Slavery in the South and Slavery today...the great "con"

Where to begin? It is no secret the ideas of slavery in the south being little different than "wage-slavery" in the North. In fact, today seems to be no different than slavery in the old South except now almost everyone is a slave, there are no "free whites" or "freed blacks"...everyone is "working for the man".

But what is over-looked is the social and economic implications of the Civil War, the conspiracy of the Northern Industrialists to destroy the one economic institution that threatened them more than any other.

Slavery.

Slavery, has been proven to be more effective, more productive, and more humane (in some cases at least concerning Southern Slavery in the United States) than had been early Capitalism and than is any level of production today. Today, the most productive (when weighted for competitiveness) countries are countries which effectively have slave labour. While it is important to also have a highly skilled work force, slavery did was not the backward and wasteful institution it was believed to be.

Slavery was socialism in its raw and most private form. Where-as socialism today is from a government (i.e. slaves to a government which takes a portion of your production value) slavery was slavery to a person who took a portion of your production value.

Today, if you are taxed, what are you taxed at? 15%? 30%? A slave was taxed no more than 10% (he made 90% of his production value in return as goods and services rendered to him by the slave owner). How many people today make 90% of what they produce? How many people today make even 5%?

Slavery was abolished, in a great conspiracy by Northern Industrialists who were trying to turn the eyes of the world against their more atrocious system of wage-slavery.

Instead of the patrimonial slavery system in the South where a slave made 90% of his production value, the capitalist, ever hungry for more and more wealth, sought to rob a man of almost all his capital. While Unions have restored some capital to the labourer, most is still taken by Capitalists, owners.

Instead of owning slaves, they own your job, the businesses that employ you.

The benefits of this more harsh system? You can compete against each other in "the Great Rat Race" to become owners yourselves.

A slave had no ability to compete, he was a slave forever, and so were his children.

These dichotomies however do not hide a simple truth. The Civil War was fought over not even economics, but political economy ideology.

Whose system of human resource management was to be adopted as universal not just in the United States, but in the entire world?

A slave-holding nation would be more competitive, but since ideology competed against it, it was impossible to maintain. In 1860 slavery generated the most GDP in the US, 2/3rds of the entire US GDP was generated in the slave-holding south. This forever divided a liberal-socialite Northerner who could not, ideologically, accept slavery.

Even though the Northerner was more racist, more inhumane, and more tyrannical than the Southron.

Look at the descriptions of Southrons from Northern Generals, and compare them with descriptions of Northerners by Southron Generals; the Northerners are full of hate, animosity, racism, and belittle blacks as "worthless and unproductive".

Meanwhile the Southron Generals almost entirely refrain from belittling their enemies, merely saying "Those people" whom "intend to take away our freedoms".

And that's what it comes down to.

The North destroyed the South, and everyone with it. There are no more southron slave-holders, the wealth is gone. The economy of the south was rebuilt by northerners.

The economy was owned by northern slave-owners who called themselves Bankers, and Investors.

So what economic system is better?

Well it depends how it is used doesn't it?

A slave system could be humane, you could be forced to give your slaves 1500 calories a day and 2000 sq/ft of living space.

Food for thought

1) Was the Confederate Slave-system actually more defensive of "Democracy" and "Republicanism" as we understand it; than Imperialist Northern agendas which still drive the USA today (such as the war in Iraq, a war for profit and for open markets).

2) Was the Confederate Slave-system so inhumane as to justify the result of post-war and post-abolition South? Even though a majority of former Slaves in the 1920s when interviewed in their 80s and 90s had said that Slavery was better than being "free"?

3) What is to be made of the fact provided by the US Census in 1860 that the most healthy and longest lived individual in the United States was the Black Southern Slave?

4) What is to be said about Northerners who portrayed the black slave as docile, uncivilized and unproductive? Even though it has been proven that the black slaves were 34% more productive than their white northern counterparts?

[edit on 1-10-2007 by True_Confederate]

To quote Mel Gibson, "FREEDOM!"

Weather it is the empty threat of starving you, at the end of a pink slip, or the sting of a whip, Slavery goes against the dignity of all man.

Power maintains control threw this
49% of power is controlling informtion
49% is people handing over their freedom through fear and doubt
2% is actual action.

Censorship of anykind shows the truth of this, be alarmed if you notice it. Worse is bias, contolling who gets to speak and be seen.

Originally posted by Redge777
To quote Mel Gibson, "FREEDOM!"

Weather it is the empty threat of starving you, at the end of a pink slip, or the sting of a whip, Slavery goes against the dignity of all man.

Power maintains control threw this
49% of power is controlling informtion
49% is people handing over their freedom through fear and doubt
2% is actual action.

Censorship of anykind shows the truth of this, be alarmed if you notice it. Worse is bias, contolling who gets to speak and be seen.

Yes thanks for making a bunch of generalizations that sum-up my point.

The ultimate question is which economic system is better or worse? Any? In actuality isn't the answer to that question rooted in who is in control? In 1850s United States who was in control was divided between two elites, slave-holding Southrons and Capitalist Northerners. Today it is entirely Capitalist Northerners...the difference between the two system is one had true mobility and one did not. In the slave-holder's society the make-up of the slave-holder would doubtfully have changed much. In the Northern system the majority of Capitalists and Owners are no longer the elite little club that they were in 1850, it has expanded, many new faces have been added by invention and etc.

But does that out-weigh the costs of sweat-shops, labour battles, etc?

I don't think so...

I think in a slave-holding society the freed peoples are the most free of any society, while the slaves are obviously not free but can at least live well as if in a socialist country.

The reason the freed peoples are most free is because they generate wealth on the ownership and investment side of the spectrum, not on the production side, and that liberates them from the same duties as say a factory worker.

reply to post by True_Confederate


I do not see it as a generalization, I see it as the answer to the question.

Which system is best, the one where the most people have free exchange of information, and are free from unequal distribution. I did not give critical analysis of which is better because the open slavery of the south makes that obvious.

So I will, they both are bad. The south had a more ruthless form of slavery, look up and read of the breaking up of family units for instance of slaves.

Measures in the south were open use of force to maintain control and the two tier system, in the north it was disguised by arguments of 'pull yourself up by the boot strap' ethics.

The south openly said one group deserves all rights, the north had to hide it, yet as you point out tried to do the same thing, but could not get away with as much.

If you use the level of freedom as your ruler, and you understand freedom as not being under control of others, then the society that least accept that, will tolerate it less, and have it less.

To make it easier,

If the south had sweat shops, blacks would work in them, they would be whipped and told where to live, and have families broken up by masters.

If the north were agro, it would have wage slave labor with the right to live with family, decide who to marry, and choice to pack up and seek better employment(in theory)

Anyone that claims mastery over another should be confronted, starting with the worst of them, and not stopping till they all are exposed. Willfull slavery by choice is ok, but only if completly informed, including the ability to chose other forms of society that are different.

[edit on 1-10-2007 by Redge777]

reply to post by True_Confederate



If the economic is the only question, then total brain dead oppression wins, but note that this is only the best system if money is the deciding factor of your society.

Slavery is far more productive, but true best society is game theory of adding all the happiness of all people and subtracting all the suffering.

Points can be made for known happiness as far as limiting rise of expectations. If people don't know that art exist, they will not be less happy at its absence. I believe in this case you actually have to factor in possible happiness. How happy can they be, not just how happy they are. But all in all, you do not count the widgets, you count the goodness.

I will say that we are taught that money, and production capability equals good, this is to maintain the current power elite, they control money.

We learn capitalism = freedom in school, why? becuase capitalism supports rule by the rich few at the cost of the many.

[edit on 1-10-2007 by Redge777]

1) Families were never broken up because of slavery, it was illegal. Families were seen as integral at controlling slaves and improving production. Families in a sense was the control system of slavery. It is a myth that slaves were sold breaking-up families.

Slavery will always exist.

I support actual slavery because I see the economic system as incredibly more stable and productive. With a more stable and productive system, an economically aware and patromonial elite-class can direct capital and investment for the entire good of everyone, slave-holder and slave.

Why?

Unlike in a purely capitalist or socialist system where the capital is horded or spent by the middle and lower classes and acquired by the upper classes, the slave-holder system is a life-style.

So by virtue of having slaves the slave-holder is wealthy, he does not need 80% of the production value of the slaves, he only needs 10% and he lives better than any of his capitalist counter-parts in a free society, because the cost of production is so incredibly low.

Thus, the majority of produced wealth can be enjoyed by the slave.

So every slave lives 90% as well as his master (theoretically but in a global competitive market, not possible).

While his master lives in a mansion, his slave lives in an apartment, but both are built on the wealth of generations.

So it is a differently developing economy, not one of constant rebirth but one of constant addition.

This requires that the government at least be socially aware and direct their capital at effective incentives for industry and for treatment of slaves.

reply to post by True_Confederate


I see, well if you support slavery, then become my slave, boy, do as I say when I say it or else(example no disrespect or threat intended).

If you truly believe in slavery then you should be the first to stand up and offer yourself as the slave.

Goggle it, children were sold off from their parents, and do you think when they were picked up in Africa they took the whole family, how about in auctions, "sorry you have to buy the whole family, its a package deal"

I won't even touch on the dehumanizing, forced couplings for best children and actual rapes, although women today being told to find the riches husband and mutilate their bodies to fit false ideals of beauty is not much better.

but I degress, your arguement only holds if you say simply not that slavery is best, but you having slaves is best. Your attitude makes you least qualified to lead, and I am glad you showed that with your post.





[edit on 1-10-2007 by Redge777]

[edit on 1-10-2007 by Redge777]

Who is or ought to be a slave should not be a choice of whim or racism; it should remain a choice of who is best to lead and who is best to invest and direct the flow of capital. Over 500 years of institutionalized slavery in the West; a class of slaveholders who were good leaders, managers and investors had developed. A portion of these altered the system to wage-slavery and became "Capitalists". A portion of these did not.

Your claim that I should become your slave assumes:

1) That you are a better manager of people than me;

2) That you are a better investor than me;

Both of which I am pretty sure are incorrect (in fact I'm pretty sure you're about 16 or 17 years old).

It is a pathetic ad hoc argument.

No, the best candidates for slavery are those current wage-slaves now, earning minimum wage, uneducated or lacking a college education and thus the economies are divided upon labour classes.

College educated individuals provide a level of professional work and skilled labour that a common person cannot; and thus are simply free men.

Uneducated individuals provide only a level of labour that is rudamentary and thus are made slaves, by law.

This labour pool is sold to the highest bidder, thus the wealthiest and the most adept at business are made into the slave holders.

In all actuality both of us would probably remain free men and I probably have a higher potential for becoming a slave holder since you don't have the stomach for it.

The most likely candidates for slavery would be:

-Blacks
-Mexicans particularly immigrants
-White Trash such as "rednecks" or "hillbillies" what have you.

Other groups tend to fall into categories of skilled labour.

Originally posted by Redge777
reply to post by True_Confederate

 

I see, well if you support slavery, then become my slave, boy, do as I say when I say it or else(example no disrespect or threat intended).

If you truly believe in slavery then you should be the first to stand up and offer yourself as the slave.

Goggle it, children were sold off from their parents, and do you think when they were picked up in Africa they took the whole family, how about in auctions, "sorry you have to buy the whole family, its a package deal"

I won't even touch on the dehumanizing, forced couplings for best children and actual rapes, although women today being told to find the riches husband and mutilate their bodies to fit false ideals of beauty is not much better.

but I degress, your arguement only holds if you say simply not that slavery is best, but you having slaves is best. Your attitude makes you least qualified to lead, and I am glad you showed that with your post.





[edit on 1-10-2007 by Redge777]

[edit on 1-10-2007 by Redge777]

1) When did Google become an authoritative source on anything?

2) The slave trade ended almost one hundred years before slavery ended (in the United States). By 1860 no family was ever "broken-up" as a result of slavery. In all the 400 years of slavery in the Americas by those who would become United States citizens, a slave was never torn-apart from his family for any reason. The family was sanctimonious, as most slaveholders were devoutly religious.

3) Slaves were not "forced to mate" nor were they raped frequently as a result of slavery (again a crime). The criminal activities perpetrated by master on slave would have been no more frequent (and is recorded with limitations as being such) than any other criminal activities. And to suggest that slavery generated more criminal activity is to suggest you are some professor of criminal psychology and criminal justice and you certainly are not so your assertion is hardly supported.

As you see in my other post there is an easy way to divide slavery into the "best system" without regarding myself as being a sole or even majority beneficiary of the system.

reply to post by True_Confederate


the simple fact is that slavery is wrong...
you know, that whole "people are property" thing...
yeah, and the massive racist implications of slavery in the pre-war south......

"No, the best candidates for slavery are those current wage-slaves now, earning minimum wage, uneducated or lacking a college education and thus the economies are divided upon labour classes."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

there is a few big differences between then and now....
first and foremost.......now, if a person doesn't like his life, he can change it. if he wants to learn something new to help him switch occupations, it's not forbidden, he isn't stuck blindly following the orders of a master who may or may not know what he is talking about...

and there is another big difference, one that I believe would make the industries cringe at your idea....
now, the taxpayers pay the bulk of support for these low wage earning families.......it's cheaper for the industries this way, unless of course, your slave owners have plans on housing slaves a hundred to a bunker and feeding them slop!!

no thanks, I'm content on leaving slavery in the past, thank you.



---------------------------------------
"The criminal activities perpetrated by master on slave would have been no more frequent (and is recorded with limitations as being such) than any other criminal activities. And to suggest that slavery generated more criminal activity is to suggest you are some professor of criminal psychology and criminal justice and you certainly are not so your assertion is hardly supported."

-----------------------------------------------

hate to tell ya this, but well, if my boss ever took out a whip on me, ummm....he'd be not only facing assault charges, but well, he'd be getting my two weeks notice also. one of the pleasures of freedom, if someone's irking the heck out of you, you have the freedom to get away from them!! a slave can't get away from a cruel master that easily, can he???

ya know, I have heard basically the same arguments presented in support of the biblical "traditional family"....
there is one flaw in it...
you are assuming that everyone are good church going christians that live their lives according to the golden rule and treating even their slaves as they would like to be treated.....
but then if they were actually doing that, well......I am sure they wouldn't want to be "owned" by someone else, or limited to what another deemed proper to such a personal degree....
heck I am pretty confident that these slave owners wouldn't have appreciated having their kids being prohibited from reading, or having substandard schools, or being barred from businesses. So obviously, they weren't really such good church going christians as you seem to suggest...either that, or they were complete mental patients who were desiring such treatment to be bestowed upon them!!
they were human, given practically absolute power over the lives of other humans....and absolute power corrupts absolutely!!!

another thing....
it seems that you don't feel that YOU should be a candidate for slavery....
you're a good investor, and can manage people!!

whoppie, can we see how much money you can make for the company without the taxpayer footing the bill to keep the laborers laboring?? just how much money do you think these companies would be making if their workforce were homeless, sick, and starving? would the companies have to increase their wages, just to keep them alive and working? if so, think maybe that increase would have to be taken from somewhere else in their budget? may...oh my God!!!...your salary??? hey maybe it would be even enough taken out that the mortgage payment on that nice million dollar home just might be a little too much for ya?? okay, maybe the home isn't that much....but well, someday in the near future, you just may find that the payment just isn't fitting into your budget too well...and well, you might also find that the home isn't worth what you owe.....and well....you might find yourself in that category of people who deserve to be enslaved yourself.....
the hopelessly endepted!! which of course you left off of your list of possible candidates for the enslaved.
and those hopelessly endebted would have their debts bought by the industries....and would only be freed by a portion of their pay being allocated to the repayment for that debt...interest applied of course!!

so ya see...just because you're good with people, college educated, and a good investor, isn't gonna matter much after all. in today's economy, you're investments could tank overnight! probably would have by now if the government and the fed wasn't destroying our dollar to save the markets! and well......I got a feeling that in the end, you might find that even some of the major corporations would be considered slave material!

Originally posted by True_Confederate
Your claim that I should become your slave assumes:

1) That you are a better manager of people than me;

2) That you are a better investor than me;

You assume that the managing of people, that profit and productivity is what is first and formost important.

Your claim is based on what you hold important.

I do not claim I should be your master, I know who your master already is, I simply state your view of product over the value and dignity of the individual disqualifies you from leading anyone.

Can you see it is not about the most organized productive society.

Both of which I am pretty sure are incorrect (in fact I'm pretty sure you're about 16 or 17 years old).

Read the rest of my post before you make this conclusion. Unless you are claiming I am that age metaphorically from your world view, then I only repeat what I have said before, your view, which is not the standard held by the people you claim the right to rule.

You must defend your argument be saying it is best for all people including those you want to rule, also you must show that in action, your action and what you support does not show this.

I also do not aspire to manage people, I feel people should think for themselfs. Rulers should be best qualified to carry out the will of the people not their own notions of what is right.

[edit on 1-10-2007 by Redge777]

Originally posted by True_Confederate

1) When did Google become an authoritative source on anything?

Google is a method to find information, if you are discerning enough then you will be able to find what is correct and not. The more information input the better the output, assuming you have the ability to critically think and recognize bias, including self bias. I see why you probably only use source material you chose to consider valid.

2) The slave trade ended almost one hundred years before slavery ended (in the United States). By 1860 no family was ever "broken-up" as a result of slavery. In all the 400 years of slavery in the Americas by those who would become United States citizens, a slave was never torn-apart from his family for any reason. The family was sanctimonious, as most slaveholders were devoutly religious.

Keep making this claim, it helps show the truth of your bias. I will not argue it except to ask you to source it.

They felt the family of a living creature was sanctimonious, read up on how they thought of slaves, the same lack of empathy caused by any superiority complex. Note also that treating slaves bad can actually build up defences from empathy, so it is a downward spiral leading to brutality.

I do not consider the actions of slave holders to be following the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but I do not know all of coarse and leave it to him to judge, for Jesus loves us all and we all sin at times.

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)
www.godandscience.org...

3) And to suggest that slavery generated more criminal activity is to suggest you are some professor of criminal psychology and criminal justice and you certainly are not so your assertion is hardly supported.

I don't know where you got criminal activity from, unless you translated some comment I made into how it effects ownership and wealth the main part of your thoughts, and your way of assigning value to things.

The ability to separate a group, as you do when you raise yourself to the level you do, is a method to remove empathy. If you get a person to feel superior, he can justify actions that are really just self serving. (Source see history)

Train going down the tracks, it branches at a switch, you are told you must chose which track it will continue on, one track has one man tied on it, the other has two.

Easy choice, but I would pick neither, that is a different topic however.

OK now same situation. One track has a very smart college grad, the other has two people that dig ditches.

which do you pick.

You might chose the ditch diggers because your assignment of value. Because you have rationalized the fact that your class is of more value, you are able to allow the death and suffering of more people, simply because you found a formula that claims that one grad person will help society more. When in truth he also will pick the two ditch diggers, to save some other elite, and suffering will increase exponentially. That is suffering will increase for all except the self appointed unqualified elite.

OK now same situation. One track has two men, the other has a 5 year old girl.

which do you pick.

Did you hesitate? This is actually a standard test to separate people with normal levels of compassion and empathy and those that are sociopaths.

As you see in my other post there is an easy way to divide slavery into the "best system" without regarding myself as being a sole or even majority beneficiary of the system.

Untrue, this is proven untrue when you say you should not be a slave. In a slave/master society, anyone not a slave is the beneficiary. Your claim can only be true if you believe people in slavery are better off then those not in slavery. If that is true, why not take my offer to join the slaves? You can help society by setting an example to all the less intelligent ones.

Now if you put them in slavery in secret, refer to my first post, this is happiness value including level of expectation limits, I stated at that time that potential happiness is as much a variable in the total equation of the best society. So the argument that slaves don't know any better falls down, you chose threw manipulation and deception to keep them from knowing better. Famous thought, never teach a slave to read. It is wrong, unless you care for the masters control, not the slaves potential.

Originally posted by dawnstar
there is a few big differences between then and now....
first and foremost.......now, if a person doesn't like his life, he can change it. if he wants to learn something new to help him switch occupations, it's not forbidden, he isn't stuck blindly following the orders of a master who may or may not know what he is talking about...

I agree now and then are different, but I do not solely put the blame of lack of upward mobility on the individual, nor do I approve of the top heavy distribution.

The current power the leaders, do not give the same opportunity, nor resources for the wage slave to become upwardly mobile, in fact many claim(see link in sig) that they intentionally try and stop mobility. This act threw either omission or overt acts is wrong and should be exposed and stopped.

You say for me to use google to validate your claims, so why should i bother to give you sources to validate mine? However I can point you in the most authoritative direction on the matter (the only full comprehensive study of the American Slave economy) "Time on the Cross". Another book would be "History of the American Economy" which touches over the points that Time on the Cross goes into more thoroughly and has become a standard in economics now.

I would love to see you give a PUBLIC speech outlining your views. I could take bets on how long you would be alive during or after.
This is one of the most racist threads in any forum I have ever read!
Next thing you know you will be speaking of how Hiltler was the the BEST and we should have left him alone for the good of the world economy!

[edit on 1-10-2007 by coop039]

Originally posted by coop039
I would love to see you give a PUBLIC speech outlining your views. I could take bets on how long you would be alive during or after.
This is one of the most racist threads in any forum I have ever read!
Next thing you know you will be speaking of how Hiltler was the the BEST and we should have left him alone for the good of the world economy!

[edit on 1-10-2007 by coop039]

Do you have a purpose or just deride a system you do not understand? Hitler wanted to kill people.

Slavery became (in the South) a form of institutionalized socialism where the planter took a 10% cut and left 90% of the value of the slave's product for the slave to use.

While this was translated as the planter taking 100% of the production value and giving back 90% of that value in form of housing, health care, and food.

This is all well doccumented and researched facts.

Just because you are too ignorant to see past your bigotry against slavery does not change the facts one bit.

reply to post by True_Confederate



TC,

I'm not sure where you are going with this seemingly marijuana induced, philosophical, revalation to the white perpective on slavery.

You're using the plight of Africans to bolster a "harvardesque" social opinion on the charred & scarred backs of southern slaves?

WHY?

You say institutionalized slavery was benificial for the sanity and eonomic stature of whites and blacks... and continue saying "blacks loved it."

You seem to be fishing for some justification to pacify the white concious, guilt and arrogance on this matter.

Mister, it don't work that way!

What human being would endorse the gang rapes, brutal beatings, tortures of their mothers, sisters & wives?

The reason slaves liked it was because they were BEAT day and night if they said otherwise.

Question - what slave would endorse the gang rape of their mother, sister or wife by ole Master?

Try this...

Because of slavery, whites in America are secretly paronoid of the Black male... and continually blackmail them to jusify their fears.

FACT: Every White person on the planet evolved or can be traced genetically back to --- the womb of a dark skinned African woman..

This is why, whites North or South have an innate, fundamental fear of reprisles from Blacks who just like the Jews vow to never forget what horrors master put on him.

You justify this by saying -- " Hey lookie what I found... we white-white collared workers are slaves in 2007 just like the Blacks in 1850. I drive a Benz... he drove a plow... my wife picks roses in her garden ... they picked cotton until they passed out. I have 2.4 kids... their's were sold off to a life of harsh nothingness.


And you say Blacks were better off when they worked 24 hours a day boiling weeds & pork anuses.

Please

Originally posted by True_Confederate
Where to begin? blah blah...

Your a troll. Slavery has never worked and never will. Your argument is flawed and barely socially acceptable. Historically, show one long term slavery economy that flourished. (Even Hitler had a good run of 11 years. The 12 year was the killer)

American slavery occurred with people other than blacks. Noticed I called them people. People are not property, I believe there is an amendment in the US Constitution that has something to say about this.

China uses forced labor (call it what you want) in some of their factories. Golly, now the USA has been flooded with millions of recalled products. Let's talk overhead and costs...get real...