Industrial revolution in Birmingham - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

'Cold war' communist versus capitalist ideological struggle (1946 - 1990) and everything else in the post World War II era (1946 onwards).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14814747
Very few would invest, promote or create without reward. Nobody would go out of their way to help others if they felt neglected and was doing someone elses work for them or doing work that was more difficult to do.

Human nature is, to a very great extent, a product of our mode of production at a given historical juncture. What was considered 'human nature' in, say,1800 AD was very different from what was considered 'human nature' in, say, 1200 AD. Human nature is not simply given to us by a higher power; it is shaped and formed in the crucible of history, and to a certain extent we are even free to choose what is or isn't regarded as 'human nature'. Is it 'natural' to lend money at interest? People in 1200 AD would have said 'no', whereas people in 1800 AD would have said 'yes'. Which of them was correct? You are forgetting the extent to which human beings are shaped by their social environment. People are indeed the way you describe above, but do we have capitalism because people in our society are like that, or are people in our society like that because we have capitalism? If you travel to, say, Latin America or the Caribbean, you will find people have very different expectations of each other and treat each other very differently than they do in the UK or the USA. Just as capitalism has created a 'new man' in its heartlands, so communism will create a 'new man' in its societies. This will be an entirely natural process and need not be imposed. The idea that human beings are capable of helping each other without being motivated by direct material reward is an incontrovertible fact - we can see such people and such societies right now outside the capitalist heartlands. Living as we do in the belly of the beast, we cannot see just how alienated and abject we truly are.
#14816743
Villa is part of Birmingham too Decky.


Sure in the same sense that my arsehole is a part of me.

Typical Decky. A unique outlook of history again. The Canals WERE the cause of growth in Birmingham Decky. Before them Birmingham was just a small market town in comparison. A few needles and metal workshops didn't create the canal system because the canal system was created to spread goods throughout the whole of the UK. Not to ship goods from Birmingham solely. But when looking to start up business, natually you are going to set up near a canal. And as Birmingham conveniently had them, guess where people set up.


Nonsense, you need to take a trip to the top floor of the totally non biased Birmingham museum and art gallery to learn to truth of the matter. You just have an inferiority complex as you are probably from some sort of effeminate southern place with no heavy industry where the men's hands are as soft as the women's and people don't talk to each other on the bus.
#14816790
People build canals only when they perceive a need for them. So I would agree with Decky that existence of growth, even if partly anticipated, was the reason for the construction. Of course, once the canal is there it would also have an effect on growth.

The Manchester canal was the first one, as far as I know.
#14816959
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:People build canals only when they perceive a need for them. So I would agree with Decky that existence of growth, even if partly anticipated, was the reason for the construction. Of course, once the canal is there it would also have an effect on growth.

The Manchester canal was the first one, as far as I know.


Shock Right-Wingers stick together. There was a need to build canals. To ship goods throughout the country. Birmingham just happens to be located in the heart of England so was a great place to connect English cities together with ease. A hub so to speak. But the irony is the last part of your post. A contradiction.
#14817326
B0ycey wrote:There was a need to build canals. To ship goods throughout the country. Birmingham just happens to be located in the heart of England so was a great place to connect English cities together with ease. A hub so to speak. But the irony is the last part of your post. A contradiction.

Birmingham was the metal manufacturing centre of Britain. You could say that they supplied the rest of the country with the tools for industrialisation. They also had abundant coal and iron right at their doorstep. So the first canal in Birmingham was for the purpose of supplying the city with coal - just like the first canal in Manchester which was built earlier - as well as connecting it to another canal. Eventually, there would be lots of local waterways in the area connecting the mining, heavy industry and manufacturers there. To call Birmingham a mere transport hub is really wrong.

On the other hand, large scale mechanisation and automation came to Birmingham later, so industrialisation didn't start there. That happened in Manchester and more generally Lancashire.
#14817361
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Birmingham was the metal manufacturing centre of Britain. You could say that they supplied the rest of the country with the tools for industrialisation. They also had abundant coal and iron right at their doorstep. So the first canal in Birmingham was for the purpose of supplying the city with coal - just like the first canal in Manchester which was built earlier - as well as connecting it to another canal. Eventually, there would be lots of local waterways in the area connecting the mining, heavy industry and manufacturers there. To call Birmingham a mere transport hub is really wrong.

On the other hand, large scale mechanisation and automation came to Birmingham later, so industrialisation didn't start there. That happened in Manchester and more generally Lancashire.


This has little importance and only strengthens my point that canals are for transporting goods around the country. To say there was no need for a canal in Birmingham would be wrong. Every town needed one at the time as the road system was shit. What you conveniently seem to have forgotten is we were talking about growth. What was the reason for the growth which made Birmingham turn into the second city? Was it's their metal workshops and needles, supplying guns for the slave trade or the canals. Being that you said you agreed with Decky, I can only assume you believe Birminghams growth came from guns. It didn't. It came from canals. Because as I said, Birmingham was kind of a hub. It connected England to the rest of the country. It has a good supply of water and is central to the country. And when people look to set up a business to ship goods around the country guess where they set up.
Last edited by B0ycey on 22 Jun 2017 07:02, edited 2 times in total.
#14818269
B0ycey wrote:
This has little importance and only strengthens my point that canals are for transporting goods around the country. To say there was no need for a canal in Birmingham would be wrong. Every town needed one at the time as the road system was shit. What you conveniently seem to have forgotten is we were talking about growth. What was the reason for the growth which made Birmingham turn into the second city? Was it's their metal workshops and needles, supplying guns for the slave trade or the canals. Being that you said you agreed with Decky, I can only assume you believe Birminghams growth came from guns. It didn't. It came from canals. Because as I said, Birmingham was kind of a hub. It connected England to the rest of the country. It has a good supply of water and is central to the country. And when people look to set up a business to ship goods around the country guess where they set up.

I'm sure location also played a role for growth during that period, but the point is that Birmingham was already a manufacturing town predominated by metalwork before the canals were built. For instance, it was no coincidence that the Soho Foundry which produced steam engines was built there, as the Soho Manufactory was already there and was owned by the same person.

It's certainly true that if Birmingham had been a town in a really remote location, it's unlikely that it would have become one of the industrial centres of Britain. On the other hand, there are plenty of conveniently located towns in Britain, but in Birmingham the skill base was already there and the raw materials were close by. It therefore made sense to make transport of raw materials into Birmingham cheaper and hook it up to the rest of the country. Birmingham was the logical and most attractive place to build the first factories which would produce the equipment that powered the industrial revolution.
#14818312
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I'm sure location also played a role for growth during that period, but the point is that Birmingham was already a manufacturing town predominated by metalwork before the canals were built. For instance, it was no coincidence that the Soho Foundry which produced steam engines was built there, as the Soho Manufactory was already there and was owned by the same person.

It's certainly true that if Birmingham had been a town in a really remote location, it's unlikely that it would have become one of the industrial centres of Britain. On the other hand, there are plenty of conveniently located towns in Britain, but in Birmingham the skill base was already there and the raw materials were close by. It therefore made sense to make transport of raw materials into Birmingham cheaper and hook it up to the rest of the country. Birmingham was the logical and most attractive place to build the first factories which would produce the equipment that powered the industrial revolution.


In summary, sorry I was wrong but I will make myself sound smart and now agree with you, without saying so. Otherwise people will think I was stupid.
#14818972
B0ycey wrote:
In summary, sorry I was wrong but I will make myself sound smart and now agree with you, without saying so. Otherwise people will think I was stupid.

What is so difficult to understand about manufacturing already being there, B0ecey? Why weren't the iron foundries and steam engines built in another centrally located town a few kilometers away?
#14819103
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:What is so difficult to understand about manufacturing already being there, B0ecey? Why weren't the iron foundries and steam engines built in another centrally located town a few kilometers away?


What! Like Ironbridge perhaps? But we were discussing growth so what has this got to do with anything. Bloody corporate oil shills. Forever distorting arguments.

This Russia-Afghanistan Story Is Western Propaga[…]

F-35 project as a whole is too wrong; as much as s[…]

I feel that this should answer the question . htt[…]

Syrian war thread

Thus it doesn't matter if you fight for assad or n[…]