"The Mill" a British tv show about the dangerous working conditions of Capitalism

I brought this up in another thread and its obviously a subject at the heart of the left vs right divide so why not make a thread about it,

"The series deals with themes of worker's rights, safety in millwork, child labour laws and the political movement to improve these conditions."

Im curious, how could anyone defend laissez-faire Capitalism knowing its history? They say no one should be Communist because of what Stalin did, but what about what America and Britain did before Stalin? The Millions they exploited and enslaved under the "free" market? It was Socialism that ended this, and it is Socialism that will continue to fight the Capitalists back into a corner until they are eventually defeated.

 

This isnt the fault of 19th century capitalism. Working conditions were generally appalling before this as well, often moreso. The 19th century is simply when people decided they needed to improve their working conditions.

 

It wasn't SOCIALISM!!! that ended it. Was Teddy Roosevelt a socialist (excuse me, SOCIALIST!!!)? Common decency helped - that and the realization that such conditions CAUSED socialism.

The word socialism has become meaningless. It is now just a word used by idiots against whatever they have been told to dislike or be frightened of. It's the equivalent of 5-year-olds calling their playmates doo-doo-heads, and its use is about as mature.

 

Your understanding, or rather, lack thereof, of history is quite amusing. Are you saying capitalism "caused" this? Maybe you think that prior to the 19th century, everyone had wonderful working conditions and work safety? It wouldn't suprise me if you thought that, given that you've shown me before history isn't exactly your forte. But no.. Let me explain it to you.. Working conditions sucked before capitalism came along, and in the early days of capitalism they did indeed suck too. Capitalism is not the cause of that. And if you look at how working conditions increased under capitalism, you see that the prosperity from capitalism leads to better working conditions.

Well, he was a progressive, which was the american equivalent to socialists. The things he proposed would be the things social democrats would propose in europe.

 

Yeah, we all had to read "The Jungle" in HS. Believed it even until we learned actual history.

However unfortunate working conditions were for earlier mill workers, they were absolutely princely compared to the subsistence agricultural paradigm that held sway for tens of thousands of years prior. Just like the left to leave out that absolutely necessary context, though, right?

Maybe we should ask Julia Roberts or Justin Timberlake to tell us all about how bad capitalism is/was? The inanity of OP's premise is not one bit different, as usual.

 

A good start would be to read Engels The Condition of the Working Class in England.

The industrial revolution changed British society. To be fair it wasn't a wonderful, bucolic existence before the industrial revolution but it and laissez-faire capitalism in Britain caused a lot of human misery. Read Engels, he managed factories for his father and he wrote about the extant working and social conditions at the time, particularly in Manchester.

 

Are you saying there'd be less misery if they'd just continued on with their mercantilist and feudal system?

 

So when the Russians had a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty socialist economy, that was the fault of Socialism even though before Socialism they were still hungry and still had a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty economy? You sir, are the king of double standards. Other people have many double standards yes, but they dont wear them on their sleeve, you on the other hand do.

This we can agree on, socialists ARE progressives, the left wing is the Party of Movement, the Party of Progress. The Right wing is the party of Order and Traditionalism.

 

The misery that was there would not have been relieved. But the misery brought on by the industrial revolution and the emergence of laissez-faire capitalism would not have happened.

 

No. Everything bad in Russia wouldn't necessarily be the fault of socialism. But the thing is that capitalism did better things than socialism, considering their sucky starting positions. What is interesting is to look at how capitalism made use of scarce resources versus how socialism did. As it turns out, socialism was terribly inefficient and wasted much resources, and didn't really improve the quality of life for its people as much as capitalism could've done.

 

The Russian economy was bad before the Socialists took charge, that didnt stop anyone from blaming Socialism. The idea that "things were bad before hand so you cant blame us" would be slightly acceptable if you provided the same leisure to your opponents, which you do not and never will so dont expect the same from us.

Capitalism was to blame because it seeked profits over humanity. About during this time (during the Gilded Age) America had the largest amount of worker deaths in the industrialized world, that is because we were the only industrialized nation in the world to refuse to give workers injury compensation because we saw it as "SOCIALIST!!!" because thats exactly what it was. So instead, the Capitalists would just throw their dead workers away and get new ones for low wages, its even better than slavery for the corporation because at least they dont have to buy a new slave when one dies they just hire another for the same wage, you dont buy them as a whole just their time, so if they die it really doesnt affect you especially with large unemployment because just about anyone will take the job to feed their family even if its dangerous. This is directly the fault of Capitalism, other countries improved working conditions but we did not until much much later, when Socialism rose to be a force to be reckoned with.

 

I'd say there was no particular misery being "brough on" by the industrial revolution. Misery was already present, and merely continued into the industrial revolution, which did finally start to lessen it as countries got richer.

 

Misery was present, of course. It got worse with the effects of the industrial revolution. Public health in cities is just one example. Overcrowding in tenement housing encouraged by factory owners who needed cheap and available labour. Insanitary housing conditions led to disease. That sort of misery and others were exacerbated by the industrial revolution and capitalism. Every era in human history is stained with misery, 19th Century Britain is a spectacular example of it. The social reforms that were fought against by capitalists and their bought-for Members of Parliament reduced the misery. Apart from a few enlightened capitalist property owners misery was ignored in the chase for profit.

 

The idea of workers rights simply didnt exist at the time. Switching to a capitalist economy didnt change that.

Socialism is blamed for terrible living conditions because it causes terrible living conditions. Capitalism is blamed for tsrrible living conditons that it subsequently improved. Wealth doesnt just pop up instantly.

 

If you want to look at it one way, the problem isn't so much dangerous and unpleasant working conditions, it's the fact that these people have few other options.

This was a huge problem in Britain when the peasants were displaced from their communal land.

 

No it did not, quite the opposite.

Funny how people tend to crowd into areas where life is better than the subsistence agriculture villages they left. Guess they were all idiots to do so, right?

Someone's been reading too much "union label" revised history and not enough of the real thing.

 

Clearly one of us is revising history, and seeing as how we have all the evidence and even pictures, its safe to say its your side doing the historical revisionism.

 

YOU made the thread, yet neither you nor any of the revisionist "capitalism bad" ilk have produced any actual evidence of ANYTHING. Just cited to Engels, ROFLolercopter.

 

Communist China took more people out of poverty than any nation in history in a very short period of time, do they not get any credit for that? Of course not You consider the "sucky starter positions" of capitalist countries, but not communist countries? Its really hard to debate someone so incredibly disingenuous and so blatant about it.

- - - Updated - - -

So you dont think what I said in my OP has any evidence behind it? You are hilarious

 

That there's some TV show called "The Mill" no one has ever heard of? Are you f-ing kidding me? That's your "evidence?" This place gets better every day, thanks for the laugh. There are 5 or more ghost, bigfoot and alien shows on my TV right now, should we rewrite history to suit that bushy headed guy on Ancient Aliens? Maybe the Kardashians or Honey BooBoo have something to say about the "evils of capitalism" and the squalor of the industrial revolution, should we link their TV shows because they might agree with your infantile worldview?

 

Of course workers rights didnt exist at that time, thats what the Socialists were for. They started the "Labor Party" in the UK, obviously they support workers rights, and it was the conservatives who fought them tooth and nail and still do, they always have.

I agree conditions were bad from the start (a obvious point, a strawman argument), but the problem is even after these Capitalists got incredibly rich all they cared about was making more money rather than taking a piece of that extra profit and putting it into their workers working conditions, its a VERY simple and easy to understand concept its just right wingers who cant seem to understand it, or at least they play like they dont or like its not a real concept at all.

 

All you can read is a title? You are right, this place does get better every day




Its about the working conditions that Capitalists fought to keep and Socialists fought to end, a historical fact all across the entire world. Its not just "a tv show named "The Mill" herp derp", a blatant dodge that makes you look not only like a utter fool, but a despicable one at that dismissing the horrible conditions these people faced as simply a "tv show".

 

Is it a "historical fact all across the entire world?" FFS, I hope your parents didn't waste too much money on your junior college tuition. Do you believe everything you see on television?

 

Tell me exactly what was wrong about the portrayal of working conditions in that show. Tell me exactly what is "so wrong" about it.


Britain is largely Socialist, they dont always make Tv shows aimed at making the masses more ignorant and prone to "BUY BUY BUY BUY" more (*)(*)(*)(*) they dont need, no they have TV shows that are historically accurate. Even our damn history channel in America is full of (*)(*)(*)(*), its all about bikers and aliens now. Britiain is not exactly like this because they arent all about seeking profits, since the profit motive is removed for the most part they dont aim their shows at appealing to peoples ignorance rather they can make a actual tv show based on actual events and actual working conditions, something America would NEVER do.

 

Now you are asking me to disprove a television show. What's next, the Family Circus treatment of the French Revolution? QVC and quantum mechanics?

Like Benny Hill and Dr. Who? Just because it has a British accent attached doesn't make it historically accurate, just makes it less entertaining. It's.... fictional... television, and yes, designed to sell sell sell sell just like our television shows. Never would have figured you for such an anglophile, but bet that's situational just because they did a union label show you like.

... holey moley.