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

[arildno]

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

...

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

Are you "coerced" by your landlord to pay rent?

Many peasants were not serfs at all.

 

[mheslep]

Are you "coerced" by your landlord to pay rent?...

If I freely entered into a contract with the landlord then no I was not coerced. If for example the landlord and the state got together to prohibit me and mine from moving elsewhere, or disallowing me to own to own property, or to somehow conspire to set all the rents, then yes I was coerced.

 

[arildno]

You really should read medievalists like Marc Bloch and Georges Duby to understand what feudal economy primarily was about, and how it, by the b) land rent system distinguishes itself from a) the slave economy and c) classical wage labour system (i.e, capitalism.

To set up a few salient characteristics:
1. Freedom to end contract on labourer's side:
Not present in a), present in b)+c)
2. Close supervision/direction of work performance
Not present in b), present in a)+c)
3. Labourer's own judgment as to how own produce is to be distributed/dispensed with:
Present in b) (except for the specified part called "land rent"), not present in a)+c)
4. "Employer's" responsibility to feed labourer:
Present in a), not present in b)+c)
5. Freedom to end contract on employer's part:
Certainly present in a)+c), but with much weaker presence in b)
(arbitrary evictions due to failing payment of land rent was not particularly common; shortage of man-power made it more attractive to the land-owner to impose new burdens on the peasant, rather than evicting him outright)
These are typical characteristics of the three distinct systems of produce transferral.



Essentially, the feudal land rent system is more of a taxation system than a system of employment, with the theoretical land-owner has the right to tax, but not dispossess, the peasant.

 

[mheslep]

(i.e, capitalism)

As far as I can tell attaching capitalism to medieval history is arbitrary; and the post uninterested in any useful definition of capital used in free markets. We're talking past each other, so I'll move on.

 

[noblegas]

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.

Yes , but if there were not LAWS that allowed people to own a particular group of people , then people would not have bought and sold human beings. What do you mean they were not attached to the land? If landowners made provisions for the slaves not to be allowed to leave the plantation, then the slaves would be attached to the land they worked on. Of course, everyone has free will and is free to come and go as they please. Thats not the point. Legally however, slaves were not free to come and go as they please, because the US government at the time, did not recognized blacks as human beings.

If government provisions were not put in place where it allowed human beings to own a particular group of human beings like whites were allowed to own blacks in the United states , then slaves would not have spawned from the free market.

 

[Integral]

The slaves were not attached to the land because if their owner decided to move or to sell them the slaves went where their owners sent them. Serfs were not the property of the land owner they were part and parcel with the land.

Many wealthy northerners held slaves as household servants, just what did these people have to do with land?

mheslep,
Indeed Hamilton set up the first national bank, but he did MUCH more then that. As the first Secretary of the Treasury he set up the entire financial basis of the US. The system he set up was practical and theoretically sound, it is still in use. Smith was a primary reference for everything he did. Indeed government hands off was a big piece of it. These policies had to be established by someone sometime, it was Hamilton in the 1790's.

Not clear to me how it can be denied that capitalism was the economic system of the south, wasn't it part of the US? Just because the southerns did not begin creating factories does not mean that they couldn't, just that they didn't, there is a difference. Sure most of the south was agrarian, but even the small land owners held slaves, it was a prestige thing. IF you could afford a slave you got one or two.

What ended slavery? I think Russ said it. Many northerners were offended by it. There were enough wealthy abolitionists that they were able to get some papers printing essays against it. The papers of the day were shooting for emotional responses, they finally were able to stir up enough feelings to drum up support for a war to end it. The northern capitalist did not have to be an abolitionist to support the war. What good capitalist does not love a war?

 

[BigFairy]

Heh, just a quote i remembered today:

What? The land of the free?
Whoever told you that is your enemy
...

Zack De La Rocha, Rage Against the Machine,"Know Your Enemy" 1992

 

[noblegas]

Heh, just a quote i remembered today:

Your using Zack De La Rocha for a quote to promote your point? I am a fan of RATM, but I cannot take their anti-capitalist diatribe seriously seeing that they have been a huge benefeciary of capitalism. and what do you mean we are not the land of the free? Sure are freedoms have been sliced upon over the years and at one point in this nation history, blacks were not free, but historically the United States has be the freeist nation in history.

 

[BigFairy]

Hi, i only posted that quote as i remembered it (been a while since i listened to the actual track itself) and at the time it seemed like a good idea. Well i 'had' to post it somewhere lol...

 

[arildno]

As far as I can tell attaching capitalism to medieval history is arbitrary; and the post uninterested in any useful definition of capital used in free markets. We're talking past each other, so I'll move on.

Live on in your fantasy that free marhets and capital accumulation were non-existent phenomena in the medieval and ancient worlds.

 

[mheslep]

Live on in your fantasy that free marhets and capital accumulation were non-existent phenomena in the medieval and ancient worlds.

Thanks, I so enjoy my fantasies, even though I never expressed this one.

 

[Preno]

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.

I didn't mean to imply any such thing, and looking at the quotes, I don't really see what makes you think I did. I simply meant to correct the mistaken impression that there is no slavery in the U.S.

Slavery is illegal in W. Europe and the US.

It is illegal in virtually every country now (although in a handful of places it was only abolished this decade).

There are also estimates of tens of thousands of assaults, rapes, and assaults, but they're not condoned either.

Yes, but everyone knows this. Not everyone knows that there are tens to hundreds of thousands of slaves in the U.S.

 

[mheslep]

... 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.

Alright, but what do you imagine they did on subsistence farms prior to the industrial revolution?

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, but everyone knows this. Not everyone knows that there are tens to hundreds of thousands of slaves in the U.S.

Where are they?

 

[Preno]

Alright, but what do you imagine they did on subsistence farms prior to the industrial revolution?

Well, they certainly worked fewer hours and probably less hard.

Edit: Not that I particularly wish to defend feudalism against 19th century capitalism, my point was to compare the unrestricted capitalism of the 19th century to the somewhat restricted (at least in the West) capitalism of the 21 century.

Where are they?

Out of public sight, obviously.

 

[mheslep]

I didn't mean to imply any such thing, and looking at the quotes, I don't really see what makes you think I did. I simply meant to correct the mistaken impression that there is no slavery in the U.S.

Fair enough, I misunderstood then.

It is illegal in virtually every country now (although in a handful of places it was only abolished this decade).

Yes, but most of the numbers still stem, from what I quickly read, from those places where slavery is still legal or openly tolerated despite laws, namely the Sudan, Dominican Republic, Thailand.

 

[turbo]

Where are they?

According the then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, some 50,000 women and children are transported to the US yearly and forced to work in the sex industry. This number does not count the undocumented aliens smuggled into work as domestic help and in sweat shops.

Bush signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act into law in October 2000, so it's not like this situation is a real secret.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa061202a.htm

 

[Preno]

Yes, but most of the numbers still stem, from what I quickly read, from those places where slavery is still legal or openly tolerated despite laws, namely the Sudan, Dominican Republic, Thailand.

Some of them do, but certainly the range of countries of origin is much more diverse than that (other major slave centers include India, Pakistan, large portions of Subsaharan Africa, Nigeria in particular, Indonesia, and a disproportionate number of slaves in the U.S. is of course likely to come from Mexico).

It's not necessarily tolerated as such, but the local law enforcement often simply doesn't have the resources to compete with international organized crime networks.

 

[mheslep]

Well, they certainly worked fewer hours and probably less hard.

From my travels in the world and actually working on a farm as a boy, I doubt it. Many imagine a bucolic Little House on the Prairie when farm life was brutal, back breaking work from before dawn to dust. If I recall, neither population or infant mortality improved much at all through feudalism, going backwards at times, until the industrial revolution.

 

[Preno]

From my travels in the world and actually working on a farm as a boy, I doubt it. Many imagine a bucolic Little House on the Prairie when farm life was brutal, back breaking work from before dawn to dust.

I'm not romanticizing medieval farm life, or at least I don't think I am, but afaik this is a widely acknowledged fact. See here, for example.

There are some provisos mentioned in the text, but working hours were still significantly shorter than during the Industrial Revolution.

If I recall, neither population or infant mortality improved much at all, going backwards at times, until the industrial revolution.

Right.

 

[WhoWee]

Out of public sight, obviously.

Turbo provided a very good example (as usual) and may have explained what you meant.
"According the then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, some 50,000 women and children are transported to the US yearly and forced to work in the sex industry. This number does not count the undocumented aliens smuggled into work as domestic help and in sweat shops.

Bush signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act into law in October 2000, so it's not like this situation is a real secret.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa061202a.htm"

Is this what you meant - or are you saying the slave trade in the US exists beyond this explanation?

 

[Preno]

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "beyond this explanation", but yes, that is what I meant.

 

[ATTC]

The slaves were not attached to the land because if their owner decided to move or to sell them the slaves went where their owners sent them. Serfs were not the property of the land owner they were part and parcel with the land.

Many wealthy northerners held slaves as household servants, just what did these people have to do with land?

mheslep,
Indeed Hamilton set up the first national bank, but he did MUCH more then that. As the first Secretary of the Treasury he set up the entire financial basis of the US. The system he set up was practical and theoretically sound, it is still in use. Smith was a primary reference for everything he did. Indeed government hands off was a big piece of it. These policies had to be established by someone sometime, it was Hamilton in the 1790's.

Not clear to me how it can be denied that capitalism was the economic system of the south, wasn't it part of the US? Just because the southerns did not begin creating factories does not mean that they couldn't, just that they didn't, there is a difference. Sure most of the south was agrarian, but even the small land owners held slaves, it was a prestige thing. IF you could afford a slave you got one or two.

What ended slavery? I think Russ said it. Many northerners were offended by it. There were enough wealthy abolitionists that they were able to get some papers printing essays against it. The papers of the day were shooting for emotional responses, they finally were able to stir up enough feelings to drum up support for a war to end it. The northern capitalist did not have to be an abolitionist to support the war. What good capitalist does not love a war?

Actually the system set up is not sound, it's far from it. And that system is why we are still very much still in slavery today. It's a new kind of slavery. Not chattel slavery, but debt slavery. It's a subtle form of slavery. Of course no one is enslaved more than the one who naively thinks they are free.

The system of banking we have with the central bank and a fiat debt-based monetary system, it inevitably leads to the loss of purchasing power of our labor. The national debt that is backed by the taxpayers is impossible to pay off because it's a perpetual exponential debt which is why it has never decreased since they created the central bank. In fact the last person to come close to paying off the national debt was Andrew Jackson a man who's greatest accomplishment by his own admission was "killing the bank"

I suggest you read his farewell speech to see what he warned us against and see where we are now as a result of the bank formed in iniquity once again roughly 100 years ago.



It's human nature to enslave fellow mankind. Which is why slavery even predates Biblical times. And that desire to enslave fellow man has not subsided. Which is why slavery is covert rather than overt. Through the system of debt slavery, through the loopholes of minimum wage laws such as labor produced overseas, in jails, and there is even human trafficking that goes on today in numbers as arguably as much as the peak of chattel slavery.

But people don't believe it because there is a complete media blackout. But why wouldn't there be when the same people who own the media are the same big banks who have the citizens of this country under the illusion of freedom.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It's a new kind of slavery. Not chattel slavery, but debt slavery. It's a subtle form of slavery. Of course no one is enslaved more than the one who naively thinks they are free.

I'm free. I went to a bank to borrow money, and I'm glad I did. I couldn't have my car or house without it, and the rate they charge is reasonable. Further, I was well-informed of the terms and had many alternatives.

But if people want to avoid this, all they need to do is not get a loan for their car, house, or other property, carry sufficient insurance to cover anything they could not pay upfront, and not use a credit card or other debt instrument.

 

[Integral]

Actually the system set up is not sound, it's far from it. And that system is why we are still very much still in slavery today. It's a new kind of slavery. Not chattel slavery, but debt slavery. It's a subtle form of slavery. Of course no one is enslaved more than the one who naively thinks they are free.

The system of banking we have with the central bank and a fiat debt-based monetary system, it inevitably leads to the loss of purchasing power of our labor. The national debt that is backed by the taxpayers is impossible to pay off because it's a perpetual exponential debt which is why it has never decreased since they created the central bank. In fact the last person to come close to paying off the national debt was Andrew Jackson a man who's greatest accomplishment by his own admission was "killing the bank"

I suggest you read his farewell speech to see what he warned us against and see where we are now as a result of the bank formed in iniquity once again roughly 100 years ago.



It's human nature to enslave fellow mankind. Which is why slavery even predates Biblical times. And that desire to enslave fellow man has not subsided. Which is why slavery is covert rather than overt. Through the system of debt slavery, through the loopholes of minimum wage laws such as labor produced overseas, in jails, and there is even human trafficking that goes on today in numbers as arguably as much as the peak of chattel slavery.

But people don't believe it because there is a complete media blackout. But why wouldn't there be when the same people who own the media are the same big banks who have the citizens of this country under the illusion of freedom.

Interesting, I say that Hamilton did more then the bank, yet that is ALL you talk about. Perhaps you need to read a bit more on the accomplishments of A.H.

 

[mheslep]

... The national debt that is backed by the taxpayers is impossible to pay off because it's a perpetual exponential debt which is why it has never decreased since they created the central bank. ...

That's misinformation. Please review the guidelines.

 

[ATTC]

That's misinformation. Please review the guidelines.

Who are you trying to fool?

The dollar has lost 95% of its value over the last 100 years. The wages has not even close to kept with that pace which is why the purchasing power of the dollar is weaker than ever before.

The money supply is inflated at a rate much higher than the actual growth of goods and services, and wages have not kept up

 

[russ_watters]

The wages has not even close to kept with that pace... (inflation pace]

The money supply is inflated at a rate much higher than the actual growth of goods and services, and wages have not kept up

Both of those are factually wrong as well.

Please provide sources or retract the claims.

It is possible that you are just confused, as some of your claims contradict each other, but either way, you can't continue like this.

 

[ATTC]

Both of those are factually wrong as well.

Please provide sources or retract the claims.

It is possible that you are just confused, as some of your claims contradict each other, but either way, you can't continue like this.

Again who are you trying to fool?

Year Gross Debt in Billions as % of GDP
1910 2.6 n/a
1920 25.9 n/a
1930 16.2 n/a
1940 43.0 52.4
1950 257.4 94.1
1960 290.5 56.1
1970 380.9 37.6
1980 909.0 33.3
1990 3,206.3 55.9
2000 5,628.7 58.0
2001 5,769.9 57.4
2002 6,198.4 59.7
2003 6,760.0 62.5
2004 7,354.7 64.0
2005 7,905.3 64.6
2006 8,451.4 64.9
2007 8,950.7 65.5
2008 9,985.8 70.2
2009 (est.) 12,867.5 90.4
2010 (est.) 14,456.3 98.1
2011 (est.) 15,673.9 101.1
2012 (est.) 16,565.7 100.6
2013 (est.) 17,440.2 99.7
2014 (est.) 18,350.0 100.9

The nation debt has grown exponentially ever since the creation of the Fed and the only time it declined was when Andrew Jackson killed the bank. There was nothing good for the common citizen about the 1st or 2nd national banks and the system we have now is clearly not in the best interest of the public which is why it was born in secrecy and presented under false pretenses. They used fear to sell the idea of the Federal Reserve in the same way they used fear to sell the public on the bailouts. It's a huge scam. And just saying I am uninformed just shows how uninformed you are on this matterIt's an inherently flawed system with a debt that can never be repaid. And in a system where the amount of money grows faster than the amount of goods and services it inevitably leads to price inflation. And when price inflation grows faster than the wages of the people, it highlights even more the loss of purchasing power of the dollar. Sure in some industries such as buying a computer, prices have gone down and quality has improved. But overall when it comes to land, resources, overall, there are far more negative impacts than positive ones.

 

[mheslep]

Again who are you trying to fool?

Year Gross Debt in Billions as % of GDP
1910 2.6 n/a
1920 25.9 n/a
1930 16.2 n/a
1940 43.0 52.4
1950 257.4 94.1
1960 290.5 56.1
1970 380.9 37.6
1980 909.0 33.3

What was your point in posting debt as % of GDP if you don't want to accept that it declined, drastically after WWII? Also, what is the point of posting absolute debt figures over a hundred years in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value_%28economics%29" terms, that is uncorrected for inflation? To illustrate, the 1910 figure, $2.6B, was a lot of money back then, but in today's money Bill Gates could pay it off in an afternoon.

 

[Integral]

This thread has wondered of topic.

Locked

Perhaps someone should start a thread on the economy and banks if there is interest.