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.

 

[samiam5211]

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

You act like property rights are some divine notion based in some objective reality.

Property rights are established by the people with power.

 

[NatMorton]

The slavery-capitalism canard speaks to the Marxist roots of the CRT/Anti-Racist movements. Race warfare is substituted for class warfare, and voila, we have the social struggle for our times. If you doubt this, read what the likes of Ibram X. Kendi say about capitalism, e.g. "Capitalism is essentially racist," that racism and capitalism are "conjoined twins," and "... in order to truly be anti-racist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist."

Their argument is that somehow slavery wasn't a big thing until capitalism, and that slavery is somehow fundamental to capitalism. This is nonsense. Slavery goes back to the beginnings of recorded human history; all the great civilizations from the ancient Egyptians to the Mayans used slave labor. African slavery certainly flourished under the early capitalist systems of the 18th and 19th centuries, but that's what capitalism does to just about every industry: makes it more efficient and more profitable. Today, capitalism certainly hasn't suffered where slavery was abolished; it's only been even more successful.

When you're woke, everything is about racism. Don't be woke, be educated.

 

[WillyPete]

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?

With slavery, their owner's right to own them was enforced by the government, which decides who has what rights and enforces them.

In 1858, if a slave flees and is found by a cop in another state, they are returned to their owner.

In 1858, if a kidnap victim flees and is found by a cop in another state, a crime is investigated.

This seems like some sovcit-class "I can't be imprisoned because I'm free in my mind" nonsense.

Do you believe the Dred Scott decision was correctly decided?

If no one saw Dred as property, how did the case make it to SCOTUS? It doesn't much matter whether they got it right, they made the legal determination, and it stood for a time as the law (AKA legitimate.)

That we might disagree with lawyers from the 1800s doesn't have much to do with slavery or capitalism, neh?

People have changed positions, but neither of those terms have changed meaning in that time.

 

[aociswundumho]

You act like property rights are some divine notion based in some objective reality.

Property rights are established by the people with power.

That's obviously false.

Suppose you and I were stranded on a desert island. You build a hut on one side of the island, and I build a hut on the other side. I would instinctively know to stay tf out of your hut, and you would instinctively know to stay tf out of mine. We also would both know - without even discussing it - that going into the other person's hut would be wrong, and that there would be repercussions for doing so.

Property rights would exist on the island, even with no idiotic government.

 

[samiam5211]

That's obviously false.

Suppose you and I were stranded on a desert island. You build a hut on one side of the island, and I build a hut on the other side. I would instinctively know to stay tf out of your hut, and you would instinctively know to stay tf out of mine. We also would both know - without even discussing it - that going into the other person's hut would be wrong, and that there would be repercussions for doing so.

Property rights would exist on the island, even with no idiotic government.

If I kill you and take your hut, i own the hut.

Then if another guy shows up and i sell him your hut, it was mine to sell as far as capitalism is concerned.

 

[aociswundumho]

With slavery, their owner's right to own them was enforced by the government, which decides who has what rights and enforces them.

In 1858, if a slave flees and is found by a cop in another state, they are returned to their owner.

In 1858, if a kidnap victim flees and is found by a cop in another state, a crime is investigated.

This seems like some sovcit-class "I can't be imprisoned because I'm free in my mind" nonsense.

I'm trying to respond to your points, how about showing me the same consideration:

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

Please answer the above question.

If no one saw Dred as property, how did the case make it to SCOTUS?

Because sometimes people make mistakes and believe things that aren't true.

It doesn't much matter whether they got it right, they made the legal determination, and it stood for time as the law (AKA legitimate.)

No, legal does not equal legitimate. The Holocaust was legal, does that make it legitimate?

That we might disagree with lawyers from the 1800s doesn't have much to do with slavery or capitalism, neh?

People have changed positions, but neither of those terms have changed meaning in that time.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

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.

Suppose someone kidnaps someone else and gets the ransom money. If they then have to give a cut to the mob boss who owns the car, the warehouse, and everything else necessary for this criminal enterprise, then the mob boss is receiving a return on investment, not as wages for labour that he contributed to the kidnapping, but passively through ownership of the means of production. That's still Capitalism. A drug lab in which the "owner" of the drug lab acquires a portion of the fruits of the labour of those working in the drug lab is operating under the Capitalist mode of production. The pedantic equivocation over whether one can "legitimately" own a drug lab or not is immaterial to whether or not the drug lab operates under a Capitalist mode of production.

 

[Slartibartfast]

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.



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

Adam Smith made both moral arguments and economic arguments against slavery.

Your incorrect assumption is that capitalists will respect item #2 when tempted with the prosper of more personal prosperity versus being some automaton that only does what the theory ascribes to.

In the real world, we have sociopaths who will put profit over people and they tend to rise to positions of power (and that is a problem every system has to deal with in the real world)

 

[NatMorton]

Specifically to the OP, slavery is neither consistent nor inconsistent with capitalism. Capitalism is an economic model that has flourished in countries that both legalized and outlawed slavery. Unlike Marxism, capitalism seems somewhat immune to the level of protection given to human rights. Conversely, Marxism can only persist where human rights are not protected.

I agree with the concept that human rights and property rights are linked, but I also think it's not a two-way street. History has shown that you can have property rights without human rights. It's also shown us that you cannot have human rights without property rights (if you don't respect what's mine, you don't respect me).

 

[Slartibartfast]

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?

He’s just your standard libertarian who doesn’t take the real world into account, another gadfly that nobody takes seriously.

 

[WillyPete]

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

The Greeks amongst others felt exactly like that, back in the day.

Because sometimes people make mistakes and believe things that aren't true.

Yeah, well, when that mistake is codified into law, you can't really blame individuals any more.

No, legal does not equal legitimate. The Holocaust was legal, does that make it legitimate?

In Germany, at the time, making that public would have gotten you killed.

 

[CaughtInThe]

He’s just your standard libertarian who doesn’t take the real world into account, another gadfly that nobody takes seriously.

he's not a libertarian. he uses that for cover and to dodge responsibility.

 

[Germinator]

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.

thank god for capitalism AND property rights,...

 

[Dans La Lune]

Capitalism is a system of extracting wealth from the labor of permanent underclass. So...

 

[KevinKohler]

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?

His username tells you all you need to know.

Ironically, it's considered OK, but if one were to, say, abbreviate said username to just wundumho, he'll report you for being offensive.

Ask me how I know.

 

[NatMorton]

Capitalism is a system of extracting wealth from the labor of permanent underclass. So...

Who teaches you this nonsense?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

When everyone is locked into a $15/hr job with a giant corporation trying to hang onto some access to healthcare etc, working and never getting ahead, its pretty much "slavery" anyway.
A wage slave is still just a slave.

 

[Taureau]

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.

No, property rights is a "socialist", "statist", or "leftist" concept because it applies to everyone equally, and is provided freely with enforcement by the state.

"Pure" capitalism wouldn't acknowledge any rights at all, merely one's individual might in procuring things by any means necessary, including slaves.

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.

"Pure" capitalism would argue that force and might are what make black people the "legitimate" property of white white. The only "legitimacy" they need is the barrel of a loaded gun.

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.

Right, and pure capitalism wouldn't acknowledge "the law" to be anything other than a "socialist" concept which stands in the way of one's ability to procure anything they want by any means necessary, whether it be black slaves, child sex slaves or anything else.

 

[Taureau]

When everyone is locked into a $15/hr job with a giant corporation trying to hang onto some access to healthcare etc, working and never getting ahead, its pretty much "slavery" anyway.
A wage slave is still just a slave.

No offense, but did you copy this one from 4chan or somewhere? It's so bad that I don't even think a die-hard communist could read it without chuckling a bit.

Maybe you've never had any real education or your criminal record prevents you from finding work other than min-wage food service, or your honestly so culturally illiterate that you aren't even aware that "giant corporations" only make up a tiny minority of the workforce.

But the situation in question doesn't apply to "everyone" or even "most people", just you and whichever other convicted felons and registered sex offenders are on your mind. (And it didn't apply to the majority of socialist or communist thinkers either, who made their millions selling their communist snake oil to the illiterate and uneducated rabble who they knew wouldn't have the capacity to think or question it).

And slang terms like "wage slavery" aren't "slavery" any more than "Dallas Cowboys" are "cowboys". Yeesh...

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

No offense, but did you copy this one from 4chan or somewhere? It's so bad that I don't even think a die-hard communist could read it without chuckling a bit.

Maybe you've never had any real education or your criminal record prevents you from finding work other than min-wage food service, or your honestly so culturally illiterate that you aren't even aware that "giant corporations" only make up a tiny minority of the workforce.

But the situation in question doesn't apply to "everyone" or even "most people", just you and whichever other convicted felons and registered sex offenders are on your mind. (And it didn't apply to the majority of socialist or communist thinkers either, who made their millions selling their communist snake oil to the illiterate and uneducated rabble who they knew wouldn't have the capacity to think or question it).

And slang terms like "wage slavery" aren't "slavery" any more than "Dallas Cowboys" are "cowboys". Yeesh...

Oh look....a new guy.
Hello new guy! Welcome!

 

[NatMorton]

When everyone is locked into a $15/hr job with a giant corporation trying to hang onto some access to healthcare etc, working and never getting ahead, its pretty much "slavery" anyway.
A wage slave is still just a slave.

Show me an adult “locked into a $15/hr job” and I’ll show you someone with work skill issues.

 

[Juks]

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.

Who says? Honestly you americans seem to be al about one step forward and three (or 20) steps back. In EU no conservative politicians would speak (or think) for slavery and I am saying this as a socialist.

Ridiculus.

 

[NatMorton]

Who says? Honestly you americans seem to be al about one step forward and three (or 20) steps back. In EU no conservative politicians would speak (or think) for slavery and I am saying this as a socialist.

Ridiculus.

Over here, you can start with Ibram X. Kendi. CRT is, at its roots, a socialist ideology. From those folks there is a fairly constant drumbeat attempting to link capitalism with slavery.

 

[Juks]

Over here, you can start with Ibram X. Kendi. CRT is, at its roots, a socialist ideology. From those folks there is a fairly constant drumbeat attempting to link capitalism with slavery.

Ok, I honestly know nothing about them.

 

[Fishking]

In the most basic definition, capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services for an agreed upon price. Slavery takes that choice away from people so it is not consistent with capitalism. However, all form of government or economy can be used/changed/corrupted to end up with terrible results. It's on us to figure out the least bad solution and go with it.