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

[georgephillip]

Anyone who thinks slavery and capitalism are incompatible needs to take a look at where sugar comes from and who harvests it.

"This book does an excellent job of showing exactly how the development of British capitalism was dependent on slavery.

"The author is Eric Williams, an obscure PhD student at the time of writing, but later in life to become Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago.

"Williams goes through his evidence in systematic detail, examining British economic and political development in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and showing the role of slavery at every turn.

"Great banking families like the Barclays and the Barings got their start as slave traders. Insurance firms like Lloyd’s of London made big profits from insuring slave traders against the death of their cargo."

Banks, Insurance companies, and industry would not exist in anything remotely resembling their current form if not for human slavery; maybe that should tell you something about where we're headed?

Capitalism Slavery Andrew Blackman

 

[2aguy]

The plantations were capitalism, fuckwit. Jeezus...

Plantations...driven by slavery...are not a capitalist endeavor, again...the slavery part is no part of Capitalism...since Capitalism is the "FREE" exchange of goods and services...the slavery part wrecks the definition of capitalism...when you are forced to work for someone else you are not "free" when the product of your labor is taken from you, you are not "free" to decide what to do with it...

This is why I call it lefty/democrat/progressive dyslexia...slavery to them is freedom...which is why they support communism and fascism....freedom to them...as in the free exchange of goods and services without government coercion...is slavery....

With the right help they might get that cured...just like dyslexics who have difficulty reading can fix that problem...

 

[georgephillip]

Again...Capitalism...the "FREE" exchange of goods and services...again, what part of slavery fits the "FREE" definition...

Where did you find your definition of capitalism?

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]"

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

The plantations were capitalism, fuckwit. Jeezus...

Plantations...driven by slavery...are not a capitalist endeavor, again...the slavery part is no part of Capitalism...since Capitalism is the "FREE" exchange of goods and services...the slavery part wrecks the definition of capitalism...when you are forced to work for someone else you are not "free" when the product of your labor is taken from you, you are not "free" to decide what to do with it...

This is why I call it lefty/democrat/progressive dyslexia...slavery to them is freedom...which is why they support communism and fascism....freedom to them...as in the free exchange of goods and services without government coercion...is slavery....

With the right help they might get that cured...just like dyslexics who have difficulty reading can fix that problem...

Do you think New York City banker James Brown and his family firm Brown Brothers & Co qualified as capitalists in 1842 when a quarter of their investments in the US South were directly bound up in the ownership of slave plantations?

You supplied a fictitious definition of capitalism, and then you claim the rest of us can't read?

Were you home schooled?

How Slavery Led To Modern Capitalism

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The plantations were capitalism, fuckwit. Jeezus...

Plantations...driven by slavery...are not a capitalist endeavor, again...the slavery part is no part of Capitalism...since Capitalism is the "FREE" exchange of goods and services...the slavery part wrecks the definition of capitalism...when you are forced to work for someone else you are not "free" when the product of your labor is taken from you, you are not "free" to decide what to do with it...

This is why I call it lefty/democrat/progressive dyslexia...slavery to them is freedom...which is why they support communism and fascism....freedom to them...as in the free exchange of goods and services without government coercion...is slavery....

With the right help they might get that cured...just like dyslexics who have difficulty reading can fix that problem...

Now we understand that, but at the time slaves were in fact property and so from the plantation owner's perspective they were capitalists.

 

[2aguy]

Do you think New York City banker James Brown and his family firm Brown Brothers & Co qualified as capitalists in 1842 when a quarter of their investments in the US South were directly bound up in the ownership of slave plantations?

No they weren't because they were trading in slaves...people who could not freely give or not give their services and could not freely exchange goods....

Look...you lefty socialists...I get it...whenever you guys try to run things,you eventually end up murdering millions of people...and then blame capitalism...once you grow up and learn the lesson of socialism and how it can never really work...then letting people freely exchange,goods and services without you lording over them will actually make sense...

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Do you think New York City banker James Brown and his family firm Brown Brothers & Co qualified as capitalists in 1842 when a quarter of their investments in the US South were directly bound up in the ownership of slave plantations?

No they weren't because they were trading in slaves...people who could not freely give or not give their services and could not freely exchange goods....

Look...you lefty socialists...I get it...whenever you guys try to run things,you eventually end up murdering millions of people...and then blame capitalism...once you grow up and learn the lesson of socialism and how it can never really work...then letting people freely exchange,goods and services without you lording over them will actually make sense...

you don't seem to understand that slaves were NOT considered people and thus there was no "free to" anything as concerns them.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Anyone who thinks slavery and capitalism are incompatible needs to take a look at where sugar comes from and who harvests it.

So the people who harvest sugar are being forced into labor for no compensation?

ROFLMNAO!

You need to look at who's harvesting it and see that the skill sets possessed by those people are extremely limited. They earn what they're worth to the person hiring them. IF they did not seek that employment, then the person needing that labor would have to seek others with higher level skills and pay a higher rate accordingly.

If you want to teach those people higher skills, then by all means get down to Belle Glade and start investing your time, money and energy in doing just that. And I am sure that they will happily compensate you with a percentage of their labor.

Then when the next crank comes in here complaining about how you're screwing the poor migrants with your ham-fisted tactics, charging exorbitant rates, you can come back and explain the specifics of your investment, your obligations, how you extended credit to them and they didn't pay you, so you had to do what you could within the scope of law to get paid, so you could pay those you owe... and on and on.

Just to satisfy a curiosity, what is your age?

 

[2aguy]

I'll take your definition and point out the important part...

] In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services areexchanged.[4]"

the parties to the transaction determine,the prices that are used for the exchange...so...to be real obvious about it...one of the human parties in a slave system cannot determine the price for his services or his goods...because he is a slave......his services and goods are stolen from him...see...that is the whole lack of freedom part that is missing from the capitalist part.....

I know it isn't your fault....you suffer from lefty/progressive/democrat dyslexia...just look at what you believe...put it in reverse...and you will correctly interpret the reality that normal,people understand....you can fix this problem...you just have to work at it...

 

[2aguy]

you don't seem to understand that slaves were NOT considered people and thus there was no "free to" anything as concerns them.

It doesn't matter what the thief says about the victim to justify his theft....he is still stealing the services and labor of another human being...that is again..stealing...it is not a free exchange if he forces another person to give him his services,and goods for free....

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone who thinks slavery and capitalism are incompatible needs to take a look at where sugar comes from and who harvests it.

"This book does an excellent job of showing exactly how the development of British capitalism was dependent on slavery.

"The author is Eric Williams, an obscure PhD student at the time of writing, but later in life to become Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago.

"Williams goes through his evidence in systematic detail, examining British economic and political development in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and showing the role of slavery at every turn.

"Great banking families like the Barclays and the Barings got their start as slave traders. Insurance firms like Lloyd’s of London made big profits from insuring slave traders against the death of their cargo."

Banks, Insurance companies, and industry would not exist in anything remotely resembling their current form if not for human slavery; maybe that should tell you something about where we're headed?

Capitalism Slavery Andrew Blackman

What do railroads and textile mills have to do with slavery?
The industrial revolution didn't start until about 1820, long after Europeans started importing slaves from West Africa.

Wikipedia says Barclays started out as goldsmith bankers, so your author's claim about them appears to be bullshit.
Barclays - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Barclays traces its origins back to 1690 when John Freame and Thomas Gould started trading as goldsmith bankers in Lombard Street, London. The name "Barclays" became associated with the business in 1736, when James Barclay, the son-in-law of John Freame, one of the founders, became a partner in the business.[5] In 1728 the bank moved to 54 Lombard Street, identified by the 'Sign of the Black Spread Eagle', which in subsequent years would become a core part of the bank's visual identity.[6]

In 1776 the firm was styled "Barclay, Bevan and Bening" and so remained until 1785, when another partner, John Tritton, who had married a Barclay, was admitted, and the business then became "Barclay, Bevan, Barclay and Tritton".[7]

In 1896 several banks in London and the English provinces, notably Backhouse's Bank of Darlington and Gurney's Bank of Norwich, united under the banner of Barclays and Co., a joint-stock bank.

Wiki also doesn't mention anything about slavery with regard to the start of Barings, so that claim also appears to be bullshit:

Barings Bank - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Barings Bank was founded in 1762 as the John and Francis Baring Company by Francis Baring, with his older brother John Baring as a mostly silent partner.[2] They were sons of John (né Johann) Baring, wool trader of Exeter, born in Bremen, Germany. The company began in offices off Cheapside and within a few years moved to larger quarters in Mincing Lane.[3] Barings gradually diversified from wool into many other commodities, providing financial services necessary for the rapid growth of international trade. By 1790, Barings had greatly expanded its resources, both through Francis' efforts in London and by association with leading Amsterdam bankers Hope & Co. In 1793, the increased business necessitated a move to larger quarters in Devonshire Square. Francis and his family lived upstairs, above the offices.

In short, everything you think you know about slavery is pure bullshit, but we could have guessed that before we verified the fact.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The plantations were capitalism, fuckwit. Jeezus...

Plantations...driven by slavery...are not a capitalist endeavor, again...the slavery part is no part of Capitalism...since Capitalism is the "FREE" exchange of goods and services...the slavery part wrecks the definition of capitalism...when you are forced to work for someone else you are not "free" when the product of your labor is taken from you, you are not "free" to decide what to do with it...

This is why I call it lefty/democrat/progressive dyslexia...slavery to them is freedom...which is why they support communism and fascism....freedom to them...as in the free exchange of goods and services without government coercion...is slavery....

With the right help they might get that cured...just like dyslexics who have difficulty reading can fix that problem...

Now we understand that, but at the time slaves were in fact property and so from the plantation owner's perspective they were capitalists.

Exactly. The notion that slavery in the US was set upon the idea of taking human beings and forcing them into labor, would have gotten you laughed out of wherever it was ya said it, back then... . "They are at best a higher level of the monkey, that's all. They lack the cognitive acuity of the human being, but their superior strength and the dexterity common to their opposing digit, makes them perfect for higher functions of manual labor. A minor percentage can be trained for domestic responsibilities, but it takes years of patience and a stern had to break them of their natural tendencies to horde and deceive. They'll steal you blind if you don't watch them every minute and you can't believe a word they tell you." Earl Stock Johnson - S.C. Brandy Farms, 1827

 

[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...

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.

The word "capitalism" didn't even exist in colonial America, so your claim is obvious bullshit. To the extent that an economy is based on slavery, it isn't capitalist. Colonial America was only partly capitalist, as was the South prior to the Civil War.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

you don't seem to understand that slaves were NOT considered people and thus there was no "free to" anything as concerns them.

It doesn't matter what the thief says about the victim to justify his theft....he is still stealing the services and labor of another human being...that is again..stealing...it is not a free exchange if he forces another person to give him his services,and goods for free....

of course that is true, but you have to put things in historical context if you are having a honest conversation. At the time it was universally believed that blacks were subhuman and thus you couldn't steal from one, couldn't rape one, couldn't murder one, etc etc. They were thought of as property.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

you don't seem to understand that slaves were NOT considered people and thus there was no "free to" anything as concerns them.

It doesn't matter what the thief says about the victim to justify his theft....he is still stealing the services and labor of another human being...that is again..stealing...it is not a free exchange if he forces another person to give him his services,and goods for free....

"... another human being ..."

Blacks were not considered 'human', nor anything remotely close to it. You're assigning modern conventions to ancient civilizations. Blacks were set well below the value of a favored horse.

Is it wrong to utilize the labor of a horse, mule or ox? IS it stealing the labor of such, when such is exploited? You seem like a reasonable fellow, so I don't think you would. We can both agree that they were wrong in their assessment that blacks were sub-human, but that doesn't change the fact, that this was their understanding.

 

[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.

The plantations were capitalism, fuckwit. Jeezus...

They weren't examples of capitalism any more than the Roman latifundia were examples of capitalism. They resembled Feudalism much more than capitalism.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

The word "capitalism" didn't even exist in colonial America, so your claim is obvious bullshit. To the extent that an economy is based on slavery, it isn't capitalist. Colonial America was only partly capitalist, as was the South prior to the Civil War.

Oh lord... here we go. Capitalism is not some ethereal notion which was 'established' at some date certain. It is merely the natural order of economics, wherein two or more people exchange goods and services to the profit of all parties. It is simply 'doing business' ... commerce.

That the Left needed a word to dehumanize the exchange is as irrelevant as the left itself.

 

[konradv]

Do you think New York City banker James Brown and his family firm Brown Brothers & Co qualified as capitalists in 1842 when a quarter of their investments in the US South were directly bound up in the ownership of slave plantations?

No they weren't because they were trading in slaves...people who could not freely give or not give their services and could not freely exchange goods....

Look...you lefty socialists...I get it...whenever you guys try to run things,you eventually end up murdering millions of people...and then blame capitalism...once you grow up and learn the lesson of socialism and how it can never really work...then letting people freely exchange,goods and services without you lording over them will actually make sense...

You're just playing games with words in order to make your "socialists are murderers " point. Slavery WAS a major part of capitalism at one time, America's progressives ARE NOT "murdering commies" and, lastly. libertarians ARE the flip-side of Marxists, because in order for either philosophy to work a major shift in human nature would have to occur. Sorry, no breaks for someone that doesn't realize they're no better than a socialist!!!

 

[bripat9643]

Do you think New York City banker James Brown and his family firm Brown Brothers & Co qualified as capitalists in 1842 when a quarter of their investments in the US South were directly bound up in the ownership of slave plantations?

No they weren't because they were trading in slaves...people who could not freely give or not give their services and could not freely exchange goods....

Look...you lefty socialists...I get it...whenever you guys try to run things,you eventually end up murdering millions of people...and then blame capitalism...once you grow up and learn the lesson of socialism and how it can never really work...then letting people freely exchange,goods and services without you lording over them will actually make sense...

You're just playing games with words in order to make your "socialists are murderers " point. Slavery WAS a major part of capitalism at one time, America's progressives ARE NOT "murdering commies" and, lastly. libertarians ARE the flip-side of Marxists, because in order for either philosophy to work a major shift in human nature would have to occur. Sorry, no breaks for someone that doesn't realize they're no better than a socialist!!!

That's like saying socialism was a major part of capitalism or that Social Security is a major part of capitalism. Social Security isn't capitalism, and neither is slavery. Slavery is a restriction on capitalism.

 

[2aguy]

Just because the guy who owns the slave says the slave is not human...guess what...he is still human...and therefore actually is able to be included in a free exchange,of goods,and services...except he has been kidnapped and his goods and services have been stolen...no matter how the thief defines him...

there is an objective truth here...a human is a human...no matter what a slave owner says or understands..his lack of understanding or his willful decision to call other human beings,less than human does not change "Capitalism"...Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services between human beings...and no matter what you say...slaves are human beings...

when the African was in Africa...before other Africans made him a slave...he engaged in hunting and making things...as a human being...he could keep those things give them away or trade them...that is free exchange as a human being...if he takes,his weapons and attacks another village and simply takes,those things...that is mureder and theft..not free exchange...

So when the African sells the other African to northern Muslims, or to Europeans...that African man or woman is a human being and if you make him a slave and you take his services and his goods against his will...you are not a capitalist...you are a thief...and you have not changed that human being into something else...