What Modern means to a historian

[late]

The Modern era, roughly, in the 1800s.

It's not subtle, mercantilism gives way to capitalism. The British government develops manufacturing processes and standards. We tend to think of Henry Ford, and the speed of his assembly line. But that was built using over a century of progress done mostly by the Brits.

If you haven't heard of the battle of Trafalgar, google it. The Brits had parts ready to go, to repair, and they had started the very long process of standardising. It was much, much cheaper (and quicker) for them to repair their ships.

All this might seem academic, until you get into the details. It wasn't subtle.

What happened before was the Early Modern era. It may have looked like I was dismissive of Sam Johnson. He's a hero to me, and his dictionary was a magnificent accomplishment. But the Oxford was the work of thousands over roughly 70 years, the difference is not subtle.

Capitalism is a cooperation between government, business and knowledge institutions. If you don't study history, this is easy to miss. When the Brits were becoming the first fully capitalist country, the immensely conservative landed gentry didn't like it. But they also didn't want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs..

Government grew, business grew, knowledge institutions grew.

It's not subtle. WW1 makes the difference clear.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/039333939...NOWTHXPDE7&sprefix=relentless rev&tag=usmb-20

 

[shockedcanadian]

The Modern era, roughly, in the 1800s.

It's not subtle, mercantilism gives way to capitalism. The British government develops manufacturing processes and standards. We tend to think of Henry Ford, and the speed of his assembly line. But that was built using over a century of progress done mostly by the Brits.

If you haven't heard of the battle of Trafalgar, google it. The Brits had parts ready to go, to repair, and they had started the very long process of standardising. It was much, much cheaper (and quicker) for them to repair their ships.

All this might seem academic, until you get into the details. It wasn't subtle.

What happened before was the Early Modern era. It may have looked like I was dismissive of Sam Johnson. He's a hero to me, and his dictionary was a magnificent accomplishment. But the Oxford was the work of thousands over roughly 70 years, the difference is not subtle.

Capitalism is a cooperation between government, business and knowledge institutions. If you don't study history, this is easy to miss. When the Brits were becoming the first fully capitalist country, the immensely conservative landed gentry didn't like it. But they also didn't want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs..

Government grew, business grew, knowledge institutions grew.

It's not subtle. WW1 makes the difference clear.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393339394/?bestFormat=true&k=relentless revolution&ref_=nb_sb_ss_w_scx-ent-bk-v2_k0_1_14_de&crid=JDNOWTHXPDE7&sprefix=relentless rev&tag=usmb-20

The British to me built the greatest empire in world history. Yes, some will talk of the Roman Empire of course due to their longevity, but the British exported the most unique and powerful asset: communication. The world spoke English and it became the language of business.

Banking, the Magna Carta (the forefront of liberty), the industrial revolution.

The reason their decline was assured is their adherence to a class system which celebrated the caste and prevented upward mobility. It is still this system in Canada today and hence so many of the brightest minds never reach their potential.

Then WWI and in particular WWII decimated them. In truth, the Germans ended the British Empire though they still were strong through the 60s. It has been surmised by many that one of the reason FDR did not immediately assist the British was that he despised the old colonial British out of love for the more free and capitalist Republic of America. Eventually he was convinced to send military goods to the Canadian border and allowed the Canadians to just bring them over and ship the goods to the U.K.

Sorry for the long rant but it is both amazing to understand the history and sad to see the present day. FDR actually sided with Stalin at the Yalta Conference which bothered Churchill who knew through intelligence reports that Stalin was a monster. However, FDR did not think too kindly of the Monarchist Churchill. At that time, the Brits were hardly allies, their old ways an affront to American values.

Canada is going to learn the hard way that massive, domestic policing destroys a nation. Trump views Canada and much of the West the way FDR viewed the Brits in his time. Slow and uninspiring while America is the land of the free mind, the innovative, creative and capitalist in fight for freedom.

It can be said that Trump is looking to expand the U.S empire while also saving the West primarily by saving America and nations like Israel, Argentina, Japan, Ukraine ( to a lesser extent in terms of freedoms), Venezuela (influence), perhaps Cuba and Greenland next.

The future must be what the U.S envisions and what the British failed to achieve: liberty and capitalism in which a man can pursue the greatest heights without limitations of class at birth.

Britain should still be an Empire today but they did not learn the lesson the Americans knew from inception.

 

[late]

The British to me built the greatest empire in world history. Yes, some will talk of the Roman Empire of course due to their longevity, but the British exported the most unique and powerful asset: communication. The world spoke English and it became the language of business.

Banking, the Magna Carta (the forefront of liberty), the industrial revolution.

The reason their decline was assured is their adherence to a class system which celebrated the caste and prevented upward mobility. It is still this system in Canada today and hence so many of the brightest minds never reach their potential.

Then WWI and in particular WWII decimated them. In truth, the Germans ended the British Empire though they still were strong through the 60s. It has been surmised by many that one of the reason FDR did not immediately assist the British was that he despised the old colonial British out of love for the more free and capitalist Republic of America. Eventually he was convinced to send military goods to the Canadian border and allowed the Canadians to just bring them over and ship the goods to the U.K.

Sorry for the long rant but it is both amazing to understand the history and sad to see the present day. FDR actually sided with Stalin at the Yalta Conference which bothered Churchill who knew through intelligence reports that Stalin was a monster. However, FDR did not think too kindly of the Monarchist Churchill. At that time, the Brits were hardly allies, their old ways an affront to American values.

Canada is going to learn the hard way that massive, domestic policing destroys a nation. Trump views Canada and much of the West the way FDR viewed the Brits in his time. Slow and uninspiring while America is the land of the free mind, the innovative, creative and capitalist in fight for freedom.

It can be said that Trump is looking to expand the U.S empire while also saving the West primarily by saving America and nations like Israel, Argentina, Japan, Ukraine ( to a lesser extent in terms of freedoms), Venezuela (influence), perhaps Cuba and Greenland next.

The future must be what the U.S envisions and what the British failed to achieve: liberty and capitalism in which a man can pursue the greatest heights without limitations of class at birth.

Britain should still be an Empire today but they did not learn the lesson the Americans knew from inception.

Love it.

Couple things, there was massive resistance to war before Pearl Harbor. FDR was no dummy, he knew what was coming, but his hands were tied.

Second, it is in the nature of empires to fail. Technically, we don't have an empire, but we have the costs of empire and a staggering combination of stupidity and corruption.

 

[forkup]

The Modern era, roughly, in the 1800s.

It's not subtle, mercantilism gives way to capitalism. The British government develops manufacturing processes and standards. We tend to think of Henry Ford, and the speed of his assembly line. But that was built using over a century of progress done mostly by the Brits.

If you haven't heard of the battle of Trafalgar, google it. The Brits had parts ready to go, to repair, and they had started the very long process of standardising. It was much, much cheaper (and quicker) for them to repair their ships.

All this might seem academic, until you get into the details. It wasn't subtle.

What happened before was the Early Modern era. It may have looked like I was dismissive of Sam Johnson. He's a hero to me, and his dictionary was a magnificent accomplishment. But the Oxford was the work of thousands over roughly 70 years, the difference is not subtle.

Capitalism is a cooperation between government, business and knowledge institutions. If you don't study history, this is easy to miss. When the Brits were becoming the first fully capitalist country, the immensely conservative landed gentry didn't like it. But they also didn't want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs..

Government grew, business grew, knowledge institutions grew.

It's not subtle. WW1 makes the difference clear.

Amazon.com

Yes, business grew as a direct result of capitalism. No argument there. But attributing the growth of government and knowledge institutions to it is a much bigger stretch.

Those are far more convincingly explained by the reaction to capitalism, not capitalism itself.

As industrial capitalism took off during the Industrial Revolution, it didn’t just create wealth it created extreme inequality and working conditions that were, frankly, exploitative. Workers weren’t passive in that. They organized, pushed back, and gradually turned that pressure into political power.
That’s where the expansion of government and institutions comes from.

It wasn’t capitalism that curbed child labor so kids could go to school, it fought those reforms.

It wasn’t capitalism that pushed for universal suffrage.

It wasn’t capitalism that decided society needed a bureaucracy capable of managing a complex system in a way that serves more than just capital interests.
Those developments came from labor movements, political pressure, and ideas associated with people like Karl Marx, whether you agree with them or not.

So yes, capitalism drove economic growth. But the idea that it also drove the expansion of government and knowledge institutions ignores the fact that much of that expansion was forced in response to its failures, not as a natural extension of it.

 

[braalian]

though they still were strong through the 60s

Were they?

 

[late]

Yes, business grew as a direct result of capitalism. No argument there. But attributing the growth of government and knowledge institutions to it is a much bigger stretch.

Those are far more convincingly explained by the reaction to capitalism, not capitalism itself.

As industrial capitalism took off during the Industrial Revolution, it didn’t just create wealth it created extreme inequality and working conditions that were, frankly, exploitative. Workers weren’t passive in that. They organized, pushed back, and gradually turned that pressure into political power.
That’s where the expansion of government and institutions comes from.

It wasn’t capitalism that curbed child labor so kids could go to school, it fought those reforms.

It wasn’t capitalism that pushed for universal suffrage.

It wasn’t capitalism that decided society needed a bureaucracy capable of managing a complex system in a way that serves more than just capital interests.
Those developments came from labor movements, political pressure, and ideas associated with people like Karl Marx, whether you agree with them or not.

So yes, capitalism drove economic growth. But the idea that it also drove the expansion of government and knowledge institutions ignores the fact that much of that expansion was forced in response to its failures, not as a natural extension of it.

Let's get concrete, in the first practical use of statistics, a doc figured how a plague was happening, which showed an easy way to prevent it.

So... you can call that a failure, but you can also call it a successful cooperation between the government and the educated.

In the early days, the landed gentry had most of the power, and allowed reform to happen.

 

[22lcidw]

The Modern era, roughly, in the 1800s.

It's not subtle, mercantilism gives way to capitalism. The British government develops manufacturing processes and standards. We tend to think of Henry Ford, and the speed of his assembly line. But that was built using over a century of progress done mostly by the Brits.

If you haven't heard of the battle of Trafalgar, google it. The Brits had parts ready to go, to repair, and they had started the very long process of standardising. It was much, much cheaper (and quicker) for them to repair their ships.

All this might seem academic, until you get into the details. It wasn't subtle.

What happened before was the Early Modern era. It may have looked like I was dismissive of Sam Johnson. He's a hero to me, and his dictionary was a magnificent accomplishment. But the Oxford was the work of thousands over roughly 70 years, the difference is not subtle.

Capitalism is a cooperation between government, business and knowledge institutions. If you don't study history, this is easy to miss. When the Brits were becoming the first fully capitalist country, the immensely conservative landed gentry didn't like it. But they also didn't want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs..

Government grew, business grew, knowledge institutions grew.

It's not subtle. WW1 makes the difference clear.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393339394/?bestFormat=true&k=relentless revolution&ref_=nb_sb_ss_w_scx-ent-bk-v2_k0_1_14_de&crid=JDNOWTHXPDE7&sprefix=relentless rev&tag=usmb-20

The first-generation mass production era was then. The United States mastered the second generation of mass production. The East Asians mastered the third generation of mass production.

 

[forkup]

Let's get concrete, in the first practical use of statistics, a doc figured how a plague was happening, which showed an easy way to prevent it.

So... you can call that a failure, but you can also call it a successful cooperation between the government and the educated.

In the early days, the landed gentry had most of the power, and allowed reform to happen.

What you’re saying still isn’t concrete. It’s vague enough to be almost meaningless, and whatever meaning can be pulled from it doesn’t line up well with the historical record.

What exactly do you mean by “the landed gentry”?

If you mean the industrial elites who actually drove the Industrial Revolution, then the idea that they “allowed” reform doesn’t hold up. Most major reforms were resisted and only implemented under sustained pressure from below.

If you mean the traditional landowning class, then they weren’t the primary drivers of industrial society to begin with. In places like United States, their influence was heavily diminished after the American Civil War. And in United Kingdom, they certainly didn’t just benevolently “allow” reform, they resisted it and were forced to concede under political and social pressure.

So let’s actually make this concrete:
What specific reform are you thinking of that wasn’t primarily the result of pressure from below workers organizing, political movements, or broader social unrest?

 

[westwall]

The Modern era, roughly, in the 1800s.

It's not subtle, mercantilism gives way to capitalism. The British government develops manufacturing processes and standards. We tend to think of Henry Ford, and the speed of his assembly line. But that was built using over a century of progress done mostly by the Brits.

If you haven't heard of the battle of Trafalgar, google it. The Brits had parts ready to go, to repair, and they had started the very long process of standardising. It was much, much cheaper (and quicker) for them to repair their ships.

All this might seem academic, until you get into the details. It wasn't subtle.

What happened before was the Early Modern era. It may have looked like I was dismissive of Sam Johnson. He's a hero to me, and his dictionary was a magnificent accomplishment. But the Oxford was the work of thousands over roughly 70 years, the difference is not subtle.

Capitalism is a cooperation between government, business and knowledge institutions. If you don't study history, this is easy to miss. When the Brits were becoming the first fully capitalist country, the immensely conservative landed gentry didn't like it. But they also didn't want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs..

Government grew, business grew, knowledge institutions grew.

It's not subtle. WW1 makes the difference clear.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393339394/?bestFormat=true&k=relentless revolution&ref_=nb_sb_ss_w_scx-ent-bk-v2_k0_1_14_de&crid=JDNOWTHXPDE7&sprefix=relentless rev&tag=usmb-20

Government developed nothing but corruption and paperwork. The Royal Navy benefitted from the best captains and crews, their vessels were inferior to the French ships of the era, and vastly inferior to the American frigates designed by Samual Humphreys.

Yet again you expose your lack of depth.

You were clearly a "D" student.

 

[westwall]

The British to me built the greatest empire in world history. Yes, some will talk of the Roman Empire of course due to their longevity, but the British exported the most unique and powerful asset: communication. The world spoke English and it became the language of business.

Banking, the Magna Carta (the forefront of liberty), the industrial revolution.

The reason their decline was assured is their adherence to a class system which celebrated the caste and prevented upward mobility. It is still this system in Canada today and hence so many of the brightest minds never reach their potential.

Then WWI and in particular WWII decimated them. In truth, the Germans ended the British Empire though they still were strong through the 60s. It has been surmised by many that one of the reason FDR did not immediately assist the British was that he despised the old colonial British out of love for the more free and capitalist Republic of America. Eventually he was convinced to send military goods to the Canadian border and allowed the Canadians to just bring them over and ship the goods to the U.K.

Sorry for the long rant but it is both amazing to understand the history and sad to see the present day. FDR actually sided with Stalin at the Yalta Conference which bothered Churchill who knew through intelligence reports that Stalin was a monster. However, FDR did not think too kindly of the Monarchist Churchill. At that time, the Brits were hardly allies, their old ways an affront to American values.

Canada is going to learn the hard way that massive, domestic policing destroys a nation. Trump views Canada and much of the West the way FDR viewed the Brits in his time. Slow and uninspiring while America is the land of the free mind, the innovative, creative and capitalist in fight for freedom.

It can be said that Trump is looking to expand the U.S empire while also saving the West primarily by saving America and nations like Israel, Argentina, Japan, Ukraine ( to a lesser extent in terms of freedoms), Venezuela (influence), perhaps Cuba and Greenland next.

The future must be what the U.S envisions and what the British failed to achieve: liberty and capitalism in which a man can pursue the greatest heights without limitations of class at birth.

Britain should still be an Empire today but they did not learn the lesson the Americans knew from inception.

The Mongol Empire was the largest in land area, people under one government system, and spreading of knowledge worldwide.

They fell victim to the plague that killed tens of millions of them.

 

[westwall]

Let's get concrete, in the first practical use of statistics, a doc figured how a plague was happening, which showed an easy way to prevent it.

So... you can call that a failure, but you can also call it a successful cooperation between the government and the educated.

In the early days, the landed gentry had most of the power, and allowed reform to happen.

They fought reform tooth and nail. The gentry were FORCED to give up power. Most notably by the Voter Reform Acts that took their power away.

This applies only to England. The main benefit that capitalism gave the world is the creation of a middle class.

Before capitalism there was a two class system. Those with power and wealth, and serfs.

 

[westwall]

What you’re saying still isn’t concrete. It’s vague enough to be almost meaningless, and whatever meaning can be pulled from it doesn’t line up well with the historical record.

What exactly do you mean by “the landed gentry”?

If you mean the industrial elites who actually drove the Industrial Revolution, then the idea that they “allowed” reform doesn’t hold up. Most major reforms were resisted and only implemented under sustained pressure from below.

If you mean the traditional landowning class, then they weren’t the primary drivers of industrial society to begin with. In places like United States, their influence was heavily diminished after the American Civil War. And in United Kingdom, they certainly didn’t just benevolently “allow” reform, they resisted it and were forced to concede under political and social pressure.

So let’s actually make this concrete:
What specific reform are you thinking of that wasn’t primarily the result of pressure from below workers organizing, political movements, or broader social unrest?

Pseudo intellectuals like our boy here, rely on vague declarations to seem smart. The reality is the opposite.

 

[late]

Pseudo intellectuals like our boy here, rely on vague declarations to seem smart. The reality is the opposite.

I'd love to see you do reality, or even come close.

Not gonna happen, is it.

 

[westwall]

I'd love to see you do reality, or even come close.

Not gonna happen, is it.

Oh, I'm happy to discuss anything, junior. Best bring your A game though. Vague generalities don't cut it.