That "Self Help" stuff was some real BS. The English elite didn't give the workers the right to vote because the workers rehabilitated themselves into something more respectable, they gave them the right to vote because they were afraid that the English laborers might join forces with the Irish against the British nobility. They gave English workers the right to vote in an effort to save themselves by driving a wedge between the English working poor and the Irish working poor. Basically, the English working poor only got the right to vote because the English elite were so afraid of the Irish. Of course, the violence in France also did wonders by providing the English Aristocracy with a glimpse of what they could expect if they made their working class too angry.
its interesting, there appears to be a change after 1842 and certainly in the textile towns following the cotton famine of the 60's. A new generation with a different outlook. as one prime minister not too long ago said;' education, education, education.' With the growth of industry the workforce had to be educated en mass. Engineers need to write, calculate. Clerks need to write and collate, overseers need to write reports ect. However, education works in different ways. whilst you are educating working class children to a basic academic level, there is the opportunity to educate them in what values they must possess, It;s called social engineering. You only need one generation to begin to make a difference as the old one passes away. You cant entirely change the thinking of a nation but you can do it enough to engineer the status quo
I quite like this series and support its interpretation of history and politics as a series of class struggles however the idea that Parliament only gave the working class the vote because they became more respectable is wrong and a very problematic, elitist argument as it implies the poor were too uncivilised to deserve the vote. And the self help idea has some truth in it but I think this video has wrongly interpreted what it meant. The truth is that in the 1830s and 1840s, the poor in Britain, after having so long been neglected and oppressed by Parliament, wanted to take control of it so they could be looked after by it rather than be oppressed by it. But they found themselves unable to take control of Parliament via reform or via revolution - both tactics used by the Chartists which failed. So in the 1850s and 1860s, the poor started to organise themselves and create their own organisations and institutions like housing co-ops so their needs were looked after by their own societies and they became dependent on each other rather than the elites in Parliament or business. This increasing autonomy amongst the poor meant that they were soon realising that they didn’t need the elites to look after them or provide employment. Of course the elites also realised this and feared it because it would lead to the loss of their power. So Parliament introduced the 1867 Reform Act so the poor could vote and become more involved in the Parliamentary process and the capitalist economy. As a result, the poor became increasingly reliant on the elites in Parliament to changes things and help them, and on business owners to provide employment rather than their own institutions (which declined), both reducing their autonomy. This led to the rise of working class Liberal voters and later the creation of the Labour Party and a Parliamentary welfare state, all based on an idea of change via ‘good’ elites in Parliament. The Reform Act also purposefully created a divide between skilled and unskilled workers and, as another commenter has said, created a divided between British and Irish workers. So even though the Reform Act led to better conditions for the poor, it still kept power amongst the elites and away from the poor. Also when I’m talking about the poor being autonomous, I’m not trying to repeat conservative and elitist arguments about the poor being too dependent on benefits or saying they need to ‘pull themselves up by their bootstraps’. These arguments are often about blaming the poor for being poor by calling them lazy instead of blaming the system that makes and keeps them poor. Rather autonomy is about the poor looking after and being dependent on each other rather than dependent on elites. Of course things have changed and a Parliamentary welfare state is still a good, but limited, way of increasing the power and autonomy of poor people.
Total propaganda, truth mixed with lies and a false conclusion, typical, this is why I threw out my TV years ago. If I want the truth I won't find it from a TV set, the TV was put in every household for a reason and that reason wasn't entertainment. You couldn't get a loan for a washing machine back in the day but you could rent a TV on the cheap, that should have told us something but we were too trusting of authority, which we were taught in school, always trust authority and fear it for it has your best interest at heart.
That "Self Help" stuff was some real BS. The English elite didn't give the workers the right to vote because the workers rehabilitated themselves into something more respectable, they gave them the right to vote because they were afraid that the English laborers might join forces with the Irish against the British nobility. They gave English workers the right to vote in an effort to save themselves by driving a wedge between the English working poor and the Irish working poor. Basically, the English working poor only got the right to vote because the English elite were so afraid of the Irish.
Of course, the violence in France also did wonders by providing the English Aristocracy with a glimpse of what they could expect if they made their working class too angry.
its interesting, there appears to be a change after 1842 and certainly in the textile towns following the cotton famine of the 60's. A new generation with a different outlook. as one prime minister not too long ago said;' education, education, education.' With the growth of industry the workforce had to be educated en mass. Engineers need to write, calculate. Clerks need to write and collate, overseers need to write reports ect. However, education works in different ways. whilst you are educating working class children to a basic academic level, there is the opportunity to educate them in what values they must possess, It;s called social engineering. You only need one generation to begin to make a difference as the old one passes away. You cant entirely change the thinking of a nation but you can do it enough to engineer the status quo
6:58 I see a threatening mob. Those are terrifying
I quite like this series and support its interpretation of history and politics as a series of class struggles however the idea that Parliament only gave the working class the vote because they became more respectable is wrong and a very problematic, elitist argument as it implies the poor were too uncivilised to deserve the vote. And the self help idea has some truth in it but I think this video has wrongly interpreted what it meant.
The truth is that in the 1830s and 1840s, the poor in Britain, after having so long been neglected and oppressed by Parliament, wanted to take control of it so they could be looked after by it rather than be oppressed by it. But they found themselves unable to take control of Parliament via reform or via revolution - both tactics used by the Chartists which failed. So in the 1850s and 1860s, the poor started to organise themselves and create their own organisations and institutions like housing co-ops so their needs were looked after by their own societies and they became dependent on each other rather than the elites in Parliament or business. This increasing autonomy amongst the poor meant that they were soon realising that they didn’t need the elites to look after them or provide employment. Of course the elites also realised this and feared it because it would lead to the loss of their power. So Parliament introduced the 1867 Reform Act so the poor could vote and become more involved in the Parliamentary process and the capitalist economy. As a result, the poor became increasingly reliant on the elites in Parliament to changes things and help them, and on business owners to provide employment rather than their own institutions (which declined), both reducing their autonomy. This led to the rise of working class Liberal voters and later the creation of the Labour Party and a Parliamentary welfare state, all based on an idea of change via ‘good’ elites in Parliament.
The Reform Act also purposefully created a divide between skilled and unskilled workers and, as another commenter has said, created a divided between British and Irish workers.
So even though the Reform Act led to better conditions for the poor, it still kept power amongst the elites and away from the poor.
Also when I’m talking about the poor being autonomous, I’m not trying to repeat conservative and elitist arguments about the poor being too dependent on benefits or saying they need to ‘pull themselves up by their bootstraps’. These arguments are often about blaming the poor for being poor by calling them lazy instead of blaming the system that makes and keeps them poor. Rather autonomy is about the poor looking after and being dependent on each other rather than dependent on elites. Of course things have changed and a Parliamentary welfare state is still a good, but limited, way of increasing the power and autonomy of poor people.
The first Bernie Sanders.
quite inaccurate
Total propaganda, truth mixed with lies and a false conclusion, typical, this is why I threw out my TV years ago. If I want the truth I won't find it from a TV set, the TV was put in every household for a reason and that reason wasn't entertainment. You couldn't get a loan for a washing machine back in the day but you could rent a TV on the cheap, that should have told us something but we were too trusting of authority, which we were taught in school, always trust authority and fear it for it has your best interest at heart.
wow thank you most informative.
Lol what bullshit