Historical Geography Of Chicago: Pullman City

In the late 1800s George Pullman, creator of the Pullman Palace Train Car Company established an eponymously named company town south of Chicago that was to become a pivotal point in labor relations for decades to come. Every inch of ground in Pullman City, and every structure built upon it was owned by the Pullman Company. While the claimed reasoning for such a town was to increase productivity, and improve the conditions of workers, it became apparent that this kind of tight control of labor by the capital class quickly leads to disaster.

To understand the nature of George Pullman’s town, and the differing ideological views of those who supported and opposed it, one can look to three texts. Firstly, Paul de Rousiers’s American life (1892) in which he describes a model city. This author takes a paternalistic view of Pullman, attributing his work to raising the moral character of his laborers. The next is an excerpt from Harper's Monthly in February of 1885 by Richard Ely called “Pullman: a Social Study.” At first this article appears to show approval of the Pullman town but continues to question the ethical nature of place with such strict control by company leaders. Lastly, we hear a speech from a striking Pullman worker, where he describes the grievances of the united laborers. Following this is the response from Pullman himself, defending the actions that lead to this strike. The most striking thing about the excerpt from de Rousiers is the concept he continually brings up about Pullman raising the moral character of his workers by building this town for him. This is a paternalistic view that the author repeatedly conflates with caring about his employees. In the last sentence he writes, “I must also remark that the industrial chiefs of the West usually concern themselves very little about their employees, and do not seem to be very anxious either for their material or moral advancement.” Implying that this was contrary to Pullman’s style. It is distant from Mr.de Rousiers the concept that the relationship between the owner class’s relationship with labor is not one of good faith.

It doesn’t seem strange to him that in this town where the workers pay more money to live closer to work and have much of their daily lives controlled by their employer, that the stock that Pullman holds has doubled in value. What’s most interesting about this concept that Pullman city raises the moral character of the workers is the inverse implication.

The idea that the worker living in squalor was not living in such a way because of material conditions, such as not being paid enough money to live somewhere decent. It wasn’t that the society was geared in such a way that required residences to meet a certain standard of quality. Rather, de Rousiers, (and doubtless many others) believed it was the lack of moral fortitude in the worker that lead them to a life of poverty. The Harper’s Monthly article by Ely makes eerily prescient comparison of the powers wielded by the Pullman company, and the Chancellor of Germany and Czar of Russian Empire. “It is a nearest approach than anything the writer has to what appears to be the ideal of the great German Chancellor. It is not the American ideal.” (Ely p.10)Ely alludes to the strict but modern rule of the Chancellor of the German Empire, but mentions also its supposed benevolence. In the same paragraph he mentions the so called efforts of the Czar of the Russian Empire to free the serfs and raise the standard of living for the Russian people. What’s eerie is how wrong Ely is in this assessment of his benevolence. In 30 years time both of those empires fall after being overthrown by the working class. Pullman gets a workers uprising of his own in the third text.

When the Pullman strike of 1894 occurred it was just two years after de Rousiers wrote of Pullman City espousing its glory. It seemed when an economic downturn occurred, Pullman suddenly became unable, or far more likely unwilling to raise the moral character of his workers. It is in these moments of economic downturns in a capitalist economy that its contradictions are exposed. If quality living conditions really are what’s best for Pullman workers and Pullman profits, and not a scheme to get more productivity and compete with other employers, why is it when the economy turns down equally poorly for everyone that they had to exist in “deplorable living and working conditions?” Wouldn’t it be best for the company to keep the employees well housed treated fairly? Pullman perpetuates the lie of treating economic downturns as naturally occurring events and not failures of this economic system when he refers to the wage cuts as an “absolute necessity.” This lays in direct contrast to de Rousiers’s claim that stock prices had doubled not long before. Meaning that the profits and dividends had been present but apparently that money wasn’t going to be used for wages or housing upkeep.

Pullman City is a textbook example of how capital’s direct, or nearly direct control of all aspects of employee lives leads inevitably to a reckoning with the internal contradictions of the capitalist system. While at first the powerful can claim that their actions are for the moral uplifting of the working class, or that they are benevolently freeing the workers from their serf-life status. The truth is that as soon as what masquerades like good faith actions for the benefit of the worker ticks over the line from profitable to not profitable on the wealth generation-meter, the entire concept collapses, and the workers come for what is rightfully theirs.