It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can capitalism exist without slavery?

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I'd say your assumption is false, and thus the question is moot.

Second line.




posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   

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?


Can any kind of control system exist without creating a set of circumstances that basically amounts to slavery? If someone orders you to do something (or not to do something) and you MUST obey, what is that? Doesn't really matter what their motive is. Society itself has generally grown out of good intentions. The result, however, has been that there will always be people who are subjected to circumstances that they would not choose for themselves.

A lion is not a captive until it has to live in a city zoo.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

You're using a term from a theory of economics that differs from a more fundamental concept of profit. Outside of modern economical theories, profit has a different meaning. The difference being, in said theories (the way that you're using the word), profit is an objectified beneficial return that is gained, where, outside of said theories, profit is a gain that is beneficial - outside of said theories, profit is an intransitive verb; that is, it is a verb without an object. Yet, that is exactly what your economics term does: it objectifies "beneficial gain".

See here

And let me give you an example:

Two people, each masters of a skill set, trade their labor to one another evenly, energy expended for energy expended.

Can they profit by trading evenly?

In your current paradigm, I don't think they could. You demand a loss, or that someone pay more than what the thing is worth, yet, in the example, there is obviously no loss, and in fact, they each gained back more than the equivalence of their work. (By splitting the work load, neither person had to learn the others' skill - they save the time, energy, and resources that they would have lost by not using the proficiency of the other.)

Can you see? "A penny saved is a penny earned", defies your theory. It shows that it is not the objectified return that is profit, but it is the work, itself, that is profitable. It shows that what you're thinking, that, "what comes after the work decides whether or not the work was profitable", is wrong. And instead, the future does not change, or decide, the past - it only shows whether the work, or past, was profitable or not.

And there's the error of your theory: because returns show that work was profitable, you think that only work that shows returns is profitable. (Actually, you think it is the return itself... you objectify it.)

Do you see now?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

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?


Capitalism can exist without slavery.

Capitalism is in fact very good, in our global economy it has a critical flaw but in closed regional systems capitalism is a very workable system.

Here's the problem, when I can get the same labor as you're offering in a third world country for 3 cents a day, your labor is simply priced too high. It doesn't even have to be across the world. Prison labor is frequently farmed out at pennies per hour and that puts real honest citizens who are trying to earn a living out of work. Capitalism requires wage controls in order to function.

It wasn't all that long ago that the person who owned a company and the person who worked at that company lived on the same street. There were several changes in society which changed that though, and each of those changes put more labor into the labor market. As a result, today we suffer from labor simply not being worth what it should be.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Bleeeeep


And let me give you an example:

Two people, each masters of a skill set, trade their labor to one another evenly, energy expended for energy expended.


Like socialism, a situation both unreal and obsequious.

How about, each person does what he wants to, and then trades whatever he has decided to make for whatever he can voluntarily get.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Like socialism, a situation both unreal and obsequious.

How about, each person does what he wants to, and then trades whatever he has decided to make for whatever he can voluntarily get.


Care to elaborate on the underlined premises?

What is your definition of socialism? Is it a system that is forced upon people, like how people are forced to pay taxes for public works/workers (roads, schools, fire departments, police departments, landfills, and/or other government programs)? Isn't the US government and its programs socialistic? Are they unreal? Define your usage of unreal.

Can socialism not be voluntary? Cannot capitalism and socialism work together?

Also, what about my example is not capitalistic or voluntary? The example said nothing about forced labor or an involuntarily exchange of goods. Does not trade connote a voluntarily exchange? Is it inconceivable to think that someone would actually trade fairly?

Honestly, I have a hard time understanding why you guys think profit comes only byway of a trade or another person, and by their loss of wealth, instead of your own work or efforts. The idea, that I thought everyone understood, was that we take something, and with our efforts or work, we make it more profitable. It really unnerves me to think that you guys only see profit as expense of others, as something you get from someone's loss, voluntary or otherwise.
edit on 10/18/2015 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Who here actually live in a marxist socialist society?

Who here has had a business under european socialist economic policy and taxation?



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Like socialism, a situation both unreal and obsequious.

How about, each person does what he wants to, and then trades whatever he has decided to make for whatever he can voluntarily get.


Care to elaborate on the underlined premises?

What is your definition of socialism?


Socialism claims authority to regulate any behavior for the greater good. Otherwise Socialism cannot enforce equality.


Is it a system that is forced upon people, like how people are forced to pay taxes for public works/workers (roads, schools, fire departments, police departments, landfills, and/or other government programs)? Isn't the US government and its programs socialistic? Are they unreal? Define your usage of unreal.


They are unreal because they claim victory at the enactment of the law -- not at the solution of the problem that they law was supposed to fix. Socialist laws have never caused their intended outcome. So socialism is unreal.



Can socialism not be voluntary? Cannot capitalism and socialism work together?


One reason that socialism is obviously bogus is that socialism never spontaneously happens. That is, voluntary socialism never happens. There would be several huge socialistic mega-corporations if socialism was in any way a realistic mode of economics. Wal-Mart would be zero profit (prices even lower than they are) and socialistic if socialism was a natural type of voluntary human organization.


Also, what about my example is not capitalistic or voluntary? The example said nothing about forced labor or an involuntarily exchange of goods. Does not trade connote a voluntarily exchange? Is it inconceivable to think that someone would actually trade fairly?


No two people do things exactly the same, nor do they have the same motivation. Equality of outcomes always implies that one or the other must speed up or slow down in order to be equal. Equality of outcomes is not possible in a free society -- some one will get more or be hindered more than the average person.

Equality was originally invoked as equality of opportunity. The Declaration of Independence ( "All men are Created Equal" means equality of opportunity) preceded the French Revolution ( "Equality, Brotherhood, Liberty" which is kind of vague ).



Honestly, I have a hard time understanding why you guys think profit comes only byway of a trade or another person, and by their loss of wealth, instead of your own work or efforts.


All capitalistic trades are voluntary because everyone gets more from those trades than they would have without them. Specialization of labor leads to increased production for the same amount of time. Increased production means more stuff for everybody and more time off. Trading allows for more specialization which in turn leads to more production and new inventions from all of the new free time made by the increased production and the greed of entrepreneurs.



The idea, that I thought everyone understood, was that we take something, and with our efforts or work, we make it more profitable.


Usually capital (tools and machines) is required to make something more valuable, desirable, or useful. When each person owns his own tools and machines and can use them how he sees fit, then each person can vote with his actions to make the world he thinks should be.



It really unnerves me to think that you guys only see profit as expense of others, as something you get from someone's loss, voluntary or otherwise.


Voluntary trades are never made at another person's expense. Trades are made because each person wants the other's offered thing more than he wants the thing he has.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion
"Can capitalism exist without slavery?" No. Outsourcing our big business manufacturing industry to third world nations (at very minimum wages) proves this. Now that the unions have been broken (fair wage laws) the only thing interesting left are the small boutique companies. We have become a nation of clerks working for such importers/distributors of US entrepreneurs ideas; those items then made in China; shipped back and sold in Target, Walmart, Home Depot etc. Starbucks started as a small coffee retailer; it was snapped up and swallowed by share holders. If there is a good idea it never stays home grown (inn'ocent). The Chili's or TacoBell swallows the family owned restaurant down the street, just as Walmart did to many communities (good bye farm and feed store that was there 80 years).

edit on 18-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Well aparently you can live in a communist country and still get rich.
China has now passed the United States in number of billionaires....

money.cnn.com...



How about the 800 million that live on about 30 bucks a month...



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
To accumulate massive amounts of wealth in the U.S., it is most always at the expense of others. Take the Waltons, for example. If they paid their employees better wages with decent benefits, the family would be far less wealthy.

Capitalism chooses greed. After you have so much money you don't know how to spend it all, it becomes a game. An addiction.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman
What would that look like to the small business owner?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join