It arose from the absence of slavery in Europe for centuries prior to the 1700s. The changes to the labour market, before they had any involvement in the international slave trade.

Quote:


All thanks to the absence of slavery. What you are describing is a free market in human labour. Workers freely choosing to travel in search of higher paying jobs, rather than being sold to the highest bidder. This was the ultimate driver of Britain's success. They did not purchase the emancipation of their own citizens by launching themselves into global affairs. Rather, they were able to launch themselves into global affairs because of the previous changes at home.

Quote:


Britiain did not "kick start" the industrial revolution. That is something a communist would say. It happened because the conditions - technology and labour market - were ripe for it. It happened largely in parallel in many northern european places where conditions were similar.

I don't believe any religious dogma would be promoted over and above that which it proscribes where those proscribed actions are crucial to the survival, building or the enriching of a state (After all, all's fair in love and war, apparently).

Those states' ruling classes will simply ignore, condemn, reciprocally proscribe or subvert the dissenting religious doctrine.

The golden rule is extant in multitudes of religions (more likely because we probably instinctively intuit its value) and in fact it does not need a religion to justify its moral value.

But even the golden rule is ignored or subverted when we believe circumstances require it.

Its easy to instinctively intuit that slavery is wrong, whether you believe god exists or not... Sooner or later our more virtuous instincts bear out in our actions - It just requires the security of the state, our respective culture and its national psyche to be assured before they will be borne out.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 1:31pm:


Gandalf, all trading nations at the time were slave trading nations. Slave trading did not set them apart. What did set them apart was the emerging (free) labour market. That they rose to the top of the slave trade reflects the greater freedom of these people to participate in it and other markets, that they also rose to the top of. Again, this was another symptom, but not a cause of their success. You would have just as much luck arguing that Britain's power came from trading tea.

You cling to this 'slavery as the cause' explanation because as a communist, you cannot bear to acknowledge the reality.

Quote:


Nothing is certain, and the bulk of history suggests that the opposite is true - stable civilisation prevents the emancipation of slaves. It was no coincidence that Europe was the fringe of western civilisation rather than the center.

Free men looking for better conditions? Farm labourers were thrown out of work and starved. They moved to freezing slums, where many died of cholera, smallpox or alcoholism, if they escaped transportation to Australia, or the work house, which put you in a uniform and locked you in.

Conditions of the British slums were far worse than their equivalents in Mumbai, Manila or Mogadishu today. For a start, there was the Northern European Winter, but one of the biggest killers was the work itself. Factory work was deadly - particularly to new, inexperienced workers.

Hardly anyone, particularly those with families, moved to "better themselves" - especially illiterate rural labourers. They moved because they were starving to death. Back then, all land was private. You could be hung for poaching.

Things are different today. Transportation is faster and better, education levels are higher, levels of health are even higher - a two-dollar packet of antibiotics can cure no end of dangerous diseases.

A refugee from the countryside in 18th century England had it much tougher.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 2:27pm:


That he did, North. The idea that they were free agents competing on a level playing field is ridiculous.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 2:18pm:


You have your blinkers on. Think instead of the several millenia of Egyption kingdoms, and the Islamic world since Muhammed. This is what I mean by the majority of history, not the American civil war.

Quote:


No-one said it was meant to be easy. Are you saying the crappy English weather disproves my argument? They cannot be free and cold at the same time?

Quote:


Conditions in the UK were worse than those in warmer climates for almost the enirety of human history. This in fact played a causal role.

Quote:


I see. Starving to death isn't much of a motivator to improve your lot eh?

Quote:


As a result of our history, including the ending of slavery. 

Quote:


I doubt he was foolish enough to equate it with actual slavery, but you never know. People invoke slavery all the time, even novelists.

Quote:


Good thing that no-one is actually pushing that eh Gandalf? But it would make your promotion of socialism not quite such an uphill struggle, wouldn't it? We only got rich off the backs of black slaves and anyone who isn't a socialist wants to bring back toll bridges.

Except of course where people rejected it on moral grounds, despite the economic implications. These theories are fairly new. I doubt the people involved realised they were making their nations rich and powerful by abandoning and banning slavery.