3 ms·
> Capitalism precludes slavery. Hmm? Capitalism neither precludes nor predates slavery.
by quesera 7mo ago
> Capitalism precludes slavery.
Hmm? Capitalism neither precludes nor predates slavery.
- akramachamarei 7mo agoCapitalism precisely precludes slavery. One of the most important and foundational of its principles is private property. The first, most natural, and universal instance of private property is the ownership of one's own body. Heck, we even have the phrase "private parts." Slavery requires the most basic violation of bodily autonomy. In other words, to permit slavery is to permit the violation of the most basic property right. I struggle to see how slavery could be compatible with capitalism.
- grimblee 7mo agoGo ask kids forced to work for years in cocoa plants or coltan mins in africa what they think of your little explaination
- akramachamarei 7mo agoIs this supposed to be ... a gotcha? If slavery is involved, it's not capitalism, by definition. Distance attenuates all signals, so each transaction step may somewhat smear or smudge such a stain. Really not clear at all what you're getting at.
- em-bee 7mo agoyou assume that capitalism implies that everyone gets to participate. but that is not a necessary condition. you can have a capitalist system where not everyone participates. slaves did not participate in capitalism, but their owners did. one might even argue that employees do not participate in capitalism either (i am not familiar enough with the specific definitions to state that with certainty however).
- akramachamarei 7mo agoNo! The owners were not participating in capitalism either, precisely because their whole business is predicated on violating private property. If you wish, you can express it as a matter of degree. That by having ones bodily autonomy stripped, one is engaged less capitalistically, and the same for those which strip that autonomy. The violation taints both ways.
- quesera 7mo agoYour argument sounds like a Smithian adaptation of the Brezhnevian "actually existing socialism". Neither system has ever existed in its purest theoretical form -- probably cannot, and even more probably should not. I don't think this is a useful point of argument.
- akramachamarei 7mo agoI think you would have more of a point if we were still struggling to achieve a good "capitalist" society, i.e. where property rights are enforced, individual liberty, freedom of contracts.¹ But we've already gotten very far, unlike the many regrettable socialist experiments. If we were still feudal, or still keeping slaves, you might have a point, but in a global sense overall things are better than ever. The Brezhnevian notion fails because all the striving towards socialism tends to lead to suffering, and on the way you don't see incremental improvement. But I'm not a historian so please correct any ignorance of mine if you can. 1:I really want to emphasize these as the definition of capitalism, because capitalism as is often defined is not designed top-down with the attributes identified in it. It mostly organically emerges from basic rights. Take for example the Marxist phrase "private ownership of the means of production." (POMP) One does not set ought to ensure this directly, it arises naturally from property rights and liberalism. One would need to prevent POMP by chipping away at property rights and personal liberties: by seizing things, by getting in the way of consensual agreements.
- em-bee 7mo agothings are better, but they are getting worse again. wages are not rising long with inflation. why? because capitalism defines that the wages are set by market value. as i see it only socialist tendencies are fighting against that. (i don't mean achieving a full socialist system) is minimum wage capitalistic or socialistic?