Neoliberalism Has Poisoned Our Minds, Study Finds

[bilby]

Irish agriculture had utterly failed to modernize. Not only did many Irish pay for this with their lives, but it also cost the country any chance of independence in a year when there was otherwise a tremendous amount of political energy toward nationalist movements in that particular year.

You say this as though the Irish had some degree of choice or influence in the matter.

Irish agriculture was whatever English landlords told the Irish it was going to be. Modernisation had happened, to a degree, with regard to the raising of wheat, barley and other cereal grains, by English landowners, for export to (mostly) England. Irish farm workers were not permitted access to this produce, however; They fed themselves from the land not wanted or used by their employers, which was unwanted specifically because it was unfit for growing grain - the only food crop able to to be grown on such marginal land was potatoes, so they grew those. Not because they didn't want to grow something else, but because nothing else would grow well.

Indeed, the modernisation of Irish agriculture had already significantly reduced the number of low-skilled labourers required by the English landlords, and the Irish people had become a liability, rather than an asset; The opportunity to remove them from the land (freeing up more land for profitable uses) by shipping them off to America, was a godsend for these landowners.

Like the similar Highland Clearances (that by this time had been routine for almost a century, and were winding down simply because there was almost nobody left to evict), the removal of excess Irish peasants so that English landlords (many of whom had never set foot in the country) could make even more money from modern agriculture was welcomed. If the peasants went to America, or if they simply died, was of little concern, as long as they weren't still around.

The Irish produced plenty of food throughout the famine. But they didn't own that food, and couldn't afford to buy it, so they starved to death.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Irish agriculture had utterly failed to modernize. Not only did many Irish pay for this with their lives, but it also cost the country any chance of independence in a year when there was otherwise a tremendous amount of political energy toward nationalist movements in that particular year.

You say this as though the Irish had some degree of choice or influence in the matter.

Irish agriculture was whatever English landlords told the Irish it was going to be. Modernisation had happened, to a degree, with regard to the raising of wheat, barley and other cereal grains, by English landowners, for export to (mostly) England. Irish farm workers were not permitted access to this produce, however; They fed themselves from the land not wanted or used by their employers, which was unwanted specifically because it was unfit for growing grain - the only food crop able to to be grown on such marginal land was potatoes, so they grew those. Not because they didn't want to grow something else, but because nothing else would grow well.

Indeed, the modernisation of Irish agriculture had already significantly reduced the number of low-skilled labourers required by the English landlords, and the Irish people had become a liability, rather than an asset; The opportunity to remove them from the land (freeing up more land for profitable uses) by shipping them off to America, was a godsend for these landowners.

Like the similar Highland Clearances (that by this time had been routine for almost a century, and were winding down simply because there was almost nobody left to evict), the removal of excess Irish peasants so that English landlords (many of whom had never set foot in the country) could make even more money from modern agriculture was welcomed. If the peasants went to America, or if they simply died, was of little concern, as long as they weren't still around.

The Irish produced plenty of food throughout the famine. But they didn't own that food, and couldn't afford to buy it, so they starved to death.

Would you say it was sort of comparable to the Holodomor?

Edit: I decided to look up an opinion on that thought. Apparently, at least this writer disagrees with the comparison.

Conflating the Irish Famine with Ukraine’s Holodomor misleading and unhelpful

The Ukrainian famine was state terror; in Ireland the British state tried - even if badly - to alleviate a massive failure of the food supply

www.irishtimes.com

According to you, though, the British government nevertheless seemed to be complicit in the causes and definitely reaped a benefit by clearing out many indigenous Irish.

 

[bilby]

Irish agriculture had utterly failed to modernize. Not only did many Irish pay for this with their lives, but it also cost the country any chance of independence in a year when there was otherwise a tremendous amount of political energy toward nationalist movements in that particular year.

You say this as though the Irish had some degree of choice or influence in the matter.

Irish agriculture was whatever English landlords told the Irish it was going to be. Modernisation had happened, to a degree, with regard to the raising of wheat, barley and other cereal grains, by English landowners, for export to (mostly) England. Irish farm workers were not permitted access to this produce, however; They fed themselves from the land not wanted or used by their employers, which was unwanted specifically because it was unfit for growing grain - the only food crop able to to be grown on such marginal land was potatoes, so they grew those. Not because they didn't want to grow something else, but because nothing else would grow well.

Indeed, the modernisation of Irish agriculture had already significantly reduced the number of low-skilled labourers required by the English landlords, and the Irish people had become a liability, rather than an asset; The opportunity to remove them from the land (freeing up more land for profitable uses) by shipping them off to America, was a godsend for these landowners.

Like the similar Highland Clearances (that by this time had been routine for almost a century, and were winding down simply because there was almost nobody left to evict), the removal of excess Irish peasants so that English landlords (many of whom had never set foot in the country) could make even more money from modern agriculture was welcomed. If the peasants went to America, or if they simply died, was of little concern, as long as they weren't still around.

The Irish produced plenty of food throughout the famine. But they didn't own that food, and couldn't afford to buy it, so they starved to death.

Would you say it was sort of comparable to the Holodomor?

In many ways, yes. Though the motive appears to have been disinterest in the fate of the Irish, while Stalin appears to have been more deliberately cruel to Ukraine.

The Irish famiine was a liberal free market famine; The food produced on the island of Ireland was sold to the highest bidder, and the free market left to find the optimum distribution of the resources - which turned out not to include distributing food to people with no money and few prospects. There was never anything preventing starving Irish peasants from buying some of the grain with their own money, but they had no money, and would be hanged if they stole either money or food.

The Holodomor was the same thing, but centrally planned; Send the grain to Moscow, or get shot.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Irish agriculture had utterly failed to modernize. Not only did many Irish pay for this with their lives, but it also cost the country any chance of independence in a year when there was otherwise a tremendous amount of political energy toward nationalist movements in that particular year.

You say this as though the Irish had some degree of choice or influence in the matter.

Irish agriculture was whatever English landlords told the Irish it was going to be. Modernisation had happened, to a degree, with regard to the raising of wheat, barley and other cereal grains, by English landowners, for export to (mostly) England. Irish farm workers were not permitted access to this produce, however; They fed themselves from the land not wanted or used by their employers, which was unwanted specifically because it was unfit for growing grain - the only food crop able to to be grown on such marginal land was potatoes, so they grew those. Not because they didn't want to grow something else, but because nothing else would grow well.

Indeed, the modernisation of Irish agriculture had already significantly reduced the number of low-skilled labourers required by the English landlords, and the Irish people had become a liability, rather than an asset; The opportunity to remove them from the land (freeing up more land for profitable uses) by shipping them off to America, was a godsend for these landowners.

Like the similar Highland Clearances (that by this time had been routine for almost a century, and were winding down simply because there was almost nobody left to evict), the removal of excess Irish peasants so that English landlords (many of whom had never set foot in the country) could make even more money from modern agriculture was welcomed. If the peasants went to America, or if they simply died, was of little concern, as long as they weren't still around.

The Irish produced plenty of food throughout the famine. But they didn't own that food, and couldn't afford to buy it, so they starved to death.

Would you say it was sort of comparable to the Holodomor?

In many ways, yes. Though the motive appears to have been disinterest in the fate of the Irish, while Stalin appears to have been more deliberately cruel to Ukraine.

The Irish famiine was a liberal free market famine; The food produced on the island of Ireland was sold to the highest bidder, and the free market left to find the optimum distribution of the resources - which turned out not to include distributing food to people with no money and few prospects. There was never anything preventing starving Irish peasants from buying some of the grain with their own money, but they had no money, and would be hanged if they stole either money or food.

The Holodomor was the same thing, but centrally planned; Send the grain to Moscow, or get shot.

I see, so where the Irish famine was, to a large extent, a product of carelessness, the Holodomor was definitely more sinister.

However, Palmerton had many surprisingly liberal ideas. Do you think that the Irish famine would have gone differently if a strong anti-Irish, anti-Catholic Tory government had remained firmly entrenched in lieu of the more liberal Palmerton having a period in power? I do strongly feel that Palmerton's influence might have been a part of why any sort of aid at all was given to the Irish. I suspect that a Tory government would have done nothing at all to help relocate those people, and they would have dealt with the inevitable revolution via outright genocide.

 

[bilby]

Irish agriculture had utterly failed to modernize. Not only did many Irish pay for this with their lives, but it also cost the country any chance of independence in a year when there was otherwise a tremendous amount of political energy toward nationalist movements in that particular year.

You say this as though the Irish had some degree of choice or influence in the matter.

Irish agriculture was whatever English landlords told the Irish it was going to be. Modernisation had happened, to a degree, with regard to the raising of wheat, barley and other cereal grains, by English landowners, for export to (mostly) England. Irish farm workers were not permitted access to this produce, however; They fed themselves from the land not wanted or used by their employers, which was unwanted specifically because it was unfit for growing grain - the only food crop able to to be grown on such marginal land was potatoes, so they grew those. Not because they didn't want to grow something else, but because nothing else would grow well.

Indeed, the modernisation of Irish agriculture had already significantly reduced the number of low-skilled labourers required by the English landlords, and the Irish people had become a liability, rather than an asset; The opportunity to remove them from the land (freeing up more land for profitable uses) by shipping them off to America, was a godsend for these landowners.

Like the similar Highland Clearances (that by this time had been routine for almost a century, and were winding down simply because there was almost nobody left to evict), the removal of excess Irish peasants so that English landlords (many of whom had never set foot in the country) could make even more money from modern agriculture was welcomed. If the peasants went to America, or if they simply died, was of little concern, as long as they weren't still around.

The Irish produced plenty of food throughout the famine. But they didn't own that food, and couldn't afford to buy it, so they starved to death.

Would you say it was sort of comparable to the Holodomor?

In many ways, yes. Though the motive appears to have been disinterest in the fate of the Irish, while Stalin appears to have been more deliberately cruel to Ukraine.

The Irish famiine was a liberal free market famine; The food produced on the island of Ireland was sold to the highest bidder, and the free market left to find the optimum distribution of the resources - which turned out not to include distributing food to people with no money and few prospects. There was never anything preventing starving Irish peasants from buying some of the grain with their own money, but they had no money, and would be hanged if they stole either money or food.

The Holodomor was the same thing, but centrally planned; Send the grain to Moscow, or get shot.

I see, so where the Irish famine was, to a large extent, a product of carelessness, the Holodomor was definitely more sinister.

However, Palmerton had many surprisingly liberal ideas. Do you think that the Irish famine would have gone differently if a strong anti-Irish, anti-Catholic Tory government had remained firmly entrenched in lieu of the more liberal Palmerton having a period in power? I do strongly feel that Palmerton's influence might have been a part of why any sort of aid at all was given to the Irish. I suspect that a Tory government would have done nothing at all to help relocate those people, and they would have dealt with the inevitable revolution via outright genocide.

Well obviously it's impossible to know what might have happened in an alternative history, but certainly that would be consistent with what I know of the Tories.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Well, my way of thinking is that the next 25 years could go one of two ways:

We could have an American version of Palmerton, who would--no matter how imperfectly--pursue a "national unity" version of liberalism. This was Palmerton's approach, and it was brilliant. I would compare it vaguely with Teddy Roosevelt's nationalistic yet progressive ideas, which Teddy Roosevelt called "New Nationalism." This would successfully win over people that would otherwise follow someone like Donald Trump by appealing to the underlying jingoism in their motives, but regardless of the unsavory aspects of this scenario, it would succeed at unifying the country. This would usher in a period similar to the Progressive Era.​

​

On the other hand, we could end up with a situation similar to what happened in France. I consider this to be less likely but also possible. We could end up with a despot not unlike Trump. Let us imagine that, for women's rights and for LGBTQ rights, shit went completely sideways for an entire generation. The Republicans entrenched themselves deeply and seemingly permanently in power. We had an authoritarian government similar to that of Vladimir Putin, democratic on paper but undeniably rigged as hell. Criticism of that government were being treated as a crime and "fake news." The parents of transgender kids were routinely sentenced to ten year prison terms if they so much as called their kid by the right pronoun. Abortion doctors were executed every Friday at sundown before gloating mobs of conservative evangelicals. And Franklin Graham were as happy as a pig in shit. It is a possible future. Also, the monarchy in France was actually gleefully confident, during this time period, that they could never possibly be deposed, and they actually would have laughed hysterically at the concept that something like 1848 could possibly happen. The revolution, by the time it happened, was long-overdue.​

​

*snaps her tail irritably at the thought*​

​

I do not like revolutions. They lack elegance.​

​

To guide us into the first version, which I think of as the Palmertonian version, we would need a movement, among the Democrats, that embraced a sort of progressive nationalism, sort of like Theodore Roosevelt's idea of "New Nationalism" or like the very very very pro-British liberalism of Palmerton. We could do it as long as we made peace with the fact that the only way that you can really control people like white nationalists is to give them the idea that their country's very diversity and progressive culture is a part of what makes their country so much better than others. It can be done, in my opinion.​

​

It is not utterly deterministic, and it is not utterly random. There are different paths you can go by, but you cannot just choose a random vision and expect that vision to be the result. You have to choose between what is possible and what is also possible. It is very much like the economy. You can steer it, to an extent, but to an extent, it also has a mind of its own and often rebels against any attempt to control it.​

 

[Bomb#20]

The Irish famiine was a liberal free market famine;

Oh for the love of god. The 19th-century famine happened because the 16th- and 17th- and 18th-century British governments stole the Irish people's land! You might as well call the Mafia "a liberal free market".

 

[Bomb#20]

Palmerton negated the need for a revolution in the United Kingdom. Besides, if Prince Albert had not talked the queen out of attempting to dismiss him, then there might have been a real revolution in the United Kingdom. The fact that Prince Albert was so determined to encourage a lawful outlook on the limits of constitutional democracy has successfully led to the United Kingdom becoming one of the most stable constitutional monarchies in human history.

I think you're overestimating Victoria's power. Parliament settled its right to fire a king in 1690, and royal authority declined steadily all through the 1700s. I don't think any member of the House of Hanover ever vetoed a single Act of Parliament. If Victoria had made any serious effort to control public policy Parliament would have just ignored her and done what they were going to do anyway, and somehow managed to be exceedingly respectful about it.

C) Palmerton was really a very influential liberal politician. In fact, he was literally the first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that represented the Liberal Party. In a way, the rise of the Liberal Party was really a sort of political revolution in its own right. They overthrew the domination of the Whigs vs. the Tories and introduced a whole new era in British politics. To say that Palmerton's leadership in the newly formed Liberal Party did not make him, in a way, a revolutionary would set one up as having a profoundly narrow-minded idea of what constitutes a revolution. The fact that the Whigs and the Tories were both overthrown was a big deal. Even though this occurred only 11 years after the Spring of nations, it still represents a major change, in British politics, that happened during the time-period.

That's a weird way to look at it. The Liberal Party was the Whig Party, renamed, and reinforced with disaffected Tories. Palmerston was the Whigs' foreign secretary in 1848 and through most of the period leading up to it.

 

[bilby]

According to you, though, the British government nevertheless seemed to be complicit in the causes and definitely reaped a benefit by clearing out many indigenous Irish.

The English landlords, many of whom were also a part of the British Government insofar as they had seats in parliament, were certainly complicit in the causes, and likely also reaped a benefit; But the British Government itself did neither.

The Irish Famine was a negligent homicide, as opposed to the premeditated murder of the Holodomor. Nobody wanted Irish peasants to die, but then, nobody wanted their Irish land holdings to generate lower profits, either.

The point was that few of those in a position to choose between lives and profits felt any inclination to prioritise the former over the latter.

 

[bilby]

The Irish famiine was a liberal free market famine;

Oh for the love of god. The 19th-century famine happened because the 16th- and 17th- and 18th-century British governments stole the Irish people's land! You might as well call the Mafia "a liberal free market".

You might as well call the modern US economy an organised crime gang. It's based on the theft, between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, of Native American land.

The fact was that a bunch of peasants were the tenants of a bunch of mostly absentee landlords, and that having had their ancestors establish this situation (by fair means or foul; mostly foul) the rule of law, respect for property ownerhip, and liberal free market principles meant that the Irish starved because they had made the dreadful social faux pas of being born to poor families, and not rich ones.

Much as African Americans today are not direct victims of slavery, nor White Americans today slaveholders, so the Irish peasants of the 1840s were not victims of theft, nor their landlords perpetrators thereof.

All of the principles of liberal democracy were in play. Nobody was stealing anything from anyone. Of course, people's grandparents had been the victims (or perpetrators) of an astonishing and bald-faced theft on a grand scale. But that's been true in every economy in history, and is certainly just as true in today's liberal democracies as it was in the UK of the 1840s.

That most of the capital and real estate would be in the hands of the descendants of those who stole it is so obvious and unremarkable that I didn't bother to mention it.

It changes nothing about the fact that liberal free market economics did (and does) nothing to prevent people from starving to death if they lack both cash and assets.

 

[DBT]

Tis a strange world we live in.....

 

[SigmatheZeta]

According to you, though, the British government nevertheless seemed to be complicit in the causes and definitely reaped a benefit by clearing out many indigenous Irish.

The English landlords, many of whom were also a part of the British Government insofar as they had seats in parliament, were certainly complicit in the causes, and likely also reaped a benefit; But the British Government itself did neither.

The Irish Famine was a negligent homicide, as opposed to the premeditated murder of the Holodomor. Nobody wanted Irish peasants to die, but then, nobody wanted their Irish land holdings to generate lower profits, either.

The point was that few of those in a position to choose between lives and profits felt any inclination to prioritise the former over the latter.

It makes a tremendous amount of sense that the Irish eventually did form an independent state, rather than staying with a government that had treated them in that way.

 

[Bomb#20]

The Irish famiine was a liberal free market famine;

Oh for the love of god. The 19th-century famine happened because the 16th- and 17th- and 18th-century British governments stole the Irish people's land! You might as well call the Mafia "a liberal free market".

You might as well call the modern US economy an organised crime gang. It's based on the theft, between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, of Native American land.
... All of the principles of liberal democracy were in play. ...

In the first place, the analogy to the U.S. is pretty poor -- you've got the tail wagging the dog. Agriculture is about 0.6% of the U.S. economy. Americans have alternatives to living by farming; 1848 Irishmen typically didn't.

In the second place, no, the principles of liberal democracy weren't in play. Only about 10% of the adult population had the vote.

And in the third place, there was no free market. The Corn Laws keeping food prices artificially high weren't repealed until 1849. They were repealed in order to relieve the famine.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Palmerton negated the need for a revolution in the United Kingdom. Besides, if Prince Albert had not talked the queen out of attempting to dismiss him, then there might have been a real revolution in the United Kingdom. The fact that Prince Albert was so determined to encourage a lawful outlook on the limits of constitutional democracy has successfully led to the United Kingdom becoming one of the most stable constitutional monarchies in human history.

I think you're overestimating Victoria's power. Parliament settled its right to fire a king in 1690, and royal authority declined steadily all through the 1700s. I don't think any member of the House of Hanover ever vetoed a single Act of Parliament. If Victoria had made any serious effort to control public policy Parliament would have just ignored her and done what they were going to do anyway, and somehow managed to be exceedingly respectful about it.

*twists her head around sideways* Like I said, Prince Albert was firm on pointing out exactly that. In fact, my opinion is that Prince Albert probably did more, to restore the reputation of the royal family, than any reigning monarch ever did. I think there is widespread agreement that Prince Albert was a talented statesman.

C) Palmerton was really a very influential liberal politician. In fact, he was literally the first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that represented the Liberal Party. In a way, the rise of the Liberal Party was really a sort of political revolution in its own right. They overthrew the domination of the Whigs vs. the Tories and introduced a whole new era in British politics. To say that Palmerton's leadership in the newly formed Liberal Party did not make him, in a way, a revolutionary would set one up as having a profoundly narrow-minded idea of what constitutes a revolution. The fact that the Whigs and the Tories were both overthrown was a big deal. Even though this occurred only 11 years after the Spring of nations, it still represents a major change, in British politics, that happened during the time-period.

That's a weird way to look at it. The Liberal Party was the Whig Party, renamed, and reinforced with disaffected Tories. Palmerston was the Whigs' foreign secretary in 1848 and through most of the period leading up to it.

British politics acclimated to the changing times. To claim that successfully weathering such change constitutes evidence of an absence of change would be folly. There is just no argument to be made on the subject. The mid-19th Century was a period of social change that affected much of the European continent, and the fact that the British government succeeded at preserving their monarchy is an encomium to both talented statesmanship and to pure dumb luck.

*snaps her tail for attention*

Heed me. It is equally imperative to dissect a success as it is to dissect a failure. You can take that to the bank.

The formation of the Liberal Party, in the United Kingdom, constituted a very critical political alliance between the free trade-supporting Peelites, the previously politically excluded radicals, and the Whigs. This could have gone very differently, and the outcomes would have been very different. Letting the radicals form a part of a large political alliance, rather than continuing the previous pattern of the suppression and silencing of that political faction, was a historic decision in the history of British politics.

Over the next 20-25 years, I feel very certain that the political pressures behind both Trumpism and the Black Lives Matter movement are going to continue to mount, and this is going to be happening as we approach a historic milestone, in American history, at which we will cease to be a "white majority" nation. Those political pressures are not going to go away.

The concept of statesmanship is an important one. You do not have to be a politician in an elected office in order to practice it, actually, but it is particularly important for people in positions of power to practice it. Someone is not a statesman only because they hold a position of power. To say that someone is a "statesman" is very abstract, and it is like saying that someone is a "good person." When we say that someone is a "statesman," we mean that that person has done something important to preserve the stability and the best interests of the state. It implies having acted with wisdom and foresight. Quibble over specific definitions if you choose. I believe that I have defined it closely enough.

We are going to need talented statesmanship in the years to come, and this must occur, in my opinion, at all levels of society, even in the discussions that might occur on a small secular humanist discussion board.

In years to come, it will be important to work out a political alliance between otherwise disparate and contentious groups in our society. The alternative could turn out to be a more serious decline into barbarity that could result in a revolutionary sort of climate, and while there can sometimes be good outcomes to a revolution, I again insist that I do not like revolutions because revolutions are messy affairs and an utter insult to elegance.

I believe that we can do it, and we will do it. It will not be only because of the statesmanship that we practice on this small secular humanist discussion board, but it will be because of similar discussions that are being had in many other places. Other conversations like this one are occurring in bars, at local book clubs, and in classrooms. It is not happening here alone, but it is happening all over he country. None of them alone can do it, but all of them together can.

New political alliances must form over the generation to come, and I believe that we can make them occur if we let ourselves be informed by history in how we bring those alliances together.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In many ways, yes. Though the motive appears to have been disinterest in the fate of the Irish, while Stalin appears to have been more deliberately cruel to Ukraine.

The Irish famiine was a liberal free market famine; The food produced on the island of Ireland was sold to the highest bidder, and the free market left to find the optimum distribution of the resources - which turned out not to include distributing food to people with no money and few prospects. There was never anything preventing starving Irish peasants from buying some of the grain with their own money, but they had no money, and would be hanged if they stole either money or food.

The Holodomor was the same thing, but centrally planned; Send the grain to Moscow, or get shot.

I see, so where the Irish famine was, to a large extent, a product of carelessness, the Holodomor was definitely more sinister.

However, Palmerton had many surprisingly liberal ideas. Do you think that the Irish famine would have gone differently if a strong anti-Irish, anti-Catholic Tory government had remained firmly entrenched in lieu of the more liberal Palmerton having a period in power? I do strongly feel that Palmerton's influence might have been a part of why any sort of aid at all was given to the Irish. I suspect that a Tory government would have done nothing at all to help relocate those people, and they would have dealt with the inevitable revolution via outright genocide.

I wouldn't even say carelessness--nobody did stupid things to cause it. Rather, it was a market failure--the potato problems drove the cost of food above poverty wages and the state did not adequately step in to alleviate the problem. Note, however, that this was before the state was expected to step in in situations like that, we should not be applying modern standards.

 

[Jarhyn]

In many ways, yes. Though the motive appears to have been disinterest in the fate of the Irish, while Stalin appears to have been more deliberately cruel to Ukraine.

The Irish famiine was a liberal free market famine; The food produced on the island of Ireland was sold to the highest bidder, and the free market left to find the optimum distribution of the resources - which turned out not to include distributing food to people with no money and few prospects. There was never anything preventing starving Irish peasants from buying some of the grain with their own money, but they had no money, and would be hanged if they stole either money or food.

The Holodomor was the same thing, but centrally planned; Send the grain to Moscow, or get shot.

I see, so where the Irish famine was, to a large extent, a product of carelessness, the Holodomor was definitely more sinister.

However, Palmerton had many surprisingly liberal ideas. Do you think that the Irish famine would have gone differently if a strong anti-Irish, anti-Catholic Tory government had remained firmly entrenched in lieu of the more liberal Palmerton having a period in power? I do strongly feel that Palmerton's influence might have been a part of why any sort of aid at all was given to the Irish. I suspect that a Tory government would have done nothing at all to help relocate those people, and they would have dealt with the inevitable revolution via outright genocide.

I wouldn't even say carelessness--nobody did stupid things to cause it. Rather, it was a market failure--the potato problems drove the cost of food above poverty wages and the state did not adequately step in to alleviate the problem. Note, however, that this was before the state was expected to step in in situations like that, we should not be applying modern standards.

Are you kidding? Looking at the problems of the past and applying present standards is how you avoid the problems of the past repeating in the present.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

In many ways, yes. Though the motive appears to have been disinterest in the fate of the Irish, while Stalin appears to have been more deliberately cruel to Ukraine.

The Irish famiine was a liberal free market famine; The food produced on the island of Ireland was sold to the highest bidder, and the free market left to find the optimum distribution of the resources - which turned out not to include distributing food to people with no money and few prospects. There was never anything preventing starving Irish peasants from buying some of the grain with their own money, but they had no money, and would be hanged if they stole either money or food.

The Holodomor was the same thing, but centrally planned; Send the grain to Moscow, or get shot.

I see, so where the Irish famine was, to a large extent, a product of carelessness, the Holodomor was definitely more sinister.

However, Palmerton had many surprisingly liberal ideas. Do you think that the Irish famine would have gone differently if a strong anti-Irish, anti-Catholic Tory government had remained firmly entrenched in lieu of the more liberal Palmerton having a period in power? I do strongly feel that Palmerton's influence might have been a part of why any sort of aid at all was given to the Irish. I suspect that a Tory government would have done nothing at all to help relocate those people, and they would have dealt with the inevitable revolution via outright genocide.

I wouldn't even say carelessness--nobody did stupid things to cause it. Rather, it was a market failure--the potato problems drove the cost of food above poverty wages and the state did not adequately step in to alleviate the problem. Note, however, that this was before the state was expected to step in in situations like that, we should not be applying modern standards.

You mean you are not aware of how the corn laws worked?

@bilby, would you help me with this one?