2004-03-10 06:01 Źródło: Warsaw Business Journal
Of martyrs and markets
Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government.
"Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it."
Woodrow Wilson - from a speech in New York City September 9, 1912
My contention is that the only historical parallels to indicate what we, and the generations to follow, are about to experience are the years of the 18th and 19th centuries when the collapse of a massive stock-market mania was followed by a series of depressions, rapid technological change and social unrest which culminated in the overthrow of the established order.
This was the time of the rise of the Nation State; of continual wars; of perpetual debt and the demand for more tribute from the citizens least able to afford it. Adversity, penury and persecution bring forth the creative ability of men and so began one of the greatest periods of innovation in European history.
The first revolution was in Agriculture. By the mid 18th century, agriculture in England had generally been reorganized from a subsistence-based occupation into something more akin to an industry. Small scattered strips of land were consolidated into large fields and enclosed by walls or hedges. This gave easier plowing, better crop rotation, and greater crop yields. Livestock improved beyond all recognition because it was no longer mixed promiscuously with other peasants' dross and experiments with correct breeding procedures proliferated.
Once the steam engine arrived on the scene (Thomas Newcomen 1712) agricultural mechanization started in earnest and the productivity of the rural labor force grew at an exponential rate.
Writing in 1770, Arthur Young ascribes to the previous ten years 'more experiments, more discoveries, and more general good sense displayed in the walk of agriculture than in an hundred preceding ones.' He also mentions the fact that the production of wheat on English soil was twenty-five bushels to the acre, when in France it was only eighteen.
Unfortunately, enclosures of land, improved farming techniques and increased mechanization deprived masses of peasants of their livelihoods and depressed wages. In 'Notes on the Agriculture of Norfolk' [1796] Nathaniel Kent noted that the price of provisions had gone up by 60 percent in the previous forty to fifty years, but wages by only 25 percent. Another authority suggested that between 1760 and 1813 wages rose by 60 percent, but the price of wheat by 130 percent.
In 1830, the wage of an agricultural laborer was nine shillings. In the following years the wage was reduced to eight shillings, and then to seven. In 1834, the workers were faced with the fact of their wages being reduced to six shillings. It was against this background, sometime between 1831 and 1833, (the precise date being unclear) that the men of Tolpuddle, in Dorset, England, started up a Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers (F.S.A.L.) and agreed that in the spring they would not accept any work for less than 10 shillings a week. Scared of the repetition of the rural unrest which had spread across Southern England in 1830, the authorities ordered the arrest of the six men: James Brine, James Hammett, George Loveless, James Loveless (George's brother), George's brother in-law, Thomas Standfield and his son, John Standfield. The judge, under pressure from the government of the day, sentenced them to seven years' transportation to the penal colony in New South Wales, Australia, 'not for anything they had done, but as an example to others'.
As a result of a public outcry in March 1836, the government was forced to remit the sentences and the men became known as the Tolpuddle Martyrs and Trade Unionism in England had its beginnings, in agriculture and not in industry.
Europe was made up of a lot of tiny little separate states. Each state was administered independently by its own ruler. People were unable to easily move around without a permit from one's lord, even the few miles that it often was to the next municipality. Because movement was restricted, agriculture was slow to receive, or benefit from, new ideas. Trade was suffocated by dues and tolls at innumerable borders. These tiny states were also rather administration-heavy relative to their size.
The old order remained strong. Nobles, clerics, and towns all had privileges and were exempt from taxation. Monarchs everywhere sought to enlarge their bureaucracies to raise taxes to support the new large standing armies. Young men were often forced or coerced into becoming mercenary soldiers to raise funds for their rulers.
The peasants paid taxes to the king, taxes to the church, taxes and dues to the lord of the manor, as well as numerous indirect taxes on wine, salt, and bread. And throughout the 18th century, the price of rent was always increasing, as were the duties levied on goods sold in markets and fairs. By 1789, the plight of the French peasant was obvious. Out of every 100 francs he earned the peasant kept only 18 francs for himself and one study of a pre-industrial French city found that two married workers with one child received a family income of 380 livres while needing to spend 336 livres on basic necessities, leaving very little for extra expenses. Poverty was a highly visible problem. Beggars in Bologna, Italy were estimated at 25 percent of the population while in Mainz figures indicate that 30 percent of the people were beggars. The social attitude toward poverty started to change. Once viewed as the blessed children of God, they began to be seen as criminals and vagabonds.
Substitute the words 'Technological Revolution' for 'Agricultural Revolution'; the term 'middle class' for 'peasant'; the term 'welfare state' for 'standing armies' - and the term 'increasing number of bureaucrats' for an increasing number of bureaucrats and you get the gist of the historical forces at work. There are two essential differences: In that age the population increased at a very rapid rate and fresh willing souls entered the workforce to be taxed; now it is declining throughout Europe and the burden of increased taxation will fall on fewer and fewer souls. The second difference lies in the supremely enhanced ability of the state to control the populace.
Zbigniew Piekarski
"Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it."
Woodrow Wilson - from a speech in New York City September 9, 1912
My contention is that the only historical parallels to indicate what we, and the generations to follow, are about to experience are the years of the 18th and 19th centuries when the collapse of a massive stock-market mania was followed by a series of depressions, rapid technological change and social unrest which culminated in the overthrow of the established order.
This was the time of the rise of the Nation State; of continual wars; of perpetual debt and the demand for more tribute from the citizens least able to afford it. Adversity, penury and persecution bring forth the creative ability of men and so began one of the greatest periods of innovation in European history.
The first revolution was in Agriculture. By the mid 18th century, agriculture in England had generally been reorganized from a subsistence-based occupation into something more akin to an industry. Small scattered strips of land were consolidated into large fields and enclosed by walls or hedges. This gave easier plowing, better crop rotation, and greater crop yields. Livestock improved beyond all recognition because it was no longer mixed promiscuously with other peasants' dross and experiments with correct breeding procedures proliferated.
Once the steam engine arrived on the scene (Thomas Newcomen 1712) agricultural mechanization started in earnest and the productivity of the rural labor force grew at an exponential rate.
Writing in 1770, Arthur Young ascribes to the previous ten years 'more experiments, more discoveries, and more general good sense displayed in the walk of agriculture than in an hundred preceding ones.' He also mentions the fact that the production of wheat on English soil was twenty-five bushels to the acre, when in France it was only eighteen.
Unfortunately, enclosures of land, improved farming techniques and increased mechanization deprived masses of peasants of their livelihoods and depressed wages. In 'Notes on the Agriculture of Norfolk' [1796] Nathaniel Kent noted that the price of provisions had gone up by 60 percent in the previous forty to fifty years, but wages by only 25 percent. Another authority suggested that between 1760 and 1813 wages rose by 60 percent, but the price of wheat by 130 percent.
In 1830, the wage of an agricultural laborer was nine shillings. In the following years the wage was reduced to eight shillings, and then to seven. In 1834, the workers were faced with the fact of their wages being reduced to six shillings. It was against this background, sometime between 1831 and 1833, (the precise date being unclear) that the men of Tolpuddle, in Dorset, England, started up a Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers (F.S.A.L.) and agreed that in the spring they would not accept any work for less than 10 shillings a week. Scared of the repetition of the rural unrest which had spread across Southern England in 1830, the authorities ordered the arrest of the six men: James Brine, James Hammett, George Loveless, James Loveless (George's brother), George's brother in-law, Thomas Standfield and his son, John Standfield. The judge, under pressure from the government of the day, sentenced them to seven years' transportation to the penal colony in New South Wales, Australia, 'not for anything they had done, but as an example to others'.
As a result of a public outcry in March 1836, the government was forced to remit the sentences and the men became known as the Tolpuddle Martyrs and Trade Unionism in England had its beginnings, in agriculture and not in industry.
Europe was made up of a lot of tiny little separate states. Each state was administered independently by its own ruler. People were unable to easily move around without a permit from one's lord, even the few miles that it often was to the next municipality. Because movement was restricted, agriculture was slow to receive, or benefit from, new ideas. Trade was suffocated by dues and tolls at innumerable borders. These tiny states were also rather administration-heavy relative to their size.
The old order remained strong. Nobles, clerics, and towns all had privileges and were exempt from taxation. Monarchs everywhere sought to enlarge their bureaucracies to raise taxes to support the new large standing armies. Young men were often forced or coerced into becoming mercenary soldiers to raise funds for their rulers.
The peasants paid taxes to the king, taxes to the church, taxes and dues to the lord of the manor, as well as numerous indirect taxes on wine, salt, and bread. And throughout the 18th century, the price of rent was always increasing, as were the duties levied on goods sold in markets and fairs. By 1789, the plight of the French peasant was obvious. Out of every 100 francs he earned the peasant kept only 18 francs for himself and one study of a pre-industrial French city found that two married workers with one child received a family income of 380 livres while needing to spend 336 livres on basic necessities, leaving very little for extra expenses. Poverty was a highly visible problem. Beggars in Bologna, Italy were estimated at 25 percent of the population while in Mainz figures indicate that 30 percent of the people were beggars. The social attitude toward poverty started to change. Once viewed as the blessed children of God, they began to be seen as criminals and vagabonds.
Substitute the words 'Technological Revolution' for 'Agricultural Revolution'; the term 'middle class' for 'peasant'; the term 'welfare state' for 'standing armies' - and the term 'increasing number of bureaucrats' for an increasing number of bureaucrats and you get the gist of the historical forces at work. There are two essential differences: In that age the population increased at a very rapid rate and fresh willing souls entered the workforce to be taxed; now it is declining throughout Europe and the burden of increased taxation will fall on fewer and fewer souls. The second difference lies in the supremely enhanced ability of the state to control the populace.
Zbigniew Piekarski
Dodaj komentarz
