3 ms·

I'm not saying the person you are responding to is right, but your counter seems flawed. Owning slaves was legal and allowed some people to gather wealth, even

I'm not saying the person you are responding to is right, but your counter seems flawed. Owning slaves was legal and allowed some people to gather wealth, even at the expense of other people. As a result, there were people who got rich doing exactly that. Why isn't that part of capitalism? Yes, it taints it, but really what it says to me is that unfettered capitalism will lead to "evil", repulsive acts, and that is exactly why, as problematic as it is, government must set legal boundaries around unacceptable behavior when such behaviors are discovered. To make a modern analogy, it is legal for coal companies to "top" mountains, and to strip mine, and to release gigatons of CO2, and with it biologically significant amounts of mercury, massive amounts of particulates, large waste byproducts of coal ash and more. It is legal and profitable, so there are many companies doing it, despite the clear external costs to environment and the health of the population. Is this not part of capitalism?

scythe 7y ago
What is capitalism? Is capitalism any system that uses money? Doesn't that make most "socialist" countries capitalist? To me, capitalism is about guaranteeing people's property rights. Some forms of indentured servitude might be considered a type of capitalism, but certainly not 19th-century American slavery, in which slaves had almost no rights (and the situation got worse as time progressed). In the very early days, slaves could even work for pay and eventually buy their freedom, but as the years went on, they were banned from this and later from owning property altogether. Furthermore, history clearly shows that slave codes were continually tightened not because it was believed to be economically viable but because the population of the South was afraid of black people. Already in the eighteenth century it was made illegal for a slaveowner to free his slaves by fiat. It required approval from the government. How is that capitalist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission#United_States >A 1723 law stated that slaves may not "be set free upon any pretence whatsoever, except for some meritorious services to be adjudged and allowed by the governor and council." This isn't some perverse overinterpretation of slaveowners' property rights. It's about fear, plain and simple. White people in the antebellum South did not want black people to be part of society. Capitalism can't explain that. There was a brief respite after some slaves fought for the patriots in the war and manumission was reinstated, but then: >However, as population of free Negroes increased, the state passed laws forbidding them from moving into the state (1778)[34] and requiring newly-freed slaves to leave within one year unless they had special permission (1806).[35] This was not just about money. Money doesn't explain "freed slaves must leave".
- tasty_freeze 7y ago
  Of course it wasn't just about money, as fear of reprisal was obviously a concern. But the entire reason slavery existed wasn't fear of black people -- it was to use them to generate wealth, and not just for the slave owners; slavery propped up the economy of southern states. If the slaves had vanished overnight via a magic trick, it would have affect the economy of country as a whole, and cratered it in the south. You are dismissing the primary reason for the perpetuation of US slavery by repeatedly pointing to one factor that was a byproduct of slavery.
  - scythe 7y ago
    You ignored my main point. What is capitalism? If all of the slave owners freed their slaves voluntarily, either they are insane (i.e. society is doomed, everyone is crazy) or slavery is completely unnecessary to the economy. Anti-manumission laws cannot be explained by any rational economic motive.

scythe 7y ago

What is capitalism? Is capitalism any system that uses money? Doesn't that make most "socialist" countries capitalist? To me, capitalism is about guaranteeing people's property rights. Some forms of indentured servitude might be considered a type of capitalism, but certainly not 19th-century American slavery, in which slaves had almost no rights (and the situation got worse as time progressed). In the very early days, slaves could even work for pay and eventually buy their freedom, but as the years went on, they were banned from this and later from owning property altogether. Furthermore, history clearly shows that slave codes were continually tightened not because it was believed to be economically viable but because the population of the South was afraid of black people. Already in the eighteenth century it was made illegal for a slaveowner to free his slaves by fiat. It required approval from the government. How is that capitalist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission#United_States >A 1723 law stated that slaves may not "be set free upon any pretence whatsoever, except for some meritorious services to be adjudged and allowed by the governor and council." This isn't some perverse overinterpretation of slaveowners' property rights. It's about fear, plain and simple. White people in the antebellum South did not want black people to be part of society. Capitalism can't explain that. There was a brief respite after some slaves fought for the patriots in the war and manumission was reinstated, but then: >However, as population of free Negroes increased, the state passed laws forbidding them from moving into the state (1778)[34] and requiring newly-freed slaves to leave within one year unless they had special permission (1806).[35] This was not just about money. Money doesn't explain "freed slaves must leave".

tasty_freeze 7y ago
Of course it wasn't just about money, as fear of reprisal was obviously a concern. But the entire reason slavery existed wasn't fear of black people -- it was to use them to generate wealth, and not just for the slave owners; slavery propped up the economy of southern states. If the slaves had vanished overnight via a magic trick, it would have affect the economy of country as a whole, and cratered it in the south. You are dismissing the primary reason for the perpetuation of US slavery by repeatedly pointing to one factor that was a byproduct of slavery.
- scythe 7y ago
  You ignored my main point. What is capitalism? If all of the slave owners freed their slaves voluntarily, either they are insane (i.e. society is doomed, everyone is crazy) or slavery is completely unnecessary to the economy. Anti-manumission laws cannot be explained by any rational economic motive.