The first 60 years of the industrial revolution

a reply to: toysforadults


Already provided links and page references, maybe try reading my comments prior to replying.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

you mean your Wikipedia page? the one I already countered and has been countered by another member?

so lazy...

a reply to: toysforadults


See those little bracketed numbers in the data? Those are called 'footnotes', if you follow those you get what us big persons call 'information' which makes you smarter because it's filled with all kinds of things like facts.

Or I could quote the Bible.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tovenar


What are you talking about? Caesar arrived back in Gaul in the winter and force-marched eight of his legions in the winter to pursue the Gauls. He also razed and seized towns during this time. Mabye if you actually read up on the history you'd know this.

It's in the Commentary, 7.10-12.

they did it on foot, not riding horses. The cavalry legion was... 300 horses. Versus 6000 infantry. When Caesar razed cities, he did it after besieging them.... footsoldiers' work. Caesar complains that the Germans under Ariovistus were able to field a massive cavalry because they had given up farming in order to field a cavalry equal to the size of their infantry.

The romans couldn't supply very much fodder over the winter, which is why they had winter quarters for each legion. Caesar made a name for himself by campaigning in winter, among other things. but it wasn't standard practice, any more than it had been for Hannibal to bring elephants over the alps...

originally posted by: tovenar

Caesar made a name for himself by campaigning in winter, among other things.

Nice goal posting shifting. First it's 'they nevah fought in the winter', then 'they never had horsies' then 'well, they had horsies but just not a lot'.

You're funny.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: toysforadults


See those little bracketed numbers in the data? Those are called 'footnotes', if you follow those you get what us big persons call 'information' which makes you smarter because it's filled with all kinds of things like facts.

Or I could quote the Bible.

I get it. You're allergic to that one book, even for it providing a look at the worldview of the society that produced it.

This is the same attitude that argued that the Trojan War never happened, because Homer wrote a poem about it. Then that awful Schlieman started looking in the dirt on the coast of Turkey, and found out that even myths may have a basis in fact, and tell us about ancient people...

The fact is, the only info we have from the early Iron Age, is various mythologies of the cultures that wrote their god-stories down. It's a useful resource, regardless of its value philosophically.

Bible Derangement Syndrome. smh

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tovenar

Caesar made a name for himself by campaigning in winter, among other things.

Nice goal posting shifting. First it's 'they nevah fought in the winter', then 'they never had horsies' then 'well, they had horsies but just not a lot'.

You're funny.

and you're condescending.

originally posted by: tovenar
I get it. You're allergic to that one book, even for it providing a look at the worldview of the society that produced it.

It doesn't produce a worldview, it presents religious dogma for a small geographic area in Bronze Age.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Actually, in addition to religious dogma, it shows us the decreasing value of silver as a medium of exchange after the societal collapse of 1172 BC. You can also gauge crop yields across the timespan of when the books were written down (Ruth in 500 BC vs. Matthew in 200 AD). You can see the spread of wheat cultivation and its technologies, by comparing the Genesis story of Joseph with the story of Sampson in the book of Judges).

You can learn about the American family farm in Kansas in 1900 by reading the first chapter of "The Wizard of Oz."

You can learn even more about the strict monetarist world-view by reading that same "wizard of ounces."

a reply to: tovenar


That's nice. Still doesn't change the historical data about life expectancy.

a reply to: Lumenari

It amazes me that anyone thinks anyone has ever tried any of Marx's ideals.

Many people have twisted Marx's concepts to sell their brand of fascism. You can call Fascism Socialism but that doesn't make it Socialism.

Marx said that people should not be forced to accept any of his ideas but that society as a whole would evolve to his ideas.

As long as It's forced by a group of elitists it is Facism. Marx was not a proponent of Facism. He was a proponent of everyone having an equal say.

Marx did not propose government ownership of anything. He believed in the will of the people.

a reply to: Isurrender73

conversely he also didn't believe in private property rights so although many of his ideas were theoretically good and potentially altruistic when you factor in the current broken human it can't work

now, if you want to look at it through rose colored glasses, yes everyone have an equal say and contribution and everything is actually a good idea

but is it practical? no, may humanity eventually evolve in a direction where everyone cares more about the community as a whole more than themselves...

well you can read this thread for yourself and make that assessment on your own

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tovenar


That's nice. Still doesn't change the historical data about life expectancy.

Nice goal posting shifting.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tovenar


That's nice. Still doesn't change the historical data about life expectancy.

Life expectancy has nothing to do with working conditions. We owe our extended lives to modern science. This whole debate has nothing to do with the OP.

a reply to: Isurrender73

they were wrong about working conditions so they had to change the topic in order to shift the conversation to something else they could be wrong about

a reply to: toysforadults

Socialism was not about equality except in the sense of everyone having a vote. Socialism is not a classless system or a system of government control. Many people make that mistake.

According to Marx Socialism was a path to Communism where the idea of a monyless society and equality comes in. But Marx was strongly against forcing Communism because he could see the flaws himself.

Socialism is basically non corrupt unions negationing for employees to have a fair share of the revenue. The other part of Socialism is unavoidable, collecting taxes for infrastructure like the 3 branches of government.

Socialism is the government of the people, by the people, for the people. Socialism is the working class being partners in production and not slaves to an elitist 1%. To say Socialism is anything else is to misrepresent Marx.

Private property is part of the end game communism. Which according to Marx would happen as an evolution of tge people and not something forced uppon the populace.

Imagine a world with no jobs, where technology does everything. Who would own anything? Would we not adopt Communism if we ever reached a technological cap?

a reply to: Isurrender73

ok let's play with this for fun

from what you've stated I can come to the conclusion that the idea is about an organic manifestation of a selfless community based system where people take care of one another

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Isurrender73

ok let's play with this for fun

from what you've stated I can come to the conclusion that the idea is about an organic manifestation of a selfless community based system where people take care of one another

Pretty much. Once it's forced and not done by a vote of the people it is Facism, which Marx opposed. Your distaste for Big Government is not that far from Marx's own distaste of Government by force.

Marx never suggested his ideas should be forced on makind. But he also didn't think we should sit around and let the 1% dictate our lives and take away our free time. Back to the OP. Lol

a reply to: Isurrender73

I really do like the idea of an organic manifestation of a community based society where people are valued more than items

my only problem with that is the human condition and currently it's getting worse not better

but the solution to that is freedom and private property because this kind of way of life can never manifest organically unless we have the freedom do so

I do like the idea but it's not realistic, I like utopian ideas

a reply to: toysforadults

I agree with you. Marx's ideas are Utopian.

But we do need to find some way to give the workers the power to negotiate better wages from the 1% who make millions or billions off the hard work of the 99%.

I think Unions and Arbitration courts, governed by laws to keep out the corruption, are a better approach than trying to implement a Socialist society.

The one area I remain undecided on is how to care for the homeless who are not disabled. Somehow we need to find jobs and homes for everyone willing to work.