Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"The term capitalism, in its modern sense, is often attributed to Karl Marx.[7][20] In his magnum opusCapital, Marx analysed the 'capitalist mode of production' using a method of understanding today known as Marxism.Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services...what part of slave...and the lack of freedom to exchange goods or services...is so hard to understand...slavery is incompatible with Capitalism...
Have a nice night and weekend...
"However, Marx himself rarely used the term 'capitalism', while it was used twice in the more political interpretations of his work, primarily authored by his collaborator Friedrich Engels.
"In the 20th century defenders of the capitalist system often replaced the term capitalism with phrases such as free enterprise and private enterprise and replaced capitalist with rentier and investor in reaction to the negative connotations associated with capitalism."
Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Do you feel you have the right to edit my posts?Are corporations individuals or collectives in your paradise, [Master]?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?Wage slavery and right to work laws.So why is socialist North not prospering and capitalist Sun Belt prospering in 2014?Slavery was a blight on the south and kept it from advancing...while the capitalist North prospered...
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!
ROFL! Right to work simply precludes the government from forcing individuals to lower their potential to earn a living, by stripping them of the right to bargain INDIVIDUALLY! There is no place in viable freedom, for collective bargaining. As it is a fools paradise.
Corporations are collective, comprised of individuals, thus in effect, they are in full possession of the same rights as each individual of which it is comprised.
You prefer Ann Rand?"The term capitalism, in its modern sense, is often attributed to Karl Marx.[7][20] In his magnum opusCapital, Marx analysed the 'capitalist mode of production' using a method of understanding today known as Marxism.Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services...what part of slave...and the lack of freedom to exchange goods or services...is so hard to understand...slavery is incompatible with Capitalism...
Have a nice night and weekend...
"However, Marx himself rarely used the term 'capitalism', while it was used twice in the more political interpretations of his work, primarily authored by his collaborator Friedrich Engels.
"In the 20th century defenders of the capitalist system often replaced the term capitalism with phrases such as free enterprise and private enterprise and replaced capitalist with rentier and investor in reaction to the negative connotations associated with capitalism."
Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Marx was a fool... as are those who try to raise him above his natural and otherwise lamentable perch.
You prefer Ann Rand?"The term capitalism, in its modern sense, is often attributed to Karl Marx.[7][20] In his magnum opusCapital, Marx analysed the 'capitalist mode of production' using a method of understanding today known as Marxism.Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services...what part of slave...and the lack of freedom to exchange goods or services...is so hard to understand...slavery is incompatible with Capitalism...
Have a nice night and weekend...
"However, Marx himself rarely used the term 'capitalism', while it was used twice in the more political interpretations of his work, primarily authored by his collaborator Friedrich Engels.
"In the 20th century defenders of the capitalist system often replaced the term capitalism with phrases such as free enterprise and private enterprise and replaced capitalist with rentier and investor in reaction to the negative connotations associated with capitalism."
Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Marx was a fool... as are those who try to raise him above his natural and otherwise lamentable perch.
Pretty much completely wrong. Unpaid labor has zero incentive to work as hard as they can. Higher wages motivate to a higher degree. But businesses can't pay more than what the work is actually worth either.Free labor is every business man's fondest wet dream.
And if it can't be free, then cheap is the next best thing.
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...
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...
Whole lot of not very smart people in this thread.
The slave owners in colonial America certainly thought of themselves as Capitalists.
Yes , it's true capitalism involves the free exchange between persons, which would mean that slavery wouldn't be compatible with capitalism except for the fact that black svlaves weren't considered to be people. Their thoughts on whether they wanted to work for the plantation owner were as irrelevant as if a horse didn't want to pull a plow.
Of course today we are more enlightened and understand that slavery is incompatible with capitalism because blacks ARE people (of a sort) , but at the time things were simply different.
blacks ARE people (of a sort) you say? How generous of you.
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...
Whole lot of not very smart people in this thread.
The slave owners in colonial America certainly thought of themselves as Capitalists.
Yes , it's true capitalism involves the free exchange between persons, which would mean that slavery wouldn't be compatible with capitalism except for the fact that black svlaves weren't considered to be people. Their thoughts on whether they wanted to work for the plantation owner were as irrelevant as if a horse didn't want to pull a plow.
Of course today we are more enlightened and understand that slavery is incompatible with capitalism because blacks ARE people (of a sort) , but at the time things were simply different.
blacks ARE people (of a sort) you say? How generous of you.
I'm smarter than you, not more generous.
blacks ARE people (of a sort) you say? How generous of you.
I'm smarter than you, not more generous.
Then if you're smarter, you could come up with a better response. So far you just ROFLMAO'D me.
hesterton’s economic theory does not realize that the consumers, not the whim of the factory owner, sets the price of goods and the price of every factor of production, including the wages of labor.
His theory does not notice that the poor factory worker was mass-producing cheap goods for the poor, at prices they could afford, leading to the general rise of wealth and luxury of the nation. It is the capitalist, who invest, builds the factory, and creates the jobs. It is the capitalist who allows the poor shoeless man and the poor shoe-factory worker to make a mutually advantageous exchange.
If the rich man who built the factory were a thief, and hanged as other thieves are hanged, the victims that he robs would be the richer when he leaves off robbing them.
In reality, if the rich man does not invest, the factory is not built, and the poor man who wanted to by shoes will go unshod and the poor man working in a shoe factory will go begging.
Does it explain how slaves functioned as unpaid labor and capital during the time of King Cotton?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...
"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.
Does it explain how slaves functioned as unpaid labor and capital during the time of King Cotton?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...
"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.
The plantations were capitalism, fuckwit. Jeezus...
Why would you think slave owners lacked incentives? Imagine working from sun-up to sun-down with a single 15 minute lunch break picking cotton, and knowing that if you picked less cotton than the day before you would be exchanging your day's labor for a whipping?Pretty much completely wrong. Unpaid labor has zero incentive to work as hard as they can. Higher wages motivate to a higher degree. But businesses can't pay more than what the work is actually worth either.Free labor is every business man's fondest wet dream.
And if it can't be free, then cheap is the next best thing.
Why are you surprised capitalism came from the Divine Right of Kings? By the end of the 1700s the development of world-wide markets and state policies that would expand those markets and the development of world wide financial systems to service those markets were all in place.Does it explain how slaves functioned as unpaid labor and capital during the time of King Cotton?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...
"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.
The plantations were capitalism, fuckwit. Jeezus...
That's a classic example of unbridled ignorance. Most sugar plantations were on land that was granted by the king to one of his nobles. There was hardly anything "capitalist" about it.
