[Harold Saxon]

I didn't say anything like that. I asked you a question. This is the question.

So you asked two separate questions, and yet included an "in other words," giving the strong implication that you consider the two to be linked? "In other words" is typically used to rephrase a previous question. If this was not your usage, then I apologize. However, I then have to call you on faulty usage of the English language.

That is highly judgmental. Who are you to determine what is degenerate?

I am your lord and master, of course. I'd consider acting like a bunch of drunken buffoons and living in council houses, thus eating away at the public treasury, to be degenerate activity.

This is a highly naive conception of the benefits of industrialization. I would contend that the scientific 'revolutions' that preceded, in Europe, the 19th century were of much greater significance and 'positive permeation'.

You appear to be extremely confused. The Industrial Revolution preceded the actual industrialization process. The Industrial Revolution is defined as a period within the mid-to-late 18th and early 19th century, wherein many industrial advancements took place. Their implementation largely took place in the late 19th century in Europe and early 20th in North America.

A faulty analysis of the technological developments of the early modern period which was rife with technological and scientific revolution that led directly to and caused the so-called industrial revolution of the 19th century.

See above. Your definition of the Industrial Revolution is faulty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

Identity determined by what exactly? how is an identity created seconds ago noticeably more significant that an identity existing hours or years from now? Who are we to judge these things?

Who are we to not judge these things? What is wrong with judging these things? National identity is determined by a set of shared, common characteristics. When they change, they tend to do so on a macro level - everyone in the nation partakes in these changes. Thus, these changes themselves become a part of a united national identity.

What team is that and how long do you believe that team will 'rule the world' and why?

The Toclaf... err, I mean the Anglo-American team. If I had my way, we'd rule the world for millenia.

[MB.]

then I apologize

Groovy.

I am your lord and master, of course. I'd consider acting like a bunch of drunken buffoons and living in council houses, thus eating away at the public treasury, to be degenerate activity.

You're certainly entitled to your delusions and judgments.

You appear to be extremely confused. The Industrial Revolution is defined as a period within the mid-to-late 18th and early 19th century, wherein many industrial advancements took place. Their implementation largely took place in the late 19th century in Europe and early 20th in North America.

The IR is a concept used to describe a period of time. Good stuff. Thank you for reducing my incredible ignorance.

See above. Your definition of the Industrial Revolution is faulty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

Oh man, if you hadn't linked a wikipedia article about the IR I wouldn't have any idea what I was talking about! Thank you again HS.

If I had my way, we'd rule the world for millenia.

I bet your a big fan of space colonization as well.

[Harold Saxon]

You're certainly entitled to your delusions and judgments.

No, no, I am objectively your lord and master. It says so right here on my card. And, of course, the drums say so... the never-ending drums...

The IR is a concept used to describe a period of time. Good stuff. Thank you for reducing my incredible ignorance.

Considering the fact that you completely miscalculated the particular period of time it took place in (having stated the 19th century rather than late 18th), your sarcasm is entirely unwarranted.

I bet your a big fan of space colonization as well.

That should be "you're," a contraction of "you are." Please do not butcher our lovely English language.

You are correct, however. I am. We will rule all of matter, space, and time! HERE COME THE DRUMS!

[MB.]

the fact that you completely miscalculated the particular period of time it took place in (having stated the 19th century rather than late 18th)

Wat

[Harold Saxon]

Wat

And I quote:

A faulty analysis of the technological developments of the early modern period which was rife with technological and scientific revolution that led directly to and caused the so-called industrial revolution of the 19th century.

The technological and scientific innovations of the late 18th century were the Industrial Revolution. You stated that the Industrial Revolution was a 19th century phenomenon. Rather, the technological innovations of the Industrial Revolution were implemented in the 19th century, leading to urbanization in Northwestern Europe and certain areas of Southwestern Europe.

[MB.]

You stated that the Industrial Revolution was a 19th century phenomenon. Rather, the technological innovations of the Industrial Revolution were implemented in the 19th century

Right, and? Did I do wrong again?

[Harold Saxon]

Right, and? Did I do wrong again?

Yes, considering that the Industrial Revolution was an 18th century phenomenon. The term refers to the period of technological advancement preceding the implementation of these advancements, not the implementation itself.

[DubiousDan]

Yes, considering that the Industrial Revolution was an 18th century phenomenon. The term refers to the period of technological advancement preceding the implementation of these advancements, not the implementation itself.

Perhaps, but it was not really the scientific advancements that made the industrial plague possible. It was the termination of serfdom and the abandonment of property slavery. Contract slavery made the industrial plague possible. By freeing capital from the responsibility of maintaining labor when not required, it allowed it the flexibility necessary for the full exploitation of populations for the benefit of capital. You are correct that that was well underway in the 18th Century.

[pugsville]

I Dont think there is much direct relationship between the abolution of Serfdom and the Industrial revolution. In England Elizabeth I freed the last remaining serfs in 1574. Serfdom was never a universal instuition and in russia there were factories organised by, and worked by serfs. Serfdom generally implies a large not very productive rural workforce which can be a major obstacle is the development of some sort of excess with in the system for the investment into some industrial project (and it often denotes pretty closed mindset of present slave labour and absent landlord)

The enclosure of English lands was a long process over hundreds of years. Enclosure was the enclosing of previously common lands into seperate private owned fields. Some land was privately owned before enclosure but often it was in little strips scattered throughout the common fields, other parts of land might be commonly owned. The little strips in common fields tends to be very conservative way of farming as all the village has to agree with when the various phases or agriculture is carried out. With Enclosure land holders were free to pesruse independent and different farming methods, land can be more easily bought and sold, and thus more concentrtion of wealth which can be advantagous in developing a surplus for investment. Enclosure would often deprive the poorest segment of the population who perhaps had no private land but held some common rights of pasture and wood gathering on commons land (as enclosure often only compenstiated those who had ownership rather than use.) In Any case commons land was often sold and those with ready capital were well placed to profit. Enclosure could often lead to conversion of the land to sheep pasture (for the profitable export wool trade) requiring vastly less labour. Small property holders once they lost the commons land often went into swift decline as the loss of commons land made their enterprises less viable.

It can be argued that the abolution of serfdom and enclosure were nessicary preconditions for the Industrial revolution. But in england these changes had been underway for some time over long period.

[sans-culotte]

Yes, considering that the Industrial Revolution was an 18th century phenomenon. The term refers to the period of technological advancement preceding the implementation of these advancements, not the implementation itself.

Technological advancement is meaningless if productive forces, their organisation as well as social organisation are not ready to accommodate them - I'm sure everyone knows about the ancient Greek steam engine.
In fact, everything from Britain's trading environment to enclosures to the evolution of artisan guild systems and Britain's large accessible coal deposits has played a role in the Industrial Revolution.

[Harold Saxon]

Technological advancement is meaningless if productive forces, their organisation as well as social organisation are not ready to accommodate them - I'm sure everyone knows about the ancient Greek steam engine.

I don't disagree at all, Sans-Culotte. I was merely responding to MB.'s mistaken chronology and misdefining of the term "Industrial Revolution." I completely agree with you in regards to the importance of the economic developments that preceded the Industrial Revolution, as well as the importance of the implementation of the Industrial Revolution's advancements (as opposed to the mere invention of them, functionally useless without a practical means of implementation) in the mid-to-late 19th century.

[MB.]

I don't disagree at all, Sans-Culotte. I was merely responding to MB.'s mistaken chronology and misdefining of the term "Industrial Revolution." I completely agree with you in regards to the importance of the economic developments that preceded the Industrial Revolution, as well as the importance of the implementation of the Industrial Revolution's advancements (as opposed to the mere invention of them, functionally useless without a practical means of implementation) in the late 19th century. was merely responding to MB.'s mistaken chronology and misdefining of the term "Industrial Revolution."

You clearly have no idea what the Industrial Revolution was. You keep treating it like a historical force or agent as opposed to an epistemological concept.

[Harold Saxon]

You clearly have no idea what the Industrial Revolution was. You keep treating it like a historical force or agent as opposed to an epistemological concept.

Oh? Can't admit that you're wrong, then? Tell me, how is it in any way an epistemological concept? How did it relate more to changing theories of the acquisition of knowledge than to advancements in technology and industry (hence the... erm... name)?

Also, please don't butcher the quote function. It's an eyesore.

[MB.]

Tell me, how is it in any way an epistemological concept?

The IR is a name used by historians to encompass a period of time that demonstrated profound changes in western culture, generally along economic, social, scientific and technological lines.

The IR literally cannot be anything but an epistemological device.

[Harold Saxon]

The IR is a name used by historians to encompass a period of time that demonstrated profound changes in western culture, generally along economic, social, scientific and technological lines.

The IR literally cannot be anything but an epistemological device.

While lumping history into concretely-defined eras is always faulty, it is no more an epistemological device than the Renaissance or Enlightenment. Also, pray tell, how was I treating it like a "historical force or agent" in particular? In the statement you had quoted, I cited the importance of the events surrounding the particular era in relation to the era itself. Do you take issue with that? Do you somehow believe eras to be self-contained? Or was your response merely meaningless babbling?

[MB.]

it is no more an epistemological device than the Renaissance or Enlightenment.

These are also epistemological devices. So is the French Revolution, WW2, and the Roman Empire, among others. However this thread is about the Industrial Revolution.

how was I treating it like a "historical force or agent" in particular?

When you did wrote this:

the importance of the implementation of the Industrial Revolution's advancements

You implied that the industrial revolution actualized something.

Do you take issue with that?

Yes I do, because when you claim that an epistemological concept actaully did something you are writing bad history.

[Harold Saxon]

You implied that the industrial revolution actualized something.

Ah, so you have issues with implication and subtext as well. In the era referred to as the "Industrial Revolution," quite a few scientific and technological advancements took place. I'm positive we both agree on this point. Most of these advancements were implemented on a wide scale in Northwestern Europe in the mid-to-late 19th century. This is all I have stated. Tell me, is there anything you can rationally object to contained in that?

[MB.]

Tell me, is there anything you can rationally object to in that statement?

I wouldn't call the new technology 'advancements' but rather changes or inventions or something more neutral. Also I would say that the changes occurred in Europe, rather than that they were 'implemented' which again implies some kind of directing force.

[Harold Saxon]

I wouldn't call the new technology 'advancements' but rather changes or inventions or something more neutral. Also I would say that the changes occurred in Europe, rather than that they were 'implemented' which again implies some kind of directing force.

Your argument is purely one of semantics, then. Semantic arguments are entirely fruitless, so I suppose we're done here.

[MB.]

Your argument is purely one of semantics, then.

History is pretty much semantics, yes. But my argument is cogent. I'm not the one denying that the IR is an epistemological invention, or suggesting that the IR 'implemented this' and 'advanced that'.