1. Was the "industrial revolution" an illusion, as Charles Tilly argues?

2. What are the basic critiques of the standard model of the "industrial revolution," as proposed by Samuel, Tilly, and Johnson (and Cannadine).

3. Insofar as the "industrial revolution" represents a substitution of capital for labor, what are some counter-examples? How can the rise in demand for hand labor co-exist with a rise of mechanization?

4. Is "proletarianization" a better term than "industrial revolution" to describe the changes in European society of the 18th and 19th centuries? Better for whom?

5. What are the differences between the proletarianization experience of Paris tailors and Lodève woolen workers? How does each relate to bigger processes of development of capitalism? to mechanization?

6. The standard model of the "industrial revolution" leaves out the state. How do Tilly and Johnson argue for the importance of the nation-state in triggering the economic growth of the 18th and 19th centuries? How are the nation-state and capitalism the same, or different?

7. How have social historians (since 1960) contributed to the demythologization of the "industrial revolution."

8. Was the "industrial revolution" or "capitalist revolution" a "good thing" or "bad"? If the standard of living really does rise, is this too illusory (Tilly, p. 55)? A consolation prize for what?