Why I believe capitalism is morally wrong and evil...

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Trajanus

The reason why huge companies such as Nike, Levis, and so on make such gigantic profits (they can afford to pay footballs stars ziollions of $$$ for example) is because they use slave labour, usually in poorer countries though... Well it isn't litterally slave labour of course, but it's close enough, the labourers get a pitiful amount of money, their life standard is very low, and they have to work a lot , i'd say a lot more than we're used to!

You are misinformed. Multinationals usually pay much better than native/locals industries. Positions offered by these companies are often hotly contested. It's really the ratio of people asking for work vs available positions that tipps the balance in favor of the employers. Yes, their working conditions are not as good as European ones, but what can you expect if they are actually the more fortunate ones in that country?

The groups that get hit the hardest are actually the unskilled labor force in developed industrial nations, when corporations move their manufacturings overseas. That's also why the biggest opponent of the globalization is the Unions.

[David Floyd]

You are misinformed. Multinationals usually pay much better than native/locals industries. Positions offered by these companies are often hotly contested. It's really the ratio of people asking for work vs available positions that tipps the balance in favor of the employers. Yes, their working conditions are not as good as European ones, but what can you expect if they are actually the more fortunate ones in that country?

The irony is that if these multinations created the same pay, work, etc., conditions in Thailand as in the US, many of these same people would still be decrying MNCs for increasing the income gap. It boggles the mind.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The reason why huge companies such as Nike, Levis, and so on make such gigantic profits (they can afford to pay footballs stars ziollions of $$$ for example) is because they use slave labour, usually in poorer countries though... Well it isn't litterally slave labour of course, but it's close enough, the labourers get a pitiful amount of money, their life standard is very low, and they have to work a lot , i'd say a lot more than we're used to!

They get paid better and have better working conditions that ANY other industry those people could join! It's the same thing in the US. Certain people get paid less in certain parts of the country. It's based on the cost of living in the area, etc.

If you paid those sweatshop laborers an American wage, the economy of the country would die. Inflation would go through the roof and the only people that could afford anything would be the workers of the MNCs.

greed:n. excessive desire for getting or having, esp. wealth: desire for more than one needs or deserves;avarice;cupidity. (Webster's New World Dictionary: Third College edition)

If you speak a different form of the English lanuage than me, please do tell. Or come up with a definition valid to your statement from some authoritive source. otherwise, don't pretend to 'Know' what it means.

HEY LOOK! "excessive desire for getting or having". Even though it says especially wealth, it doesn't say ONLY wealth.

Thank you for making my point for me.

Its a form, but glottony is a form of eating, averice of the mouth as it were. Your hypothesis would make the very act of eating, seeking self-satisfaction, greed.

Gluttony is greed. Averice of eating. It is achieving self-satisfaction. No where did I say that eating to prevent yourself from starving is greed. I said just about everything in this world is greed, and that is the truth. How many more things do you have than you NEED? You need your computer? It was greed that allowed you to acquire that.

Tell this to the psychological and psychiatric professions.

You can be just as happy living as a loner. And btw, I put little stock in the psychological and psychiatric professions.

Imran: were did the capitol for this development come from? as always, capitol most come from somewhere, and as i said, land is a lousy source. You need commodities to gain capitol, so again, which commodities lead to the greatd evelopment of capitalism in europe? well, one clear and obvious source was the new World: it was new world species (gold, silver) that lead to a huge boom in capitol in europe. That was all attained by slavery and genocide (the mines of Potosi were hell holes), as well as other agricultural commodities from the Americas, also gotten form slavery. Thre was also trade with the orient and commodities from there- as well as home grown ones like sheep, or salt, and local species. But again, the great boom in europe comes from the harnessing of the wealth of the New World, done on the back of slaves, and the extermination of locals.

*cough* Bull****.

German industrialism, which was the greatest industrial boom in the late 1800s came from NOTHING dealing with the New World. The German states did not gain anything from colonialism. They weren't England, Spain, or France. Sweden and Finland gained just about nothing from the New World.

You still haven't answered how German and Italian capitalism is attributable to slavery.

Also Imran, don't apply moralisitc views to a view of the amrkets. capitalism could care less about morality: slaves were a commodity in the market, thus part of it, not human ebings outside of it. Slaves themselves were the second largest store of wealth in the Us aftre real state in 1860.

Capitalism does incorporate a moral precept. Read your capitalist theorists. Slavery is WRONG because the person is not freely engaging in trade. The morality of capitalism involves free trades among people. To say Capitalism has no morality is like saying Communism has no morality. In other words, short sighted, and totally wrong.

Any group, whether they are libertarians or Communists, stupid enough to think that man is ruled by a game of his own creation (economics) is a fool leading us to destruction.

And anything thinking that we are not governed by economics is a greater fool.

After all, why do people DO THINGS in the first place? To provide for themselves and their families. The actions to accomplish that is economics.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q] Originally posted by NeOmega

The number of murders by Communists in the last century is indeed horrific. In the nice pretty world of theories, that should never have happened. Even the capitalists didn't expect it to happen beforehand. Obviously, something wen't horribly wrong. However, the capitalists cry out so loudly only to distract from the blood pouring of their own clothes. Slavery, colonialism, genocide, horrible working conditions, war, these are the methods by which capitalism has committed its murder. Perhaps there is something in the nature of creating an industrialized society that requires mass murder.

Che, just to be fair, I attribute both the murders by Communists and the abuses you list for capitalist as sympthoms of a lack of democracy. When power is in the hands of the few, and there is no free press, the powerful cannot be displaced. Rather than act as philosopher kings, they tend to acts as tyrants.

The vice of imposed communist regimes is that they are tryannical.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
HEY LOOK! "excessive desire for getting or having". Even though it says especially wealth, it doesn't say ONLY wealth.
Thank you for making my point for me.

Its sad to have to quible with a college person about basic language, but: the most important word is excessive, which means that some amount of desire is normal (not greed), and it becomes greed only after a certain point.

Gluttony is greed. Averice of eating. It is achieving self-satisfaction. No where did I say that eating to prevent yourself from starving is greed. I said just about everything in this world is greed, and that is the truth. How many more things do you have than you NEED? You need your computer? It was greed that allowed you to acquire that.

To return to the previous point, greed empliess excess: eating, as you yourself point out, is totally necessary, thus eating to satisfy hunger is natural, eating when one is not hungry, eating to excess, is gluttony. Again, excess is the key word.

You can be just as happy living as a loner. And btw, I put little stock in the psychological and psychiatric professions.

A key difference, and why i don't trust many of your arguments. You, nor I, are students of human psychological needs, but certain persons are. I trust their findings, because I have done none, and I am smart enough to know that I don't know everything and I certainly can't judge others. For some reason, you think yourself above these professionals. Well, then point me towards a study, done scientifically, that points out that humans are just as well adjusted living in isolation and have no need of 'feeling good', and then I will consider your point. otherwise, this is just your OPINION, with no basis whatsoever in fact, and any claims you make towards it being factual are wrong.

*cough* Bull****.

German industrialism, which was the greatest industrial boom in the late 1800s came from NOTHING dealing with the New World. The German states did not gain anything from colonialism. They weren't England, Spain, or France. Sweden and Finland gained just about nothing from the New World.

You still haven't answered how German and Italian capitalism is attributable to slavery.

Hmmm... again, Imran, were did the money for these factories and so forth come from? You seem, for example, to totally ignore the fact that by the 17th century, a europe wide system of trade and finances had begun to spring up. Many Germans lands were directly tied to the benefits of colonialism: Austria and its possesions benefited from Spanish aquisitions (why do you think that Montezuma's headpiece is in Vienna?) and the Spaniards also controlled the Kingdom of Two Sicilies. Piedmont did much trade with France. The Netherlands, which becomes rich due to spain, then independent, creates its own colonies, and becomes the most important port in Northen Europe. The crown of Hannover mixed with that of England (hence the Hannoverian line of English kings, starting with George I. You tell me that the area of Hannover gained nothing from its ties with England?). German and talian capitalism came very late, and thus benefited greatly from the existing capital floating around, capital made in france, England, and the netherlands, and that came from Colonialism an Slavery. You simply can't, as much as you ideologically wish too, seperate European economic development, including Capitalism, from the spectaual and world alterring changes brought about by overseas exploration and colonisation and everyting tied to it (such as the birth of the corporation)

Capitalism does incorporate a moral precept. Read your capitalist theorists. Slavery is WRONG because the person is not freely engaging in trade. The morality of capitalism involves free trades among people. To say Capitalism has no morality is like saying Communism has no morality. In other words, short sighted, and totally wrong.

Ahh, but you miss the point Imran, slave were not 'people'! Define slaves as commodities, like horses and cows, which also labor but are never going to earn a wage, and the system works just fine. All abstract systems deal with defenitions and unless a definition is contradictory to some basic presuposition of the system, it will work just foine. Again, define slaves not as labor, but as commodities, and capitalism just humms along, wth no problems, just as it did in the US until 1860.

And anything thinking that we are not governed by economics is a greater fool.

After all, why do people DO THINGS in the first place? To provide for themselves and their families. The actions to accomplish that is economics.

People do things because they are alive, and they have to meet basic individual needs,and imperative bilogical and species needs. Its that simple. Governemnt is a superstructure as well, but its one based on politics, which is inherent to human beigns. look at apes: they have basic politics, hardly any basic economics if at all. Thats were we come from. Politics of some form, with Government a refined structure to handle very arge groups, is natural. Kings came before Gods and Money. Its basic human history, and if economist were not so busy trying to fit fact to theory, and instead, made theory from fact, they woul see this. Get any human group, and some form of politics comes into play. Economics comes later.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, just to be fair, I attribute both the murders by Communists and the abuses you list for capitalist as sympthoms of a lack of democracy.

Britain, France, and the USA have all committed mass murder while at the same time being democracies. It's amazing what you can get away with if the people don't hear about it or attribute news of such things as the ravings of the insane left. Heck, with good propaganda, you can even justify the murder of two million Vietnamese, at least for a while.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
You seem to be claiming a victory when no such proof has been established.

That specific comment was aimed at NeoOmega, who had already accepted the premise of primitive communism.

Assertions of the communal natural state of man are simply that, an assertion, with just as much if not more scientific proof of the greed/self centered alpha male/female dominating tribes.

There is a wide variety of prehistoric communalism, including social groups dominated by alphas. Even alpha members cannot be excessive. Even chimps have "revolutions" against excessive alphas. Your problem is you are trying to assert a universal trait of humanity, when there are enough counter-examples to disprove it. Counter-examples destroy universality, period.

Family units have their place but ultimately there is always a drive for power/hoarding and me first.

No, there isn't always a drive for power and hoarding. Hoading doesn't occur in more primative societies because you can always pick up another rock someplace else. Not all members of the group strive for alpha status, and alphas can be constrained by the members of the group.

You have casually dismissed the arguements of child's innate behavior being the base line for adult behavior. Conditioning and training do modifiy those behaviors but ultimately basic human behavior and drives results from the child state especially in times of stress/duress.

Which is why in times of duress, people come together to help save the community. It takes the most extreme threats to overcome the inherent need of human beings for each other, such as imminent murder (not simply death). You have an odd argument, BTW, as most libertarians dimiss instinctive communalness in the face of adversity as being produced by abnormal situations.

Your conclusions tend to be derived from a number of literary sources, but what of your OWN conclusions of the state of man, or are you spoon fed everything?

Why should the fact that I draw the wealth of my knowledge from outside sources be negative? I don't have the time to do the intensive study that field anthropology requires. I can, however, read others' work. I tend to find science fascinating. Studying what others have written and discovered is not being spoon fed. That's active learning. Being spoon-fed is simply accepting what others tell you without any activity on your part. But you were simply trying to make a cheap shot.

As for my own conclusions. All one has to do is take a look around. Yes, the news is dominated by murder and meyhem, but that is the exception to humanity, not the rule. The sniper shootings illustrate this. In the last month, more than five million people in the D.C. area didn't shoot each other. Actions which enhance the social group are rewarded, not merely by other human beings, but by our own bodies as well.

We are programmed physically to respond to smiles, laughter, compassion. These are not merely learned responses. If you smile at a baby, the baby almost automatically smiles back. It's instinctive. And while we lose most of our programming as we grow older, smiling is one of those things that doesn't go away.

[Adam Smith]

Anybody here actually know any economic history?

For example,

English capital accumulation began with the wool trade in the 1340's, 150 years before the discovery of the New World.

The greatest beneficiaries of the slave trade were those that provided slaves, not those who purchased slaves for an amount roughly equal to the value of the work they could exploit from them.

The greatest period of capital accumulation in America occurred after both the abolition of slavery and the closing of the frontier. (And no, this was not due to trade with American "colonies", which was a tiny part of the US economy at any given time.)

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Anybody here actually know any economic history?

Comparatively few it seems.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Anybody here actually know any economic history?

Yep.

English capital accumulation began with the wool trade in the 1340's, 150 years before the discovery of the New World.

But it really takes off once Spanish gold increases the demand for English wool.

The greatest beneficiaries of the slave trade were those that provided slaves, not those who purchased slaves for an amount roughly equal to the value of the work they could exploit from them.

If that were true, there'd be no point in purchasing the slave. Any worker that fails to produce more than his worth is useless. If you can't profit from owning a slave, then you don't buy a slave. Heck, in the sugar producing area of the Carribean, slaves were so profitable they were worked to death within years. It was more profitable to overwork your slaves to death rather than giving them enough resources to build a slave stock.

In the North American colonies, your statement is true, until the invention of the cotton gin. (And now that I write that I realize you were just speaking about US economic history )

The greatest period of capital accumulation in America occurred after both the abolition of slavery and the closing of the frontier. (And no, this was not due to trade with American "colonies", which was a tiny part of the US economy at any given time.)

Slavery had already primed the pump of the US engine, providing start up capital in US banks that could be lent to entreprenuers (although most debt was to English banks, but English capital was also partly based on American slavery). The closing of the frontier meant that workers no longer had an escape from capitalism, and this is the period of the harshest exploitation of American (and immigant) workers.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Comparatively few it seems.

You have no room to throw stones.

[GePap]

English capital accumulation began with the wool trade in the 1340's, 150 years before the discovery of the New World.

So what explains the great lag to get to Capitalism? Very interesting, capital accumulation begins at the same time the Plague kills a significant portion of the population and as the wars in France contnues: maybe thats the lag...

The greatest beneficiaries of the slave trade were those that provided slaves, not those who purchased slaves for an amount roughly equal to the value of the work they could exploit from them.

Hmmmm...yeah, thats why Ghana and nigeria are such vastly rich areas, or do you mean the portuguese? Oh, and how could they guess the man-hour value of each slave? maybe i have missed my lessons in medeival accounting practices: though, hey, the lack of many clear exchnage rates and so forth means nothing, i guess.

The greatest period of capital accumulation in America occurred after both the abolition of slavery and the closing of the frontier. (And no, this was not due to trade with American "colonies", which was a tiny part of the US economy at any given time.)

Built upon earlier sucesses in capitalism, due to slavery.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who says they have studied history, could claim that the immense growth of the European economy from the 16th century on had Nothing to do at al with discovering and exploiting two brand new contients covinietly emptied by mass epidemics. Yeah, briging back million of pound of gold, silver, more productive food crops, the creation of mass plantation, intruducion of new luzury goods, or the explotation of plentiful ones had NOTGHING, NOTHING AT ALL, to do with that growth. Yeah, right.

The discovery of america and overseas exploration along the African Coast must be seen as the great turning point of European history, including economic history, and all the sins of that age were part of the creation of the modern economic system.

[GePap]

The longer this thread goes, the shorter the posts get for those advocates of capitalism: not a good sign. Hopefuly someone willing to make arguments based on facts, instead of simply giving either opinions without fact, or fact wihout interpretation, will come out and play.

Otherwise the improved direction of this thread will be lost.

[Adam Smith]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

But it really takes off once Spanish gold increases the demand for English wool.

The increased demand for wool came from commoners, not Spanish noblemen.

If that were true, there'd be no point in purchasing the slave. Any worker that fails to produce more than his worth is useless.

Slave owners will buy slaves up to the point where the amount of work they expect to gain is equal to the amount paid. Slave owners gain some surplus, but the real gainers were those who obtained slaves for essentially nothing and then sold them. This included Arab merchants originally, and later some American slave breeders in areas where the soil had become depleted by growing cotton. See Fogel and Engerman, "Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro SLavery". Fogel won a Nobel Prize in Economics in part for this work.

(And now that I write that I realize you were just speaking about US economic history )

In this case, yes. Thats OK.

although most debt was to English banks, but English capital was also partly based on American slavery

Most capital was provided by European banks. China trade also provided US capital, especially for New England factories. Slavery had relatively little effect on long term capital accumulation. Much of that capital was destroyed in the Civil War.

The closing of the frontier meant that workers no longer had an escape from capitalism, and this is the period of the harshest exploitation of American (and immigant) workers.

Then why were real incomes (ie adjusted for inflation) rising? IIRC, the decades on either side of 1900 were the greatest years for US immigration. US real farm income was at its height in 1910. By the 1920's Henry Ford was building a car that the average working man could afford.

[GePap]

The increased demand for wool came from commoners, not Spanish noblemen.

The medeival peasant was such a strong consumer... Please, Adam, explain the 400 year gap between the begining of the sheep trade and capitalism, and it s best if you keep mercantalism and the Americas out, as they had no role to play.

Slave owners will buy slaves up to the point where the amount of work they expect to gain is equal to the amount paid. Slave owners gain some surplus, but the real gainers were those who obtained slaves for essentially nothing and then sold them. This included Arab merchants originally, and later some American slave breeders in areas where the soil had become depleted by growing cotton. See Fogel and Engerman, "Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro SLavery". Fogel won a Nobel Prize in Economics in part for this work.

So the slave owner still gets a benefit from slaves that they would not get with freed workers, according to this Nobel prize winner, correct? I mean, why else buy milion of slaves? May I also ask what Fogel said about the type of jobs slaves did: could the sugar plantations, or any other planataions, have been as profitabe without slaves? Oh, and there were Arab Merchants in West Africa? I know in east africa, but since most slaves to the americas came from the West of Africa, I am surprised to find them to be suh vital players in the America's slave markets.

Most capital was provided by European banks. China trade also provided US capital, especially for New England factories. Slavery had relatively little effect on long term capital accumulation. Much of that capital was destroyed in the Civil War.

And were did European banks get their capital? As far as I know from US history, most early capital came from trans-Atlantic trade (slaves, or slave products). The first real industry comes from textiles (using slave products). This capital, once created, coul be invested elsewhere., so no longer directly coming from savery, but it still, its primary source is slavery. Yet i might be wrong: did the English wool trade provide the start-up capital for US indistrilization, not the trans-Atlantic trade?