That’s only in capitalism. If the labourers owned the thresher it would mean they would spend less time threshing and could choose what to do with the newly freed time.
A nice thought, but generally the answer to “what we do with the newly freed time” has been “expand production until we no longer have free time”.
If peasant farmers get a piece of technology that lets them thresh wheat twice as fast, they’ll plant twice as many acres in wheat - because being able to grow more wheat makes you more secure in times of famine, and gives you a surplus to sell or trade for nice stuff, and everybody likes nice stuff and nobody likes starving.
And the surplus production goes to feeding more children, selling to bring in more resources, and so on.
But then in a few generations you have the same standard of living as before the thresher - except with more people, because your village population has expanded to the limits of your food supply, and with more environmental destruction, because you clear-cut forests to expand your fields. And the advanced technology is no longer a convenience, but a necessity, because going back to the old less efficient technology means people starve.
And if your village is socially advanced, and commits to keeping your population low so that your surplus production can provide a higher standard of living for your people? Then in a few generations you get invaded and occupied by your neighbors, who did use that surplus production to double their population, and then gave all their young men swords.
I can’t blame capitalism for this. This is the original sin of the agricultural revolution.
That’s only in capitalism. If the labourers owned the thresher it would mean they would spend less time threshing and could choose what to do with the newly freed time.
A nice thought, but generally the answer to “what we do with the newly freed time” has been “expand production until we no longer have free time”.
If peasant farmers get a piece of technology that lets them thresh wheat twice as fast, they’ll plant twice as many acres in wheat - because being able to grow more wheat makes you more secure in times of famine, and gives you a surplus to sell or trade for nice stuff, and everybody likes nice stuff and nobody likes starving.
And the surplus production goes to feeding more children, selling to bring in more resources, and so on.
But then in a few generations you have the same standard of living as before the thresher - except with more people, because your village population has expanded to the limits of your food supply, and with more environmental destruction, because you clear-cut forests to expand your fields. And the advanced technology is no longer a convenience, but a necessity, because going back to the old less efficient technology means people starve.
And if your village is socially advanced, and commits to keeping your population low so that your surplus production can provide a higher standard of living for your people? Then in a few generations you get invaded and occupied by your neighbors, who did use that surplus production to double their population, and then gave all their young men swords.
I can’t blame capitalism for this. This is the original sin of the agricultural revolution.
But we do live under capitalism. Whether we like it or not.
While that is true, what if we took steps so future generations wouldn’t have to?