• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Were we better off before industrialization?

Well, were we?


  • Total voters
    53
By virtually every measurable statistic even poor people are often much better than average people 50 years ago. If you want to look at the sky or the constellations, fine, I like to do that as well sometimes; just leave me my Playstation.
 
That's an awesome position.

Sure, I know you are hungry and here is a whole loaf of bread. Oh, you can't have it, you can just have enough so that you don't die. Sure, you'll suffer, probably get sick and die but at least I'll get some work out of you first.

People are just animals so why treat them any different right? As long as you got lucky, **** everyone else!! WOOHOO!!!!
So would you suggest that maybe Africa is better?
 
By virtually every measurable statistic even poor people are often much better than average people 50 years ago. If you want to look at the sky or the constellations, fine, I like to do that as well sometimes; just leave me my Playstation.
Are we better off physically and mentally? I don't thing so.
 
What are you basing that on?



Think about the quality of life that was common back then. In 1900, even someone in the richest 1%:

-Lived to around 55
-Had primitive medicine
-Barely any electricity
-No radios or other sophisticated methods of communication
-No sophisticated methods of travel
-Incredibly limited access to information/knowledge

I'd much prefer to be at the 25th% today, where despite not being as rich comparatively, you:

-Live to around 75
-Have access to, at worst, basic modern medicine
-The internet/iphones/skype/etc.
-Planes/Cars
-Access to any information you want
I dunno. Better to be Rockefeller or some modern American scraping by living paycheck to paycheck? Hard to say. For our good American lad, yes, there are far greater medical technologies in existence today, but they aren't available to him. There are far better methods of transportation, but he can't afford to use them, nor does he have any time off work to go anywhere or do anything.

Rockefeller had access to the best transportation of his day and could go wherever he wanted. Rocky Had access to the best (albeit primitive) medical treatment of his day. Point of fact Rockefeller lived to be 97.

Rocky didn't have to worry much about debt, the modern American does. Rockefeller owned an empire and had incredible political power. The modern American owns nothing but debt and (if we're still talking about the bottom 25% here) has no institutional political power whatsoever. Americans in the bottom 25% do not go where they want or do what they want to, but go where and do what they have to. Rockefeller was free to do what he pleased. It's a bit different as Rockefeller was high up in that 1%, but that is his circle of friends we're speaking of.

Oh, and Iphones and Ipods and skype are swell, I love them as much as anyone, but they are feeble substitutes for the economic solvency and individual autonomy that we lack completely.

All that being said, of course we are better off after industrialization. Capitalist industrialization eliminated any and all need of material want. There is no even marginally rational justification for hunger, poverty, death by curable disease, homelessness or inhumane working conditions left in the world. Industrial capitalism raised levels of production and technology to levels that could easily abolish all of these things. The problem of course is that the Rockefellers and Carnegies of our day continue to pursue accumulation of their own wealth even when it is the only remaining cause of these horrors. The problem is that this primitive accumulation has become not an aid to, but a hindrance to creativity, human freedom and indeed, even production in a meaningful sense.

In spite of the hideousness of life under Capitalism today, there will come a day when people seize the means of production and begin to build a world free of starvation and the other idiocies described above. And it is no doubt industrialization that laid the seeds that made that possible.
 
People are just animals so why treat them any different right? As long as you got lucky, **** everyone else!! WOOHOO!!!! >>

True, but very few will admit it. I'd say the main differnce between men and apes is genes and luck. By chance, man produced a mutation. Much more survival luck, and here we are today. Apes didn't mutate..

ricksfolly
 
Are we better off physically and mentally? I don't thing so.

You can't show that I would have been better off mentally then. Those times had social disfunction as well. We all like to glorify the past and make it seem like a "simpler" time, but right now, by every measurable statistic (including free time) we are better off. As for fufillment, I can't really build a time machine to figure it out. If I want to find out that badly, I can become Amish.
 
I dunno. Better to be Rockefeller or some modern American scraping by living paycheck to paycheck? Hard to say. For our good American lad, yes, there are far greater medical technologies in existence today, but they aren't available to him. There are far better methods of transportation, but he can't afford to use them, nor does he have any time off work to go anywhere or do anything.

Even the poorest American has access to the most state of the art care if they need it

Rockefeller had access to the best transportation of his day and could go wherever he wanted. Rocky Had access to the best (albeit primitive) medical treatment of his day. Point of fact Rockefeller lived to be 97.

And at best they had horse drawn carts. Today, most households have cars or access to public transportation.

Rocky didn't have to worry much about debt, the modern American does. Rockefeller owned an empire and had incredible political power. The modern American owns nothing but debt and (if we're still talking about the bottom 25% here) has no institutional political power whatsoever. Americans in the bottom 25% do not go where they want or do what they want to, but go where and do what they have to. Rockefeller was free to do what he pleased. It's a bit different as Rockefeller was high up in that 1%, but that is his circle of friends we're speaking of.

Poor people weren't in serious debt before? That's what William Jennings Bryan based his campaign off of 1896!

Oh, and Iphones and Ipods and skype are swell, I love them as much as anyone, but they are feeble substitutes for the economic solvency and individual autonomy that we lack completely.

Lack individual autonomy? We have far more choice economically and socially today than ever before.

All that being said, of course we are better off after industrialization. Capitalist industrialization eliminated any and all need of material want. There is no even marginally rational justification for hunger, poverty, death by curable disease, homelessness or inhumane working conditions left in the world. Industrial capitalism raised levels of production and technology to levels that could easily abolish all of these things. The problem of course is that the Rockefellers and Carnegies of our day continue to pursue accumulation of their own wealth even when it is the only remaining cause of these horrors. The problem is that this primitive accumulation has become not an aid to, but a hindrance to creativity, human freedom and indeed, even production in a meaningful sense.

For the millionth time, the pie isn't fixed. Market Capitalism is based on mutually beneficial trade.

In spite of the hideousness of life under Capitalism today, there will come a day when people seize the means of production and begin to build a world free of starvation and the other idiocies described above. And it is no doubt industrialization that laid the seeds that made that possible.

The countries that have seized upon this "hindrance" have experienced fantastic amounts of economic growth and rapidly risig living statndards for even the poor. The average poor person in the United States lives in conditions that are far from ideal, but the vast majority have color TVs, AC, Refrigerators, and a whole host of appliances that even the rich didn't have 100 years ago.

Industrial progress, mechanical improvement, all of the great wonders of the modern era have meant little to the wealthy. The rich in ancient Greece would have benefited hardly at all from modern plumbing — running servants replaced running water. Television and radio — the patricians of Rome could enjoy the leading musicians and actors in their home, could have the leading artists as domestic retainers. Ready-to-wear clothing, supermarkets — all these and many other modern developments would have added little to their life. They would have welcomed the improvements in transportation and in medicine, but for the rest, the great achievements of western capitalism have rebounded primarily to the benefit of the ordinary person. These achievements have made available to the masses conveniences and amenities that were previously the exclusive prerogative of the rich and powerful.

Milton Friedman
 
Even the poorest American has access to the most state of the art care if they need it
hahahahaha
And at best they had horse drawn carts. Today, most households have cars or access to public transportation.
Ok, we were talking about the 1900's, not 1500's.
Poor people weren't in serious debt before? That's what William Jennings Bryan based his campaign off of 1896!
Of course they were in serious debt and generally always are. But compare the American working class of the 60's with that of today.
Lack individual autonomy? We have far more choice economically and socially today than ever before.
We are freer than feudal serfs! And that's as good as it gets I suppose.
For the millionth time, the pie isn't fixed. Market Capitalism is based on mutually beneficial trade.
I work all day every day and produce hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of intellectual labor and scrape by on starvation wages that are just enough to pay off my student debt. Sometimes it feels a bit more parasitic than symbiotic to me. But that's just me.
The countries that have seized upon this "hindrance" have experienced fantastic amounts of economic growth and rapidly risig living statndards for even the poor.
What does that even mean? A country does not "seize upon" the mode of production in a given epoch. Nor does a people. Depending on your material conditions, your class, and who your daddy is, you are either mowed down by it or doing the mowing. And it's a nice, convenient excuse for poverty and starvation that you can give for all those miserable colonies created by Capitalism: They didn't embrace Capitalism!!!
The average poor person in the United States lives in conditions that are far from ideal, but the vast majority have color TVs, AC, Refrigerators, and a whole host of appliances that even the rich didn't have 100 years ago.
AH the Friedmanites and their gadgets! Your argument boils down again, as it always does for your ilk to this: It may SEEM like we are living miserable lives. It may SEEM like it's bad that you can't afford a house, that your kids can't afford to go to college, that you have to work 80 hours a week just to pay back your loans and that your debt is greater than the earnings you will make in your lifetime... BUT, check out my new i-phone!!!!!!!! Love my i-pod, but I'd give it back in an instant if we could get back the working class to levels of organization of recent past decades, which were no utopia but in which a man could work eight hours a day, buy (Not rent, not pay a mortgage for the rest of his life) a house and send his kids to good colleges on that single income.
 
I don't get it; I'm anti-capitalist and even I agree that we're better off. How can anyone honestly believe that we're not? What is the argument? I have yet to see anyone post a coherent argument.
 
I don't get it; I'm anti-capitalist and even I agree that we're better off. How can anyone honestly believe that we're not? What is the argument? I have yet to see anyone post a coherent argument.

it depends on what you class as better, you ask Australian Aboriginals, and they'll say it would've been better pre-industrialisation, however, if you go back in time in europe and ask a pre-industrialistion serf, or anyone of the lower classes, and youll get the opposite
 
it depends on what you class as better, you ask Australian Aboriginals, and they'll say it would've been better pre-industrialisation, however, if you go back in time in europe and ask a pre-industrialistion serf, or anyone of the lower classes, and youll get the opposite

Australian Aboriginals aren't part of this system so asking them is irrelevant.
 
I don't get it; I'm anti-capitalist and even I agree that we're better off. How can anyone honestly believe that we're not? What is the argument? I have yet to see anyone post a coherent argument.

One could argue that industrialism has destroyed our sense of community. I mean, being social was what you DID for entertainment back in the day. People were often in close touch with their extended family. Nowdays we're a very isolated society.
 
hahahahaha

So they just got rid of the law that says hospitals can deny necessary care? And even if you say that it's crappy compared to what rich people get, but I can assure you that it's a hell of a lot better than what even the middle class and rich got just 30 years ago or sooner.

Ok, we were talking about the 1900's, not 1500's.

No, cars didn't really become common for the masses until the 1920s.

Of course they were in serious debt and generally always are. But compare the American working class of the 60's with that of today.

They have higher wages, better medical care, better life expectency, and better entertainment. Things like food and medical care have gone up in cost, but that's mostly due to government involvement.

We are freer than feudal serfs! And that's as good as it gets I suppose.

Look at everything in your house. You own hundreds or thousands of things that didn't exist or were of much poorer quality just a few decades ago. You can be gay and be much more excepted by society, Black and not get beaten, or a woman and not be expected to stay home barefoot or pregnant. Your parents and grandparents might go on about how much better you are off now compared to them. It may have been annoying, but they're right. The choices that most of your ancestors had were probably work in a farm/factory or not much else.

I
work all day every day and produce hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of intellectual labor and scrape by on starvation wages that are just enough to pay off my student debt. Sometimes it feels a bit more parasitic than symbiotic to me. But that's just me.

You agreed to it. You sound young, and if you make the right decisions and work hard, you'll probably get off of it. You apparently do well enough to have a computer if I'm not mistaken.

What does that even mean? A country does not "seize upon" the mode of production in a given epoch. Nor does a people. Depending on your material conditions, your class, and who your daddy is, you are either mowed down by it or doing the mowing. And it's a nice, convenient excuse for poverty and starvation that you can give for all those miserable colonies created by Capitalism: They didn't embrace Capitalism!!!

The poverty that you speak of has a habit of shrinking rapidly and becoming far less severe in industrialied countries. Yes they did embrace market capitalism or got close to it. Britain, the US, Western Europe, and East Asia all massively increased their standard of living when they freed their economies from most government interference. By virtually every measurable statistic we are better off than are grandparents or their grandparents.

AH the Friedmanites and their gadgets! Your argument boils down again, as it always does for your ilk to this: It may SEEM like we are living miserable lives. It may SEEM like it's bad that you can't afford a house, that your kids can't afford to go to college, that you have to work 80 hours a week just to pay back your loans and that your debt is greater than the earnings you will make in your lifetime... BUT, check out my new i-phone!!!!!!!! Love my i-pod, but I'd give it back in an instant if we could get back the working class to levels of organization of recent past decades, which were no utopia but in which a man could work eight hours a day, buy (Not rent, not pay a mortgage for the rest of his life) a house and send his kids to good colleges on that single income.


Than don't buy the i-phone. Don't pay for all those gadgets. Train more for that promotion. Also I wouldn't deny that things like vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, and indoor plumbing make life far more easy.
 
I don't get it; I'm anti-capitalist and even I agree that we're better off. How can anyone honestly believe that we're not? What is the argument? I have yet to see anyone post a coherent argument. >>

I should think the fact that we're one day closer to running out of coal and oil should be enough of an argument. Geologist's predictions don't mean a thing because it's all underground and they can't see or accurately detect just how much is left.

ricksfolly
 
I should think the fact that we're one day closer to running out of coal and oil should be enough of an argument. Geologist's predictions don't mean a thing because it's all underground and they can't see or accurately detect just how much is left.

ricksfolly

you have no idea how that works do you?

there are many ways to detect what lays underground, and i am sure they use alot of them to determine these things
 
I've figured out my answer.... I'm guessing 500+ years ago, we might not have been better off, but we were certainly happier most likely

I realize in the 1400s and 1500s, Europe was terribly crowded and already had agriculture, but elsewhere people were happier
 
Last edited:
I should think the fact that we're one day closer to running out of coal and oil should be enough of an argument. Geologist's predictions don't mean a thing because it's all underground and they can't see or accurately detect just how much is left.

ricksfolly
Before Industrialization we barely used these fuels. If we hadn't gone through industrialization, we wouldn't have use for these fuels and thus, lower levels of them wouldn't matter.
 
Originally Posted by ricksfolly [View Post]
I should think the fact that we're one day closer to running out of coal and oil should be enough of an argument. Geologist's predictions don't mean a thing because it's all underground and they can't see or accurately detect just how much is left.>>

you have no idea how that works do you?
there are many ways to detect what lays underground, and i am sure they use alot of them to determine these things
>>

Other than seismographs, that only read high and low formations, and gas pressure indicators, I know of no others. If you know other ways, please let me know.

ricksfollly
 
Back
Top Bottom