I saw a review of this novel a while back and added it to my list of books to read. Interestingly enough, it coming on the heels of finishing a bunch of Marxist stuff. Knowing what we know now about the socialist experiments of the Soviet Union and its satellite states, it’s easy to dismiss socialism for its evils. But it’s necessary to recognize that the desire to do something to confront genuinely oppressive structures is a real thing. Marx and others were confronted with horrible conditions for a working class, and elite disregard for their suffering.  

North and South speaks of these things through a novel.

Within the dialogue between Mr. Thorton, the mill owner, and both Mr. Hale and his daughter Margaret, some of the arguments are given voice. Speaking about an impending strike by the mill workers, we see these points made:

“ ‘They are wanting higher wages, I suppose?’ Asked Mr. Hale

(Mr Thorton replies) ‘That is the face of the thing. But the truth is, they want to be their own masters, and make masters into slaves on their own ground.’ (Thorton continues later) ‘The fool will have a strike. They think trade is flourishing as it was last year. We see the storm on the horizon and draw in our sails. But because we don’t explain our reasons, they won’t believe we’re acting reasonably. We must give them line and letter for the way we choose to spend our money.’

‘But why,’ asked Miss Hale, ‘could you not explain what good reason you have for expecting a bad trade?’  

‘Do you give your servants reasons for your expenditure, or your economy in the use of your own money? We, the owners of capital, have a right to choose what we will do with it.’ (Thorton) ”

Later Margaret Hale says, “I see two classes dependent on each other in every possible way, yet each evidently regarding the interests of the other as opposed to their own.”

Later, Thorton says: “Because they labor ten hours a day for us, I do not see that we have any right to impose leading strings upon them for the rest of their time. I value my own independence so highly that I can fancy no degradation greater than having another man perpetually directing and advising and lecturing me, or even planning too closely in any way about my actions. He might be the wisest of men, or the most powerful- I should equally rebel and resent his interference…. Have I any right to obtrude my views, of the manner in which he shall act, upon another merely because hje has labor to sell, and I capital to buy? ”

Margaret responds: “Because you are a man, dealing with a set of men over whom you have, whether you reject the use of it or not, immense power; just because your lives and your welfare are so constantly and intimately woven. The most independent man depends on those around him for their insensible influence on his character and life.”

Thorton says “If I were a workman, I should be more impressed with a master that is honest, punctual and resolute in his dealings rather than any amount of interference. What the master is, the men will be.”

‘That is a great admission,’ said Margaret, laughing. ‘When I see men violent and obstinate in pursuit of their rights, I may safely infer that the master is the same’

‘You suppose that our men are puppets made of dough, ready to made into any amiable form we please. We have to do with them less than a third of their lives, and our duties as manufacturers are far larger and wider than those merely of an employer of labor.“

These are interesting comments to me, in light of reading Marxist literature.

Marx assumes that after figuring the costs of the machinery and maintenance, the leftover value of a product made is what is contributed by the laborer. What is left out is the contribution of the owner himself. The owner has to provide all the funding for all the machinery and take on the responsibility of employing the workforce. Those wages will need to be paid whether he finds market for his goods or not. Marx seems to think that all this should happen for free. Or perhaps he doesn’t… though this wasn’t stated in the last two papers I read, my guess is that he would say it would be better for everyone if the business were simply owned by the workers themselves and then the profits, whatever they might be, would go to the workers, and not have any taken out for the capitalists. But this brings up a whole list of other issues I won’t go into right now.

In response to the dialogue, of course workers want higher wages. We all want to earn more. On one level, I sympathize with Margaret’s question: why not just explain yourself? Thorton’s answer might seem condescending- does a master explain himself to his servants? But there is some wisdom in this too. When I was a young parent, I ignorantly thought that I would explain things to my kids and reason with them so they could see the wisdom I was applying. That’s a great sentiment, and it would be lovely if kids were all perfectly reasonable (or adults for that matter), but the hard fact is that they aren’t. Life is part fact, and a LOT feeling. That’s a crummy way of saying that most of what we do isn’t based on well-deliberated and carefully concluded actions; it’s based on what we feel like doing anyway. We often go through an elaborate justification of our actions to make them seem more reason-based, but the reasons themselves aren’t so much. I learned the hard way that my kids wanted to hear my reasons so that they could test different arguments. At times they flat out told me I didn’t know what I was talking about. And if you’ve ever had your ingrate 11 year old tell you to your face that you, a 33 year old adult, didn’t really know what life was about, while he did, you start to understand why your parents turned to the old faithful chestnut: because I said so! That’s why!

Of course, employees aren’t children and many would have more sympathy if given the straight answers, but that still doesn’t take away the fact that people all operate on their own agendas. There is simply no way around that. I may want the company to succeed, but I still do so as long as it means good for me personally. Because I’m most concerned about me.

At the end of the day, trying to explain yourself to those under you just doesn’t work as well as it seems like it might. Decisions have to be made, and not everyone is going to agree with it. As long as the owner is the owner and it is his money, he does have the right to make decisions.

I will say this. I have no problem with successful business owners being financially rewarded far beyond their workers. It was their capital and their ideas and their guidance that got the business that far, not the fact of workers showing up and doing their jobs, which is of course necessary too. I’m not worried about income inequality as long as I have enough. But the lessons of life and history are that it IS a big deal to lots of people. Marx is right in noting that a small house may be fine when all your neighbors live in the same house. But let a palace spring up next door and the small house that was ok becomes a hovel. Socially, this has an impact.

So for the super successful gajillionaires out there; spread some around to your workers too. It’s true that minimum wage workers can be replaced, and it’s not like the success of the company is built on their skill set… but if you’ve been that successful, then spread it out and let the workers feel like they’re appreciated too. Because at the end of the day, fair or not, if they start to feel it’s not fair, you may end up with an angry mob at your door and all bets are off at that point.

As somewhat of a romantic though, I’ll say my favorite part of the novel is still the developing relationship between Thorton and Margaret. They each go through the classic moves of doing one thing outwardly, usually the thing that nettles the other, and then inwardly regretting they had done the thing, and then promising themselves that they would forget the other, only to find they couldn’t/didn’t want to.  

There is also a point where Margaret insists one of the working men, Higgins, who had been a union hand, and was now out of work and essentially banned, go directly to Mr Thorton and apply to him for work man to man. She also appeals to Thorton to listen to him. These two meet and eventually come to respect each other. There is an applicable lesson for modern times in this as well; opposing sides can meet, and even though differences might not disappear, they can learn that the other side isn’t the devil.

In Margaret’s letter from Frederick, she reads that he had lost all hope of clearing himself of the crime with which he was charged, and which prevented him from returning to England.  He writes a 

"pretty vehement letter, containing his renunciation of England as his country; he wished he could unnative himself, and declared that he would not take his pardon if it were offered him, nor live in the country if he had permission to do so. All of which made Margaret cry sorely… but on consideration she saw rather in such expression the poignancy of the disappointment which had crushed his hopes….”

This is a great reminder that people can say things on the surface, that are driven by motives we don’t see. Wisdom might be to reflect on those motives and search for some understanding.

At the end, it is clear that Thorton has been transformed in his thinking for the better through his interaction with Margaret.

I loved just about everything about this novel.