Been reading "The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism". Very informative! (enemies, illegal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Japan & China both had very rigid social systems. You were born into your level (maybe a class - not sure that's the right term), & it was nearly impossible to move out of your level - although the old imperial Chinese system allowed scholars to test into imperial service. I don't know that Japan did anything similar.
Russia (& Europe generally) had serfs - peasants who were basically locked into the estate they were born into. Other than taking holy orders, it wasn't possible to rise out of your class. That system didn't break up until merchants & guilds were able to function in society.
I'm not sure that slavery as such is a prerequisite for industrialization. Certainly there was a specialization of labor - but it didn't have to be slavery. Functionally, though, it may have been the equivalent of slavery.
It's a good question.
But all of these oppressive systems severely harmed economic progress for thousands of years and only served the tiny ruling elite at the top. Thats the whole purpose. The elites in any country, even today, simply do not want to give up power and status without a fight. This power is like a drug. Once people have this power and status they dont care about the harmful effects on the wider society and economy as long as their power urges are satisfied. The elites in any country of course know what it takes for their country to progress. The people were given more freedom in Russia, Germany, Austria, Japan, China etc when the elites in those countries realized they had no choice. Stuff like land reform, fighting corruption and monopolies is furiously resisted anywhere in the world unless they are forced to implement these reforms. Even in developed countries, the rise of an oligarchic elite is a constant threat to further progress.
If countries are not fearful of invasions by neighboring countries or fearful of losing their hegemonic power, the elites will just cement their status and stagnation is the result.
I completely agree. It is the pressure from the outside that causes change, not pressure from the inside. Thus you should never interpret America's actions by only looking at America. You can only understand America's actions by looking at the geopolitical circumstances which forced our hand.
Or as George Orwell said... "The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed."
I completely agree. It is the pressure from the outside that causes change, not pressure from the inside. Thus you should never interpret America's actions by only looking at America. You can only understand America's actions by looking at the geopolitical circumstances which forced our hand.
Or as George Orwell said... "The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed."
One could say that the real problem is a system that allows certain people to gain a lot of power and status. The elites have for thousands of years used national symbols as a way to legitimize their power but their own personal power quest really is the biggest threat to the power of the nation. We can only imagine how much lost progress and human potential we have seen wasted over the last millennia as a result of corrupt elites at the top inhibiting development as its a threat to their own status. Its amazing how quick progress takes place when people are given freedom to use their creativity and innovation and barriers to growth like power abuse, corruption, monopolies etc are kept in check.
The elites have for thousands of years used national symbols as a way to legitimize their power but their own personal power quest really is the biggest threat to the power of the nation.
As much as I hate the elites, I think the exact opposite is true.
It is actually the ambition of the elites on which civilization itself depends.
The truth is, all nations are artificial. Without national symbols, and without the constant encouragement of patriotism, no nations would even exist.
All civilizations are hierarchies, held together by force. Because without force, there would be very little cooperation. And modern civilization depends on millions of people cooperating with each other, on a global scale.
It is the ambition of the elites which drives every nation towards omnipotence and opulence.
In the military, you have only a few generals, and a whole lot of soldiers. Likewise, a nation needs only a few leaders, and a whole lot of workers.
And the more hierarchical a nation is, the more powerful it will become.
Imagine for a moment that you had 1,000 acres, and 100 people. Do you want each person to own 10 acres? Or do you want a few people to own all of the land, and for everyone else to work for them? The utopian would claim that ideally, each person should own equal shares of land. But that is a mistake.
And who should own this land? Well, the most-ambitious men of course. Because they will utilize it to its maximum productiveness.
The average person would tend to squander their property, while doing as little as possible just to live. Had you left the property thus divided equally, very little would get done.
What makes capitalism so successful, is in its ability to place power and property in the hands of the most ambitious, as well as the most capable. Capitalism's great triumph, over the previous monarchical systems, was that it replaced the hereditary aristocracy with the natural aristocracy.
Instead of becoming noble by birth, you become noble by skill, ability, and ambition.
And all the while, the hierarchical systems continue to consolidate, with our corporations becoming bigger, and bigger, and bigger. With our governments becoming bigger, and bigger, and bigger.
Had the world remained carved up into tiny tribes, instead of massive nation-states, there would never be the "economies-of-scale" that allow for the large-scale production, and technological improvement that we see today. The bigger the market, and the more hierarchical the social-organization, the more productive and advanced it becomes.
The same competition which drives capitalists towards technical innovation, is the same competition which drives nations towards political and social innovation. If a single corporation was able to monopolize the entire world, innovation would largely cease. And likewise, if a single nation(and the elites who run it) was able to monopolize the entire world, innovation would largely cease.
In fact, what created capitalism in the first place, was the competition between the nations of the world. Which forced them to make changes in their economic and social institutions. And whichever country had the superior system, would become the most-powerful(and thus conquer/colonize the world)
And this is why the communists realized that it would require a worldwide revolution to topple capitalism. Because capitalism is the most-productive system. Thus it produces the most profit, and thus it produces the most power. Capitalism cannot be destroyed from the outside, it can only be destroyed from the inside.
But capitalism must remain so long as there exists a multitude of nations of the world, each competing with each other for world dominance. If the nations of the world are held in a struggle of life and death, then they have no choice but to adopt the system which can best-preserve them in this hostile world. Only a powerful nation can be free and independent.
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides, 400 BC
Thus, the communist revolution, must create a one-world government. Which will hold a monopoly on power, across the world, till the end of time. Only then can capitalism be defeated.
But that returns us to the original problem. If innovation comes from competition, and if the result of a one-world government would be to wipe out international competition. Then those in power, would likely stay in power, and innovation would tend to grind to a halt.
Every institution would exist merely to preserve the status quo, and I can only imagine what corruption, perversion, and evil that would result from it.
Thus I believe that the world is staring down an existential dilemma. The competition of our elites is what got us to where we are today. But the same elites want to cement their hold on power, by giving themselves a monopoly position in a global system, where they could never be dethroned.
If we allow this full consolidation of the world, I believe that all of humanity would be cast into darkness for a thousand years. But, I do not believe that this consolidation and monopolization can be stopped without bringing everything down.
Basically, you cannot keep the system we have now. Change is inevitable. Either we continue going the direction we are going, or we burn everything down.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-02-2017 at 03:02 AM..
The problem with the people in this thread, as well as the author; Is that everyone starts out with whatever they wish to be the truth, and they seek out facts to support it. They don't actually care about the truth.
So, if they want to believe that the wealth of America was built by slaves, they basically just say that American industry utilized cotton made by slaves, and thus, American industry was built by slavery. End of discussion.
Well then, Britain and France also utilized southern cotton, does that mean that British and French wealth was the result of American slavery? And if so, then what about Germany? Isn't it even richer than Britain and France? Didn't it become the most-powerful industrial power in the world in the early 20th century? But was its wealth also the result of American slaves?
At that point the argument changes. The claim then is that Germany became rich because it had colonies. Well it did have colonies, but it was cut off from its colonies entirely between 1918 and 1939. And prior to the 1930's, its economy was nearly destroyed. Yet, in less than a decade, it again became the richest and most-powerful country in Europe, and nearly defeated the combined-forces of practically the entire world. How?
And as I said in my earlier post, let us not forget Japan. Who I would assume had no ties at all to American slavery, or any slavery at all for that matter. And other than Korea, it really didn't have colonies prior to WWII. So how is that possible?
Would Japan have been even richer had it had slavery? Would Germany have even been richer if it had brought in millions of slaves to Germany?
Thats like saying it didnt happen without repression of gays so it is needed for development. Or that denying tens of millions of Americans health care is needed because development didnt happen in America when everyone has healthcare. Nobody is denying that slavery happened, but to suggest that it is necessary for development is absurd and I think you know it. Development happened despite slavery and if slaves had been freed the moment they set foot in America, we would all be better off. Please dont try to defend slavery as a vehicle for human progress.
I think you may be purposefully being kind of blank....
I stated that slavery was used to ramp up the industrial revolution. You cannot refute that this occurred. I am stating that slaves were used both north and south for this purpose. You cannot refute that this occurred.
I didn't say slavery was necessary for economic progression or the industrial revolution. I'm saying that this is what occurred in the economic history of our nation.
Seems to me that you and others are debating "what ifs." You are not speaking about what actually occurred.
I'm also not defending slavery....
I think you need to read more books instead of watching videos as your sources. Saying slavery was used to spur economic development in the American colonies and late 18th/early 19th century America is not defending slavery.
It is stating what happened.
I'll bow out though and let you all go on your would've/could've what ifs and ignoring reality.
I think you may be purposefully being kind of blank....
I stated that slavery was used to ramp up the industrial revolution. You cannot refute that this occurred. I am stating that slaves were used both north and south for this purpose. You cannot refute that this occurred.
I didn't say slavery was necessary for economic progression or the industrial revolution. I'm saying that this is what occurred in the economic history of our nation.
Seems to me that you and others are debating "what ifs." You are not speaking about what actually occurred.
I'm also not defending slavery....
I think you need to read more books instead of watching videos as your sources. Saying slavery was used to spur economic development in the American colonies and late 18th/early 19th century America is not defending slavery.
It is stating what happened.
I'll bow out though and let you all go on your would've/could've what ifs and ignoring reality.
And a privatized health care system is also what has happened. Doesnt mean that a privatized health care system where your wallet decide whether you get treatment or not is what has caused America to be successful. Do you honestly think a privatized health care system is vital to our prosperity just because it has happened?
Some here are portraying slavery as vital to industrialization. You try to portray it as such as well. Thats intellectual hogwash. America developed despite slavery.
As much as I hate the elites, I think the exact opposite is true.
It is actually the ambition of the elites on which civilization itself depends.
The truth is, all nations are artificial. Without national symbols, and without the constant encouragement of patriotism, no nations would even exist.
All civilizations are hierarchies, held together by force. Because without force, there would be very little cooperation. And modern civilization depends on millions of people cooperating with each other, on a global scale.
It is the ambition of the elites which drives every nation towards omnipotence and opulence.
In the military, you have only a few generals, and a whole lot of soldiers. Likewise, a nation needs only a few leaders, and a whole lot of workers.
And the more hierarchical a nation is, the more powerful it will become.
Imagine for a moment that you had 1,000 acres, and 100 people. Do you want each person to own 10 acres? Or do you want a few people to own all of the land, and for everyone else to work for them? The utopian would claim that ideally, each person should own equal shares of land. But that is a mistake.
And who should own this land? Well, the most-ambitious men of course. Because they will utilize it to its maximum productiveness.
The average person would tend to squander their property, while doing as little as possible just to live. Had you left the property thus divided equally, very little would get done.
What makes capitalism so successful, is in its ability to place power and property in the hands of the most ambitious, as well as the most capable. Capitalism's great triumph, over the previous monarchical systems, was that it replaced the hereditary aristocracy with the natural aristocracy.
Instead of becoming noble by birth, you become noble by skill, ability, and ambition.
And all the while, the hierarchical systems continue to consolidate, with our corporations becoming bigger, and bigger, and bigger. With our governments becoming bigger, and bigger, and bigger.
Had the world remained carved up into tiny tribes, instead of massive nation-states, there would never be the "economies-of-scale" that allow for the large-scale production, and technological improvement that we see today. The bigger the market, and the more hierarchical the social-organization, the more productive and advanced it becomes.
The same competition which drives capitalists towards technical innovation, is the same competition which drives nations towards political and social innovation. If a single corporation was able to monopolize the entire world, innovation would largely cease. And likewise, if a single nation(and the elites who run it) was able to monopolize the entire world, innovation would largely cease.
In fact, what created capitalism in the first place, was the competition between the nations of the world. Which forced them to make changes in their economic and social institutions. And whichever country had the superior system, would become the most-powerful(and thus conquer/colonize the world)
And this is why the communists realized that it would require a worldwide revolution to topple capitalism. Because capitalism is the most-productive system. Thus it produces the most profit, and thus it produces the most power. Capitalism cannot be destroyed from the outside, it can only be destroyed from the inside.
But capitalism must remain so long as there exists a multitude of nations of the world, each competing with each other for world dominance. If the nations of the world are held in a struggle of life and death, then they have no choice but to adopt the system which can best-preserve them in this hostile world. Only a powerful nation can be free and independent.
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides, 400 BC
Thus, the communist revolution, must create a one-world government. Which will hold a monopoly on power, across the world, till the end of time. Only then can capitalism be defeated.
But that returns us to the original problem. If innovation comes from competition, and if the result of a one-world government would be to wipe out international competition. Then those in power, would likely stay in power, and innovation would tend to grind to a halt.
Every institution would exist merely to preserve the status quo, and I can only imagine what corruption, perversion, and evil that would result from it.
Thus I believe that the world is staring down an existential dilemma. The competition of our elites is what got us to where we are today. But the same elites want to cement their hold on power, by giving themselves a monopoly position in a global system, where they could never be dethroned.
If we allow this full consolidation of the world, I believe that all of humanity would be cast into darkness for a thousand years. But, I do not believe that this consolidation and monopolization can be stopped without bringing everything down.
Basically, you cannot keep the system we have now. Change is inevitable. Either we continue going the direction we are going, or we burn everything down.
But development only took place when the elites were forced to give the people more freedom. They were just as ambitious a thousand years ago. But that ambition meant destroying opportunities for progress because it was a threat to their status. They did not want to give the people more freedom. The elites were FORCED to because they were afraid of losing their power and status through invasions by neighboring countries. You are saying that this fear is what causes development and not that the people are given freedom to challenge the status quo and the vested interests (the elites). I think thats a different way of looking at it.
You claim that capitalism and a top down authoritarian economic system causes the most productive people to thrive, but that is only possible as long as corruption does not get out of hand. Corruption is begrudgingly fought to a certain extent because its bad for the power of the nation. But thats only a temporary situation and many elites in many countries are not compelled to do it. All countries in the world today are "capitalist", perhaps except a couple of exceptions. But when the elites do not have an incentive to give up their power, they will just cement their power and stagnation occurs. Thats the case in lots of capitalist countries. Communism is extreme top down power on stereoids. Thats terrible for economic development. But a (capitalist) system which relies on people not abusing the power they are given is also a very vulnerable system. As an example, if there were only one country left in the world, do you think a capitalist system would lead to progress?
IMHO The ideal system is one where the people that want to work, innovate, create, go to war and gain social status would be encouraged to do that. Then the tax system would provide enough to let the rest of us sit around eat, drink and buy the trinkets the workers produce so they would have incentive to keep doing their industrial thing.
IMHO The ideal system is one where the people that want to work, innovate, create, go to war and gain social status would be encouraged to do that. Then the tax system would provide enough to let the rest of us sit around eat, drink and buy the trinkets the workers produce so they would have incentive to keep doing their industrial thing.
Yes, I actually think a lot of economic elites actually are fully aware that some type of worker co-operative economic system where the people who work for a company also own and directly control the company is the best way for economic progress and development. A more democratic workplace where workers feel invested in their own job and are not mere economic units in an hierarchical power structure. Just as I think a lot of elites 1000 years ago were fully aware that their own corrupt greed and oppression of the people had prevented human progress for millennia. Its interesting how both communists and capitalist societies which both have an authoritarian top-down economic view (communists using the state power and capitalists using private power in huge corporations) have joined together and fought worker co-operative movements. I dont buy the idea that people who feel valued and appreciated really want to just remain idle and slothful. I think thats mostly corporate propaganda. A system that encourages the best qualities of humanity like empathy, compassion and co-operation instead of some of the worst like authoritarian power, greed and fear is likely the future.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
