Why was the 19th century/Victorian era called the Industrial "Revolution"?

[Hexen]

Why was the 19th century/Victorian era called the Industrial "Revolution" even though there was no revolutionary movement what we leftists define revolution? Was it rather a capitalist revolution against the feudalists?

[Invader Zim]

Why was the 19th century/Victorian era called the Industrial "Revolution" even though there was no revolutionary movement what we leftists define revolution? Was it rather a capitalist revolution against the feudalists?
This is very confused. 1. The industrial revolution predated the 19th century. 2. The word 'revolution' is not an inherently political one. It has been adopted as such, but that does not imply that it looses all other meaning: in this instance sweeping change.

[Thirsty Crow]

Why was the 19th century/Victorian era called the Industrial "Revolution" even though there was no revolutionary movement what we leftists define revolution? Was it rather a capitalist revolution against the feudalists?
The term "inudstrial revolution" doesn't at all refer to political struggle, but rather to a revolutionizing of the productive technology and patterns of production organization.

I believe that it was fully in the 19th century that the factory system became the dominant organizing form of capital accumulation (along with the development of credit and shareholding practices), so that might answer your question.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

It also represented a change in the organization of the class system. In a Marxist sense, it was represented by a class-struggle, just not in an out-right violent way - probably because a lot of the old order were still allowed to keep land and what-not, from the transition from the feudal system to the factory and enclosure systems (they kept land but had no actual capital - that's why you get lords and ladies today that have big estates but no real net-worth).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The industrial revolution is classically dated c.1760-1830. Some (Pomeranz et al.) argue that it occurred later, and more suddenly, due to the emergence of natural resources (coal) , geography, coastal transport etc., essentially arguing strongly against British exceptionalism.

Others, most notably Crafts and Knick Harley, argue that the industrial revolution in Britain was a slower, more prolonged even, starting earlier in the 18th century, with 'revolutionary' progress only occurring in a few sectors (wool, cotton etc.).

It's a fascinating debate, actually.

If you want to get a taste of the debate, then you want to be reading the likes of Allen, Crafts/Harley, Berg/Hudson, Mokyr, Pomeranz et al.

From a Marxist perspective, obviously you have E P Thompson who covered a lot of the political stuff (the 1830 political reform movement), and Robert Brenner who i've heard is the standard-bearer for work on agriculture, enclosures and the root causes of British industrialisation.

Really, if anybody here tries to sum up stuff in a sentence, paragraph or even post, don't listen to them. It's a vast and thoroughly interesting debate which is continuing as we speak, with many, many viewpoints and facets.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It also represented a change in the organization of the class system. In a Marxist sense, it was represented by a class-struggle, just not in an out-right violent way - probably because a lot of the old order were still allowed to keep land and what-not, from the transition from the feudal system to the factory and enclosure systems (they kept land but had no actual capital - that's why you get lords and ladies today that have big estates but no real net-worth).

There's definitely SOME overlap between the industrialisation debate and the end of feudalism/start of capitalism debate, in that the former is dated 18th and early 19th century or thereabouts, and the latter anywhere from 1400-1800. However, I don't really think that there is a clear idea that there was a transition from the feudal system to the factory.

Rather, capitalism - though revolutionary - had its roots in a slower degredation of the feudal system, the symptoms of that being the rise of the merchant capitalists, but also the weakening of non-economic power held by Lords in the demesne over peasant serfs. In fact, I believe Marx identified the increasing assertion of property rights within the peasant class as a key beginning of capitalism, as opposed merely to the rise of merchant capital.

The factory system really wasn't influential until Capitalism was pretty much entrenched as the system of production. The earliest factories were the textile factories, which came along with the mills in I think the 17th and early 18th centuries, but factories weren't widespread until the industrial revolution period, which makes sense: there was only great migration (as opposed to lesser migration) to urban centres, from rural areas, after the agricultural revolution, into the 18th century. Factories could only exist because agriculture had progressed to such a point that it became possible for so many factory workers to be supported in terms of having enough food on the table.

Enclosure systems actually did lead to significant capital accumulation. Indeed, Allen (2009) identified that capitalist farming only became economically viable on farms in excess of 50 acres, and was viable up to a space of 250 acres, so the potential for profit and capital accumulation for the heads of the enclosures were enormous, particularly considering the increase in food prices over the 18th century.

I think you'll find the main reason there are a load of poverty-stricken nobles living on huge estates these days is that they are scrounging, layabout scumbags living off the land that is no longer profitable, as there is no agricultural business being tended to on their estates any more. ;)