- 11 Jul 2008 02:06
#1583639
Yes it did, but it did not fully collectivise production, which is what people understand industrialisation to be.
Primary, technological characteristics are --
(i) SUBSTITUTION OF MACHINES FOR HUMAN SKILL
(ii) SUBSTITUTION OF INANIMATE POWER FOR HUMAN ND ANIMAL FORCE
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/ecamwk/lec ... on-120.doc
Which did not occur during roman times, a different change occured. It is best to call it otherwise. I'm sure there is a name for it already in historical circles.
How so? A slave is himself a commodity. A proletarian has his labour as a commodity.
A proletarian is not owned by anyone, nor is his labour until he sells it.
Slave empires are founded upon trade of people; capitalist empires are based upon trade of labour.
It is a completely different structure!
They didn't?
Oh and this is rather off-topic btw.
The same type of switch occured in principle. Lesser due to lesser technology. Organizing, and collectivising was as much as technology allowed it to be, much like industrial capitalism allows it to be today, and as much as space capitalism will allow it to be in the future. It is not dependant on marxist slave or prol theory, it is dependant on technology.
Yes it did, but it did not fully collectivise production, which is what people understand industrialisation to be.
Primary, technological characteristics are --
(i) SUBSTITUTION OF MACHINES FOR HUMAN SKILL
(ii) SUBSTITUTION OF INANIMATE POWER FOR HUMAN ND ANIMAL FORCE
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/ecamwk/lec ... on-120.doc
Which did not occur during roman times, a different change occured. It is best to call it otherwise. I'm sure there is a name for it already in historical circles.
Again, on principle it is. Trying to find one difference that can be found due to the era difference is not an argument. Proletariat wage slavery might not be precisely the same in everything, but it certainly is in practise. And illegal immigrant slavery is the same in everything. Asian child-labour is the same again in everything, one can argue that it is actually worse, or the Black slavery which was worse indeed than roman slavery.
How so? A slave is himself a commodity. A proletarian has his labour as a commodity.
A proletarian is not owned by anyone, nor is his labour until he sells it.
Slave empires are founded upon trade of people; capitalist empires are based upon trade of labour.
It is a completely different structure!
Listen, the fact, that marx, and none of the marxists have located any actual legal developments inside the Legal framework taking place on a large-scale(as much as the theory postulates) exactly during the demarcation lines in between the theoretical eras, is the most tangible proof, that the whole theory is pure imagination, amounting to horse-shit.
They didn't?
Oh and this is rather off-topic btw.
"Businessmen favor free enterprise in general but are opposed to it when it comes to themselves." - Milton Friedman