> Convesely, the Industrial Revolution led to poverty as-yet unseen anywhere as people became surplus to machine-labour.
Um, no. The only reason that seems like a reasonable claim is that you have a ridiculously rosy picture of what pre-industrial society was like, heavily influenced by leftist propaganda.
Leftist propaganda tended to point out pre-industrial society as an even greater evil, arguing that Schlaraffenland was achievable once "the workers" had taken control of the means of production.
The industrial caused immense suffering, poverty, starvation and pollution - that is simply the facts. Then, our societies achieved a new equilibrium and an increasing focus on service-industries developed alongside the initial seeds of the welfare-state, causing poverty-levels to drop as new labour-markets developed.
Now, we enter the post-industrial era, so far looking to be one of increasing poverty, both relative and real in the West as increased financial pressure via mass-migration takes an ever-increasing bite out of GDPs, pushing taxes ever higher and beyond the point of no return on the Laffer curve.
And then a new equilibrium will be established, once technological progress reaches a new impasse (the latest one being between 194- and 199-).
Don't look at economy in terms of money when looking at pre-industrial society - look at things as what a normal meal was, or how many hours per day someone had to work.
Here's a clue: a 17th century farmhand in Sweden had a much shorter workweek than a 20th century industrial worker, and paid about 10% of his income and wealth, such as it was, in taxes.
The industrial worker has at least a 40 hour work week, excluding lunch and travel-times, and pays over 50% in taxes on his income alone.
Because the industrial society made control and taxation easier than ever.
> Leftist propaganda tended to point out pre-industrial society as an even greater evil, arguing that Schlaraffenland was achievable once "the workers" had taken control of the means of production.
If pressed Marx would admit that, although even he spoke of primitive communism. Most leftists wouldn't, especially the ones following Rousseau.
> The industrial caused immense suffering, poverty, starvation
Not compared to what had come before.
> Don't look at economy in terms of money when looking at pre-industrial society
I'm looking at things like average calories consumed, what percentage of people could afford to have children, what percentage of women had to resort to prostitution.
> I'm not so sure about that.
You can see that most paths lead to poverty by looking at how horrifyingly poor people were before the industrial revolution.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1638185526078451713.html
In fact, the only known path out of poverty is the one England discovered during the second half of the 2nd millennium.
Convesely, the Industrial Revolution led to poverty as-yet unseen anywhere as people became surplus to machine-labour.
Yes, it eventually evens out but for those being made surplus until a new equilibrium is reached, that's cold comfort.
Oh, and people weren't poor the way we think they were, before the Industrial Revolution. Not here, since we never had a feudal system.
That's the problem with economists using money as a measurement for development - it doesn't show reality.
> Convesely, the Industrial Revolution led to poverty as-yet unseen anywhere as people became surplus to machine-labour.
Um, no. The only reason that seems like a reasonable claim is that you have a ridiculously rosy picture of what pre-industrial society was like, heavily influenced by leftist propaganda.
No, and no.
Leftist propaganda tended to point out pre-industrial society as an even greater evil, arguing that Schlaraffenland was achievable once "the workers" had taken control of the means of production.
The industrial caused immense suffering, poverty, starvation and pollution - that is simply the facts. Then, our societies achieved a new equilibrium and an increasing focus on service-industries developed alongside the initial seeds of the welfare-state, causing poverty-levels to drop as new labour-markets developed.
Now, we enter the post-industrial era, so far looking to be one of increasing poverty, both relative and real in the West as increased financial pressure via mass-migration takes an ever-increasing bite out of GDPs, pushing taxes ever higher and beyond the point of no return on the Laffer curve.
And then a new equilibrium will be established, once technological progress reaches a new impasse (the latest one being between 194- and 199-).
Don't look at economy in terms of money when looking at pre-industrial society - look at things as what a normal meal was, or how many hours per day someone had to work.
Here's a clue: a 17th century farmhand in Sweden had a much shorter workweek than a 20th century industrial worker, and paid about 10% of his income and wealth, such as it was, in taxes.
The industrial worker has at least a 40 hour work week, excluding lunch and travel-times, and pays over 50% in taxes on his income alone.
Because the industrial society made control and taxation easier than ever.
> Leftist propaganda tended to point out pre-industrial society as an even greater evil, arguing that Schlaraffenland was achievable once "the workers" had taken control of the means of production.
If pressed Marx would admit that, although even he spoke of primitive communism. Most leftists wouldn't, especially the ones following Rousseau.
> The industrial caused immense suffering, poverty, starvation
Not compared to what had come before.
> Don't look at economy in terms of money when looking at pre-industrial society
I'm looking at things like average calories consumed, what percentage of people could afford to have children, what percentage of women had to resort to prostitution.