The electrification of the factory took place between 1880 and 1930 in two distinct phases. The first phase, lasting roughly from 1880-1900, was marked by the introduction of electric lighting into the factory. The second phase, from 1900-1930, saw the widespread acceptance and eventual dominance of the electric motor in factory settings. In 1900, only around 4 percent of manufacturing output in the U.S. was powered by electricity, compared to 78 percent by 1930.[i] Many factors contributed to the electrification of the factory, but the central motivator was the economic incentive of increased production, achieved largely through increased control over workers. The first electric motor that was more efficient than earlier mechanical systems powered by water wheels or manual labor was created by Frank Sprague in 1889. Despite this technological leap, the large-scale adoption of the electric motor in the economy took time. This raises the question: why did it take so long for the electric motor to replace previous systems? What conflicts arose during the electrification of the factory, who were the key players, and how did the electric factory permanently alter society and labor relations? While technological development played a key role, social and cultural factors were equally influential, shaping the transformation of the factory into a more efficient yet arguably more exploitative institution.

Introduction of the Factory System and Early Views on Electrification

Before the factory system, the economy was centered around small-scale artisan work. This local economy allowed workers more autonomy over their working conditions. When the factory system was introduced, it initially relied on manual labor and mechanical systems powered by natural forces, such as water wheels. However, as electricity began to be incorporated, the need for control over workers became more pronounced. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when electricity in factories was still a new development, many speculated about its potential social effects. Thinkers like Steinmetz predicted that electrical production could lead to socialism, while others, such as H.G. Wells, feared it would be used as a tool for the elite to consolidate power and oppress the working class. Early reactions to the electric factory were mixed, but many writers saw its new aesthetic as mysterious and powerful. John Stilgoe, for instance, noted that the electric factory “symbolized the truly sublime.”[ii]

However, despite the excitement surrounding the electric factory, many of the developments were aimed at benefiting management and the elite, often at the expense of the workers. The electrification process was largely focused on maximizing production and control, not improving the well-being of the labor force.

Technological Developments and the Control of Labor

Even before the electric light, factories employed early electric devices, such as telegraph-based alarm systems, time clocks, and other surveillance mechanisms designed to monitor and control workers. This trend continued with the introduction of electric light. By allowing factories to operate night shifts, electricity disrupted the balance between work and family life, forcing workers to labor longer hours under stricter control. Had management been more considerate of the workers, they might have implemented more flexible hours. Instead, the introduction of electric lighting increased working hours, allowing for greater worker exploitation.

As the electric motor gained acceptance, especially with the implementation of Henry Ford’s assembly line, worker turnover became a critical issue. At the beginning of the 20th century, factory worker turnover was as high as 115 percent. Management’s priority was to increase productivity, leading to worker burnout. Mechanization further displaced skilled labor, creating mass unemployment as fewer skilled workers replaced large numbers of unskilled workers. Initially, management paid little attention to the rising costs associated with labor turnover, but as training costs mounted, efforts were made to reduce turnover. This was done primarily through incentive programs, such as social welfare benefits, and through the implementation of piecework incentive payment structures. Under these systems, workers were paid a base salary with additional compensation based on output, but these incentive programs focused on productivity rather than improving working conditions or work-life balance. The main goal was always to increase worker output, not ensure their satisfaction or well-being.

Positive and Negative Impacts of Electrification

While electrification had a negative impact on worker control, it also had some positive outcomes. The elimination of gas lighting reduced the risk of fires and explosions, making factories safer in some respects. Better lighting improved visibility and helped prevent accidents related to poor lighting conditions. However, safety remained a significant issue, as electrocution and mechanical accidents still occurred frequently. Despite improvements in lighting and safety, the long hours, low compensation, and general worker burnout led many to attempt unionization. These efforts were largely opposed by factory management, but they did lead to some improvements in worker pay and benefits as management sought to appease the workers.

The Conflict Between Managerial Elite and the Working Class

The electrification of the factory is emblematic of larger social and cultural trends during the industrial revolution—most notably the conflict between the managerial elite and the working class. During this time, society extolled the virtues of the free market, increased productivity, and the efficiency of mass production. These ideals, however, were at odds with the realities faced by the working class. As much as the free-market ideals were extolled by the elite, the social consequences of these advancements were felt most harshly by the workers.

Early predictions about electrification contributing to an “electric free-market utopia” now seem overly optimistic. In practice, it served as a tool for tighter control over labor. The electric factory, rather than being an idealized place of efficiency, became a symbol of exploitation—designed to maximize productivity at the expense of the worker. Reflecting on the electrification of the factory allows us to draw important lessons about the role of technology in capitalist economies and its social consequences.

Takeaways: Technology and the Development of Capitalism

The electrification of the factory is not only a case study in technological advancement but also a critical lens through which we can examine the development of technology under capitalism. The shift from mechanical power to electric power, while grounded in technological innovation, was also deeply intertwined with the capitalist logic of maximizing productivity and reducing costs. Electric motors were not just a response to technical challenges; they were a solution to the problem of controlling labor more efficiently and extracting greater value from the workforce.

Under capitalism, the development and deployment of new technologies often prioritize economic incentives—efficiency, profit, and control—over human welfare. The electric factory, while improving some aspects of industrial safety and productivity, ultimately extended managerial control over workers, who were increasingly seen as expendable components in a larger system of production. This technological development was driven by the imperative to increase profit margins, often at the expense of workers’ health, safety, and autonomy.

The factory’s transition to electrification illustrates a broader pattern in which technological progress is shaped not by the needs and well-being of workers, but by the imperatives of capitalism. This pattern is still visible today in the rapid development of automation, artificial intelligence, and other cutting-edge technologies. Just as electrification transformed factories into more efficient, but often more exploitative, spaces, modern technologies are increasingly used to maximize output while minimizing costs, sometimes at the expense of labor rights, job security, and equitable access to the benefits of progress.

The rise of the electric motor, alongside the increased control over labor that it enabled, serves as a reminder that technological development is rarely neutral. Rather, it is often driven by economic forces that prioritize profit and efficiency. In the case of electrification, this meant controlling the worker’s time, space, and energy—pushing the boundaries of what was once a local, artisanal economy into a global system of mass production.

The Long-Term Consequences and the Role of Technology in Capitalism

The consequences of electrification and the capitalist drive for control over labor did not end in the early 20th century. These developments set the stage for future struggles between capital and labor. As technology advanced, the nature of work itself changed—skilled jobs were replaced by machines, workers became increasingly alienated from the products of their labor, and the workplace itself became more impersonal and controlled by management. In many ways, electrification represents a turning point where technology shifted from being a tool to enhance human labor to a mechanism that reshaped the power dynamics between employer and employee.

This historical pattern raises important questions about the future of technology in the capitalist system. As we enter an era dominated by automation and artificial intelligence, there is a real concern that these technologies will follow the same trajectory as the electric motor—concentrating power in the hands of a few corporations and leaving workers vulnerable to job displacement, exploitation, and alienation. Without careful consideration of the social implications of these technologies, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past.

However, the history of electrification also provides a lesson in the potential for technological progress to be shaped by collective action. The rise of unionization in response to the harsh working conditions in factories shows that workers can fight for better conditions, more control over their labor, and a fairer distribution of the benefits of technological progress. As we move forward, it is crucial to consider how emerging technologies can be used to empower workers, create more equitable work environments, and ensure that the benefits of technological innovation are shared broadly across society.

Conclusion: The Power of Technology and the Question of Control

Ultimately, the electrification of the factory is a story not just of technological innovation, but of power—who controls the means of production, who benefits from progress, and who bears the cost. The story of electrification is a reminder that technology under capitalism is shaped by the needs and interests of the ruling class, but also that these developments are never without conflict. The lessons from the past can help inform how we approach new technologies today, ensuring that we prioritize human welfare and fairness alongside efficiency and profit.