Anglo-Saxon capitalism is a genetic disorder

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Agathon
There's a simpler explanation.

Capitalism can establish itself only where the potential workers are ignorant and craven, so it is no surprise that it first arose in England.

That's a good one. Try again... at least say something that makes more sense than the OP ...

[CerberusIV]

Why England?

Possibly because they had just acquired the first global mercantile empire in recorded history, the military muscle to keep everyone else out, the sailing technology to make regular commerce possible without half your ships not coming back, relative political stability, a large and prosperous middle class with a Protestant work ethic and the belief that they should be in charge rather than a bunch of decadent frogs or some colonial upstarts.

Helped by being able to get the Scots to look after the money, the Irish to do the dirty jobs and the Welsh to do the really dirty jobs.

[BeBMan]

Next week they examine if the Brits are also genetically aggressors. The article will be written by Ned.

[Agathon]

Nobody can call the English efficient with a straight face.

No one that is who has experience with their arcane system of weights and measures, or their spelling system that defies reason.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Agathon
There's a simpler explanation.

Capitalism can establish itself only where the potential workers are ignorant and craven, so it is no surprise that it first arose in England.

So in other words the potential workers of other countries were enlightened and courageous in their sticking with agrarian feudalism? Doubtful.

Hell, even Marx thought capitalism was an improvement over that.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871


So in other words the potential workers of other countries were enlightened and courageous in their sticking with agrarian feudalism? Doubtful.

Hell, even Marx thought capitalism was an improvement over that.

1) Marx certainly didn't call capitalism an improvement for the peasant. In fact, he made specific criticisms of work in the factory. i.e. alienation

2) Feudal society was destroyed by the capitalists in England. It's often stated that labor was pulled from the countryside into the factories. That's really a load of crap. The peasants really didn't have any choice at that point.

3) Work in the factory was much worse than peasant work.

[The Vagabond]

The article must have some valid points. Anyway, it was a great reading.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Sandman


I don't think this is correct. Landless labourers reproduced like mad during the proto-industrial period.

But how many of their children eventually survived?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


But how many of their children eventually survived?

Plenty enough to work in the factories, and that's what created the economic growth.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Oh I am I think you'll find, but it is this oversimplification of genetics that has become so prevalent in journalism nowadays. Genetic factors may lend a predisposition for certain aptitudes, but environment is the key.

And then there is the issue of being in the right place at the right time as well as any environmental/genetic factors.

Predispotion for certain attitudes can also be of non-genetic nature. It can be just cultural, formed partly as described in the article.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Plenty enough to work in the factories, and that's what created the economic growth.

All right. But the economically successful people reproduced much more than that. Take into consideration the following quote from the article:

Preindustrial England was thus a world of constant downward mobility.

Downward mobility is the point. According to this, it might have happened that a noticeable part of those who worked in the factories came from higher levels of society.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Before 1800 there was no gain in living conditions compared to the stone ages?

Apparently not for lower classes (at least in terms of their life expectancy and nutrition).

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Higher living standards are created by labor unions, spreading the wealth among all those who take part in creating it.

And labor unions could get so strong only thanks to the existence of the USSR. Keep this in mind.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


All right. But the economically successful people reproduced much more than that. Take into consideration the following quote from the article:

Preindustrial England was thus a world of constant downward mobility.

Downward mobility is the point. According to this, it might have happened that a noticeable part of those who worked in the factories came from higher levels of society.

Umm.. No. Economically successful people don't work in factories. They don't now and they didn't then.

And I don't believe any of this downward mobility crap either.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Umm.. No. Economically successful people don't work in factories. They don't now and they didn't then.

And I don't believe any of this downward mobility crap either.

Not themselves but their children! Imagine them having six (surviving) children, so that there is no place for them all up there. Hence downward mobility.