5 ms·

Even the most cynical don’t consider non-capitalist systems like slavery something that models value.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago
How is slavery non-Capitalist. I always thought it was the epitome of market capitalism as human life gets valued by the market?
- kenjackson 4y ago
  If you can’t figure this out on your own, I know I won’t succeed in explaining it to you.
- cloverich 4y ago
  Because it requires the literal use of government force to suppress market forces, ie to prevent the slaves from refusing to work and running away to find better opportunities.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    No, it doesn’t. It requires only private force and the absence of government force used to prevent the use of it.
    - cloverich 4y ago
      Do you have examples of widespread slave economy that did not require a government framework to support it? All examples from modern civilization i can think of involved laws specifically blocking slaves from participating as equals in the market economy, ie anti capitalist?
      - lazyasciiart 4y ago
        Regulation is not anti capitalist, it is a necessity for the existence of a market. Zero regulation is not capitalist, it is anarchy. Which of those modern civilizations do you believe are not capitalist? Are you counting trafficked slave labor today as an example?
    - kenjackson 4y ago
      That doesn't work. You're effectively saying that if I create an army and simply steal from you, that is capitalism because its my own private army. It violates many tenets of capitalism. Buyers and sellers must act voluntarily and enslavement against the will of the slaves, certainly seems to violate this. That said, even if you simply view the slaves as property with no agency of their own, my original point was more that you can't compare the net worth of the slaves against the slave owners in terms of value created.
      - lazyasciiart 4y ago
        I'm not saying that and it is unreasonable to imagine that I am. That said, I have no idea what your second sentence means.
      - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
        >Buyers and sellers must act voluntarily and enslavement against the will of the slaves, certainly seems to violate this. Can you go into this a bit. In general sellers can acquire materials (oil say) by invading a country and mining it. If that seller then sells the oil acquired thus, I can't see how the buyers and sellers are not acting voluntarily? Is war/violence antithetical to Capitalism in some way that I'm not aware of?
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    People sell themselves into slavery too. But, enforcing ownership rights on property is surely part of regular capitalism?
lazyasciiart 4y ago
Even the most naive don’t believe that a perfect capitalist market exists today, so that’s irrelevant. He isn’t arguing that “in a perfect system this would be true”, he is arguing that in this system, it is true.

How is slavery non-Capitalist. I always thought it was the epitome of market capitalism as human life gets valued by the market?

kenjackson 4y ago
If you can’t figure this out on your own, I know I won’t succeed in explaining it to you.
cloverich 4y ago
Because it requires the literal use of government force to suppress market forces, ie to prevent the slaves from refusing to work and running away to find better opportunities.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  No, it doesn’t. It requires only private force and the absence of government force used to prevent the use of it.
  - cloverich 4y ago
    Do you have examples of widespread slave economy that did not require a government framework to support it? All examples from modern civilization i can think of involved laws specifically blocking slaves from participating as equals in the market economy, ie anti capitalist?
    - lazyasciiart 4y ago
      Regulation is not anti capitalist, it is a necessity for the existence of a market. Zero regulation is not capitalist, it is anarchy. Which of those modern civilizations do you believe are not capitalist? Are you counting trafficked slave labor today as an example?
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    That doesn't work. You're effectively saying that if I create an army and simply steal from you, that is capitalism because its my own private army. It violates many tenets of capitalism. Buyers and sellers must act voluntarily and enslavement against the will of the slaves, certainly seems to violate this. That said, even if you simply view the slaves as property with no agency of their own, my original point was more that you can't compare the net worth of the slaves against the slave owners in terms of value created.
    - lazyasciiart 4y ago
      I'm not saying that and it is unreasonable to imagine that I am. That said, I have no idea what your second sentence means.
    - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
      >Buyers and sellers must act voluntarily and enslavement against the will of the slaves, certainly seems to violate this. Can you go into this a bit. In general sellers can acquire materials (oil say) by invading a country and mining it. If that seller then sells the oil acquired thus, I can't see how the buyers and sellers are not acting voluntarily? Is war/violence antithetical to Capitalism in some way that I'm not aware of?
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  People sell themselves into slavery too. But, enforcing ownership rights on property is surely part of regular capitalism?

lazyasciiart 4y ago

Even the most naive don’t believe that a perfect capitalist market exists today, so that’s irrelevant. He isn’t arguing that “in a perfect system this would be true”, he is arguing that in this system, it is true.