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

[konradv]

Capitalism when done morally is nothing like slavery. Slave owners were cowardly people. Perhaps quite lazy as well as they needed someone else to do their work for them as they weren't capable. In capitalism one is free to leave a job whenever they want (there should be no penalty ever for doing this but there is). In the end though one is free to walk away at any time. Slaves were not. They were considered property which made it even more immoral and awful. Slaves were forced to live in small cramped places and work for nothing while the owner profited. Again a truly cowardly act. Employees today once they punch out they are free to walk off the job and not think about it until their next required shift. Most employees (not all but most) have some laws for their protection and safety. Slaves were routinely mistreated and fear was used to control them.

I agree that slavery was a raunchy system, but regardless, if slaves are property and used to gain income, they are being used in a capiltalistic system.

 

[initforme]

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

 

[occupied]

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.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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

Quite untrue. Some slave owners yes of course, But MANY slave owners were good people, who simply for whatever reason believed blacks weren't human. Doesn't mean they mistreated them. Hell, they didn't believe their horses were human either, but they were still valuable property that they treated right.

A lack of education doesn't make a person a bad person.

 

[initforme]

Today's form of capitalism is on the crooked greed ridden side and is stacked heavily against average working people this cannot be disputed,. However, it isn't slavery as one is free to quit a job at any time with no penalty. Or at least there should not be a penalty for walking out

 

[konradv]

Today's form of capitalism is on the crooked greed ridden side and is stacked heavily against average working people this cannot be disputed,. However, it isn't slavery as one is free to quit a job at any time with no penalty. Or at least there should not be a penalty for walking out

What's your point? How bad slavery was has nothing to do with whether or not it's capitalism.

 

[Mathbud1]

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?

That's a fantastic reason never to work any harder than you absolutely must to avoid the lash. You will do the bare minimum that will not get you whipped. If you don't pick very fast today, you won't have to pick very fast tomorrow to match it.

I guarantee this, a paid worker working for a reward will always have more incentive to work hard than a slave working to avoid the lash. If a slave works too hard one day, he'll have to work that hard every day after that to avoid the lash. If a paid worker puts in an extra hard day one day, he may get an additional reward for it, but if not, the next day he can go back to normal and still get the same reward he was getting before. He has incentive to work harder to get a better reward, and no disincentive to do so.

 

[2aguy]

a great video by Bill Whittle where he explains Republicans and their beliefs vs. the three types of socialism of the 20th century...and he also discusses the democrats...you know the real racists...in his own way, though not knowing it..Bill Whittle points out more lefty dyslexia...

 

[2aguy]

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....

 

[konradv]

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. 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.

 

[2aguy]

John C. Wright refuses to point out the flaws in Capitalism in this column he wrote addressing a question sent to him by a fan...his defense of Capitalism is good...and he addresses the topic above about capitalism and slavery...

Plutoyperetonism in its Proper Place John C. Wright s Journal

Much ado is made of the fact that certain Protestant preachers in the antebellum South sought Biblical excuses to ward off criticism of slavery. No ado is made of the much more striking fact that no other religion, no philosophy, no creed, no land, no peoples, aside from Christians motivated by Christian principles in Christendom have ever criticized slavery, ever excommunicated all slaveowners, ever abolished it, first in the Middle Ages by suasion, and then in the Enlightenment by force of arms. Seek through all lands for the Islamic Antislavery Society, of the Egyptian, or the Chinese, and you will find an idea invented in Christian lands.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[auditor0007]

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...

Ah, that old right wing ridiculous argument that it's one or the other. Unfettered capitalism is bad. Actually, it's horrible, pretty much the same as having the state control everything such as was done in the old Soviet Union. And that folks, is why we have a capitalistic economy where the government sets certain regulations that must be followed. Now just in case you aren't intelligent enough to understand this, the government is not some big monster but rather is a tool that the people choose to put in place. You see, it's the people who want certain regulations to protect workers, and to collect taxes, and so forth, all for the better welfare of everyone.

 

[konradv]

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.

 

[georgephillip]

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]

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

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Moonglow]

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."

Delusional logic prescribed here...

 

[2aguy]

the government is not some big monster

Yes it is actually, how big a monster depends on the checks and balances the citizens use to keep it in check...I'm sure Germans in the 1930s -40s, Cambodians, Chinese, Russia, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Iraq...and hundreds of others disprove your theory...we have been fortunate in that we used to have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that was respected by the majority of citizens, which helped keep the worst abuses under control...that is slowly slipping away...

 

[boilermaker55]

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.

 

[2aguy]

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...