Before you all get your panties in a twist, I know it’s technically not true.
That link is an unsourced opinion piece on a site belonging to something called the Adam Smith Institute. I’m gonna need something a bit more credible before I believe it tbh.
The Adam smith institute is a right wing free market think tank with likely very questionable donors. wiki It likely doesn’t really do research but takes sources that support their preexisting believes and retells them.
Certainly it was at least very hard to make the capitalist exploitation of the worker so all encompassing before the invention of the mechanical watch (Although there was likely a ton of housework and the general situation was garbage what with feudal lords and all that) . It then likely exploded with the industrial revolution and at least in places where the working class managed to emancipate themselves got somewhat cut back. Now especially for countries outside of the west and increasingly also the US and parts of EU it’s likely getting worse, especially with multi employment and precarious employment(gig work, semi self employment, 0h contracts, mechanical turk …).
Generally i feel work where you or your peers get to keep the total output of your work isn’t really a problem, it’s a problem when your work gets appropriated into this terrible machine and as a result you are alienated from the work.
Adam Smith Institute
I always find it kinda funny when the right turns to Adam Smith. Smith thought that the free market would free us from the monopolistic tendencies of the mercantile system. (Although he wouldn’t have written it as such, as the term ‘monopoly’ wasn’t nearly as taxonomically precise as it is now.) If he was alive today, he’d probably be rather dismayed at the failures of capitalism.
But then again, I guess that’s the right’s shtick: coopt any idea that they can and pervert it to benefit the ultra-wealthy.
Anyways, here’s Smith:
The object, besides, of the greater part of the bye-laws of all regulated companies, as well as of all other corporations, is not so much to oppress those who are already members, as to discourage others from becoming so; which may be done, not only by a high fine, but by many other contrivances. The constant view of such companies is always to raise the rate of their own profit as high as they can; to keep the market, both for the goods which they export, and for those which they import, as much understocked as they can: which can be done only by restraining the competition, or by discouraging new adventurers from entering into the trade. (The Wealth of Nations V.i.e.10)
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. As much as reading and understanding smith and other philosophy is important for the individual, think tanks unfortunately seem necessary in a modern context aiming to transform, often quite unreadable, as your excerpt demonstrates, philosophical learning, into applicable law/policy.
As with everything this process is utterly captured by right wing and market fundamentalist interests. Just sort this list by Bias/Affiliation and skim some of the descriptions it’s a bit horrific, but it also might save you from reading an old school stochastic parrot with an inhumane agenda. Or if you actually find one you can agree with it might give you a reasonable first source.
The time was very different. Most people lived and worked in the country, not in cities, so de facto they couldn’t control them however they liked. Christian Church was also imposing morality over everything, which means they couldn’t enslave people as easily as today.
We are living in neo-feudalism. Your boss is a lord, and your only freedom is to choose a lord, provided this lord accept you.
Christendom was basically like the church was the structure of society, when you were baptized as an infant and written in the books that was like social security today. The anabaptists weren’t just so radical because they opposed theology, but because they protested the fundamental structure of how society was organized.
Also religion back then was like entertainment as well, people actually loved going to see preachers and they’d talk about them in the same way we talk about shows or movies now. It had that function in the society as sort of a language for discussing fundamental truths and life experience that people loved engaging in. They didn’t have a notion of a political or national identity, but they had a soul and all the stuff to do with that.
If that’s ok too, I have read a book by an anthropologist who claims the opposite (that in fact people in the past had more leisure than today). I can look up a good quote tomorrow. For the claim in the post, I’m afraid, there ain’t no good sources, as for most alternative facts.
I mean it seems like the sort of thing people are just ready to believe because “we have technology now so we must have better lives” despite loads of that technology being turned towards controlling us.
As for the book, it wouldn’t be Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber, would it?
It was the first book I read by Graeber but not the last one. He mentioned it in other books too but yes, I was about to quote from Bullshit Jobs
It’s historical consensus. Your quality of life is still better because you have civil rights and access to medical care that actually works.
You got it the wrong way around: If it’s consensus, no one questions it anymore so you don’t need a source. If you start to question commonly hold beliefs, you will have to unlearn the whole field of economics. Do you want that?
Do you also ask for sources when people contend that Julius Caesar was a real person, or that the world is round? Go to JSTOR and start building your case if you’re so keen to display your ignorance about common knowledge, or do you need a SOURCE to tell you that JSTOR actually exists and isn’t a modern fiction?
It’s not historical consensus. It’s a claim made by some historians that went viral online.
It seems very emotionally important to you that you believe that. Best of luck.
Medieval peasant’s idea of luxury was also “some butter”. Let’s not glorify the past.
They loved showing off what spices they had, like “yo this is a nutmeg pie, that’s right I got nutmeg bitches.” Some of the recipes are actually hilarious cause they seem to be based around showing off your spices, the original lasagna for example.
What’s also funny is the foods peasants could afford and eat, were at least to our modern diet a lot healthier than what the lord would eat. They’d be eating root vegetables, cabbage, squash, porridges. Cheese as well because it was a method of preservation and the separated whey had it’s own uses, lot of peasants made their own cheese. Meanwhile the lord would be eating marrow and fatty salted meats, hunting his own game, or more like wanting people to believe he did so trying to curate that image of himself. Maybe commission a “morning hunt” portrait of himself in case you weren’t sure.
Because medieval peasantry ain’t exactly all that great. There’s a reason why we grew out of it.
More time off to take care of the fourteen children you need to have to keep your farm going.
If one dies, I’ll just pop another out, right in the field. Cut the cord, and he can get to work.
There was a much higher likelihood of dying during childbirth too.
Families with more than 4 or 5 children were almost certainly blended families.
Redditors thinking that having time off as some dirt fucking poor peasant in the Medieval Era is all fun and games.
Dies at 46 after a minor cut gets infected
