Thought for the Day

[sukumvit boy]

The context is intriguing because of the ways in which Capitalism has adapted since the end of the Industrial Revolution. The Black Death in England took place when the Wool trade had created lucrative markets for English products in Italy and the Low Countries as they were known (Holland, Brabant, Flanders etc), but the depletion of so many people and the natonal income seems to have encouraged the King to raise money through taxes which in turn led to Peasant Revolts, notably that led by Wat Tyler in 1381. There is a theory that English Kings were in fact weak in this era- there were plenty of them through the Plantagenet era, not that any died a natural death, and relied too much on local Barons, who were as weakened by the Black Death as everyone else, with the additional problems that erupted in the Wars of the Roses in the succeeding century. Thus it is argued the Plague and the Wars established land as a commercial rather than a political value, based on its products, and laid the basis for the transition out of Feudalism and into mercantile capitalism which expanded in the Tudor period with Henry VIII and the effective nationalization of the Monasteries and their wealth to the King's benefit, with Henry's creation of market towns offering local people a larger share of the wealth they produced (one by-product being the school in Stratford-upon-Avon that Shakespeare attended, staffed by reasonably well-paid for the time, and well-educted teachers from nearby Oxford). The formation of the Honourable East India Company in 1600 and the previous expeditions to America thus mark the transition from mercantile to industrial capitalism albeit interrupted by the Civil War of the 17th century. Barrington Moore has tried to chart the developments out of Feudalism into Capitalism in England (and other countries) in his ambitious and maddeningly long and often incoherent Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966).

The big difference between then and now, is that industrial capitalism required a huge mass of workers, whereas even contemporary industry requires only a fraction of that labour -think of the car plants that employed thousands which now employ hundreds, plus robots; and the services industry which may employ substantial numbers of people in aggregate, but often in small clusters.

I am not sure what will change, but I thik we have talked before about the way Cities might change if the daily commute to an office block changes radically, and suburban areas become more important for people working from home. Interestingy, if companies survive and thrive, but don't have costs relating to the rent and utility bills of large city-based office space, does this mean the workers will receive a larger share of the company profits not spent on rent, water, electricity and gas?

A digital, online economy requires people with computing skills, but does it also mean a more alienated workforce that does not share the same space with other workers and create a sense of common endeavour? Marx's argument that the collective consciousness of the proletariat be a pre-requisite for a worker's led revolution might, as the means of production has evolved, become closer to Durkheim's concept of anomie- in the future there might be no strikes or worker's protests and marches -workers might just not turn on their computer, drop out, work at a slower rate, or give up and commit suicide.

Because I think humans are social animals, I wonder how atomized labour can be before it causes distress and mental illness. Psychologically people need human contact through family, work, friends and neighbours, and if one disappoints then the others can compensate. If none do, there is a problem. We are also living through an era when the gap between rich and poor is vast, and the argument that wealth should be re-disributed more equally written off as 'Communism' or 'socialism' -so at the moment I am not sure that the long term economic growth that followed the Black Death will follow Covid-19. Those lucrative market relations between England and Italy for example, did not survive the decline of the Port Cities or Venice and Genoa in the 16th century -at one time the Mayor of Southampton which had a buoyant trading link to Genoa was an Italian called Cristoforo Ambrosio who married an English woman and changed his name to Christopher Ambrose. The fracture in the English-European trade that resembles Brexit to an extent, also begs the question if China and the 'West' can maintain the momentum of globalization that has characterised the last 30 odd years, and right now it looks like, globally, we may be entering a decade of depression- but that's my glass half empty view.

Barrington Moore couldn't be more "maddening and sometimes incoherent" than Hannah Arendt ,could he? she certainly could have benefited from a read of William Strunk Jr. or E B White.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Strunk_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._B._White

[filghy2]

I was recently reading about how the 'Black Death' in the 16th century revitalized the economy of Europe creating new jobs and significantly improving the lives of the 'middle class' and actually creating the first real 'middle class. Of course they lost as much as half the population so it doesn't really apply to the Covid-19 pandemic in the same way ,but I think we will see some significant changes related to more people working from home , attending meetings and conferences online ets.

There are other historical instances where destructive events led to changes for the better - the post-WWII recovery is one that comes to mind. I'm sure there are also many cases where such events exacerbated existing problems. It depends on whether the qualities of the system promote resilience - particular, the capacity to learn the right lessons and make necessary changes. I'm sure I don't have to tell that your own country has big problems in that regard.

Jared Diamond has a recent book (Upheaval) on how countries have been able to emerge from crises and change for the better, though I haven't got around to reading it yet.

[Stavros]

Barrington Moore couldn't be more "maddening and sometimes incoherent" than Hannah Arendt ,could he? she certainly could have benefited from a read of William Strunk Jr. or E B White.

As I have said before, Arendt's essays and her book on Eichmann are her best work. It is a pity some academics splurge -Michael Mann's formidable volumes on The Sources of Social Power (4 volumes, over 2,400 pages) are anchored on a robust theory which is one of the most useful tools for analysing power with reference to States and Empires -but it takes a lot to read through such a dense thicket of information and analysis. It is often worth it, but I wonder how many people have actually read the volumes in their entirety?

Never heard of Strunk and White before. A model of historical writing is Kenneth Robinson's The Dilemmas of Trusteeship (1965) -a superb condensed appraisal of the British Empire in 95 pages.

[Stavros]

There are other historical instances where destructive events led to changes for the better - the post-WWII recovery is one that comes to mind. I'm sure there are also many cases where such events exacerbated existing problems. It depends on whether the qualities of the system promote resilience - particular, the capacity to learn the right lessons and make necessary changes. I'm sure I don't have to tell that your own country has big problems in that regard.

Jared Diamond has a recent book (Upheaval) on how countries have been able to emerge from crises and change for the better, though I haven't got around to reading it yet.

There was an interesting discussion on cars on Radio 4's consumer programme, You and Yours, mostly about the vogue for renovating classic cars, how lucrative it can be, and how the high volume manufacturers (rather than amateurs, or the niche producers like Aston Martin) are now looking at this market.

It raised questions about how the end of the combustion engine will change the retail profile across the UK and other countries as electric vehicles don't need to fill up with gas/petrol, don't need spark plugs, or engine oil. In terms of volume, can they have a future? The arguments also raised the prospect of classic cars becoming luxury items that people will use for pleasire driving rather than functional things like transport for work, the school run etc. This in turn raises the question, if we move away from fossil fuelled transport, will non-electric vehicles with carbon emissions be banned? I assume a viable business servicing electric vehicles will emerge to take the place of traditional cars, but will it compensate for what is lost as we move away from what we have known?

But then arises the question- where does electricty come from?

[broncofan]

https://wvmetronews.com/2021/01/06/w...g-u-s-capitol/

I have much more faith in Biden's DOJ to charge and prosecute this motherfucker than the current DOJ. Can't wait to hear the outcome of his case.

[broncofan]

The company that makes voting machines that have been the center of conspiracy theories is called Dominion. They are suing lawyer Sidney Powell for defamation and have said they're not interested in settling. They want to proceed to trial and are suing for 1.3 billion dollars.

When Trump is no longer in office and no longer is immune to suit he's going to have to be a lot more careful than he's been as well. Should be fun to watch the Dominion case.

[sukumvit boy]

As I said earlier I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to pardon himself and/or flees the US to someplace like the UAE . Someplace without an extradition treaty with the US,and he does have 'properties' in the UAE and he would certainly want someplace with gold plated bathroom fixtures ,not on of those "shithole countries".

[sukumvit boy]

Also, I was really surprised to see how easy it was to break into a building on Capitol Hill ,WTF. I heard that the White House security director resigned.

[Stavros]

So much outrage from the usual suspects now that Trump's Twitter feed has been halted. But is this an attack on free speech?

1) Presidents of the US managed to communicate with the public without Twitter for over 200 years, and are under no obigation to use it. It is a case of 'nice to have, not need to have'.

2) Twitter is a private company, not a media outlet of the US Government, it can permit and ban any user it wants to.

3) As President and Citizen, Trump can use multiple other outlets to express himself without being censored, and can, as a multi-billionaire, invest in his own social media platform and/or website/blog, create his own Newspaper, TV and Radio Stations, build his own Library, Museum- there are multiple options. So will he dip into those $3 billion and fund his own campaigns?

[filghy2]

3) As President and Citizen, Trump can use multiple other outlets to express himself without being censored

I don't think he will ever lack for platforms on right-wing media. Why should he care about anything else given those are the only people he tries to appeal to, and all he wants to hear s uncritical adulation?