ENGLISH (HIGHER)
About Lesson

                                         Introduction

G B Shaw (1856-1950) was an Irish-born dramatist, essayist, critic, novelist, short story writer, and poet. Shaw is regarded as the greatest English dramatist of the modern age, and his contribution to British theater is considered second only to that of William Shakespeare. By rejecting outmoded theatrical conventions and championing realism and social commentary in his work, critics contend Shaw succeeded in revolutionizing British drama. He has been credited with creating the “theater of ideas,” in which plays explore such issues as sexism, sexual equality, socioeconomic divisions, the effects of poverty, and philosophical and religious theories. Moreover, his innovative dramas are thought to have paved the way for later Symbolist drama and the Theater of the Absurd. He won Nobel prize for literature. His well known plays are: ‘Arms and the Man’, ‘Man and Superman’, St. Joan, Applecart etc. He was a socialist by conviction but did not believe in revolutions. He maintained that the desired changes in the life of a man and in the conditions of society could be brought about by ‘Life Force’. ‘Life Force’ in his view was the power that seeks to raise mankind with their cooperation to a higher and better existence.

‘How Wealth Accumulates and Men Decay’ has been taken from the ‘The Intelligent Women’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism’ published in 1928. It is a scathing comment on the socio- economic condition of the world. The author in a cogent manner has brought out the most glaring defect of the Capitalist system that is it creates alienation of men from his environment. The workers have no control over what they produce. Thus people feel alienated from the mode of production. The individuals do not have a sense of dignity as useful members of society.
Rather they feel they are cogs in the great wheels of juggernaut. According to Shaw the loss of identity of man has led to colonialism, imperialism, wars and other crisis of our time. At the base of these chronic ailments is the relentless pursuit of profit motive which has destroyed all our human values.

                   Main Idea of the Essay

In this essay Shaw elaborates his view with two examples one that of a pin maker and the trade of clothes. In both the cases the worker had no knowledge of buying raw material, making and selling the product. Though his production output was less, yet his knowledge and skill was absolute.

The modern writer in comparison maybe involved in the production of millions of pins with the help of machines but his own knowledge of those machines is next to nothing. Same is the case with those involved with trade of clothes .Earlier all this was done by people in the rural areas and they had whole knowledge of how to produce clothes right from the shearing of the sheep. Today’s worker is totally dependent on the machines for the entire task pertaining to production of clothes. Thus a modern worker is no better than a wage earner for his family. He is even devoid of the satisfaction of making anything substantial by himself. Therefore the capitalist system breeds ignorance by only aiming to make profit through the use of machines and keeping the common people out of the way of knowledge.

 

Brief Summary

 

In this passage, George Bernard Shaw emphasizes the helplessness and ignorance engendered by the capitalist system. He begins with a personal anecdote about pins to illustrate how industrialization and the division of labor have led to a loss of individual skill and knowledge.

Key Points:

1. Historical Skill vs. Modern Specialization:
– Old Pinmakers: In the past, a pinmaker knew every step of the pin-making process, from buying materials to selling the finished product. This required skill and comprehensive knowledge.

– Adam Smith’s Pin Factory: By the end of the 18th century, Adam Smith celebrated that 18 men, each performing a small task repeatedly, could produce thousands of pins daily. This made pins cheap and plentiful but reduced the workers to mere cogs in a machine, each knowing only a fraction of the entire process.

 

2. Dehumanization and Ignorance:
– Modern Pin Manufacturing: Today, machines have replaced human pinmakers, and even fewer people understand how pins are made. This reflects a broader trend where workers are less knowledgeable and skilled about the products they help create.
– Clothing Production: Shaw draws a parallel with clothing, where historical practices of making clothes at home have been replaced by industrial processes. Modern workers and consumers are largely ignorant of the origins and making of the clothes they wear.

 

3. Consequences of Capitalism:
– Universal Ignorance: The capitalist system has led to widespread ignorance about production processes, even as it has increased the scale and efficiency of production.
– Disconnection from Production: Both workers and consumers are disconnected from the processes that produce everyday items, relying on specialists and machines they do not understand.
– Romanticized Distractions: The populace, overwhelmed by work and ignorance, turns to entertainment and media for escape, which further distorts their understanding of reality.

 

4. Critique of Modern Society:
– Political Implications: Shaw criticizes the democratic system for giving votes to everyone, including those whose political opinions are shaped by misleading and romanticized media rather than informed understanding.
Call for Awareness: Shaw urges a shift from entertainment to education and political discussion, highlighting the need for intelligent engagement with social and political realities.

 

Conclusion:
Shaw’s passage critiques the capitalist system for degrading human skills and knowledge in favor of efficiency and mass production. He highlights the irony that while wealth accumulates, individual capabilities and understanding decay, leaving people dependent on systems and technologies they do not comprehend. This critique extends to a broader societal concern where the disconnection from production processes contributes to a populace ill-equipped to engage meaningfully in democratic processes.

 

Join the conversation