Can capitalism exist without slavery?

a reply to: Flatfish

Not entirely on topic....

I would like to see Bernie win, but I don't think the electoral college would permit that to happen.

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: Bluntone22

But...but...but that just doesn't feel fair. Just because someone works much harder than me, why shouldn't I have the same stuff as they do?

What a load of crap. You probably don't even work that hard.

I bet the people in factories in China and mining operations in South Africa would laugh at you and what your definition of hard work is.

Meanwhile you go home to posh house with your nice car. "I work so hard I'm awesome".

What a joke.

Thanks for the chuckle.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Flatfish

Theres a massive difference between capitalism and crony capitalism...

The problem is people try to white wash both with a broad brush.....

Which category would the Hedge Fund/Pharma capitalist fall under?

a reply to: onequestion
Absolutely, in a strict sense they might not be slaves as they a free to choose to work under those conditions however as the choice is work or starve it isn't really a choice. People in western countries are often reluctant to acknowledge how much of our standard of living is based round exploitation of other countries.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: Flatfish

Not entirely on topic....

I would like to see Bernie win, but I don't think the electoral college would permit that to happen.

Unfortunately, I somewhat agree.

I just told my wife last night that the EC is the biggest hurdle he will face, that coupled with the establishment DNC.

While I usually agree with Debbie Wasserman Schultz on most subjects, her seemingly unilateral decision to limit the debates to 6 is now causing me to have second thoughts about her.

Just the same, if Bernie can spur the political revolution he's talking about, nothing is impossible.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: onequestion

Quite simply, "NO!".

Capitalism can not exist without a class system of have's and have not's.

What is needed is a hybrid system that stands between Capitalism and Socialism as either extreme system is actually bad in practice.

Such a system did exist? in the UK and in France, In Holland and Sweden, In denmark and Norway.

So what happened to it, the system is a closed sytem in which tax raised from high earners and workers is redirected into a wealth redistribuition system and this then provides a welfare state as each of these country's once enjoyed.

However I did say a closed system which is that it is not a global or international system and was based within the culture and economy of each nation that had this system in place but such systems always have enemy's and in a system were the Have's are forced by taxation to give back a portion of what they reap from an economy they will seek way's out of paying there fair share and ways to undo the welfare system, they are also powerful above there own democratic weight in that they own assets and can by money control people and to a certain degree economy's.

The banking and immigrant crisis were a gift to these enemy's as they gave them the mean's by which they could dismantle the state's wealth redistribution system's as well as a fertile anger they could redirect to there own hateful agenda and so remove the restraints upon there capitalist idiology therefore moving the system of these nations over time back toward a bad (actually quite, quite evil) agenda of unbridled capitalism.

The poor are and always will be the workforce of the capitalist system which of course outlines the whole greed is good mentality.

Unbridled capitalism is worse than evil in that it does not just enslave it murder's the very poorest but also total socialism is also not good in that it takes away the motive for generating wealth.

Only a hybrid Welfare redistributing and capitalist economy is actually good but as I say there are and will be enemy's of such to both sides of the centre and correct ground.

The best example of such a nation WAS Sweden about twenty five years ago prior to there suffering the terror of mass economic immigration by immigrants not looking for work but to live on there state handout's, it was a system that like many was not envisaged or designed for this and indeed this corruption of the welfare state into an incentive for immigration has made it truly unsustainable, it was instead meant to help member's of Sweden's own indiginous society as were indeed all european welfare states, prior to this the pay rate in sweden made work a highly desirable experience while for those whom did not work through illness or other causes the benefit system allowed them to live as comfortable if poorer members of society.

Welfare systems also support an entire system of work and consumerism.

The poor have to eat, if they recieve government money in the form of this wealth redistribution it then is unlikely to be saved up or sit idly and indeed goes streight back into the retail industry in the form of food and utility payment's, this drives production supporting job's and also then end's up eventually back in the hand's of the state to be once again cycled around as an economy even if it stagnates has to move around like a wheel.

This is sustainable capitalism, a BRIDLED capitalists system with a taxation based wealth redistribution system that then ensures the poorest do not fall below a certain level.

Ethical Welfare payment level's ensure that wages are also higher to provide an incentive and drive the retail sector as the poor whom are on welfare can ill afford to save and even what they do save is regarded as short term saving's that end up going back into the retail system eventually.

You know you are poor if you can not afford to save and if you are working hard and still can not you know you are a slave in an unbridled capitalist system that is driven by short term greed motivated interests of an elite minority.

Great answer. Good enough to be posted twice.

No economic system is without greed. However, capitalism is by far the most fair economic system though that allows anyone to prosper with creativity and hard work.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: eluryh22

I think people think they are worth more than they actually are.

Depends on what criteria you consider to be of value really doesn't it?

Someone who works very hard for a corporation, get's on with it and is a good employee has value.

But so does someone who doesn't work for anyone but their family, putting everything into ensuring they become stable, happy, safe and respectable adults also has tremendous value.

People tend to forget that all these various systems are constructed for one single purpose and one only...for the benefit of Humanity...the operative word being Humanity.

It's about people, not profits in other words..the life experience is all important, not the bank balance.

Unfortunately Capitalism hinges on greed. Base humans have an infinite penchant for this cadence. It's like a teenager getting their first whiff of the opposite sex. TPTB substitute the definition of oligarchy, with a softer term, "Capitalism".

True Capitalism can exist without exploitation. It's done all the time, right under your nose, with a plethora of other common frameworks.

The word Capitalism has been so corrupted and blurred, the use of it needs to be tabled.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

You need to take a basic economics course. Production of a good or service does not necessarily generate a profit. This is why businesses fail.

Profits are generated when a consumer is willing to pay more than it cost you to produce the service or good.

Capitalism allows entrepreneurs to exploit this gap which also encourages innovation. This is why greed is good. Greed is what drives the innovation which benefits us all. Companies and entrepreneurs seeking to profit look for ways to improve existing goods and services to generate profits.

a reply to: trifecta

All systems hinge on greed. Name a country or system where you don't have a small group of elites who live like kings. Even in communist China, the party loyalist are rich. You really think Castro lives like the poor in Cuba? Chavez certainly wasn't living on a budget in Venezuela.

What makes capitalism great is that it allows anyone to be successful. It doesn't matter your family linage, education levels, or anything. It is simply supply and demand. Your job is to figure out where you fit in.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: trifecta

All systems hinge on greed. Name a country or system where you don't have a small group of elites who live like kings. Even in communist China, the party loyalist are rich. You really think Castro lives like the poor in Cuba? Chavez certainly wasn't living on a budget in Venezuela.

What makes capitalism great is that it allows anyone to be successful. It doesn't matter your family linage, education levels, or anything. It is simply supply and demand. Your job is to figure out where you fit in.

I agree. Although scale and disparity are the main factors. I'm am not directly opposed to Capitalism or Oligarchies. I'm opposed to the adverse side effects that stifle scientific progress, lifespans, and sovereignty. When corporations have free reign over natural laws and personal freedom due to lobbying, jerry mandering, and deceptive/harmful/entrapment capital practices, thus is where a line needs to be drawn, and system revised.

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: onequestion

Your logic is so broken I'm struggling to answer it.

You buy a plot of land for $1 Million to build a small apartment building.

You hire a design firm for $200 Thousand (they receive 21% overhead and PROFIT based on their proposal... standard practice)

You hire a contractor to build it for $500 Thousand (they receive 21% overhead and PROFIT based on their proposal... standard practice)

After completion you sell the apartments for a total of $2.5 Million

See how that works? You made $800 Thousand and the design firm and the contractor made money as well.

Typical response. The defense of capitalism by inventing a contrived example.

a reply to: trifecta

In the era of worldwide, international mega-corps, Corporatism is more what we have now i think.

Capitalism infers a free market inspires competition, which in turn inspires people to work for greater personal financial gain..in reality though, all markets are more or less cornered and have been for a very long while now.

IMO, the most the majority can hope for these days, regarding a capitalist (corporatist) system, is to either win the lottery or work merely to keep their heads above water.

a reply to: Edumakated

What makes capitalism great is that it allows anyone to be successful.

I see what you mean, and do comprehend the perceived logic in that statement...although i can imagine an idealistic Chinese person, kissing backside, sucking up to the elites, being a good, loyal communist will probably also achieve the same thing?

How is my imaginary idealistic Chinese Communist person, looking to get ahead in Communism and become 'successful'..any different to what anyone does when they set their sights high in a Capitalism/Corporatist society?

There isn't one in terms of what goes on to accomplish the goal.

The Communist idealist will work, kiss butt and so on to get what they think is success, as the Capitalist idealist will similarly do much the same thing.

a reply to: onequestion

Can capitalism exist without slavery?

Yes, it can... but we would have to return to first principles... our organic law... and understand our proper purposes and priorities.

For the sake of this argument, I need to define terms in order that we're on the same page. Technically, any/all economic systems are "capitalist" in that it determines the rules of control/ownership of the "capital" necessary to run a business... monies, resources, labor, etc. In a free society, a free market is the only appropriate form of capitalism. The responsibility of the government is to ensure that the rights of all people are protected and promoted. According to our organic law, Natural Law, the resources and bounty of the earth belong to all equally. Money -- those pretty little pieces of paper printed by the government -- is a means to facilitate the free and fair trade of goods and services among the people -- ALL the people -- in order to sustain and nurture their lives with the earth's resources. In a true free market, the income inequality we suffer today would not be possible. The (true) free market empowers the people (all people), creating competition determined by the available supply and the demands of the people, thus creating the fairest and most equitable distribution of the earth's resources for everyone.

The problem is when govt fails to fulfill that responsibility, failing to protect our natural rights and ignoring our basic needs, and instead starts to make laws that give some an advantage over others, including...

... creating monopolies with complete and total control over the resources...

...or forcing consumers to purchase a particular product/service...

...or denying people the ability to purchase a particular product/service...

...or protecting select businesses from civil/criminal liability...

...or privatizing profits and socializing losses, etc.

That is all crony capitalism, not free-market capitalism. Crony capitalism's purpose is to protect the profits of the few at the expense of the many. If we want to return to genuine free-market principles,we have to empower and enable the people to be as self-sufficient and independent as possible, and I would begin with the following steps:

1. Education/vocational training: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Many/most of the founding fathers were huge proponents of public education, realizing a free society depended upon an educated society. A person with knowledge and skills depends on himself... not government... for sustenance and resources. An independent, resourceful, self-sufficient person gives to society... he does not take from society.

2. Income Tax Reform: End all income tax on earned income, and allow people to reap the fruits of their labor... and at the same time, end all regulations, licensing, permitting, fees, etc., that inhibit the free industry and free association of the individual (except, of course, those that protect the natural and Constitutional rights of all). Any and all such laws/regulations make it impossible for the worker who actually has the skills and know how to get the job done to compete with the corporation on a level playing field. When an individual owns his labor -- AND the fruits of his labor -- he is not dependent on either govt nor the corporation for his sustenance.

3. Incorporation Reform: The founding fathers are turning in their graves at the power and control we've given to corporations.... we must return to temporary incorporation charters that provide a distinct benefit to society that cannot be achieved in a free-market, with a firm expiration date. Corporations are not people. Corporations do not have rights. Corporations are fictional legal entities created out of whole cloth and are granted only those privileges and entitlements that we decide... We make the rules, we can change the rules. And in accordance with the Social Contract, those rules/laws must be in the best interests of ALL the people and protect the natural and Constitutional rights of everyone.

I'm sure I'm missing much... we'd have to deal with the banksters that want us all to be debtor slaves and the investors that want us all to be gamblers and so much more... but that's how I would start.

a reply to: Edumakated
Your first part OK. but the second part I think you need to open your eyes. It''s These " entrepreneurs" that are the problem. Just call them what they are carpet baggers, bankers, lawers,stockbrokers and even governments. ALL of them creaming off the top and producing literally no product. And no they do not produce innovation, they see a niche to make money without working for it and damned the consequence to the workforce or the company.
So the companies HAVE to make more and more profit every year. They can not break even as there is nothing for the "entrepreneurs" to take (even though the company is still successful and viable). That's when the wolves turn and bankrupt companies because they haven't had their pound of flesh.

originally posted by: onequestion
well can it?

Ok, so, This line of thinking is based upon an assumption.

In order for me to make money I have to pay you less than the actual value of your labor or I will break even on you as an employee rather than make more money.

So is it possible for capitalism to exist with slaves?

What is your definition of slavery?

Marxist socialism with state capitalism is far more dangerous compared to a representitive republic with a someone free market capitalism.

Look at how fun it is to live under marxist planned societies like Cuba,North Korea and China.

Yeah some people are doing ok but the majority of the population is dirt poor and the state has total control on all private commerce.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: onequestion

Your logic is so broken I'm struggling to answer it.

You buy a plot of land for $1 Million to build a small apartment building.

You hire a design firm for $200 Thousand (they receive 21% overhead and PROFIT based on their proposal... standard practice)

You hire a contractor to build it for $500 Thousand (they receive 21% overhead and PROFIT based on their proposal... standard practice)

After completion you sell the apartments for a total of $2.5 Million

See how that works? You made $800 Thousand and the design firm and the contractor made money as well.

Typical response. The defense of capitalism by inventing a contrived example.

Typical non-response

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: trifecta

In the era of worldwide, international mega-corps, Corporatism is more what we have now i think.

Capitalism infers a free market inspires competition, which in turn inspires people to work for greater personal financial gain..in reality though, all markets are more or less cornered and have been for a very long while now.

IMO, the most the majority can hope for these days, regarding a capitalist (corporatist) system, is to either win the lottery or work merely to keep their heads above water.

There are still niches to be exploited. Uber found one, but the cab companies are fighting their competition tooth and nail through the courts.

The problem is that the government is choking new growth that keeps the big old trees safe from having to compete.

People always clamor for new rags, new taxes, new laws to check business, but what they don't understand when they "stick it to The Man" in this way is that only the biggest, oldest trees can take the hits. The smaller businesses die off. Less and less competition. The public outcry to kill the big guys is ironically the very force helping to create them.