I never said that that the Revolutions were not related to labor and economic conditions, which is essentially a catch all.
It is not a catch-all, but allow me to more specifically relate my use of the term
labor:
I use
labor in the Marxian sense, which implies several things beyond merely
physical labor. Labor conditions, then, are meant to imply a broad spectrum of social and economic conditions which are interrelated with the production of living labor - i.e., proportionate wages, real wages, the social relations of production, capital markets, and, in the sense you are using it, physical labor. Therefore, most revolutions are inexorably linked with labor conditions. You subjugate a population long enough with another class exhibiting extreme excess and you will create resentment; rightfully or wrongfully, disparity breeds Socialism.
Ironically enough, I agree with your chronology of the French Revolution, but disagree with your interpretation. You said:
I interpret this to mean that it is an indictment on a corrupt government, by capitalist (the merchant class), not a backlash against capitalist working conditions in an industrial environment.
Also, keep in mind that this was prior to the industrial revolution and peasants in France were often small scale farmers working for nobles (the government), not industrial workers working for capitalists.
The French Nobles of Louis Court were not
necessarily part of the Monarchy, so I am unsure from where you make this assumption - a member of court (Noble) is merely an individual and/or family of substantial enough wealth to be considered worthy of the Royalty's presence. Likewise, the Noble Class was predicated upon property and wealth entitlement, and not governmental control. So, the revolt against these conditions was not a revolt strictly against a corrupt government, but a revolt against economic disparity. The mercantile class wished for the economic market to be equally accessible for all. While government interference was
a primary impetus, it was not
the primary impetus.
You seem to be projecting your opinions on 21st Century governmental economic policy onto a completely divergent situation in the 19 century.
In Russia prior to the Revolution, it wasn't merely economic disparity, it was slavery. Serfs were tied to the land and unable to make their own income. They had been in that status for centuries. In addition, the government on all levels was corrupt, and had insane taxes to pay for WW1, which also created famines.
Before I address my comments in your last paragraph, let me address the historical inconsistencies in your first paragraph:
Firstly, Serfdom did not directly precede the Bolshevik Revolution, as Nicholas's Father himself (Aleksander) had emancipated the Serfs from their private landowners. The Revolution occurred very early in the Twentieth Century, and was a direct result of deplorable
industrial working conditions. The Emancipation Act had caused a mass migration of former Serfs to Urban Centers seeking wage-work. As in other agrarian-to-urban migrations, working conditions were cramped, inequitable, and disgusting. These disgusting conditions precipitated massive strikes, holdouts and attempts at Union Formations preceding the eventual 1917 Revolution. As I have said, the October Revolution is a direct result of labor and/or class struggle, and not a revolt against corrupt Government. Lenin's primary documents reflect this
very clearly.
Further, even in Imperial Russia, Serfs constituted only 40% of the Peasants, with the other 40% making an independent, though deplorable living; therefore, your assertion that this was a revolt strictly - or even primarily - against the Government is also inconsistent with History. Serfdom was in fact a Private Process of Capital, and not necessarily taking place on Government-Controlled land. So, yes, the Bolshevik Revolution was preceded by these events, but against a Capitalist Class, not the Government solely.
Industrialism was nowhere to be found in Russia. It was the most backwards country in Europe. You could easily call pre-Russian Revolution Russia the antithesis of capitalism.
And? You seem to be failing to realize I am not suggesting this revolutionary process will occur in America. Let me quote myself again:
I was speaking exactly about conditions such as in China and India (even mentioned it) which DO mirror the slave-like conditions of that period. Hm, I wonder what effect a worker's revolution and subsequent economic collapse in Asia Major would have in America? Hm, I wonder how our consumption habits (providing low-priced goods, as you said) could precipitate that?
Of course revolution would not occur in America as a result of labor conditions, why do you keep suggesting I am insinuating as such? My comments started off as follows:
Obviously, the current corporate production model - necessity to produce mass quantities and relatively low price-points dictates need for mass labour at extremely low price-points - has implicit ramifications for the living labour contained therein. This in itself is an intrinsic aspect of global consumption practices, and has direct, primary effects on the greater world economy. When considering 'ideal' systems, one must consider production and consumption; if - and as I was alluding to - corporate entities are allowed to completely forego labour restrictions, they will exhaust their supply of labor by some means: Revolution, or attrition are classic examples. Herein, the Irrationality of Rationality manifests itself: When all goals lead to increased value, all other aspects become last in the fray - i.e., constantly abusing a workforce can lead to revolution or attrition, necessarily exerting detrimental effects on the Economy (both localized and/or national and/or global in scale).
Quite obviously, the consumptive aspect was meant to imply our ostentatious consumption, and the productive aspect was meant to imply the deplorable conditions under which such goods are produced. In Pre-Industrial Russia the bolsheviks
So, if I'm a Taiwanese factory owner, and I close my factory, I'm condemning people to death? What did these people do prior to my factory? They're so helpless that only the charity of a benevolent factory owner can keep them alive? PLEASE, give your fellow man some credit.
I apologize for my naivety. It has merely slipped my mind that if not working for ten cents a day making tennis shoes, a Taiwanese worker has the option of working in Information Systems! PLEASE, get a grip on reality.
You're twisting my use of the word equality. I use that word to mean free of physical force or coercion. IE on equal footing, level playing field.
As usual, Rob, you are twisting the classical use of a word. This is what equality means:
Equal
=
e·qual [ee-kwuhl] adjective, noun, verb, e·qualed, e·qual·ing or (especially British) e·qualled, e·qual·ling.
–adjective
1. as great as; the same as (often fol. by to or with): The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.
2. like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.: two students of equal brilliance.
3. evenly proportioned or balanced: an equal contest.
4. uniform in operation or effect: equal laws.
5. adequate or sufficient in quantity or degree: The supply is equal to the demand.
6. having adequate powers, ability, or means: He was equal to the task.
7. level, as a plain.
8. tranquil or undisturbed: to confront death with an equal mind.
9.
impartial or equitable.
–noun
10.
a person or thing that is equal.
–verb (used with object)
11.
to be or become equal to; meet or match: So far the rate of production doesn't equal the demand. If A equals B and B equals C, then A equals C.
12. to make or do something equal to: No matter how he tries, he can't equal his brother's achievements.
Equality
E*qual"i*ty\, n.; pl. Equalities. [L. aequalitas, fr. aequalis equal. See Equal.]
1. The condition or quality of being equal; agreement in quantity or degree as compared; likeness in bulk, value, rank, properties, etc.; as, the equality of two bodies in length or thickness; an equality of rights.
Again, you cannot simply pick and choose to completely manipulate words from their accepted, verified, and classical uses to fit your argument. Being free of physical force means uncoerced, not equal. Equality means that the options you may exercise as a result of not being coerced are analogous to each other.
The dictionary's definition does not seem to equate to yours.
You seem to consistently try to find the most emotion evoking imagery in order to show how 'unequal' the free market is.
Believe it or not, people survived without factories. They make the choice to work there.
Inequality
is the Free Market! When selling your wage, you enter into an agreement that your services are worth more than the wage you are being payed. You accept this discrepancy as a means to subsist as you do not directly produce the things you need. Even pundits of Free Markets accept this, and merely move on as a consequence. As I have said, your conceptualizations of these economic processes are very far from the classical definitions.
And, as I have said, the choice between two alternatives is not choice. Strange, that such a Libertarian as yourself is so concretely and selectively defining choice. I would define choice as the ability to define circumstances (such as in a Western-sense), not being forced to 'choose' between two horrible alternatives.
I never brought American Corporate Workers into the context. I was reacting to what you said in the previous post about revolution being a response against poor labor conditions.
You did, though. I was, always have been, and will continue to, refer to these poor labor conditions as a relation occurring in Peripheral Nations. I have quoted myself above and reiterate that same sentiment now. The point, which you may have glossed over, is that such conditions rise as a function of low-value, affordable goods in an ideal capitalist market; the initial point, then, of bringing this up, was the idiom that what is ideal for one population's consumption is
necessarily detrimental (to certain degrees) to another - i.e., when one's speaks about the effects and/or possible benefits and/or possible detriments of any economic system, one must consider how the value in that system is created and exchanged - i.e., the form that labor takes.
In this case, low price-points for goods dictate relatively low value invested in them; this essentially means reducing labor costs via either machinery, or relatively cheap labor (relative to the intended price of the good). This relativity has created labor conditions which
do very closely mimic the labor conditions of previous revolutionary epochs.
If people are there by choice theres no slave-like about it. Someone is either working by choice or not, theres no middle ground. If someone keeps slaves, the individual should be prosecuted.
The conditions in which they work is the comparison, Rob; not the 'theoretical nature' of their employment. Please, let us try to be objective here.
.
