And that 'resource extraction' as you deem it is DIRECTLY why industrialization occurred, which in turn has lifted most of the global population out of abject privation! What's ur point here? Has there been exploitation, corruption, unequal outcomes, and unforgivable immorality? Most assuredly. Welcome to human history and civilization. …
And that 'resource extraction' as you deem it is DIRECTLY why industrialization occurred, which in turn has lifted most of the global population out of abject privation! What's ur point here? Has there been exploitation, corruption, unequal outcomes, and unforgivable immorality? Most assuredly. Welcome to human history and civilization. The modern West, Enlightennent, Liberalism, and Captalism has done more to foster the growth and well being of ALL Humanity than anything that has come prior. It's not even debatable...(but folks still try!)
That's of little reprieve to the masses who had to undergo that rapid modernization for the sake of 'progress', as opposed to us who could more or less do it at our own pace because we were the first to do so. The amount of social and economic upheaval that cost the local population is tremendous, in a negative way. Or does that not matter?
Capitalism is not some permanent bedfellow of those ideas you list. And although it has been a predominant feature of modern Western economies, that doesn't mean it goes hand in hand with liberal or Enlightenment values - they aren't mutually inclusive. It's an economic model, not a system of values or a premise for basic human rights.
Except they do go hand in hand. I mean, ffs, let's be real here! Maybe at some point aliens will show up (or angels!) and show us 'The Way', but until then I'll bank on the flawed way it's gone up til now. I want to be clear here!!: I am acutely aware of the pitfalls, incongruities, etc that are, for the most part, inherent in modern 'progress' of the last several centuries. I also am of the firm belief that we, meaning everyone on the planet, will continue to innovate and improve on what we have so far.
No, they don't go hand in hand. Are you actually trying to say that Liberal and Enlightenment values could not have flourished without capitalism? How on earth can you make that assumption, because it happened to happen in the Western world? Correlation is not causation, and it isn't interdependence either.
We really didn't "do it at our own pace." The "first world" had just as much of a technology shock as it industrialized as the third world does now. Remember that the very word "Luddite" comes from violent riots by artisanal weavers smashing up newly-proliferating power looms putting them out of business.
I would not say it's "just as much" as a shock as, say, 19th century colonies in Africa and Asia. Come on man, are you really saying that the European craft industry went through just as much hardship as, say, the Bengali famine of '43?
I'm confused what the '43 Bengali famine has to do with industrialization shocks on craft industry. Wasn't that caused by WWII increasing food needs because of war refugees, diverting local food to military use, and damaging the transportation infrastructure that otherwise could have been used to bring in emergency relief?
But yes, things like the Enclosures resulted in massive immiseration of displaced English workers, including widespread starvation, later only barely averted through the introduction of government poor relief (at the request of the capitalists, who didn't want to have to artificially increase wages above subsistence).
The war may have been the British reason for diverting all that food away from Burma, but the famine would not have happened at all that year if it weren't for British colonial control. And the primary reason they were able to have such strong control was because they were so much more technologically advanced (especially in terms of military) than the locals. And the reason they were so advanced was because of being one of the first to industrialize. Like much of history, it had a domino effect on a lot of the lands and peoples under British colonial rule. James Burke could have easily done a Connections episode about it, although it would have been pretty grim.
It's my understanding that the Enclosure Acts were instigated by the noble land owners who got tired of 'sharing' their land with the commoners, and sought to use the Crown to help them formalize their embryonic private property rights so they could streamline their acreage for more sheep and wool. And that the new industrialization taking place in English urban centers was ironically one of the things that saved many peasants from starvation due to the enclosures. So it went from largely communal land to largely private land, does that all sound correct?
Interestingly, just found a quote from Marx about this very thing. I'm not a Marxist myself (at least I don't think I am), but it seems fitting for FdB's substack:
"As Karl Marx saw it, the enclosures in England amounted to a 'systematic theft of communal property.' He argued that they served two primary purposes: first, to kickstart capitalist agriculture, and second, to 'set free the agricultural population as a proletariat for the needs of industry.'”
And that 'resource extraction' as you deem it is DIRECTLY why industrialization occurred, which in turn has lifted most of the global population out of abject privation! What's ur point here? Has there been exploitation, corruption, unequal outcomes, and unforgivable immorality? Most assuredly. Welcome to human history and civilization. The modern West, Enlightennent, Liberalism, and Captalism has done more to foster the growth and well being of ALL Humanity than anything that has come prior. It's not even debatable...(but folks still try!)
That's of little reprieve to the masses who had to undergo that rapid modernization for the sake of 'progress', as opposed to us who could more or less do it at our own pace because we were the first to do so. The amount of social and economic upheaval that cost the local population is tremendous, in a negative way. Or does that not matter?
Capitalism is not some permanent bedfellow of those ideas you list. And although it has been a predominant feature of modern Western economies, that doesn't mean it goes hand in hand with liberal or Enlightenment values - they aren't mutually inclusive. It's an economic model, not a system of values or a premise for basic human rights.
Except they do go hand in hand. I mean, ffs, let's be real here! Maybe at some point aliens will show up (or angels!) and show us 'The Way', but until then I'll bank on the flawed way it's gone up til now. I want to be clear here!!: I am acutely aware of the pitfalls, incongruities, etc that are, for the most part, inherent in modern 'progress' of the last several centuries. I also am of the firm belief that we, meaning everyone on the planet, will continue to innovate and improve on what we have so far.
No, they don't go hand in hand. Are you actually trying to say that Liberal and Enlightenment values could not have flourished without capitalism? How on earth can you make that assumption, because it happened to happen in the Western world? Correlation is not causation, and it isn't interdependence either.
We really didn't "do it at our own pace." The "first world" had just as much of a technology shock as it industrialized as the third world does now. Remember that the very word "Luddite" comes from violent riots by artisanal weavers smashing up newly-proliferating power looms putting them out of business.
I would not say it's "just as much" as a shock as, say, 19th century colonies in Africa and Asia. Come on man, are you really saying that the European craft industry went through just as much hardship as, say, the Bengali famine of '43?
I'm confused what the '43 Bengali famine has to do with industrialization shocks on craft industry. Wasn't that caused by WWII increasing food needs because of war refugees, diverting local food to military use, and damaging the transportation infrastructure that otherwise could have been used to bring in emergency relief?
But yes, things like the Enclosures resulted in massive immiseration of displaced English workers, including widespread starvation, later only barely averted through the introduction of government poor relief (at the request of the capitalists, who didn't want to have to artificially increase wages above subsistence).
The war may have been the British reason for diverting all that food away from Burma, but the famine would not have happened at all that year if it weren't for British colonial control. And the primary reason they were able to have such strong control was because they were so much more technologically advanced (especially in terms of military) than the locals. And the reason they were so advanced was because of being one of the first to industrialize. Like much of history, it had a domino effect on a lot of the lands and peoples under British colonial rule. James Burke could have easily done a Connections episode about it, although it would have been pretty grim.
It's my understanding that the Enclosure Acts were instigated by the noble land owners who got tired of 'sharing' their land with the commoners, and sought to use the Crown to help them formalize their embryonic private property rights so they could streamline their acreage for more sheep and wool. And that the new industrialization taking place in English urban centers was ironically one of the things that saved many peasants from starvation due to the enclosures. So it went from largely communal land to largely private land, does that all sound correct?
Interestingly, just found a quote from Marx about this very thing. I'm not a Marxist myself (at least I don't think I am), but it seems fitting for FdB's substack:
"As Karl Marx saw it, the enclosures in England amounted to a 'systematic theft of communal property.' He argued that they served two primary purposes: first, to kickstart capitalist agriculture, and second, to 'set free the agricultural population as a proletariat for the needs of industry.'”