Rhian,

" -it entailed strenuous, boring and repetitive work dawn to dusk, and dreadful living conditions....that's why so many people moved to the town cities when industrialisation began...."

It seems you have an unrealistically rosy view of factory and mill life at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. The conditions you've outlined above more aptly describe the situation faced by newly urbanised peasants of the time.

Considering the rural peasant's "idiocy", they seem to have been quite a self-reliant and industrious bunch. They made everything they required by spinning, weaving, sewing, knitting tanning, forging and shaping implements. This included clothing and other sundry cloth articles, household utensils and furniture, farming implements and such like (Btw, if you owned a spinning wheel, for example, you owned the means of production) Added to this, they subsisted reasonably well by farming their small family plots.

On the other hand, those newly "liberated" from the rural life of idiocy (who rushed to the towns because they had no other choice) could look forward to a 14 hour day in stifling conditions enclosed in a factory or mill...returning home to their miserable cramped hovels which may have been shared with several other families. These hovels were located in dung-piled, ill-drained and refuse-strewn streets. They may have eaten porridge or potatoes (if they were lucky), fallen into bed in a room that may have contained the whole family...and began the same rote of repetitive mind-numbing work the following day.
This was the state of affairs until the first Factory Acts were instituted.
(A good book on the subject is E. Royston Pike's: "Human Documents of the Industrial Revolution in Britain")

These days your average peasant sups at McDonalds and returns home to switch on the telly to find out who's up who on Desperate Housewives...yep, definitely no idiocy nowadays, eh?

The Acolyte Risla,

You didn't pay attention.

Now while you are playing in your corner and sniggering away, consider asking the occassional adult who cares for you and the other children, how to write down the differences between the policies of National Socialists and liberals/conservatives.

You still haven't done that and until you do your arguments are mere assertions without substance.

Quotes from your suggested link don't help ... you. They support my belief.

Your link produced the following:

'Definition of FASCISM:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.'

and (After searching the same site)

'Definition of CONSERVATISM:

a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage.'

and

'Definition of LIBERALISM

a :... a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)

Thank you The Acolyte Rizla I couldn't have put it better myself.

Poirot

I don’t doubt that the conditions of ordinary working people in the early industrial revolution were horrible. I just reckon they were even worse under feudalism.

Tanning and forging would probably have been specialist occupations.

But you’re right – peasants had to be largely self-sufficient, which is why their living standards were so low. Their food, clothes, bedding, furniture (if they had any) and tools and utensils were largely home made. If their crops failed, they starved. Life expectancy at birth was about 31-32, somewhat better if you managed to make it to adulthood. Burial evidence suggests that malnutrition and persistent disability due to injury were common. Literacy rates among ordinary people were approximately 0%. Birth rates are estimated to have been more than 6 per woman, but the population barely increased because most kids didn’t make it to parenthood.

Life was indeed nasty, brutish and short – even compared to the coal mines and cotton mills of Lancashire in ther industrial revolution (where my ancestors toiled).

http://books.google.com/books?id=DFSGsUFuCv8C&pg=PA21&dq=malnutrition+%22life+expectancy%22+intitle:medieval&hl=en&ei=p8COTpOXPI63rAe9iMy9AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=malnutrition%20%22life%20expectancy%22%20intitle%3Amedieval&f=false

Sneer all you like about McDonalds and TV soaps, they sure beat famine and black death

Dear Squeers,

I agree with most of your post. My disagreement may be partially a matter of semantics. We may be subject to blind evolutionary processes even though some may ‘know better.’ Those who know better may be ill-equipped to gain the levers of power with the possibility of guiding change which will counter the forces of social evolution. On the other hand social evolution may unguided yield a good result. I am wary of ‘experts’ deciding the fate of others.

Ideology is a loaded word which means different things to different people. I understand ideology as conformity to a belief system which overrides evidence contradicting the belief system. Two examples of this are Stalin embracing Lysenkoism and Hitler condemning relativity theory as Jewish science. I doubt that you meant that. What do you mean by ideology?

One reason for writing the article was that I thought Marxism devalued life because of the unwillingness of those who subscribe to elements of Marx’s thought to consider the process which produced the corpses.

I don’t think materialism devalues life. Here again maybe I may not know what you mean by materialism. I equate materialism with naturalism which is simply the contention that physical results have physical causes, and there are no supernatural agencies. Since this life is the only life we have and there is nothingness before and after our life becomes precious. If we realise this is true for all of us and empathise with others all life becomes precious.

I agree that it is better to try to minimise inequality then to seek the unreal goal of complete egalitarianism.

Thomas Jefferson, William Morris and others who I consider good people wanted husbandry to be the basis for life and economics. On the other hand Kiernan’s “Blood and Soil” which is an examination of 2,400 years of genocides makes the case that most of the genocides in history have been partially justified by an idealisation of agriculture. On another hand (three handed?) about 2% of the population are all that is necessary in a developed country to feed it.

david
Clearly the Marxists have nothing to offer but evasion and circularity.

What I find interesting is the psychology of these people who, being shown more disproofs in theory and practice than you could shake a stick at, persist in their illogical opposition to human freedom, and their fanatical zeal for empowering the state to kill people in large numbers. What is frightening is not just that Squeers and Poirot, a hundred years ago, would have enthusiastically supported the political movements that ended up killing millions, but that even now, immune to disproof, THEY WOULD DO IT ALL AGAIN. It's like, are they genuinely that stupid, or genuinely that brainwashed, or genuinely that evil?

But the problem is worse than that, because after that last century of lethal state-worship, no-one can escape critically examining his own pro-state opinions.

I think you have two tasks in front of you to clear yourself of similar intellectual dereliction. The first is to distinguish Marxist socialism from any other kind of socialism, looking at the essence of the matter and not falling into superficiality for example, the mere meaningless name-calling of 'left' and 'right'.

The first question is, how would *any* attempt at the full public ownership of the means of production *not* produce the same evils, whether or not it was called Marxist? How could any attempt at full socialism *avoid* placing dictatorial powers in the hands of the political elite?

The second question is, if the only socialism to be humane and viable depends on the remaining capitalism, what does that tell you about socialism, of any kind?

On the other hand, the only criticisms of capitalism that anyone has been able to make out depend on blaming capitalism
a) for actions of government controlling the means of production eg wars, GFC, Great Depresson;
b) for problems caused by nature, relieved by capitalism more than any other system, and not improved by government when *both* upsides and downsides are taken into account.

Thus in holding a flame for any kind of socialism, why are you not hoist with the Marxists' own petard?

davidf:
<social evolution may unguided yield a good result. I am wary of ‘experts’ deciding the fate of others>
Indeed. This is Marx's position. The trouble is that the current system thrives on passifism and prevarication. It's akin to turning the other cheek.
<I understand ideology as conformity to a belief system which overrides evidence contradicting the belief system>.
I think "evidence" is mostly ideological, and that materialism is therefore dubious at best. Materialism is ideological, an empirical perspective, as if the human senses, rationalised by the acculturated human mind, comprehended the universe.
Yet Marx may still be right. We might not like social evolution, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Marx wasn't an expert or engineer; he just read the tea-leaves.
On the next point, I think the social perspective tends to elide