Did capitalism helped end or prolong slavery in the US and elsewhere

[noblegas]

I really don't know if capitalism helped end slavery or prolonged it; On one hand, the invention of the cotton gin helped extinguished the need for slave laborers to picked cotton and the North was economically more prosperous than agricultural south. Err, perhaps this was this because most of the slaves were unskilled laborers and the labor force in the North had more skilled laborers ? On the other hand, up until the invention of the cotton gin, since the south economy was primarily an agricultural economy, could one say that the cotton industry benefitted from slavery. Slavery still exists today in the world but it is mainly concentrated in non-capitalistic nations, but then again, a portion of Wal-mart's work force , one might say work on "slave wages". What do you think? Do you think Capitalism helped end slavery in most of the world or do you think it has just transferred much of the slave labor work force into another part of the world?

 

[Integral]

Capitalism certainly did nothing to end it here. The southern plantation owners were economically bound to it and it continued until the civil war. Most of the founding fathers owned slaves, even those in the northern states. I think the further north you went the fewer slaves there were.

It was such a divisive issue that the founding fathers agreed to disagree and just ignored it. The hope was that it would die out of its own accord. But it was to important to the southern states economically and politically. Politically since a certain percentage of the slaves were counted toward the population for figuring the number of representatives.

Capitalism did nothing to end slavery.

 

[D H]

Capitalism did nothing to end slavery.

I'll take the contrary view. Slavery is an extremely old idea. It is at least as old as writing. Capitalism is a very recent idea, and when capitalism takes root slavery soon vanishes.

What killed slavery was capitalism. Capitalism needs experienced workers who can be trusted to do their jobs, and do so willingly. Slavery is predicated on workers who cannot be trusted to do their jobs, that they will do anything to escape their jobs, and that they need to have the stuff whipped out of them as motivation for doing their jobs. Slavery and capitalism are antithetical to one another.

Feudalism began to decline in western Europe precisely when the initial seeds for capitalism took root. Slavery persisted for quite some. Adam Smith, the author of The Wealth of Nations, was also the author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Smith was the father of modern capitalism and was a very ardent abolitionist. Those two works are what led Britain to (belatedly) abolish slavery in the 1830s. How about the US? If the northern states had not seen the light, would the Civil War have ever taken place? Slavery persisted in the South because the South was stuck in a pre-capitalist mindset. The industrialist North needed workers they could trust. Slavery does not engender trust. Slavery looks absolutely disgusting in a capitalist mindset. There would have been no war between the states if the North had not become a bunch of greedy capitalists.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not certain that Capitalism ended slavery in the US. However, the Northern factories were very eager to attract cheap labor away from the South.

 

[Integral]

I'll take the contrary view. Slavery is an extremely old idea. It is at least as old as writing. Capitalism is a very recent idea, and when capitalism takes root slavery soon vanishes.

What killed slavery was capitalism. Capitalism needs experienced workers who can be trusted to do their jobs, and do so willingly. Slavery is predicated on workers who cannot be trusted to do their jobs, that they will do anything to escape their jobs, and that they need to have the stuff whipped out of them as motivation for doing their jobs. Slavery and capitalism are antithetical to one another.

Feudalism began to decline in western Europe precisely when the initial seeds for capitalism took root. Slavery persisted for quite some. Adam Smith, the author of The Wealth of Nations, was also the author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Smith was the father of modern capitalism and was a very ardent abolitionist. Those two works are what led Britain to (belatedly) abolish slavery in the 1830s. How about the US? If the northern states had not seen the light, would the Civil War have ever taken place? Slavery persisted in the South because the South was stuck in a pre-capitalist mindset. The industrialist North needed workers they could trust. Slavery does not engender trust. Slavery looks absolutely disgusting in a capitalist mindset. There would have been no war between the states if the North had not become a bunch of greedy capitalists.

Hamilton set up our economic system during Washingtons first term, so capitalism was designed in from the start. The abolutionist accepted the existence of slavery because they recognized, even before 1800, that it would take a war to stop it. Early on there were secessionist plots in the NORTH wanting to separate from the agarian southern slave owners. Note that in his will George Washington freed his slaves, Tom Jefferson and Arron Burr (a northern slave holder) did not. The Civil war was nearly inevitalbe, I don't think capitalism changed a thing. It is not clear to me why you think that the northern factories needing skilled workers had anything to do with the slave labor in the southern fields? All the factories need is a steady supply of raw materials, as long as the slaves provided the cotton the factory owners were perfectly happy. If it was pressures from capitalism which caused the end of slavery why did we have to fight a war. The founding fathers hoped that it would die over time, it did not.

 

[noblegas]

Hamilton set up our economic system turing Washingtons first term, so capitalism was designed in from the start. The abolutionist accepted the existence of slavery because they recognized, even before 1800, that it would take a war to stop it. Early on there were secessionist plots in the NORTH wanting to separate from the agarian southern slave owners. Note that in his will George Washington freed his slaves, Tom Jefferson and Arron Burr (a northern slave holder) did not. The Civil war was nearly inevitalbe, I don't think capitalism changed a thing. It is not clear to me why you think that the northern factories needing skilled workers had anything to do with the slave labor in the southern fields? All the factories need is a steady supply of raw materials, as long as the slaves provided the cotton the factory owners were perfectly happy. If it was pressures from capitalism which caused the end of slavery why did we have to fight a war. The founding fathers hoped that it would die over time, it did not.

You don't think the invent of the cotton gin helped abolished slavery the need for handpicked cotton laborers , since the cotton gin made the production of cotton much more efficient? Many southern plantation owners hired irish laborers to do dangerous life-threatening work because they saw their slaves as capital and therefore did not want to endangered their slaves, so hiring laborers eroded slavery a little bit. The economies of the south and the north were heading towards polar sides of the economic spectrum , i.e complemented each other , the north being more prosporous than the economy of the south resembling a feudal economy .

 

[BigFairy]

I will be rude, and say that you're still a slave.

You're only free to die in the streets. Otherwise you're just a slave to the system.

 

[WhoWee]

I will be rude, and say that you're still a slave.

You're only free to die in the streets. Otherwise you're just a slave to the system.

Are you always so - upbeat?

 

[arildno]

"Capitalism is a very recent idea, and when capitalism takes root slavery soon vanishes."

This is complete nonsense.

Wage labour systems (capitalism proper, in contrast to a) Slave-based systems, b) Feudal systems (land rent system), c) Various redistributive systems) are a component of ancient economies as well.

Similarly with free market operations (well developed in ancient rome, for example)

 

[DavidSnider]

Capitalism is not a very recent idea. In the 8th century it was present in the Islamic world along with slavery. This continued for centuries.

 

[Preno]

This thread is quite amusing.

Contrary to the assumptions implicit in the above discussion, slavery is not a thing of the past, it is still very much a pressing issue (despite being almost completely ignored by the media and governments). There are about 30 million slaves in the world at the moment (and note that this is a low estimate, the number may be - in fact, is likely to be - significantly higher), and the number is rapidly increasing. Slavery and human trafficking is considered to be the fastest growing criminal industry in the world.

And it is being encouraged, rather than discouraged by capitalism, which forces companies to try to minimize the cost of labour, regardless of the social costs of this (but, of course, "there is no such thing as society", right?). There is structural pressure in capitalism towards greater income inequality and towards the impoverishment of those at the bottom of the chain (we in the first world are very much at the top). The way to prevent slavery is to uproot its social causes by providing access to potable water, land, schools and other social services, not to exacerbate them by neoliberal capitalism.

 

[WhoWee]

This thread is quite amusing.

Contrary to the assumptions implicit in the above discussion, slavery is not a thing of the past, it is still very much a pressing issue (despite being almost completely ignored by the media and governments). There are about 30 million slaves in the world at the moment (and note that this is a low estimate, the number may be - in fact, is likely to be - significantly higher), and the number is rapidly increasing. Slavery and human trafficking is considered to be the fastest growing criminal industry in the world.

And it is being encouraged, rather than discouraged by capitalism, which forces companies to try to minimize the cost of labour, regardless of the social costs of this (but, of course, "there is no such thing as society", right?). There is structural pressure in capitalism towards greater income inequality and towards the impoverishment of those at the bottom of the chain (we in the first world are very much at the top). The way to prevent slavery is to uproot its social causes by providing access to potable water, land, schools and other social services, not to exacerbate them by neoliberal capitalism.

Well I guess you're happy that Obama was elected?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

It appears he's trying to wrestle the economy away from the private sector and keep it solidly under Government control- no?

 

[DavidSnider]

Giving trillions of dollars of taxpayer money for private corporations to do what they please with is considered "keeping it solidly under Government control"?

 

[WhoWee]

Giving trillions of dollars of taxpayer money for private corporations to do what they please with is considered "keeping it solidly under Government control"?

Excuse me, who owns GM? What happened to the bondholders?

 

[MATLABdude]

This thread is quite amusing.

Contrary to the assumptions implicit in the above discussion, slavery is not a thing of the past, it is still very much a pressing issue (despite being almost completely ignored by the media and governments). There are about 30 million slaves in the world at the moment (and note that this is a low estimate, the number may be - in fact, is likely to be - significantly higher), and the number is rapidly increasing. Slavery and human trafficking is considered to be the fastest growing criminal industry in the world.

And it is being encouraged, rather than discouraged by capitalism, which forces companies to try to minimize the cost of labour, regardless of the social costs of this (but, of course, "there is no such thing as society", right?). There is structural pressure in capitalism towards greater income inequality and towards the impoverishment of those at the bottom of the chain (we in the first world are very much at the top). The way to prevent slavery is to uproot its social causes by providing access to potable water, land, schools and other social services, not to exacerbate them by neoliberal capitalism.

Slavery is still very much a modern-day issue. From the high-revilement issue of human sex trafficking (and yes, they definitely end up in the West--in my own city, they shut down an operation just last week which made the front page news, and headlines nationwide) to more 'old-school' agrarian and domestic servitude. In fact, you may very well be enjoying the literal fruits of slave labour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_cocoa_production

There was an interesting AP article (too bad they don't have bylines anymore--what's with that?) I read a while ago where some folks from Egypt (where slavery is illegal, but still persists) had brought along their personal (domestic) slave, and let her grow up. She then got freed, got adopted, went to school, and her masters got arrested. Unfortunately, as such things go, the story doesn't really end on a happy note:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/28/child-maid-trafficking-sp_n_153814.html

I'd read somewhere that slavery now is cheaper than at any point in history. Plantation slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries would be sold for the equivalent of U$40 or $50,000, but slaves today (location and 'skill-set' depending) are sold for as little as a few hundred dollars. An article I found through a quick Google search:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/slavery-worse-now-than-under-roman-empireslaves-are-cheaper-and-more-plentiful-than-ever-626493.html

EDIT: FTFA: Used to cost £40-50,000, and today they go for as little as $70!

 

[Integral]

You don't think the invent of the cotton gin helped abolished slavery the need for handpicked cotton laborers , since the cotton gin made the production of cotton much more efficient? Many southern plantation owners hired irish laborers to do dangerous life-threatening work because they saw their slaves as capital and therefore did not want to endangered their slaves, so hiring laborers eroded slavery a little bit. The economies of the south and the north were heading towards polar sides of the economic spectrum , i.e complemented each other , the north being more prosporous than the economy of the south resembling a feudal economy .

You seem to be confused. The cotton gin had nothing to do with picking the cotton. A cotton gin removes the seeds from the cotton after it is picked. The slaves picked the cotton. It was much later that picking was mechanised. It seems that operating the gin was the dangerous job given to the Irish. Most of the southern plantation owners had to believe that the slaves were inferior and uneducable, therefore could not run machinery. They had to maintain that belief system in order to justify the abomination that was slavery.

I am not saying that there were no economic influences contributing to the civil war. Clearly economics alone could not and did not end slavery. It existed hand in hand with capitalism for about 80yrs. It was not dying out, it was an institution that was not going to go away without force of arms.

 

[noblegas]

You seem to be confused. The cotton gin had nothing to do with picking the cotton. A cotton gin removes the seeds from the cotton after it is picked. The slaves picked the cotton. It was much later that picking was mechanised. It seems that operating the gin was the dangerous job given to the Irish. Most of the southern plantation owners had to believe that the slaves were inferior and uneducable, therefore could not run machinery. They had to maintain that belief system in order to justify the abomination that was slavery.

I am not saying that there were no economic influences contributing to the civil war. Clearly economics alone could not and did not end slavery. It existed hand in hand with capitalism for about 80yrs. It was not dying out, it was an institution that was not going to go away without force of arms.

The cotton gin eliminated the need to separate cotton by hand, which was a very inefficient process for seperating cotton compared to having the cotton gin separate cotton from the cotton seeds. I was mistaken, it seemed that the inventor of the cotton gin hoped that his invention would in slavery. The slaveowners just didn't want the slaves to do the dangerous jobs because they thought they were inferior, the jobs were very life-threatening and they did not to endangered the lives of their slaves because they want to used their slaves for other dutities and slaves were seen as capital. Generally, people in the US had as much of a skewed viewed of irish culture as much as a skewed viewed of blacks. at least upon their arrival in the 1840's due to the potato famine.

Do you think some of the policy makers all across Western europe were influence by Adam smith theory that free labor will make productivity of certain goods and certain inefficient and being very outspoken about imperial rule all around the world? If capitalism didn't have a very strong hand in eliminating slavery , what do you suppose is the explanation for why slavery is more likely to exist in countries that have uncapitalistic economies vs. countries that do have highly capitalistic economies?

 

[noblegas]

This thread is quite amusing.

Contrary to the assumptions implicit in the above discussion, slavery is not a thing of the past, it is still very much a pressing issue (despite being almost completely ignored by the media and governments). There are about 30 million slaves in the world at the moment (and note that this is a low estimate, the number may be - in fact, is likely to be - significantly higher), and the number is rapidly increasing. Slavery and human trafficking is considered to be the fastest growing criminal industry in the world.

And it is being encouraged, rather than discouraged by capitalism, which forces companies to try to minimize the cost of labour, regardless of the social costs of this (but, of course, "there is no such thing as society", right?). There is structural pressure in capitalism towards greater income inequality and towards the impoverishment of those at the bottom of the chain (we in the first world are very much at the top). The way to prevent slavery is to uproot its social causes by providing access to potable water, land, schools and other social services, not to exacerbate them by neoliberal capitalism.

Well I never did say that capitalism completely ended slavery around the world. Only that slavery was eliminated in large portions of western europe and the United States where capitalism was practiced.. Slavery is certainly prominent in regions of the world where capitalism is not practices and almost non-existent in countries who's economies is highly capitalistic. I think capitalism has helped bridge the gap between the incomes of people coming from different economic backgrounds

In Bernstein book, the capitalist manifesto,he writes that many people in London resided in impoverished conditions similar to the impoverished conditions quite common in third world countries today . It is always lamented that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Thats just not true. the economic conditions of people have improved greatly over time the course since capitalism inception

 

[Preno]

Well I never did say that capitalism completely ended slavery around the world. Only that slavery was eliminated in large portions of western europe and the United States where capitalism was practiced.. Slavery is certainly prominent in regions of the world where capitalism is not practices and almost non-existent in countries who's economies is highly capitalistic.

On the contrary, many Third World countries are paragons of unresticted capitalism, much more so than most First World countries with their welfare states.

Also slavery is not eliminated in Western Europe or the United States. There are tens to hundreds of thousands of slaves in the U.S. alone. I've seen various estimates between 50,000 and 200,000 (again, these being lower estimates).

I think capitalism has helped bridge the gap between the incomes of people coming from different economic backgrounds

That's not true, get your facts straight. The income gap is widening both globally and in the Western countries.

In Bernstein book, the capitalist manifesto,he writes that many people in London resided in impoverished conditions similar to the impoverished conditions quite common in third world countries today.

Yes. That was in the period of unfettered capitalism of the 19th century. Which rather demonstrates my point.

The advances made since then have been due to restrictions placed on capitalism (such as the 8 hour working day).

It is always lamented that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Thats just not true.

lol, it is a simple, objective fact that the income disparity is widening. Not even capitalist apologists deny that.

 

[Preno]

Also, you're missing the point, which is that the global economy including First World economy relies on slave labour. It's irrelevant whether the slaves are actually in the U.S. or in India, the point is that capitalism systematically rewards people for pushing labour costs as low as possible, including the use of slave labour.

 

[russ_watters]

Also slavery is not eliminated in Western Europe or the United States. There are tens to hundreds of thousands of slaves in the U.S. alone. I've seen various estimates between 50,000 and 200,000 (again, these being lower estimates).

That's quite a claim. Could you provide a source for it, please?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm wondering if this thread is asking the wrong question. Slavery wasn't abolished/isn't illegal because it is a flawed economic theory, it was abolished/made illegal because it is morally wrong. So perhaps the better question is whether the morality inherrent in western democracy helped end slavery.

 

[Preno]

That's quite a claim. Could you provide a source for it, please?

Sure:

Leaked CIA report says 50,000 sold into slavery in US every year
http://iflizwerequeen.com/?p=3843
an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 are enslaved in the agriculture, clothing, domestic and sex industries
http://www.utdallas.edu/news/archive/2005/free-the-slaves.html
etc.

http://fora.tv/2008/04/11/Julia_Ormond_Combating_Human_Trafficking that is well-worth watching if you want an up-to-date introduction to this issue.

You get varying figures if you Google around a bit, but as I said, generally they fall between 50,000 and 200,000 (but again, they only include the "known unknowns").

 

[noblegas]

Yes. That was in the period of unfettered capitalism of the 19th century. Which rather demonstrates my point.

The advances made since then have been due to restrictions placed on capitalism (such as the 8 hour working day).

Well, most people where impoverished because of feudalism that existed for centuries throughout the middle ages and up until that period. It was feudalism , not capitalism , was the cause for the widespread poverty that was common among residents of London. Of course capitalism was not going to immediately rise the standard of living for london's residents. It was also during that period that many technological advances were made and wages of workers doubled between 1810-1850.(Jeffrey williamson, Did capitalism breed Inequality from Andrew Bernstein's book the capitalist manifesto.

On the contrary, many Third World countries are paragons of unresticted capitalism, much more so than most First World countries with their welfare states.

Really? Well nationmaster and I begged to differ regarding which nations practice capitalism which nations do not http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_fre-economy-economic-freedom; Highest on the list, Hong Kong, Ireland Luxemburg, Unitedstates; Lowest on the list, North Korea, Cuba, ethiopia and pretty much most of the third world countries.

lol, it is a simple, objective fact that the income disparity is widening. Not even capitalist apologists deny that.

Well it is true that the poor are getting richer(in capitalist countries), whether you accept this fact or not.

On August 26, the U.S. Census Bureau released annual poverty figures showing that the percentage of persons who are poor rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003.1 It is important to recognize that the recently released census poverty figures are one year old. They cover 2003--not the current year. Given current economic conditions, it is extremely likely that poverty fell during 2004, although the official figures will not be available until August or September of 2005. ...

from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm; Also , if you google it , you will find that the 1 percent wealthiest segment of the upper income bracket , 90 percent of them did not inherit their wealth, they earned it.

 

[Preno]

Well, most people where impoverished because of feudalism that existed for centuries throughout the middle ages and up until that period. It was feudalism , not capitalism , was the cause for the widespread poverty that was common among residents of London. Of course capitalism was not going to immediately rise the standard of living for london's residents. It was also during that period that many technological advances were made and wages of workers doubled between 1810-1850.(Jeffrey williamson, Did capitalism breed Inequality from Andrew Bernstein's book the capitalist manifesto.

Whether in absolute terms the living standards fell during the Industrial Revolution or not is a controversial issue, but it is an incontrovertible fact that hundreds of thousands of people, including children, had to work hard more for 12-16 hours a day just to be able to earn a subsistence wage. That has nothing to do with feudalism and everything to do with capitalism systematically rewarding those capitalists who managed to cut the labour costs down as low as possible. It was by restricting capitalism that we arrived at where we are today, where we don't have to work more than 8 hours a day and where children don't have to work.

Really? Well nationmaster and I begged to differ regarding which nations practice capitalism which nations do not http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_fre-economy-economic-freedom; Highest on the list, Hong Kong, Ireland Luxemburg, Unitedstates; Lowest on the list, North Korea, Cuba, ethiopia and pretty much most of the third world countries.

I don't know what "economic freedom" means, it appears to be some sort of politicized index, which without explanation is quite meaningless. The point is that Third World countries often have much less restrictions on free trade than Western countries and they have more lax labour laws, allowing capitalists the exploit the labour force more efficiently.

Well it is true that the poor are getting richer, whether you accept this fact or not.

Yes, but that's not what I said.

from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm; Also , if you google it , you will find that the 1 percent wealthiest segment of the upper income bracket , 90 percent of them did not inherit their wealth, they earned it.

I don't care, that's absolutely irrelevant. I don't believe in the circular myth of "if you earn it, you must have deserved it".

 

[CRGreathouse]

It is always lamented that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Thats just not true.

lol, it is a simple, objective fact that the income disparity is widening. Not even capitalist apologists deny that.

Income disparity increased from (say) 1960 to 2000, though it's fallen since. But that time period wasn't one showing a marked increase in capitalism, so how is this relevant?

Further, classical economic theory would suggest that under capitalism both rich and poor would be richer than under other systems. It doesn't suggest whether capitalism would lead to lower (or higher!) income disparity. So your observation is consistent with this understanding. (Comparing the standard of living of the poor in capitalist countries like Hong Kong, the UK, and the US to closed economies like Cuba, North Korea, and Zimbabwe also agrees...)

Also , if you google it , you will find that the 1 percent wealthiest segment of the upper income bracket , 90 percent of them did not inherit their wealth, they earned it.

I'm going to have to ask for a source on that, since I would have expected lower (maybe 80%) and since I'm not sure what population it considers (world? US? EU? developed countries?).

 

[Preno]

Income disparity increased from (say) 1960 to 2000, though it's fallen since.

Source? For example, the Gini coefficient in the U.S. had been consistently increasing until 2007, when it experienced a tiny drop, but the pattern is still a very consistent increase.

But that time period wasn't one showing a marked increase in capitalism, so how is this relevant?

The claim is that capitalism leads to increasing income disparity, not that an "increase in capitalism" leads to an increase in disparity. Capitalism = d/dt income disparity, figuratively speaking, it needn't "increase" in order for income disparity to increase.

Further, classical economic theory would suggest that under capitalism both rich and poor would be richer than under other systems. It doesn't suggest whether capitalism would lead to lower (or higher!) income disparity. So your observation is consistent with this understanding.

I find that doubtful (although you are of course right that strictly speaking higher income disparity doesn't necessarily imply someone is worse off), but at any rate it means that a small group of people has a highly disproportionate bargaining power compared to the rest of the population.

Comparing the standard of living of the poor in capitalist countries like Hong Kong, the UK, and the US to closed economies like Cuba, North Korea, and Zimbabwe also agrees...

The majority of the Third World is capitalist, why did you pick Hong Kong (an extremely atypical administrative unit in all respects), the UK and the US? Also, once again, note that global economy, including Western economy, is partly based on cheap Third World labour. So in order to fully appreciate the adverse effects of capitalism, it really is necessary to look at the Third World. You really cannot just look at the First World and say case closed, you need to take into account the effects the economic policies of the First World have on the rest of the world (which is mostly capitalist).

North Korea and Zimbabwe have, afaict, terrible economic systems, so that doesn't demonstrate much. And Cuba doesn't do bad when compared with the rest of Latin America. (Of course, comparing it to the First World would be rather unfair.)

 

[CRGreathouse]

The point is that Third World countries often have much less restrictions on free trade than Western countries and they have more lax labour laws, allowing capitalists the exploit the labour force more efficiently.

I don't believe it; cite? Most 'third world' (is it still the Cold War?) countries have extremely high barriers to trade and business: Comoros, Djibouti, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Zimbabwe, the Central African Republic, ... In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to name a 'third world' country without high trade barriers. Using some online resources the closest I could find was Uruguay, which has trade barriers better than Saudia Arabia but worse than Spain and Australia. (If you'll include 'second world' countries, Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic would certainly qualify.)

 

[CRGreathouse]

Source? For example, the Gini coefficient in the U.S. had been consistently increasing until 2007, when it experienced a tiny drop, but the pattern is still a very consistent increase.

I'll dig one up later. The Gini coefficient is old and a very poor measure of income distribution.

The claim is that capitalism leads to increasing income disparity, not that an "increase in capitalism" leads to an increase in disparity. Capitalism = d/dt income disparity, figuratively speaking, it needn't "increase" in order for income disparity to increase.

So with no change in the economic structure, you would expect income disparity to increase unabated forever? OK, well at least that's an internally consistent belief.

I find that doubtful (although you are of course right that strictly speaking higher income disparity doesn't necessarily imply someone is worse off), but at any rate it means that a small group of people has a highly disproportionate bargaining power compared to the rest of the population.

This is a very different claim from your original. I think a great many people would disagree that capitalism makes the poor worse off, but would agree that it gives a relatively small group a large amount of power. (Of course, this is also true under monarchy, aristocracy, communism, socialism, and dictatorships/oligarchies/juntas/etc.)

 

[noblegas]

Whether in absolute terms the living standards fell during the Industrial Revolution or not is a controversial issue, but it is an incontrovertible fact that hundreds of thousands of people, including children, had to work hard more for 12-16 hours a day just to be able to earn a subsistence wage. That has nothing to do with feudalism and everything to do with capitalism systematically rewarding those capitalists who managed to cut the labour costs down as low as possible.

Do you realize how rampant poverty is in pre-capitalist england? Do you know how rampant the death rate was in england before the industrial revolution? 1 in 25 people died in 1700 and 1/20 people died in 1750. After the Industrial revolution the death rate started to declined to a rate of 1/40.(M.Dorothy George, London Life in the eighthteenth centurypp. 22-25 . Taxes were not surprisingly high, seeing that the wealthy kings and nobles had to steal their source of wealth from the masses.(T.S. Ashton, The treatment of capitalism by historians) p. 47. Serfdom(slavery) was a common practice in most of Europe throughout the 1500-1800's. Most PEople did not possessed the right to own any property, only feudal lords and kings. It was common to find people laying dead on the road after they were exhausted from working on the feudal lands all day. They probably received no wage. So yes , I will continued to hold the claim that it was mostly feudalism, not capitalism for the reasons people worked under life threatening conditions, given the harsh working conditions of the common serf in feudal england.

I don't care, that's absolutely irrelevant. I don't believe in the circular myth of "if you earn it, you must have deserved

So you buy the rhetoric" if you earn it, you are forced to share your earnings with those around you" even though you might not helped building those earnings ?

 

[Preno]

I don't believe it; cite? Most 'third world' (is it still the Cold War?) countries have extremely high barriers to trade and business: Comoros, Djibouti, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Zimbabwe, the Central African Republic, ... In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to name a 'third world' country without high trade barriers. Using some online resources the closest I could find was Uruguay, which has trade barriers better than Saudia Arabia but worse than Spain and Australia. (If you'll include 'second world' countries, Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic would certainly qualify.)

By "Third World" countries I meant "non-First World countries" (which is the sense in which the term normally appears to be used today). I don't know about trade barriers, but what I had in mind were things like labour laws, minimal wages and welfare systems.

I'll dig one up later. The Gini coefficient is old and a very poor measure of income distribution.

It was simply the one for which I could easily find the relevant data, but I'm not aware of any indicator of inequality exhibiting anything else than a consistent increase (with small bumps like the Gini coefficient). Of course, if you are, I'm willing to be corrected.

So with no change in the economic structure, you would expect income disparity to increase unabated forever? OK, well at least that's an internally consistent belief.

No, obviously not, as I said, it was a figure of speech. But the argument that there was no increase in capitalism, therefore the increase in income disparity is not due to capitalism, simply doesn't work.

This is a very different claim from your original.

Which was? (This is not a trick question, I don't know which of my claims you are trying to argue now.)

I think a great many people would disagree that capitalism makes the poor worse off, but would agree that it gives a relatively small group a large amount of power. (Of course, this is also true under monarchy, aristocracy, communism, socialism, and dictatorships/oligarchies/juntas/etc.)

I suppose they would.

 

[arildno]

Capitalism needs experienced workers who can be trusted to do their jobs, and do so willingly. Slavery is predicated on workers who cannot be trusted to do their jobs, that they will do anything to escape their jobs, and that they need to have the stuff whipped out of them as motivation for doing their jobs.

Nonsense.

Goldsmiths in the 5th-6th centuries AD, for example, were typically (highly valued) slaves.

In the Roman and Islamic worlds, slaves occupied many specialized economic niches.

In the Roman era, slave emancipation was the common incitament for work for the urban, specialized slaves, who could expect about 6-10 years of slavery before being emancipated.

 

[noblegas]

I'm wondering if this thread is asking the wrong question. Slavery wasn't abolished/isn't illegal because it is a flawed economic theory, it was abolished/made illegal because it is morally wrong. So perhaps the better question is whether the morality inherrent in western democracy helped end slavery.

So why wasn't the immorality of slavery realized sooner? I mean , many city states in ancient greece practiced democracy but slavery as an institution was kept alive; During the Elightment period, many classical liberal like John stuart and Adam Smith promoted the principle of individual rights and consequently , believed that economic liberalism(capitalism) is intertwined with individual liberty. I think capitalism and recognition of individual liberty combined helped ended slavery in the west, because capitalism existed in islamic societies and democracy existed in ancient greece, and slavery neither ended in these societies. And if you live in a society that recognizes individual liberty but not property rights, then you would be a serf if you lived in that society, which is essentially a slave.

 

[turbo]

The OP is simplistic. Slavery and slave-trading thrived for centuries under capitalistic systems ruled by monarchies, colonial governorships, and independent republics. Quakers often owned slaves until that system became unpopular with the leadership in the late 17th-early-18th C, as did Cherokees. Even when slavery became domestically unpopular in the northern US and the UK, enterprising traders and ship-owners found ways to profit from the trade in human lives by delivering humans to places that condoned slavery, and plowing their profits into buying and transporting raw materials and finished goods to other ports.

History is not simple, nor is it usually pretty and bucolic. Africans did not swim to the Caribbean or to South America looking for a better life. There were huge profits to be made from the slave-trade, and as long as that situation prevailed there were always greedy persons willing to engage in the practice.

 

[arildno]

So why wasn't the immorality of slavery realized sooner?

Moral evolution might be likened to scientific discoveries:

Just because we have the basic tools to discover something, does not mean we necessarily do so.

Furthermore, some developments cannot take place prior to others have been made.

Thirdly, morality might well, as scientific facts, be something objective, but not necessarily something we have full cognizance of..yet, or ever.

 

[noblegas]

The OP is simplistic. Slavery and slave-trading thrived for centuries under capitalistic systems ruled by monarchies, colonial governorships, and independent republics. Quakers often owned slaves until that system became unpopular with the leadership in the late 17th-early-18th C, as did Cherokees. Even when slavery became domestically unpopular in the northern US and the UK, enterprising traders and ship-owners found ways to profit from the trade in human lives by delivering humans to places that condoned slavery, and plowing their profits into buying and transporting raw materials and finished goods to other ports.

History is not simple, nor is it usually pretty and bucolic. Africans did not swim to the Caribbean or to South America looking for a better life. There were huge profits to be made from the slave-trade, and as long as that situation prevailed there were always greedy persons willing to engage in the practice.

Yes you are right. Only the principle of individual rights coupled with economic liberty is what really ushered the movement to end slavery in western european nations and the United states in the 18th and 19th centuries. I mean China is developing a capitalistic economy and it has a sizeable slave population. I still contend that it was the industrial revolution and not the slave trade industry that made the US and the West very prosperous nations and further contend that slavery was mostly profitable for slaveowners and plantation owners because slaves were less productivity then free men. Otherwise , many socialist countries like the Soviet union would have been paragons of economic prosperity.

 

[mheslep]

The cotton gin eliminated the need to separate cotton by hand, which was a very inefficient process for seperating cotton compared to having the cotton gin separate cotton from the cotton seeds. I was mistaken, it seemed that the inventor of the cotton gin hoped that his invention would in slavery. ...

Lets put this one to bed. As Integral suggested, the cotton gin was a major contributor to slavery. After its invention, slavery exploded in the Southern US.

However, like many inventors, Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave.

Because of the cotton gin, slaves now labored on ever-larger plantations where work was more regimented and relentless. As large plantations spread into the Southwest, the price of slaves and land inhibited the growth of cities and industries. In the 1850s seven-eighths of all immigrants settled in the North, where they found 72% of the nation's manufacturing capacity. The growth of the "peculiar institution" was affecting many aspects of Southern life.

http://www.eliwhitney.org/museum/eli-whitney/cotton-gin

The invention that might have decreased slavery if it had been possible was the tractor and the mechanized cotton picker, not the cotton gin.

 

[mheslep]

I'm wondering if this thread is asking the wrong question. Slavery wasn't abolished/isn't illegal because it is a flawed economic theory, it was abolished/made illegal because it is morally wrong. So perhaps the better question is whether the morality inherrent in western democracy helped end slavery.

Some libertarian politician the other day suggested an interesting idea on this topic: the North should have just bought all the slaves and freed them with some kind of stipend. My first knee jerk reaction was no, that entire social order needed to be destroyed, etc, etc. But then not so fast: that was 600,000 people killed that might have been avoided, entire communities North and South wiped out? No federal government attacking the states, no suspension of habeas corpus, etc. What would the same reconstruction time period look like if the South was not so dirt poor? It's not so easy to dismiss.

 

[mheslep]

... There are about 30 million slaves in the world at the moment (and note that this is a low estimate, the number may be - in fact, is likely to be - significantly higher), and the number is rapidly increasing. Slavery and human trafficking is considered to be the fastest growing criminal industry in the world...

...Also slavery is not eliminated in Western Europe or the United States. There are tens to hundreds of thousands of slaves in the U.S. alone. I've seen various estimates between 50,000 and 200,000 (again, these being lower estimates).

That's misleading to post these together in context, implying some kind of collaboration between the crime and country. The slavery of many of those 3rd world millions is condoned, even sponsored, by their host nations. Slavery is illegal in W. Europe and the US. There are also estimates of tens of thousands of assaults, rapes, and assaults, but they're not condoned either.

 

[mheslep]

A discussion of free markets and capital quickly goes off on tangents when its allowed to be redefined to mean any kind oppression, or wealth, or despotic behavior. I think the discussion will be more productive if we go to the source:

All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN19.html#IV.9.51

Such a system of people acting freely to exchange industry and invest capital amongst themselves takes myriad forms, but we can rule out a few things about it:

-It was not 'set up' by Hamilton or any other single banker or individual in power, it operates specifically, as Smith says, only when individuals act freely amongst themselves. So free markets and capital operated in the colonies well before Hamilton sat in the Treasury.

-If one can not invest capital and be paid interest for the investment, then we don't have Smith's 'capital' part of the definition. If 8th century Islam did not allow usury, then they did not have Smith's Capitalism.

-Certainly no slave, nor anyone acting under coercion can participate in Capitalism.

 

[Integral]

A discussion of free markets and capital quickly goes off on tangents when its allowed to be redefined to mean any kind oppression, or wealth, or despotic behavior. I think the discussion will be more productive if we go to the source:


http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN19.html#IV.9.51

Such a system of people acting freely to exchange industry and invest capital amongst themselves takes myriad forms, but we can rule out a few things about it:

-It was not 'set up' by Hamilton or any other single banker or individual in power, it operates specifically, as Smith says, only when individuals act freely amongst themselves. So free markets and capital operated in the colonies well before Hamilton sat in the Treasury.

-If one can not invest capital and be paid interest for the investment, then we don't have Smith's 'capital' part of the definition. If 8th century Islam did not allow usury, then they did not have Smith's Capitalism.

-Certainly no slave, nor anyone acting under coercion can participate in Capitalism.

Not exactly sure what your point is?

The slaves certainly did participate in capitalism, you might say they were committed to it body and soul. They were, after all, capital to the Plantation owners.

Interesting quote by Smith, could you provide a year for that?

Do you mean that if I provide a quote from Marx, I can prove that Communism worked?

Indeed Hamilton is responsible for the financial foundations of the USA . Smith, of course, was his bible for this work.

 

[noblegas]

Not exactly sure what your point is?

The slaves certainly did participate in capitalism, you might say they were committed to it body and soul. They were, after all, capital to the Plantation owners.

Interesting quote by Smith, could you provide a year for that?

Do you mean that if I provide a quote from Marx, I can prove that Communism worked?

Indeed Hamilton is responsible for the financial foundations of the USA . Smith, of course, was his bible for this work.

I would argue that the economic system that the antebellum south practice resembled a feudal system more so than a capitalist economic system and capitalism requires that the government recognized that individuals have the right to pursue and acquire property, i.e. property rights. In a feudal system , people are attached to land (not literarly) and are required/coerced to perform the duties the landowner sets for his serf(slave) to do on his property; In the antebellum south, slaves could not leave the land they worked on temporarily or permanently without permission from the land

 

[alxm]

Do you mean that if I provide a quote from Marx, I can prove that Communism worked?

Communism doesn't work, but that doesn't mean Marx isn't quoteworthy. He had lots of good insights. Just because his giant philosophical system as a whole didn't pan out, doesn't mean his way of looking at things isn't useful. And in this context, Marx had a lot to say about slavery in general, and in the US in particular (he and Engels wrote a whole book on the Civil War), so why not?
(In fact, the whole idea of connecting the dots between economy and society in the way this question implicitly does, is in no small measure due to Marx)

To give a very short oversight of the Marxist way of looking at this: In Marxist history theory, the main traits of any society are determined by its means of production. In that framework, slavery and capitalism aren't traditionally related, because slavery was a result of agricultural society (and of plantation colonialism), whereas capitalism is a result of industrial society.

Marx did make some analogies between slave-owners and capitalists, but he didn't consider them to be the same thing. He did view both capitalism and slavery as exploitation of labor, but capitalism did not normally have or lead to slavery. The US system was somewhat 'anomalous', he explained.

So, in the Marxist view, the end of slavery was a battle on two fronts, first the transition from an agricultural to an industrial society and second, the class struggle for better working conditions.

 

[mheslep]

Not exactly sure what your point is?

The slaves certainly did participate in capitalism, you might say they were committed to it body and soul. They were, after all, capital to the Plantation owners.

Interesting quote by Smith, could you provide a year for that?

Do you mean that if I provide a quote from Marx, I can prove that Communism worked?

I'm trying to communicate a definition, not prove what did or did not work (yet). We can't do the latter well without the former. You might well quote from Marx when trying to establish what Communism is, especially if such a discussion spirals off into Communism kills people or does this or that other 'bad' thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations"

Indeed Hamilton is responsible for the financial foundations of the USA.

Hamilton established how the government would handle banking (much of it reversed later by Andrew Jackson). The US economy, especially in the 18th century, was not synonymous with the government or its bank.

 

[Integral]

I would argue that the economic system that the antebellum south practice resembled a feudal system more so than a capitalist economic system and capitalism requires that the government recognized that individuals have the right to pursue and acquire property, i.e. property rights. In a feudal system , people are attached to land (not literarly) and are required/coerced to perform the duties the landowner sets for his serf(slave) to do on his property; In the antebellum south, slaves could not leave the land they worked on temporarily or permanently without permission from the land

I am sorry, but the south was part of the US it was the same capitalist system as in the north. Humans had all of those rights, slaves however were seen as subhuman so the rights of capitalism did not extend to them. Slaves were bought and sold exactly as cattle are to this very day. The slaves were not attached to the land, they were the property of the plantation owner just like the sheep and horses.

I cannot see why you see slaves as incompatible with capitalism. There have been no arguments put forth that show the two as mutually exclusive. The slaves were capital the slave owners were capitalist. How did Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence reconcile his slaves with his words? Beats me, Evidently he was a master at saying one thing and doing another.

 

[arildno]

" would argue that the economic system that the antebellum south practice resembled a feudal system more so than a capitalist economic system and capitalism requires that the government recognized that individuals have the right to pursue and acquire property, i.e. property rights. In a feudal system , people are attached to land (not literarly) and are required/coerced to perform the duties the landowner sets for his serf(slave) to do on his property;"

VERY misleading!
When it came to peasants/serfs in the feudal economy, there were two pillars common:
1. Land rent.
Essentially, the peasant was required to hand some of his produce over, in order to maintain his right of usage of the soil as he himself saw fit. This was the source of the MAIN part of the lord's income.

2. Tallage/services:
It was common that the demesne lands (i.e, the lords' own directly held property) lay in-between the peasant-fields, and that they were required to till them as well, as part of their obligations (many lords were angry that THEIR fields always looked less well tended than the peasants' own strips of land!)

While the tallage/services system was, indeed, highly inefficient, sabotaged by the peasants through go-slow-actions and similar underclass tricks, the land rent system was efficient since it directly tied the lords' income to the peasants' work for their own survival.

Classically, economists are referring to the land rent system when contrasting the "feudal economy" to the "slave economy" and the "capitalist economy", the tallage system being a "remnant" if you like, of the slave system.

Day labourers, who worked for their meal or a few coppers as wages, represented the budding form of capitalist economy.

 

[mheslep]

I am sorry, but the south was part of the US it was the same capitalist system as in the north. ...

I disagree. You keep focusing apparently on the financial actions actions taken by the federal government; if we accept Smith's definition we have to drop that line. Per Smith, the government's main role is simply to stay out of the way, with no "preference or of restraint". The North actually engaged in the practice of free markets and capital investment at a far greater rate than did the South. Lincoln captured the difference in one his early writings, speaking of the industry of every man in the North, all trying to make his fortune by inventing the next gizmo, while right across the Ohio river the goal of every common man was simply to get his own plantation and slaves (can't find the quote at the moment). I can't show at the moment whether Southern state laws or simply social norms enforced that behaviour in the South, but either way, working one's 1850 subsistence farm in the Alleghenies is very weak participation in capitalism.

 

[mheslep]

" would argue that the economic system that the antebellum south practice resembled a feudal system more so than a capitalist economic system and capitalism requires that the government recognized that individuals have the right to pursue and acquire property, i.e. property rights. In a feudal system , people are attached to land (not literarly) and are required/coerced to perform the duties the landowner sets for his serf(slave) to do on his property;"

VERY misleading!
When it came to peasants/serfs in the feudal economy, there were two pillars common:
1. Land rent.
Essentially, the peasant was required to hand some of his produce over, in order to maintain his right of usage of the soil as he himself saw fit. This was the source of the MAIN part of the lord's income.

As Smith defines it, and as Noblegas pointed out, any coerced transaction is not capitalism.

...

...Classically, economists are referring to the land rent system when contrasting the "feudal economy" to the "slave economy" and the "capitalist economy", the tallage system being a "remnant" if you like, of the slave system.

Day labourers, who worked for their meal or a few coppers as wages, represented the budding form of capitalist economy.

I think you'd be hard pressed to name any reputable economist that would label feudal systems in any way capitalist.

 

[arildno]

Furthermore:
When people are poor and starving, they will be driven to extremities, for example sending their 5-year olds down in mine shafts in order to gain a few more pitiful coins to the family economy.

Mines were certainly capitalist ventures in 19th century Britain.

If given the right to alienate their own freedom, desperate individuals wouldn't blink at selling themselves (or their children) into slavery, as long as it gave some prospect of a slightly better future, for themselves or their children.

Suppose you are a carpenter, you have made by, raised 5 kids, and one day the disaster strikes: You fall off the roof and break your legs.

There is no larger family around you to support you, the little money your wife earns by cleaning rags and then selling them on is not at all enough to buy your family's food, and there certainly isn't any welfare system to appeal to. Starvation stares you in your face, and your landlord will come along in two weeks' time to fetch the house rent, or will evict you from his property.

However, a character comes along, a wealthy man obviously, who says he can take your eldest lad in as a slave to work in his house, he's even willing to give you 50 gold pieces upfront if you agree..

There is nothing in capitalism per se that is prohibitive of slavery, not the least because HAVING slaves is bound to inflate your ego, and therefore they will be a prized commodity, whatever their work efficiency might be.

Slaves are an adornment to the master, and hence with a value beyond their productivity, and thus buy-worthy.

 

[mheslep]

...Humans had all of those rights, slaves however were seen as subhuman so the rights of capitalism did not extend to them. Slaves were bought and sold exactly as cattle are to this very day. The slaves were not attached to the land, they were the property of the plantation owner just like the sheep and horses.

I cannot see why you see slaves as incompatible with capitalism. There have been no arguments put forth that show the two as mutually exclusive. The slaves were capital the slave owners were capitalist. ...

I agree mostly with this part. What's missing here is what happened with the rest of the South; the plantation owners were a small percentage of the populace. The point being that in the South, maybe five percent (guessing) were involved in capitalism, the rest were effectively shut out. The South had no Andrew Carnegies. In the North, capitalism was wide spread among the population.