Too Much Capitalism and How the Industrial Revolution Showed It to Us

C Le Master:

In school lately, the cirriculum has been hugely biased. It is unbelievable. When learning about the industrial revolution we learned how socialism was good, how ending so much capitalism was good, how change was needed, we learned about Marx for 2 whole days ( about 3 hours), she specifically adressed how laisez-faire and excess capitalism were a problem, and used a 30 minute socialism discussion to back Obama. I swear, my friend has the audio, I can try to get it to anyone who requests it. But anyway, we learned that child labor, women's labor, harsh conditions, 20 hour days in shafts, and low pay were problems, and how work hour regulations were needed and minimum wages, and how polution was a problem and life during Industrial England straight up BLEW. I am an anarcho-capitalist/austro-libertarian and I know this is all wrong, but I never thought of the industrial revolution and its horrors and it really does seem government regulation was needed. There is no doubt this time sucked and that capitalism was very present and free at the time. We also discussed how monopolies hurt people and were prevelant but I thought Free Market capitalism did not allow monopolies. I am confused and actually have some doubt in austrian economics now... someone save me!! Can anyone explain why conditions got so bad before government regulation, why the government seemed to help, and alternate solutions ( I know the "why not make minimum wage $10000000 argument, please don't use it ).Thank you everyone.

(Skip to On-Topic towards the end)

I missed the part where you stood up and announced that until the propaganda ceases you will be in this class, & that even if you agree with said propaganda, it's complete lunacy to expect this passing for "the truth" when it it's merely being memetically spewed by ideologues wanting to spread their virus. 

And the part where you per-emptivley dismiss being marginalized as the "enemy" or "conservative" & that just because someone disagrees with ideas that be demonstrated to be bad or incorrect, doesn't make them a conservative, loony, or redneck.  And the part where you walk out & change profressors (assuming this isn't high school).

It sounds harsh, but they get away with this as more & more people just passively take it up the academic a** & do not verbally resist or argue against.  You'd be surprised at how much respect you'll have for yourself for doing this at least once, & one or two other people might follow your example & stand up for themselves.  This is ironic considering how much liberal*history (especially since the 60's) are based on this focus of the underdog rising above, as they are now the system and/or majority to rise up against.

*I'm including the Republicans with this label, because they are never consistently conservative, but I am not giving a pass for statist-conservatives either, they also have problems.    

Sure, everyone make look at you like an annoying nat who sounds like a flat-earther to them, but just remember the gleam of brainwashing in their eye when they repeat tired platitudes they picked up from the same dolt "teaching" the class via PowerPoint. 

If this high school, do yourself a favor: skip it, take the GED, and move on.  You don't need to take this nonsense for free, at least.

On topic:  Some googling will help you, but I will tell you right now that you will have a hard time finding a consistent history on the working conditions of the industrial revolution: some will completely idolize it, villianize it, but few will just give you statistics and/or unfiltered anecdotes. 

Even those will be skewed.  A lot of people have a hard time accepting that there might not be some grand teleology of history at work, & that the industrial revolution just happened over a period of time, rather than was planned or pre-ordained, regardless of ideology.   

I have yet to find satisfactory accounts myself, honestly.

If you wish more precision response I recommend you ask further precise questions.

The basic answer is that government can not legislate worker productivity into being. It can not legislate prosperity. child exemption from labour is the result of economic progress under capitalism which means that more productive, wealthier parents, can excuse their children from work without risking the health and wellbeing of the family. Women's labour? women should be exempt from work? it takes capital to alleviate harsh conditions, a good recipe for never alleviating harsh conditions is to place barriers to capital accumulation. hello regulation.  ditto work hours. Pollution is always going to be an issue if private property rights are not respected, if capitalism is not respected. 

C Le Master:

life during Industrial England straight up BLEW.

life before the industrial revolution BLEW HARDER.

C Le Master:

There is no doubt this time sucked and that capitalism was very present and free at the time. We also discussed how monopolies hurt people and were prevelant but I thought Free Market capitalism did not allow monopolies. I am confused and actually have some doubt in austrian economics now... someone save me!! Can anyone explain why conditions got so bad before government regulation, why the government seemed to help, and alternate solutions ( I know the "why not make minimum wage $10000000 argument, please don't use it ).Thank you everyone.

"Sucked" compared to what?  Is you teacher/professor actually claiming that working and living conditions for the unskilled laborer was worse during the industrial revolution than before the industrial revolution?  Life "during Industrial England straight up BLEW"  compared to today's standards, but was a shitload better than life in pre-Industrial England.

Your argument on child labor does not make much sense because a very small percent of people owned factories and those who did had the wealth to do so because of previous aristocracy under monarchies. Also, pregnant women should not work 20 hours a day  in a mine shaft for 5 cents... My question is how could harsh pay, hours, and conditions be reduced other than government regulation.

JackCuyler:

"Sucked" compared to what?  Is you teacher/professor actually claiming that working and living conditions for the unskilled laborer was worse during the industrial revolution than before the industrial revolution?  Life "during Industrial England straight up BLEW"  compared to today's standards, but was a shitload better than life in pre-Industrial England.

How was it worse before? We learned before children and women worked in families on farms with controlled coniditions and were not sent away and abused. Industry outsourced much of the labor from before and those without jobs were forced to suffer factory conditions because those were the only jobs. That is what we learned at least.

C Le Master:

Your argument on child labor does not make much sense because a very small percent of people owned factories and those who did had the wealth to do so because of previous aristocracy under monarchies.

so? it was not factory owners kids in the factories, but non-factory-owning parent's kids..... you think things would have been better without factory owners ?

C Le Master:

Also, pregnant women should not work 20 hours a day  in a mine shaft for 5 cents...

Did they disagree with you by saying 'no, c le master, i want to earn 5cents today, so i am going to the mine shaft'  or did they agree with you and decide to not go?

C Le Master:

My question is how could harsh pay, hours, and conditions be reduced other than government regulation.

capitalism and the passage of time. this is commonly known as progress.

I highly recommend you listen to Rothbard's lectures on U.S economic history. He explains how the history is really between the free-market and government interference. Unfortunately, most critics of free-market literally don't know what is free market.

Look through these links for the ones on history that were recorded in NY Poly Institute.

nirgrahamUK:

C Le Master:

Your argument on child labor does not make much sense because a very small percent of people owned factories and those who did had the wealth to do so because of previous aristocracy under monarchies.

so? it was not factory owners kids in the factories, but non-factory-owning parent's kids..... you think things would have been better without factory owners ?

Exactly. Did it not create an even bigger gap, more inequality, and worse conditions? Children were forced into it. How would it have stopped otherwise.

C Le Master:

Also, pregnant women should not work 20 hours a day  in a mine shaft for 5 cents...

Did they disagree with you by saying 'no, c le master, i want to earn 5cents today, so i am going to the mine shaft'  or did they agree with you and decide to not go?

What are you talking about me? I am saying pregnant women worked in 3 foot high shafts where the crawled while pregnant for 20 hours a day and earned 5 cents...  I am asking how capitalism could stop this.

C Le Master:

My question is how could harsh pay, hours, and conditions be reduced other than government regulation.

capitalism and the passage of time. this is commonly known as progress.

I am asking, to take your advice and be more precise, how capitalism would stop it. Capitalism caused the problems. I am Austrian I am not arguing it won't. I am asking why not. And to the first commenter I am in high school and did not make a stand because I did not have enough information to do so, that I was I am asking on here and want a good answer. And I hate making stands because it pisses off the teacher who has control of my grade...

 

nirgrahamUK:

C Le Master:

Did it not create an even bigger gap, more inequality, and worse conditions? Children were forced into it. How would it have stopped otherwise.

no, arbitrarily not allowing poor parents to send their children to earn money for the family, would increase inequality and lead to worse conditions than allowing them. is this not clear?

Is it not clear that if they did not do so, they would have no money to buy food and other needs and survive? That is the question I have, they had no choice.

C Le Master:

What are you talking about me?

its a rhetorical device.

C Le Master:

I am saying pregnant women worked in 3 foot high shafts where the crawled while pregnant for 20 hours a day and earned 5 cents...

I was saying that if they felt it was not in their interest to do so why did they do it, what man with a gun made them a slave and 'forced' them to do it? surely, you recognise that if you had stood there in their path and said ' No ladies! do not come into this mine to earn your money, go away and do other things' do you think they would have all slipped away  quietly; or would they argue with you and maybe fight you to get you out of their way so they could start earning....?

So women could just choose not to work and magically invent money? The jobs were outsourced to factories. Those were the only places to work!

C Le Master:

Capitalism caused the problems.

wrong, the 'problem' is nature and the existence of human beings. This is a world of scarcity. capital accumulation and increasing productive power is the cure. the industrial revolution was the most remarkable period of progress in history. the comfort that you are used to and can't imagine not having (it would be a crime not to live in comfort!) is a direct product of capitalism generally and the industrial revolution in england in the particular.

But did the government not help make life more comfortable when they regulate it? Since then, life surely has become less free market so, using your logic, my comfort today is based on the government. Was the period between the industrial revolution and 1913 and the 1940s not a great time to live. It is seeming to me that a little government regulation seems to help, but with the Fed and artificial interest rates the Great Depression happened. I am beginning to see a middle ground. Please save me from this tyrannous thinking.

 

 

C Le Master:

Is it not clear that if they did not do so, they would have no money to buy food and other needs and survive? That is the question I have, they had no choice.

If you think nature is cruel for making the children of the poor need to work to eat, why do you hold this against the capitalist factory owner who not only give the poor the income they need, but is necessary for progress to a world of material comfort for the masses?

isn't it clear that this is backwards?

C Le Master:

Those were the only places to work!

because of nature and economic reality, not because of the plans of evil people... refer to the above point.

C Le Master:

But did the government not help make life more comfortable when they regulate it?

no, they retard progress. 

C Le Master:

Since then, life surely has become less free market so, using your logic, my comfort today is based on the government.

surely you mean your logic, not mine.... my logic is that your comfort today is based on the free market of the past and whatever there remains of the free market of the present. The government have trapped people in poverty, and ensured that progress has come about slower.

I am taking highschool classes in the U.S. and I heard the 'excess production theory' in my economics book; and in my history book they talk about how good progressives and union are. I writing essay on both of them to prove they are wrong; because I refuse to answer with the 'book' answer.

BTW, C Le Master, you should know that whenever some Lefty is talking about poverty, realize that it's just a gimmick. That's because poverty is meant in relative terms, not absolute terms. If you have ten people in a room and the poorest of them makes $5 million a year, he's, by definition, in the poverty level in that room.

However, if it is once decided that there is an absolute definition of poverty, a free-market system will constantly reduce poverty until it's eradicated.

What the socialists and mild socialists implicitly want you to think is that it's egalitarianism that's the ultimate end for civilization and not prosperity.

War, Peace and the Industrial Revolution by Ralph Raico

The Industrial Revolution by Ralph Raico