3 ms·

What I called ahistorical was the massive omission of how little changed in practice for the former slaves. In fact, it's important to establish how much the co

by jahaja 6y ago

What I called ahistorical was the massive omission of how little changed in practice for the former slaves. In fact, it's important to establish how much the cost of labour even went up after all the manipulative methods to ensnare former slaves into a new servitude were applied? Your entire reply are still ignoring that I'm not talking about what the best and most profitable "production method" turned out to be. You're applying the benefit of hindsight to prove that the former method was in-fact outside of the incentive structure of capitalism. That makes no sense. They are obviously not mutually-exclusive. There's a lot of "correlation is not necessarily causation" points to explain in your argument too, but I don't want to be further ensnared in a "what was the most profitable" discussion since it's beyond the point. You can't cherry-pick the best outcome and dismiss all the other ones.

bhupy 6y ago
> What I called ahistorical was the massive omission of how little changed in practice for the former slaves Yes, and what I am saying is that it has nothing to do with the central argument: that "slavery is capitalism" or "capitalism encourages slavery" or "slavery flourishes under a capitalist incentive structure" (there are N iterations of your argument, pick one and commit to it). The fact that, after the abolition of slavery, the former slaves still continued to be exploited doesn't tell us much about the presence of a causal relationship between capitalism and slavery, because of course if the state sanctions slavery, you can't expect things to go back to normal by themselves without some state intervention in the opposite direction. Further, your argument loses teeth for the following reasons: 1. We have the counterfactual in the North (successful wealth/capital accumulation + no slavery) that refute your central argument that you are yet to address. The North's capitalist economy grew more than the South even while having abolished slavery. 2. The fact that in the modern world, among the top 30 most capitalist countries in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_...), only one has some form of slavery, the UAE. This refutes your central argument, and you are yet to address it. 3. The fact that in the modern world, the bottom 3 least capitalist countries in the world (same list), there are forced labor camps (North Korea) or decrees (Venezuela, Cuba). This doesn't directly refute your central argument, rather it shows that capitalism isn't a strict prerequisite for slavery. You are yet to address this. 4. The fact that agriculture became more profitable after the abolition of slavery is a direct refutation to your central argument that you are yet to address. > Your entire reply are still ignoring that I'm not talking about what the best and most profitable "production method" turned out to be. You're applying the benefit of hindsight to prove that the former method was in-fact outside of the incentive structure of capitalism. That makes no sense. They are obviously not mutually-exclusive. This is borderline word salad, but we are applying the benefit of hindsight to prove that slavery and capitalism are two orthogonal systems that are unrelated. Slavery has existed in socialist systems (gulags, labor camps) as well as capitalist systems (international slave trade). If using historical facts to make a point is considered "using the benefit of hindsight", then using the benefit of hindsight is a valid strategy... > There's a lot of "correlation is not necessarily causation" points to explain in your argument too, but I don't want to be further ensnared in a "what was the most profitable" discussion since it's beyond the point. You can't cherry-pick the best outcome and dismiss all the other ones. You need to specify where the cherry picking is happening, because by and large the trend is universal. You also can't just hand-wave a correlation/causation argument just because you're unable to refute it.
- jahaja 6y ago
  For fuck sake mate. How many times do I have to repeat myself to make you stop replying with "It's not the most efficient/productive way, so it can't be capitalism"? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What are you not understanding? You seem to have completely made up my "Central Argument". I'm NOT arguing, and have never argued, that slavery must be more productive and/or more profitable than non-slavery. I'm NOT saying, and have never said, that Capitalism must exhibit slavery. I'm AM saying that in an environment where slavery is socially acceptable, as it was in the US South during that time, the incentives of Capitalism will make it flourish - and it obviously did. That Capitalism exploits people and resources, if it's socially acceptable (and often even if it's not), it perfectly obvious and the historical record of it is indisputable: * Slavery * Colonialism * Child labor * Horrible working conditions * Environmental/Climate destruction etc etc.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > What are you not understanding? You seem to have completely made up my "Central Argument". I literally copy/pasted your own words, but it appears you've finally settled on one argument (emphatically so), great job! > I'm AM saying that in an environment where slavery is socially acceptable, as it was in the US South during that time, the incentives of Capitalism will make it flourish - and it obviously did. Capitalism is just an economic system of allocation of scarce resources by maximizing the output of production while minimizing the input resources required to produce a unit output, while also preventing a tragedy-of-the-commons. So you're superficially correct that in a regime where slavery is legal, this type of resource allocation might find an equilibrium that coexists within the rules of that regime, which may include perpetuating slavery. Hypothetically, if murder was legal, capitalism might allow the murder industry to "flourish", through hitmen for hire, private armies, and mercenaries. It's an observation that has few useful implications in our modern world today where slavery (and murder) are broadly illegal. You could even go so far as to argue that because socialist economies do not do a sufficient job of allocating resources / production to adequately meet the needs of its people (just empirically speaking), that the allowed use of involuntary servitude will thrive under a socialist regime, where the social need for forced labor outweighs the individual liberty to voluntarily refuse it. That is to say, "in an environment where slavery [by the state] is acceptable, the incentives of [socialism (severe shortages)] will make it flourish". We saw this play out in the past[1], and we see this play out today[2][3][4]. If you think that this is an absurd analogy, then you finally get the point: drawing causal relationships between abstract economic systems (whose sole purpose is to solve the resource constraint problem) and specific institutions (like slavery) that have existed for thousands of years under the backdrop of many different economic systems, is an absurd endeavor. [1] http://gulaghistory.org/nps/onlineexhibit/stalin/ http://gulaghistory.org/nps/onlineexhibit/stalin/ [2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/07/venezuela-new-regime-effectively-amounts-to-forced-labour/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/07/venezuela-new... [3] https://www.businessinsider.com/china-ppe-exports-uighur-labor-nyt-2020-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/china-ppe-exports-uighur-lab... [4] https://www.prisonersdefenders.org/2020/01/08/united-nations-accuses-cuban-medical-missions-abroad-of-slavery-and-forced-labour/ https://www.prisonersdefenders.org/2020/01/08/united-nations...

by jahaja 6y ago

bhupy 6y ago

> What I called ahistorical was the massive omission of how little changed in practice for the former slaves Yes, and what I am saying is that it has nothing to do with the central argument: that "slavery is capitalism" or "capitalism encourages slavery" or "slavery flourishes under a capitalist incentive structure" (there are N iterations of your argument, pick one and commit to it). The fact that, after the abolition of slavery, the former slaves still continued to be exploited doesn't tell us much about the presence of a causal relationship between capitalism and slavery, because of course if the state sanctions slavery, you can't expect things to go back to normal by themselves without some state intervention in the opposite direction. Further, your argument loses teeth for the following reasons: 1. We have the counterfactual in the North (successful wealth/capital accumulation + no slavery) that refute your central argument that you are yet to address. The North's capitalist economy grew more than the South even while having abolished slavery. 2. The fact that in the modern world, among the top 30 most capitalist countries in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_...), only one has some form of slavery, the UAE. This refutes your central argument, and you are yet to address it. 3. The fact that in the modern world, the bottom 3 least capitalist countries in the world (same list), there are forced labor camps (North Korea) or decrees (Venezuela, Cuba). This doesn't directly refute your central argument, rather it shows that capitalism isn't a strict prerequisite for slavery. You are yet to address this. 4. The fact that agriculture became more profitable after the abolition of slavery is a direct refutation to your central argument that you are yet to address. > Your entire reply are still ignoring that I'm not talking about what the best and most profitable "production method" turned out to be. You're applying the benefit of hindsight to prove that the former method was in-fact outside of the incentive structure of capitalism. That makes no sense. They are obviously not mutually-exclusive. This is borderline word salad, but we are applying the benefit of hindsight to prove that slavery and capitalism are two orthogonal systems that are unrelated. Slavery has existed in socialist systems (gulags, labor camps) as well as capitalist systems (international slave trade). If using historical facts to make a point is considered "using the benefit of hindsight", then using the benefit of hindsight is a valid strategy... > There's a lot of "correlation is not necessarily causation" points to explain in your argument too, but I don't want to be further ensnared in a "what was the most profitable" discussion since it's beyond the point. You can't cherry-pick the best outcome and dismiss all the other ones. You need to specify where the cherry picking is happening, because by and large the trend is universal. You also can't just hand-wave a correlation/causation argument just because you're unable to refute it.

jahaja 6y ago
For fuck sake mate. How many times do I have to repeat myself to make you stop replying with "It's not the most efficient/productive way, so it can't be capitalism"? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What are you not understanding? You seem to have completely made up my "Central Argument". I'm NOT arguing, and have never argued, that slavery must be more productive and/or more profitable than non-slavery. I'm NOT saying, and have never said, that Capitalism must exhibit slavery. I'm AM saying that in an environment where slavery is socially acceptable, as it was in the US South during that time, the incentives of Capitalism will make it flourish - and it obviously did. That Capitalism exploits people and resources, if it's socially acceptable (and often even if it's not), it perfectly obvious and the historical record of it is indisputable: * Slavery * Colonialism * Child labor * Horrible working conditions * Environmental/Climate destruction etc etc.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > What are you not understanding? You seem to have completely made up my "Central Argument". I literally copy/pasted your own words, but it appears you've finally settled on one argument (emphatically so), great job! > I'm AM saying that in an environment where slavery is socially acceptable, as it was in the US South during that time, the incentives of Capitalism will make it flourish - and it obviously did. Capitalism is just an economic system of allocation of scarce resources by maximizing the output of production while minimizing the input resources required to produce a unit output, while also preventing a tragedy-of-the-commons. So you're superficially correct that in a regime where slavery is legal, this type of resource allocation might find an equilibrium that coexists within the rules of that regime, which may include perpetuating slavery. Hypothetically, if murder was legal, capitalism might allow the murder industry to "flourish", through hitmen for hire, private armies, and mercenaries. It's an observation that has few useful implications in our modern world today where slavery (and murder) are broadly illegal. You could even go so far as to argue that because socialist economies do not do a sufficient job of allocating resources / production to adequately meet the needs of its people (just empirically speaking), that the allowed use of involuntary servitude will thrive under a socialist regime, where the social need for forced labor outweighs the individual liberty to voluntarily refuse it. That is to say, "in an environment where slavery [by the state] is acceptable, the incentives of [socialism (severe shortages)] will make it flourish". We saw this play out in the past[1], and we see this play out today[2][3][4]. If you think that this is an absurd analogy, then you finally get the point: drawing causal relationships between abstract economic systems (whose sole purpose is to solve the resource constraint problem) and specific institutions (like slavery) that have existed for thousands of years under the backdrop of many different economic systems, is an absurd endeavor. [1] http://gulaghistory.org/nps/onlineexhibit/stalin/ http://gulaghistory.org/nps/onlineexhibit/stalin/ [2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/07/venezuela-new-regime-effectively-amounts-to-forced-labour/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/07/venezuela-new... [3] https://www.businessinsider.com/china-ppe-exports-uighur-labor-nyt-2020-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/china-ppe-exports-uighur-lab... [4] https://www.prisonersdefenders.org/2020/01/08/united-nations-accuses-cuban-medical-missions-abroad-of-slavery-and-forced-labour/ https://www.prisonersdefenders.org/2020/01/08/united-nations...