Industrial Revolution, Working Class and British History Propaganda

The problem with economy, and the main reason why I don't like its literature, is that it advertises itself as an impartial, fact-based representation of the world and however fails to ever be neutral.

Researching the history of British economy, I quite naturally start with Wikipedia. The paragraph on the Napoleonic Wars enrages me as always – such is the blindness of British history when it comes to retelling the national fight against Napoleon:

“Critical to British success in confronting Napoleon was its superior economic situation”

Indeed, British economy was at the time a lot wealthier than the French. However, it is a hard-lived misconception that the British defeated Napoleon. In the twenty years when British troops fought Napoleon Bonaparte's armies, they registered only one victory of significance: Trafalgar. All other battles in which they engaged, they lost, or drew. It needs to be reminded that the British did nothing to win the battle of Waterloo. It was the Prussian troops who defeated the French army. In the two days that preceded their intervention, Wellington's forces had been taking a ferocious beating by the French. Wellington himself would confess to it in his memoirs, qualifying the battle of Waterloo as the narrowest of victories he ever had the honour to claim.

So. There you go. England was never the decisive power in defeating Napoleon. It took a whole European coalition to bring the Corsican general to his knees. If we need to give medals to each national army, Prussia would definitely take gold. Silver would go to Russia. England would only get a sympathetic bronze.

Apart from this falsehood, now so common that it has become the accepted truth, the Wikipedia article enshrines another gem of national propaganda:

"Long-term favourable impact[edit]

O’Brien examines the long-term economic impact of the wars, 1793-1815, and finds them generally favourable, except for damage to the working class. The economy was not damaged by the diversion of manpower to the army and navy; in terms of destruction and enforced transfer of national wealth, Britain came out ahead. British control of the oceans proved optimal in creating a liberal free-trade global economy, and helped Britain gain the lion’s share of the world's carrying trade and financial support services. The effects were positive for agriculture and most industries, apart from construction. The rate of capital formation was slowed somewhat and national income perhaps would have grown even faster without war. The most negative impact was a drop in living standards for the urban working classes.[44]"

Please take note of the "Except for damage to the working class" and the "The most negative impact was a drop in living standards for the urban working classes". The whole liberal mind speaks through these two lines. The economy is a total success. Its only downside is that it does not benefit the people who actually run it.

This echoes a statement I overheard yesterday on the radio: British economy is currently flourishing. We are back in a situation of full employment. 

That might well be the case. But anybody who takes this as the indisputable sign of a healthy economy ought to look at another two factors: the quality of jobs offered to the British working class (but, hey, why would anybody do this? After all the working class hardships are nothing but long accepted collateral damages, aren't they?) and the quality of British public services. Anyone who today dare pretend that public services in this country are anywhere near the acceptable needs to travel abroad. Anywhere abroad. Go there, take a train, go to a hospital, come back. And if you do not understand how run-down public services are here, then you have already been brainwashed.