Industrial Revolution: Victorian Children Part 2

Industrial Revolution: Victorian Children Part 2


Now, we’re going to move on to the argument
on the children and, of course, the mothers. Saying that the mothers and children were
forced into working in the factories and that there was this child exploitation, etc, etc.
The truth of the matter is, mothers and children were not forced into working in the factories,
the mothers and children actually viewed the factories as salvation. To put this into perspective
to help you understand: if you were to look at, for example, myself today and many people
around my age, now, I was born in 1984, I’m 35. Before the likes of the internet, before
the likes of all of the luxury you have today with the touch screen technology, etc with
the mobile telephones and all the other goodies that you have, I think even in 1997 the fastest
computer was 200 megahertz that we thought was amazing; you cannot feel deprived about
something that doesn’t exist there, how could I feel deprived about not having a computer
that I didn’t know existed; how could I feel deprived about internet that didn’t exist
here; how could I feel deprived about anything that you have today if in 1991 I didn’t know
existed? In fact, it wasn’t existent, the world wide web didn’t come around until 1997,
I could tell you that fact because I grew up during it. How life was for us in the period
before the internet and before all these mobile telephones that became fashionable (don’t
get me wrong, you had these walkie talkies and you had no doubt, you know, mobiles for
the sake of business, or whatnot) but it wasn’t fashionable amongst society. We never had
what you have today, we didn’t feel deprived of it, we just thought life was just simply
great, life was just normal, we just got on with life and we enjoyed what we had. That’s
even the same thing for people who lived before me. I could look at people from who were born
in the 1940s and 1950s and no doubt you know grand parents and parents who speak about
the great life that they had when they were younger. You know, they were born into a period
where these things just simply did not exist, so they couldn’t feel deprived of it. It’s
the same thing for people living in the 1760s. Don’t get me wrong, they acknowledged the
fact that, yes, that life was simply horrible having to work more than 80 hours per week
and life was simply torrid for that matter, but they could not feel deprived about, you
know, toilets and toilet paper that didn’t even come around until, what was it, about
the 1880s or something like that? You know, how they went out and did the toilet outside
was just normal to them and we can certainly look at that time period as awful living conditions,
etc and awful working conditions, but that’s coming from the perspective of your mind,
that’s not coming from the perspective of where they came from working in and where
they came from living before that existed and you cannot go from A to Z over night,
in other words, what I’m saying, you cannot go from 1760s living conditions to 2019s living
conditions over the course of 1-year, that just isn’t the real world. They viewed these
factories as a means to escape the rife misery that they were living in working endless hours
on a farm and not only did their working hours reduce, their living conditions had improved,
there was more things innovated during the first Industrial Revolution, so there was
more to go around everyone. Society collectively was actually richer. You could contrast the
wealth of the people between 1650 to 1700 and then contrast that to the people living
in 1850, it is abundantly clear to see that those who were living before the Industrial
Revolution that the masses were living in extreme poverty. Most of the wealth was based
on building and land ownership, that wealth was mostly put in the hands of the 2 percent,
the aristocracy. Yet, you would see a dramatic change by 1850 proving that the Industrial
Revolution, in the first Industrial Revolution actually did see an improvement in the wealth
and material living standards of the people, of the masses. You’ve got to remember in 1760
basically everyone was living dirt poor. So, what the factories gave them was opportunity
to make something of their life and it is an historical fact that something unprecedented
happened. Unprecedented means it’s never been seen before in human history and what was
that? For the first time in human history between 1780 to 1820 you would see the average
poor person’s real wage-earning growth rate increase by 0.55 percent per year and then
by 1820 to 1850 you would see the real wage-earning growth rate increase by 1.2 percent per year
on average. In the United States of America their real wage-earning growth rate was 1.6
percent per year on average. In other words, the rich were getting richer and who was it
that benefited the most? It was the poor, the poor were growing richer faster. There
was no dangerous concentration of wealth in the hands of the few because between 1840
in the United States to 1900, 70 percent of the wealth remained steadily the same going
to that of the working class and the remaining 30 percent would go to the capital owners,
those so-called capitalists running the factories, etc. When you talk about child exploitation,
well, what does it mean by exploitation? How could it be exploitative; they were seeing
their working hours reduce; they were seeing their living conditions dramatically improve,
not only that, their wages were continuously increasing, so they were becoming better off
in life. That’s not exploitation! To exploit someone is to get as much out of them as possible
and give them little in return. That’s a complete contradiction to the history of the first
Industrial Revolution and the real wage-earning growth rate statistics back that evidence.
But, when you talk about the children and mothers, they weren’t forced into working
in the factories, the truth of the matter was, the mothers held the power to prevent
their children from working in the factories. So, why didn’t they? Because they were going
to die of starvation, that’s why they didn’t, they didn’t have a choice in the issue. The
only reason why a choice later became something was because they were able to reduce their
working hours and improve their wealth as a whole, they were getting richer because
their wages would continuously improve, their material wealth would improve, their working
hours would reduce and as a result of that they then had the luxury to then keep their
children out of the dangerous workplace. Now, it is true to say that, yes, in Great Britain
government legislation would come along to prevent the children from working in the dangerous
factories, but irrespective of that, the market would have solved the problem anyway and the
United States of America proved that evidence. Within a country of a far greater population,
in a far greater size, what happened was, over time, the children would be kept out
of the dangerous workplace and they were sent home and off to school long before the child
labour laws were even codified. This was proven in the United States, they were being kept
out of the dangerous workplace long before government legislation. So, that debunks that
entire myth. It wasn’t a case that there was one group of children, that wasn’t the case.
Yes, you had the pauper children who came from, you know, living and working on the
farms and lived with their mothers and then you had the other group of children who were
orphans who would live under the state. How convenient, they would spread the myth that
it was all down to the evil capitalist factory owners that would, you know, poorly mistreat
the children and beat them up. Just like the myth that they forced them into working in
the factories. Well, it’s no different to this myth because the children that were being
poorly mistreated were actually the very children who were orphans who were living under the
state and who poorly mistreated them? The government. Government creates a problem and
then pushes the blame off onto the factory owners and paints this entire story of history
that it was all down to the evil capitalist factory owners and they get away with it because
“oh, look at the awful living conditions, look at the awful working conditions, look
at how they forced them into working in the factories.” Ralph Raico had mentioned himself,
even from that critique of capitalism, E. P. Thompson, an historian was forced into
a concession to say that the children had always worked long before the factories had
ever come around. It’s a concession to say that, you know, it’s not a case that these
capitalist factory owners are evil because they’re making children work. The way that
they paint the history is almost as if to say that children were free from working until
these evil factories came along and that’s exactly how they paint this period of history.
With their living conditions improving; their working hours reducing; their wages improving,
that’s not exploitation, that’s an improvement of their life. Had it not been for the factories,
had it not been for the machinery, you would not have had the luxury that you have today,
even that of the mothers. They did hold the power to prevent their children from working
in the factories, they just never because of the very fact that; the farms were just
as dangerous, if not more dangerous; the children were going to die of starvation had they not.
On the final argument on the NHS, you would get the likes of Jeremy Corbyn coming out
and saying, well, you know, if it wasn’t for, you know, socialism with the NHS people would
be left dying by their thousands. It’s an historical fact that between 1760 to 1919
life expectancy would more than double, the population would more than triple and the
reason why it is erroneous to compare 1948 when the NHS came around to the 19th century
is because obviously people were going to be better off in the late 1940s; not because
of the NHS, but because of the fact that medical discoveries were yet to come around. During
the 19th century, yes, you would see innovation, you would find medical discoveries continuously
coming around, people’s, you know, life expectancy improved and the population was able to increase
because they were coming away from all these malnutrition diseases, etc and that was thanks
to the medical discoveries. So, obviously, someone living in the late 19th century is
not going to be better off than that of someone living in the late 1940s. That’s simply because
of the fact that so much more was yet to be discovered. So, it wasn’t because a healthcare
system was nationalised that made them better off, it was simply because over time, more
and more medical discoveries would come around and healthcare would simply advance. Now,
the healthcare system itself in the NHS is a disastrous failure and American healthcare
you could see the contrasting difference between the free market healthcare system and how
it operated to that of today’s American healthcare system where costs are through the roof because
of all of the socialist government interventionism. Again, I’ve even touched upon why American
healthcare costs soared out of control, you can check that out in the video that I did
in response on VOX. So, anyway folk, I hope I’ve covered enough and I hope you’ve taken
something from it. If you’ve got anything you would like to add, comment in the comments
section below and I’ll be sure to get back to you. Thank you for watching my video and
I shall talk to you’s later, cheers!

5 Comments on "Industrial Revolution: Victorian Children Part 2"


  1. This is fiction. The true history of the development of capitalism is being buried and whitewashed over with sweeping generalisations. For example, the Glasgow Centre for Population Health/Glasgow University's Public Health Dept report that life expectancy on the Clyde fell to 27 years of age in the 1820's. Living conditions were horrific for people who were brutally cleared from the land and herded into urban slums with no sanitation and drinking water. This guy has it, at 10:58, "historical fact that between 1760 to 1919 life expectancy would more than double." So, one single fact describes and explains events over a 160 year period…and never mind WW1 1914-1918. This isn't history and this guy is no historian. He's a political propagandist.

    Reply

  2. Thank you so much for this video and all the work you do. My class is reading a Charles Dickens in English, so inevitably all the old anticapitalist slogans are being trotted out again. When I made the point to the teacher about the fact that they would have had to work long hours on farms anyway, so why demonise industry and progress when it was what improved living standards for everybody, the whole class looked at me with such utter contempt that I can't even begin to tell you how horrible it felt. I invited them to respond, of course, but all I got back was emotive nonsense with a "like… you just can't " thrown in every so often. We're lost, truly lost.

    Reply

  3. Oy great video my dude but I saw you lost the argument against DemocraticSocialist01 and if you really want to win just show him this how Hitler spoke against big business and Capitalists somewhere at half of video lol https://www.bitchute.com/video/NXUgYn52ypvF/ if you have any questions let me know in comments btw you tried your best I saw you in DemocratSocialist's video and you were sad because you saw you were losing but not anymore. To let you know something. A Communist Josip Broz Tito was best friends with Capitalist Americans and Englishmen. He also went against Stalin so don't think you completely lost the argument. I posted on his video and he didn't dare to comment on me he probably shit his pants lol.

    Reply

  4. But Scotty, the commies feel like losers. Even if that isn't as bad as living in a previous time period, they IDENTIFY as oppressed. 😀

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *