Is capitalism just a form of slavery? Does the middle class owe its existence completely to economic growth? Is economic growth the only significant difference between old school slavery and modern capitalism?
My answer is yes. From what I have learned, pure capitalism is based on ignorance, greed, and a hierarchy. Since the money supply requires growth or it will slowly shrink to nothing, without it we end up having a small percantage of people controlling all the money and everyone else in permanent debt. If that isn't slavery, I don't know what is.
The only thing keeping a large percentage of people working hard in capitalist economies is hope. With economic growth, lower class individuals can move up to middle class. Without economic growth, those strawberry pickers going to the USA from Mexico will always be strawberry pickers.
EDIT: I couldn't edit the poll, but one of the "slavery"s should be "capitalism".
PeakOil is You
THE Slavery Thread (merged)
Is capitalism nothing more than slavery with growth?
by Falconoffury » Wed 10 May 2006, 22:44:57
Last edited by Ferretlover on Sat 21 Mar 2009, 19:19:21, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE Slavery Thread.
Reason: Merged with THE Slavery Thread.
"If humans don't control their numbers, nature will." -Pimentel
"There is not enough trash to go around for everyone," said Banrel, one of the participants in the cattle massacre.
"Bush, Bush, listen well: Two shoes on your head," the protesters chant
"There is not enough trash to go around for everyone," said Banrel, one of the participants in the cattle massacre.
"Bush, Bush, listen well: Two shoes on your head," the protesters chant
-
Falconoffury - Expert
- Posts: 1395
- Joined: Tue 25 May 2004, 03:00:00
Re: Is capitalism nothing more than slavery with growth?
by gego » Wed 10 May 2006, 23:06:24
I suggest that you read Ayn Rand's book on Capitalism.
Maybe then you will not make such foolish statements.
Capitalism is freedom.
Maybe you just need a dictionary instead of operating on your prejudices and misconceptions.
Capitalism: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."
Is it the free market if government interfers and allows entry only if certain requirements can be met? If the government offers a cable franchise to only one company and then regulates the rates in favor of the company was this the free market or fascism, a system of private ownership but government control? If the government owns and operates a business like a public school and forces local residents to pay the fees charged by this business while delivering poor quality education, is this the free market or is this socialism?
If your head were screwed on straight, then you would recognize that your are complaining about fascism and socialism, and calling it capitalism when capitalism is in fact free men, relating to one another without compulsion in free markets.
When a corporation colludes with government for favorable position and profits, is this capitalism or fascism? If you call it capitalism, then you deserve an "F" in your understanding words.
Maybe then you will not make such foolish statements.
Capitalism is freedom.
Maybe you just need a dictionary instead of operating on your prejudices and misconceptions.
Capitalism: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."
Is it the free market if government interfers and allows entry only if certain requirements can be met? If the government offers a cable franchise to only one company and then regulates the rates in favor of the company was this the free market or fascism, a system of private ownership but government control? If the government owns and operates a business like a public school and forces local residents to pay the fees charged by this business while delivering poor quality education, is this the free market or is this socialism?
If your head were screwed on straight, then you would recognize that your are complaining about fascism and socialism, and calling it capitalism when capitalism is in fact free men, relating to one another without compulsion in free markets.
When a corporation colludes with government for favorable position and profits, is this capitalism or fascism? If you call it capitalism, then you deserve an "F" in your understanding words.
- gego
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Re: Is capitalism nothing more than slavery with growth?
by Falconoffury » Wed 10 May 2006, 23:30:41
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')apitalism: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."
I don't see how this definition argues against the things I have said. Development, accumulation, and reinvestment requires economic growth, does it not? Since all money is created by loans and all loans need to be paid back with more than the original amount, isn't growth in the money supply, and thus development, required in order to accumulate wealth? Also, reinvestment would not be a wise decision if the investment couldn't grow.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f your head were screwed on straight, then you would recognize that your are complaining about fascism and socialism, and calling it capitalism when capitalism is in fact free men, relating to one another without compulsion in free markets.
I am not talking about fascism and socialism at all. I'm talking about the differences and similarities with slavery and capitalism. It has nothing to do with government regulation. I'm asking if economic growth in a capitalistic economy is responsible for creating the middle class. I'm asking what the differences are between capitalism and slavery when economic growth is taken away. You haven't addressed my questions at all and just basically went off topic.
"If humans don't control their numbers, nature will." -Pimentel
"There is not enough trash to go around for everyone," said Banrel, one of the participants in the cattle massacre.
"Bush, Bush, listen well: Two shoes on your head," the protesters chant
"There is not enough trash to go around for everyone," said Banrel, one of the participants in the cattle massacre.
"Bush, Bush, listen well: Two shoes on your head," the protesters chant
-
Falconoffury - Expert
- Posts: 1395
- Joined: Tue 25 May 2004, 03:00:00
Re: Is capitalism nothing more than slavery with growth?
by jaws » Wed 10 May 2006, 23:48:10
Capitalism is slavery to the consumers. Since people are free to buy whatever they want, the producers are compelled to obey their every foolish desire.
-
jaws - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Is capitalism nothing more than slavery with growth?
by JustinFrankl » Wed 10 May 2006, 23:48:37
Humans are incapable of efficiently and effectively managing and implementing any -ism, be it capitalism, socialism, even fascism, on a large scale for very long. We don't have the skillset, brain power, or big-picture view, or maybe all our philosophies and "better natures" fall by the wayside when confronted with our own greed and fear.
And yes, capitalism as practiced in the world today is slavery.
And yes, capitalism as practiced in the world today is slavery.
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
- JustinFrankl
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Mon 22 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Is capitalism nothing more than slavery with growth?
by americandream » Wed 10 May 2006, 23:48:48
Yeah right...freedom...freedom to do what......and name me one capitalist who fought for freedom....all freedom enjoyed today was foUght hard for by those from the centre left to the far left.
Lol....its amusing how these greedy slobs seek to validate their freedom to plunder and pillage by invoking the freedom that us workers fought hard for under the RED FLAG.
Lol....its amusing how these greedy slobs seek to validate their freedom to plunder and pillage by invoking the freedom that us workers fought hard for under the RED FLAG.
- americandream
- Permanently Banned
- Posts: 8650
- Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Re: Is capitalism nothing more than slavery with growth?
by jaws » Wed 10 May 2006, 23:56:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Falconoffury', 'I') don't see how this definition argues against the things I have said. Development, accumulation, and reinvestment requires economic growth, does it not? Since all money is created by loans and all loans need to be paid back with more than the original amount, isn't growth in the money supply, and thus development, required in order to accumulate wealth? Also, reinvestment would not be a wise decision if the investment couldn't grow.
Wealth isn't money. Wealth is capital goods. No amount of money creation is necessary to build wealth, only capital accumulation is necessary.
-
jaws - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Is capitalism nothing more than slavery with growth?
by gego » Thu 11 May 2006, 00:01:49
On the issue of the middle class being a result of economic growth, the answer is the middle class is the result of freedom.
Think of a plantation in a pre 1861 southern state. There would have been a small upper class (the owners and masters) with the great majority of wealth; there would have be a very large underclass of slaves with no wealth at all; and there would have been a few hired overseers with some wealth. This would have been a skewed distribution of wealth with maybe 5% of the population possessing 95% of the wealth. There would have been a very small middle class, the overseers. Slavery produces poverty for the overwhelming majority.
Consider early history of the USA. There was a small upper class, a large middle class and a small group in poverty. This is a natural distrubution, produced by freedom. The man in the middle, the median individual, would have had an average amount of wealth. All throughtout history there is a direct relationship between the degree of freedom and the distrubution of wealth.
The large middle class is produced by freedom, not economic growth, although it is true that a free society will produce much more wealth and economic growth and a better standard of living for the average man that will a slave society which produces misery and suffering for the average man.
It is only via slavery, ruler control of the economy in favor of the priveleged few, that wealth is accumulated in the hands of the few. If you observe that this is what is happening, then you have observed not capitalism, but slavery (goes by the name of fascism and socialism also). This should give you a clue as to what is happening at present; the destruction of the middle class and the increase in the poor is prima facia evidence that slavery, not capitalism is working as intended by your (our) rulers.
The implication of your post is that capitalism (freedom) is to blame for the growth of slavery; the implication in not logical since freedom and slavery are not the same thing and freedom does not produce slavery. Economic growth and how this growth is divided among the population are two issues. They are related in the sense that there is a feedback mechanism, but also the historic anomoly of cheap energy is also part of the equation. The energy by itself produces a bigger economic pie; freedom makes the pie grow more effectively and produces a natural distrubution curve; slavery makes the pie grow more slowly than it otherwise would, and produces a skewed distribution of the pie in favor of the rulers to the detrement of the majority.
Capitalism is not based on ignorance or heirarchy. Greed is part of freedom and it is a good part, because it drives one to take care of himself, creates the accumulation of wealth that can be invested in productive assets, and makes one then able to also be charitable. The idea that greed is bad is just a ploy used by politicians to make you give up your hard earned wealth to them since your are evil to keep the fruits of your own labor yourself. You need to also read Any Rand's work on Selfishness and its benefits, as the arguments in favor of selfishness are clearly and presuavisly presented beyond what an internet post can detail.
Think of a plantation in a pre 1861 southern state. There would have been a small upper class (the owners and masters) with the great majority of wealth; there would have be a very large underclass of slaves with no wealth at all; and there would have been a few hired overseers with some wealth. This would have been a skewed distribution of wealth with maybe 5% of the population possessing 95% of the wealth. There would have been a very small middle class, the overseers. Slavery produces poverty for the overwhelming majority.
Consider early history of the USA. There was a small upper class, a large middle class and a small group in poverty. This is a natural distrubution, produced by freedom. The man in the middle, the median individual, would have had an average amount of wealth. All throughtout history there is a direct relationship between the degree of freedom and the distrubution of wealth.
The large middle class is produced by freedom, not economic growth, although it is true that a free society will produce much more wealth and economic growth and a better standard of living for the average man that will a slave society which produces misery and suffering for the average man.
It is only via slavery, ruler control of the economy in favor of the priveleged few, that wealth is accumulated in the hands of the few. If you observe that this is what is happening, then you have observed not capitalism, but slavery (goes by the name of fascism and socialism also). This should give you a clue as to what is happening at present; the destruction of the middle class and the increase in the poor is prima facia evidence that slavery, not capitalism is working as intended by your (our) rulers.
The implication of your post is that capitalism (freedom) is to blame for the growth of slavery; the implication in not logical since freedom and slavery are not the same thing and freedom does not produce slavery. Economic growth and how this growth is divided among the population are two issues. They are related in the sense that there is a feedback mechanism, but also the historic anomoly of cheap energy is also part of the equation. The energy by itself produces a bigger economic pie; freedom makes the pie grow more effectively and produces a natural distrubution curve; slavery makes the pie grow more slowly than it otherwise would, and produces a skewed distribution of the pie in favor of the rulers to the detrement of the majority.
Capitalism is not based on ignorance or heirarchy. Greed is part of freedom and it is a good part, because it drives one to take care of himself, creates the accumulation of wealth that can be invested in productive assets, and makes one then able to also be charitable. The idea that greed is bad is just a ploy used by politicians to make you give up your hard earned wealth to them since your are evil to keep the fruits of your own labor yourself. You need to also read Any Rand's work on Selfishness and its benefits, as the arguments in favor of selfishness are clearly and presuavisly presented beyond what an internet post can detail.
- gego
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Re: Is capitalism nothing more than slavery with growth?
by Micki » Thu 11 May 2006, 03:22:01
Slavery does not allow to choose who you work for, what work you do and what your reward is for that work.
Capitalism is lilke a grand multiplayer chess game where everyone tries to win. You use what ever means you have (within a legal system) to outsmart, outlast, outwin.
Those who don't cope with the pace complain and turn to communism or anarchism in a dream that fundamental changes to society will provide them a new opportunity on a silver platter.
Well communism was tried a few times and we see hwo that worked. Much closer to slavery.
Anarchism has not yet even been tried in a large scale as it is so way off peoples nature. (And NO by anarchism I do not mean a society where everyone runs around looting and shooting but a society where individuals take responsibility for their actions and work towards a hermonious society.)
Capitalism is lilke a grand multiplayer chess game where everyone tries to win. You use what ever means you have (within a legal system) to outsmart, outlast, outwin.
Those who don't cope with the pace complain and turn to communism or anarchism in a dream that fundamental changes to society will provide them a new opportunity on a silver platter.
Well communism was tried a few times and we see hwo that worked. Much closer to slavery.
Anarchism has not yet even been tried in a large scale as it is so way off peoples nature. (And NO by anarchism I do not mean a society where everyone runs around looting and shooting but a society where individuals take responsibility for their actions and work towards a hermonious society.)
- Micki
Re: Is capitalism nothing more than slavery with growth?
by MrBill » Thu 11 May 2006, 03:24:58
Taxation by governments are an extortion of my labor & creativity. When marginal tax rates & mandatory deductions reach close to 50%+ of my gross salary, that means I am a slave to the Government for 6-months of the year. Working for zero compensation. Not even bread, water and a roof over my head, as any good slave owner might provide to keep his investments healthy and working longer & harder. Your average serf worked less of the year for his landowner.
Even in ancient Egypt the King or the Pharoh usually only expropriated labor during the rainy, flood season when farmers could not work their fields in any case. To be sure it was forced labor, but short of owned slavery. And in any case, as unsavory as slavery was in the ancient world, it was developed to spare conquering armies from having to execute all their prisoners on the battle field. That later it developed into a trade is a separate matter. Eventually, it was abandoned largely in part because it became uneconomical.
But I digress. Capitalism is freely selling my labor & creativity to the highest bidder knowing that the Government is going to take away 50%+ of my hard work. This simply means I have to work twice as long for the same amount of benefit, so that someone else has to work half as hard. If that is not expropriation, then I do not know what is?
Never the less, at least I have 50% of my labor & creativity to save or to spend as I see fit. If I save, it is because I do not need to consume that much now and I may prefer to prepare for my future. Of course, under slavery, the only way to prepare for my future would possibly be to plan to kill my slave owner. Although a few have tried, it is very hard to kill the government. Therefore, my savings which I accumlate are defered consumption. In the meantime, those funds may be freely lent to those who need them now for investment or for immediate consumption. That is also their free choice. Spend now or save for later. This has nothing to do with growth.
Growth comes from buying a piece of land and building a house on it. Buying a farm and putting the land into productive use. Going to the office or factory on Monday morning and coming home on Friday night after producing something, whether it is goods or services, that someone, somewhere is willing to buy. Freely willing to exchange their labor & creativity for my labor & creativity. How is that slavery? That we need to work for our daily bread?
What do you envision, a society of leisure, where no one works? No one produces anything, but all wants are provided for? It is a nice dream, but I am not even sure of that? We are hardwired to work and to be creative. If the need to work was completely removed, only consumption would remain. Not very satisfying as those on welfare may attest or may be evidenced by their substance abuse amoung other problems. Or do you feel those on welfare are only dissatisfied because they do not get enough for free? Would doubling their stipend make them happier or prompt them to become suddenly more productive?
If you do not want to work and be productive that is perhaps your right. However, I would like to keep the fruits of my labor to dispose of how I wish. You're lucky, you have the government on your side to help take my wealth away from me, so I am partially your slave. However, beat a slave enough, and he will refuse to work or will run away. Because I am willing to work hard and be creative, I can always leave and find a place that taxes me less. Those who are not willing to work for what they want do not have that luxury, so they are really the poorer for it. Make your choice, but stop whining! ; - )
Government by Frederic Bastiat
Even in ancient Egypt the King or the Pharoh usually only expropriated labor during the rainy, flood season when farmers could not work their fields in any case. To be sure it was forced labor, but short of owned slavery. And in any case, as unsavory as slavery was in the ancient world, it was developed to spare conquering armies from having to execute all their prisoners on the battle field. That later it developed into a trade is a separate matter. Eventually, it was abandoned largely in part because it became uneconomical.
But I digress. Capitalism is freely selling my labor & creativity to the highest bidder knowing that the Government is going to take away 50%+ of my hard work. This simply means I have to work twice as long for the same amount of benefit, so that someone else has to work half as hard. If that is not expropriation, then I do not know what is?
Never the less, at least I have 50% of my labor & creativity to save or to spend as I see fit. If I save, it is because I do not need to consume that much now and I may prefer to prepare for my future. Of course, under slavery, the only way to prepare for my future would possibly be to plan to kill my slave owner. Although a few have tried, it is very hard to kill the government. Therefore, my savings which I accumlate are defered consumption. In the meantime, those funds may be freely lent to those who need them now for investment or for immediate consumption. That is also their free choice. Spend now or save for later. This has nothing to do with growth.
Growth comes from buying a piece of land and building a house on it. Buying a farm and putting the land into productive use. Going to the office or factory on Monday morning and coming home on Friday night after producing something, whether it is goods or services, that someone, somewhere is willing to buy. Freely willing to exchange their labor & creativity for my labor & creativity. How is that slavery? That we need to work for our daily bread?
What do you envision, a society of leisure, where no one works? No one produces anything, but all wants are provided for? It is a nice dream, but I am not even sure of that? We are hardwired to work and to be creative. If the need to work was completely removed, only consumption would remain. Not very satisfying as those on welfare may attest or may be evidenced by their substance abuse amoung other problems. Or do you feel those on welfare are only dissatisfied because they do not get enough for free? Would doubling their stipend make them happier or prompt them to become suddenly more productive?
If you do not want to work and be productive that is perhaps your right. However, I would like to keep the fruits of my labor to dispose of how I wish. You're lucky, you have the government on your side to help take my wealth away from me, so I am partially your slave. However, beat a slave enough, and he will refuse to work or will run away. Because I am willing to work hard and be creative, I can always leave and find a place that taxes me less. Those who are not willing to work for what they want do not have that luxury, so they are really the poorer for it. Make your choice, but stop whining! ; - )
Government by Frederic Bastiat
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
-
MrBill - Expert
- Posts: 5630
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Eurasia
Re: Is capitalism nothing more than slavery with growth?
by Doly » Thu 11 May 2006, 03:29:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', '
')Anarchism has not yet even been tried in a large scale as it is so way off peoples nature. (And NO by anarchism I do not mean a society where everyone runs around looting and shooting but a society where individuals take responsibility for their actions and work towards a hermonious society.)
')Anarchism has not yet even been tried in a large scale as it is so way off peoples nature. (And NO by anarchism I do not mean a society where everyone runs around looting and shooting but a society where individuals take responsibility for their actions and work towards a hermonious society.)
It hasn't been tried on a large scale on a country because there's always somebody willing to be the leader. It has been tried on a large scale on the Internet, and it has worked fairly well.
If you think about it, there isn't any particular reason why the functions of the government should be aggregated together, except that they traditionally have been. If the government was divided in a number of smaller non-profit organizations, it should work not just equally well, but better, as bureaucracy would be reduced.
-
Doly - Expert
- Posts: 4370
- Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
