BS: Robert Owen

Subject: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 05:21 AM

God alone knows why they closed that thread.   Fascinating discussion!
Thankyou to all contributors.

As far as Robert Owen is concerned. I think many of us would settle for a life of failure like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Harmony,_Indiana

As i approach my 70th birthday ( man's allotted time on earth according to the bible). I think with increasing dissatisfaction on my own meagre achievements.
Looking at New Lanark and New Harmony - it reminds me of Ozymandias - look on my works and tremble. Its very to knock the achievements of others. I did it too much when I was younger. Now I'm older and realise that these people were made with the same clay as myself - I am more respectful of those who did achieve something of substance.

Subject: RE: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 05:22 AM

sorry should be in bs

Subject: RE: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 08:19 AM

"God alone knows why they closed that thread. "
Puzzle to me too Al
If you don't know already, it might interest you to learn that you can visit Owen's mill and get some idea of how it worked
It's not far from Glasgow
It really was a fascinating time in Britain's history
Jimm Carroll

Subject: RE: Robert Owen
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 09:02 AM

The typical perspective of the British manager was perhaps best summed up by an anecdote of Robert Owen's visit to a Leeds factory.

John Marshall, the factory manager, complained to Owen, If my people were to be careful and avoid waste, they might save me £4,000 a year.

Owen replied, Well, why don't you give them £2,000 to do it? And then you yourself would be the richer by £2,000 a year!


Many of the ideas set out in A New View of Society were too progressive for their time, and were only beginning to be implemented in the early twentieth century. Some are still part of ongoing debates about education, citizenship, welfare, cooperation and the environment, which suggests that Owen may indeed have been something of a visionary.

Meanwhile, the place Owen had made internationally famous continued for another 130 years as a working factory village, still attracting visitors from as far afield as Japan (where there remains considerable interest in Owen's management psychology), until the mills ultimately closed in 1968.

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/mod/oucontent/view.php?printable=1&id=1658

Subject: RE: Robert Owen
From: EBarnacle
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 11:41 AM

A friend of my father's wrote a book, The Last Three Miles, about the construction of the Pulaski Skyway in New Jersey. One of the points of the book was the cost of fighting the Unions that wanted to be the workers on the project. The cost was more than twice what it would have been if they had simply allowed union workers.

Subject: RE: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 12:32 PM

Following my point on the previous thread, RO was exactly the kind of middle class philanthropist reformer I was referring to.

Subject: RE: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 01:10 PM

"RO was exactly the kind of middle class philanthropist reformer I was referring to."
Following your point - he was not a philanthropist and he wans't Victorian
He was a businessman who believed the fairest and most efficient way to make society work was to involve working people as, if not equals, human beings
His philosophy was socialism - his religion was immaterial
The later philanthropists stepped in when unionism began to take a hold to prevent the evils of communism as described by Marx "A spectre that is haunting Europe"
At no time did they advocate that the working man should have a voice, rather that they should be treated kindly
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 01:45 PM

Co-Operative College
"Owen and Philanthropy
Robert Owen was a man renowned for his philanthropic nature. Throughout his life he held a strong desire to help his fellow man and, armed with this knowledge, a number of individuals were encouraged enough to write to Owen in the hope of monetary assistance."
http://www.co-op.ac.uk/2012/02/owen-philanthropy/

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 02:06 PM

Philanthropist. Clever businessman who cared for his workers. Can he not be both? What we really need is more like him, not arguments about what to call him.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 03:20 PM

Keith
I was delighted when Al opened this thread and have no intention of nausing it up with your nonsense
Owen was not advocating widespread Trades Unionism - he would have been breaking the law had he done do
He was experimenting with a Utopian ideal in order to run a business
We are discussing |Trades Unionism, not philanthropy
The period 1789 to 1848 was know as 'The Age of Revolution = that was when the Unions came into being in an embryonic form
THe ruling classes were scared shitless at what had happened in France and they stamped on anything that might lead to such excesses - read Billy Budd
The navy had revolted in 1798 which brought the reality of what could happen to Britain
The Peterloo Massacre in 1819 led to an awareness that it was necessary for working people to combine
The Chartists, Luddites, rick burners, the Rebecca riots and tollgate protests in Wales, the Luddites and rick burners, the Poaching Wars and Enclosures protests.. all part of the birth of Trades Unionism
Marxs published The Communist Manifest in 1848 - that threw the cat right among the pigeons
Your Victorian gentlemen were social reformers - they were not breaking the law by advocating Trades Unionism, far from it, they were part of neutralisng the threat of revolution by bribing the few.
Easily settled - name some of these philanthropists who gave birth to Trades Unionism and link us to some of their aims.
If you don't, hopefully you will be ignored and allow us to discuss reality in peace
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 03:59 PM

an interesting point. does the advocacy and adoption of humane process constitute a revolutionary act.
Elizabeth Fry, Charles Dickens, Shaftesbury, Florence Nightingale...

were they revolutionary?

in an age when the legal system was referred to as 'the bloody code'., surely decency and kindness was confrontational, more than trying to combat violence with more beastliness.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 08:47 PM

Revolution implies change
Those you list all brought about improvements within the societies in which they worked but none sought to change those societies.
Revolutionary change does not automatically imply violence - quite often it is put in motion because of the violence that is taking place
The Russian Revolution took place when the soldiers at the Front in WW1 decided they had had enough and walked away from the fighting
They met up with the peasants who were suffering brutal conditions brought about by the war -
In 1907, peaceful demonstrations in Russia were brutally crushed and the protestors were shot down, yet in neither cas did either workers or peasants seek revenge - the slogan they united under was "Bread, Peace and Land"
The real bloodshed came with the Civil War when the old guard tried to return revolutionary Russia back into the hands of the old leaders.
The fact is that Russia was not ready for revolution - the people were given no alternative.
Probably the best explanation of revolution was John Reed's 'Ten Days That Shook the World (enjoyably filmed as 'Reds')
Both readable and informative
Reed also witnessed s and described the Mexican revolution - not bad for a Yank!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 03:56 AM

Jim, this was what I disagreed with,
"and was only abandoned whan the workers won their own voice
We all know what you and your fellow Tories feel about the Trades Unions "

I replied, "The reforms were not achieved by "trades unions" Jim.
They were achieved by wealthy philanthropists and reformers, usually motivated by their Christian faith. "

Owen was one of those I referred to. He was a wealthy philanthropist and reformer. He was a factory owner. One of the bosses but a good one.
He created a proto-union, but did not join it.

There were others like Rowntree and the Lever bros.

What do you disagree with?

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 05:18 AM

"What do you disagree with?"
Try "The reforms were not achieved by "trades unions" Jim."
You had no idea who Owen was till I brought him up - you thought he was Victorian for a start - that was your claim about Trades Union origins - Victorian Christian philanthropists and reformers" - Owen was a Georgian
You've proved often enough that history really isn't your bag unless in comes in hastily scooped up bite-sized cut-'n-pastes
How often have you complained that the information I have put up or linked to was "too long"?
C'mon Keith
You have been asked to put names and policies to your claims of "philanthropists and reformers" - who exactly where they and what exactly were their acheivements
To have involved themselves in the setting up of illegal Trades Unions would have carved carved their name in out history alongside the Tolpuddle Martyrs - you must have some information as to who they were or what they did?
Dave is right - Owen was a pioneer, but he never advocated that workers should have a universal voice in their own lives - that is what Trades Unionism is
Put up or leave it there and stop messing up another thread with your unqualified claims for Christianity
Your Church was largely the opponent of ideals like socialism and workers rights, even though it was written into their doctrines.
Even your Christian social reformers had a somewhat IFFY REPUTATION
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 06:10 AM

You had no idea who Owen was till I brought him up - you thought he was Victorian for a start

I have known of him and other reformers of that period since studying Social History as a schoolboy Jim.

Who was responsible for the first reforms on child labour, unions or philanthropists?

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 06:54 AM

Who was responsible for the first reforms on child labour, unions or philanthropists?

How about the other option?

Clever people who knew it made sound business sense to look after their workforce. Why would anyone have to either Christian or philanthropic to understand that?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 07:15 AM

"Who was responsible for the first reforms on child labour, unions or philanthropists?"
Not a pissing competition - Christian philanthropists versus reformers - surely??
The Trades Unions were set up to organise workers - hence the name
Owen was a utopian Socialist - his followers attended the First Communist International
He was not a Victorian Reformer as you claimed - your reformers did not attempt to give the working man a voice, in fact many of them opposed such revolutionary ideals
Their role was to patronise the workers, not to empower them
Who made the long term demands of better working and living conditions so working families could rely on themselves rather than the charity of the reformers the reformers or the Trades Unions?
If workers had relied on the handouts of the reformers we'd still be living in 19th century conditions.
Your church was the greatest opponent of these reforms.
Many of the reformers you refer to, did so in order to win kudos for the church rather than help the poor - typical of these was the FRENCH WORKER PRIESTS
When them upstairs realised how their scemes were backfiring and workers were beginning to take action for themselves the were all pulled out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 08:34 AM

Incidentally - by the time the Owenites attended the First International they had become anti-religious, having realised the cynically self-serving motives of many Church reformers
Even the abolition of slavery was a double-edged campaign - it was far cheaper to use free labour in the factories and mines than it was to have to pay the upkeep of expensive slaves
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 08:38 AM

Dave,
Clever people who knew it made sound business sense to look after their workforce.

No. It made sound business sense to work children and adults to death because there was an ample supply.
It just did not make humanitarian sense, and it took humanitarians to see that and fight against it.

Jim,
Not a pissing competition - Christian philanthropists versus reformers - surely??

I have suggested no such thing.
Not all philanthropists and reformers were motivated by Christian belief. Owen for one, but many or most were.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 08:43 AM

Even the abolition of slavery was a double-edged campaign - it was far cheaper to use free labour in the factories and mines than it was to have to pay the upkeep of expensive slaves

There never was slave labour here, but it is true to say that our "free" workers were often treated worse than slaves. Slaves were an investment. Poor children and adult workers were utterly expendable.

In 1833 the Government passed a Factory Act to improve conditions for children working in factories. Young children were working very long hours in workplaces where conditions were often terrible. The basic act was as follows:
no child workers under nine years of age
employers must have an age certificate for their child workers
children of 9-13 years to work no more than nine hours a day
children of 13-18 years to work no more than 12 hours a day
children are not to work at night
two hours schooling each day for children
four factory inspectors appointed to enforce the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 09:21 AM

No. It made sound business sense to work children and adults to death because there was an ample supply.

Not everyone thought that way though did they Keith? The ones who did not have been proved right. You have already pointed out a few yourself. Are you saying they improved the workers lot simply out of the goodness of their own hearts? Were you privy to their private thoughts and inner desires? There is not an inexhausable supply of any resource, including people, and all resources need to be protected to get the best out of them. They knew that and acted accordingly. The fact that some people saw it as pure benevolence only reflects a lack of understanding of both economics and human nature.

You are simply arguing for arguments sake again and now I have made my point I am not going to jump through any hoops for you. I recommend that you do the same, Jim.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 09:57 AM

"There never was slave labour here, "
WHAT!!!!
UTTER MADNESS
I know all about the conditions undergone by children brought about by the system you break your back to support - but none of this has anything to do with Trades Unions and national reforms
At the time these events were occurring Trades Union membership was being outlawed and those advocating it were being shipped off to Australia
The direct cause of these injustices was that the working man had no voice n his employment
Reformers were targeting the "sexy bits of unjust Brirtain" while their churches were opposing reforming the system that brought them about

From the definitive 'The Making of the English Working Class by E.P. Thompson

"Secularism is the ideological thread which binds London labour history to¬gether, from the London Jacobins and Place, through the anti- religious Owenites and cooperators, the anti-religious journalists and booksellers, through the free-thinking Radicals who followed Holyoake and flocked to Bradlaugh's Hall of Science, to the Social Democratic Federation and the London Fabians with their uncon¬cealed distaste for chapel rhetoric."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 10:04 AM

"There never was slave labour here, "
MISSED A BIT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 11:37 AM

Dave,
Not everyone thought that way though did they Keith?

Yes they did because it was the case. People like Owen put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by treating workers decently.
Only legislation like the Factory Act forced the bosses to be nicer.

Jim,
"There never was slave labour here, "
WHAT!!!!
UTTER MADNESS

Fact not madness Jim.
Opening statement on your link, "Slavery in Great Britain existed and was recognised from before the Roman occupation until the 12th century, when chattel slavery disappeared after the Norman Conquest. Former slaves merged into the larger body of serfs in Britain and no longer were recognized separately in law or custom."

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 11:46 AM

Not everyone thought that way though did they Keith?

Yes they did because it was the case.

Are you saying that everyone believed that it made sound business sense to work children and adults to death? If so, Owen, Lever, Salt and the rest did not exist? The progression to more enlightened times never happened?

Do try to make sense at least Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 11:47 AM

"Fact not madness Jim."
Serfdom replaced slavery - it was exactly the same - in fact and in principle - workers belonging to masters
Dictionary definition of serf
a person in a condition of servitude, required to render services to a lord, commonly attached to the lord's land and transferred with it from one owner to another.
2. a slave.
British ports were an essential part of the Slave Trade - go visit the Slave museum in my native Liverpool
A reminder of exactly what you said
"There never was slave labour here, "
You have chosen to totally ignore the massive rise in modern slavery in Britain - why wouldn't you ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 01:50 PM

Dave,
Are you saying that everyone believed that it made sound business sense to work children and adults to death?

They believed it because it was true.

If so, Owen, Lever, Salt and the rest did not exist?

They were a fringe minority, and lost money compared to the uncaring majority who required legislation to change them.

Jim, there were no serfs or slaves in 19th Century Britain, and hadn't been for centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 01:59 PM

"Jim, there were no serfs or slaves in 19th Century Britain, and hadn't been for centuries."
You've had the definition Keith and youve had a few weeks old article pointg out thet 21st century Britain has a serious sve problem
Your statement never even mention the 19th century
You actually said
"There never was slave labour here"
You are re-defining your statement every time you post, but please keep doing so - it helps your case no end!!
Sheesh!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 02:30 PM

" Lever, Salt and the rest did not exist?"
"The private habits of an employee have really nothing to do with Lever Brothers providing the man is a good workman. At the same time, a good workman may have a wife of objectionable habits, or he may have objectionable habits himself, which make it undesirable to have him in the (Port Sunlight) village. . . ."
— William Lever, - Lod Leverhulme
"Salt's motives in building Saltaire remain obscure. They seem to have been a mixture of sound economics, Christian duty, and a desire to have effective control over his workforce."
Titus Salt
Yes - they most certainly did exist, and didn't they let their employees know it - with a vengeance!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 02:58 PM

But Keith, you say on the one hand everyone thought that way Yes they did because it was the case. yet on the other you say that there was a "fringe minority" that thought differently. Which is it to be? Either everyone thought that way or some did not. Rhetorical question of course. We all know that some did not think that way because we have all alluded to them. Including you. That 'fringe minority' in not much more than 100 years developed into todays society where everyone does matter and we no longer send children up chimneys. Those are the simple facts of the matter. Whether we believe they did it out of benevolence or out of sound economic strategy does not matter. None of us are privy to their exact motives as Jim's quotes above illustrate.

Again, you are just arguing for arguments sake and it is pointless. I have said my piece and you can either accept it or not. No skin off my nose either way.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 08:30 PM

Keith
I grew up across the Mersey fom Port Sunlisht and a century later they were still talking about Lord Leverhulme's despotic hypocrisy towards his tenants
A lot of reading, which I know you don't like, but if you are seriously interested in Victorian Christian philosophy, I suggest you pick your way through this exposé of the causes and self-interest agendas involved
http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/sites/mia/shared/mia/cours/IA023/Week%204/Roberts_The_Social_Conscience_of_the_Early_Victorians.pdf
Enjoy!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 09:16 PM

I suspect, your family history is somewhat similar to my own Jim. I think maybe studying history is all very well in its way. but its a bit abstract.
Keith's background doesn't seem to from the same embittered clan that we belong to.

history is just that unless you 'feel' it. its just a load of facts, and facts can bear any interpretation.

For whatever reason Keith doesn't feel it. not the way we do. not his fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 04:31 AM

"I think maybe studying history is all very well in its way. but its a bit abstract."
I find it exhilerating and Enjoyable Al - would highly recommend the one I'm about to embark on, 'King Leopold's Ghost'
I'm not embittered - I've led a great life and have met some wonderful people and am now preparing to leave a legacy of work in folksong that I am proud of and hope gives the same level of pleasure to others that is has given to me for over half a century
As far as politics is concerned - being aware of the rights and wrongs of society is what prevents you from being sucked under
I have a family I am proud of who felt exactly the same - all from a class of "layabouts and bed-blockers" who aren't worth educating
Keith is a moot point and will remain so
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 05:13 AM

Jim,
You actually said
"There never was slave labour here"

I meant in the context of this discussion!
I was not referring to medieval and Roman times!

Dave,
But Keith, you say on the one hand everyone thought that way Yes they did because it was the case. yet on the other you say that there was a "fringe minority" that thought differently. Which is it to be? Either everyone thought that way or some did not.

Those motivated by profit, the overwhelming majority, exploited their workers.
There were a tiny handful of reformers motivated by faith and/or philanthropy who were prepared to take less profit for the sake of their workers' wellbeing.

All of you, please identify errors in my statements instead of just saying I am wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 07:12 AM

Nothing wrong with your statement

Those motivated by profit, the overwhelming majority, exploited their workers.

Apart from it is different to your first statement. I asked

"Are you saying that everyone believed that it made sound business sense to work children and adults to death?"

You replied

They believed it because it was true.

If you are now saying that not everyone believed it you have changed your stance and that is fine.

However, your statement

There were a tiny handful of reformers motivated by faith and/or philanthropy who were prepared to take less profit for the sake of their workers' wellbeing.

Is flawed. There were many reasons for them to look after their workers apart from the two that you quote. Take the case of Salt's Mill vs the nearby Lister Mill in Bradford. Salt looked after his workers and got better output from them. He also attracted the best workers. It is no coincidence that the 1890–91 strike which led to the formation of the Labour party was at Lister Mill and not at Salt's. Incidentaly, they did not take less profit. Their profit margins were lower but as their production was higher there was a net gain in profitability in a lot of cases.

It is now considered sound business practice to look after your workforce. It was no different then. It was just that only the few who were far sighted enough could see it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 07:31 AM

"I meant in the context of this discussion!"
So did I - serfdom is slavery by definition - neither medieval nor romen
Slavery was part of British society until it was abolished in 1807
Wealthy families continued to keep servants bought as slaves and never formally released them - the trade was stoppedd, not the holding of slaves
Modern slavery is nor a growing problem in Britain (you steadfastly refuse to respond to this, let alone deny it.
"There were a tiny handful of reformers motivated by faith and/or philanthropy who were prepared to take less profit for the sake of their workers' well being."
And that tiny minority in no wary brought about the workers reforms you claimed you did when you denied the Trades unions' part in it
you have yet even to acknowledge that Owens inspration came from his socialism rather than his religion (or that he was a Georgian rather than yor claimed "Victorian reformer"
Ill dig out some mor information on Owen and his influence for those interested - you obviously are not unless he can be used to boost your claim of "Victorian philanthropy" which has now been shot out of the water - the two names produced so far have proved to be Dickensian Hypocrites
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 09:22 AM

Dave,
They believed it because it was true.
If you are now saying that not everyone believed it you have changed your stance and that is fine.

It was true that it made economic sense to exploit the workers.
Everyone knew that, but some believed exploitation was wrong and a few, the reformers, were prepared to make a sacrifice for what they believed. OK?

there was a net gain in profitability in a lot of cases.

Really. I would like to see evidence of that, and even if true they were making a huge investment in housing and facilities that their competitors were saving.

It is now considered sound business practice to look after your workforce.

I think we are moving backwards on that with practises like zero hours, unpaid interns, self employed employees, etc.
I am sure employers would revive all the old exploitations too if they could get away with it.

jim,
Slavery was part of British society until it was abolished in 1807

No it was not. And there were no serfs then either. Any slave bought overseas was free on reaching Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 09:40 AM

Finished with you Keith
Your denials without qualified eveidence ate a waste of time
The 'tied housing' system which depended on complete subservience and obedience to the 'master' as operated in Port Sunlight was in fact wage slavery - work and be deferential or be thrown in the street
You have yet to accept that slavery still exists in Britain
MORE TO IGNORE
AND MORE
MORE STILL
THe only value in continuing to debate with you is to allow you to make clear that you have no interest in facts and are only here to push an agenda
Back to Robert Owen, I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 09:54 AM

Jim,
You have yet to accept that slavery still exists in Britain

Of course I accept that. You and I have discussed it at some length in recent months.
It may exist but is illegal.

Tied housing is common, but is not slavery.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 10:40 AM

No hoops Keith. You have had my views. There is no point in repeating them. You have proved once more that you are happy to tell a lie (everyone believed that etc. etc.), hope that no one will notice then, when someone does, change your story (there were some who did not believe it etc. etc.) It is blatantly obvious and has been pointed out on numerous occasions. Please stop it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 11:01 AM

"It may exist but is illegal.
No "may" about it Keith unless you'd like to challenge the lings
If you accept it still ecists why di you wrire
"There never was slave labour here"
Unequivocal enough to men what it said
This becomes more and more bizarre each time you7 post
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 11:12 AM

I am sure I will get pulled up for saying so, Jim, but I have often pointed out that Keith seems to have a

Different morality
Different language and be on a
Different planet.

There is really no point in trying to have a sensible conversation.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 11:13 AM

You were determined to move heaven and earth to show that one family proved an "ver-representation" in the Slave Trade when it was Travellers being discussed - now it only "may" still exist
Do I note a hint of racist inconsistency there?
Perish the thought!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 12:50 PM

Jim, slavery and serfdom are not an issue in the subject of Robert Owen and social reform in the British industrial revolution.
Slavery was not legal in Britain then or now.

Dave you accuse me of being " happy to tell a lie (everyone believed that etc. etc.)"

It is not a lie. I stand by it.
It was true that it made economic sense to exploit the workers.
Everyone did know that, but some believed exploitation was wrong and a few, the reformers, were prepared to make a sacrifice for what they believed. OK?

You resort to false accusations once again.
You make claims you can not substantiate yet again. Asking you to is no crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 01:05 PM

i think a lot of my family got sucked under and the state of their awareness was pretty irrelevant.

i suspect everyone who is a roots/folk music player and singer is a bit of a historian. but my god! isn't it a downer!!
there are damn few songs that spring from really happy places - i suppose some love songs and a few drinking songs.
perhaps its because so much of what i play springs from the blues players of old.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 01:07 PM

"Slavery was not legal in Britain then or now."
Whare has the discussion ever been about whater it was legal
That's for dfferent adaptations you have made to wriggle out of your stupid statement
"There never was slave labour here"
It isa perfectly relevant to this discussion and was introduced to show the cost of keeping a slave over using workers that did not have to be maintained
Surely not "thread drift" on a subject you have been happy to debate over a dozen postings
Pathetic
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 04:05 PM

Jim,
now it only "may" still exist

Of course it exists. There were a number of high profile convictions just weeks ago. Crime sadly will always be with us and always has been.

Whare has the discussion ever been about whater it was legal

The discussion is about Owen and the reform movement, not dealing with criminality.
The reformers sought to stop cruel exploitation by legislating to make it illegal.
Slavery already was.

Now, can we discuss this without you calling me names like "pathetic" and "racist" and without Dave impugning my morality and language?
Why are you two always so nasty and personal?

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 04:06 PM

It is not true that everyone believed that it made sound business sense to work children and adults to death. Which is what we were talking about. Owen did not believe it. Salt did not believe it. Lever did not believe it. They may have been a minority but there were people who did not believe it. I make no false accusations. You, once again, refuse to admit that you were wrong in saying so but will go to any lengths to 'win' your case. It is you, once again, that is caught in a lie. It is you, once again, that is wriggling before admitting that you were wrong. It is you, once again, that shows yourself up for what you are. A liar and a cheat. I am out of here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 08:08 PM

the question is one that is full of contradictions, anomalies, and legal niceties thrown in for good measure.

Several people known as 'good' employers and public benefactors - their factories weren't necessarily nice places to work in. And environmental awareness is quite a recent thing. Their factories might be belching out the products that shortened lives of people in that town, their employees included.

also slavery is an interesting term. what constitutes it, is debatable. some people said it only really finished with the truck acts and every worker being able to insist on being paid in cash.

slavery doesn't have to mean what it meant to earlier ages

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 03:28 AM

Dave,
It is not true that everyone believed that it made sound business sense to work children and adults to death.

That is just your opinion.
I say it was a fact that it made sound business sense, and that everyone did know it.
Here is why I hold that opinion.
Until legislation forced employers to improve conditions those who did so voluntarily were not successful.
All Owen's experiments failed, and he was forced off the board of his mill to save that from collapse too.
Now, why do you hold your opinion?

I make no false accusations.
You accused me of lying. I have not.

You, once again, refuse to admit that you were wrong in saying so
I said nothing wrong.
Now you call me "a liar and a cheat!"
We are only discussing history Dave. What is wrong with you people that you are incapable of reasoned discussion?