• 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.
 
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.
Are we to take this to mean there are some ‘circumstances’ wherein black peoples can ‘wilfully’ be the legitimate property of white people, or have done so in the past?
 
trump has been the head of a criminal enterprise for his entire adult life. do i have to condone the trump family crime syndicate in order to believe we aren't hunter gatherers? this is jordan peterson peak steak and water era thinking
Trump’s ability to control minds is remarkable.
 
Are we to take this to mean there are some ‘circumstances’ wherein black peoples can ‘wilfully’ be the legitimate property of white people, or have done so in the past?

No.
 
While still not legal, nor should it be, one could argue the practice of indentured servitude might be one example of someone, regardless of race, willfully becoming someone else's property, at least for a time.
 
While still not legal, nor should it be, one could argue the practice of indentured servitude might be one example of someone, regardless of race, willfully becoming someone else's property, at least for a time.
Sounds like my last job, at least as they saw it..
 
While still not legal, nor should it be, one could argue the practice of indentured servitude might be one example of someone, regardless of race, willfully becoming someone else's property, at least for a time.

Indentured servants were not slaves, and they were not considered property. It was a labor contract, and it was certainly no picnic, but sometimes it's a matter of picking the least worst option. In the 18th century, if you wanted to get to the colonies, and you couldn't afford the very expensive trip, this was how you got there.

I'm also curious to see if you consider an income tax to be a form of slavery? The indentured servant traded away his labor willingly, but income taxes (which represent your labor) are taken by force.
 
Indentured servants were not slaves, and they were not considered property. It was a labor contract, and it was certainly no picnic, but sometimes it's a matter of picking the least worst option. In the 18th century, if you wanted to get to the colonies, and you couldn't afford the very expensive trip, this was how you got there.

I'm also curious to see if you consider an income tax to be a form of slavery? The indentured servant traded away his labor willingly, but income taxes (which represent your labor) are taken by force.
I agree with you it was a contract, but for all intents and purposes, it was contracted slavery for the term of the agreement. Granted, the indentured servant almost always received something of value in exchange for being "owned" for a period of time, and that's very different from actual slavery.
 
I'm trying to respond to your points, how about showing me the same consideration:



Please answer the above question.



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



No, legal does not equal legitimate. The Holocaust was legal, does that make it legitimate?
To what degree is the legitimacy of something determined by the winners or those left with the most force.
 
Zero. Might doesn't make right.
Maybe I should put it a different way.

To what degree is the local perceived legitimacy of something temporarily determined by those with the force to do so.


To which I would answer "more than I'd like".
 
Would mandatory accounting/finance in the schools be consistent with capitalism?

Adam Smith used the word education EIGHTY TIMES in Wealth of Nations and wrote, "read, write and account" multiple times. But 50% of Brits were illiterate in 1776.

Many thing about society change simultaneously and we fight over what to change.

Political-economy is a power game. How about equal opportunity slavery?
 
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.

So is the Mars Corporation not capitalist because they engage in slavery?


Do you think the Mars corporation should be punished for using slave labor?

What was the motive for chattel slavery in the US? Was it socialism or the profit motive? The slave owners profited from the labor of their slaves and they were mostly private individuals, not government agents.

What formal rule is there in capitalism that a capitalist can use slavery to increase his profits? Right-wingers seem to think business owners should do almost anything to increase their profits, what do you suggest be done to stop businesses from using slave labor?
 
It's rather fascinating to watch the far left attempt to discredit capitalism simply because capitalism coexisted with slavery. Do they really not understand how fundamentally flawed that argument is?
 
Slavery can be employed in any economic system.
Slavery can be implemented in any sociopolitical system as long as the group being enslaved are otherized enough so as to not be considered equals, and therefore enslavable under that particular system.
 
Back
Top Bottom