5 ms·

> Industrial revolution resulted malnutrition and deterioration of absolute living standards. What? Capitalism did not create poverty or famine - it inherited

> Industrial revolution resulted malnutrition and deterioration of absolute living standards. What? Capitalism did not create poverty or famine - it inherited it, and then swiftly solved it. The industrial revolution, if anything, obliterated it from the Western world. Compared to the centuries of pre-capitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first chance the poor had ever had to survive.

SolaceQuantum 11y ago
Have you actually read any muckrake pieces of that time? The industrial revolution brought about the redunancy of weavers who were skilled workers that were brought to poverty[1]. 1. http://webs.bcp.org/sites/vcleary/ModernWorldHistoryTextbook/IndustrialRevolution/IREffects.html#workingconditions http://webs.bcp.org/sites/vcleary/ModernWorldHistoryTextbook...
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  And everyone who was not a weaver (most of the population, and mostly not skilled workers) could now afford unthinkable luxuries in their daily life, like a second or third shirt (lightly used). I think this has been posted around here before: http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-lesson-in.html http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-l...
- branchless 11y ago
  I think the main problem is workers lacked choice due to access to alternative means of employment due to land enclosure laws. Had they been able to choose between say farming and working 12 hour shifts in bad conditions they would have looked at the risk/reward. As it was the choice was work or starve. Wages are therefore set at subsistence levels rather than at the floor set by the alternative. Land enclosure created unemployment. Employers were not bidding against one another to secure workers, they were in a dutch auction with labourers to "save them". Similarly today due to very high land prices we cannot work selectively (unless you earn a lot). Were land prices to be suppressed I think we would see people choose to work less which would put pressure on employers who would have to hand over to workers a greater share of the value they produce.
  - SolaceQuantum 11y ago
    Would that be a capitalistic move to suppress land prices?
    - branchless 11y ago
      Land value tax. It's actually extremely capitalistic in my opinion. It trims the fat of speculators, forces people to use land effectively or pay the price and in general cuts out dynastic wasters. http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/ http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/ Can't reply to you - one of the mods has disabled my ability to post (haven't posted in an hour and get "you're submitting too fast"). Or perhaps the thread has been closed down. Who knows.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        I think you've mistaken "capitalistic" for "good"; each of your points is a way in which LVT is not capitalistic, even if it is a way in which it is desirable.
- AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
  Of course they were brought to poverty. They were obsoleted by technology. The link you provide proves my point readily: > Since population was increasing in Great Britain at the same time that landowners were enclosing common village lands, people from the countryside flocked to the towns and the new factories to get work. At the time, Europe's population was increasing 300% per century, whereas in prior eras the population increase was around 3% per century. Why was the population increasing so rapidly? Because capitalism was enabling the disenfranchised poor to survive for the first time. Obtaining household goods was becoming less of a struggle, people were living beyond the age of 40, and famine was no longer a daily reality for most. The societal changes that occurred due to the industrial revolution were significant and immediate; of course there were issues dealing with this change. It was the most potent moment of change the modern world has ever seen - a culmination of the ideology of the Renaissance paired with the technology of the times.
  - SolaceQuantum 11y ago
    Your claim is that capitalism solved poverty and didn't create any instances. I'm pointing to an instance where people became impoverished because they were rendered redundant from capitalism. That's all I'm saying. You seem to be arguing against something that isn't my point.
    - thatswrong0 11y ago
      I think it's pretty obvious they meant poverty as a whole, in which case you're just being pedantic.
  - loup-vaillant 11y ago
    > Because capitalism was enabling the disenfranchised poor to survive for the first time. Capitalism? Or just plain technological progress?
mtbcoder 11y ago
Malnutrition, abysmal living standards, etc certainly have not been "swiftly solved" or obliterated. These are battles we are still facing today, even in Western societies.
- AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
  The concepts of malnutrition and abysmal living standards, on their own, are proof to the contrary. Prior to the industrial revolution, most human beings faced these realities. Today, a tiny fraction of individuals deal with these issues.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    Sure, relatively speaking but in considering the population explosion since the industrial age, there are more people in absolute numbers living in poverty. As shown by the demographic economic paradox, poverty and overpopulation are closely related in a negative feedback cycle of exponential proportions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
  - mtbcoder 11y ago
    I'm not suggesting that progress has not occurred or that many of us are not better off, but to definitely say that we've swiftly solved or obliterated mass poverty, malnutrition, etc is ridiculous and callous to say the least. Again, these are issues we are still fighting today.
    - AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
      Perhaps you're referring to the malnutrition observed in people (particularly youth) on food stamps and other forms of state assistance? I'm sorry, but I do not buy the idea that this is an issue we're still fighting today, when the problem stems directly from our own policies towards the poor. The problem is not malnutrition, but rather the so-called 'solution' to it.
brbrodude 11y ago
You should study more history dude, that's a very broad point to be making for a period of 300 years against 5000 years that comes before, it's quite clear you haven't given the rest much thought. Stop being shallow, please. From yesterday: http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-bullshit/ http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-...
- AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
  LOL. Just because you put 'please' at the ass-end of your sentence doesn't forbid it from being useless, out of place, idiotic, or rude. Did you miss the population rates I leveraged in my other response? I've actually provided evidence for my claims, though they should have been well-understood already by this audience. What's your excuse for not offering a shred of evidence for or against what I've written here, besides calling it 'shallow'? The article you're quoting, if anything, works towards my point not against it. Academia has run rampant with the false belief that capitalist events like the industrial revolution were on their whole exploitative. Entire sub-genres of academic study exist to explore on micro-levels events of injustice which often times are greatly exaggerated. Did you ever conceive of that being shallow?
  - brbrodude 11y ago
    I'll phrase my posts whatever way I see fit, thanks. Who is being rude here again? I saw your population growth rate, I also saw that you completely ignored what is in the quote you yourself highlighted, that the rich landowners were enclosing the common land, which was land that was not private before then, this being a relevant factor in why one could argue that their means of subsistance were taken from them and given to the already-powerful, if this is true so then is this a micro-level event of injustice or a relevant event for modern history and to capitalism itself? See, you are shallow. If you haven't, take a read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure then read a lot more, thats it. Give me a break on the "academia conspiracy" at least untill you've actually studied what is their view, they've been studying this shit since before, while it was happening so to just brush them off like this stupid since there's tons of hours of intellectual work and research that went into that and you'd like to dismiss it because you don't like the conclusion. I don't have enough time to go through this really, so whatever, believe in what you most like.
dragonwriter 11y ago
What greatly reduced Western poverty was not capitalism, which made it worse, but the 19th century reaction against capitalism which made it so that the modern mixed economy replaced capitalism everywhere in the West. (The industrial revolution provided the capacity for reducing poverty, but under capitalism that capacity was directed elsewhere.) Conversely, the move in the last few decades years back toward capitalism in the US has pretty much killed improvent in conditions for most of the working class, while radically accelerating gains for the narrow set of hypercapitalists at the top of the system.
- AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
  I disagree. Poverty increased because mortality rates dropped precipitously, leading to an unprecedented uptick in demand. Whereas most people would have simply died, capitalism and particularly its industrial revolution allowed these people to actually live. Supply could not possibly be increased quickly enough to handle the new strains placed upon nations by these successes. My estimation of the 19th and 20th century reactions against the protection of property rights is that it led to a diminished capability of private industry to rationally and reliably deal with the issues posed by this great expansion of human procreation.

SolaceQuantum 11y ago

Have you actually read any muckrake pieces of that time? The industrial revolution brought about the redunancy of weavers who were skilled workers that were brought to poverty[1]. 1. http://webs.bcp.org/sites/vcleary/ModernWorldHistoryTextbook/IndustrialRevolution/IREffects.html#workingconditions http://webs.bcp.org/sites/vcleary/ModernWorldHistoryTextbook...

fennecfoxen 11y ago
And everyone who was not a weaver (most of the population, and mostly not skilled workers) could now afford unthinkable luxuries in their daily life, like a second or third shirt (lightly used). I think this has been posted around here before: http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-lesson-in.html http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-l...
branchless 11y ago
I think the main problem is workers lacked choice due to access to alternative means of employment due to land enclosure laws. Had they been able to choose between say farming and working 12 hour shifts in bad conditions they would have looked at the risk/reward. As it was the choice was work or starve. Wages are therefore set at subsistence levels rather than at the floor set by the alternative. Land enclosure created unemployment. Employers were not bidding against one another to secure workers, they were in a dutch auction with labourers to "save them". Similarly today due to very high land prices we cannot work selectively (unless you earn a lot). Were land prices to be suppressed I think we would see people choose to work less which would put pressure on employers who would have to hand over to workers a greater share of the value they produce.
- SolaceQuantum 11y ago
  Would that be a capitalistic move to suppress land prices?
  - branchless 11y ago
    Land value tax. It's actually extremely capitalistic in my opinion. It trims the fat of speculators, forces people to use land effectively or pay the price and in general cuts out dynastic wasters. http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/ http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/ Can't reply to you - one of the mods has disabled my ability to post (haven't posted in an hour and get "you're submitting too fast"). Or perhaps the thread has been closed down. Who knows.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      I think you've mistaken "capitalistic" for "good"; each of your points is a way in which LVT is not capitalistic, even if it is a way in which it is desirable.
AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
Of course they were brought to poverty. They were obsoleted by technology. The link you provide proves my point readily: > Since population was increasing in Great Britain at the same time that landowners were enclosing common village lands, people from the countryside flocked to the towns and the new factories to get work. At the time, Europe's population was increasing 300% per century, whereas in prior eras the population increase was around 3% per century. Why was the population increasing so rapidly? Because capitalism was enabling the disenfranchised poor to survive for the first time. Obtaining household goods was becoming less of a struggle, people were living beyond the age of 40, and famine was no longer a daily reality for most. The societal changes that occurred due to the industrial revolution were significant and immediate; of course there were issues dealing with this change. It was the most potent moment of change the modern world has ever seen - a culmination of the ideology of the Renaissance paired with the technology of the times.
- SolaceQuantum 11y ago
  Your claim is that capitalism solved poverty and didn't create any instances. I'm pointing to an instance where people became impoverished because they were rendered redundant from capitalism. That's all I'm saying. You seem to be arguing against something that isn't my point.
  - thatswrong0 11y ago
    I think it's pretty obvious they meant poverty as a whole, in which case you're just being pedantic.
- loup-vaillant 11y ago
  > Because capitalism was enabling the disenfranchised poor to survive for the first time. Capitalism? Or just plain technological progress?

mtbcoder 11y ago

Malnutrition, abysmal living standards, etc certainly have not been "swiftly solved" or obliterated. These are battles we are still facing today, even in Western societies.

AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
The concepts of malnutrition and abysmal living standards, on their own, are proof to the contrary. Prior to the industrial revolution, most human beings faced these realities. Today, a tiny fraction of individuals deal with these issues.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  Sure, relatively speaking but in considering the population explosion since the industrial age, there are more people in absolute numbers living in poverty. As shown by the demographic economic paradox, poverty and overpopulation are closely related in a negative feedback cycle of exponential proportions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
- mtbcoder 11y ago
  I'm not suggesting that progress has not occurred or that many of us are not better off, but to definitely say that we've swiftly solved or obliterated mass poverty, malnutrition, etc is ridiculous and callous to say the least. Again, these are issues we are still fighting today.
  - AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
    Perhaps you're referring to the malnutrition observed in people (particularly youth) on food stamps and other forms of state assistance? I'm sorry, but I do not buy the idea that this is an issue we're still fighting today, when the problem stems directly from our own policies towards the poor. The problem is not malnutrition, but rather the so-called 'solution' to it.

brbrodude 11y ago

You should study more history dude, that's a very broad point to be making for a period of 300 years against 5000 years that comes before, it's quite clear you haven't given the rest much thought. Stop being shallow, please. From yesterday: http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-bullshit/ http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-...

AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
LOL. Just because you put 'please' at the ass-end of your sentence doesn't forbid it from being useless, out of place, idiotic, or rude. Did you miss the population rates I leveraged in my other response? I've actually provided evidence for my claims, though they should have been well-understood already by this audience. What's your excuse for not offering a shred of evidence for or against what I've written here, besides calling it 'shallow'? The article you're quoting, if anything, works towards my point not against it. Academia has run rampant with the false belief that capitalist events like the industrial revolution were on their whole exploitative. Entire sub-genres of academic study exist to explore on micro-levels events of injustice which often times are greatly exaggerated. Did you ever conceive of that being shallow?
- brbrodude 11y ago
  I'll phrase my posts whatever way I see fit, thanks. Who is being rude here again? I saw your population growth rate, I also saw that you completely ignored what is in the quote you yourself highlighted, that the rich landowners were enclosing the common land, which was land that was not private before then, this being a relevant factor in why one could argue that their means of subsistance were taken from them and given to the already-powerful, if this is true so then is this a micro-level event of injustice or a relevant event for modern history and to capitalism itself? See, you are shallow. If you haven't, take a read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure then read a lot more, thats it. Give me a break on the "academia conspiracy" at least untill you've actually studied what is their view, they've been studying this shit since before, while it was happening so to just brush them off like this stupid since there's tons of hours of intellectual work and research that went into that and you'd like to dismiss it because you don't like the conclusion. I don't have enough time to go through this really, so whatever, believe in what you most like.

dragonwriter 11y ago

What greatly reduced Western poverty was not capitalism, which made it worse, but the 19th century reaction against capitalism which made it so that the modern mixed economy replaced capitalism everywhere in the West. (The industrial revolution provided the capacity for reducing poverty, but under capitalism that capacity was directed elsewhere.) Conversely, the move in the last few decades years back toward capitalism in the US has pretty much killed improvent in conditions for most of the working class, while radically accelerating gains for the narrow set of hypercapitalists at the top of the system.

AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
I disagree. Poverty increased because mortality rates dropped precipitously, leading to an unprecedented uptick in demand. Whereas most people would have simply died, capitalism and particularly its industrial revolution allowed these people to actually live. Supply could not possibly be increased quickly enough to handle the new strains placed upon nations by these successes. My estimation of the 19th and 20th century reactions against the protection of property rights is that it led to a diminished capability of private industry to rationally and reliably deal with the issues posed by this great expansion of human procreation.