Anglo-Saxon capitalism is a genetic disorder

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


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.

They had a place to go, to the American Colonies.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Kidicious


They had a place to go, to the American Colonies.

Yes, and that too!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Yes, and that too!!

No. Not that too. The labor force for the factories was not the result fo downward mobility. It's the result of the transformations of English society. Before peasants worked the land for the means of life, but they couldn't do that anymore so they worked in the factories.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Kidicious


No. Not that too. The labor force for the factories was not the result fo downward mobility. It's the result of the transformations of English society. Before peasants worked the land for the means of life, but they couldn't do that anymore so they worked in the factories.

No one said that downward mobility was the only factor behind increasing the labor force for the factories. It was just one of them, maybe not even the main factor as you point out. But the point actually is that downward mobility played a considerable role in the English society, one way or another.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
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.

He saw capitalism as an improvement only to the extent that it maximized the productive capacity of societies and consequently made socialism (and eventually communism) possible. The question of whether working in a factory was more or less miserable than scraping away at the dirt as a peasant is not only debatable but irrelevant.

Anyway, the main point was just that the implications of Agathon's theory are absurd, if he was even serious. Obviously feudal peasants were also ignorant and craven, if not moreso.

[Agathon]

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.[/i]

If I, as a peasant, were offered the choice between a reasonably healthy rural life, and the reeking horror of working in a factory, I'd choose rural life.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
But the point actually is that downward mobility played a considerable role in the English society, one way or another.

I think it's a very poor theory. Yes, there was some mobility. This is the first time I've seen it called downward mobility. There was migration to the colonies. That's just one factor.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


But how many of their children eventually survived?

Plenty. I don't think that this 'downward mobility' existed, period. The author of the article is an economist, not a demographer or geneticist. His theory is based on the study of ancient wills, hardly a foolproof source of information.

[Kidlicious]

Even if there was downward mobility, there's no reason to replace what we believe about IR in england with this theory. He's really just assuming that the upper class was superior. He doesn't present any good argument for that. Even if factory workers decended from the upper class they weren't harder workers or anything like that. In fact, they were probably a little bit lazier and less suited for hard work.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Agathon
If I, as a peasant, were offered the choice between a reasonably healthy rural life, and the reeking horror of working in a factory, I'd choose rural life.

That's a little too categorical... on the one hand merely guiding a plow would be easier than lugging metal beams while breathing in black smoke in a steel mill, but on the other hand sitting at a loom would be easier than reaping and bundling wheat in the hot sun. It depends on what jobs you're talking about.

But let's suppose you're right that factory work - on the whole - is more miserable. The choice still depends on my intentions. If I'm just selfishly concerned about how comfortable my life will be, I might opt for rural life. If, however, I were interested in a social project which could eventually lead to balanced nutrition, clean housing, enlightening education, advanced healthcare, political liberties, etc. etc. etc. for my descendants, I'd bite the bullet and choose the miserable factory over comparatively comfortable stagnation.

[Kidlicious]

I have some **** that need shoveling Darius, if you are interested in a social project.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I have some **** that need shoveling Darius, if you are interested in a social project.

...and to what sort of revolutionary social transformations will shoveling your **** contribute? I'll need some idea before making a final decision.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871


...and to what sort of revolutionary social transformations will shoveling your **** contribute? I'll need some idea before making a final decision.

How did working in a factory create social transformation?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
How did working in a factory create social transformation?

I didn't say "create," I said "contribute." Whether knowingly or unknowingly, every factory worker was playing a small part in building an industrial colossus out of nothing. Meanwhile, the peasant simply was born, worked, and died with nothing to show for it but some grain.

Which of the two workers made more of a difference in the overall progress of the human species?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871


I didn't say "create," I said "contribute." Whether knowingly or unknowingly, every factory worker was playing a small part in building an industrial colossus out of nothing. Meanwhile, the peasant simply was born, worked, and died with nothing to show for it but some grain.

Which of the two workers made more of a difference in the overall progress of the human species?

Why is "the same" a wrong answer?