became filled with moving belts, pulleys, and gears, exposing workers to risks of entanglement and injury. Additionally, the prevalence of toxic vapours, excessive noise, and extreme heat further compromised worker health. The situation was exacerbated by the employment of women and children, who often worked long hours under unsanitary and physically demanding conditions, increasing the likelihood of injury and illness.
Public awareness of these deplorable conditions grew through the efforts of individuals like Sir Robert Peel, who highlighted the use of orphan labour in unsanitary mills, and Charles Thackrah, who studied the health effects of various trades and advocated for occupational medicine. Edwin Chadwick's 1842 report on the sanitary conditions of the labouring population in Great Britain further emphasised the dire health implications of industrial work environments.
In the United States, similar patterns emerged. Young girls in Lowell, Massachusetts, worked extensive hours near dangerous machinery, leading to frequent injuries. Such incidents eventually prompted legislative actions, including the 1877 Massachusetts law requiring safeguards on hazardous machinery and holding employers liable for workplace injuries.
These early industrial challenges and the subsequent responses laid the groundwork for the development of occupational safety and health regulations, as detailed in Friend and Kohn's comprehensive examination of the field.
The Condition of the Working Class in England by Friedrich Engels provides a vivid and deeply researched account of the lives of industrial workers in early 19th-century England. Written in 1845, the book reflects Engels’ observations during his time in Manchester, where he closely studied and lived among the working class. Engels describes in detail the overcrowded, unsanitary housing conditions, the long hours in dangerous factories, and the widespread use of child labour. He portrays a world where workers were treated as little more than parts of a machine, stripped of dignity and exposed to relentless physical and emotional strain.
What makes Engels's work especially significant is its underlying argument: Engels presents these terrible conditions not as isolated or accidental, but as direct consequences of the capitalist system itself. He uses economic and social analysis to show how industrial capitalism devalues human life in pursuit of profit, leading to widespread misery among the labouring population. Engels does not merely call for compassion or minor reforms; he advocates for a complete rethinking of the social and economic order.
The influence of this work was profound. It had a major impact on Karl Marx, with whom Engels later collaborated to write The Communist Manifesto in 1848. Engels’ documentation of exploitation and inequality helped to shape Marxist theory, particularly the concept of class struggle. Beyond Marxism, the book also stirred broader debates and played a role in inspiring social reformers and labour activists to push for better working conditions, health regulations, and labour rights throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
In essence, Engels' book was not only a searing critique of industrial society, but also a foundational text in the history of modern social thought. It helped to shift public awareness and intellectual discourse toward the need for systemic change and laid the groundwork for both socialist theory and labour legislation.
However, the communist ideology developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels is considered dangerous to democracy by many scholars and political observers because it fundamentally rejects the core principles of liberal democracy—such as pluralism, individual rights, free elections, and the separation of powers. Marx and Engels envisioned a classless society achieved through revolution, where the working class would overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat." In theory, this dictatorship was meant to be a temporary phase before achieving a stateless, classless society. However, in practice, communist regimes have often used this concept to justify authoritarian rule.
One of the main dangers lies in the fact that communist systems often concentrate power in a single party, eliminating political opposition and civil liberties. Rather than allowing diverse political voices and free elections, communist states have frequently silenced dissent and censored alternative ideologies. The idea of a "vanguard party" leading the revolution, as promoted by later Marxist theorists like Lenin, led to centralised authoritarian governments where power became entrenched in the hands of a few elites.
Historical examples clearly illustrate how this ideology, when implemented without checks and balances, has led to mass violence and repression. In the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, millions of people were executed, imprisoned in gulags, or starved to death during events like the Great Purge and the Holodomor. In Maoist China, the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward led to widespread persecution, forced labor, famine, and the deaths of tens of millions. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot attempted to forcibly create a classless society, resulting in the genocide of nearly two million people. In each of these cases, the state justified its violence in the name of protecting or advancing the communist revolution.
Communism, as interpreted and implemented in these regimes, often seeks total control over the economy, media, education, and even personal beliefs. This eradication of political diversity and suppression of freedom of thought stands in direct opposition to democratic principles, which rely on open debate, political competition, and the protection of individual rights.
The works of Engels and Marx gained immense attention and popularity in their time because they spoke directly to the intense social and economic upheaval caused by the Industrial Revolution. In the mid-19th century, much of Europe—especially Britain and Germany—was undergoing rapid industrialisation. This transformation brought about great technological progress and wealth for the upper classes, but it also created a massive underclass of workers who faced long hours, low wages, unsafe working conditions, and life in overcrowded, unsanitary slums. Many people at the time were beginning to question whether the promises of progress and modernity were truly benefiting the majority. Workers, peasants, and intellectuals alike were searching for explanations and solutions to the growing inequality and human suffering they witnessed daily. Engels and Marx provided both a compelling critique of capitalism and a vision for an alternative system. Their theory of historical materialism—arguing that history is driven by class struggle—resonated with those who felt trapped and exploited by the dominant economic order.
Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England painted a graphic and emotionally charged portrait of the misery faced by industrial workers, while Marx’s Capital and their joint Communist Manifesto explained the mechanics of capitalism and why it was bound to collapse. They didn’t just describe the problems—they offered a revolutionary framework that promised liberation and justice for the working class.
At the same time, political conditions in Europe were volatile. The 1848 revolutions swept across the continent, fueled by demands for democracy, national independence, and workers’ rights. In this climate of unrest and growing class consciousness, the radical ideas of Marx and Engels gained traction among labour movements, trade unions, and anti-monarchist revolutionaries.
Their works captured the spirit of a turbulent age. They combined rigorous economic analysis with powerful moral outrage, offering a vision that appealed to the disillusioned, the oppressed, and the idealistic. Their critique of capitalism gave voice to millions who had none, and their revolutionary message gave hope that a better world was not only possible—but inevitable.
In summary, while Marx and Engels may have envisioned a more just and equal society, the communist systems inspired by their ideas have frequently led to totalitarianism, mass repression, and violence. These outcomes make communism, particularly in its 20th-century forms, fundamentally incompatible with democratic governance.
Another problem besides the workers' working conditions is the racial issue. David R. Roediger's The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (2007, Verso), explores how racial identity has shaped the definition and experience of the working class in the United States.
The Wages of Whiteness by David R. Roediger is a foundational work in whiteness studies. Originally published in 1991, it explores how white identity was constructed among the American working class in the 19th century. Roediger argues that whiteness was not just a racial category but also a form of social privilege that shaped labour relations and class consciousness.
Roediger explores how racism among the working class was reinforced through cultural narratives, stereotypes, and workplace dynamics. He argues that the white working-class identity in 19th-century America was constructed in direct opposition to Blackness as a means of establishing a sense of privilege, dignity, and social status—even while enduring economic exploitation. White workers, though themselves oppressed by capitalist labour systems, distinguished themselves from enslaved and later freed Black individuals to claim a superior racial identity.
Roediger explains that this process was not merely about economic competition or job protection. Instead, it was deeply psychological and ideological. White workers embraced a racial identity that aligned them symbolically with white elites rather than with Black labourers, even though their material conditions were closer to those of the latter. By asserting themselves as “free labour” and emphasising their whiteness, they participated in defining Black people as the racial “other”—lazy, inferior, and suited to servitude.
This racial boundary helped white workers construct a collective identity that gave them a sense of autonomy and pride. Roediger shows how cultural practices, language, and even humour of the white working class often reinforced this oppositional identity. For example, minstrel shows, popular in the 19th century, played a key role in mocking and dehumanising Black people while simultaneously reinforcing whiteness as the normative and superior racial category.
Ultimately, Roediger argues that whiteness functioned as a “wage” that compensated white workers—not in money, but in status and social identity. This psychological benefit helped to bind white workers to the capitalist system, preventing cross-racial solidarity with Black labourers and weakening broader working-class movements.
There are several examples around the world where dominant or majority groups have constructed their social identity in opposition to marginalised or racialised others—similar to what David R. Roediger describes in The Wages of Whiteness. These cases often involve a group that is itself exploited or oppressed but maintains a sense of superiority by aligning with dominant ideologies and distancing itself from a racial or ethnic "other."
Under apartheid, even poor white South Africans—many of whom faced economic hardship—were granted systemic privileges over the Black majority. The state reinforced a strong sense of white identity and superiority through legal segregation, employment preference, and access to education and housing. This racial distinction helped keep the poor white population loyal to the apartheid system, despite their class disadvantages.
During British colonial rule, Anglo-Indians (people of mixed British and Indian ancestry) often tried to emphasise their European heritage to gain favour and privileges within the colonial hierarchy. Although often marginalised by both the British and Indians, they constructed their identity in opposition to "native" Indians, reinforcing British racial ideologies in exchange for status and employment.
In countries like Mexico, Peru, and Brazil, "mestizo" identity (mixed European and Indigenous ancestry) has often been framed in contrast to Indigenous or Black identities. Despite being economically disadvantaged, mestizos have sometimes been encouraged—both socially and politically—to see themselves as more "civilised" or "closer to whiteness" than Indigenous or Afro-descendant groups. This helped reinforce a racialised social hierarchy favourable to European colonial and postcolonial elites.
White working-class Australians, particularly of British descent, helped reinforce a national identity that excluded and dehumanised Aboriginal Australians. Despite their struggles with poverty and class marginalisation, many white Australians supported policies that dispossessed Indigenous people and upheld the “White Australia Policy.” This racial exclusion served to elevate the status of white workers within the settler colonial society.
Irish immigrants were initially racialised as "not quite white" and often faced discrimination. However, over time, they embraced whiteness by distancing themselves from Black Americans, participating in anti-Black violence (such as the Draft Riots of 1863), and emphasising their cultural assimilation. In doing so, they secured a firmer place within the white American working class.
These examples illustrate how race, class, and identity intersect globally. Groups experiencing economic or social hardship often seek to improve or protect their status by aligning with dominant racial ideologies—thus reinforcing existing hierarchies rather than challenging them.
The modern implications of these historical labour dynamics—especially the racial construction of working-class identity as described in The Wages of Whiteness—are profound and still visible in today’s economic, political, and social structures. Racialised labour histories have left a legacy of mistrust and fragmentation within the working class. Workers who might otherwise unite around common interests (e.g., better wages, healthcare, job security) are often divided by race, ethnicity, or nationality. Politicians and corporations can exploit these divisions to weaken labour movements, discourage unionisation, and prevent class solidarity. In the U.S., rhetoric around "illegal immigrants taking jobs" is often used to turn working-class whites against immigrant labourers, even though both groups are exploited by the same economic system.
The idea that whiteness itself once functioned as a "wage" persists in more subtle forms today. Structural racism continues to privilege white workers in terms of hiring practices, promotions, and income. Black and Latino workers, for instance, still face wage gaps and are disproportionately represented in lower-paying and more precarious jobs.
Politicians often revive the old tactic of appealing to racial identity to rally economically insecure white voters. This is evident in populist movements that blame immigrants, minorities, or "welfare cheats" for economic woes—rather than corporate policies or austerity measures. These campaigns echo 19th-century efforts to distract white workers from their exploitation by giving them a racialised enemy. The rise of Trumpism in the U.S. heavily relied on nostalgic appeals to white identity and the fear of losing social dominance, often cloaked in the language of protecting “working-class Americans.”
Historical constructions of whiteness as industrious, moral, and deserving still inform cultural attitudes today. Success is often attributed to individual effort without acknowledging systemic advantages historically granted to white populations, such as access to property, education, and political power—while racial minorities are often blamed for their economic struggles.
The racialization of labour also influenced the development of modern policing, which continues to disproportionately surveil and criminalise Black and brown communities. Historically, free Black labour was seen as a threat to the white working class. Today, over-policing in minority neighbourhoods serves to control surplus labour and maintain racial hierarchies, rather than address actual crime.
In the global context, the same dynamic occurs as Global North economies depend on cheap labour from the Global South. Multinational corporations often exploit workers in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, while wealthier countries maintain racialised narratives of superiority, modernity, and deserved affluence. This mirrors the colonial-era racial logics that justified resource extraction and labour exploitation.
On a more hopeful note, the exposure of these dynamics has also sparked new labour and social justice coalitions that emphasise racial and economic justice together. Movements like the Fight for $15, Black Lives Matter, and climate justice campaigns increasingly link class and race, calling for solidarity across racial lines to address systemic inequities.
In the next section, we will discuss the issue of racial dynamics in several countries, including Indonesia.
