Ed,
The more you describe what you believe to have been the situation
historically in Europe, the more I see parallels in contemporay East Asia,
India and Latin America. Tremendous technological change forcing
tremendous economic and social change, and, instead of the philosophes the
Modern people in their own countries and what they see of the West on the
TV screens. And political elites going with the flow - see the coup in
Asia, the political changes in South Korea and Taiwan and, of course, the
Deng Zaoping reforms in China.
Mike
>Mike, you are obviously a far better historian than I. Nevertheless, I
>would still argue that there were possibilities implicit in western Europe
>that are now not possible in much of the developing world. From what little
>I've read of it, the industrial revolution led to tremendous upheavals,
>making new social arrangements such as unionization possible. Indeed,
>Europe was a very cruel place in the 18th and 19th, and even the 20th,
>centuries, but the possibilities were there. Powerful guilds of craftsmen
>and artisans had existed in medieval cities, and from what little history I
>recall, writers of the Enlightenment invoked concepts of a rational and
>well-ordered society and the common worthiness of all men. As
>industrialization gathered momentum, invention piled on invention,
>application on application, and cities grew, large fissures opened in
>society -- fissures that the old agrarian based power structure and the
>emerging capitalist class could no longer fully control or close.
>
>Arthur points out that the birth of the unions was a bloody affair. It was
>indeed, but ultimately the unionists triumphed and themselves became a
>powerful and often repressive force in society.
>
>However, my general point is that what was possible in Europe and North
>America during the past two centuries is not now likely possible in much,
>perhaps most, of the poor world. When unionization occurred in the west,
>Europe and the Americas were places of rapidly rising productivity. Wealth
>per capita grew rapidly and the power structures eventually recognized that
>there was no great need for massive repression, even if they were strong
>enough to apply it. The wealth of the rich did not diminish simply because
>of gains made by the poor. I don't see the same situation in much of the
>poor world today. Except perhaps for China, productivity is rising only
>very slowly if it is not falling, and the elites have a powerful incentive
>to hang on to what they have. Some societies remain rigid; others attempt
>to do so but ultimately explode. You either have stasis or chaos. This may
>change, but I doubt very much that I will see in my lifetime.
>
>Arthur has also commented that the kinds of criticisms which I leveled at
>the Washington protesters were also leveled at the kids who were protesting
>the Vietnam War. I think there's a difference. The Vietnam protesters were
>opposing something specific which could be stopped - a particular war in a
>particular place being waged by their government. The current round of
>protesters are opposing "globalization" and God only knows what that is.
>
>Ed Weick
>
>> Hm. I don't know, Ed ....
>>
>> Sound exactly like the conditions in England in which the Grand National
>> Consolidated Union of the 1820s was created. Remember nine were
>> transported to Australia for their temerity - the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
>Don't
>> forget the Peterloo Massacre of 1819 either. This was a time when you
>could
>> be transported for life for stealing anything worth more than five
>> shillings, and hung for ten bob. It was a time when wealthy landowners
>> protected their game from poachers with trip guns (loaded and cocked guns
>> with the trigger connected to a trip wire) and gamekeepers regularly shot
>> suspected poachers, no questions asked. Stealing from the Crown was a
>> recognised perquisite of office down to the end of the 18th century. Look
>> at the great country houses - from Cecil's Hatfield to Walpole's Houghton
>> Hall. Cecil was such a successful peculator he built three palaces -
>> Burghley House, Theobalds and Hatfield. Poor Walpole only managed two and
>> Wimpole Hall he only really improved though it does, according to the
>> brochure contain "state rooms that would do credit to a palace". It was
>> originally built by Lord Chancellor Hardwicke. Except Pitt the Younger,
>> every First Minister left office richer than he came until Wellington set
>a
>> new standard of probity (though his older brother Richard, the Earl of
>> Mornington, preferred the older style, and returned from a term of office
>> in India outrageously wealthy). Down to the late 19th century, when the
>> great agricultural depression forced their break up, most of England was
>> divided up into great estates owned by a handful of powerful families who
>> ran England from Westminster and the magistrate's bench. Don't forget
>that
>> the English monarchs from William and Mary on were essentially window
>> dressing for rule by the Whig Oligarchy from 1680 to 1900.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> >Arthur:
>> >> Maybe I missed it, but have we adequately explored the creation of
>strong
>> >> trade unions in these countries, trade unions that are part of a
>movement
>> >> aimed at upward harmonization of living standards??
>> >>
>> >
>> >No, I don't think we have. But I do wonder if they would fit. It's now
>a
>> >decade and a half since I was in India, but what I recall is a highly
>> >entrenched class system and a lot of vested interest in keeping it that
>way.
>> >People with power, privilege and wealth do not want to share it. There
>is
>> >very little flexibility in the system and very little chance of anyone
>borne
>> >into the lower classes rising above them. Any movement by the poor to
>shift
>> >power and wealth downward would likely encounter strong resistence.
>India
>> >prides itself on being a democracy and so, perhaps, it should. But
>Indian
>> >democracy is still little more than a veneer which covers a rigid
>> >hierarchical system, which, if it bends at all, bends only a little.
>> >
>> >We mustn't forget that unions are a distinctly western phenomenon, the
>> >product of a long history of social change and experimentation. They are
>> >possible where there is a fundamental belief in the equality of man and a
>> >willingness to bargain and negotiate. They are far less likely to be
>> >possible where the fundamental assumption is inequality and force or
>corrupt
>> >backroom deals can be used as means of suppression.
>> >
>> >Simply assuming that third world countries can adopt our systems and
>> >standards or even that they would want to adopt them will not get us very
>> >far. When I was in India, I saw ever so many poor children begging on
>the
>> >street. Some of them had been maimed, deliberately I was told, to give
>them
>> >an upper hand as beggars. Third world poor families knowingly sell their
>> >daughters into prostitution. If there are no options other than begging
>and
>> >prostitution, wouldn't working in a Nike sweatshop be preferable? Well
>> >perhaps not for everyone, but if one asked the little kids who are
>begging
>> >on the street or the little girls who are bound for prostitution (or
>their
>> >parents), I believe I know what the answer would be.
>> >
>> >My apologies to the Washington protesters. I'm sure many of them are
>there
>> >out of deep conviction and high ideals. However, what upsets me a little
>is
>> >that going after agencies such as the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF has
>> >become something of a blood sport. Not everything these agencies do is
>bad,
>> >and I for one do not believe they are totally in bed with the MNCs.
>Perhaps
>> >partly, but not totally. They are responsible to governments, and many
>> >governments continue to be responsive to the whole of their constituents.
>> >But in saying that, perhaps I'm simply revealing that I'm Canadian, and
>> >therefore naive.
>> >
>> >Ed Weick
>>
>>
>>
