![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mintogrubb.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIt amazes me how often people take me for someone of the Upper Classes. Ok, I am a Brit, and went to boarding school, but I got sent there by the State, and I believe very much in having a Welfare State, but not abusing it.
Having said that, I want to turn my attention (and hopefully yours) towards capitalism and British Society as I see it today. Perhaps it was the Industrial Revolution that I have to thank for the fact that i am priviledged to be able to sit and write at this computer. After all, the Industrial Revolution gave my ancestors an alternative to farm work, and created the wealth that the State used to educate me.
The liberals of the 19th century had a tough time persuading people that kids should be in school and that only adults should be working - but people like Robert Owen , a wealthy mill owner actually provided housing for his workers , and education for their children. And yet he continued to make a profit. His 'enlightened self interest' as I call it, led his workers to be more productive in the long run, and his business methods drew wider attention.
Lord Shaftsbury, a British Liberal MP, was also keen to have education as the norm instead of work for the children of Great Britain. he set up a company that is still operating today in Battersea, which is in south London. Ramoneur, at its inception , was inteneded to show that one did not have to stoop to using 'cheap labour' to make a profit.
Instead of employing small boys to clean chimneys, the company employed adult men and trained them to use specialist equipment. This meant extra training costs, and yet proved to be more cost effective, as small boys had to be regularly replaced more often than the brushes and sets of kit that the Ramoneur cleaners used.
Ramoneur went on to branch out into industrial and office cleaning, using the same ethos that its workers were 'skilled operatives' - trained to use specialist machinery, rather than just "cheap labour". Today, they are still a leading company in Britain and dominate the market.
So, it would appear that capitalism can be made to work for the benefit of the workers and not just the bosses, as it can increase the earnings of the poor, if the bosses are determined
to do so - and it can do this without leading to bankrupcy on the part of the employer.
Yet the argument has been put that in order for our industrailised civilisation to continue, more economic growth is needed year on year. people have to be persuaded to consume more goods, in order to find a market for al the goods that get produced. Supposing a small firm makes a thousand cameras a month, but can only sell a hundred in a year. the firm will soon go bust, and the workers will be unemployed. So, to keep unemployment down , we need to buy, to consume, to aim at increasing our nation's Gross Domestic Product, as economists call it.
But, if we look at the state of modern england, I can't help but notice that people do not seem to be happier now that they own more. Men earn more than women do, as a group- yet they also commit suicide at nearly twice the same rate. money does not seem to be buying us any contentment. life is undoubtably easier - we do not have to worry about childhood illness the way we used to. Social welfare is more readily available, and yet we find other things to be concerned about. are we really making progress?
Another aspect of the whole question is that we seem to be living on a planet with finite resources. We can double our production of electric power only so many times before we run out of oil and ore. Maybe we should not focus so much on increasing our possessions, but learning to create a sustainable economy.
Some politicians advocate that we should aim at voluntarily reducing our nation's populations.
less people = less consumption of water, living space and other finite resources.
Or of course, we can go to the moon and live there. but only if we are young and fit- at best , we could ship half a dozen people to the moon per year, at enormous cost. somehow, i don't see it as a way to sae humanity, unless we leave billions behind. and even themn we face an evolutionary bottleneck. a few dozen people is not a viable population in the long term.
So, I see problems with Consumerist Society.
Economic growth is unsutainable, affluence does not lead inevitably to contentment. or so conventional widom seems to indicate. maybe , Like marx and many others, I am missing something. Maybe we need to learn to use our leisure as they did in the past - not becoming spectators, but more as participants in making our own amusement as a way to reaching fullfillment.
It could also be that by providing services, and not producing material goods that we can find employment for people. One thing is certain , though - we cannot go on producing obese and unhealthy people they way we do in the western world. it isn't good for us, or our planet to eat so much meat, or use up so much land and water to produce our material comforts.
We have to remember that although the State may bail out the bankers in order to keep the system running, Mother Nature does not do bailouts. Ask the dinosaurs. We will either have to adapt when the oil runs out, or go extinct.
Having said that, I want to turn my attention (and hopefully yours) towards capitalism and British Society as I see it today. Perhaps it was the Industrial Revolution that I have to thank for the fact that i am priviledged to be able to sit and write at this computer. After all, the Industrial Revolution gave my ancestors an alternative to farm work, and created the wealth that the State used to educate me.
The liberals of the 19th century had a tough time persuading people that kids should be in school and that only adults should be working - but people like Robert Owen , a wealthy mill owner actually provided housing for his workers , and education for their children. And yet he continued to make a profit. His 'enlightened self interest' as I call it, led his workers to be more productive in the long run, and his business methods drew wider attention.
Lord Shaftsbury, a British Liberal MP, was also keen to have education as the norm instead of work for the children of Great Britain. he set up a company that is still operating today in Battersea, which is in south London. Ramoneur, at its inception , was inteneded to show that one did not have to stoop to using 'cheap labour' to make a profit.
Instead of employing small boys to clean chimneys, the company employed adult men and trained them to use specialist equipment. This meant extra training costs, and yet proved to be more cost effective, as small boys had to be regularly replaced more often than the brushes and sets of kit that the Ramoneur cleaners used.
Ramoneur went on to branch out into industrial and office cleaning, using the same ethos that its workers were 'skilled operatives' - trained to use specialist machinery, rather than just "cheap labour". Today, they are still a leading company in Britain and dominate the market.
So, it would appear that capitalism can be made to work for the benefit of the workers and not just the bosses, as it can increase the earnings of the poor, if the bosses are determined
to do so - and it can do this without leading to bankrupcy on the part of the employer.
Yet the argument has been put that in order for our industrailised civilisation to continue, more economic growth is needed year on year. people have to be persuaded to consume more goods, in order to find a market for al the goods that get produced. Supposing a small firm makes a thousand cameras a month, but can only sell a hundred in a year. the firm will soon go bust, and the workers will be unemployed. So, to keep unemployment down , we need to buy, to consume, to aim at increasing our nation's Gross Domestic Product, as economists call it.
But, if we look at the state of modern england, I can't help but notice that people do not seem to be happier now that they own more. Men earn more than women do, as a group- yet they also commit suicide at nearly twice the same rate. money does not seem to be buying us any contentment. life is undoubtably easier - we do not have to worry about childhood illness the way we used to. Social welfare is more readily available, and yet we find other things to be concerned about. are we really making progress?
Another aspect of the whole question is that we seem to be living on a planet with finite resources. We can double our production of electric power only so many times before we run out of oil and ore. Maybe we should not focus so much on increasing our possessions, but learning to create a sustainable economy.
Some politicians advocate that we should aim at voluntarily reducing our nation's populations.
less people = less consumption of water, living space and other finite resources.
Or of course, we can go to the moon and live there. but only if we are young and fit- at best , we could ship half a dozen people to the moon per year, at enormous cost. somehow, i don't see it as a way to sae humanity, unless we leave billions behind. and even themn we face an evolutionary bottleneck. a few dozen people is not a viable population in the long term.
So, I see problems with Consumerist Society.
Economic growth is unsutainable, affluence does not lead inevitably to contentment. or so conventional widom seems to indicate. maybe , Like marx and many others, I am missing something. Maybe we need to learn to use our leisure as they did in the past - not becoming spectators, but more as participants in making our own amusement as a way to reaching fullfillment.
It could also be that by providing services, and not producing material goods that we can find employment for people. One thing is certain , though - we cannot go on producing obese and unhealthy people they way we do in the western world. it isn't good for us, or our planet to eat so much meat, or use up so much land and water to produce our material comforts.
We have to remember that although the State may bail out the bankers in order to keep the system running, Mother Nature does not do bailouts. Ask the dinosaurs. We will either have to adapt when the oil runs out, or go extinct.
(no subject)
Date: 3/9/10 22:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/9/10 23:05 (UTC)it may solve the energy equation and give us plentiful cheap power , but we still need land , water and food for a growing population - or we stop the population growing and start moving to a shrinking population.
Expanding territory...
Date: 4/9/10 00:05 (UTC)Re: Expanding territory...
Date: 4/9/10 12:13 (UTC)The Pilgrim Fathers who founded th American colonies were dissenters who left of their own accord, but the solution of ' shipping people out' isn't likely to work for us today.
Nowhere near us in the solar system will support a large enough human population to make any difference. We have to make do with what we have here on planet earth, it seems.
Re: Expanding territory...
Date: 4/9/10 13:15 (UTC)Re: Expanding territory...
Date: 4/9/10 13:18 (UTC)Re: Expanding territory...
Date: 4/9/10 23:37 (UTC)Re: Expanding territory...
Date: 4/9/10 23:34 (UTC)Re: Expanding territory...
Date: 4/9/10 23:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 01:10 (UTC)When anxiety means "why do I have to work so hard to buy stuff," vs. "will my child get the mumps this winter and die," I'm going way out on a limb and say "Yes. We're making progress."
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 12:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 14:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 15:01 (UTC)In developed countries progress means accummulate accumulate accumulate for millions of others it is to hope that $1 a day will keep them alive.
http://www.who.int/whr/en/index.html
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 15:40 (UTC)Progress isn't a destination, it is a process.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 17:01 (UTC)A first step towards progress.
If you were to dig up your lawn and turn your swimming pool into a vegetable plot would be a start,the guy in Africa who earns $1 a day to provide you with beans for breakfast could eat em.
He is eating your breakfast!!!! hell NO can`t have that.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 17:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 17:39 (UTC)Trading habits of capitalism prevents progress?
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 17:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 18:02 (UTC)Elucidate please
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 21:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 17:31 (UTC)Yet there is a deterioration in the 'social fabric' of our nation.Less respect for the law, and less consideration for other people.
This does not pervade our entire culture yet, but the amount of grafitti on the railway rolloing stock, the lack of flags on government buildings and the amount of litter that ones sees on London's streets is quite striking to anyone returning from Belgium or Switzerland.
Britain never used to be like this.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 17:40 (UTC)Have you ever read any Theodore Dalrymple?
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 19:08 (UTC)Such things were unheard of when I was younger. I can't help wondering where we went wrong , and I feel that we became too focussed on people's rights and did not balace this with enough emphasis on them learning their responsibilities.
Theodore Dalrymple?
No, I can't say that I have - I will take a look , though.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 20:30 (UTC)Why? When has this ever been the case?
I can't help wondering where we went wrong
I'd be interested in your reaction to Dalrymple. May I suggest: http://www.amazon.com/Our-Culture-Whats-Left-Mandarins/dp/1566636434
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 20:50 (UTC)putting it like this, I begin to sense that there is something I'm missing.
Anyway - I have looked at the book and it strikes me as my sort of book. I will be onto it ASAP. may write an OP in this community, even.
thanks for the book rec.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 21:10 (UTC)As Ronald Reagan put it,
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
You substitute "civility" for "freedom" up there and apply it to the UK.
I hope you enjoy Dalrymple, even if you don't agree with him. You can find more of his stuff at http://www.city-journal.org.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 21:58 (UTC)Oh , he is deeply fascinating , even after a few pages.
thanks for the other link too.
you know, i didn't like reagan much, but what he says here, it's quite true . not just about freedom in America, but about *anything * you care about. Socialism , liberty, democracy, freedom of Speech - absolutely anything worth having at all - it has to be nurtured, protected and watched over constantly - else some bastard will come along and spoil it, or try and take it off you.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/10 12:02 (UTC)Yet we turn the 20s into a time of innocence. Pfah.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/10 11:59 (UTC)And technically speaking grafitti is as ancient as Imperial Roman times, while insofar as flags and the like are concerned Britain's not the society for the knee-jerk nationalism the USA mis-dubs patriotism.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/10 01:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 12:34 (UTC)The problem of population *will* be solved once the availability of quality food and water becomes more scarce. And yes it is likely to be unpleasant if we aren't proactive. The production of wealth and relative affluence however tends to limit population growth, as couples choose to have fewer children. Were it not for immigration, the population of Europe would be declining, and the population of the US would be level. So we in the developed part of the world may think of wealth as part of the problem, but in the rest of the world it is key to limiting population without instituting either draconian policies or allowing nature to run its course. Odd as it may seem, wealth is a friend of the environmentalist, because in the long run there is nothing more environmentally devastating than population increase.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 13:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 13:12 (UTC)To some, perhaps, but not to me.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 14:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 14:07 (UTC)Hence any time I see a commmitted pacifist on the Internet talking about how war does nothing good I break out in gigglefits.
Second, infinite growth is impossible. Interplanetary colonization will reach at its furthest point the Kuiper Belt as FTL travel is, to put it crudely, impossible. As you note the planet's resources are finite and once the ability to sustain industrial civilization is gone mass deaths will ensue and we'll end up with thousands of post-apocalyptic agrarian warlord civilizations once the mass dying happens.
And technically speaking the Order Theropoda *did* survive the K-P Extinction and is today the largest single category of terrestrial vertebrates. It's just few people tend to think "dinosaur" when looking at a cardinal or a Spix's Macaw.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 17:51 (UTC)how war does nothing good I break out in gigglefits.
Um , I think you may be posting in answer to another post, here.
I never mentioned war at all in my OP.
I have argued along the lines of " if I am a pacifist, why should my taxes go to support the armed services?" on another post - but having raised the point, I proceeded to answer it. so, no, I'm not a "commited pacifist", and I don't say that nothing good ever came out of WW2. Like the defence of Kuwait against the agression of Saddam Hussain , it was something we can be proud of, I think.
Second, infinite growth is impossible.
Again , where did I argue that it was possible?
Politicians tell us that we need to have economic growth, but I think that if you read the Op carefully, you see me talking about ' finite resources' and I actually said "economic growth is unsustainable". I don't just mean that we cannot plan ahead far enough and make the right choices - I mean it is physically impossible to have more GDP every year. At some point we will run out of oil, gas, water, land, and anything else that does not grow on trees.
Yes, you must have been writing to me, because you include the last bit - birds are descendents of the dinosaurs, so they are are still with us. On this point, you win.
All the same, we will have to do more than just grow feathers if we want to be around as a species in another 65 years, never mind 65 million...
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 22:02 (UTC)This little blue ball will be around, it's not the earth that most care about, it's their own ass's (Humankind at a push), hell the last generation didn't give a damn, the next generation doesn't seem to either, just let em alone, lemmee do the math:-
I'm nigh on 40, I'll be lucky to reach 70, so long as I can teach my kids to eat unhealthy food stuffs and not procreate, 60 years should do :) Let's party and go out with a bang?
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 22:10 (UTC)I've got some real ale in the fridge :)
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/10 05:32 (UTC)*Hic, not tonight though lol DAMHIKIJKOK but an afternoon of painkillers + Nausea meds + anti-d's + an evening of beer isn't the best of ideas unless psychodelic yoedels are your thing.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/10 11:46 (UTC)We won't last 65 million years. No individual species ever lasts that amount of time and only one of genus Homo lasted one million years: Homo erectus.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/10 22:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/9/10 02:20 (UTC)Not to beat a dead horse because I see you've already had this conversation with someone else, but for all intents and purposes, the past really really sucked for everyone but a tiny minority, and even they might die of something now that is curable like TB. Whether it is you talking about the Britain of yesteryear or an American talking about how great Native American societies were or a Chinese talking about how awesome the Tang dynasty was, the average human being of the pre-modern era was even more miserable than the average human being of today (and I know some miserable people). The present day has brought its own host of evils to visit on human beings but for people living in wealthy societies, they are mild. People do have a moral imperative to care about other human beings in far off places, but we need to understand that in many ways, these people are living the default human existance with regard to misery. Their standards of living haven't gone down (for the most part), it's just that ours have gone up.
And yet he continued to make a profit. His 'enlightened self interest' as I call it, led his workers to be more productive in the long run, and his business methods drew wider attention.
Interesting piece of history, but I would argue that this isn't necessarily relavent to the discussion of morality in labor markets (or any other markets). Owen was morally correct to do this whether or not he made a profit or not. If it is wrong to employ children and deny them an opportunity for education, then it is wrong to do this regardless of self-interest. While in this particular situation the economically efficient solution is ethically sound, we have to also confront situations in which the ethical solution is not optimally efficient.
Libertarians might want to argue that we ought to divorce morality from government intrusion in the market, but even then they usually apply this principle selectively (i.e., not many libertarians think kids should be sweeping chimneys instead of in school, and I think most of them would say the government is justified in intervening in this case).
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/10 12:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/9/10 15:01 (UTC)while it's an essential feature of modernity
it's a bit off topic, I know - but did not the Jewish people, among others. wipe out whole communities?
I am thinking not just of cities like Jericho, but the Hittites, and all those other tribes that were mentioned in Deuteronomy ( or is it Leviticus?)
Seven other nations were to be found in the land of Canaan, and they were to be utterly destroyed ( at least, this is the impression I get reading the English translation )
ture, nobody could afford a standing army, but I will go resaerch genocide for it's history.
In terms of 'progress', I get that we got radar and computers off of the back of WW2, but cheap soap, agricultural machines that boosted food production , better transport, canning and other things came into being before the war, I think.
"The industrial revolution did lift people out of starvation and poverty " - at least according to Badlydrawnjeff. yeah , I get that we got more soap, cheaper clothes and a few other goodies for the working class out of the deal - we no longer dreaded bad harvests.
But WW" - apart from radar, improved radio telecommunications and ultimately the internet, what else?