Are we slowly regressing back to the 19th century?

[Hexen]

Recently, has anyone noticed that we're actually regressing back to the 19th century/Victorian era in terms of the corporations having so much power, the lack of worker unions, the existence of child labor and exploitation, and now I'm hearing about people having much longer work hours....

Well for those who studied history can anyone find similar traits that were around during the 19th century that are happening (or making a comeback) today in the 21st century?

[Rusty Shackleford]

there is one major difference between the 19th century and the 20th century. Industrialists were the ones who ruled but now it is the finance capitalists. it will be different but there are some similarities.

After labor was crushed in the 80s and productive capital was moved out of the country unproductive financial institutions have taken over as the way to produce economic growth. Unless productive capital somehow makes its way back into the US, it will not look similar to the 19th century.

[Buffalo Souljah]

go on...

[ComradeOm]

No. History does not move in convenient cycles. Even if it did, 'regressing' back to the 19th C would imply that capitalism had returned to its dynamic and expansive youth. This is when everything around us points to the increasing stagnation and decay of the capitalist system

[RebelDog]

I think we are just seeing the negative social effects which are driven by the ruthlessness of markets and the power of corporations. The liberalisation of markets and economies in the 'developing countries' has made it easier for the corporations to exploit child workers to a sickening degree. The capitalists and their institutions are controlling the world to suit their needs. What we are seeing is the enormous social costs of the criminal policies inmposed by their institutions, (IMF, World Bank, etc). I'm sure you could find similariites throughout all of the history of class society if you looked. The powerful have the means and control to impose child labour, long hours, low wages etc, so they do so as its in their interests. This has often devestating effects on the wider population and the world in general but that is for others to worry about.

[tellyontellyon]

Since the end of the USSR the Capitalists have been more brazen in their attacks on the working class.
Even though there were real problems with the top-down bureaucratic system in the Soviet Union, it wasn't capitalist; it had a form of a planned economy that offered an alternative to capitalism.
The capitalists have made less concessions since the fall of a super-power that could have potentially been able to offer economic/military support to revolutionary movements were it to still exist.
At the moment a triumphant capitalism is clawing back any reforms that were won by the working class (so much for reformism!)...
... however, this unrestrained capitalism is now digging it's own grave even more quickly by making quite a mess of ordinary peoples lives.

[ContrarianLemming]

[QUOTE]

Recently, has anyone noticed that we're actually regressing back to the 19th century/Victorian era in terms of the corporations having so much power, the lack of worker unions, the existence of child labor and exploitation, and now I'm hearing about people having much longer work hours....

none of this is true, corporations were extremely weak in the 19th century, they were powerless, corporations became powerful in the 80's.
Workers rights have also been only improving to a great extant, child labour has also been lessened to a massive degree

no one else spot this? the premise is false

[BLACKPLATES]

yes, we are.

[the last donut of the night]

No, we are not "regressing" to the 19th century. History does not work that way, as other users have said. What we are seeing is the decay of the capitalist system around us. Humanity has two choices in 2010: socialism or savagery.

[Foreigner]

My first response, looking at the OP question, was a resounding "obvious yes." But then, some excellent points were made -- the alignment of different forces within capital, the relative importance of the corporate form, the near-universality of human oppression in most recorded history, and the relative "maturity," as it were, of capitalism in those ages. And these are true, and reflect heavily upon the answer in a more literal point.

But I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, what the OP is really asking is whether we (likely meaning working Americans) are losing ground in the class struggle -- losing the gains that were made in the 20th century, such that we're reverting to a point of vulnerability and relative power of capital to ruthlessly exploit, here, that was last seen at the turn of the century.

And I think that is what most of us who, from the American point of view, are probably thinking when we immediately say "yes!" We're thinking about the loss of very specific legal concessions within the capitalist framework that were founded on an implicit power gained by the implicit threat and/or fears of popular revolution or unrest in that period.

And, as the post before mine points out, it is an incomplete analysis. But yeah, the history is rhyming. (As in the truism, the source of which I can't remember, that history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.) Or at least that's the impression I've got.

[RebelDog]

As I said above you can look through all of the history of human class society and find similarites with today, because all these situations rely on the ruling class exploiting labour in some form and this can produce the same outcomes such as poverty, low wages, child labour, tyranny, war etc. I wonder what effect rolling back the welfare state will have on todays population. There was no welfare state in the 19th century.

No, we are not "regressing" to the 19th century. History does not work that way, as other users have said. What we are seeing is the decay of the capitalist system around us. Humanity has two choices in 2010: socialism or savagery.

Marx thought capitalism was in decay in the 19th century.

[Magón]

Well besides the Amish, I haven't seen anyone taking a Horse-n-Buggie on the highway. (Seriously, they do that stuff, and they almost get killed doing it!) As for just social and economic standards, no.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well on foreigner's point of lost gains for labor we did lose the Employees Free Choice(we never had it, but we lost the chance to have it) act which would have made union organizing much easier.

That coupled with the destruction of labor in the 80s like i said has caused the american proletariat to be in an incredibly weakened state.


this is a new situation were finance capitalism is stubbing its toe everywhere and imperialism is on the verge of being defeated in afghanistan.

in the 1800s, financial capital was growing, and imperialism was going strong. capitalism was growing. now it is decaying.

[ComradeOm]

Marx thought capitalism was in decay in the 19th century.

If he did, and I don't recall reading that before, then he was wrong. I may well be wrong when I say that capitalism today is decaying. Either way, for the purpose of this thread, the important point is that 19th C capitalism and 20th C capitalism are two very different beasts and one is not 'regressing' into the other

[japagow1]

Western Europe doesn't stuff its small children up chimneys anymore but children die of starvation, serial rape, and malnutrition in 21st century Britain.

The problems still exist and the Spectacle has no way of disguising it.

[Zanthorus]

Marx thought capitalism was in decay in the 19th century.

At the risk of being branded an "academic" by the ICC, Marx never had a theory of the "decay" of capitalism comparable to the modern theories held by Trots and such about the "epoch of imperialist decay". The idea of a strict periodisation between two kinds of capitalism, one "ascendent" and "progressive" and the other "decadent" was brought in by the second international. It is true that he held to a theory of the increasing accumulation of misery under capitalism and it is true that capitalism, but there's no strict objective line of demarcation as to when capitalism is or isn't "in decay".

[ContrarianLemming]

[QUOTE=ContrarianLemming;1821594]

none of this is true, corporations were extremely weak in the 19th century, they were powerless, corporations became powerful in the 80's.
Workers rights have also been only improving to a great extant, child labour has also been lessened to a massive degree

no one else spot this? the premise is false

I can't amphasize this enough, I don't mean to be so blunt but stop giving stupid answers, this is rediculious and demonstratably false if you get your head out of "common perceptions" and have a look at some statistics which show the opposite is the case.

[RadioRaheem84]

I can see why people think we're regressing. I mean even mainstream economists say that the income disparity in this country is closer to the early 1900s than the even the 1960s.

It just means we're losing the class struggle. But the system is running out of steam unlike back then when the system changed face.

[Foreigner]

[QUOTE=ContrarianLemming;1822843]

I can't amphasize this enough, I don't mean to be so blunt but stop giving stupid answers, this is rediculious and demonstratably false if you get your head out of "common perceptions" and have a look at some statistics which show the opposite is the case.

No, I don't see it. At all.

I don't see how the strengthening of the corporate form within the framework of capital, or any of the arguments thus far made, somehow indicate that capital's power over American society as a whole has lessened, with worker's rights/progress/concessions increasing relative to it. Which is what your argument seems to imply.

But you do notice that -- well, I'll just speak for myself -- I and anyone else in the same mindset are recognizing the specific framework of the question, and at the same time recognizing it as a very incomplete and flawed framing of the overall world question? But within its limited sphere, it's a valid observation: the American working class and its liberal allies of convenience sold their souls to capital for the New Deal concessions, and these concessions have been under constant attack, and are virtually withdrawn. In that sense, it is most definitely regress. But in other senses, yes, this continuum itself exists in such a changed landscape (both globally and locally to the U.S.) that this more traditional analysis of it fails to hold much water.

But, it seems to me, it's how your average educated liberal/nonradical/politically-coming-of-age American, in the course of radicalizing and freeing herself from the traditional narrative, is likely to interrogate the issue at first. I know there was a stage at which the question was poignant to me, and, ironically, I just had this exact question brought up by another parent at my child's school during casual conversation.

Well besides the Amish, I haven't seen anyone taking a Horse-n-Buggie on the highway. (Seriously, they do that stuff, and they almost get killed doing it!)

Lancaster supermarkets even have parking for them. I have to confess, though, they're pretty fucking annoying to get stuck behind on a one-lane road.

[28350]

Time, as far as I have observed, doesn't work that way.