• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is slavery consistent with capitalism?

It's common for socialists to assert that chattel slavery is consistent with capitalism. Are they correct? No.

They're wrong because people own their bodies. You have property rights regarding your own physical body. This is why a woman has the right to have an abortion. This is why if you attempt suicide and fail, you won't be charged with attempted murder.

In fact the only way the argument works is if you truly believe that black people could really be the legitimate property of white people. But nobody believes that.

Black people cannot, against their will, be the legitimate property of white people. If they're not the property of whites, then it's not capitalism, it's just other crime similar to kidnapping.
 
Click to expand...
Ok, you know what? On a sort of ideological level I agree. Capitalism as an ideology was created out of the enlightenment. It was supposed to be a more fair and equitable system than feudalism and was going to bring about liberal values like equality under the law, prosperity of all who work whom would no longer have their labor beholden to a lord, and individual rights and freedoms. In that sense slavery is antithetical to both liberalism and by extension capitalism.

However, I’d argue as @Galactic Spin did that in practice it perfectly aligns with a capitalist structure. Employers wants to minimize costs and maximize profits, and labor is one of the most expensive costs. So of course they’d try to minimize it as much as possible. Is it ethical? No. Is it in line with liberalism or capitalisms stated values? Definitely not. Is it an obvious direction things will want to be pulled towards given the social structures and incentives capitalism creates? Yes. We are still at it today with prison labor and outsourcing what is functionally slave labor from third word countries.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Ok, you know what? On a sort of ideological level I agree. Capitalism as an ideology was created out of the enlightenment. It was supposed to be a more fair and equitable system than feudalism and was going to bring about liberal values like equality under the law, prosperity of all who work whom would no longer have their labor beholden to a lord, and individual rights and freedoms. In that sense slavery is antithetical to both liberalism and by extension capitalism.

However, I’d argue as @Galactic Spin did that in practice it perfectly aligns with a capitalist structure. Employers wants to minimize costs and maximize profits, and labor is one of the most expensive costs. So of course they’d try to minimize it as much as possible. Is it ethical? No. Is it in line with liberalism or capitalisms stated values? Definitely not. Is it an obvious direction things will want to be pulled towards given the social structures and incentives capitalism creates? Yes. We are still at it today with prison labor and outsourcing what is functionally slave labor from third word countries.
Click to expand...
Except Adam Smith, “The Father of Capitalism,” spoke strongly against slavery as being economically inefficient: they’ll work only hard enough to not get beaten and it is in their self interest to produce as little as possible
 
pinqy said:
Except Adam Smith, “The Father of Capitalism,” spoke strongly against slavery as being economically inefficient: they’ll work only hard enough to not get beaten and it is in their self interest to produce as little as possible
Click to expand...
Which matters little when you're not paying them by the hour.
 
aociswundumho said:
It's common for socialists to assert that chattel slavery is consistent with capitalism. Are they correct?
Click to expand...
Yes.
aociswundumho said:
They're wrong because people own their bodies. You have property rights regarding your own physical body. This is why a woman has the right to have an abortion.
Click to expand...
Well, congratulations to you on that one buddy!!!
aociswundumho said:
In fact the only way the argument works is if you truly believe that black people could really be the legitimate property of white people. But nobody believes that.
Click to expand...
Except they did believe that. And more importantly than that, they believed that even if Africans were human beings, they slave owners were still doing them a favor. And a big part of the reason they believed that was because of Capitalism.
One of the founding tenants of Capitalism is that people tend to take better care of things they own than they do of things they're only renting, or things they get for free.
They believed slave owners would be motivated to take very good care of their slaves because they want to maximize their investment. They believed slave owners would be motivated to keep them healthy and well fed just like a prize Ox.
They decided that based on the uncivilized world they were taking them from, putting them to work in America would actually be Good for them.

Fact, America was a Capitalist society during Slavery. You can't argue that Slavery isn't consistent with Capitalism when the literal founders of Capitalism owned slaves
 
MrWonka said:
Except they did believe that.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what they believed, all that matters is what you believe, because you're the one putting forth the assertion.

1. You believe slavery is consistent with capitalism.

2. The only way slavery can be consistent with capitalism is if black people were the legitimate property of white people.

3. Therefore you believe black people really can be the legitimate property of white people.

Is number 3 correct? Yes or no.

MrWonka said:
And more importantly than that, they believed that even if Africans were human beings, they slave owners were still doing them a favor. And a big part of the reason they believed that was because of Capitalism.
One of the founding tenants of Capitalism is that people tend to take better care of things they own than they do of things they're only renting, or things they get for free.
They believed slave owners would be motivated to take very good care of their slaves because they want to maximize their investment. They believed slave owners would be motivated to keep them healthy and well fed just like a prize Ox.
They decided that based on the uncivilized world they were taking them from, putting them to work in America would actually be Good for them.

Fact, America was a Capitalist society during Slavery. You can't argue that Slavery isn't consistent with Capitalism when the literal founders of Capitalism owned slaves
Click to expand...

If anyone is the "founder of capitalism" it's Adam Smith.

Adam Smith made both moral arguments and economic arguments against slavery.
 
pinqy said:
Except Adam Smith, “The Father of Capitalism,” spoke strongly against slavery as being economically inefficient: they’ll work only hard enough to not get beaten and it is in their self interest to produce as little as possible
Click to expand...
Yeah and he was was wrong lol. You can write about it all the feels good theories you want, in the real world companies use prison labor even today.
 
pinqy said:
Except Adam Smith, “The Father of Capitalism,” spoke strongly against slavery as being economically inefficient: they’ll work only hard enough to not get beaten and it is in their self interest to produce as little as possible
Click to expand...
Right, because nefarious ideas can permeate Capitalism, as with any institution. In this case, the belief that slaves were subhuman. Maybe in another case, the belief that people don't actually deserve to retire not in poverty. Capitalism is an algorithm. It must always be controlled. It's a beautiful thing, when it is.
 
aociswundumho said:
It doesn't matter what they believed, all that matters is what you believe, because you're the one putting forth the assertion.

1. You believe slavery is consistent with capitalism.

2. The only way slavery can be consistent with capitalism is if black people were the legitimate property of white people.

3. Therefore you believe black people really can be the legitimate property of white people.
Click to expand...

Following the logic train here, if you don't believe that the means of production can be the legitimate property of private citizens, then by extension, you also can't believe that private ownership of the means of production is compatible with capitalism.

The legitimacy of private ownership is the fundamental point of contention here. People do not need to believe that black people really can be the legitimate property of white people in order for slavery to be consistent with capitalism, any more than they need to believe that private ownership of the means of production can be the legitimate property of private citizens in order for private ownership of the means of production to be consistent with capitalism. To an anti-capitalist, all ownership of the means of production is illegitimate, regardless of whether that means of production is enslaved humans or not.

To the anti-capitalist, capitalism is all about asserting ownership of things that one cannot legitimately own. Exerting control over another human equivalent to the control one might exert over any other piece of property is consistent with capitalism, regardless of the moral legitimacy in doing so.
 
AConcernedCitizen said:
Following the logic train here, if you don't believe that the means of production can be the legitimate property of private citizens, then by extension, you also can't believe that private ownership of the means of production is compatible with capitalism.

The legitimacy of private ownership is the fundamental point of contention here. People do not need to believe that black people really can be the legitimate property of white people in order for slavery to be consistent with capitalism, any more than they need to believe that private ownership of the means of production can be the legitimate property of private citizens in order for private ownership of the means of production to be consistent with capitalism. To an anti-capitalist, all ownership of the means of production is illegitimate, regardless of whether that means of production is enslaved humans or not.
Click to expand...

Except nobody believes that.

AConcernedCitizen said:
To the anti-capitalist, capitalism is all about asserting ownership of things that one cannot legitimately own. Exerting control over another human equivalent to the control one might exert over any other piece of property is consistent with capitalism, regardless of the moral legitimacy in doing so.
Click to expand...

Again, socialists acknowledge property can be privately owned, they just don't like it. That's why they kill the factory owner and take over the business for themselves, so that they own the place instead of him.

Or consider the ridiculous dichotomy many socialists make between personal and private property. Something like a cell phone or a computer can easily be used for both.
 
aociswundumho said:
It's common for socialists to assert that chattel slavery is consistent with capitalism. Are they correct? No.

They're wrong because people own their bodies. You have property rights regarding your own physical body. This is why a woman has the right to have an abortion. This is why if you attempt suicide and fail, you won't be charged with attempted murder.

In fact the only way the argument works is if you truly believe that black people could really be the legitimate property of white people. But nobody believes that.

Black people cannot, against their will, be the legitimate property of white people. If they're not the property of whites, then it's not capitalism, it's just other crime similar to kidnapping.
Click to expand...

You're looking for a philosophical answer to that question when the correct response has more to do with historical fact. The fact is that capitalism seeks maximization of profits. The way to maximize profit is to control costs, with the most significant intrinsic cost being labor. Free - or extremely cheap - sources of labor will always be attractive in a capitalist system, in which the objective is profit maximization. Free labor doesn't guarantee high productivity or quality, but it slashes the costs of production.

As far as race is concerned, non-whites/christians were deemed more suitable for slavery because of the growing belief that individuals have at least some basic inherent liberties. Capitalism's need for cheap labor conflicted with this growing moral consensus so they rationalized slavery by making non-whites/christians somehow less human, and thus, more fit for servitude for profit's sake.
 
Capitalism doesn't care about individuals rights.

Once people treated Humans as a good to be bought and sold, then the market treated those humans like it does any other product.
 
KevinKohler said:
Which matters little when you're not paying them by the hour.
Click to expand...
In that case you are time limited. There are only so many hours in the day and that then becomes the cap o totsl output.
 
samiam5211 said:
Capitalism doesn't care about individuals rights.
Click to expand...

In the end, all rights are property rights:

Economic Freedom vs. Personal Freedom

There is a false dichotomy pushed by the political left - that economic freedom is somehow different (and much less important) than personal freedom. But the truth is, personal freedom is derived from economic freedom and property rights. I'll provide some examples to make this clearer. 1...
debatepolitics.com debatepolitics.com

samiam5211 said:
Once people treated Humans as a good to be bought and sold, then the market treated those humans like it does any other product.
Click to expand...

Do you believe black people can really be the legitimate property of white people?

Yes or no, please.
 
This guy tries so hard to start threads taking shots at the groups that he hates by sliding in subtle insults and comments (while giving the groups that he loves a pass). Everybody realizes what he's doing right?
 
aociswundumho said:
Do you believe black people can really be the legitimate property of white people?

Yes or no, please.
Click to expand...
I do not, but it doesn't matter what I believe. If people believe that and treat them as goods, then that is what they are for the purpose of commerce between those people.

Capitalism doesn't know or care either way.
 
multivita-man said:
You're looking for a philosophical answer to that question when the correct response has more to do with historical fact. The fact is that capitalism seeks maximization of profits. The way to maximize profit is to control costs, with the most significant intrinsic cost being labor. Free - or extremely cheap - sources of labor will always be attractive in a capitalist system, in which the objective is profit maximization. Free labor doesn't guarantee high productivity or quality, but it slashes the costs of production.

As far as race is concerned, non-whites/christians were deemed more suitable for slavery because of the growing belief that individuals have at least some basic inherent liberties. Capitalism's need for cheap labor conflicted with this growing moral consensus so they rationalized slavery by making non-whites/christians somehow less human, and thus, more fit for servitude for profit's sake.
Click to expand...

That’s just one side of the coin. There’s also maximizing revenue. If a 50% increase in labor costs yields a 60% increase in revenues you are not maximizing profits if you don’t spend the extra money.
 
aociswundumho said:
Except nobody believes that.



Again, socialists acknowledge property can be privately owned, they just don't like it. That's why they kill the factory owner and take over the business for themselves, so that they own the place instead of him.

Or consider the ridiculous dichotomy many socialists make between personal and private property. Something like a cell phone or a computer can easily be used for both.
Click to expand...

Socialists do not acknowledge the legitimacy of private ownership of the means of production. That is pretty much the point of Socialism.

Capitalism is about people acquiring wealth by investing capital. If you invest money in the purchase of a slave, and then make a return on that investment, you are engaging in capitalism. The question of legitimacy does not factor into it.
 
This is weird. Second thread on this same subject, seemingly out of the blue. What on Earth has suddenly gotten people so enticed to this notion that slavery and capitalism are inconsistent with one another?

I suspect Tucker Carlson must have said something about it.
 
AConcernedCitizen said:
Socialists do not acknowledge the legitimacy of private ownership of the means of production. That is pretty much the point of Socialism.
Capitalism is about people acquiring wealth by investing capital. If you invest money in the purchase of a slave, and then make a return on that investment, you are engaging in capitalism. The question of legitimacy does not factor into it.
Click to expand...

Only if the black slaves really were property, otherwise it's a crime similar to kidnapping.

You either believe:

1. Black slaves really were the legitimate property of white Europeans.

or

2. One human being cannot legitimately own another.

They can't both be true, so pick one.
 
aociswundumho said:
They're wrong because people own their bodies. You have property rights regarding your own physical body. This is why a woman has the right to have an abortion. This is why if you attempt suicide and fail, you won't be charged with attempted murder.
Click to expand...

The actual slaves didn't own their bodies and yet we operated as an overall booming capitalist economy at that time, no inconsistency.

aociswundumho said:
In fact the only way the argument works is if you truly believe that black people could really be the legitimate property of white people. But nobody believes that.

Black people cannot, against their will, be the legitimate property of white people. If they're not the property of whites, then it's not capitalism, it's just other crime similar to kidnapping.
Click to expand...

Ask Dred Scott about that one. Even people in the (relatively) anti-slavery north were forced to acknowledge them as property within our capitalist system. Just because that changed eventually doesn't mean it never happened or is somehow incompatible with capitalism.
 
WillyPete said:
The actual slaves didn't own their bodies
Click to expand...

I say they did own their own bodies, but their rights were being violated.

If a white person is kidnapped, do you believe the kidnapper now "owns" his victim?

WillyPete said:
Ask Dred Scott about that one. Even people in the (relatively) anti-slavery north were forced to acknowledge them as property within our capitalist system. Just because that changed eventually doesn't mean it never happened or is somehow incompatible with capitalism.
Click to expand...

Do you believe the Dred Scott decision was correctly decided?
 
samiam5211 said:
I do not, but it doesn't matter what I believe.
Click to expand...

It does matter, because without property rights it's not capitalism, it's just another crime.

samiam5211 said:
If people believe that and treat them as goods, then that is what they are for the purpose of commerce between those people.

Capitalism doesn't know or care either way.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom