Fascism

[Coyote]

No, Coyote is c

I think you'll find many of the abuses came from those in bed with government. It's how many got big. There's nothing about the system of capitalism that dictates human worth. You are applying your own terms to the words. Capitalism is private ownership. Period. It does not mean greedy, evil or inhumane, just private ownership.

I think that's a convenient excuse for greedy, evil, inhumane behavior.

There's nothing about the system of capitalism that dictates human worth. EXACTLY. Now you get it.

What "greedy, evil, inhumane behavior" does it excuse?

Under capitalism, the consumers dictate the value of your labor. The concept of "human worth," is so nebulous that it's meaningless.

No, Coyote is correct. When capitalism was first flexing its muscles it treated human beings very poorly. I will grant you that it was the leadership of the company that dictated that and not capitalism as a philosophy, but the reality is that slaves in the southern US had a better life than the Irish factory workers did in the North. That's because they were property and property has a value. The workers in the north were considered nothing more than a necessary nuisance.

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

 

[Coyote]

While we are schooling WHAT does NAZI stand for, and on what was it pushed into the society of Germany?

You should have read the earlier parts of the thread. The origins of the term Nazi were already discussed.

And it's about as accurate as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.

Then give your ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING of it's beginnings. I am watching.

This has been discussed earlier in this thread. Perhaps you need to put your "watching" skills to use by reading the thread rather than expecting others to fill you in.

 

[westwall]

The reason why the people left the farms is because they were no longer needed on them. Are you really that ignorant of that part of history? Industrialization affected the farms before it did anything else. Add to that the railroads which allowed food to be transported to the cities to feed everyone and yes, industrialization helped to increase the quality of life. Immeasurably. But the factory workers were the last ones to see that benefit.

You just posited a chicken and egg theory. People left the farm because industrialization meant they were no longer needed, but that presupposes that factories already existed. So where did the people who worked in these factories that already existed come from? How did they produce anything and make people on farms redundant if they weren't already running and staffed with people from farms?

No, I didn't. Factories started to be built in the 1700's. The Luddites began to figure out they were going to be useless around the 1810-11 time frame. That is when industrialization really took off. From that point on it was exponential growth. Manufacturing jobs have always been one of the smallest sectors, but after the unions came along, it was also one of the better paid sectors for those with no real education.

That's the history of the industrial revolution in England. In America it didn't begin until about 1840, when the first railroad was built.

Ford Motor company paid better wages than any company in America long before the unions took it over.

I guess you never hear of Eli Whitney? Try 1794 for the beginning of industrialization here in the USA. His Cotton Gin (short for engine) could produce in an hour what a whole bunch of workers could do in a day.

Ford was the exception to the rule and he did it to retain the workers he had been training. He was the first employer to figure out it cost more to constantly train replacements than it did to pay good workers more money so that they would stay.

Cotton Gins where not used in factories. Each plantation had their own. The first factories were engaged in making textiles.

Textile industry - Wikipedia

Industrial revolution[edit]
Main article: Textile manufacture during the Industrial Revolution
The woven fabric portion of the textile industry grew out of the industrial revolution in the 18th century as mass production of yarn and cloth became a mainstream industry.[8]

In 1734 in Bury, Lancashire, John Kay invented the flying shuttle — one of the first of a series of inventions associated with the cotton woven fabric industry. The flying shuttle increased the width of cotton cloth and speed of production of a single weaver at a loom.[9] Resistance by workers to the perceived threat to jobs delayed the widespread introduction of this technology, even though the higher rate of production generated an increased demand for spun cotton.

​

Shuttles
In 1761, the Duke of Bridgewater's canal connected Manchester to the coal fields of Worsley and in 1762, Matthew Boulton opened theSoho Foundry engineering works in Handsworth, Birmingham. His partnership with Scottish engineer James Watt resulted, in 1775, in the commercial production of the more efficient Watt steam engine which used a separate condenser.

In 1764, James Hargreaves is credited as inventor of the spinning jenny which multiplied the spun thread production capacity of a single worker — initially eightfold and subsequently much further. Others[10] credit the invention to Thomas Highs. Industrial unrest and a failure to patent the invention until 1770 forced Hargreaves from Blackburn, but his lack of protection of the idea allowed the concept to be exploited by others. As a result, there were over 20,000 spinning jennies in use by the time of his death. Also in 1764, Thorp Mill, the first water-powered cotton mill in the world was constructed at Royton, Lancashire, and was used for carding cotton. With the spinning and weaving process now mechanized, cotton mills cropped up all over the North West of England.

The stocking frame invented in 1589 for silk became viable when in 1759, Jedediah Strutt introduced an attachment for the frame which produced what became known as the Derby Rib, which allowed stockings to be manufactured in cotton. Nottingham, a traditional centre for lacework, had allowed the use of the protected stocking frame since 1728.[citation needed]​

So that puts the start of the Industrial Revolution in England at about 1760.

​

Try a source other than wiki please. The cotton gins were built in a factory once Whitney got the capital together to build his factory. He also invented standardization, most importantly used in the gun making world. I own a Whitney revolver (manufactured in 1862) and amazingly enough if a part breaks i can get a replacement piece that will drop right in. Something that was unheard of till he came along.

 

[westwall]

No, Coyote is c

I think that's a convenient excuse for greedy, evil, inhumane behavior.

There's nothing about the system of capitalism that dictates human worth. EXACTLY. Now you get it.

What "greedy, evil, inhumane behavior" does it excuse?

Under capitalism, the consumers dictate the value of your labor. The concept of "human worth," is so nebulous that it's meaningless.

No, Coyote is correct. When capitalism was first flexing its muscles it treated human beings very poorly. I will grant you that it was the leadership of the company that dictated that and not capitalism as a philosophy, but the reality is that slaves in the southern US had a better life than the Irish factory workers did in the North. That's because they were property and property has a value. The workers in the north were considered nothing more than a necessary nuisance.

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

 

[Coyote]

How do they contradict each other?
Nazism.
Fascism.

I've linked to sources already so I'm not going to repeat that.

Nazism is fascism.

Where some disagree with you on that is that fascism did not have a racial component to it and Nazism is primarily a racial superiority ideology.

Actually it isn't. Once again racial superiority was a tool. It is easier to kill an opponent if you think they are less than you. That's why they used the term sub human. It is all about political indoctrination. It was merely a propaganda tool to convince the people that the evil they were doing was righteous. The Nazis were huge into eugenics.

I disagree with that. Yes, I agree it's easier to kill when you dehumanize a group. But it wasn't just doing that. It was building up the idea of a master race - the Aryan race. What made it easy to sell was the overall postwar climate in Germany at the time which was dismal and humiliating. Eugenics was also becoming a prominant movement around the world and that fed into it. But the entire Nazi ideology revolved around the idea of racial superiority of the German people - that was absolutely central and distinctively different than other fascist movements. Hitler borrowed from different ideologies to make his own.

All of which was part of the eugenics movement. Which was in vogue here in the US as well. Take a look at the history of Pelagra, a disease that the ruling elite ignored because it mainly affected the lower classes. Until the Great Depression inflicted it upon the elite. Then suddenly they cared. Everything that you wish to accuse the Germans of doing was also done HERE. Just not to the same extent, and our guilty politicians had people rewrite the history books to hide it.

Now actually...that's a story I'm familiar with It was endemic in the south, and a huge cause of "lost productivity" in workers. They were concerned about it, but were STUCK on one theory, that it was caused somehow by a disease and the medical "elite" as it were would not budge. Dr. Joel Goldberger was responsible for identifying the cause of pellagra. He was Jewish, and anti-Jewish sentiment in American was strong and barred him from a good many medical opportunities. He became a naval doctor, was one of the founding figures in the establishment of the public health service and discovered that pellagra was caused by a niacin deficiency. He conducted experiments that today would be impossible - by adjusting the diets of mental asylum patients and in orphanages (where pellagra was common) and was able to discover the foods that prevented it and that it could be abolished quickly and inexpensively if farm owners. orphanages etc would provide their tenants with certain foods. But it was years of fighting trying to push those changes through and the resistance was on multiple fronts - the medical elite looked down on the Jewish doctor and were pushing alternative strategies that were useless for one.

I agree with you on eugenics and the historical coverups - it was a widespread movement that Hitler took to an extreme. While the Germans conducted human experiments on Jews, we are guilty of such atrocities as Tuskeegee. Even now - abuses are still coming to light, the ending of mandatory sterilization for "defective" people only ended in NC relatively recently. That's a part of history that was well covered up. So were the many lobotamies casually performed for no reason than a child being umanageable.

 

[bripat9643]

Controlling the border is one of the few legitimate functions of government. Calling it "big government" is propaganda. It's no more "big government" than arresting people for robbery or trespassing.

Bullshit, but thanks for the carpet dance.

It's not a "carpet dance." Imbeciles like you call any legitimate function right wingers expect the government to do "big government" so you can claim they believe in big government. Enforcing laws against murder and theft is not "big government." Enforcing the border is not "big government." Anyone who claims they are is a douche bag spouting propaganda.

 

[Coyote]

No, Coyote is c

What "greedy, evil, inhumane behavior" does it excuse?

Under capitalism, the consumers dictate the value of your labor. The concept of "human worth," is so nebulous that it's meaningless.

No, Coyote is correct. When capitalism was first flexing its muscles it treated human beings very poorly. I will grant you that it was the leadership of the company that dictated that and not capitalism as a philosophy, but the reality is that slaves in the southern US had a better life than the Irish factory workers did in the North. That's because they were property and property has a value. The workers in the north were considered nothing more than a necessary nuisance.

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I've never seen any figures on slave life expectancy vs. the life expectancy of free men. Do you have a source? I'd like to see it.

You can't deny the fact that people left the farm and flocked to work in the factories. That's because the alternative is that many of them would end up dead in short order.

All the evidence I've seen is that life expectancy increased dramatically during the industrial revolution. Prior to it, 35 was about the average life expectancy. by the end of the 19th century it was up to 55. That's an increase of 20 years in a century.

The reason why the people left the farms is because they were no longer needed on them. Are you really that ignorant of that part of history? Industrialization affected the farms before it did anything else. Add to that the railroads which allowed food to be transported to the cities to feed everyone and yes, industrialization helped to increase the quality of life. Immeasurably. But the factory workers were the last ones to see that benefit.

Very much so - this was particularly so in the 20's and 30's and allowed a farmer to farm his own land without a minimum of workers or tenants, who were driven off the land.

 

[Coyote]

No, Coyote is c

What "greedy, evil, inhumane behavior" does it excuse?

Under capitalism, the consumers dictate the value of your labor. The concept of "human worth," is so nebulous that it's meaningless.

No, Coyote is correct. When capitalism was first flexing its muscles it treated human beings very poorly. I will grant you that it was the leadership of the company that dictated that and not capitalism as a philosophy, but the reality is that slaves in the southern US had a better life than the Irish factory workers did in the North. That's because they were property and property has a value. The workers in the north were considered nothing more than a necessary nuisance.

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

 

[Coyote]

How do they contradict each other?
Nazism.
Fascism.

I've linked to sources already so I'm not going to repeat that.

Nazism is fascism.

Where some disagree with you on that is that fascism did not have a racial component to it and Nazism is primarily a racial superiority ideology.

Actually it isn't. Once again racial superiority was a tool. It is easier to kill an opponent if you think they are less than you. That's why they used the term sub human. It is all about political indoctrination. It was merely a propaganda tool to convince the people that the evil they were doing was righteous. The Nazis were huge into eugenics.

I disagree with that. Yes, I agree it's easier to kill when you dehumanize a group. But it wasn't just doing that. It was building up the idea of a master race - the Aryan race. What made it easy to sell was the overall postwar climate in Germany at the time which was dismal and humiliating. Eugenics was also becoming a prominant movement around the world and that fed into it. But the entire Nazi ideology revolved around the idea of racial superiority of the German people - that was absolutely central and distinctively different than other fascist movements. Hitler borrowed from different ideologies to make his own.

Racism isn't what distinguishes fascism. You just admitted that.

And?

That's why I'm saying Naziism and have been saying is it's own category with elements of fascism and socialism when expedient to Hitlers aims.

 

[Divine Wind]

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

While calling welfare equal to slavery is a stretch, we're completely agreed that creating a welfare state creates citizens dependent upon the state instead of teaching them to be independent.

Netflix has a good documentary called "13th" and the 13th Amendment and post-slavery America. While I thought it leaned too much into conspiracy theory territory, it did bring up some interesting facts about how laws were created to work against blacks rather than to support society.

 

[westwall]

No, Coyote is c
No, Coyote is correct. When capitalism was first flexing its muscles it treated human beings very poorly. I will grant you that it was the leadership of the company that dictated that and not capitalism as a philosophy, but the reality is that slaves in the southern US had a better life than the Irish factory workers did in the North. That's because they were property and property has a value. The workers in the north were considered nothing more than a necessary nuisance.

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

I call it a form of slavery because those who administer it have no desire for its clients to see their lives improve. They are treated as gist in the mill, and the mill is taxpayer dollars. Welfare was supposed to be a short term aid to those in need. A laudable goal. It has since morphed into a class. The lowest class imaginable. The welfare recipients are punished if they try and get away from the system. That is well documented, and just like those German mothers, they are rewarded for bearing children that the welfare state gets to administer.

It is a vicious, evil circle.

 

[bripat9643]

You just posited a chicken and egg theory. People left the farm because industrialization meant they were no longer needed, but that presupposes that factories already existed. So where did the people who worked in these factories that already existed come from? How did they produce anything and make people on farms redundant if they weren't already running and staffed with people from farms?

No, I didn't. Factories started to be built in the 1700's. The Luddites began to figure out they were going to be useless around the 1810-11 time frame. That is when industrialization really took off. From that point on it was exponential growth. Manufacturing jobs have always been one of the smallest sectors, but after the unions came along, it was also one of the better paid sectors for those with no real education.

That's the history of the industrial revolution in England. In America it didn't begin until about 1840, when the first railroad was built.

Ford Motor company paid better wages than any company in America long before the unions took it over.

I guess you never hear of Eli Whitney? Try 1794 for the beginning of industrialization here in the USA. His Cotton Gin (short for engine) could produce in an hour what a whole bunch of workers could do in a day.

Ford was the exception to the rule and he did it to retain the workers he had been training. He was the first employer to figure out it cost more to constantly train replacements than it did to pay good workers more money so that they would stay.

Cotton Gins where not used in factories. Each plantation had their own. The first factories were engaged in making textiles.

Textile industry - Wikipedia

Industrial revolution[edit]
Main article: Textile manufacture during the Industrial Revolution
The woven fabric portion of the textile industry grew out of the industrial revolution in the 18th century as mass production of yarn and cloth became a mainstream industry.[8]

In 1734 in Bury, Lancashire, John Kay invented the flying shuttle — one of the first of a series of inventions associated with the cotton woven fabric industry. The flying shuttle increased the width of cotton cloth and speed of production of a single weaver at a loom.[9] Resistance by workers to the perceived threat to jobs delayed the widespread introduction of this technology, even though the higher rate of production generated an increased demand for spun cotton.

​

Shuttles
In 1761, the Duke of Bridgewater's canal connected Manchester to the coal fields of Worsley and in 1762, Matthew Boulton opened theSoho Foundry engineering works in Handsworth, Birmingham. His partnership with Scottish engineer James Watt resulted, in 1775, in the commercial production of the more efficient Watt steam engine which used a separate condenser.

In 1764, James Hargreaves is credited as inventor of the spinning jenny which multiplied the spun thread production capacity of a single worker — initially eightfold and subsequently much further. Others[10] credit the invention to Thomas Highs. Industrial unrest and a failure to patent the invention until 1770 forced Hargreaves from Blackburn, but his lack of protection of the idea allowed the concept to be exploited by others. As a result, there were over 20,000 spinning jennies in use by the time of his death. Also in 1764, Thorp Mill, the first water-powered cotton mill in the world was constructed at Royton, Lancashire, and was used for carding cotton. With the spinning and weaving process now mechanized, cotton mills cropped up all over the North West of England.

The stocking frame invented in 1589 for silk became viable when in 1759, Jedediah Strutt introduced an attachment for the frame which produced what became known as the Derby Rib, which allowed stockings to be manufactured in cotton. Nottingham, a traditional centre for lacework, had allowed the use of the protected stocking frame since 1728.[citation needed]​

So that puts the start of the Industrial Revolution in England at about 1760.

​

Try a source other than wiki please. The cotton gins were built in a factory once Whitney got the capital together to build his factory. He also invented standardization, most importantly used in the gun making world. I own a Whitney revolver (manufactured in 1862) and amazingly enough if a part breaks i can get a replacement piece that will drop right in. Something that was unheard of till he came along.

They were all built in the same place, but the handcrafting method was used. It wasn't produced on an assembly line.

As for interchangeable parts:

Interchangeable parts - Wikipedia​

Whitney was never able to design a manufacturing process capable of producing guns with interchangeable parts. Charles Fitch credited Whitney with successfully executing a firearms contract with interchangeable parts using the American System,[4] but historians Merritt Roe Smith and Robert B. Gordon have since determined that Whitney never achieved interchangeable parts manufacturing. His family's arms company, however, did so after his death.
​

The development of true interchangeable parts is rather complicated. You can read about it at the the URL posted above.

 

[Contumacious]

Maybe that's the problem - defining ideologies gets very fuzzy in reality. If something has some aspects of an ideology what is it?

Left wingers like you deliberate obfuscate the issue because you don't want people to understand the reality of socialism and fascism.

And people like you fail abysmally at debating and have to resort to personal insults. Got it.

Let me know when you're prepared to move past that. If you can't, then I'll chalk it up to an inability to communicate on your part.

Socialism and fascism are not soley economic systems, as you wish to imply. Look it up beyond the dictionary and it's obvious but that requires a bit more work.

That's not an insult. It's an accurate description of what you're trying to do.

The issue under discussion in this thread is whether fascism is "rightwing." If that yardstick measures anything, it measures the amount of government control supported by a given ideology. If it doesn't measure that, then what does it measure? You already avoided answering that question.

According to the left/right paradigm, fascism is leftwing, not rightwing.

That is INCORRECT


Fascism can be either from the Left or the Right.

The Fascist Threat

In reviewing the history of the rise of fascism, Flynn wrote:

“One of the most baffling phenomena of fascism is the almost incredible collaboration between men of the extreme Right and the extreme Left in its creation. The explanation lies at this point. Both Right and Left joined in this urge for regulation. The motives, the arguments, and the forms of expression were different but all drove in the same direction. And this was that the economic system must be controlled in its essential functions and this control must be exercised by the producing groups."

Flynn writes that the right and the left disagreed on precisely who fits the bill as the producer group. The left tends to celebrate laborers as producers. The right tends to favor business owners as producers. The political compromise — and it still goes on today – was to cartelize both.

Do you yet understand why fascism can't be both left or right? Do you understand the problem with that line of thinking? Fascism is a collectivist government type. Thus is is leftist. The opposite of a collectivist government type is an individualist system. The most extreme version of that is anarchy. Those are your two extremes. Fascism, socialism, communism, are ALL leftwing. Anarchy is rightwing.

HUH?

Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police State as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive State the unlimited master of society.

So it doesn't matter whether the collectivists are left or right wingers

Here in the US , anti-"drugs" laws, anti-prostitution , anti-pornography military conscription and others originate from the right wing. So the right wingers are as capable as the left wingers to create a POLICE STATE in order to control and regulate whatever they decide they do not want.


.

 

[bripat9643]

No, Coyote is c
No, Coyote is correct. When capitalism was first flexing its muscles it treated human beings very poorly. I will grant you that it was the leadership of the company that dictated that and not capitalism as a philosophy, but the reality is that slaves in the southern US had a better life than the Irish factory workers did in the North. That's because they were property and property has a value. The workers in the north were considered nothing more than a necessary nuisance.

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I've never seen any figures on slave life expectancy vs. the life expectancy of free men. Do you have a source? I'd like to see it.

You can't deny the fact that people left the farm and flocked to work in the factories. That's because the alternative is that many of them would end up dead in short order.

All the evidence I've seen is that life expectancy increased dramatically during the industrial revolution. Prior to it, 35 was about the average life expectancy. by the end of the 19th century it was up to 55. That's an increase of 20 years in a century.

The reason why the people left the farms is because they were no longer needed on them. Are you really that ignorant of that part of history? Industrialization affected the farms before it did anything else. Add to that the railroads which allowed food to be transported to the cities to feed everyone and yes, industrialization helped to increase the quality of life. Immeasurably. But the factory workers were the last ones to see that benefit.

Very much so - this was particularly so in the 20's and 30's and allowed a farmer to farm his own land without a minimum of workers or tenants, who were driven off the land.

We are discussing the industrial revolution, not federal farm policies or depression economics.

 

[westwall]

That is what you implied in your post to Coyote. There are few people who are malicious. That's the point. Most are merely uninformed. It is our duty to inform those who wish to learn. Insulting them doesn't help, nor does it impress those sitting on the sidelines trying to learn.

I disagree with your theory that few people are malicious. If you want to see the proof of that, just watch this video:



Your also mistaken if you believe people like Coyote are capable of "learning" anything. Her views are set in concrete. The more irrefutable the facts and logic you post are, the harder she will defend her delusions.

Wrong. I used to be like Coyote, I learned. Most of the members of La Raza are not malicious. There are some who are however, and quite virulently at that. Once again you wish to paint all with the brush that should only be applied to the few.

My wife is Hispanic, and she tells me stories all the time about other Hispanics she works with. A lot them are quite content to collect welfare and gloat about how dumb Americans are to pay them for doing nothing.

That is very true. Guess what, they amount to at most 20% of the illegals here. The rest are workers. I am still opposed to them being allowed to stay here because they create a two tier wage system and that harms ALL Americans.

The Americans that hire and exploit these workers are not harmed, many of the employers fail to pay payroll takes while paying less than the minimum wage, and some hold back pay for arbitrary reasons since the worker has no recourse.

Never said they were, but ALL American workers are harmed because of the artificially lowered wages that can be paid because the illegals are here and are willing to work for significantly less than a native born worker. That is called labor value 101.

 

[bripat9643]

Left wingers like you deliberate obfuscate the issue because you don't want people to understand the reality of socialism and fascism.

And people like you fail abysmally at debating and have to resort to personal insults. Got it.

Let me know when you're prepared to move past that. If you can't, then I'll chalk it up to an inability to communicate on your part.

Socialism and fascism are not soley economic systems, as you wish to imply. Look it up beyond the dictionary and it's obvious but that requires a bit more work.

That's not an insult. It's an accurate description of what you're trying to do.

The issue under discussion in this thread is whether fascism is "rightwing." If that yardstick measures anything, it measures the amount of government control supported by a given ideology. If it doesn't measure that, then what does it measure? You already avoided answering that question.

According to the left/right paradigm, fascism is leftwing, not rightwing.

That is INCORRECT


Fascism can be either from the Left or the Right.

The Fascist Threat

In reviewing the history of the rise of fascism, Flynn wrote:

“One of the most baffling phenomena of fascism is the almost incredible collaboration between men of the extreme Right and the extreme Left in its creation. The explanation lies at this point. Both Right and Left joined in this urge for regulation. The motives, the arguments, and the forms of expression were different but all drove in the same direction. And this was that the economic system must be controlled in its essential functions and this control must be exercised by the producing groups."

Flynn writes that the right and the left disagreed on precisely who fits the bill as the producer group. The left tends to celebrate laborers as producers. The right tends to favor business owners as producers. The political compromise — and it still goes on today – was to cartelize both.

Do you yet understand why fascism can't be both left or right? Do you understand the problem with that line of thinking? Fascism is a collectivist government type. Thus is is leftist. The opposite of a collectivist government type is an individualist system. The most extreme version of that is anarchy. Those are your two extremes. Fascism, socialism, communism, are ALL leftwing. Anarchy is rightwing.

HUH?

Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police State as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive State the unlimited master of society.

So it doesn't matter whether the collectivists are left or right wingers

Here in the US , anti-"drugs" laws, anti-prostitution , anti-pornography military conscription and others originate from the right wing. So the right wingers are as capable as the left wingers to create a POLICE STATE in order to control and regulate whatever they decide they do not want.


.

None of those things creates a police state, so your syllogism is bullshit.

 

[Coyote]

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

I call it a form of slavery because those who administer it have no desire for its clients to see their lives improve. They are treated as gist in the mill, and the mill is taxpayer dollars. Welfare was supposed to be a short term aid to those in need. A laudable goal. It has since morphed into a class. The lowest class imaginable. The welfare recipients are punished if they try and get away from the system. That is well documented, and just like those German mothers, they are rewarded for bearing children that the welfare state gets to administer.

It is a vicious, evil circle.

In my opinion - a lot of that is due to the centralized "one size fits all" approach to welfare which doesn't address the many different causes of poverty in the different areas of the country.

It's always been a struggle - with any relief program - between supporting the needy and creating dependence.

 

[westwall]

Left wingers like you deliberate obfuscate the issue because you don't want people to understand the reality of socialism and fascism.

And people like you fail abysmally at debating and have to resort to personal insults. Got it.

Let me know when you're prepared to move past that. If you can't, then I'll chalk it up to an inability to communicate on your part.

Socialism and fascism are not soley economic systems, as you wish to imply. Look it up beyond the dictionary and it's obvious but that requires a bit more work.

That's not an insult. It's an accurate description of what you're trying to do.

The issue under discussion in this thread is whether fascism is "rightwing." If that yardstick measures anything, it measures the amount of government control supported by a given ideology. If it doesn't measure that, then what does it measure? You already avoided answering that question.

According to the left/right paradigm, fascism is leftwing, not rightwing.

That is INCORRECT


Fascism can be either from the Left or the Right.

The Fascist Threat

In reviewing the history of the rise of fascism, Flynn wrote:

“One of the most baffling phenomena of fascism is the almost incredible collaboration between men of the extreme Right and the extreme Left in its creation. The explanation lies at this point. Both Right and Left joined in this urge for regulation. The motives, the arguments, and the forms of expression were different but all drove in the same direction. And this was that the economic system must be controlled in its essential functions and this control must be exercised by the producing groups."

Flynn writes that the right and the left disagreed on precisely who fits the bill as the producer group. The left tends to celebrate laborers as producers. The right tends to favor business owners as producers. The political compromise — and it still goes on today – was to cartelize both.

Do you yet understand why fascism can't be both left or right? Do you understand the problem with that line of thinking? Fascism is a collectivist government type. Thus is is leftist. The opposite of a collectivist government type is an individualist system. The most extreme version of that is anarchy. Those are your two extremes. Fascism, socialism, communism, are ALL leftwing. Anarchy is rightwing.

HUH?

Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police State as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive State the unlimited master of society.

So it doesn't matter whether the collectivists are left or right wingers

Here in the US , anti-"drugs" laws, anti-prostitution , anti-pornography military conscription and others originate from the right wing. So the right wingers are as capable as the left wingers to create a POLICE STATE in order to control and regulate whatever they decide they do not want.


.

You are partly correct. The point being that any collectivist government is by definition left wing. It can't be right wing because right wing is NO government.

 

[Divine Wind]

It's not a "carpet dance." Imbeciles like call any legitimate function right wingers expect the government to do "big government" so you can claim they believe in big government. Enforcing laws against murder and theft is not "big government." Enforcing the border is not "big government." Anyone who claims they are is a douche bag spouting propaganda.

Imbeciles is an apt description of hypocrites who bitch about government regulation until they need it. It doesn't matter if it's fucking LWers who whine about cops until they need one or fucking RWers who whine about too many government regulations until it hurts them personally to not have those regulations.

The best form of society with our current level of technology is a Constitutional Federal Republic, regulated capitalism and a socialist safety net for minors, elderly and infirm. The controversy isn't as much about this type of society as it is where to draw the lines.

 

[westwall]

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

I call it a form of slavery because those who administer it have no desire for its clients to see their lives improve. They are treated as gist in the mill, and the mill is taxpayer dollars. Welfare was supposed to be a short term aid to those in need. A laudable goal. It has since morphed into a class. The lowest class imaginable. The welfare recipients are punished if they try and get away from the system. That is well documented, and just like those German mothers, they are rewarded for bearing children that the welfare state gets to administer.

It is a vicious, evil circle.

In my opinion - a lot of that is due to the centralized "one size fits all" approach to welfare which doesn't address the many different causes of poverty in the different areas of the country.

It's always been a struggle - with any relief program - between supporting the needy and creating dependence.

I agree with you. Part of that problem rests with the bureaucrats involved. They have no interest in putting themselves out of work, thus they do everything in their power to grow the system. That's what government bureau's do. The tragic part of this equation are the people who are irreparably harmed by government perniciousness.