Hi Ed, Just a brief intervention in this tussle where I think you're giving the wrong impression:
At 17:26 11/10/01 -0400, you wrote: (HP) <<<< You both must have forgotten 1846 and the repeal of the Corn Laws in Britain. In the first part of the 19th century, people were falling in the street from hunger. This led to the formation of the Anti-Corn Law league to drop tariffs on corn from the US. >>>> Yes, I'd forgotten! I'll just mention that the land-owners were not only bothered about US corn but also huge imports from Russia. (A very speculative thought is that it was wasn't for the Corn Laws then Russia might never have become communist. At that time, Russia was just beginning to climb out of its medieval past. Had its economy been more advanced during the latter part of the 19th century, then there'd have been no revolution in 1917. They might have scraped through the chaos and suffering of this period, just as England, Germany and other European countries did.) (HP) >> The good guys won, cheap American corn flooded Britain, and it was >possible >> to eat again. They didn't stop there. All import restrictions were removed >> in spite of heavy opposition from the Conservative Party - who favored >> "Tariff Reform". (EW) >I recall that the repeal of the Corn Laws was not really about good guys and >bad guys, but rather about the growing power struggle between the landed >classes and industrial capital. I believe it went something like this: The >growth of industry in 18th and 19th century Britain required a huge labour >force. People flocked to cities to work for subsistence wages. They needed >food which, because of the Corn Laws, was provided by the landed classes at >high prices protected by high tariffs. Industrial capital recognized that, >without the Corn Laws, it could pay a subsistence wage lower than the >current one. Ultimately, it won, Britain had access to cheaper American >"corn", The poor did not really benefit because the wage fell to the new >lower subsistence level. The reason the wage could be kept at the >subsistence level was because of the "reserve army of the unemployed", as >Marx put it -- i.e. there were far more people than jobs. Surely not! Despite what Marx was forecasting (and Engels was stating about the northern cities on the basis of false statistics) the average standard of living of the ordinary worker rose four or five times during the latter part of the 19th century. (EW) >The reason there >were far more people than jobs is because people had been pressured to move >out of rural areas and into the cities. But also because many agricultural workers were pouring off the land voluntarily because they were seeking a higher standard of living. Yes, there was great misery and suffering during those decades because the industrial revolution was advancing rapidly, and firms were being created and dying at a high rate. Of course, employers took advantage whenever they could but, as already said, real wages were generally growing at a fast rate all through this period. Best wishes, Keith ___________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
