Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (60784)	12/9/2002 7:59:30 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thank you both, John M. and Frank1900. It is a lucky lurker who reads this exchange of ideas. I hope it continues.

To: JohnM who wrote (60784)	12/10/2002 7:17:19 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi John, They were not products of benevolent business practices or benevolent governments. I know my history of the period. What I meant to say (too rushed these days), is that medium, long term, capitalism tends to improve workers' conditions because of its process/structure and workers did also struggle for better wages and governments did legislate improvements in labour laws. But the side with the guns wasn't united - there were those who took the view (often backed with pretty shifty readings of Smith and later Darwin), that workers deserved their conditions, and those who thought workers deserved a better deal. Certainly that was the case in England. I emphasized the democratic nature of some in the power classes because so often it seems lost. They argued their cases both from first principles and on pragmatic grounds. This is not an unreasonable position I'm taking in regard to the British history. If you look back you can see easily that certainly since time of Elizabeth 1 British history generally has a theme of the Crown siding with commoners against the nobility, and as the Crown became constitutional certain parts of the power classes sided with commoners (workers). By the 19th century this was certainly a sensible position: you have to "get alongside" of the largest indispensible segment of your population or a good part of it, or they are going to "get in front" of you. I wouldn't call any of the players "benevolent". The term is irrelevant. What we have to do is look at what they said and what they did to back up what they said. We must do this or what sort of history and philosophy are we doing? All the players' ideas are important otherwise they are not actors but are only socially, economically, whatever-ly, conditioned ciphers and individuals have no significance - they won't signify. Only the structure, or the economic system, or some other reification will be seen to have significance - explanatory power. (Also, the contingent aspect of life and history gets lost and we're left with some kind of specious determinism). Mid 19th century England was no utopia but it had already become modern in what counts. It had taken up democracy and science (reason) as overarching principles. Hypocrisy was examined not just for its normative aspect but for its logical quality, and of course it always contains a contradiction and it led to questions of the nature, 'if classes X,Y,Z have the franchise then what are the (logical) reasons for denying other classes the franchise'? And of course the continental madman hit the biggy with his usual elan: if science, not religion, is what we turn to, then effectively, God is dead and how do we know then, how to behave? Both questions got heavy play - it wasn't just the rarified classes who had something to say and do about these things?. The jinn was out of the bottle , it wasn't going back in, and it's been on a world tour ever since. This has relevance for our FADG discussions. A middle eastern person looks at US support of his repressive government and asks, "Since the US is democratic why is it supporting my failed repressive government? If Democracy is good enough for you why isn't it good enough for me?" A damn good modern question turned by the enemies of modernity to their own use. I can't agree with the following, There is a view of the late 19th century and early 20th century British and US history that emphasizes either a dynamics within capitalism that improves the lot of workers or a kind of "natural" evolution. Perhaps you favor that latter. Either position as stated seems too restrictive although I'm not sure I know what you mean by the latter. Where I live in N America there was a view widely and strongly held by both sides well through the middle of my life that economic life is a struggle between workers and owners and you don't give an inch. It grew out of the local history of violence in the coal industry. It was fostered by both labour and management organizations and parties and acted on. But it wasn't the only view held and acted on. I think both views are wrong. Rather, if we were to dig around in this issue for a while, and I'm definitely not suggesting we do for fear of boring everyone else on the thread, if we were to dig around in that history, we would run across a violent history of union clashes with companies, states, and, in some cases, the federal governments. Two of the outcomes of those struggles were an expanded franchise and union organizing rights. They were not products of benevolent business practices or benevolent governments. I think Marx missed that possibility. But I don't think it was possible for him to see it given the structural power configurations of mid 19th century England Marx missed the possibility but it wasn't because the structural power configurations obscured the possibility. It's been a while and I don't have time to dig but I'm pretty sure here and there he did admit the possibilty grudgingly. He attacked and misrepresented the reformers, and supported unionists because he was a revolutionary . But his system wouldn't allow it Socialists, union leaders, reforming politicians, working people, business people, other scholars could see the possibility despite the structural configurations.you mention.