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

[2aguy]

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

Yeah, maybe, I'd need to see those numbers and what exactly you define as slavery...but the countries that have the slaves now...not free market capitalist societies...they are top down government societies...run by socialist sympathizers...who really mean it...

 

[haissem123]

those working to build massive headstones for pharoah long ago weren't slaves either they just realized it wasn't doing them any good to worship men as God's and put all their efforts into whatever silly monuments to themselves they wanted the rest to work/slave on. Lincoln fought slavery largely to keep the northerners from having to become slaves. Now we have made the third world slaves and therefore have become them. surfs more like it. women and children too. stupid stupid people we are to forget history

 

[thereisnospoon2]

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

If you have a point, make it. Otherwise, we'll need No Doz...

 

[thereisnospoon2]

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.

Really? Have you read some of the posts from the more radical libs on here?
Franco...geo phillip? These people are 100% opposed to capitalism. They appear to be in support of a system where all wealth is to be confiscated by government for redistribution. All in the name of THEIR version of "fairness"..

 

[thereisnospoon2]

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.

Oh bullshit.

 

[2aguy]

Of course the socialist European countries are just dandy...of course the only reason they are dandy, and can spend all their money on social welfare programs is that the burden of protecting their countries from foreign attackers...the U.S. spending our money to protect them....

Now that Russia and China are getting Frisky, and the radical mulsims are a threat again after we kicked their asses...now those self satisfied welfare states will have to actually make hard decisions about their welfare hammock societies...and since they are use to top down government...it won't be pretty...

The believers in limited government have been carrying the load around the world for so long....now we will see how great socialism is...again...after the bloody 20th century where socialism reigned supreme...

 

[thereisnospoon2]

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.

So?.....We have laws to prevent this now. That is the result of civilized society.
What more do you want? Or perhaps more accurately, you have no idea what you want.
Or perhaps your entire existence here on planet Earth is to complain?

 

[thereisnospoon2]

"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...

Commerce is the exchange of commodities, and capitalism treats labor as just another commodity. You may not like it, but this country doesn't exist today without genocide and slavery.

Oh please. You are living in your own self created reality.
All you do is ***** and moan.

 

[thereisnospoon2]

What capitalism achieved...

American Capitalism The Engine of Progress The Other Half of History

The Half Has Never Been Told...

mericans tend to cast slavery as a pre-modern institution—the nation’s original sin, perhaps, but isolated in time and divorced from America’s later success. But to do so robs the millions who suffered in bondage of their full legacy.

As historian Edward Baptist reveals in The Half Has Never Been Told, the expansion of slavery in the first eight decades after American independence drove the evolution and modernization of the United States. In the span of a single lifetime, the South grew from a narrow coastal strip of worn-out tobacco plantations to a continental cotton empire, and the United States grew into a modern, industrial, and capitalist economy. Until the Civil War, Baptist explains, the most important American economic innovations were ways to make slavery ever more profitable. Through forced migration and torture,

Forced migration, torture, ethnic cleansing are how US Capitalism came into existence; sorry if that disappoints some of you.

The Half Has Never Been Told Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism Edward E. Baptist 9780465002962 Amazon.com Books

And?

 

[thereisnospoon2]

Slavery was a blight on the south and kept it from advancing...while the capitalist North prospered...

So why is socialist North not prospering and capitalist Sun Belt prospering in 2014?

Wage slavery and right to work laws.

Ahh. So here we get to the root of your whining....UNIONS...
Right. Unions will solve all of your little problems.
The fact is, unions made their own bed. Unions decided to scuttle themselves.
Unions are of no use now. So forget it.
You will not be permitted to use these throw away terms such as "wage slavery" because they have no meaning.

 

[thereisnospoon2]

"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...

Commerce is the exchange of commodities, and capitalism treats labor as just another commodity. You may not like it, but this country doesn't exist today without genocide and slavery.

Capitalism is free exchange of goods and services to the mutual profit of all trading parties. Note that this includes the exchange of service (labor). I assure you it exists as I personally engaged in it, this very day.

I spent an hour engaging my extensive experience, knowledge and tools... which solved a problem for an individual who knew of my skills in resolving such in a timely and professional manner. For that hour of time, I received a couple of hundred bucks.

They were happy, having had their problem resolved, thus representing their profit and I was happy having increased my means to fulfill my own life and that of my family.

Works every single time it is exercised by reasonable people, intent on bearing the responsibilities that sustain their right to exercise their right to do so.

Simple stuff... despite being beyond the means of the intellectually less fortunate.

What you've just described is a mode of business that existed for centuries before capitalism and plantation slavery came into being.

What point do you imagine you're making?

Yes, what I just described is the natural order of economics, which eventually came to be known as Capitalism.

The point of which is to refute the nonsense to which I was responding.

Speaking of nonsense, what is the "natural order of economics"?

Achievement and success are used to create opportunity and wealth.
For example. I get an education or learn a skill. I decide to create a company. My company's business volume grows to the point where I require others to help me operate the business. I pay them just compensation for their equivalent work ethic, skill level and ability. This my wealth being redistributed.

 

[Moonglow]

Slavery was a blight on the south and kept it from advancing...while the capitalist North prospered...

So why is socialist North not prospering and capitalist Sun Belt prospering in 2014?

Wage slavery and right to work laws.

Ahh. So here we get to the root of your whining....UNIONS...
Right. Unions will solve all of your little problems.
The fact is, unions made their own bed. Unions decided to scuttle themselves.
Unions are of no use now. So forget it.
You will not be permitted to use these throw away terms such as "wage slavery" because they have no meaning.

Whatever you say Merriam Webster...

 

[thereisnospoon2]

Slavery was a blight on the south and kept it from advancing...while the capitalist North prospered...

So why is socialist North not prospering and capitalist Sun Belt prospering in 2014?

Wage slavery and right to work laws.

ROFLMNAO!

Now isn't that precious?

The Right to Work is a threat to the means to exchange one's labor for that which one needs.

Yet another demonstration of the foreign ideas that are hostile to American principle, on which the Ideological rests. Which explains why:​

YOU CAN'T HIDE SOCIALISM!​

Right to Work Laws are government regulations prohibiting voluntary agreements between labor unions and employers. Surely, that doesn't conform to your definition of capitalism?

Incorrect. Right to Work laws prevent labor collectives from compelling potential workers to become members of said labor collectives.
Right to Work laws guarantee the applicant and the present employee the freedom to CHOOSE whether or not he wishes to become a member of a labor union.
In no way do Right to Work laws prevent union activity or organization of workers.
Labor unions are collectives. And as such can only be successful in the existence of a captive marketplace.
This is why unions eschew such concepts as productivity, promotion or pay levels based on merit and of course choice( to NOT be a member)

 

[thereisnospoon2]

Slavery was a blight on the south and kept it from advancing...while the capitalist North prospered...

So why is socialist North not prospering and capitalist Sun Belt prospering in 2014?

Wage slavery and right to work laws.

Ahh. So here we get to the root of your whining....UNIONS...
Right. Unions will solve all of your little problems.
The fact is, unions made their own bed. Unions decided to scuttle themselves.
Unions are of no use now. So forget it.
You will not be permitted to use these throw away terms such as "wage slavery" because they have no meaning.

Whatever you say Merriam Webster...

THAT is your best reply? That's all you have?
Ok Mr Non Sequitur. Whatever you say.

 

[thereisnospoon2]

Right-wing fascists and capitalists

The nazis were not right wing and fascism is not capitalist...the nazis were left wing socialists...I know...again...lefty/proggressive/democrat dyslexia gets in the way of understanding the "socialist" in national socialist...yes, they were not international socialists like the communists, they just wanted to control their own people, hence "national" socialism...and the communists, who had their asses kicked by the national socialists had to come up with a reason...and a bogey man...

Socialists caused world war 2, and murdered between 75-100 million people around the world...

Why did Hitler murder the communists and protect the bankers? International bankers in service to global capitalism facilitated both World Wars in the 20th Century, although I suppose those ignorant enough to confuse Obama with a socialist might have trouble recognizing which side of the class war they're on.

Simple. The Reich needed funding to build the war machine

 

[konradv]

and another thing...those things that keep the government going from a monster to a rampaging monster are the very things the left/democrat/socialists undermine...they want government big, in control, and unstoppable against the limits posed on it by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...all for our own good...just put a few, smart, lefties in charge...with all the power they need to smooth out the interference...and we will have heaven on earth...

I always wonder...since the left/socialists/democrats are the ones most likely to think the world is overpopulated...and they tend to point to the birth rate in the 3rd world (the non white world?), and that we need to get that population under control....(and yet, they aren't the racists? )

Is it really wise to turn control of your health care system and your healthcare choices to them...since you might be one of those people overpopulating the world...who needs to be "fixed" to correct the problem...

I never understood the logic in that...

Maybe you should study Logic then. Your arguments are all over the place and don't follow a logical flow or pattern. They're just set up so at the end you can say "socialism bad", whether or not arguments follows a logical pattern. For example, worrying about 3rd world birthrates can have other reasons beyond racism, but you don't delve into it at all. You just want to imply that the worry itself makes one a racist. I'm afraid that would be a FAIL in any Logic class.

 

[bripat9643]

"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...

Commerce is the exchange of commodities, and capitalism treats labor as just another commodity. You may not like it, but this country doesn't exist today without genocide and slavery.

Oh please. You are living in your own self created reality.
All you do is ***** and moan.

Georgie sounds just like some America-hating Marxist professor, and then he's always waxing eloquently about the glory of the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny how someone with such a closed mind and the OP is, couldn't or wouldn't research that little phenomena.
Through history, capitalism unchecked has always exploited people and the environment.
But money is king. To them. Until something drastic happens then it becomes confusing to them why human kindness does come into play.
Hypocrites to the extreme.

Slavery was destroyed by capitalism.

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

The term "exploit" is virtually meaningless. I exploit my employer, and he expoits me. Consumers exploit merchants in distress who sell their wares for pennies on the dollar.

Capitalism vastly improved the standard of living for the average person. Without capitalism, we'd all be wallowing in abject poverty with the threat of stavation constantly hovering over us.

Government social programs have nothing to do with "human kindness" any more than an armed robbery is the manifestation of human kindness.

 

[bripat9643]

Capit

I don't see the correlation but nobody will argue that slave owners were good people. They had a hatred towards those that did all their work for them. Slave owners considered slaves subhuman case closed. It was wrong in every sense of the word

Capitalism does not concern itself with morality, if there is a buck in it then that's all that matters. The bottom line rules and that is the long and short of it.

Under capitalism all transactions must be voluntary. Only a servile toady socialist believes that the use of compulsion isn't a moral issue.

"Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.[1][2]

"Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets andwage labour.[3]
"In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged.[4]

Those are the results of capitalism, not the defining characteristics. Capitalism is the system where all transaction are voluntary. It's as simple as that. Everything else flows from that essential prinicipal.

Capitalism values accumulation and growth above all other concerns; it's entirely natural it sprang from chattel slavery,

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Capitalism is a social arrangement. It doesn't have values. The claim that it "sprang from chattel slavery" is utter bullshit. People who make such claims are invariably Marxists intent on destroying capitalism and freedom.

 

[bripat9643]

capitalism is exactly this, the free exchange of goods and services...you may say morality doesn't come into play...but that is where the "freedom" part comes in...as long as all parties involved are free to choose to engage in the exchange..no one steals or cheats...a moral transaction takes place...and on top of that, it becomes the most efficient economic system ever discovered...as pointed out...the free man works harder than the slave...he is harder working, more inventive and in the end more moral than the slave owner...that is why socialism will always fail...eventually...they must steal from one citizen to give to another...this breeds inefficiency...creates waste and destruction and eventually the system will collapse...in smaller countries, with smaller homogeneous populations that do not have to provide for their own defense...it will take longer to happen...but happen it will...

crony capitalism...a bogeyman of socialists...is really just the precursor to outright socialism...it is more properly called crony socialism...as the government gives privileges to one business over others...there by interfering with the free exchange of goods and services....

Even without slavery there have great crimes committed involving capitalism.

Really? Such as? The expression "involving capitalism" implies that if a man beats his wife in a capitalist country, then capitalism is to blame. That's the exact you use to justify capitalism for being responsible for slavery

You're just using this as a ploy to throw in messages against socialism. Sorry, but you fail. There is capitalism with and without "moral transactions" and there's capitalism with or without slavery. It's not necessary for a slave to work harder or be more inventive than the non-slave. The slave isn't the principle of the story, he's property.

Sorry, no there isn't. For instance, according to your theory, capitalism would be perfectly consistent with allowing someone to hire a killer to knock off his wife. That would be what you call an "Immoral capitalist transaction." However, capitalism isn't consistent with the violation of people's rights. Capitalism is economic system where all transactions are voluntary. All other social systems condone the use of force in human transactions, including socialism. Capitalism is based on banning the use of force in human transactions. You're trying to claim capitalism is exactly the opposite of how it's defined.

You're trying to graft libertarianism onto capitalism. Capitalism is amoral. The point is the exchange of goods or services for money. Whether the transactions are good or bad, free or coerced, is irrelevant. One of the favorite eras of American history for libertarians is The Gilded Age, before the advent of progressivism and very little regulation. If you think there wasn't a lot of coercion going on, I've got a bridge to sell you.

As I laready explained, capitalism is based on banning coercion from human transactions. If you don't think the use of coercion is a moral issue, then you are undoubtedly a servile toady of the welfare state.

If you think coercion was prevalent during the Gilded age, then perhaps you could document some examples. there's far, far more coercion under the current welfare state than there ever was prior to it. That includes the colonial period.