Well, if that’s your point, then you’re largely wrong, misinterpreting that paragraph, and again should read this book and more about this history in general. I’m complaining, again, about you arguing from your ideological priors without any real engagement with the scholarship or history.
The consequence of industrialization was creating new social and political formations (primarily the classes called Labor and Capital and their corresponding representation in nascent democracies vs. prior feudal dynamics). While market economies, really more the birth of Capitalism in general, was necessary for creating those classes and competing interests, it was not sufficient for creating the progress you cite. That had more to do with worker organization against exploitation, specifically in the energy economy, which gave them massive leverage over the emergent political formations (see Timothy Mitchell’s work Carbon Democracy). That’s why the blurb explicitly states: workers in earlier industrial societies organised, challenged elite-dominated choices about technology and work conditions, and forced ways of sharing the gains from technical improvements more equitably.
It’s honestly bizarre to debate someone about the contents of a book they haven’t read, nor seem to even engage with a basic summary of. There are lots of compliant chatbots you can talk to if you only want to be in dialogue with whatever you already believe to be true.
Comments
Well, if that’s your point, then you’re largely wrong, misinterpreting that paragraph, and again should read this book and more about this history in general. I’m complaining, again, about you arguing from your ideological priors without any real engagement with the scholarship or history.
The consequence of industrialization was creating new social and political formations (primarily the classes called Labor and Capital and their corresponding representation in nascent democracies vs. prior feudal dynamics). While market economies, really more the birth of Capitalism in general, was necessary for creating those classes and competing interests, it was not sufficient for creating the progress you cite. That had more to do with worker organization against exploitation, specifically in the energy economy, which gave them massive leverage over the emergent political formations (see Timothy Mitchell’s work Carbon Democracy). That’s why the blurb explicitly states: workers in earlier industrial societies organised, challenged elite-dominated choices about technology and work conditions, and forced ways of sharing the gains from technical improvements more equitably.
It’s honestly bizarre to debate someone about the contents of a book they haven’t read, nor seem to even engage with a basic summary of. There are lots of compliant chatbots you can talk to if you only want to be in dialogue with whatever you already believe to be true.