Talk:The Condition of the Working Class in England

Additions in December 2006

I had wrongly put the publication date as 1844, thanks to Edward Higginbotham for correcting this.

I then felt inspired to add fuller details, including the proper index and some remarks by Engels about the context.

--GwydionM 17:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To 172.207.10.5

You give no source for saying Engles was in Salford specifically. Was it a town in its own right at the time? If you have details then pleased add them, along with references. But the change as you made it made no sense.

It's also good to be a registered member, you needn't say anything about yourself if you don't want to.--GwydionM 13:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This book is a great work especially because it can help refute those libertarian claims that the Industrial Revolution somehow made workers better-off. Using a lot of FIRST-HAND accounts and reports, Engels showed that the opposite was true- workers in fact became WORSE OFF during that period. Here is a fine example showing that death-rates in industrial cities were in fact HIGHER than in the countryside: "According to the Report of Registrer General Graham, the annual death-rate of all England and Wales is something less than 2 1/2 per cent. That is to say, out of forty-five person, one dies every year. This was the average for the year 1839-1840. In 1841 the mortality diminished somewhat, and the death-rate was but one in forty-six. But in the great cities the proportion is WHOLLY DIFFERENT. I have before me offical tables of mortality (Manchester Guardian, July 31 st, 1844), according to which the death-rate of several large towns is as follows:- In Manchester, including Charlton and Salford, one in 50.75; and excluding Charlton and Salford, one in 50.75. In Liverpool (including West Derby, suburb) 31.90, and excluding West Derby, 29.90" RaduFlorian (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Another example found in Engels's book shows that in one town death-rate for workers went up as a result of the IR.

In the town of Carlisle, BEFORE the introduction of mills (1779-1787) 4,408 out of 10,000 children used to die before they reached 5 years old. AFTER the introduction of mills the death-rate for children under 5 years old increased to 4,738 out of 10,000.

BEFORE the introduction of mills, 911 out of 10,000 teenagers died before they reached 19 years old. AFTER the introduction oif mills, it went up to 930 out of 10,000.

BEFORE the introduction of mills, 1,006 out of 10,000 adults died before they reached 39 years old. AFTER the introduction of mills, 1,261 out of 10,000 adults died before reaching 39.

I think it's safe to say that those who deny the horrors of the early capitalism are nothing but charlatans and deserve to be called HOLOCAUST-DENIERS.RaduFlorian (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's worth adding to the article. --GwydionM (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of Radu Florin's language is quite biased towards Marx and Engels, so I have edited it to make it look more professional and neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.109.207 (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The figures quoted above do not support the contention in the article that mortality in Manchester was worse than the national average. 1 in 50.75 is LESS mortality than 1 in 45 or 46. 31.51.219.150 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)