You know what is striking?

[nadinbrzezinski]

Been reading a lot on 16th century England, trying to find out where attitudes versus labor come from.

So today I spent some time reading on the Poor Laws...

And right now HEARD glenny, as well as have read many people here post the same thing.

To paraphrase Glenny... "you got to set the line SOMEWHERE, and make an example or they will continue to leech on us."

Believe it or not I've read this same exact sentiment about the poor, and yes even the Welfare Queen is present in oh 17th century England.

No, Libertarians did not start with Atlas Shrugged. They go all the way back to the England of the 16th and 17th century... It is scary, isn't it? And one got to ask. Is this in the water? Or most likely, part of our DNA as a nation? If it is the latter... it is deep and long standing. And we can even tell where geographically it comes from, and where the descendants settled.

There are two elements to this... which lead straight to the distrust of the commons and government.

1.- The Enclosure Acts, that make common agricultural land closed off to the common people. Yes people starved and if you think that did not leave those affected marked...

2.- Those acts were passed by mostly the House of Lords (think Senate) working for very powerful Noble interests.

Chew on that.

(And to our official fire thread counter... feel free to add, even if this is not about the fire, but an attitude revealed by it)

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I could also say: There is nothing new under the sun...

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Yeah but nations have a history

and that includes attitudes... just that the US likes to think that we are oh so damn unique (Am. Exceptionalism) Well not quite. We are, generally speaking, the children of those attitudes that were formed long ago due to very traumatic experiences.

No, don't expect the average american to even know about Enclosure Acts and the Commons. But they will sure regale you about the evil of the Commons and government... I am willing to bet this goes that far back... oh and for valid reasons. It also explains the mistrust of social policies that benefit others, not just you.

[Art_from_Ark]

3. Did this continue after Charles I lost his head?

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Yes, the enclosure acts

were still a problem when Malthus wrote his work on population, and Smith wrote his works.

And the poor laws had among other beauties the forced transportation of the poor and indigent. Their descendants are many of us.

[Art_from_Ark]

5. I wonder if that's why my great-grandfather immigrated to the US

It seems like nearly his whole extended family left Great Britain shortly after Victoria became queen, but most of the others went to other parts of the Empire.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. By the time Victoria came along

that sundry period was over, and transportation was to Australia and not that many either.

Though if they were around for the Potato Famine, a lot of Irish came at that time.

[Art_from_Ark]

8. Most of the others went to Australia and New Zealand

Great-grandpa ended up in the Great Plains, where he staked out a 160-acre farm thanks to the Homestead Act. Now that you mention it, he and/or his family might have been compelled by the Potato Famine to seek out farms elsewhere. I'd never thought of that, but it could explain why he wanted such a big farm in another country.

But it seems like he took some of that Old World thinking with him. Kids to him were free farm labor. He kept (worked) his kids on the farm as long as he could, usually until they turned 18 or graduated. He played a mean trick on my grandfather (his eldest son), yanking him out of high school in his senior year so he could work one more year, full-time, on the farm. When my grandfather finally graduated from high school, at 19, he left in a hurry, and from what I could gather from him before he died, he never went back.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. There you go

the Potato Famine was terrible.

[Diclotican]

18. nadinbrzezinski

nadinbrzezinski

Problerly the worst food famine in Europe untill the collectivism in USSR in the 1920s and 1930s.. It was really hell on earth, not made more easy by an attitude by "the haves" that it was becouse of the lower classes laziness, that they was starwing to death..

And, in a few years time, 1/3 of al Irland, was starwing to near death, or death. 1/3 emigrated to US or Australia. The last 1/3 survived, and is made up what is today Irland..

And by the way, the great potato famine is still a raw nerve to most irish, even tho Irland today is light years different from what the country was in the 1830s.. It is still something that many irish is seeing as an near crimial act by the english who ruled Irland until the 1920s

Diclotican

[Diclotican]

7. Art_from_Ark

Art_from_Ark

Yes, it continued long after the first Charles got his head off.. The fight between the "have" and "have not" was a long fight, where the "have" had the upper hand for many, many years. in fact, in the 1600s, 1700s, and the good part of 1800s, the workers had to fight hard in UK, and most other nations for even small rights.. In fact, untill the french revolution, and long after that had happend, the life of the working man and woman, was often hard, brutal and short. And the "experts" was writing a lot of books, to justify the fact that most of peopole never could be allowed to sleep in decent places, becouse it would be against socitity, and the will of Good.. And some of them also was writing, that most of the population should be hold in "Iron clad missrability and dirt poor" becouse if they got some more money, they would just waste it on something they was not needing, or just getting more children, who of course was a trouble to the socitity...

First the french revolution, and the toppling of the old regime in France, was making the working man and woman some right, who was natural and right. But for the most part poor ended up as poor, after as before the revolution, it was the middle class, and the "business class" who really won the French Revolution, not the working man and woman. And not untill 1848, when Europe was on the breaking point, and the working class in most of central Europe really got into the fight, then, and just then, the "haves" started understand it was important to give the working man/woman/kids some rights, as it was an bomb under the powers who belived that they could as they pleased, after Napoleon was out of office, and Frence was ruled by autotharian regimes.

After 1848, when the whole thing exploded, it was started to be more easy to be an working man. Ironic one of the country, who really was making it, was Germany, where in the 1860s and 1870s, was passed more laws protecting the working man and woman, than in any other nations worldwide. Becouse of the influcence the germans had in the world then, many europeans, specailly in the west, also adopted laws who should protect the rights of working men and woman. In many country it was passed laws, where children was taken out of work - to get to school, and that kids under the age of 12, could not work at all, and where you could not be alowed to work full time, even after the age of 12.. In the end, it was passed laws the outlawed labor for kids all togheter, even tho it was not allways made official laws for a long time.. But in the end, it was illegal to labour kids, and it was make illegal not to go to school in most country. Even if the standard of the school was less than stellar, at least they could get to know how to read and write, something that was not not the matter before.. And when the working class got the knowlegde of read and write, and to count to more than 10, it was dangrous to not be able to accept change. The Russian revolution in 1917 was proven clearly how dangrous it really was, to never accept danger, and to belive the old ways of things would never stop...

The last 150 year, have been hard and difficult for the working class in Europe. But we do have many rights that we take for granted today - and that maybe even today is NOT to taken granted in US.. Like 4 weeks payed summer hollyday, (in france 8 or more) and healtcare and a lot of other rights, who most europeans take for granted.. It is one of the reasons many is so angry becouse of that many parlaments want to "shew off rights" to balance budgeds.. If you start chipping away rights, it could end up in a deadly spiral where rights, is one by one been killed off.. And a new age of serfs is starting again. Something I belive no working man/woman would go back to..

It was maybe a easy way of talking about something that have been made able, by many generations of working class peopole who have fighted hard and long for the right of what is today Europe. The sacrefices have been many, but the rewards have also been many, when the working man finaly have won in the end..

And I can not for what I know understand why you in US, are not fighting harder for your rights, and organize all over the place, to force the companies, and the richest peopole to pay more up for things that chould be natural for everyone... Many americans (from the outside) is accepting things that would end up in a revolution in most of europe. If the private companies was acting up as they does in US, it would be the end of their services in many european Country. Not to say, the government would inflict some nasty fines on the companies, for not comply with regulations.. In Norway, for some year ago, a german food retailed tryed going into the marked, by using metodes in their company policy that was really draconic. It was a public disaster allmoust from day one, as they got into the face on everyone.. In some parts of the country, the food retailer was actively boycoted becouse they was trying to play "german laws in a german company" even when the german laws was more in contact with the norwigian law.. It was not helpefull, that the founder of the company, was a old Nazi General, who never had admited even a little remorse for what he did under the war. Norway was occupied by germany 1940-45 and even 3 generations after, it was a bad idea from the day one.. The company have today no stores in Norway, and would posible never came back.. Officially it was becouse of changes in "structure". Unofficial it was beouce the company was not able to make money, and was unpopular by both costumers, an employed..

Diclotican

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Why Marxism not taken root in the US?

That question is older than 100 years.

Part of your answer lies in the West, that served as a safety valve for most of the 19th century and a very short part of the 20th.

Why the Harlan County War (the largest civilian revolt since the Civil War) happened in the 1920s.

This is also why the New Deal was passed, out of fear of working classes that were becoming very radicalized.

And the last 30 years of propaganda have had a nasty effect in this country and ahem Marx will not lead the study hall even now... and I use Marx since that was the question that oh a few people like Debbs, asked back in the day.

:-)

Yes, cliff's notes in US history.

[Diclotican]

17. nadinbrzezinski

nadinbrzezinski

True, why have not Marxism got more root in the US.. As it is, even a smal dose of marxism into the US, would have been just to the best of things I belive

And, yes, the US served as a safty valve for most of the 1900s, not just for everyone withouth a future in the old world. But for them who was home, the overcrowding was lesser, and slowly everyone could be better off.. Many on my fathers side emigrated to US, in the early 1900s, becouse of hopeless life here in Norway. Some of them managed well, was farmers in Minesota (a "norwigian state" with a lot of ancestery back in Norway) some of them get into other things, and was far more sucessfull in US, than they ever could have been back in Norway.. Mostly becouse of the class warfare who was really nasty in the 1800s, and first part of the 1900s, even if it changed radically in the 1900s, specaily after the Russian revolution, and world war two it changed extremely to the best of everyone I would say...

The New Deal was a really smart move, to at least slow down the radicalizering of the working classes. And if not, maybe US have discovered the real power of the working class, and maybe the "powers to be" had been scared enough, to stop acting as they have been doing the last 30 year.. And I would say, it was also good for the americans, that world war two ended.. If not, the whole New Deal could have capsided before it was growing up into a big tree... When you have no food, and your familiy is starving, you tend to go to the more radical solutions, like revolution. And this is maybe a part of the american history we wil never know for sure, how radical the working classes in US really was between the wars. If they was anything near Europeans, it could not be a easy task to be owner of a factory if your workers wanted to strike.. Even a union buster like Ford understood that after a while..

I rember a scene where Chaplin in a movie, was accidently given a flag, a red flag, and was marshing down a road. Where the some workes was seeing it.. And he accidently got into a marsj, about workers rights against a big factory who wated to fire union workers, where many others was marshing behind him. Off course he got beated down by the police in the end.. But the fact that even in the films, the working classes could raise up to something, that could be so dangrous for the powers that be.. Is intersting.. Today I belive many country's like US need some who could rise the red flag, to get hardworking men and woman to stay with them, and demand back rights, that is under danger off beeing something of the past.. If the working class is not working togheter, to fight for the right, who is rigthfully their. They wil loose mutch more than anyone can belive. The upper clas wil try to squise out so mutch as they can posible do... If they ever got the chance.. Better to fight back, and at least subdue the most extreme parts of the neo-capitalism who have been shown as the future for the last couple of decades.. The Neo-Liberal/capitalism who have been rampage for the alst 30 year or so, is not harmless, rather is is a cancer that WIL kill us all, if we let it grow to big.

I fear that many rights who have been fighter over so many years is in the "crossair" if the neoconservatives and neo-liberals ever got their hands on them. Who need rights for the working classes.. Their life should just be hard, brutal and short, so they could not be to old...

Capitalism in its self is not "wrong". It just have to be strictly regulated, and enforced by strict laws, by both national, and international laws. And where no one can play the rules, to get riches they posible do not deserve.. And if someone is doing against the laws, it the punishent should be more than just a tell-tale in cort, and some fines and prisontime in a "country retreet" If proven gulty, the money should be given back - all of them, if posible to be found. And stiff fines, prison times given to the white collar crime. Becouse you do not kill a man, it is not the same as you do not deserve 10 year behind bars, if you steal from 10.000 pentionares, or smal shareholders. If anything we have experiences the last 100 year, it is that capitalism have to be strictly controlled, and laws enforced all the time.. And "cowboys" made responsible for what they do with money, specailly if it someone elses money... Today it is to easy to play with others money, and it is okay to swindle others for their money..

At the look at it, I doubt that many americans know what Marx really was standing for, or what socialitic or social-democratic parties at all is standing for. I doubt that most americans even know what communism is really about, and do not even know about how mutch of programs that is federal, and is ancered in the same ideas that our grandfathers had to fight for every day maybe all their grown up days... And even then, US is FAR behind most of europe, when it came to workers right.... Mostly becouse everyone is told, that also you can be the next "wounderboy" that made it great and got the billions.. Most of europe, know that it is verry seldom that one got the chance and got the billions.. But we can allways made it better than our parents, if we do our best. And go to school and get education:P.

And I am afraid, that as long as your "elite" or let I say your "nobles" is able to push you all around, and telling you that you is hopeless in the mercy of neo-liberalistic politic forever in the hand of your overlords, then you would never win and be given your right as humans.. Americans have to start fighting the good fight, for your right, and your responsbilites. Before that, no one wil do it for your...

Diclotican

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Give ME some Capitalism

What we have IS NOT Capitalism... as it requires small producers, regulations, living wages and the break up of Monopolies. I guess Adam Smith was a "red" before there were reds. Yes, all of that IS in the Wealth of Nations.

:-)

Why I tell people, give me some capitalism.

:hi:

And yes, I am aware that the US served as a safety valve for Europe. Hell, Radicals where shipped to the US... until we started like checkin' them immigrants...

[Diclotican]

25. nadinbrzezinski

nadinbrzezinski

The US form of capitalisme is dangrous for everyone. For the workers, for communities, and should be regulated the hell out of.. What US need, is a really hard shakedown, where progresive is tearing up most big companies, specaily the one in the business sector, who the last 30 or så year, have destroyed most of what US was about once...

Mr Adam Smith was a radicaler when it came to the wealth of nations.. Something that not everyone understand, as few of the "libertarians" really have taken the time to read wealth of nations.. He was not as "libertitatianas" many of them want you to belive..

True, many emigrated to US, was indeed radicale, who was not happy about things was been doing in Europe.. And it was a saftly valve for Europe, untill after the 1950s I guess

Diclotican

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. It is not the American Version of Capitalism

it is the THIRD WAY... a pleasant way of calling Corporatism... otherwise known as Fascism.

We should start using the right language.

[Diclotican]

27. nadinbrzezinski

nadinbrzezinski

Absolutely true.. The use of the right language is important, to say what it really is about..

The old guard who lost the war in 1945, it loooks might get another round this time.. more in the shaddows than when Hitler and Mussolonini was trying their best to mess up the world

It wil be a hell to clean it all up, when it broke down, and even the third way is going down the toilet.... But I guess, we have to do it, every time it happend

Diclotican

[MrScorpio]

9. Nothing is truly new under the sun, it it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Nope, but some of these attitudes are part of our national DNA

and we really need to start facing where all these things come from.

[pansypoo53219]

13. i knew i should have reread feudalism

in my 1891 encyclopedia britannica.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. As an aside those ancient encyclopedias are amazing.

[Ozymanithrax]

15. Cultures can last for a very long time.

Cultures carry specific world views for centuries and more. So it may be that what you are seeing is a distinct culture that moved from England ot the good old U.S.A.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Indeed...

that is what we are seeing.

[Zanzobar]

16. What are you arguing?

"you got to set the line SOMEWHERE, and make an example or they will continue to leech on us."

The same could be said of robber barons.

[Poll_Blind]

20. I think he's merely informing and then seeing what thoughts the new information might provoke.

I like the exercise.

PB

[Zanzobar]

21. It sounds very much like he's arguing against a line SOMEWHERE

"you got to set the line SOMEWHERE, and make an example or they will continue to leech on us."

The OP seems to be arguing against the very existence of a line. I was trying to point out that if there is a line for the rich, then there must also be a line for the poor.

It's an undelicate consideration, but I was just wondering if the OP had considered it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Not arguing,

pointing out that some of our "modern" attitudes go back A LONG time, like to the 16th century at least and the Renaissance... specifically if you need a date and an actual document, the 1597 Poor Laws.

Perhaps, if you will, that American Exceptionalism is a figment of everybody's imagination.

[Hannah Bell]

19. not the uaw.