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?

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 03:40 AM

Apologies Al
I should never have become involved in this idiocy and naused up your Robert Owen thread
Owen's experimental Socialism opened the door to the most important period of English (even European) history, when working people attempted to demand a voice in their own lives and a say in creating their own destiny
If you are not interested in ploughing through the history books there is plenty of good entertaining literature to be had on the 19th century - you can even find them aplenty on television nowadays - probably the best thing the BBC still produces
Dickens dealt with the French Revolution in Tale of Two Cities, on the appallingly violent education system in Nicholas Nickleby, the hypocricy of charity workhouses in Oliver Twist, the repression of the Industrial Revolution in Hard Times, emigration to America in Martin Chuzzlewit amd his magnificent descriptions of urban poverty in Our Mutual Friend... all good stories full of vivid descriptions of 18th century life
Mrs Gaskell's North and South does a great job in describing the clash between English mill-workers and Irish famine refugees and books like Sylvia's Lovers and her Manchester stories gave vivid pictures of Northern life.
I am indebted to Walter Pardon fro introducing Pat and I to these books - he'd read every book by Dicens and Hardy at least four times
Some of the great industrial poets, Axon, Waugh and Bamford told it from the point of view of those experiencing the struggle and the period gave us songs like Four Loom Weaver
Probably the best collection of songs and poems of the period was 'Waterloo-Peterloo, put out by the Critics Group.
Scotland was represented brilliantly going into the early twentieth century, Grassic Gibbons' 'Sunset Song' trilogy rating among the best
America was covered brilliantly by Steinbeck's 'Grapes of Wrath' and 'In Dubious Battle' and Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle' about the Chicago meat packing industry and the lesser known 'Wallace Stegner's novel on Joe Hill, The Preacher and the Slave' or Sinclair Lewis's description of middle class American racism, Kingsblood Royal
I found these brilliant introductions into the development of working class consciousness.
A couple of later authors gave a background to what was happening in Wales at the time - Alexander Cordell's Moriymer trilogy, Rape of the Fair Country: Hosts of Rebecca: Song of the Earth and Richard Llewelyn's How Green Was My Valley and Up into the Singing Mountain, about Welsh miners and their eventual emigration to Patagonia.
Sorry to bang on about this, but I felt that, if this thread is to survive, we needed a clean break from past nonsense.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 03:43 AM

"18th century life"
19th century life of course
I do hope people will ignore Keith and not nause up this thread
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 03:50 AM

Al, the Truck Acts abolished pay in tokens instead of cash, which Owen and other reformers campaigned against.
The system could and did sometimes lead to debt bondage.
The last actual slaves in Britain were emancipated in 1775. These were slaves bought abroad and imported, usually as domestic servants.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 04:26 AM

is bondage really different from slavery. apparently in the old days the overseers sometimes beat children who had fallen asleep whilst tending the machines.

i seem to remember stories of agricultural workers being beaten by bosses whom they were dependant on for their living and tied cottage.

if one party in a relationship has the power and desire to be abusive - qualitatively there's not much difference to slavery really, is there?

you speak of Dickens, I was still a schoolboy just before the Wilson government was elected - perhaps the year before. there was a lot of talk of thirteen years of tory misrule, which i accepted hook line and sinker - being very young and knowing nothing except tory government.

anyway about this time a book arrived in the school library - The Dickens Way by Humphrey House. House pointed out that Dickens despised ALL politicians. Dickens thought that the only way forward was for people just act decently towards each other.

of course i thought it was all bollocks, in my mind Harold in his Gannex mac would be elected and all would be hunky dory! such is youth...i can laugh at myself these days.

theres a lot to be said for everyone acting with decency.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 05:30 AM

Al
If you want to read the most brilliant analysis of politics and how it impinged on working people, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists tops the lot - it extends your boddage being no different that slavery into the Edwardian period and describes a team of workers, painters, plasterers, etc., doing up a house in Hastings,
The author Robert Noonan, pseudonym Robert Tressell, was a house painter himself, which is what makes the books still readable a century later.
It contains the most brilliantly concise analysis of socialism (using a knife and a sandwich) I have ever come across
Politicians used to be a necessary evil, now they are a hinder to society (unless you can get them to clean up their act - back to Corbyn)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 12:43 PM

So what happened?
Cruel exploitation made sound business sense. Reformers like Owen were prepared to sacrifice profit for humanity, but most owners and bosses were not.

theres a lot to be said for everyone acting with decency.

Yes, and public pressure led by the reformers resulted in legislation that stopped the worst abuses.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 01:05 PM

"Reformers like Owen "
Sighhhhhh!
Robert Owen was a SOCIALIST , not a reformer
Why do you continue to make a fool of yourself Keith?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 08:06 PM

Description of the role of Church of England Sunday Schools which were established in English villages in the 1790s/1800s
"Their function is uniformly described as "to cherish in the children of the poor a spirit of industry and economy and piety".
Church of England Sunday school teachers at Caistor, (Lincs) were instructed to—
"... tame the ferocity of their unsubdued passions - to repress the excessive rudeness of their manners - to chasten the disgusting and demoralizing obscenity of their language - to subdue the stubborn rebellion of their wills - to render them honest, obedient, courteous, industrious, submissive, and orderly .."
This was based on the 'Grand Law of subordination' as expounded by Christian Social Reformer, William Wilberforce, slavery abolitionist, in 1769 in his 'The management of the Poor', which proclaimed:
"... that their more lowly path has been allotted to them by the hand of God; that it is their part faithfully to discharge its duties and contentedly to bear its inconveniences; that the present state of things is very short; that the objects, about which wordly men conflict so eagerly, are not worth the contest.."
From E.P. Thomspon's'Making of the English Working Class' (pp 441-442)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 03:41 AM

He was a reformer.
Opening sentence of his Wiki page, "Robert Owen was a Welsh social reformer."
Socialism was not even a word when he started his reforming.
"The word "socialism" first became current, in British terminology, in the discussions of the "Association of all Classes of all Nations" which Owen formed in 1835[11] with himself as Preliminary Father."

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 03:50 AM

BBC Educaton site.
"Reform of factories and mines
When concerns were raised about the working conditions in factories, especially for children, reformers began to propose changes to improve working environments.
The first supporters of factory reform were caring mill owners, many of them in the Tory Party, who were motivated mainly by their religion. One such factory owner was Robert Owen.
Robert Owen
He owned a cotton mill in New Lanark in Scotland.
He thought that if workers were treated well then they would work harder. This would then make greater profits for the factory owners.
He provided good houses and a school for his workers and their families.
He would not allow a child under ten to work in his mills.
He set up the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union for his workers in 1834.
In 1830 Richard Oastler wrote to the Leeds Mercury newspaper, complaining that the conditions of factory workers in Bradford was "more horrid than that hellish system of colonial slavery". Even so, the campaign to reform conditions achieved little attention until Sadler's Report was published. The report was written in 1832 by Michael Sadler and included testimonies from factory workers to reveal appalling conditions, especially for women and children. The report shocked public opinion.
In 1832 Lord Ashley, Earl of Shaftesbury took over leadership of the movement for factory reform in Parliament. He organised campaigns that achieved new laws to improve conditions. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/shp/britishsociety/livingworkingconditionsrev4.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 04:46 AM

Sorry Keith - bitesize scoops doesn't hack it when it comes to history - you really need to read a book
Owen started out as an industrialist and, as your bit says, came around to the idea that improving conditions would make the workers work harder - nothing to do with charity ot Christian beliefs.
He was basically a humane and intelligent individual and he gradually came round to the idea that society did not need improving but needed changing - he became a socialist - his followers went on to take part in the First Working Men's International Association in London in 1864, six years after his death - by this time they had totally rejected the religious side of Owen, as he himself largely had.
He was never a 'reformer' as such - certainly not a "Victorian" one
He started out as a profiteer with humanitarian leanings, and eventually became a Utopian Revolutionary'
Your Wiki page gives the misinformed anodyne picture of Owen which was pumped into us at school
We were taught about the Reformers as good, dedicated people - Humphrey Davy, Plimsoll, Shaftesbury - but in fact they were the vicious Industrial Revolution in velvet gloves - even the great slave emancipator, Wilberforce - all there to bring the people to heel
You have had your church's statement on what the Christian message was - to tame and utilise the lower classes, not to help them realise their own worth - are you going to contradict what they said they were aiming for?
Owen is sometimes regarded as the father of the Trade Union movement, but that is a simplification
Trades Union reform came about by grass-roots campaigning, often violent in nature, with the Luddite machine breaking and Swing rioters rick burning, both carrying the death penalty or at best, transportation.
Your 'Victorian Reformers' were an antidote to the rise of working class consciousness - a way of offsetting what was happening, and religion - fear of God, was their main weapon
You want to know the basis of Victorian reform - listen to this brilliant depiction 9 minute, 40 seconds in
Out of context cut-'n-pastes again - you never learn - literally!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 05:53 AM

talking of Grassic Gibbon...

i was an extra on the tv adaption of Grey Granite.
I was supposed to be a starving rioter. As they had recruited most of the comedians on the local club circuit to be rioters, i don't think any of were under 18stones. it was done by bbc scotland, and they were using Crich tram museum in derbyshire as the location.
It was pissing down rain and I remember Frank Williams who played the vicar on dads army and captain pocket in the army game was sheltering with on a tram trying to read the book - to find out what the hell was supposed to be going on in the scene. it was hard to work out because most of the dialogue was in a very deep scottish accent.
The Scottish production team seemed to be very anti English and accused the extras (who were being paid basic walk on money) of extreme cowardice. we were being charged by police horses and the riders were fellow equity members - but the horses weren't fussy who they trampled.
Jack Denman, the agent who had booked us all - was a chubby little ex-principal comedian - and he'd fiddled himself a few extra quid for 'special skills' he was hitting a drum and leading the parade.
after the second or third charge Jack was covered in blood where a police horse harness had caught him. very convincing!!

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 06:26 AM

Lovely story Al
I must have seen you one time - I watched 'Grey Granite'
Did you see the recent film of'Sunset Song' - very moving?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 06:45 AM

Jim,
Robert Owen Museum,
"Robert Owen was one of the most influential thinkers and social reformers of his time."
http://robert-owen-museum.org.uk/

Co-Operative College (founded by Owen),
"Robert Owen was a man renowned for his philanthropic nature. "
http://www.co-op.ac.uk/2012/02/owen-philanthropy/

Britannica,
"Welsh manufacturer turned reformer, one of the most influential early 19th-century advocates of utopian socialism."
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Owen

Wiki
"Robert Owen was a Welsh social reformer."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen

Sorry Jim. He is universally acknowledged and referred to as a reformer and a philanthropist. You are clearly shown to be totally wrong to claim that he was neither.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 07:01 AM

You are totally ignoring the full facts of Owen and relying on single line quotes out of context
Was not Owen a Socialist
Didn'#t he and his followers reject religious reform and opt for changing the system?
Weren't they founder members of the first Workers International?
Which of these is inaccurate and on what grounds do you equate Owen with Leverhulme and Titus Salt?
Contant repetition of an inaccuracy doesn't make it any less inaccurate
You said reformers brought about social change, yet these are the only two you have come up with to date
I ask again - who are these revolutionary reformers who changed society
You mentioned Seebohm Rowntree - who was a reformist Liberal Quaker who worked for working improvements
His first efforts came about in 1899, long after the Unions had already started to turn the 'World Upside Down'
The Quakers have always had my respect - as far as I am concerned, they are the only Christians who attempt to practice true Christianity
Your lot were as exploitative manipulators and brainwashers on behalf of the system, as bad as the worst of the mill owners
Now - names, dates, and actions please - stop alluding to them and tell us who they were and what they did
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 07:14 AM

Was not Owen a Socialist

He became one and probably invented the concept.
He was also a wealthy philanthropist reformer and factory owner.
What exactly have I said that you disagree with?

This was my comment that started this dispute, "The reforms were not achieved by "trades unions" Jim.
They were achieved by wealthy philanthropists and reformers, usually motivated by their Christian faith."

Do you dispute that or anything else I have said, and if so what?

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 08:15 AM

"He became one and probably invented the concept."
Don't be stupid Keith - your ignorance of society is breathtaking
Socialism was an echo of primitive communism which dated back to the Stone Age when communities shared everything in common for survival
Modern Socialism/communism was taken up by dissident regiments of Cromwell's New Model Army who operated as The Diggers and the Levellers
What have you said that I disagree with - where to start
You said that usually motivated by their Christian faith."
Long blown out of the water
You said that Owen was one of these - he was a Utopian Communist whose followers eventually rejected religion as part of exploitation.
You said "There never was slave labour here, " - which went through three transmogrifications benore you finally abandoned it as a foot-in-mouth.
Now yo sare stuck with putting someone forward who was a Utopian communist who is as far from a " "wealthy philanthropist and reformer" as Donald Trump is a Civil Rights activist
Look - I don't mind your continuing to help you prove yourself a historical ignoramus - I quite enjoy taking the books off the shelf and putting up real history.
THere are whole volumes of the damage your religious social reformers did to the 19th century poor - have you ever read, 'Roads to Ruin' ?
It's years since I took that off the shelf.
I asked you to name your philanthropists and what they did - you apparently refuse to do so - fine
The longer you keep this up, the more excuse it gives me to put up the reality of your philanthropists
You choose
I ask again
Was not Owen a Socialist
Didn'#t he and his followers reject religious reform and opt for changing the system?
Weren't they founder members of the first Workers International?
Which of these is inaccurate and on what grounds do you equate Owen with Leverhulme and Titus Salt?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 09:03 AM

jim, why must you be so abusive? "Stupid" and "ignorant.

"The word "socialism" first became current, in British terminology, in the discussions of the "Association of all Classes of all Nations" which Owen formed in 1835[11]

I said, "He became one(a socialist) and probably invented the concept."

Well, he did. There was not even a name for it before.

I ask you again, specifically, what have I said that you disagree with?

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 09:11 AM

You said that usually motivated by their Christian faith."
Long blown out of the water

BBC. "The first supporters of factory reform were caring mill owners, many of them in the Tory Party, who were motivated mainly by their religion."

So that was correct Jim.

You said that Owen was one of these

I said he was a wealthy philanthropist reformer, and he was.

You said "There never was slave labour here, "

In the context of this discussion about Owen and industrial reform, and that is correct.
Obviously we all know there were serfs in medieval times and slaves in Roman times.

So, everything I said was correct.

I ask again
Was not Owen a Socialist

I answer again, He became one and probably invented the concept. First he was a wealthy philanthropist reformer and factory owner.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 11:34 AM

"Stupid" and "ignorant."
Because thats's how yo behave eith - you repeat the same thing over and over again long after your points have been answered- that is stupid by anybody's reckoning
How nay times have I put up information about reformers - even quoting your own church - yet you still respond with meaningless cut -'n-pastes
Stupid
"He became one and probably invented the concept"
Socialism originated in the Stone Age, surfaced in the Peasants Revolt
"When Adam Delved and Eve Span,Who was then the Gentleman
Socialism
Cromwell's army repeated the experiment
Socialsim
How the **** could Owen have conceived it
Stupid
Answer my questions and respond to the poits I am making please
I don't have to call you stupid - your behaviour says that for me
I asked if Owen was a Utopian Communist whose followers rejected religion
You replied like a speaking clock
"I answer again, He became one and probably invented the concept."
So, everything I said was correct."
I've just given you a list showing where it is not
Please respond to my points
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 12:36 PM

Socialism originated in the Stone Age, surfaced in the Peasants Revolt
"When Adam Delved and Eve Span,Who was then the Gentleman
Socialism

No-one was called a socialist or referred to socialism before Owen.

I asked if Owen was a Utopian Communist whose followers rejected religion
You replied like a speaking clock
"I answer again, He became one and probably invented the concept."

No. That was in reply to, I ask again
Was not Owen a Socialist

None of this would have arisen if you had let my original statement go.
"The reforms were not achieved by "trades unions" Jim.
They were achieved by wealthy philanthropists and reformers, usually motivated by their Christian faith."

Do you still challenge that?

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 12:43 PM

Utterly mindless
Goodnight Gracie
Over and out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 02:47 PM

Keith - no one is challenging you. Maybe Jim - but no one else. We can't be arsed. Its like the first world war stuff - we just don't agree with you.

For some reason you seem to have more empathy with the right winger, the powers that be, the posh boys or whatever than we have.

for some reason. probably bitter experience. we tend to think that no one is in the corner for you when you're poor and unrepresented.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 03:00 PM

Keith
May as well put an end to this and keep tomorrow free for intelligent discussion
"No-one was called a socialist or referred to socialism before Owen."
You seem to have stumbled from one diaster to another here
"The socialist political movement originated as a theory in the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 1700s - probably in France as Socialismé
Nobody, including Owen called his theory Socialism - Owen called it "Co-operation" and his journal was called "The Co-operator"
Marx was the first to apply the term to Owen after his death - Utopian Socialism'
I reckon that's a total of own goals that must merit an entry in The Guinness Book of Records - don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 03:57 AM

Al, you say you disagree with me but you will not challenge what I say or discuss it.
So what is the point of coming to a discussion forum Al?
Why did you start this thread?

Of course you disagree with me. It would be a boring discussion if no-one did!
So, why can't you point out flaws in my argument or make a different case?

It looks as though you are comfortable with your preconceptions and prejudices and fear they may not stand up to scrutiny.

Are you saying that I should not put my views because you and Jim hold different ones?
Why? What are you afraid of?

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 04:09 AM

Jim, much of the teaching of Jesus would now be termed socialist, and many others since throughout history.
The Wiki page on Socialism has this,
"The first "self-conscious" socialist movements developed in the 1820s and 1830s. The Owenites,...."

I will not argue minor points around that, but my statements were factually correct and I gave quotes to show they were not just whims of mine.

The only case I want to defend is my original statement on this in reply to one from you.
I said, "The reforms were not achieved by "trades unions" Jim.
They were achieved by wealthy philanthropists and reformers, usually motivated by their Christian faith."

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 04:20 AM

"Socialism originated in the Stone Age"

Really? What records exist that would back that claim?

As with every other experiment, including Owen's, particularly his venture in the USA - "Socialism" has failed every time and each time it has "failed" the supporters of "socialism" have all declared that it wasn't really "socialism" after all.

Having said that there is one whale of a difference between "socialism" as a political system, which always seems to fail, and a community having a "social conscience" which is extremely successful.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 04:52 AM

So you don't follow Jesus, then, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 05:44 AM

"What records exist that would back that claim?"
Go read Morgan's work on the subject -
Any social archeologist can make a reasonable stab at how earlier societies survived
"Socialism" has failed every time and each time it has "failed" the supporters of "socialism" have all declared that it wasn't really "socialism" after all."
Socialism has never failed - it is an aim, not a new shirt you put on every time the old one gets dirty
Each time if has been tried it had introduced massive improvements - typical are the limited social aims that Labour introduced after the war
Any failure came about by neglect or opposition - social mediceine never ceased to cure, social housing never fell down because it was badly built, nationalisation never ceased to produce products fir for purpose...
They all ran into problems becase they didn't fir into a society that was based on favouring the few - they failed to be profitable - hence the incredible gap between those who have too much and those who have nothing - a society no longer fir for purpose
Keith's mindless denials are no longer worth acknowleging - go read a book Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 06:31 AM

"Any social archeologist can make a reasonable stab at how earlier societies survived"

Now what was it I said in my previous post?

Having said that there is one whale of a difference between "socialism" as a political system, which always seems to fail, and a community having a "social conscience" which is extremely successful."

It is ONLY the latter, i.e. that the communities must have had a "social conscience" in order to survive and develop, that "Any social archaeologist" could take a reasonable stab at - nobody can say with any certainty that the structure of the societies they lived in were "Socialist" in any way, shape, or form that we would recognise today. As with most primitive beings the overriding element between competing groups would have been "Might is Right", the strong would have taken the best land, the least capable of adapting and evolving would have been pushed to the margins. The leader and hierarchy of any group would have been those best equipped to lead and protect it.

As a political system "Socialism" has failed in every single state that has tried to implement it - the latest failure has been in Venezuela.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 06:32 AM

By the way - any community with a social conscience usually been the less well off looking after the lesser well off while the profiteers continue to take the lion's share
A typical example is the contradictions of charity with well meaning people donating to wards victims of war while our arms dealers become wealthier by selling weapons to perpetuate those wars
A society with a conscience would would be a different matter, but like Ghandi's description of Western civilisation, only "a good idea".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 06:59 AM

it was George Moore, the Irish writer who called Jesus - the pale socialist of Galilee.

Moore isn't read much nowadays but he was a big noise back in the 1890's. His book Esther Walters has been made into a film with Dirk Bogard and a TV series.

Socialism is catch-all term. You guys would argue about anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 07:08 AM

What you said tribus was
"Socialism" has failed every time" - full stop
Now you have added "in every single state that has tried to implement it"
The reasons these experiments have failed have been various - the invasion of The Soviet Union by 14 countries, an American inspired embargo of Cuban goods which lasted fifty-odd years, civil wars to return old systems....
Any nation that moves from a system, that serves only the wealthy to attempting to serve the needs of the entire population (socialism) is facing an uphill struggle from the outset - add actual armed and economic resistance to that struggle and you distort its objectives
The Soviet Union was an attempt to turn what had been The Russian Empire, a mixture of nations ranging from feudal agrarian capitalist to undeveloped industrial Capitalist into a unit that served all the people - a premature task that was forced on a leadership that was attempting to serve the immediate wish of a population demoralised and starved by Imperial war.
Despite the slaughter of WW1, ite invasion by Capitalist countries defending their own system of privilege, Civil War, and eventually another World war which led to the sacrifice of more people than any other single nation, the USSR had moved from being a primitively backward conglomerate of systems to a unified group with highly developed medical and education systems, well on the way to housing the entire population.
Economically it was a major competitor on the world stage and technically it was throwing satellites into space.
Personally, I have doubts as to some of the directions taken and I certainly regard Stalin a departure of the Socialist dream, but in terms of the ground covered by the entire population they moved forward we moved back - all the timid socialist measures Atlee produced had been either destroyed or, as with social medicine, starved near to death
The Education won by hard, bitter struggle are now only available to the wealthy of Britain.
Despite the embargo, Cuba moved from a country owned by six wealthy families, a place were rich yankee tourists went to launder money and watch women being fucked by animals - "America's open sewer" to a society that at least attempted to cater for the needs of all the population - still the most enviable medical and education service in that part of the world
Our rich Western society is based on the exploitation of poorer nations, thiers attempted to develop faired societies
You refer to Owen's experiment as being a failure - it failed because it was unable to meet the demands of the investors, not because it let down the workers or the customers
Owen was removed from the board because of the lack of profitability
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 07:20 AM

'Are you saying that I should not put my views because you and Jim hold different ones?'

no its the way you argue that is wearisome in the extreme.its like an endless sea trip, and every time you get off the gangplank, we're always in the same place - wherever we've sailed to.

take this discussion.

we wanted to talk about Robert Owen - this bloke who devoted his life and endeavours to something or other. but do we get to talk about it - do we buggery!

Jim on the side of the workers. You on the side of the bosses.

Its like a discussion on Picasso. And one bloke reckons Pablo should have been using matt and the other guy emulsion.
Its is not relevant whether socialism is 'a good thing'. the point is the substance of what he did achieve.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 07:23 AM

"it was George Moore, the Irish writer who called Jesus - the pale socialist of Galilee."
A bit of a misnomer Al - Jesus' ideas (if he existed) were somewhat contradictory on an equal society - he lived in a slave society and never once condemned slavery
Jesus' idea was that we'd all be equal in Heaven - certainly not on earth
His followers nowadays dismiss much of his socialist leanings anyway - as them about rich men gong to Heaven or moneylenders being thrown out of the temple - then wait for the excuses - and as for slaughtering your fellow man or taking your goods and giving them to the poor - forget it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 10:38 AM

"the point is the substance of what he did achieve."
It really isn't an easy question to answer in a few posts Al - but I am surprised at how much information and analysis there is about Owen on the net
This is a lot to read, but it seems to be the fairest summation of OWEN I have come across - worth dipping into rather than reading from start to finish
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 12:42 PM

The Soviet Union was a total screw up virtually from day one. Driven by some idiotic ideology that did not pay the blindest notice to the desires and needs of the people. All Lenin, Stalin & Co achieved was to replace an aristocratic hierarchy with one based on political acceptability (IIRC less than 5% of the population of the U.S.S.R. were members of the Communist Party - It was not one of those barrel up and join if you felt like it organisations - It was strictly by invitation only and members got all the perks).

During the Second World War Stalin killed more Russians than the Germans did.

Not once during the reign of the Czars did Russia ever find itself in a position where it could not feed its population - The history of the U.S.S.R. shows us that not once in its entire existence did the U.S.S.R. EVER manage to feed itself - nothing to do with invading armies and foreign interference - Stalin as a deliberate political move killed off everybody in Russia who knew how to farm efficiently - ideology defeating common sense.

But as we are supposed to be discussing Owen - His venture in the USA failed because it consisted of some well meaning souls, some idealists, a load of shysters and the remainder free-loaders. Guess which groups won through? In his philosophy Owen completely forgot that human beings are individuals each with their own aspirations and motivations - they did not fit into the moulds he imagined for them, New Harmony, Indiana was a failure.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 01:10 PM

So you don't follow Jesus, then, Keith.

What do you mean Steve?

Al,
Jim on the side of the workers. You on the side of the bosses.
I am amazed you could have read my posts and still made that accusation.
Nothing from me supports what I referred to as the "cruel exploitation" of the workers.
Preconception and prejudice Al. You just see what you expect to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 01:37 PM

"The Soviet Union was a total screw up virtually from day one."
Yeah sure it was
It should have let the rest of the Russian Youth die iat the front
"During the Second World War Stalin killed more Russians than the Germans did."
Stalin is not recorded as killing a single individual - the total deaths of the war it walked away from amounted to 41 million
"Not once during the reign of the Czars did Russia ever find itself in a position where it could not feed its population -"
Utter nonsense - what history books are you working from in 1891-1892 alone 2 million died from starvation
in 1905 three quarters of the population were underfed, poorly housed and discontnted so the they appealed to the Tsar en mass on the streets, these appeals were met with hails of bullets from the Tsar's troops
The situation following the was was of an empire that Rusia had sacrificed from 3,749,000[51] to 4,950,000 people from combat or war related deaths
Their econimy was non-existant, they were living in squalor, hardly any industry, literacy virtually non existent, and an overall population ranging from serfdom to primitive Capitalism
Your anyalysius is as crass as you7r Russian comparisons
Can you actually quote any authoritative evidence of your claims on Owenism or are they as invented as your Russian claims?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 02:12 PM

Er, you said that much of the teaching of Jesus would be termed socialist. From what I read here you haven't got a socialist bone in your body. Centre-right you say. Nothing like the man you purport to follow then!

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 03:03 PM

Incidentally Teribus, the War the Russin people walkd away from accounted for more than 41 million military and civilian casualties: there were over 18 million deaths and 23 million wounded, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history. The total number of deaths includes about 11 million military personnel and about 7 million civilians.
All of this was over a row between two branches of our Royal family squabbling over which part of the planer they should own.
Stalin would have had to run to catch up with that one
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 03:12 AM

"The situation following the was was of an empire that Rusia had sacrificed from 3,749,000[51] to 4,950,000 people from combat or war related deaths"

No it didn't - you have misread the Wiki Table you copied your figures from - those are the numbers of Russian military WOUNDED. During the First World War in terms of Deaths suffered as a percentage of the population Great Britain fared worse than Russia (Great Britain - 1.91% to 2.23%. Russia - 1.62% to 1.94%).

Russian fatalities during the Second World War which was much bloodier than the First amounted to over 25 million. During his rule 1929 to 1953 Stalin was responsible for the deaths of some 43 million people (Not saying he killed them personally - they died under his orders). Stalin's is named as being the second greatest Democide in the history of the world, second only to that perpetrated by China's Mao Zedong.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 03:38 AM

Steve,
From what I read here you haven't got a socialist bone in your body. Centre-right you say

Prejudice and preconception Steve.
Can you actually quote something I have said to support that?
I think not.

I am at the centre of politics and voted Labour when they occupied that ground.
I would say that you can not be Christian and far-Right, but you certainly do not need to be far-Left.

I hold and have expressed nothing but admiration for Owen and the other reformers who drove the legislation that won the most far reaching reforms before the Labour Movement and unions even got off the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 06:03 AM

If you're a socialist then I'm the Queen of Sheba. You told us several times before the election that you are centre-right.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 07:07 AM

"1929 to 1953 Stalin was responsible for the deaths of some 43 million people (Not saying he killed them personally - they died under his orders)"
"History according to the Tebbit school of reactionary study" – utter nonsense
Stalin was an incompetent leader who eventually fell off the sanity twig – they most certainly didn't "die under his orders" unless of course, you can provide the documentation which proves they did – probably in the same file s the Owen misinformation you have yet to confirm)
Suggesting that the deaths that took place under Stalin's rule were "at his orders" is tantamount to claiming that the British who died in the World Wars did so under Asquith's, Lloyd Goeorge's or Churchill's orders – an utter stupid accusation.
Those that died in the Ukraine did so as a result of a mishandled famine and an opposed attempt at collectivisation to try and feed the entire Russian people
The wealthy landowning peasants, the Kulaks, were part of that slaughter – at the height of the famine they burned crops, slaughtered livestock and kept back produce that could have ben used to feed the victims.
The authorities mishandled the famine as the British authorities mishandled the Irish one, the only difference being that there is evidence that the British deliberately used the Irish one to solve 'the Irish Question' – no evidence exists that Stalin ever did that – not even Robert Conquest could come up with anything other than an outburst by Stalin saying the Ukrainians deserved what they got – and that was never verified.
The Soviet Union came into being as part of what probably began in France at the time of the Commune – an attempt to change the world order and replace it with something that served all the people rather than the few it still serves – it was a bloody class war with no clean hands on either side.
Prior to Stalin strutting his stuff the Empires were happily oppressing and slaughtering the occupants of the poorer nations – in their uncountable millions.
"Gallant little Belgium" under Leopold cheerfully massacred up to ten million Congolese in pursuit of rubber – the standard punishment for not meeting your quota was the removal of a hand – and this gallant little nation was one of those used as an excuse to sacrifice an entire generation.
While Stalin was in power, German capitalism financed Hitler in his rise to power – the rest of the world sat on their hands and appeased until he grew strong enough to send over ten million human beings to extermination - six million of them Jews
All victims of western capitalism
Then came round two of the grate Capitalist Bakeoff, WW2 – the dying throes of Empire culminating with
Dropping two obscene bombs of Japanese civilians which, apart from the immediate death toll,   created deformities in two generations of children
Since that, that hasn't been a year without oppressive war Korea and Viet Nam being among the star turns.
Now we are up to our arses in oil wars, religious conflicts, worldwide poverty, ethnic cleaning and racist hate – in a nutshell, western democracy
Socialism failed in Eastern Europe and what replaced it proved ten times worse and a a million times more dangerous that Stalin could ever dream up – Putin, former Yugolavia, Hungary…. And all the potential Fascist states now on the rise
In the comfortable west we have the racist hatred generated by Brexit, an accelerating gap between haves and have nots, a situation where we can't guarantee future generations they will have a planet to stand on and an insane despot in The White House
One of the ironies is that two of the most secure rising nations are Russia and China – both brought out of the feudal Dark Ages by Socialist reformers
"Under Stalin's orders" my arse
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 07:08 AM

Steve, you said, "So you don't follow Jesus, then, Keith."

Can you produce one post of mine to support that nasty little dig, or Al's claim that I support the bosses at the time of Owen?
No.

Now enough about me I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 08:16 AM

Your approach to life has been the most inhumn and unchristian I have ever come across Keith
Not a "nasty little dig", just an analysis of what you have argued
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 01:00 PM

Keith, you said that much of the teaching of Jesus would be termed socialist. You described yourself several times before the last election as centre-right. Centre right is not socialist. So which of the socialist teachings of Jesus do you not accept? Or, to put it another way, why are you not a socialist? You've spent month after month here trying to smear the one major party in this country that currently has socialist pretensions. You've dug up or fabricated a ton of stuff that you think casts Labour under Corbyn as antisemitic, misogynistic and bullying. You've gone on and on and on about it. When I say you haven't got a socialist bone in you body, that's what I mean. So if Jesus was a bit of a socialist in much of his teaching, and you are as far as can be from being a socialist, you're not a follower of much of his teaching, are you? That's no "nasty dig." It merely a function of my enquiring (and sceptical) mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 01:18 PM

Jim,
Your approach to life has been the most inhumn and unchristian I have ever come across Keith

My approach to life is neither.
You just resort again to lying personal attack without foundation.

Steve,
So which of the socialist teachings of Jesus do you not accept?

Not one Steve. Sorry if you think my politics and faith are incompatible. I have no problem.

Neither of you can challenge anything I have said on the subject, so you resort to personal attack, impugning my politics, my faith and my approach to life.

All your accusations are without foundation in anything I have ever posted. Just baseless lies.

Now, enough about me!

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 01:37 PM

43 Million murders were the price of loyalty to Stalin.
Jim how many murders will Trump require?

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 03:14 PM

Donuel
I have laid out what I believed happened in the Soviet Union and what I know to have happened in the name of Western Democracy
I've always believed that the way to deal with these disputes is to slug them out by throwing facts at each other
From what I've read, Stalin was a megalomaniac peasant with no skills of leadership who should never have been leader
He wwas a no-mark as far as the Revolution was concerned - he banned one of the most important accounts of the events because his name never appeared in it.
If you can produce evidence that he was guilty of 43 million murders other than unqualified accusations originating from the time of the Cold War, I await it with interest
am an avid reader with a life-long interest in 19th and 20th century history and I have never come across such evidence to convince me that what Stalin did was anything but a mixture of bad leadership and eventually megalomaniac madness.
If you can put fill in anything I might have missed - feel free
I have my own personal hatred of Stalin - for debasing and eventually destroying the Workers State - but is he is guilty of murder so are all those I mentioned earlier
Noe - feel free
You are quite likely to be able to add Trump to your list of Nixon, LBJ, Dubya, Reagan... and all the other mass murdering politicians who ever stalked this planet
You really do have to understand them correctly before you can hate them rationally
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 05:03 PM

I've challenged everything you've said about your approach to both socialism and the socialist teachings of Jesus. No "baseless lies." Just my enquiring mind. No nasty digs. Just me being a bit suspicious of your apparent inconsistencies, which are manifold. You love Jesus. You say that Jesus's teachings were largely socialist. But you are the very opposite of socialist. All I want to do is to give you the opportunity to explain yourself. But you can't. You get all defensive and you think you can get round it by accusing us of all sorts of nastiness. But, honestly, Keith, we just want to know. Jesus was a bit of a socialist but you clearly disagree with that considerable element of his teaching. To be fair, you are far from being the only "Christian" who behaves that way. You don't seem to be very happy with yourself. Inner turmoil happens. I can't insist that you come clean. But, by their fruits an' all that...

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 08:40 PM

"Donuel "
If you are at a loss to provide proof one way or the other, a bit of common sense might do the trick
The Russian army walked away from the front in 1917, joined up with the workers and peasants, overthrew the Emperor and eventually executed him and his family as a confirmation that there was no going back
They fought off a counter-revolution, opposing 14 Western armies, united an entire Empire under one flag and eventually embarked on what they were still calling "the Great Patriotic War' when I visited there in 1964, during which they sacrificed 8,806,453 dead and 22,610,148 wounded
Are you honestly claiming that such people would stand by and say nothing while 43 Million of their number were massacred?
That would not take a dictator, it would take a mass-mesmerist.
I have watched newsreels of Stalin down the years and each time it has struck me "how could such an innocuous little man have done what it is claimed he did?
Unlike Hitler, he had the personality of a slice of stale bread, yet he has gone down as on of the most internationally adored leaders in world history.
Where the Russians really such a stupidly passive people?
The Russians we met still had a sneaky respect for him despite Khrushchev's revelations in 1956
C'mon. give us a break!
"I've challenged everything you've said"
Let him stew in his own juice Steve - oxygen of publicity and all that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 08:40 PM

"Donuel "
If you are at a loss to provide proof one way or the other, a bit of common sense might do the trick
The Russian army walked away from the front in 1917, joined up with the workers and peasants, overthrew the Emperor and eventually executed him and his family as a confirmation that there was no going back
They fought off a counter-revolution, opposing 14 Western armies, united an entire Empire under one flag and eventually embarked on what they were still calling "the Great Patriotic War' when I visited there in 1964, during which they sacrificed 8,806,453 dead and 22,610,148 wounded
Are you honestly claiming that such people would stand by and say nothing while 43 Million of their number were massacred?
That would not take a dictator, it would take a mass-mesmerist.
I have watched newsreels of Stalin down the years and each time it has struck me "how could such an innocuous little man have done what it is claimed he did?
Unlike Hitler, he had the personality of a slice of stale bread, yet he has gone down as on of the most internationally adored leaders in world history.
Where the Russians really such a stupidly passive people?
The Russians we met still had a sneaky respect for him despite Khrushchev's revelations in 1956
C'mon. give us a break!
"I've challenged everything you've said"
Let him stew in his own juice Steve - oxygen of publicity and all that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 09:53 PM

don't think the Latvians, Poles. or Estonians had much respect for him - sneaking or otherwise.

in the end do any of these bad people have a function other than to show us how life is not to be lived.

To 'fail' at being decent like a Owen, is a thousand times bigger success than being a 'successful' shit like Meyer Lansky or Stalin.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 03:19 AM

You love Jesus. You say that Jesus's teachings were largely socialist.
Yes.
But you are the very opposite of socialist.
No. You do not know me and make assumptions which are wrong.

This thread is about Owen and the reformers of that time, not me.

Respond to what I say on the subject instead of always trying to make it about me.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 03:28 AM

"don't think the Latvians, Poles. or Estonians had much respect for him - sneaking or otherwise."
That's the problem Al - some didn't but many did - the workers adored Stalin and looked on him as the saviour of the word's first workers state - that's why he got away with what he did
I was twelve when Stalin died and I can still remember family friends weeping when when the news broke
Stalinism was basically a war between politicians and they were Stalin's targets - the show trials, the purges, the night arrests - all aimed at those he saw as a political threat and that is how he destroyed the Socialist dream - not by "45 million murders"
Stupidities like that were dreamed to to avoid discussing the real issues, possibilities and implications of a Socialist society - it is far easier to create and target a bogeyman than it is to argue the relative merits of social and political change
I remember reading John Reed's 'Ten Days that Shook the World for the first time and being swept away by the arguments that were taking place at the first congress - inspiring
Your thread made me look up the arguments that took place at The First Worker's International between all the differing factions, including the Owenites - working men and their supporters dreaming out loud how to make the world a better place for everybody
Still raises goosebumps
That's what these arguments should be about - not ploutering around in Cold War jargon that never had a basis in reality
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 04:42 AM

How Many People Did Joseph Stalin Kill?
By Palash Ghosh @Gooch700 On 03/05/13 AT 8:55 AM


Joseph Stalin, who died 60 years ago in Moscow, was a small man -- no more than 5-foot-4. The abused son of a poor, alcoholic Georgian cobbler, Josef Vissarionovich Djughashvili (the future Stalin) also had a withered arm, a clubbed foot and a face scarred by small pox, but he stood very tall as one of history's most prolific killers.
Stalin's extremely brutal 30-year rule as absolute ruler of the Soviet Union featured so many atrocities, including purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, manufactured famines, torture and good old-fashioned acts of mass murder and massacres (not to mention World War II) that the complete toll of bloodshed will likely never be known.

An amoral psychopath and paranoid with a gangster's mentality, Stalin eliminated anyone and everyone who was a threat to his power – including (and especially) former allies. He had absolutely no regard for the sanctity of human life.

But how many people is he responsible for killing?

In February 1989, two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, a research paper by Georgian historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin's rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40 million.

''It's important that they published it, although the numbers themselves are horrible,'' Medvedev told the New York Times at the time. ''Those numbers include my father.'' Medevedev's grim bookkeeping included the following tragic episodes: 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the ''Great Terror'' of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various "political crimes" from 1946 to 1953.

Although not everyone who was swept up in the aforementioned events died from unnatural causes, Medvedev's 20 million non-combatant deaths estimate is likely a conservative guess. Indeed, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the literary giant who wrote harrowingly about the Soviet gulag system, claimed the true number of Stalin's victims might have been as high as 60 million.

Most other estimates from reputed scholars and historians tend to range from between 20 and 60 million.

In his book, "Unnatural Deaths in the U.S.S.R.: 1928-1954," I.G. Dyadkin estimated that the USSR suffered 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" during that period, with 34 to 49 million directly linked to Stalin.

In "Europe A History," British historian Norman Davies counted 50 million killed between 1924-53, excluding wartime casualties.
Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, a Soviet politician and historian, estimated 35 million deaths.

Even some who have put out estimates based on research admit their calculations may be inadequate.

In his acclaimed book "The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties," Anglo-American historian Robert Conquest said: "We get a figure of 20 million dead [under Stalin], which is almost certainly too low and might require an increase of 50 percent or so."

Quotes attributed to Stalin reflected his utter disregard for human life. Among other bons mots, he allegedly declared: "Death is the solution to all problems. No man -- no problem," and "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic."

Part of the problem with counting the total loss of life lies with the incompleteness and unreliability of Soviet records. A more troubling dilemma has to do with the fact that many some deaths – like starvation from famines – may or may not have been directly connected to Stalin's policies.

In any case, if the figure of 60 million dead is accurate that would mean that an average of 2 million were killed during each year of Stalin's horrific reign – or 40,000 every week (even during "peacetime").

If the lower estimate of 20 million is the true number, that still translates into 1,830 deaths every single day. Thus, Stalin's regime represented a machinery of killing that history – excluding, perhaps, China under Chairman Mao Tse-Tung -- has never witnessed.

Are they ALL WRONG? I don't think so. There was nothing "mishandled" during the "Holodomor" it was deliberate and cost the lives of millions. Stalin ruled by ruthless terror, plain and simple. The second greatest democide the world has ever known. The fact that you and yours were gullible enough to be taken in by him does not surprise me in the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 04:56 AM

Steve, you have taken no part in any of the discussion on Owen and the history of the reform movement.
You joined the thread when you saw an opportunity to make a personal attack on me and my faith (26th Sept. 4.52AM)

If I have ever made an unchristian post, shame me by quoting it instead of just pretending I have.

Better still start discussing the actual subject of the thread.

I am offline for a while now.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 06:10 AM

"Are they ALL WRONG?"
They are all unqualifed and unproven opinions and will remain so until evidence is provided and anomalies are explained
There a re libraries of books which claim the opposite and we would grow old and die if we started throwing them at each other
"Palash Ghosh"
Would that be the Palash Ghosh of editor of The International Business Times fame
Norman Davuies
"Jewish historians Lucy Dawidowicz[9] and Abraham Brumberg[10] object to Davies' historical treatment of the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland. They accuse him of minimising historic antisemitism, and of promoting an idea that academic views of the Holocaust in international historiography largely overlook the suffering of non-Jewish Poles. "
"Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev"
supports the current President of Russia and former Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin.[2]"
You could do this forever, but what's the point
The idea that a revolutionary people like the Russians who kicked the Imperial system up the arse, walked away from the WW1 bloodbath, overthrew the Tsar ' "the Father of all the Russias" gave its life in millions to fight fascism, shold stand by silently while one man picked them off a million at a time is utterly ludicrous.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 06:41 AM

Is that "Fluff" all you have to offer?

While an exact figure would be impossible to "prove" through lack of records the ones offered by those five historians can be, and have been, proven as is the consensus that they are definitely understated.

1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929;
9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program;
6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934;
1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935;
1 million executed during the ''Great Terror'' of 1937-1938;
4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps;
10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II;
1 million arrested for various "political crimes" from 1946 to 1953.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 06:46 AM

"Is that "Fluff" all you have to offer?"
No fluff - solid argument which you are free to disprove with argument of your own
You still offer nothing to support you claims, just unproven lists
Ho hum
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 07:03 AM

Are you attempting to put forward the line that none of those people died? Katyn Wood never happened? Bet they all really loved Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 07:31 AM

"Are you attempting to put forward the line that none of those people died?"
Have I ever said that?
I am suggesting that some of the deaths may well have been due to Stalin's inept leadership but the accusation of deliberate murder has never been proved and if it is true, them every world leader who had mishandled famines and floods and other natural disasters or has sent generations of young men to war for gain are equally guilty of murder
The numbers game, both with Russia and Cina are a joke as both involved massive populations - the USSR was a former Empire, not even one country
Bohe were attempts to imprve the lot of everybody in states that were already deeply poverty stricken and both were reigned by oppressive regimes that treated the people like shit.
The ideals of both revolutions was to move to a more equitable society - Stalin adopted the peasant solution - "if you want to make an omelette, you have to break eggs"
His attitude may have come from his Georgian peasant background, but it could just as well come from his Jesuit training - he was a failed priest
So far, you haven't even approached this from a common-sense point of view, let alone provide evidence
You present a revolutionary people as a bunch of battery hens passively awaiting slaughter and kissing the blade that slits their throat
Doesn't even make sense to me
Katyn Wood was secretly ordered by Beria - if you wish to argue that he was a killer I have no argument with that

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 07:40 AM

i remember my father was very sceptical about Stalin's bad press. you see during the war - he had a very good press - being our ally.

the sharp reversal caught a lot of people off guard.

however when you consider the enormity of his nastiness - i think the jury came in on him quite a while back. i suppose when his brother was hanged by the czar's men, it must have exounged a lot of human feeling from him.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 08:47 AM

"i remember my father was very sceptical about Stalin's bad press. you see during the war - he had a very good press - being our ally."
I still have a family photograph somewhere of me as a very young child at a street party celebrating the end of the war, sitting between an effigy of Stalin bearing the slogan, "Good old Uncle Joe"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 11:40 AM

"...sitting between an effigy of Stalin bearing the slogan, "Good old Uncle Joe" - and what?

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 12:01 PM

""Good old Uncle Joe" - and what?"
What Al said immediately before - work it out for yourself
It should have been "beneath"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 05:22 PM

yes uncle joe entered into the language at that time. as in 'I'm not your Uncle Joe!'
meaning shape up!

not just communists - everybody used the term....perhaps not Noel Coward and Anthony Eden, but everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 03:35 AM

I'd totally forgotten this BEAUTY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Ross Campbell
Date: 01 Oct 17 - 08:24 PM

Sorry your thread got hi-jacked, Al. (I've only skimmed through). Economic History classes at Strathclyde in the late sixties introduced me to Robert Owen and his ideas. Somehow, despite living within ten miles of New Lanark for the early part of my life, it was only last New Year that I first visited the site. I guess it looks much as it did, the cost of keeping it that way has been met by re-developing some of the buildings as private residences, there is a hotel and a Youth Hostel as well. There remain water-courses and turbine buildings from which the mills derived their power, parts of the mill buildings are occupied by a museum and visitor centre. Decent foot-paths allow you to get further up the gorge to the falls of Clyde. Some magnificent trees line the banks, could possibly be original planting from the time New Lanark was created. Well worth a visit if you get the chance.
Ross

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Oct 17 - 01:53 AM

it sounds wonderful! i really must try and get there.

i just think pronouncing a lifetime like Owen's a failure is SO indicative of what is wrong with our society, its the Thatcher's shopping trolley syndrome. If something is threepence cheaper this week - hang it! we'll call the more expensive provider a failure.

and so we throw away individuals, communities, whole industries, artforms....just discard them as commercial failures.

as Oscar Wilde said - we know the price of everything and the value of nothing.