Natalie Solent |
|
|
Politics, news, libertarianism, Science Fiction, religion, sewing.
You got a problem, bud? I like sewing.
E-mail: nataliesolent-at-aol-dot-com (I assume it's OK to quote senders by name.) Back to main blog RSS thingy 
Jane's Blogosphere: blogtrack for Natalie Solent. 
Links ( 'Nother Solent is this blog's good twin. Same words, searchable archives, RSS feed. Provided by a benefactor, to whom thanks. I also sometimes write for Samizdata and Biased BBC.) The Old Comrades:
Archives
November 2001
December 2001
January 2002
February 2002
March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
August 2007
October 2007
February 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
March 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
October 2009
January 2010
March 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
April 2011
June 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
|
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Slavery had already died out once before the industrial revolution was ever thought of. ARC responds... 1) To JEM: "JEM's contention that the industrial revolution, not a conscious campaign, destroyed slavery, is a common idea but I think it is chronologically impossible. As I remarked in my first post, "the idea that slavery was wrong all over the world was only able to be propounded because it had already been abolished at home by a long historical process within a Christian culture." Strict slavery vanished from England circa 1100. Its milder cousin, serfdom, died over the next three centuries or so. Thus by the middle of the past millenium - 1500 or so - you have a society that
"In this society, the majority of the people were living at a technical level that would not have surprised their counterparts in the Roman empire (the central heating arrangements would certainly have seemed inferior, probably also the baths) but nonetheless functioned well enough without slavery. The steam engine, and the whole technical apparatus it represents, appears far too late to be the cause of this absence of slavery. Several authors (I recall that Thomas Sowell is one) have pointed out that western society did not become free because it was rich. It became rich because it was free. "At the other end of the timeline (as JEM has noticed in his second post, but does not, I feel, draw the correct conclusions), capitalism certainly coexisted with slavery at times. The abolition of the slave trade was certainly not in the UK's economic interest at the time it happened and the antebellum south fitted very well into the mid-Victorian economic system. You can argue that economic trends would eventually have created economic arguments for sweeping slavery away. A conversation held just before the war started between Judge Campbell (southern) and Seward (northern; he was Lincoln's rival for the Republican nomination and later his secretary of state), reached agreement that slavery would reach its maximum extent in the US in 25 years and be on the way out for economic reasons within 50 years, therefore there was no need for a war over it. Even if you accept their long-term analysis (and their assumption that the slaves can just be patient for two generations in the general interest of avoiding war!), the conclusion is that slavery was not against the _immediate_ economic interests of capitalism. "Thus I think that both the order of events and the economics indicate that capitalism is the servant, not the master here. It gives the western world the power to enforce its view of slavery on the world. It does not give the western world its view of slavery. If slavery had not become unknown in England long before technology began to make a real difference to the lot of ordinary people, then it would never have occurred to them that it was wrong elsewhere - _and_, I am also arguing, they would not have had the industrial revolution and so that technology. In this sense, thefore, there _is_ an incompatibility between slavery and capitalism - but an incompatibility in which cause and effect are reversed. Slavery could (and did) exist happily for millenia, quite untroubled by its theoretical incompatibility with a capitalist system that could not be until slavery was removed. 2) To Prof. Grayling: "Re the professor's response, "The massive and systematic falsity of views to the effect that supernatural agencies operate in the universe with express reference to the lives of human beings on this planet, given in addition that they are so often and widely invoked to direct, dominate and often distort those lives, is scarcely describable in so offhand a way as 'one more tick on the bad side of the scoresheet.' "He _appears_ rather to be missing the point, stated be me and others, that there _is_ no point in including the truth or falsity of a given religion, or a given atheist philosophy, in a debate on the helpfulness or harmfulness of either. That which is false is innately harmful, as I think we all agree. We either then go on to debate its truth or falsehood, or we agree to differ on that and debate whether, in the course of human history, one or another has done more harm in its effects, _apart_ from the fundamental issue of the wrongness of the belief in itself. To give an example, I think Buddhism quite wrong, but I might be persuaded that it has done relatively little positive harm in the large-scale historical sense criticised by Reader B (one might argue for the harm of political inaction - and of couse I agree with Reader B that the personal effects - characters formed, personal principles and happiness acquired, and ultimately souls saved - are important though large-scale history largely ignores them). I also dissent from Islam. That I would find it easy to argue for its having done more harm in the large-scale historical sense is not very relevant to the dissent; maybe on points of fundamental philosophy I dissent more from Buddhism. Your original post critiqued his original argument for the religion having done great harm relative to science, the difference between your views being taken as read. 3) To Grayling and JEM:: "Grayling states that, "The argument that _Communism, an ideology officially dedicated to scientific atheism, has killed more people than all the holy wars and holy tortures ever made_ is a canard that itself deserves the full Natalie Solent treatment of forensic deconstruction. Was it the _scientific atheism_ aspect that prompted the massacre of Kulaks or the starvation of Chinese peasants in the Great Leap Forward, or might it have been the ideology of class war, theories about collectivisation, and the like? Where did Communism learn its lessons about prophets and holy books, orthodoxy and conformity, the putting to death of heretics, and the like again?" "And JEM states that Reader B "contends that the principles of Christianity are more important than their practical application. This is like saying that a scientific theory is perfect but the experimental results don't agree with it, therefore the experiment is wrong. This part of his argument is worse than the first. It does not just get us nowhere, it leads us deeper into the quagmire." "In fact, Reader B, in line with your original reversal of the professor's original argument, was rephrasing his "Science labours towards an understanding of things, testing itself vigorously..." as a similar statement of the abstract purity of Christiantity as defined by its precepts. If one can _define_ science as only the pursuit of truth, and claim that communism was 'really' religious, despite its very vehement claim to be anti-religious and pro-scientific, then one can equally _define_ Christianity as only the imitation of Christ, and dismiss every crusade, every inquisition as 'really' atheistic. There is indeed a sense in which communism looks like a religion, jsut as there is a sense in which the extreme puritans of the 17th century look like atheists, but there is no sense in participating in this argument while taking one view but not the other. "Thus I feel that the professor justifies Reader B and JEM's critique should really be directed at the professor. - ARC" |