Industrial Revolution

[Dóchas]

so i was just wondering, was the industrial revolution really a good thing? i admit it did produce a lot of amazing machines and techniques that greatly enhanced production mainly in britain but wouldnt a lot of worker have lost their jobs (if you wan to call them jobs-low pay,apalling conditions etc) as the factory owners and bourgeoisie in general brought in machines as a more efficient and cheaper mode of production?

personally im not sure, i have mixed feelings about it but maybe you guys have a different idea about it?

[ComradeOm]

This may be my latent 'authoritarian' side coming through, but anyone who votes 'no' to the above should be forcibly rounded up and sent to either remotest Siberia or the Amazon Basin. Let's see how you like living without every modern convenience. Of course without modern medicine you won't have very long to experience this :rolleyes:

The Industrial Revolution is the best thing to have occurred to humanity since the first Agricultural Revolution. Bar none. Here in the West every aspect of our lives has been shaped, to some degree, by the effects of industrialisation. Only a primitivist would suggest that we attempt to return to a pre-industrial society, ie feudalism


wouldnt a lot of worker have lost their jobs (if you wan to call them jobs-low pay,apalling conditions etc) as the factory owners and bourgeoisie in general brought in machines as a more efficient and cheaper mode of production?Except that without industrialisation there were no workers; in any numbers at least. Both modern industry and the urban proletariat were born during the Industrial Revolution

[brigadista]

the industrial revolution would have been impossible without the profits from the translatlantic slave trade

see Hobsbawm, E. J., Industry and Empire, Penguin 1968

[Cumannach]

No Industrial Revolution, no Proletarian Revolution.

[Vanguard1917]

Except that without industrialisation there were no workers; in any numbers at least. Both modern industry and the urban proletariat were born during the Industrial Revolution

Along with the international workers' movement and modern socialism, neither of which would have been possible without the industrial revolution.

[h0m0revolutionary]

This poll should read:
Are you greatful for having the opportunity to agigtate and encourage class conscousness and are you glad you're not a slave, wallowing in your own shit, dying at the age of 20?

Without industrialisation there would be no working class, as revolutionaries it's not our job to congratulate the bourgeois revolution that ended feudalism, but to explain it in historical materalist terms.

[turquino]

The Industrial Revolution is the best thing to have occurred to humanity since the first Agricultural Revolution. Bar none. Here in the West every aspect of our lives has been shaped, to some degree, by the effects of industrialisation. Only a primitivist would suggest that we attempt to return to a pre-industrial society, ie feudalismThe agricultural revolution probably wasn't seen as a desirable thing for ancient people. Their diets, life expectancies, and health were better as hunter gatherers. Evidence suggests that some societies abandoned farming and returned to hunting and gathering when they could. While the agricultural revolution allowed for a greater surplus to be saved, it also created a division between a class of rulers and the ruled. One doesn't have to advocate primitive-ism recognize that historical progress hasn't always been a positive thing.

The industrial revolution undoubtedly greatly accelerated the expansion of the social surplus, but there was about eighty years between the start of the industrial revolution and a rise in living standards above the level of subsistence. Even though growth was fast relative to previous centuries (though slow by today's standards) the average person wasn't necessarily better off. The correlation between growth and consumption certainly was not linear. When wages rose it was first and fastest in the clerical and administrative positions, eventually followed by the urban proletariat, and finally the rural proletariat.

I think there was at least seventy years between the triumph of the bourgeoisie marked by the glorious revolution in england and the start of the industrial revolution. However the united provinces had capitalism even before england, probably by the early seventeenth century, yet their industrial revolution came slowly. What do people think, was the industrial revolution a natural outcome of capitalism?

[turquino]

the industrial revolution would have been impossible without the profits from the translatlantic slave trade

see Hobsbawm, E. J., Industry and Empire, Penguin 1968

That's right. The textile industry that made britain the workshop of the world was heavily dependent on slaves to pick cotton in the ameriKKKan south.

[Pinko Panther]

The Industrial Revolution, in itself, was a very good thing. Technology is not "evil". It can, however, be used in negative ways. Without the Industrial Revolution, where would we be today? Even though factory owners etc. profited, overall, it was a positive thing for humanity.

[Comrade Anarchist]

not for workers but out of it society pushed forward and the idea of modern communism was created.

[Delirium]

I chose yes, even though i think that we cant really decide at this point. Either it will be a brief period of ruthless exploitation leading to socialism, or it will be the end of humanity due to ecological catastrophe.

[BIG BROTHER]

Without the Industrial Revolution, we would still be living under some sort of feudalism, or worst we would have fallen on barbarism. The working class wouldn't not have developed, and Socialism would be an utopia.

[ComradeOm]

One doesn't have to advocate primitive-ism recognize that historical progress hasn't always been a positive thingHowever primitivists do not accept that progress is inevitable. And only a primitivist would argue that the gross deprivations of the short term would outweigh the incredibly advantages reaped in the long run


The industrial revolution undoubtedly greatly accelerated the expansion of the social surplus, but there was about eighty years between the start of the industrial revolution and a rise in living standards above the level of subsistence. Even though growth was fast relative to previous centuries (though slow by today's standards) the average person wasn't necessarily better offYet even then there were immense advantages to urban living for this emerging proletariat. For all the undeniable wretchedness of the industrial cities (the Dickensian aspect, if you will) its a universal reality that the early decades of a society's industrialisation is marked by immense and sudden migration from the towns to the cities. Now either people were suddenly taken a flight of insanity, or a yearning for cholera, or the reality is that the average person was indeed better off

Seeing as Hobsbawm has already been mentioned, here's the man himself on the decline in mortality rates in industrialising societies and the irrelevancy of linking it to consumption levels:

"...the decrease in mortality which is primarily responsible for the sharp rise in population need be due not to an increase in per capita consumption per year but to a greater regularity of supply; that is, the abolition of the periodic shortages and famines which plagued pre-industrial economies and decimated their populations. It is quite possible for the industrial citizen to worse fed in the normal year than his predecessor, so long as he is more regularly fed"

'Hobsbawm, (1957), The British Standard of Living 1790-1850'. Emphasis in original

Or, as I put it in my more earthy way - life as a peasant is unimaginably shit

[Cumannach]

Yet even then there were immense advantages to urban living for this emerging proletariat. For all the undeniable wretchedness of the industrial cities (the Dickensian aspect, if you will) its a universal reality that the early decades of a society's industrialisation is marked by immense and sudden migration from the towns to the cities. Now either people were suddenly taken a flight of insanity, or a yearning for cholera, or the reality is that the average person was indeed better off



But surely the enclosures and the expropriations of the peasants and small proprietors also played a role in this, on the involuntary side.

[Oktyabr]

The technological advancements made by machinery served to aid the proletarian cause.

With the pay they finally began to earn, and the shortage of which caused waves of anger and resentment, the workers began to recognize the flaws of the system for the first time, and organize themselves as a force of society; no longer an indefinable mass of slaves. They became real people performing real jobs, with real needs.

[ComradeOm]

But surely the enclosures and the expropriations of the peasants and small proprietors also played a role in this, on the involuntary side.No doubt a factor in Britain but less useful in explaining away the process of urbanisation in other European nations. Or indeed in Asia today. To give an example, the real industrialisation surge in Germany did not begin until the last decades of the 19th C, with migration patterns heavily favouring the city until the mid 20th C, by which time the German (certainly Prussian) landholding was firmly rooted in small private farms

Indeed a far more important factor in causing migrations from the countryside (in the "involuntary" sense) was the simple lack of work caused by either: 1) the rationalisation of farming, through the establishment of private farms and mechanical production; 2) the long agricultural depressions from the 19th C onwards that rendered peasant farming uncompetitive

[STJ]

I picked yes.

[8bit]

Was the industrial revolution a good thing?

Let's see. I'm sitting here, listening to the sound track from Sonic 2 on my laptop while typing up a message that will be semi-instantaneously sent around the world once I hit reply.

Fuck yes, the industrial revolution was a good thing. The industrial revolution, in it's earliest form, was as progressive as the socialist revolution we're pushing for right now. It WAS the socialist revolution of its time. It allowed products to be easily created and information to be easily distributed. Sure, it created a new league of oppression, but it's not like there wasn't already a much harsher one. The feudalistic monarchies which existed before the industrial revolution, and the mass adaptation of capitalism were far more oppressive than the capitalist bourgeois ever were.

[alexo]

yes