Thoreau, and the Division of Labor

Henry Davis Thoreau. Over the years, his name has become synonymous with Walden Pond. Thoreau moved there with one idea. It was a radical idea, but if proven true would change our outlook on innovation, capitalism, and the division of labor forever. That idea is the topic of this essay.

Thoreau lived during the middle of the 19th century, during the industrial revolution. He watched as the world started emphasizing progress and efficient production. In his eyes, a dark cloud was looming over the celebrations of a modernizing world. While everyone was shouting, “Kumbaya!” to progress, the factory system was putting efficiency and profits at the expense of people. That was his argument. It is a common criticism of capitalism. The notorious economist, Adam Smith, believed that if everyone sought their self-interests and used the division of labor and specialization, then the economy would thrive. One of the many criticisms of capitalism as an economic system is that it rewards selfishness. The very foundation of capitalism is that everyone will do what’s most beneficial for them. Thoreau believed, as individuals, we could be self-sufficient, disregarding the division of labor. Essentially, the factory system put profits over people, and Thoreau despised this. Instead of lusting after maximum profits, it would’ve been more effective for individuals to produce their bare necessities. Instead of having builders construct your house and purchasing produce from the farmer, he wanted everyone to be self-sufficient. The house costs were redundant because savages were content living in wigwams. He argued that since we don’t have a greater morality than savages, we shouldn’t live in finer houses. He also challenged the innovations such as the railroad and the telegraph. Since trains can run people over, they are dangerous, and the concerns far outweigh the benefits. It wouldn’t hurt someone to walk instead of taking a train. His argument against telegraphs is even more interesting, as he argued that people have nothing valuable to say, and it was a waste of money. That, in essence, is what Thoreau believed. To prove that we didn’t need the division of labor and would be better off living simpler lives like the Indians, he moved to Walden Pond. If his theory were correct, he would undoubtedly prosper.

Thoreau lived at Walden Pond for two years. During his experiment, he built a house, started a farm, and sustained himself on fish and vegetables daily. Overall, Thoreau was self-sustained. While he did purchase the tools necessary to construct his house, in the big picture, it was a success. However, I would be cautious about believing his theory. Upon further analysis of his expenses, he barely broke even. It required two years of grueling work just to survive. There is no prosperity when you abandon the division of labor. Also, consider that he was a single man. If he had four children and a wife, that would change dramatically. His results may have flipped upside down.

Consider our current situation in modern society. Because of progress and efficient manufacturing, you can access the world’s knowledge in your back pocket. The internet, phones, and modern technology would be impossible to create without the division of labor. Some people would even prefer to break their bones than lose their phones, reports Business Insider.¹ While I believe that’s delusional insanity, it proves dependency on our current technology. That tech would be impossible to create without the division of labor. Leonard E. Reed described this complex web of economies working together through the division of labor in his masterpiece article, I, Pencil.² He demonstrates how even something as simple as a pencil travels the world through different stages of production before it reaches the consumer. It’s incredible.

Finally, I reject Thoreau’s criticisms of selfish pursuits in a capitalist society. While it’s true, he, like many others, is being derogatory. It is a superfluous argument to equate self-motivation to others’ deprivation. Just because individuals are motivated by their self-interests doesn’t mean that’s at the expense of others. For every winner, there doesn’t have to be a loser. That is a common misconception about the free-market economy. So, the notion that capitalism rewards selfishness is only a half-truth. Yes, the free market is fueled by self-interests, but that doesn’t equal selfishness. If you did not want to purchase something because it was too expensive, that isn’t selfish; it’s your divine right.

In conclusion, Thoreau antagonized the division of labor, but our modern society would collapse without it.

(1) Business Insider’s article: https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-addiction-teens-break-bone-lose-iphone-2018-4 (2) I, Pencil, by Leonard E. Reed: https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/