Little lesson here

@CheekyBadger it helps workers realise that they are being exploited by the ruling class for surplus value that ends up in the pocket of those who already have cash

@CheekyBadger the industrial revolution placed workers into unhealthy working conditions that were matched by unhealthy living conditions

@Guitarman123 that's a modern perspective - back then there was no reason to think it would be unhealthy (or indeed harmful), the idea of "germs" was only "invented" in the 1870s. The connection of disease to water supply wasn't thought of until 1850s. Even the effects of airborne pollution weren't appreciated until more recent times. I don't think it's correct to imagine that the people who built these factories and towns/cities did so in the knowledge that the people living and working there were at increased risk of disease and death - it's not as if the agricultural lifestyle was risk free or treated children any better either.

@CheekyBadger it was seen as harmful by the working class of England during that time, as was it by friedrich engels who lived in Manchester for 2 years during that time. Child labour was common back then as they were forced to work in the same dangerous conditions as the adults

@Guitarman123 I'm sure some weren't keen on the typically smaller accomodations but like with many social changes there wasn't a clear concensus of opinion. Sure there were activists who saw the industrial revolution as just replacing one set of over lords with another - it was the industrial revolution that took power away from the landed gentry who owned all the land and gave it to those who built factories and did trade. In a way it was the start of social mobility as not all the new bosses came from the aristocracy - many had risen up though other means. Engels came along at the latter part of the industrial revolution - when the advances in scientific understanding about health etc were happening, I don't know his personal beliefs but Marxism itself is very much about creating division in society and turning one set of people against another. Like you said - but failed to mention that the means of abolition was destruction through force resulting in bloodshed. The point of this being to usher in another set of overlords - usually the ones who had planned the uprisings etc - these usually aren't the actual workers, who just get to carry on doing their thing but with new bosses. In UK interestingly it was upper class people (e.g. Lord Shaftesbury) who led the campaigns to end child labour.

@CheekyBadger neither marx or engels said anything about bloodshed or creating division but the working class taking charge of their own destinies by overthrowing the oppressors that are the capitalist ruling class. Feudalism had been overthrown the same way and that's what lead to capitalism