Thu 14 Apr, 2011 04:50 pm
Not exactly. It spread rather fast, which led to the issues of itself. While this "trying to find the cheapest labor..." occured without industrialization, it occured more rapidly with industrialization. And now, they are paying people not ...what their labor is worth, but in fact less, which devalues their worth. The economy was anything but unhealthy. It was expanding at the expense of dependent economies and its own dependent populace, and rather rapidly. This expansion is directly responsible for the exploitation.
It spread fast, within the jurisdiction of only a handful of countrys that kept it to themselves. Its not that "trying to find the cheapest labor occurred more quickly, its that the labor of those in factorys were not as high as the Artisan...s who used to make the products replaced by the machines, and that foiled the difference to make it look as if they were being paid less than what they are worth. At Any Rate, that is never true, because like labor, trading any two things both parties agree because it benefits them both. Sure unskilled factory workers would LIKE to get paid lots of moneys, but the labor to press buttons and pull levers all day isnt worth much at all.
On a different note, the purpose of the machines was to manufacture a lot more with fewer amount of people involved. So in theory, most of the jobs was not IN the factorys themselves, but in the Urbanized cities AS A RESULT of the factorys being built.
Im not huge on the history aspect, for i read only the interesting part of our book. : P
I must unfortunately comment on your idea of trade. You assume a win-win situation, but in most cases during industrial Europe, it was a win-zero situation, with the industrialists gaining money, and the poor having little to none surplus m...oney, with the latter being the most common case. It this case, it is not that the "zero" party particularly enjoys being depressed to the position of "wage slave", but that it is the lesser of two evils, a position I have mentioned to you many times. Furthermore, you understate the dangers of being in a factory. Nowadays, most factories only require minimal human interaction with the machines, but it was not always so. In fact, it was the opposite, for example, the tanning industry. The worker had to actually tan the hides, cut the fat from the sides in a giant machine which was basically a knife sandwich, then leave then to dry, and finally "soften" the hides. The softening is arguably one of the most dangerous parts of it. You would put the hide on a wooden rail, keeping your fingers out of the way, and a huge pair of metal jaws would come and rip it out of your hands very fast. To keep that from happening, you have to hold really tightly, no easy feat, and pull the leather against the jaws to soften it up. The dangerous part comes when the jaws clamp down, and if anything gets caught in it, it gets either pulled clean off, or it pulls you into the machine. I had a relative from Cuba that had that happen to one of his fingers. Before you say he was some newbie would didn't know what he was doing, he was in the industry for many years before that. That's not the only danger, the knife sandwich, if you got a hand or piece of clothing caught in it, would peel the flesh and skin from the bone, and pull the rest of you into it until somebody could shut it off. So yes, while it does take more work, it is exponentially more dangerous than the work of artisan, which should, in a just universe, make up for the deficit in labor time. On your second comment, yes, in theory that is how it would work, but mechanization required humans to run them, fix them, make sure that they have oil, and mechanization allowed factories to increase in size drastically. Larger factories means more machines, and more machines means more workers required. That is what drew the largest amount of workers, not the cities. Ergo, what was theorized did not occur in actuality.
Trade is Always a win-win for both party's. You make it sound because the Factory Owners are making so much more money than the workers its exploitation. You dont feel that way when you purchase a $1 chocolate bar, adding to the millions of... dollars that Corporations have? No, you both gain no matter the difference, or else the trade wouldn't have happened, people dont deliberately harm themselves. You dont sell somthing less than you think its worth do you? And vice versa, their labor of working in a factory isnt worth much.
And for your example of the conditions in the factory, the standards of living were so much lower at the time, it didnt seem like that big of a deal. Also, it was an industry in the making, of course its going to suck at first. Look at our first space missions. Where the rockets would Explode moments after take-off. They should have made that illegal. Every new industry is bound to have a rough start, especially if their is little competition, most often cause by Borders and Regulations. I remember reading a letter written by a child laborer to her mom, while she was away working in a factory at the time in the 8th grade. She was literally happy working their, despite the "Horrid Conditions" because it made her feel independent, earning her own money and buying things for herself. It really wasnt until people labeled her a victim, did she become a victim. With todays standards of living, it really foils and makes them look like abused animals. But of course, the lesson of that day in school was too teach kids how much of our lives have improved because of our savior, Big Brother.
Your LONG example of the conditions of a factory was SO unnecessary.
The people actually working in the factories represent only a fraction of the Actual city jobs. Lets just say there are about 100,000 factory jobs, where as in the city where there are several Million people, or even more, the factories are only a fraction. So to make a blanket law "to protect the workers in the factories", you are also harming the Irrelevant City workers as well. Which is where i come into this, i would have been a cashier at BlockBuster in the city. But Now i am unemployed, and the money i would have earned didnt reach the taco-shop i would have went to. And that money from the Taco Shop didnt make it to purchase more beef. And the money the farmer would have gotten from selling beef, never reached the manufacturing plant that make the Plowing Machines he uses. And the manufacturing plant never had that money, would have never reached its employees that got paid, so they can rent their favorite movie from BlockBuster, where i WOULD have been working at. The Ripple Affect done by these harmful laws suck, for the lack of expression.
First of all, in this case, industrialization follows not the principle of mutualism, but that of wealth condensation, epitomized by the old adage "The rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer [sic]." You sell your labor less than y...ou think it is worth because it is literally the only way to get a somewhat secure job and to avoid starvation. Thus, the supposed "worth" of their labor decreases. The enormous amount of competition worked against the workers, and if they wouldn't work for a lower amount, somebody else would, and the industrialists would continue to exact their profit, at higher and higher amounts inversely proportional to the lower and lower wages of the workers. It was held to be self-evident that " ...the lower classes must be kept poor, or they will never be industrious." The lower classes were not even necessarily profiting from this, as it was noted that by the end of the century, 25% of all English were at or below the level of income required for subsistence, let alone leisure.
Yes, any industry starting off is going to be dangerous and degrading, and is as likely to occur as a result of too much competition as from too little, but that does not explain the continuances of this up to the late 19th century. As for your letter, I am infinitely skeptical of it, knowing how the factory system for children was, and was said by Charles Dickens to be a "dark satanic mill." One social commentator refers to them as "places of sexual license, foul language, cruelty, violent accidents, and alien manners." And how is that same line of rhetoric is used as valid logic by modern anarchists, who describe the populace as "sheep who don't know the inherent failings of government until they are enlightened to them." Does that line of logic suddenly become more valid or more factual when it is used for your convenience? Nor is it entirely true! The first protests of industrialization were carried out by the people employed by the factories themselves. My example of the conditions of a factory was entirely necessary, to show the horrid conditions, without modifiers, of the factories, and yet you still manage to ignore it as hysteria and exaggeration.
One my final note, you are vastly underestimating the number of workers employed in factories. First, at the time realize that the number of workers in industrial Europe was 80% of the population, if not higher. Next, out of that eighty percent, approximately 31% of them were poor and working in the factories. That is a far cry from the slight amount you give for an example. During the time, a person in your position would have no need to work, your parents would have had more than enough money to keep you in your accustomed style, and it would have been unthinkable that someone from your family would have *had* to work. Nowadays, the effect "sucks", as you so eloquently put it, because you are so far removed from the time period that you cannot empathize with the situation that occured. You can't imagine that these laws could have possibly done any good, as judging from your description of them as "harmful". You only see them as how they impact you, and that is not entirely your fault, as I have mentioned before. Yes, as a indirect effect of these laws, you cannot become employed, but that does not make them harmful.
I cant argue against history, castro. I know these things happened this way. But what i am saying is What ALLOWED them to happen this way, and it is always directly, or indirectly because of Government Intervention in the market place.( I k...now that that blanket statement can be argued to some degree, but it is MOSTLY true). I think i have made myself clear earlier on Exactly what does the government do to retard the growth of an economy, and ultimately, people ability to get richer. The rough times of the 1800's created many social and economic problems for people because there were so much competition between world governments thats they were trying to keep everything that would increase its "revenue" inside its imaginary lines. This leads to Extreme differences in economies and culture between a short amount of land. Which is Bad.
A good example would be San Diego and Tijuana. Because we Alienate the other side to the point where there is a visible drop in wealth on the other side. Taxation and Regulations also aid in making it more difficult for poorer people to get one their feet because it only adds more obstacles not everyone get get through, and unnecessary obstacles at that, such as Zoning Laws, or Licensing laws, Preventing a poor person from selling tacos on the street. And then Blaming the Bastard Capitalist, who in fact make good friends with Senators and Presidents. Who you should blame are the People In Charge! Look at the AEG Bailouts, they were billions in dollars in debt, but they remained to be rich because they had enough friends in the state.
None of this would happen in an Anarchy.
And i believe i addressed your third paragraph at school.
In a nutshell, Jobs were in Cities more than Factory's. Just with logos, it seems to be an Impossible Statistic to say that the majority of people worked in factorys. Considering there are millions of people in cities, let alone Major ones like New York, with MANY Millions. AT MOST, and even then probably not, there would be 100,000 people employed in factorys.
Unfortunately, you can not prove your analysis of classical economic proceedings because you are biased against government, thus providing a major source of "waver", as well as the mutual inability to control the variables. We can look in t...he past which held this constellation of variables, and make our assumptions of who did what and what they did to the other variables, but we cannot, however, hold these assumptions to be scientific proofs. That is a mutual failing, because we can no more recreate an entire economy without government than we can stop the tides from turning. In the beginning, the agricultural transition brought with it both population increase and centralization of political power. We do not know enough to be able to stipulate on the relationship between these three, only that they occur in tandem. This triumvirate also brought with it the practice of not murdering the closest non-familial person you can find, although, once again, we cannot associate that to any one variable. In the forests of New Guinea, the hunter-gatherer groups of the lowlands, whenever two males meet, they go through their relatives, to find a reason not to kill the other. This occurs in the least centralized political unit, the tribe. This agricultural transition has never occurred with an anarchist "group", if you will. The role of the government auto-catalyzed with the auto-catalytic increase of agricultural productivity. This chain formed the foundations for industrialization. The point of this is to demonstrate that increased economic prosperity began with government, not anarchy. That does not mean that anarchy at this point would not increase productivity at this point, but it does suggest that anarchy could not, due to an inherent failure in its philosophy, create the ultimate foundations for this economy.
Furthermore, there is nothing to assume that anarchy would be the optimal structure for technological or economic innovation. In fact, it is the opposite. Anarchy leads to drastic fragmentation, which is good for innovation up to a point, which is not the point to where anarchy fragments to. This fragmentation is due to failure to resolve interpersonal conflicts without a governmental authority. This failure leads to fragmentation until it does become possible to resolve the interpersonal conflicts. I have said once before that the optimal form of competition is one where there is a moderate amount of competition, with full exchange of ideas. You already understand the "little competition" part of that, but perhaps you need to see the down sides to extreme competition. It is exemplified by an economic conditon called "zero-profit condition". This occurs when the barriers to entry are extremely low, reaching zero. Because of this, supply vastly exceeds demand, and the competition reduces the profit margin, as well as drastically limiting each "player's" share of the market.
As for your final comment, you are unfortunately mistaken about the meaning of my comment. While it is true that factory workers do not form a majority, they did form a large section of society during the Industrial Age. This has decreased due to automation and the use of robots in manufacturing, however, reducing this amount to that of which you stipulate in contemporary times. At the time, factory workers were roughly 25% of all society. For every four random people you saw, one of them was a factory worker, not the 1 out of 30 or higher statistic you give.
As a final comment to Kimberly, I must say that you misunderstand my comment. I said that wealth condensation occurred during industrial Europe, not that it occurs now. Your video would do nothing to disprove that, since it only describes people from 1975 to present, after, might I remind you, the introduction of minimum wages, unions, and other legislation.
If i cannot prove my analysis because it will be bias, how can anything be analyzed? You have just said that ALL Social Sciences are false because they are bias to that school of thought. Yes social sciences CAN prove analysis of social phe...nomenons that occur in society, in the same way that any 'scientist' can prove something. Humans are just another subject of study, and like any study, there are patterns that can be recognized and articulated into theories for those phenomenons. How can you say those are false? Are they not the same thing as the Scientific Method? Social Science consist of Observable Data that can be analyzed just like any data, humans are no less of a study than biology. In Social Science, when we observe the past of course we cannot control the variables, same with ANY study. And besides, schools of though can prove their theories but experimenting on human actions, such as the Marshmallow test with children that demonstrate the theory of Time Preference. Through this, we can say that Yes, this is true, again, just like ANY science.
"In the forests of New Guinea, the hunter-gatherer groups of the lowlands, whenever two males meet, they go through their relatives, to find a reason not to kill the other"
I hope you realize how ridicules this is, even if this were the case for that region at that time, it most certainly doesnt apply to modern society. And NO, the credit is not given to government, just because they monopolize few of the necessary services to aid with solving disagreements between parties, doesnt mean it cannot exist without them. Most parties correct themselves anyways for self-interest. It is not beneficial to be a jerk-wad. When the cashier at home-depot gives you less change than you deserve, you both dont Draw Arms and shoot one another, you do the math, call the manager, and come to an agreement. It is unrealistic for people to resort to immediate violence, in fact, it is the opposite. If human beings were that brutal, there would be no government large enough to hold us down, let alone THOSE Human Beings IN CHARGE, who holds down those who holds down? How are the elites any more civilized (Meaning Not Blood Thirsty) than the people they rule? The belief that Humans are Bastards that look for opportunity's to kill one another, therefore a government is necessary, is complete *******, because the same logic isnt applied to itself. People behave because it is beneficiary. People live together to cooperate under the division of labor, not to harm one another.
Also, the origins of government does not justify its modern existence.
The second humans began to produce, the market was born, and humans had MORE of a reason to get along. Government was never a factor in this, it is never necessary for economic prosperity, in the modern market, when governments pass legislation that "Stimulates" the economy, all they are doing is Un-Doing their damage that has been done. If i take 10 dollars from you, and then give you 6 of those back the next day, i didnt CAUSE you to have 6 more dollars.
"That does not mean that anarchy at this point would not increase productivity at this point, but it does suggest that anarchy could not, due to an inherent failure in its philosophy, create the ultimate foundations for this economy. "
What "Inherent Failure" in its philosophy is that? At Any Rate, Anarchy is seen everywhere, practiced everywhere. Its the science of the Market Itself, it is not somthing you force regions into or else the Secret Police will get you. It is the science of what Already Is, and what Was. Adam Smith did not CREATE the practice of capitalism, he simply labeled it, analyzed it, and understood it. Trade has been happening before Adam Smith. People didnt become "Capitalist" after Smith, they just discovered the academic label for their behavior. Volunteerism is the same thing (Everyone already practices it, they just havnt labeled it. Either way, its not the mass that labels themselves, they practice it without knowing, ever bought anything at a Flea Market? Tax Free? Non-licensed Goods? Under the States big fat nose? You have practiced free market anarcho-capitalism, which IS Human Nature) , except taken a step further, For Smith was still a thought prisoner. He disproved and questioned the government, but still believed they were necessary, so says them. It is like question the Churches Authority, but still believing in god, and a hell, because according to the institution you question you would burn forever, says the institution abusing you...
Anarchy does not "Lead to fragmentation", that statement is a contradiction in itself, No Government does not create many small ones. "This fragmentation is due to failure to resolve interpersonal conflicts without a governmental authority", i have already spoke of this, but if i must. The monopoly of services would and can be replaced by free market capitalism, if there is a demand for an Arbitrary Firm, it would exist, justice is no different than any other service. People want transportation? Cars were born.
"but perhaps you need to see the down sides to extreme competition. It is exemplified by an economic condition called "zero-profit condition"
Although this can be true idealistically, the fallacy in this is that their are millions of Niches a market can support. If everyone were selling Hot Dogs, in theory yea they would be cheap, and the vendors would make few moneys. But realistically, if someone's current Niche (This case selling hot dogs) is unsatisfactory, and didnt provide him with enough economic relief, he would DO SOMTHING ELSE, like sell Hamburgers, and those around him might work in a Construction Site, just somthing else. If that were the case for the current state of the market, it would correct itself. At Any Rate, reasons that Zero-Profit may occur would be a new market good, caused either by technological innovation, new trans-regional trade routes, or the sudden Legalization of products. An Excellent example would be those new Marijuana Dispensers that recently became legal. Because of the sudden legalization of those, there are now thousands in San Diego alone, and the market share for those is little now. If marijuana were always legal, there would not be a sudden exponential growth in a certain market good, that In Theory, creates the Zero-Profit condition you believe.
And for your last paragraph, There are Millions of jobs in Cities, and at most Hundreds of Thousands of Factory Jobs. The history Facts in this statement is not what was important for the ideological debate. Whether i am off by a a large or small number, its the equation we are analyzing, not the results.