Anglo-Saxon capitalism is a genetic disorder

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Even if there was downward mobility, there's no reason to replace what we believe about IR in england with this theory.

Why to replace? The author just explores an additional aspect of what was going on in England. It's just a complement to, rather than a replacement of, the existing IR views.

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.

Well, the author just mentions that factory workers descended from craftsmen (the lower representatives of the middle class). But downward mobility is more general and not limited to that. It seems to me that "too many children -- no place for all" is a reasonable argument. Sure, some moved overseas, but not all, by far not all. Another argument is that a good cultural/educational level spread towards the bottoms of society.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Why to replace? The author just explores an additional aspect of what was going on in England. It's just a complement to, rather than a replacement of, the existing IR views.

Read again. He clearly makes the claim that IR is not the result of pro-expansion policies.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Read again. He clearly makes the claim that IR is not the result of pro-expansion policies.

Well, it doesn't seem reasonable to deny value to his work on the basis of one hyperbolical exaggeration.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Well, it doesn't seem reasonable to deny value to his work on the basis of one hyperbolical exaggeration.

No one has done a comprehensive criticism of to it. I think that would really be too much work. It's seriously very bad.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Darius871


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.

They didn't really have a choice. They didn't even have a vote.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Why is "the same" a wrong answer?

I shouldn't have to explain why that's wrong. Proletarian X is producing widgets that are used to construct brand-new hospitals, libraries, schools, universities, pharmaceutical factories, agricultural equipment, internet hubs, space shuttles, etc. etc. etc., while peasant Y is producing a pittance of grain to feed his lord, himself, 1-2 fellow peasants, and maybe an artisan if there's any grain left over.

X's widgets make possible an ongoing technological advancement that could one day cure all poverty and disease, while Y only makes enough grain to perpetuate the stagnant feudal system.

If you honestly think X and Y are making an identical contribution to the long-term progress of the human species... well I don't know any polite way to end this sentence.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Agathon
They didn't really have a choice. They didn't even have a vote.

Oh of course not, which goes back to your original point about the IR's determining factor being the ignorance and stupidity of the potential workforce, which implies they had some sort of choice and would have chosen differently had they possessed different characteristics.

I think we'd both agree there were in fact more important external circumstances involved.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871
X's widgets make possible an ongoing technological advancement that could one day cure all poverty and disease, while Y only makes enough grain to perpetuate the stagnant feudal system.

I think you are making way too much out of making widgets. Anyone who thinks they are doing all that needs to put down the pipe.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think you are making way too much out of making widgets. Anyone who thinks they are doing all that needs to put down the pipe.

Do you even know what widget means?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871


Do you even know what widget means?

Yes, I do, but why don't you tell me what you think it is.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


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

And that comes under environment

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Yes, I do, but why don't you tell me what you think it is.

It's a fiction used to signify any hypothetical product. So in my post above, the widget could mean steel rebar, plastic syringes, book-binding adhesives, mechanical reaper blades, fibreoptic lines, or anything else that hypothetical proletarian X might be making at the factory. In any case the abundance of widgets X produces gets us a hell of a lot closer to some sort of equitable utopia than the ineffectual pittance of grain Y produces.

It's funny, I've talked to a number of avowed Marxists in my time but I've never come across one who actually denies that some level of capitalism is a necessary step in mankind's progress to communism, or who even denies that capitalism is an improvement over feudalism. You apparently missed the boat Kid.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Darius871

Oh of course not, which goes back to your original point about the IR's determining factor being the ignorance and stupidity of the potential workforce, which implies they had some sort of choice and would have chosen differently had they possessed different characteristics.

The French at least had the common decency to behead most of their aristocrats. In Britain, the modus operandi is to ask the wealthy at what angle one should bend over to afford them a comfortable entry.

By and large, the British peasantry faced the choice of industrialization or starvation, but they were too craven to try to do anything about it. Look, even the Americans got pissed off at the British aristocracy enough to chuck them out. Look at Britain now... the chinless cretins are still there.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Agathon
The French at least had the common decency to behead most of their aristocrats. In Britain, the modus operandi is to ask the wealthy at what angle one should bend over to afford them a comfortable entry.

By and large, the British peasantry faced the choice of industrialization or starvation, but they were too craven to try to do anything about it. Look, even the Americans got pissed off at the British aristocracy enough to chuck them out. Look at Britain now... the chinless cretins are still there.

Bah, I can't argue with that. Good show old chap.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871
In any case the abundance of widgets X produces gets us a hell of a lot closer to some sort of equitable utopia than the ineffectual pittance of grain Y produces.

I don't believe in utopia. Even if there could be such a thing I don't think working in a factory would get you there. To get closer to utopia we need to settle differences that we have with one another. So I don't see how either working the land or working in a factory does that. Granted that we have higher technology and we know, division of labor, and better things now, but that really doesn't mean that someone in 1750 would think what they were doing was achieving all of that.

It's funny, I've talked to a number of avowed Marxists in my time but I've never come across one who actually denies that some level of capitalism is a necessary step in mankind's progress to communism, or who even denies that capitalism is an improvement over feudalism. You apparently missed the boat Kid.

Capitalism is just what it is. It's a historical process. That doesn't mean that working in a factory is better than working the soil, or that it was in the 18th century.

I think that capitalism hasn't gotten us to communism though. It's gotten use where we are today, and I don't think that that is communism or capitalism. I think Marx thought that differences would disappear and they didn't. If anything they increased, and things became more complicated. The working class wasn't suppose to have to depend on the capitalists or anyone else. It didn't work out that way either.