Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

guygeneric t1_irakfmo wrote

That is a very simplistic understanding of the labor history of the US and UK. Social progress wasn't made "because our governments hit the factory and mine owners like a ton of bricks". Those governments have historically been on the side of the companies, usually just acting straight-up as tools and weapons for the capitalists. It wasn't until the working class in those countries became highly organized and militant, and threatened revolutionary action against both the government and the capitalists (backed up by the successful example of the Russian revolution) that critical segments of the political and economic leadership decided it was better to make concessions than to risk being overthrown.

5

MageLocusta t1_irbbo62 wrote

You know what? You're right--it really is very simplistic.

We have tried the 'soft touch' with past factories and mines (especially by trying to impose factory inspectors--which the UK had deliberately screwed up with their 1833 Factory Act where they only hired four factory inspectors to inspect the entire country's factories). But sadly it wasn't just us campaigning and protesting--it was also the government (moral) panic of realising that children were becoming completely ignorant of religion because of lack of schooling (and apparently also women becoming 'loose' from working in mines and factories). But it truly did take a long time for this to even happen, which is definitely why I personally don't feel confident that replacing jobs with robots would create any social progress. Because weaving machines sure as hell didn't.

3