Yet Tucker and Dickens reference 2 different periods of history--Dickens the start of the Industrial Revolution, whereas Tucker states the "maturation of the Industrial Revolution"-the gay 90's et al as the fruits of copious energy were coming to all. Energy, energy, Greta be damned, the well being of the common people is always dependent on surplus energy, which present political systems worldwide seem intent on destroying.
I was going to post the same thing about the period. Dickens died in 1870 and even during his lifetime there was improvement all around. The Nutcracker was written 22 years later and, but for the NYC bankers funding the likes of Lennon, the revolution in Russia would not have happened nor the Great War funded by world bankers.
That one was in a hurry and letting my fingers do the thinking. I have found I consistently post mistakes I only see later, and people either disregard them mistakes or kindly help with a correction. I rarely go back in fix my failures.
Then I'll be easily identified by my many 'slight' imperfections on the key board, just like someone that cusses out of habit! I see two errors in my above post. Should I edit and fix, nah.
Reading comments here, sounds like there is disagreement as to whether the majority of people flourished because of the I.R or languished in despair and were better off in an agrarian economy.
As a generalization, I would say folks are pretty well divided between the exploiters and the exploited, irregardless of what era they lived in. That that division exists is precisely why dreamy socialistic isms will always fail miserably.
Yes, in the strict sense. A socialist order under force is hard to maintain and impossible to establish without force.
Now-a-days more people that are not poor, whine and complain about the poor 'poor' people not realizing that many of those poor people feel better off than they were. It is all relative. I understand there are strivers and non-strivers. By 1990 the US population class structure for an individual’s life span resembled a bell curve generally. What happened? Politics and politicians rigging the system, including education and industry.
The pols are taking a hard look at education finally. Just got back an encouraging letter from my state rep in response to one I sent her re education at all levels. Her response, referring to bills passed and considered indicate awareness now being followed by remediation.
Historically, medieval peasants in the UK were serfs, which means Feudal slaves. The Civil War (c 1640's) saw an end to the absolute power of monarchs - well, Charles had his head chopped off - so it means that Britain had a revolution well before either France or Russia. But like most revolutions, it was led by an upsurging Middle Class - fired up with Protestant beliefs. Oliver Cromwell became a dictator, so was eventually replaced with a constitutionally limited Monarchy, with Parliament supreme.
The position of the rural peasantry in the UK was less than idyllic, hey simply had new masters, and the C18th saw the massive expansion of a division between the landowning classes, with their huge fancy houses, and the working class. By the C19th, Chartism - the precursor to Marxism, was already taking hold on the imagination of the rural and urban poor. Workers created newspapers, libraries, schools, hospital and medical support systems and early trades unions, and challenged the status quo.
Broadly speaking, the industrial workers faced massive challenges of child labour, exploitation, long hours, low wages, and rotten landlords - and they worked to overcome these injustices.
Well, Rob, did you have a constitutionally limited Monarchy, with Parliament supreme in 1776? Reading our Declaration of Independence there was scant attention paid to your legislature, but a lot to be said about the "the present King of Great Britain." Doesn't sound like your view would have resonated with Thomas Jefferson or the other signatories of that document. Funny how the facts get in the way of your narrative. And William Wilberforce. Was he a Marxist? Gee, I didn't know. And here, silly me, I thought his motive for his fight against the slave trade was due to his Christian faith. And Edmund Burke? Just a flunky for the upper crust? No contribution from him? Your ideological enemy, I suppose.
I have no enemies that I know of. I'm interested in the Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Power always morphs and concentrates around a few key individuals, power corrupts, and eventually this all blows up and opens the door to new people, with fresh ideas. Yes, some outstanding Christians have helped human and political progress: (as have some outstanding Muslims and Hindus) ... we all owe a debt to Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela. I can see how Faith galvanises good folks, just as it can corrupt them utterly. Is the current British Monarch an Anglican, and Head of the Church? Probably not, but is represents a deep conflict of interest, and needs to be resolved. Surgically. The position is indefensible.
Yes, the quest for Truth is absolutely essential. Yet, would we know it if it once was found? In our cultures today, with the masters of manipulation in charge of information, Truth is more elusive than ever. And now, with AI upon us, it gets even worse – to be able to dissect the official line from what actually is. And yes, power does corrupt. So church hierarchies, be they Catholic or Anglican, Muslim or Baptist, are not exempt from that corrosive influence. Don’t ask me, I wouldn’t have voted for the Henry VIII scheme from the beginning. But then, church hierarchies are not my thing anyway.
I guess that the big challenge to the powers that existed in the Medieval World, came from Caxtons Printing Press. Giving ordinary people the opportunity to read. And then, extending education to the working classes: revolutionary thinking! Needless to say, just about every generation has had to fight for such basic freedoms, and the current boundary is the Internet itself, meaning that anyone can read anything - and for free - this is creating a huge revolution in the way that we think and relate to each other. Obviously the powers that be are trying to control it.... they always do.
Nice history in a nutshell. Challenges make for strong people. On my maternal side, one set of family left England for Holland and then the New World in 1620. The other set of family left England in 1883 for Quebec then moved to MA.
I watched a PBS movie about Cromwell years ago. I'm always skeptical about the take-away message being provide during a dose of long ago history!
Many of the Brits who left these shores emigrated for religious reasons: I'm especially pleased that we evicted both extreme Catholics and extreme Protestants to Europe and the New World: good bloody riddance to them all!
You beat me to it! That was precisely my first thought - and I was raised on Charles Dickens and George Orwell at school and home, whilst still loving our special treat of a Xmas trip to Covent Garden and Sadlers Wells for the ballet or Opera.
You noticed I rearrange lines from Dickens in my comment. There has never been a year in the life of any society from the beginning of time where classes were not readily identifiable. They are the most prominent feature of any society because it is a natural phenomenon created naturally by individual’s natures within a collective system. We now live in today’s version of communism.
As long as we continue to believe that the class structure is a "natural phenomenon," we will continue to fall into that mass formation psychosis.
There's nothing natural about the class structure of society. It is enforced on us. Read The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen for the classic analysis of how our class structure started.
We certainly can disagree as to what causes class structure or that it even exists. During the time of (biblical) Abram/Abraham class structure existed. In every Empire throughout history a class structure has existed. Thinking this is naturally so because of the patterns of individual traits and use of free will (physical energy, mental acuity, timidness, boldness, aggressive level) does not lead to mass formation psychosis. The varying levels and numbers of classes in a structure of course varied over time periods and under different influences, but still based in part of the nature of individuals.
Dude, we can do without the condescension. Marx' critique of capitalism was valid; the rich do tend to get richer. Unbridled capitalism leads to unbridled greed. But capitalism in the context of Christianity is another matter. Individual effort fueled by restraint based on faith and obedience changes the dynamic to one of generosity, magnanimity and philanthropy. Countless hospitals have been built in the U.S. by various religious sects. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
Religion and Ballet co-exist rather uncomfortably. Oddly enough, socialist countries like Russia often have the finest Ballet troupes. Here in Scotland, I went to the Scottish Ballet production of Cinderella this afternoon, a lavish production with no expense spared, from the cast to the orchestra, the set to the costumes. My guess is that our tickets were probably subsidised in one way or another by the taxpayer, maybe as much as 75%. I didn't see a lot of poor people in the stunning Victorian chocolate box auditorium of the Theatre Royal, Glasgow.
James Madison anticipates Marx in Federalist 10: “Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
Earlier, he makes profound points concerning the realities of human nature: “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man...”
This is where Marx and Lenin lack wisdom. They think that human nature can be processed into their mold, and all will be well when all are equal. They fail to see, or perhaps are loathe to admit, that man’s quest for freedom cannot be dismissed by systems of control. Look at the automatons in North Korea, screaming their approval for their wonderful leader. Ditto the puppets in China, clapping in sync at the Party Congress, with Xi taking it all in. What is the reality in these peoples’ souls?
We are all different. Some are blessed with a high intellect. Others are disciplined and work hard. Others are lazy, content for their neighbors to carry the load of initiative or industry. Is it right, does it meet the demands of justice, for all to be rewarded equally? Madison says “No.” I agree. Furthermore, this system of control must be administered by administrators: the few with the power controlling the many without. That idea might fly in Europe, perhaps even in Scotland, but it doesn’t fly in Texas. And who knows, maybe there were some poor folk at the opera yesterday, there by a gift from someone who was able to share their bounty with someone less fortunate. It would have been a Christian thing to do, and no one else would been the wiser.
“Here is a country that fought and won a noble war, dismantled a mighty empire in a generally benign and enlightened way, created a far-seeing welfare state — in short, did nearly everything right ― and then spent the rest of the century looking on itself as a chronic failure. The fact is that this is still the best place in the world for most things ― to post a letter, go for a walk, watch television, buy a book, venture out for a drink, go to a museum, use the bank, get lost, seek help or stand on a hillside and take in a view.” Bill Bryson in Notes on a Small Island
"There was no limit to prosperity, no limit to peace, no end to the magic that could come to the world."
How is it that the best of times is always followed by the worst of times? The financial founding families’ greed and lust for power.
Nice glimpse by Tucker into a past era. His articles are always well written.
Shelley, an answer to your question,
might be summed up by the following quote:
"Hard times create strong men,
Strong 💪 men create good times,
Good times create weak men and Weak men create hard times!"
By G. Michael Hopf in his novel, "Those Who Remain."
A good explanation of the circle of life.
Anna, do you know whether James is okay, with the weather and all...
D D, I haven't heard.
I have missed his engagement in the conversation.
I pray 🙏 that he is doing well!!!!
Maybe he's busy being Santa 🎅 Claus!!!
You get a bit of a different view of that period reading Dickens one the Russian peasants would likely recognize.
Yet Tucker and Dickens reference 2 different periods of history--Dickens the start of the Industrial Revolution, whereas Tucker states the "maturation of the Industrial Revolution"-the gay 90's et al as the fruits of copious energy were coming to all. Energy, energy, Greta be damned, the well being of the common people is always dependent on surplus energy, which present political systems worldwide seem intent on destroying.
Thanks Tucker for an insightful piece.
I was going to post the same thing about the period. Dickens died in 1870 and even during his lifetime there was improvement all around. The Nutcracker was written 22 years later and, but for the NYC bankers funding the likes of Lennon, the revolution in Russia would not have happened nor the Great War funded by world bankers.
Lol...I expect you meant Lenin (Vladimir) and not Lennon (John)...something to be said about both, though...
Thank you!
Damn spell checkers! Mine bites me just like that and half the time I miss it
That one was in a hurry and letting my fingers do the thinking. I have found I consistently post mistakes I only see later, and people either disregard them mistakes or kindly help with a correction. I rarely go back in fix my failures.
They're only failures when you stop. Slight imperfections can be a pleasure and provide identity.
Then I'll be easily identified by my many 'slight' imperfections on the key board, just like someone that cusses out of habit! I see two errors in my above post. Should I edit and fix, nah.
But someone who cusses out of habit isn't anywhere near as nice to have a conversation with.
The Industrial Revolution began in 1760 according to Toynbee so had been around a while before Dickens began writing
Reading comments here, sounds like there is disagreement as to whether the majority of people flourished because of the I.R or languished in despair and were better off in an agrarian economy.
As a generalization, I would say folks are pretty well divided between the exploiters and the exploited, irregardless of what era they lived in. That that division exists is precisely why dreamy socialistic isms will always fail miserably.
Yes, in the strict sense. A socialist order under force is hard to maintain and impossible to establish without force.
Now-a-days more people that are not poor, whine and complain about the poor 'poor' people not realizing that many of those poor people feel better off than they were. It is all relative. I understand there are strivers and non-strivers. By 1990 the US population class structure for an individual’s life span resembled a bell curve generally. What happened? Politics and politicians rigging the system, including education and industry.
The pols are taking a hard look at education finally. Just got back an encouraging letter from my state rep in response to one I sent her re education at all levels. Her response, referring to bills passed and considered indicate awareness now being followed by remediation.
This is promising good news Micheal! So important to have that conversation. It gives those elected a boost to keep on it.
Nearly all human progress since 1900 has been due to Socialist ideologies, and very little due to Capitalism. Discuss.
Explain human progress.
Historically, medieval peasants in the UK were serfs, which means Feudal slaves. The Civil War (c 1640's) saw an end to the absolute power of monarchs - well, Charles had his head chopped off - so it means that Britain had a revolution well before either France or Russia. But like most revolutions, it was led by an upsurging Middle Class - fired up with Protestant beliefs. Oliver Cromwell became a dictator, so was eventually replaced with a constitutionally limited Monarchy, with Parliament supreme.
The position of the rural peasantry in the UK was less than idyllic, hey simply had new masters, and the C18th saw the massive expansion of a division between the landowning classes, with their huge fancy houses, and the working class. By the C19th, Chartism - the precursor to Marxism, was already taking hold on the imagination of the rural and urban poor. Workers created newspapers, libraries, schools, hospital and medical support systems and early trades unions, and challenged the status quo.
Broadly speaking, the industrial workers faced massive challenges of child labour, exploitation, long hours, low wages, and rotten landlords - and they worked to overcome these injustices.
Well, Rob, did you have a constitutionally limited Monarchy, with Parliament supreme in 1776? Reading our Declaration of Independence there was scant attention paid to your legislature, but a lot to be said about the "the present King of Great Britain." Doesn't sound like your view would have resonated with Thomas Jefferson or the other signatories of that document. Funny how the facts get in the way of your narrative. And William Wilberforce. Was he a Marxist? Gee, I didn't know. And here, silly me, I thought his motive for his fight against the slave trade was due to his Christian faith. And Edmund Burke? Just a flunky for the upper crust? No contribution from him? Your ideological enemy, I suppose.
I have no enemies that I know of. I'm interested in the Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Power always morphs and concentrates around a few key individuals, power corrupts, and eventually this all blows up and opens the door to new people, with fresh ideas. Yes, some outstanding Christians have helped human and political progress: (as have some outstanding Muslims and Hindus) ... we all owe a debt to Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela. I can see how Faith galvanises good folks, just as it can corrupt them utterly. Is the current British Monarch an Anglican, and Head of the Church? Probably not, but is represents a deep conflict of interest, and needs to be resolved. Surgically. The position is indefensible.
Yes, the quest for Truth is absolutely essential. Yet, would we know it if it once was found? In our cultures today, with the masters of manipulation in charge of information, Truth is more elusive than ever. And now, with AI upon us, it gets even worse – to be able to dissect the official line from what actually is. And yes, power does corrupt. So church hierarchies, be they Catholic or Anglican, Muslim or Baptist, are not exempt from that corrosive influence. Don’t ask me, I wouldn’t have voted for the Henry VIII scheme from the beginning. But then, church hierarchies are not my thing anyway.
I guess that the big challenge to the powers that existed in the Medieval World, came from Caxtons Printing Press. Giving ordinary people the opportunity to read. And then, extending education to the working classes: revolutionary thinking! Needless to say, just about every generation has had to fight for such basic freedoms, and the current boundary is the Internet itself, meaning that anyone can read anything - and for free - this is creating a huge revolution in the way that we think and relate to each other. Obviously the powers that be are trying to control it.... they always do.
Nice history in a nutshell. Challenges make for strong people. On my maternal side, one set of family left England for Holland and then the New World in 1620. The other set of family left England in 1883 for Quebec then moved to MA.
I watched a PBS movie about Cromwell years ago. I'm always skeptical about the take-away message being provide during a dose of long ago history!
Many of the Brits who left these shores emigrated for religious reasons: I'm especially pleased that we evicted both extreme Catholics and extreme Protestants to Europe and the New World: good bloody riddance to them all!
You beat me to it! That was precisely my first thought - and I was raised on Charles Dickens and George Orwell at school and home, whilst still loving our special treat of a Xmas trip to Covent Garden and Sadlers Wells for the ballet or Opera.
You noticed I rearrange lines from Dickens in my comment. There has never been a year in the life of any society from the beginning of time where classes were not readily identifiable. They are the most prominent feature of any society because it is a natural phenomenon created naturally by individual’s natures within a collective system. We now live in today’s version of communism.
As long as we continue to believe that the class structure is a "natural phenomenon," we will continue to fall into that mass formation psychosis.
There's nothing natural about the class structure of society. It is enforced on us. Read The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen for the classic analysis of how our class structure started.
We certainly can disagree as to what causes class structure or that it even exists. During the time of (biblical) Abram/Abraham class structure existed. In every Empire throughout history a class structure has existed. Thinking this is naturally so because of the patterns of individual traits and use of free will (physical energy, mental acuity, timidness, boldness, aggressive level) does not lead to mass formation psychosis. The varying levels and numbers of classes in a structure of course varied over time periods and under different influences, but still based in part of the nature of individuals.
Yes. Class structure is absolutely not forced on us. Why don't we pay more attention to the ancients? Aristotle...would be a good start.
Karl Marx is far more insightful. Please read him: he was the first philosopher to truly examine class and explain it.
History did not begin with Abraham.
Of course not, it started when you say it did. That's fine with me.
Yep.
Classes? oh dear, lets go back to the playground: read Das Kapital, by Karl Marx.
Dude, we can do without the condescension. Marx' critique of capitalism was valid; the rich do tend to get richer. Unbridled capitalism leads to unbridled greed. But capitalism in the context of Christianity is another matter. Individual effort fueled by restraint based on faith and obedience changes the dynamic to one of generosity, magnanimity and philanthropy. Countless hospitals have been built in the U.S. by various religious sects. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
Religion and Ballet co-exist rather uncomfortably. Oddly enough, socialist countries like Russia often have the finest Ballet troupes. Here in Scotland, I went to the Scottish Ballet production of Cinderella this afternoon, a lavish production with no expense spared, from the cast to the orchestra, the set to the costumes. My guess is that our tickets were probably subsidised in one way or another by the taxpayer, maybe as much as 75%. I didn't see a lot of poor people in the stunning Victorian chocolate box auditorium of the Theatre Royal, Glasgow.
James Madison anticipates Marx in Federalist 10: “Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
Earlier, he makes profound points concerning the realities of human nature: “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man...”
This is where Marx and Lenin lack wisdom. They think that human nature can be processed into their mold, and all will be well when all are equal. They fail to see, or perhaps are loathe to admit, that man’s quest for freedom cannot be dismissed by systems of control. Look at the automatons in North Korea, screaming their approval for their wonderful leader. Ditto the puppets in China, clapping in sync at the Party Congress, with Xi taking it all in. What is the reality in these peoples’ souls?
We are all different. Some are blessed with a high intellect. Others are disciplined and work hard. Others are lazy, content for their neighbors to carry the load of initiative or industry. Is it right, does it meet the demands of justice, for all to be rewarded equally? Madison says “No.” I agree. Furthermore, this system of control must be administered by administrators: the few with the power controlling the many without. That idea might fly in Europe, perhaps even in Scotland, but it doesn’t fly in Texas. And who knows, maybe there were some poor folk at the opera yesterday, there by a gift from someone who was able to share their bounty with someone less fortunate. It would have been a Christian thing to do, and no one else would been the wiser.
“Here is a country that fought and won a noble war, dismantled a mighty empire in a generally benign and enlightened way, created a far-seeing welfare state — in short, did nearly everything right ― and then spent the rest of the century looking on itself as a chronic failure. The fact is that this is still the best place in the world for most things ― to post a letter, go for a walk, watch television, buy a book, venture out for a drink, go to a museum, use the bank, get lost, seek help or stand on a hillside and take in a view.” Bill Bryson in Notes on a Small Island