At its founding, New Lanark seems to offer a vast improvement for workers over contemporary industrial enterprises, but I wonder if in practice this kindly-intended paternalistic model quickly morphed to its evil, oppressive twin? Such a transformation is, after all, a common outcome of good intentions wedded to big plans. Are contemporary accounts able to throw light on this question – or were the workers too scared to say?
A second thought: I am not sure that your comparison between the 19th century industrial capitalists and our 21st century klepto-parasitic overlords is valid. Dale and Owen (and like-minded other British entrepreneurs) share a common ethnicity and cultural outlook with their workers, and through this (for want of a better term!) ‘blood and soil’ link had an organic concern for their ‘inferiors’ welfare (even if this was to be expressed as pity and tough love). In contrast, I do not believe this is the case at all with their modern equivalents, whose true heart is located far from our shores and who actually hate us to death.
Yes, I suppose there was a lot more shared connections between men like Dale and Owen, who rose from poverty, with the workers and even with the upper class mill owners, than today's globe-trotting elite whose only connection with other classes of people are with their servants or security guards, and whose culture is transnational, eclectic or another, unconnected to the land and people.
I'm not too sure how New Lanark developed after Owen left. It seemed to be a case of extended decline, but by Owen's departure many improvements had been written into statute so it would not have been as horrific as the early days of the industrial revolution.
Very interesting, thanks.
At its founding, New Lanark seems to offer a vast improvement for workers over contemporary industrial enterprises, but I wonder if in practice this kindly-intended paternalistic model quickly morphed to its evil, oppressive twin? Such a transformation is, after all, a common outcome of good intentions wedded to big plans. Are contemporary accounts able to throw light on this question – or were the workers too scared to say?
A second thought: I am not sure that your comparison between the 19th century industrial capitalists and our 21st century klepto-parasitic overlords is valid. Dale and Owen (and like-minded other British entrepreneurs) share a common ethnicity and cultural outlook with their workers, and through this (for want of a better term!) ‘blood and soil’ link had an organic concern for their ‘inferiors’ welfare (even if this was to be expressed as pity and tough love). In contrast, I do not believe this is the case at all with their modern equivalents, whose true heart is located far from our shores and who actually hate us to death.
Yes, I suppose there was a lot more shared connections between men like Dale and Owen, who rose from poverty, with the workers and even with the upper class mill owners, than today's globe-trotting elite whose only connection with other classes of people are with their servants or security guards, and whose culture is transnational, eclectic or another, unconnected to the land and people.
I'm not too sure how New Lanark developed after Owen left. It seemed to be a case of extended decline, but by Owen's departure many improvements had been written into statute so it would not have been as horrific as the early days of the industrial revolution.