Here's some food for thought: If you don't work an additional hour, because the economic environment you are in has provided you no meaningful economic task that would be worth doing in that hour, are you better off than someone who does have that opportunity and works for benefit in that time?
It's difficult to compare across such time spans meaningfully. I've often thought if we could bring someone forward in time from, say, a thousand years ago and give them a tour of your local 7-11 that it would re-align a lot of people's perspectives on our modern societies. (I'm not even picking that for the cold drinks or snacks, either; it's things like "here's a tube of cream that you can buy for roughly 10 minutes labor, tops, that when you smear it on a cut makes it so the cut won't kill you anymore". Or, "condoms", that work reliably. I'd expect tears from our visitor and a high likelihood of violent resistence if you try to send them back.)
Here's another equally meaningless "food for thought": we bring a native American from a thousand years ago to today. They go from a life of being very connected to their community, the environment, fairly plentiful sources of food, and so on, to a society where, statistically speaking, they have a high chance of living in poverty, being systematically discriminated against in ways that prevent them from pursuing education/employment/etc., facing substance abuse, being confined in meaningful ways to an arbitrarily defined "reservation", etc. etc.
Do you still expect tears and violent resistance if you try to send them back?
You can basically expand this thought experiment to most populations who are not upper middle class white people. Would you rather be born as a random Incan citizen, or a modern day coal miner in Peru?
I'm not so sure. See the antropologist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Good_(anthropologist) He married a native girl named Yarima, but after several years in Western society she choose to return to her tribe in the rain forest. Life as a Medieval peasant seem to me to be inferior to life in a hunter gatherer tribe, but I think it is far from certain that the peasant would refuse to go back.
The future is amazing (on average right now). That doesn't negate the value in considering ways in which the future has not improved upon the past.
Plus, the meaningfulness of the task sometimes is beyond economic; many people code in crazy hours because they love the job. I doubt it was the same with miners 500 years ago.
But all these nuances aren't even looked at in the paper.
I don't think that is true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Etymology
"The initial usage of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense has been attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 ("What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others") and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 ("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour").[22]:237 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels referred to the "capitalistic system"[29][30] and to the "capitalist mode of production" in Capital (1867).[31] The use of the word "capitalism" in reference to an economic system appears twice in Volume I of Capital, p. 124 (German edition) and in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx did not extensively use the form capitalism, but instead those of capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear more than 2,600 times in the trilogy The Capital."
Interesting how it was first used in a disparaging way but today is a relatively neutral term.
Did you find any figures or arguments in the original paper that I overlooked? Like, Chinese peasants, German peasants, etc.
That would be a highly creative way of summarising my post.
My problem with the paper was that it started what was supposed to be a historical research with a slogan-like claim that a particular ideology propagated it (literally the first sentence).
As in, there was no misunderstanding, no misinterpretation, or lack of evidence, but evil dudes came and lied to us all.
I countered that I witnessed firsthand how the competing ideology was "propagating" the same "myth", which, simply put, makes the author's assertion a sheer nonsense.
E.g. suppose I said "One of bowling's most enduring myths is that wearing a bowler's hat improves your score". Does this imply that a cabal of bowlers spread propaganda? Or simply that the myth exists within the bowling community.
But even if it were the case, the fact that the same idea was commonplace in the USSR means that it's not inherently connected to capitalism.
And, obviously, I am still wondering why people decided it was about capitalism vs. Communism.
However, you've concluded that because the author described a problem with capitalism but not the equivalent problem with communism, the author must be a marxist.
I generally dislike the word "capitalism" because (like the word "man") it's ambiguous. By capitalism do you mean Private Ownership? a market economy? deregulation? Laissez Faire? Regardless of its definition and etymology, people irl use it to signify different concepts. Which dilutes the semantics and relies on context to properly resolve. In the article, perhaps "capitalism's most durable myths" should have been replaced with "industrialized-societies' most durable myths". But nobody except you seems to have interpreted the article as having a political agenda against Private Ownership.
> we are asked to imagine
not by a cabal, but by "The implicit -- but rarely articulated -- assumption".
How? Why? Where?
I am merely saying that since the opposing ideology makes the same statement, the claim that it's a "myth of capitalism" makes no sense.
The moon landing can actually provide a great example. Take the "moon landing hoax" conspiracies. One of the first counter-claims is, if it were really a hoax, wouldn't the Soviets shout about it from the rooftops?
In our example, claiming that the American workers work more than Medieval serfs would be an excellent point for the Soviet propaganda. But since they didn't, and since in my school, the capitalism (otherwise hated) was taught as a step forward, the reduction of working hours clearly isn't a "capitalism's enduring myth".
My main issue, like I said many times by now, is why bring -isms to the study in the first place? Publish the figures, bring more sources from all over the world, make conclusions, THEN try to explain why it emerged. But no, that's not what the article says.
Seriously, does the word "Communism" work like a magic incantation that makes people ignore everything else?
>> we are asked to imagine
> not by a cabal, but by "The implicit -- but rarely articulated -- assumption".
Just read the article.
The article isn't bringing "-isms" or ideologies into the article. The article intended to contrast the Modern West's economic system [0] with the Feudal System. But you are interpreting the article to have contrasted Private Ownership with Public Ownership.
> the claim that it's a "myth of capitalism" makes no sense.
It makes sense under an interpretation you seem to have missed. Colloquially, "Capitalism" means different things under different contexts. Furthermore, it's possible to classify types of economies along boundaries other than Private Ownership vs Public Ownership. Analogously, there's more colors in the rainbow than just Red and Green. Attributing a property to Red doesn't necessarily attribute the opposite property to Green. Consider the possibility that your interpretation of the text was not the intended interpretation.
[0] which in reality is not a Free-Market Economy, but more accurately described as an Industrialized Mixed-Market Economy.
Peasants' work output were calorie-restricted. 11 hours backbreaking were the norm during harvest, but not in the less busier seasons. In the northern countries, snow and lack of sunlight made working impossible for several months per year. Instead, they ate very little food slept through most days.
> One of capitalism's most durable myths is that it has reduced human toil.
What about the Communism? Why would they spread this durable myth? Because I remember hearing the same story in the Soviet school.
The paper does not make a real effort trying to consider different evidence and honestly investigate the subject. Most of the sources are related to the UK (specifically, England) with a couple referring to the US in XIX century. How do we know how much the Dutch, German, French, Russian peasants worked, let alone those in the rice-growing Asia? Finally, how about trying to research 1600s and 1700s in North America to compare apples with apples?
Even in her own paper, the results appear a bit, ahem, uneven:
> 1988 - Manufacturing workers, U.K.: 1856 hours
> 1400-1600 - Farmer-miner, adult male, U.K.: 1980 hours > Calculated from Ian Blanchard's estimate of 180 days per year. Assumes 11-hour day
Yes, it's 180 days, but 11 hours each. Did she actually try working 11 hours on a backbreaking menial job? Does she actually believe that 11 hours being a miner in 1500s is the same as 11 hours in the office or even a modern assembly line?