Capitalism vs. Slavery...lefty dyslexia...a classic example...

[2aguy]

This article explains why capitalism cannot be equated with slavery and in fact ended slavery...

It also points out the concept of lefty dyslexia...the inability of people on the left to understand basic truths about economics, politics, the law, social systems...

For example...to a regular person...Capitalism is the freedom to engage another person in a business without government interference...the exact opposite of slavery...

To the lefty/democrat/progressive, Capitalism = Slavery

Capitalism slavery TribLIVE

But the most far-fetched myth that I've encountered recently is that the wealth of the modern Western world, especially that of the United States, is the product of slavery.

She anticipated my response. "Not directly. But the capital that made these innovations possible was extracted from slave labor. The wealth accumulated by slaveholders is what financed the industrialization that makes today's wealth possible."

I looked at her in raw disbelief. (Not a good strategy, by the way, for a public speaker.)

Collecting my thoughts, I pointed out that slavery had been an ever-present institution throughout human history until just about 200 years ago. Why didn't slaveholders of 2,000 years ago in Europe or 500 years ago in Asia accumulate wealth that triggered economic growth comparable to ours• Why is Latin America so much poorer today than the United States, given that the Spaniards and Portuguese who settled that part of the world were enthusiastic slavers• Indeed, the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery was Brazil -- in 1888, a quarter-century after U.S. abolition. By American and western European standards, Brazil remains impoverished.

And why, having abolished slavery decades before their Southern neighbors, were Northern U.S. states wealthier than Southern states before the Civil War?

I don't recall my young challenger's response. I recall only that I was as little convinced by it as she was by my answers.

The fact is that slavery disappeared only as industrial capitalism emerged. And it disappeared first where industrial capitalism appeared first: Great Britain. This was no coincidence. Slavery was destroyed by capitalism.

To begin with, the ethical and political principles that support capitalism are inconsistent with slavery. As we Americans discovered, a belief in the universal dignity of human beings, their equality before the law, and their right to govern their own lives cannot long coexist with an institution that condemns some people to bondage merely because of their identity.

The rest of the column is really good as well...

 

[georgephillip]

This article explains why capitalism cannot be equated with slavery and in fact ended slavery...

It also points out the concept of lefty dyslexia...the inability of people on the left to understand basic truths about economics, politics, the law, social systems...

For example...to a regular person...Capitalism is the freedom to engage another person in a business without government interference...the exact opposite of slavery...

To the lefty/democrat/progressive, Capitalism = Slavery

Capitalism slavery TribLIVE

But the most far-fetched myth that I've encountered recently is that the wealth of the modern Western world, especially that of the United States, is the product of slavery.

She anticipated my response. "Not directly. But the capital that made these innovations possible was extracted from slave labor. The wealth accumulated by slaveholders is what financed the industrialization that makes today's wealth possible."

I looked at her in raw disbelief. (Not a good strategy, by the way, for a public speaker.)

Collecting my thoughts, I pointed out that slavery had been an ever-present institution throughout human history until just about 200 years ago. Why didn't slaveholders of 2,000 years ago in Europe or 500 years ago in Asia accumulate wealth that triggered economic growth comparable to ours• Why is Latin America so much poorer today than the United States, given that the Spaniards and Portuguese who settled that part of the world were enthusiastic slavers• Indeed, the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery was Brazil -- in 1888, a quarter-century after U.S. abolition. By American and western European standards, Brazil remains impoverished.

And why, having abolished slavery decades before their Southern neighbors, were Northern U.S. states wealthier than Southern states before the Civil War?

I don't recall my young challenger's response. I recall only that I was as little convinced by it as she was by my answers.

The fact is that slavery disappeared only as industrial capitalism emerged. And it disappeared first where industrial capitalism appeared first: Great Britain. This was no coincidence. Slavery was destroyed by capitalism.

To begin with, the ethical and political principles that support capitalism are inconsistent with slavery. As we Americans discovered, a belief in the universal dignity of human beings, their equality before the law, and their right to govern their own lives cannot long coexist with an institution that condemns some people to bondage merely because of their identity.

The rest of the column is really good as well...

Does it explain how slaves functioned as unpaid labor and capital during the time of King Cotton?

"When the cotton crop came in short and sales failed to meet advanced payments, planters found themselves indebted to merchants and bankers.

"Slaves were sold to make up the difference.

"The mobility and salability of slaves meant they functioned as the primary form of collateral in the credit-and-cotton economy of the 19th century.

"It is not simply that the labor of enslaved people underwrote 19th-century capitalism.

"Enslaved people were the capital: four million people worth at least $3 billion in 1860, which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined.

"Seen in this light, the conventional distinction between slavery and capitalism fades into meaninglessness."

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

 

[Zmrzlina]

Slavery was destroyed by capitalism.

And yet there are more slaves in the world now then there ever were during the Atlantic slave trade.

 

[hazlnut]

This article explains why capitalism cannot be equated with slavery and in fact ended slavery...

It also points out the concept of lefty dyslexia...the inability of people on the left to understand basic truths about economics, politics, the law, social systems...

For example...to a regular person...Capitalism is the freedom to engage another person in a business without government interference...the exact opposite of slavery...

To the lefty/democrat/progressive, Capitalism = Slavery

Capitalism slavery TribLIVE

But the most far-fetched myth that I've encountered recently is that the wealth of the modern Western world, especially that of the United States, is the product of slavery.

She anticipated my response. "Not directly. But the capital that made these innovations possible was extracted from slave labor. The wealth accumulated by slaveholders is what financed the industrialization that makes today's wealth possible."

I looked at her in raw disbelief. (Not a good strategy, by the way, for a public speaker.)

Collecting my thoughts, I pointed out that slavery had been an ever-present institution throughout human history until just about 200 years ago. Why didn't slaveholders of 2,000 years ago in Europe or 500 years ago in Asia accumulate wealth that triggered economic growth comparable to ours• Why is Latin America so much poorer today than the United States, given that the Spaniards and Portuguese who settled that part of the world were enthusiastic slavers• Indeed, the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery was Brazil -- in 1888, a quarter-century after U.S. abolition. By American and western European standards, Brazil remains impoverished.

And why, having abolished slavery decades before their Southern neighbors, were Northern U.S. states wealthier than Southern states before the Civil War?

I don't recall my young challenger's response. I recall only that I was as little convinced by it as she was by my answers.

The fact is that slavery disappeared only as industrial capitalism emerged. And it disappeared first where industrial capitalism appeared first: Great Britain. This was no coincidence. Slavery was destroyed by capitalism.

To begin with, the ethical and political principles that support capitalism are inconsistent with slavery. As we Americans discovered, a belief in the universal dignity of human beings, their equality before the law, and their right to govern their own lives cannot long coexist with an institution that condemns some people to bondage merely because of their identity.

The rest of the column is really good as well...

More pseudo-intellectual rightie strawman trash.

No one "equates" capitalism with slavery.

The slave economy is an example of capitalism gone extremely wrong.

 

[percysunshine]

This article explains why capitalism cannot be equated with slavery and in fact ended slavery...

It also points out the concept of lefty dyslexia...the inability of people on the left to understand basic truths about economics, politics, the law, social systems...

For example...to a regular person...Capitalism is the freedom to engage another person in a business without government interference...the exact opposite of slavery...

To the lefty/democrat/progressive, Capitalism = Slavery

Capitalism slavery TribLIVE

But the most far-fetched myth that I've encountered recently is that the wealth of the modern Western world, especially that of the United States, is the product of slavery.

She anticipated my response. "Not directly. But the capital that made these innovations possible was extracted from slave labor. The wealth accumulated by slaveholders is what financed the industrialization that makes today's wealth possible."

I looked at her in raw disbelief. (Not a good strategy, by the way, for a public speaker.)

Collecting my thoughts, I pointed out that slavery had been an ever-present institution throughout human history until just about 200 years ago. Why didn't slaveholders of 2,000 years ago in Europe or 500 years ago in Asia accumulate wealth that triggered economic growth comparable to ours• Why is Latin America so much poorer today than the United States, given that the Spaniards and Portuguese who settled that part of the world were enthusiastic slavers• Indeed, the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery was Brazil -- in 1888, a quarter-century after U.S. abolition. By American and western European standards, Brazil remains impoverished.

And why, having abolished slavery decades before their Southern neighbors, were Northern U.S. states wealthier than Southern states before the Civil War?

I don't recall my young challenger's response. I recall only that I was as little convinced by it as she was by my answers.

The fact is that slavery disappeared only as industrial capitalism emerged. And it disappeared first where industrial capitalism appeared first: Great Britain. This was no coincidence. Slavery was destroyed by capitalism.

To begin with, the ethical and political principles that support capitalism are inconsistent with slavery. As we Americans discovered, a belief in the universal dignity of human beings, their equality before the law, and their right to govern their own lives cannot long coexist with an institution that condemns some people to bondage merely because of their identity.

The rest of the column is really good as well...

More pseudo-intellectual rightie strawman trash.

No one "equates" capitalism with slavery.

The slave economy is an example of capitalism gone extremely wrong.

You just equated slavery with capitalism.

Is this some sort of Jedi mind trick?

.

 

[occupied]

Slavery is far from incompatible with capitalism, we simply call it different names, dress it in different clothes and call ourselves enlightened and civilized. Capitalism could not exist in it's present form without labor exploitation.

 

[2aguy]

And yet there are more slaves in the world now then there ever were during the Atlantic slave trade.

You have to take that up with the muslims and the socialists...

 

[2aguy]

Walter Williams, an economist on the capitalism and slavery...

Walter Williams Did blacks benefit from slavery - The Orange County Register

Slavery is widely misunderstood, and as such has been a tool for hustlers and demagogues. Slavery has been part of the human condition throughout recorded history and everywhere on the globe. Romans enslaved other Europeans; Greeks enslaved other Greeks; Asians enslaved Asians; Africans enslaved Africans; and in the New World, Aztecs enslaved Aztecs and other native groups. Even the word slave is derived from the fact that Slavic people were among the early European slaves.

Though racism has been used to justify slavery, the origins of slavery had little to do with racism. In recent history, the major slave traders and slave owners have been Arabs, who enslaved Europeans, black Africans and Asians. A unique aspect of slavery in the Western world was the moral outrage against it, which began to emerge in the 18th century and led to massive efforts to eliminate it. It was Britain's military might and the sight of the Union Jack on the high seas that ultimately put an end to the slave trade.

 

[bripat9643]

This article explains why capitalism cannot be equated with slavery and in fact ended slavery...

It also points out the concept of lefty dyslexia...the inability of people on the left to understand basic truths about economics, politics, the law, social systems...

For example...to a regular person...Capitalism is the freedom to engage another person in a business without government interference...the exact opposite of slavery...

To the lefty/democrat/progressive, Capitalism = Slavery

Capitalism slavery TribLIVE

But the most far-fetched myth that I've encountered recently is that the wealth of the modern Western world, especially that of the United States, is the product of slavery.

She anticipated my response. "Not directly. But the capital that made these innovations possible was extracted from slave labor. The wealth accumulated by slaveholders is what financed the industrialization that makes today's wealth possible."

I looked at her in raw disbelief. (Not a good strategy, by the way, for a public speaker.)

Collecting my thoughts, I pointed out that slavery had been an ever-present institution throughout human history until just about 200 years ago. Why didn't slaveholders of 2,000 years ago in Europe or 500 years ago in Asia accumulate wealth that triggered economic growth comparable to ours• Why is Latin America so much poorer today than the United States, given that the Spaniards and Portuguese who settled that part of the world were enthusiastic slavers• Indeed, the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery was Brazil -- in 1888, a quarter-century after U.S. abolition. By American and western European standards, Brazil remains impoverished.

And why, having abolished slavery decades before their Southern neighbors, were Northern U.S. states wealthier than Southern states before the Civil War?

I don't recall my young challenger's response. I recall only that I was as little convinced by it as she was by my answers.

The fact is that slavery disappeared only as industrial capitalism emerged. And it disappeared first where industrial capitalism appeared first: Great Britain. This was no coincidence. Slavery was destroyed by capitalism.

To begin with, the ethical and political principles that support capitalism are inconsistent with slavery. As we Americans discovered, a belief in the universal dignity of human beings, their equality before the law, and their right to govern their own lives cannot long coexist with an institution that condemns some people to bondage merely because of their identity.

The rest of the column is really good as well...

Does it explain how slaves functioned as unpaid labor and capital during the time of King Cotton?

"When the cotton crop came in short and sales failed to meet advanced payments, planters found themselves indebted to merchants and bankers.

"Slaves were sold to make up the difference.

"The mobility and salability of slaves meant they functioned as the primary form of collateral in the credit-and-cotton economy of the 19th century.

"It is not simply that the labor of enslaved people underwrote 19th-century capitalism.

"Enslaved people were the capital: four million people worth at least $3 billion in 1860, which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined.

"Seen in this light, the conventional distinction between slavery and capitalism fades into meaninglessness."

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Sugar planters also used slaves, and that was long before capitalism appeared on the scene. The same goes for tobacco, chocolate, rubber and other commodity crops. Slavery was an anachronism in relationship to capitalism, not a feature of capitalism. It has existed since time immemorial. Even Native American tribes practiced slavery.

 

[bripat9643]

Slavery is far from incompatible with capitalism, we simply call it different names, dress it in different clothes and call ourselves enlightened and civilized. Capitalism could not exist in it's present form without labor exploitation.

That's obvious bullshit. Capitalism ended slavery and it's incompatible with slavery. Slavery has existed since the dawn of man. All you're trying to do is claim that working for a living is slavery.

 

[2aguy]

"It is not simply that the labor of enslaved people underwrote 19th-century capitalism.

"Enslaved people were the capital: four million people worth at least $3 billion in 1860, which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined.

"Seen in this light, the conventional distinction between slavery and capitalism fades into meaninglessness."

You are conflating "commerce" with "capitalism"...selling a person who is a slave doesn't mean you are practising capitalism...since one party is not free to give his consent to the transaction...

 

[percysunshine]

.

That field wont plow itself.

.

 

[2aguy]

That field wont plow itself.

That is why you hire someone to do it...and they decide to do it for a price...otherwise you have an unwilling worker and you become inefficient...slavery is the antithesis of capitalism...

 

[2aguy]

Capitalism - A Definition of Capitalism

Capitalists support a system that is entirely free-will based and participation is not forced. Consumers can choose to purchase a product, or to not buy a product and to create or not to create. Individualism and freedom are stressed. Capitalists, specifically laissez-faire purists, reject the infusion of government influence to force a product on people. Governments often subsidizes expensive products that citizens otherwise would not buy in order to push the product over other products. In it's worst form, purely political quid-pro-quo actions or special favors between government and business, often referred to as crony capitalism, is especially opposed.

And before they chime in with crony capitalism and other stuff...

The purest form of capitalism is known as laissez-faire capitalism. Here, the government acts only to protect businesses and only intervenes to prevent criminal activity.

And even that doesn't say it correctly...government is there to keep people from cheating others and to ensure that freely entered into contracts are fulfilled without coercion or criminal activity...

 

[2aguy]

Do you know how much marxist crap you have to wade through to find an actual defense of capitalism on Google...

Slavery and American Capitalism The Other Half of History

The truth of the matter is very different. America’s economic and technological greatness were built by free individuals, allowed to work and create for their own benefit. The institution of slavery didn’t contribute to the process; it got in the way.

African slaves were imported to many colonies and nations other than those in North America, and none of the other slave-importing countries achieved anywhere near the economic growth seen in the United States. Within the United States, those states that banned slavery soonest created wealth fastest. And, of course, America’s prosperity continued to grow at a world-beating rate after the Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery nationwide in 1865.

And North and South America are not the only regions that imported large numbers of African Slaves. Over the centuries more black slaves were taken from Eastern Africa to the Islamic states of the Middle East and North Africa than were hauled across the Atlantic to the Americas.1 Yet the estimated fourteen million slaves taken to the Islamic world did not produce anything like the economic miracle of the United States.

Slave States and Free States
Within the US, the Northern states, all of which banned slavery early, far outpaced the Southern slave states in wealth creation. Next week’s post will go into this issue in detail, but the short version is that the culture in Southern slave-holding states attached a stigma to the virtues of hard work and self-reliance. The most admired lifestyle in the South was a life of indolence and luxury, built on the work of others. Any white man who worked hard with his own hands, for his own benefit, was looked down upon.

In the North, by contrast, hard work and self-reliance were held up as the highest of virtues; followed closely by that brand of problem-solving inventiveness that came to be known as “Yankee ingenuity.”

In his famous and influential book Democracy in America

, French bureaucrat Alexis de Tocqueville discusses the disparity of wealth between America’s slave states and free states. America had not yet gained her independence, he writes, when “the attention of the planters was struck by the extraordinary fact, that provinces which were comparatively destitute of slaves increased in population, in wealth, and in prosperity more rapidly than those which contained the greatest number of negroes.”3

 

[Bush92]

Liberals equate capitalism with slavery all the time. "The Man" keeping them down. "Dammit, I work at Burger King, why can't I make as much as an off shore worker. My ass wants $20.00 an hour to make these fucking burgers."

 

[2aguy]

From my linked to article...

First Lady Abigail Adams made similar observations in 1800, when the Capitol and White House were moved from Philadelphia to Washington, DC. Mr. and Mrs. Adams had lived in Massachusetts for most of their lives, and Washington was the first place where they were directly exposed to the institution of slavery. As construction on the new White House was going on she watched a team of twelve slaves doing their work each day, while the owners of the slaves stood around doing nothing. In a letter to a friend she expressed her contempt for both the slave owners’ character, and amount of work that was getting done. “Two of our hardy New England men would do as much work in a day as the whole 12,” she opined. She went on to say that she could not understand how a slave-owning white man could “walk about idle, though one slave is all the property he can boast.”5

 

[2aguy]

What capitalism achieved...

American Capitalism The Engine of Progress The Other Half of History

 

[georgephillip]

This article explains why capitalism cannot be equated with slavery and in fact ended slavery...

It also points out the concept of lefty dyslexia...the inability of people on the left to understand basic truths about economics, politics, the law, social systems...

For example...to a regular person...Capitalism is the freedom to engage another person in a business without government interference...the exact opposite of slavery...

To the lefty/democrat/progressive, Capitalism = Slavery

Capitalism slavery TribLIVE

But the most far-fetched myth that I've encountered recently is that the wealth of the modern Western world, especially that of the United States, is the product of slavery.

She anticipated my response. "Not directly. But the capital that made these innovations possible was extracted from slave labor. The wealth accumulated by slaveholders is what financed the industrialization that makes today's wealth possible."

I looked at her in raw disbelief. (Not a good strategy, by the way, for a public speaker.)

Collecting my thoughts, I pointed out that slavery had been an ever-present institution throughout human history until just about 200 years ago. Why didn't slaveholders of 2,000 years ago in Europe or 500 years ago in Asia accumulate wealth that triggered economic growth comparable to ours• Why is Latin America so much poorer today than the United States, given that the Spaniards and Portuguese who settled that part of the world were enthusiastic slavers• Indeed, the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery was Brazil -- in 1888, a quarter-century after U.S. abolition. By American and western European standards, Brazil remains impoverished.

And why, having abolished slavery decades before their Southern neighbors, were Northern U.S. states wealthier than Southern states before the Civil War?

I don't recall my young challenger's response. I recall only that I was as little convinced by it as she was by my answers.

The fact is that slavery disappeared only as industrial capitalism emerged. And it disappeared first where industrial capitalism appeared first: Great Britain. This was no coincidence. Slavery was destroyed by capitalism.

To begin with, the ethical and political principles that support capitalism are inconsistent with slavery. As we Americans discovered, a belief in the universal dignity of human beings, their equality before the law, and their right to govern their own lives cannot long coexist with an institution that condemns some people to bondage merely because of their identity.

The rest of the column is really good as well...

Does it explain how slaves functioned as unpaid labor and capital during the time of King Cotton?

"When the cotton crop came in short and sales failed to meet advanced payments, planters found themselves indebted to merchants and bankers.

"Slaves were sold to make up the difference.

"The mobility and salability of slaves meant they functioned as the primary form of collateral in the credit-and-cotton economy of the 19th century.

"It is not simply that the labor of enslaved people underwrote 19th-century capitalism.

"Enslaved people were the capital: four million people worth at least $3 billion in 1860, which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined.

"Seen in this light, the conventional distinction between slavery and capitalism fades into meaninglessness."

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Sugar planters also used slaves, and that was long before capitalism appeared on the scene. The same goes for tobacco, chocolate, rubber and other commodity crops. Slavery was an anachronism in relationship to capitalism, not a feature of capitalism. It has existed since time immemorial. Even Native American tribes practiced slavery.

Native Americans never created bond markets based on slave mortgages, did they? Prior to the US Civil War slavery and capitalism were one and the same thing, 85% of Southern cotton was shipped to England's "dark and satanic mills." Both slavery and capitalism denigrate labor to varying degrees. US planters received millions of pounds every year in anticipation of the sale of that year's cotton crop. Slaves served as the unpaid labor and the collateral for those loans. You right-wing losers don't like to admit the US was built on genocide and slavery, but you can't change history.

 

[2aguy]

America Without Slaves
In 1865, shortly after the end of the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment ended the institution of slavery in the United States. If, as many historians claim, the nation’s prosperity was built mostly on slave labor; the economic growth of the US should have slowed down to that of other nations at this point. The opposite is true, of course. America was just getting started. Yankee ingenuity and industry, fueled by the fierce competition for profits, would soon make America the world’s unchallenged economic powerhouse.

.............

Native Americans never created bond markets based on slave mortgages, did they?

No, they were too busy cutting out the hearts of their slaves and eating them...and again...they weren't practising capitalism either...which is why they weren't more advanced than the Europeans when they came to the new world...