What does it mean to you to be English?

[Finnegan]

The exploitation was already firmly in place before the IR. The IR didn't invent exploitation.

That’s true, it did not. But if we take an overly schematic view of history, the Industrial Revolution was a necessary phase of the transition from feudalism to capitalism in what Eric Hobsbawm termed the ‘dual revolution: the French Revolution being the political, and the Industrial Revolution being the technological expression of the final triumph of the Bourgeoisie over the old feudal aristocracy.

While avoiding romanticising an agrarian economy- life was nasty, brutish and short- nonetheless, feudal life was more attuned to the turning of the seasons where humankind experienced a more intimate relationship with nature than that enjoyed in an industrial society. Alienation and exploitation was stark and apparent rather than obfuscated by the pseudo-mysticism of the market. Nevertheless, excepting the appropriation by the landlord, the labour of the peasant was characterised by an autonomy and a symbiotic relationship with the natural world wholly absent from market capitalism. In the Industrial Revolution, a deep connection between the folk and the land was severed.

The Industrial Revolution deracinated a whole class of people and destroyed centuries old kinship and social fabric. It exponentially increased the exploitation of the peasantry, who were forcibly transformed into the proletariat. While it was inevitable that technology would advance to the degree whereby the old feudal strictures became an impediment to societal development, that development, while enriching a tiny new ruling class, ensured widespread immiseration for the majority.

 

[ks.234]

You're forgetting that privatisation brings with it efficiency and innovation! Just look at the water companies!

Precisely.

 

[ks.234]

The exploitation was already firmly in place before the IR. The IR didn't invent exploitation

Nobody said that the Industrial Revolution did invent exploitation. Slavery didn't invent exploitation either, but both were built on exploitation and both demanded it.

 

[PaulMB]

That’s true, it did not. But if we take an overly schematic view of history, the Industrial Revolution was a necessary phase of the transition from feudalism to capitalism in what Eric Hobsbawm termed the ‘dual revolution: the French Revolution being the political, and the Industrial Revolution being the technological expression of the final triumph of the Bourgeoisie over the old feudal aristocracy.

While avoiding romanticising an agrarian economy- life was nasty, brutish and short- nonetheless, feudal life was more attuned to the turning of the seasons where humankind experienced a more intimate relationship with nature than that enjoyed in an industrial society. Alienation and exploitation was stark and apparent rather than obfuscated by the pseudo-mysticism of the market. Nevertheless, excepting the appropriation by the landlord, the labour of the peasant was characterised by an autonomy and a symbiotic relationship with the natural world wholly absent from market capitalism. In the Industrial Revolution, a deep connection between the folk and the land was severed.

The Industrial Revolution deracinated a whole class of people and destroyed centuries old kinship and social fabric. It exponentially increased the exploitation of the peasantry, who were forcibly transformed into the proletariat. While it was inevitable that technology would advance to the degree whereby the old feudal strictures became an impediment to societal development, that development, while enriching a tiny new ruling class, ensured widespread immiseration for the majority.

Thanks for "deracinated," I can't remember reading it before but it is a good word!

One aspect that springs to mind is that Britain's early IR, combined with its global empire, was what made Britain rich enough to afford an efficient NHS.

 

[stevec67]

That’s true, it did not. But if we take an overly schematic view of history, the Industrial Revolution was a necessary phase of the transition from feudalism to capitalism in what Eric Hobsbawm termed the ‘dual revolution: the French Revolution being the political, and the Industrial Revolution being the technological expression of the final triumph of the Bourgeoisie over the old feudal aristocracy.

While avoiding romanticising an agrarian economy- life was nasty, brutish and short- nonetheless, feudal life was more attuned to the turning of the seasons where humankind experienced a more intimate relationship with nature than that enjoyed in an industrial society. Alienation and exploitation was stark and apparent rather than obfuscated by the pseudo-mysticism of the market. Nevertheless, excepting the appropriation by the landlord, the labour of the peasant was characterised by an autonomy and a symbiotic relationship with the natural world wholly absent from market capitalism. In the Industrial Revolution, a deep connection between the folk and the land was severed.

The Industrial Revolution deracinated a whole class of people and destroyed centuries old kinship and social fabric. It exponentially increased the exploitation of the peasantry, who were forcibly transformed into the proletariat. While it was inevitable that technology would advance to the degree whereby the old feudal strictures became an impediment to societal development, that development, while enriching a tiny new ruling class, ensured widespread immiseration for the majority.

Ah yes, the loss of the centuries long connection with the land. As was enjoyed by the Irish well into the 19th century. How did that work out for them? Alternatively, how did it work out for the Scottish crofters?

So, sorry, I'm not buying the bucolic bliss shattered by the slave owning evil mill owners narrative. Neither am I suggesting that the poor were liberated from their rural shackles and led skipping into the mills and mines. However I am saying that it allowed Britain to become the great power that it was. Not without exploitation, not without slavery, not without the colonies, but Britain had all that before the IR and would have continued to do so without it.

 

[Finnegan]

Ah yes, the loss of the centuries long connection with the land. As was enjoyed by the Irish well into the 19th century. How did that work out for them? Alternatively, how did it work out for the Scottish crofters?

So, sorry, I'm not buying the bucolic bliss shattered by the slave owning evil mill owners narrative. Neither am I suggesting that the poor were liberated from their rural shackles and led skipping into the mills and mines. However I am saying that it allowed Britain to become the great power that it was. Not without exploitation, not without slavery, not without the colonies, but Britain had all that before the IR and would have continued to do so without it.

You’re the only one talking about bucolic bliss and rural shackles. I stressed that I did not romanticise an agrarian existence. The industrial revolution helped Britain to become a great power? Who benefited from this imperial power? Did imperial conquest shorten the working week or improve the hellish conditions of the new working class? Are we really to relegate colonial exploitation to a mere footnote in establishing the British Empire as an empire where the blood of the conquered never dried? Who benefited and who profited from the Industrial Revolution?

I‘m not convinced herding people, including children, into mills and factories to work sixteen hour, six day a week shifts to make Britain a great power was a price worth paying, you may take a different view.

 

[Cheese]

what do you mean by “there is no miracle”? Privatisation is a political choice, nothing to do with miracles. The UK has voted for that choice for half a century, it could vote against it at any time. If anyone believes that voting against privatisation is something miraculous, then they have merely bought into the lies and myths that they have been told for half a century.

Keynes was not a messiah, all he did 80 years ago was demonstrate that creating a state for the benefit of human beings was not only possible here on earth, but was also economically efficient as well and socially beneficial.

That we turned away from human ends and back to the supposed benefits of market ends in the 70’s is down to an economic theory, albeit one based on a quasi religious belief in an “invisible hand” a belief that gained prominence during the pre-democratic industrial revolution and very much served the ends of the exploitation upon which it depended. The greater equality created by democracy and then the Welfare was not conducive to industrial scale exploitation, so had to go.

Privatisation is a political choice based on belief in an ancient and broken and corrupted ideology. Privatisation is not written on tablets of stone. Belief is privatisation is just that, a belief, and a belief contradicted by observation, experience, common sense and the greater good.

More Privatisation will be bad for the NHS. Voting for more privatisation is voting to further weaken the NHS

Of all the things that we could be proud of about our history, the creation of the NHS should be top of the list. Not Empire, not Crusades, not the industrial revolution, but the one thing we created that was wholly and unequivocally good; socially good, morally good and not least, economically good.

But instead of pride in that achievement, we have voted to kill it by the death of a thousand cuts.

The NHS is an simple choice, not a miracle.

I never said that privatisation wasn't a bad thing when it comes to health service. But then, the array of 'comfort treatments' has increased exponentially in recent years, and I am not in favour of making the general population pay for treatments some people choose because essentially they just feel lonely. Over here insurance benefits for psychotherapy are being cut down, and I think this is often the right thing to do, as many patients aren't mentally ill as such (those who are still benefit of course) but just lack the readiness to take responsibility for their own actions. Do you want to pay for these people ? I don't.

Bypass operations are currently subject to debate, I think they should continue to be paid for by insurance, always. But others come up with the usual 'man up and exercise'. Meanwhile thousands of people undergo this treatment, so someone has to pay for it. All hospitals (all of them) are experiencing a chronic and worrying level of debt, money is not there. No, it's just not there, whatever monetarist/non monetarist theory (I haven't got a clue) you might want to explain me. Government spending increases in all other fields (inflation and war in Ukraine don't help) so they can't just fill the gaps. If you now have a better solution than privatising all 'comfort' treatments then I'm all ears.

 

[ks.234]

I never said that privatisation wasn't a bad thing when it comes to health service. But then, the array of 'comfort treatments' has increased exponentially in recent years, and I am not in favour of making the general population pay for treatments some people choose because they just feel lonely. Over here insurance benefits for psychotherapy are being cut down, and I think this is often the right thing to do, as many patients aren't mentally ill as such (those who are still benefit of course).

Bypass operations are currently subject to debate, I think they should continue to be paid for by insurance, but others come up with the usual 'man up and exercise'. Meanwhile thousands of people undergo this treatment, someone has to pay for it. All hospitals (all of them) are experiencing a chronic and worrying level of debt, money is not there. No, it's just not there, whatever monetarist/non monetarist theory (I haven't got a clue) you might want to explain me. Government spending increases in all other fields (inflation as well as war in Ukraine don't help) so they can't just fill the gaps. If you now have a better solution that privatising all 'comfort' treatments then I'm all ears.

The problem is the ”there is no money” nonsense. It simply is not true. There is no functional sense in which a government such ours can ever run out of the thing it creates out of thin air

 

[Kirk]

I never said that privatisation wasn't a bad thing when it comes to health service. But then, the array of 'comfort treatments' has increased exponentially in recent years, and I am not in favour of making the general population pay for treatments some people choose because essentially they just feel lonely. Over here insurance benefits for psychotherapy are being cut down, and I think this is often the right thing to do, as many patients aren't mentally ill as such (those who are still benefit of course) but just lack the readiness to take responsibility for their own actions. Do you want to pay for these people ? I don't.

Bypass operations are currently subject to debate, I think they should continue to be paid for by insurance, always. But others come up with the usual 'man up and exercise'. Meanwhile thousands of people undergo this treatment, someone has to pay for it. All hospitals (all of them) are experiencing a chronic and worrying level of debt, money is not there. No, it's just not there, whatever monetarist/non monetarist theory (I haven't got a clue) you might want to explain me. Government spending increases in all other fields (inflation as well as war in Ukraine don't help) so they can't just fill the gaps. If you now have a better solution that privatising all 'comfort' treatments then I'm all ears.

Reducing psychotherapy funding is not an enlightened policy.

 

[Cheese]

Reducing psychotherapy funding is not an enlightened policy.

In some cases it is. Decades ago I went to see a therapist for a love affair that went haywire (and I am sure I am not the only one who did this). I feel ashamed to this day.

 

[paulfromcamden]

If you now have a better solution that privatising all 'comfort' treatments then I'm all ears.

Getting large corporations to pay tax.
Getting the very wealthy to pay tax.
Creating the conditions for a healthy economy rather than doing stupid ideologically-driven self-harming shit like Brexit.
Reversing the outsourcing of care to expensive private healthcare companies.
Improving pay and conditions so NHS staff don't leave to be rehired as more expensive agency staff.

I dunno. I'm not the chancellor but from 30 seconds of scratching my chin seems like there's loads of stuff.

 

[Mike Reed]

Thanks for "deracinated," I can't remember reading it before but it is a good word!

Indeed, new one for me too 'Tear up by the roots' Nice, but strange I haven't come across that word as I'm a gardener !!!!

This thread, which left me trailing pp ago, has me questioning my nationality, so I'm narrowing it down to 'Kentish man' (assuming I've got that right; west of the Medway).

 

[stevec67]

You’re the only one talking about bucolic bliss and rural shackles.

Yes, because the truth, as ever, is something in between.

I stressed that I did not romanticise an agrarian existence. The industrial revolution helped Britain to become a great power? Who benefited from this imperial power? Did imperial conquest shorten the working week or improve the hellish conditions of the new working class? Are we really to relegate colonial exploitation to a mere footnote in establishing the British Empire as an empire where the blood of the conquered never dried? Who benefited and who profited from the Industrial Revolution?

You and I did, and do today. Like it or not.

I‘m not convinced herding people, including children, into mills and factories to work sixteen hour, six day a week shifts to make Britain a great power was a price worth paying, you may take a different view.

As opposed to working 16 hours in a field and living in a hut?
Some mill owners did share the wealth, fwiw. Titus Salt, Rowntree, Cadbury, etc. Maybe there were some philanthropic land estate owners. I can't think of any offhand. The IR gave us railways, more affordable manufactured goods, Watt, Brunel, Stephenson, and the wealth that you and I enjoy today. Eventually, granted, but without it we could be still in touch with our rural roots while digging a ditch in the rain.

 

[Finnegan]

In some cases it is. Decades ago I went to see a therapist for a love affair that went haywire (and I am sure I am not the only one who did this). I feel ashamed to this day.

You are extrapolating your own experience as the experience of millions of others- a fallacy. It is widely acknowledged that mental health is an essential component of the overall health of a society. What qualifies you to determine that loneliness is a condition unworthy of funded assistance? Recent studies demonstrate that lack of social networks and isolation, i.e. loneliness, are major factors in curtailing life expectancy, especially amongst the elderly.

I agree that many conditions that were previously just accepted and borne have now become medicalised, and are a lucrative trade for those who prey on that cohort, but that is entirely different. Chronic depression is an exceptionally debilitating illness that causes immense suffering and a huge societal cost. At one time, those exhibiting such a condition were expected to just get on with it with a stiff upper lip, and were accused of not taking responsibility for themselves. Thankfully, attitudes have largely changed- even if not everywhere.

 

[Kirk]

In some cases it is. Decades ago I went to see a therapist for a love affair that went haywire (and I am sure I am not the only one). I feel ashamed to this day.

I'd be interested in seeing the stats on those 'false positives' if you will, but it's also easy to fall into the hasty generalisation fallacy trap on big topics like this. In this country, FWIW, mental health illness costs the country around 300bn of our great British pounds a year. The NHS has committed to increasing investment in mental health services faster than the overall NHS budget every year over the last 5 years. Targets are being met but more needs to be done IMO. The private sector can also help.

 

[PsB]

This thread seems to have morphed into "What it means to you to be British". Strange, that.

This topic was raised during 2016+ Brexit threads. It didn't seem to get any traction then, even though Brexit seems quintessentially an expression about English identity. What’s the difference between British and English identity, would a continental European spot it?

A French or Italian rugby supporter in the 6N would know about the difference.

 

[Finnegan]

Yes, because the truth, as ever, is something in between.

You and I did, and do today. Like it or not.

As opposed to working 16 hours in a field and living in a hut?
Some mill owners did share the wealth, fwiw. Titus Salt, Rowntree, Cadbury, etc. Maybe there were some philanthropic land estate owners. I can't think of any offhand. The IR gave us railways, more affordable manufactured goods, Watt, Brunel, Stephenson, and the wealth that you and I enjoy today. Eventually, granted, but without it we could be still in touch with our rural roots while digging a ditch in the rain.

Nobody lived in a hut. We are talking about about 18th and 19th century rural Britain, not sub Saharan Africa. Indeed there were some philanthropists, Robert Owen and his New Lanark project was probably the most widely known, but they were the exception rather than the rule.

Peasants toiled for the Lord, and were bound to owe the landlord much of the fruit of their labour, however, how that labour was determined was largely due to their own working patterns and conditions- a qualitatively different situation from industrial labour.

Yes, we inadvertently benefit today from the legacy of empire, but I thought we were talking about the conditions of the peasantry vis a vis the workers in Victorian manufactories.

You seem determined to ridicule the idea of a loss of a symbiotic relationship with the environment. Feel free, but what I’m talking about is an existence predicated on the land, the seasons, and nature in general, rather than the wholly exploitative and unsustainable situation pertaining today. What has been termed the ‘metabolic rift’ that separates us from the natural world, with the result that we’re not connected to the world we live in. The Industrial Revolution gave us the means to feed the entire population of the world above and beyond a hand to mouth existence. But these technological gains were concentrated in the hands of a tiny new ruling class rather than being for the benefit of all. It is this relationship of those who work to those who own, rather than the technology per se, that is responsible for the ecological catastrophe we see today. That was not an inevitable outcome of the Industrial Revolution, but it’s the one we got, and the one that is still with us today and is hurtling us towards extinction.

 

[paulfromcamden]

Ah yes, the loss of the centuries long connection with the land. As was enjoyed by the Irish well into the 19th century.

I'm not sure you can really admire Britain's rise to becoming a 'Great Power' without also acknowledging the impact of it's imperialism on so many nations - including Ireland.

 

[stevec67]

Yes, we inadvertently benefit today from the legacy of empire, but I thought we were talking about the conditions of the peasantry vis a vis the workers in Victorian manufactories.

we are.

You seem determined to ridicule the idea of a loss of a symbiotic relationship with the environment.

I'm not ridiculing anything. I'm pointing out that pre IR agriculture wasnt any sort of idyll for those involved.

. The Industrial Revolution gave us the means to feed the entire population of the world above and beyond a hand to mouth existence.

Precisely. We now feed a population of 65 million compared to a fraction of that.

But these technological gains were concentrated in the hands of a tiny new ruling class rather than being for the benefit of all. I

as opposed to the wealth being in the hands of the Duke of Whatsit.

t is this relationship of those who work to those who own, rather than the technology per se, that is responsible for the ecological catastrophe we see today.

Yes.

That was not an inevitable outcome of the Industrial Revolution, but it’s the one we got,

And the one that we have had a century or two and a couple of wars to correct.

and the one that is still with us today and is hurtling us towards extinction.

It is. A century or two after the IR.

 

[stevec67]

I'm not sure you can really admire Britain's rise to becoming a 'Great Power' without also acknowledging the impact of it's imperialism on so many nations - including Ireland.

Agreed. None of this happened in a vacuum. I'm lauding the IR while acknowledging that it happened alongside and was inextricably interwoven with the less positive and frequently shameful aspects of our past.