Been reading "The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism". Very informative!

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by PCALMike

But development only took place when the elites were forced to give the people more freedom.

What is freedom? Freedom to do what? And are you free now?

In every society, and throughout history, we were never free to do anything we wanted. You are only free to do those things which do not interfere with the interests of the state. And honestly, you are only truly free to do those things which benefit the state.


The question then, from the perspective of a government, is how to convince the people to contribute to society(IE the government).

Either you must contribute to society voluntarily, or you must be forced to contribute(IE slavery). Governments require the labor of the masses to exist. Thus, if the masses stopped laboring, and stopped paying their taxes, then the government could not exist. And without our government, how could we defend ourselves from other governments?


No government wants to enslave anyone. If everyone voluntarily did anything the government asked, then no one would be enslaved, no one would be whipped, no one would be punished. Just as you would never punish your child if he always did anything you asked of him.

Likewise, the military draft would never be used, so long as enough people always volunteered. It is only when the government needs something, and it has no other means to get it, that it resorts to force.

And why does it use force only as a last resort? Because it is obviously far more costly and inefficient to force people to work, than for them to just do it voluntarily. Slaves have to be watched over, with guards and guns. They have to be tracked-down when they run away. And they will generally try to do as little as possible.


But a man who volunteers to work? Especially a man who has a patriotic devotion to his country? That man will get himself up in the morning, he will drive himself to work, he will work his fingers to the bone, and he will pay his taxes, largely without complaint.


The great achievement of democratic government, was in getting people to do what the government wants them to do, voluntarily.


How did they accomplish this?

1) By giving the state the appearance of legitimacy. Throughout most of history, the legitimacy of governments was either by force alone(IE fear), or it was by "Divine right"(IE god orders you to obey your government, Romans 13 in the bible, and who knows in Muslim?).

But in democracy, government is made legitimate by the supposed "consent of the governed". But is this government truly by the consent of the governed? Or better yet, how is that consent manufactured? Which brings us to...

2) Propaganda. The printing-press made it easier to shape public opinion. Throw on top of this a public-education system, and you can mass-produce patriotic Americans who will believe anything you tell them.

The same propaganda which dominates the rest of the world, dominates here. And it is the elites who control the media, not the common man. And they use it to get what they want.

3) Through economic institutions which make us dependent, and thus subservient to the system. You dare not speak a word against it, or risk losing your jobs. If you were to say, publicly, how you truly feel, you would risk losing everything you have.


So yes, the shackles did come off. But only once they were no longer necessary. Basically, only once the slaves were molded into loyal and obedient citizens, could they be let loose. But does that make them free?


As to the elites; You need to understand that the elites aren't necessarily a permanent class, even if they wish to be. As I said before, capitalism was adopted only out of necessity. Capitalism produces the most power, and so, every government must adopt it, or risk destruction.

It was the adoption of capitalism which caused the merchant revolution. And that is what replaced the old aristocracy, with the new merchant aristocracy.


"Manufacture, on a small scale, created the middle-class; on a large scale, it created the working-class, and raised the elect of the middle-class to the throne." - Friedrich Engels, 1844


The merchants and manufacturers require workers. And this working-class is dependent on their employers. They have no land, they cannot feed or cloth themselves on their own. If they stop working, they starve.


"In democratic countries, the most important private organizations are economic. Unlike secret societies, they are able to exercise their terrorism without illegality, since they do not threaten to kill their enemies, but only to starve them." - Bertrand Russell


And if you understand the original process by which capitalism came about, you might have read about the "enclosure" acts in Britain. Whereby "The commons" were sold off, and the peasants were kicked off the land. Once the peasants were thrown off the land, they had no choice by to go to the cities, and work for the manufacturers and merchants.


Thus, another great achievement of government, was how to force people into the market. If you are forced to pay taxes on your land, in cash, then you are forced to make money to pay those taxes, otherwise you lose your land. And if your land is taken by the government, and sold at auction, it almost-invariably ends up in the hands of the rich.


I dare not discuss the process by which capital, or access to cheap capital(IE by printing dollars, or through access to below-market interest rates), gives a huge advantage to some, and allows the acquisition of most of the valuable property in a country at a fraction of the cost.

If you and I are farmers, and you can print dollars at 0% interest, but I have to pay 10%, then that alone will give you a massive competitive advantage. Thus those who control the capital, are able to use that capital to acquire even more. It is a total distortion.

Originally Posted by PCALMike

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.

If you go back far enough, men were completely free. As free as the wild animals. What did they do with that freedom? Nothing.

Men had to be enslaved, because they wouldn't freely cooperate otherwise. Had free men cooperated from the beginning, there never would have been any slavery at all.

Those societies which cooperated the best, and thus produced the most, became the most powerful. The idea that the elites were trying to destroy opportunities for "progress"(which I assume you mean material progress?), is something of a deranged conspiracy theory.


In short, if freedom actually made a country powerful, then all countries would be free, and they would have always been free.

Originally Posted by PCALMike

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?

I generally agree with everything you said here, except the bit about communism. Communism is top-down, but its elites were not the most-capable of men. They were ambitious men, certainly, but not necessarily the most-capable.

In America, we believe our government is run by the politicians. But the politicians are really just puppets, placed there by the business interests. Thus, in America, it is the businesses which control the government, and use it to make them more profits.

This is often derided by leftists, but this is actually a good thing. Successful businessmen are almost-invariably intelligent, capable, and ambitious. It is far better for those men to have control over our government than the rabble(IE a plutocracy or technocracy).



As for your question. It is my belief that if there was actually only one country left in the world, it would not remain capitalist. Capitalism is nothing more than a tool used to increase the power of the state. Once there is only one state, then capitalism becomes useless.

With that said, I don't like the use of the word "progress". But I would assume that humans will always try to make things better, even in the absence of competition. I think everyone imagines themselves as a good person.


We need to keep in mind, the Soviet Union didn't collapse merely because it was communist. Plenty of other communist countries still exist. The reason the Soviet Union collapsed was because it couldn't keep up with the United States. If there had been no United States at all, the Soviet Union would not have collapsed(at least not when it did).

The real purpose of glasnost and perestroika, was to restructure the financial system, because the Soviet Union was going bankrupt as a result of its foreign interventions, especially in Afghanistan, all while the price of oil plummeted. The Soviet Union, in order to sustain its Cold War foreign policy, needed money.


Think of North Korea, it could last forever. It can only be brought down by pressure from the outside. If the whole world was suddenly North Korea, then it might stay North Korea, forever. The North Korean people overwhelmingly have no idea what is even going on. Because propaganda keeps them completely ignorant and delusional.


I'm very concerned for the future. I think that, if the goal is to create a one-world government(and I think it is), then a lot of freedoms will have to be curtailed, especially freedom of speech. Hate-speech laws exist because it is difficult to keep such diverse countries together if people are allowed to speak openly.

[PCALMike]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

What is freedom? Freedom to do what? And are you free now?

In every society, and throughout history, we were never free to do anything we wanted. You are only free to do those things which do not interfere with the interests of the state. And honestly, you are only truly free to do those things which benefit the state.


The question then, from the perspective of a government, is how to convince the people to contribute to society(IE the government).

Either you must contribute to society voluntarily, or you must be forced to contribute(IE slavery). Governments require the labor of the masses to exist. Thus, if the masses stopped laboring, and stopped paying their taxes, then the government could not exist. And without our government, how could we defend ourselves from other governments?


No government wants to enslave anyone. If everyone voluntarily did anything the government asked, then no one would be enslaved, no one would be whipped, no one would be punished. Just as you would never punish your child if he always did anything you asked of him.

Likewise, the military draft would never be used, so long as enough people always volunteered. It is only when the government needs something, and it has no other means to get it, that it resorts to force.

And why does it use force only as a last resort? Because it is obviously far more costly and inefficient to force people to work, than for them to just do it voluntarily. Slaves have to be watched over, with guards and guns. They have to be tracked-down when they run away. And they will generally try to do as little as possible.


But a man who volunteers to work? Especially a man who has a patriotic devotion to his country? That man will get himself up in the morning, he will drive himself to work, he will work his fingers to the bone, and he will pay his taxes, largely without complaint.


The great achievement of democratic government, was in getting people to do what the government wants them to do, voluntarily.


How did they accomplish this?

1) By giving the state the appearance of legitimacy. Throughout most of history, the legitimacy of governments was either by force alone(IE fear), or it was by "Divine right"(IE god orders you to obey your government, Romans 13 in the bible, and who knows in Muslim?).

But in democracy, government is made legitimate by the supposed "consent of the governed". But is this government truly by the consent of the governed? Or better yet, how is that consent manufactured? Which brings us to...

2) Propaganda. The printing-press made it easier to shape public opinion. Throw on top of this a public-education system, and you can mass-produce patriotic Americans who will believe anything you tell them.

The same propaganda which dominates the rest of the world, dominates here. And it is the elites who control the media, not the common man. And they use it to get what they want.

3) Through economic institutions which make us dependent, and thus subservient to the system. You dare not speak a word against it, or risk losing your jobs. If you were to say, publicly, how you truly feel, you would risk losing everything you have.


So yes, the shackles did come off. But only once they were no longer necessary. Basically, only once the slaves were molded into loyal and obedient citizens, could they be let loose. But does that make them free?


As to the elites; You need to understand that the elites aren't necessarily a permanent class, even if they wish to be. As I said before, capitalism was adopted only out of necessity. Capitalism produces the most power, and so, every government must adopt it, or risk destruction.

It was the adoption of capitalism which caused the merchant revolution. And that is what replaced the old aristocracy, with the new merchant aristocracy.


"Manufacture, on a small scale, created the middle-class; on a large scale, it created the working-class, and raised the elect of the middle-class to the throne." - Friedrich Engels, 1844


The merchants and manufacturers require workers. And this working-class is dependent on their employers. They have no land, they cannot feed or cloth themselves on their own. If they stop working, they starve.


"In democratic countries, the most important private organizations are economic. Unlike secret societies, they are able to exercise their terrorism without illegality, since they do not threaten to kill their enemies, but only to starve them." - Bertrand Russell


And if you understand the original process by which capitalism came about, you might have read about the "enclosure" acts in Britain. Whereby "The commons" were sold off, and the peasants were kicked off the land. Once the peasants were thrown off the land, they had no choice by to go to the cities, and work for the manufacturers and merchants.


Thus, another great achievement of government, was how to force people into the market. If you are forced to pay taxes on your land, in cash, then you are forced to make money to pay those taxes, otherwise you lose your land. And if your land is taken by the government, and sold at auction, it almost-invariably ends up in the hands of the rich.


I dare not discuss the process by which capital, or access to cheap capital(IE by printing dollars, or through access to below-market interest rates), gives a huge advantage to some, and allows the acquisition of most of the valuable property in a country at a fraction of the cost.

If you and I are farmers, and you can print dollars at 0% interest, but I have to pay 10%, then that alone will give you a massive competitive advantage. Thus those who control the capital, are able to use that capital to acquire even more. It is a total distortion.




If you go back far enough, men were completely free. As free as the wild animals. What did they do with that freedom? Nothing.

Men had to be enslaved, because they wouldn't freely cooperate otherwise. Had free men cooperated from the beginning, there never would have been any slavery at all.

Those societies which cooperated the best, and thus produced the most, became the most powerful. The idea that the elites were trying to destroy opportunities for "progress"(which I assume you mean material progress?), is something of a deranged conspiracy theory.


In short, if freedom actually made a country powerful, then all countries would be free, and they would have always been free.




I generally agree with everything you said here, except the bit about communism. Communism is top-down, but its elites were not the most-capable of men. They were ambitious men, certainly, but not necessarily the most-capable.

In America, we believe our government is run by the politicians. But the politicians are really just puppets, placed there by the business interests. Thus, in America, it is the businesses which control the government, and use it to make them more profits.

This is often derided by leftists, but this is actually a good thing. Successful businessmen are almost-invariably intelligent, capable, and ambitious. It is far better for those men to have control over our government than the rabble(IE a plutocracy or technocracy).



As for your question. It is my belief that if there was actually only one country left in the world, it would not remain capitalist. Capitalism is nothing more than a tool used to increase the power of the state. Once there is only one state, then capitalism becomes useless.

With that said, I don't like the use of the word "progress". But I would assume that humans will always try to make things better, even in the absence of competition. I think everyone imagines themselves as a good person.


We need to keep in mind, the Soviet Union didn't collapse merely because it was communist. Plenty of other communist countries still exist. The reason the Soviet Union collapsed was because it couldn't keep up with the United States. If there had been no United States at all, the Soviet Union would not have collapsed(at least not when it did).

The real purpose of glasnost and perestroika, was to restructure the financial system, because the Soviet Union was going bankrupt as a result of its foreign interventions, especially in Afghanistan, all while the price of oil plummeted. The Soviet Union, in order to sustain its Cold War foreign policy, needed money.


Think of North Korea, it could last forever. It can only be brought down by pressure from the outside. If the whole world was suddenly North Korea, then it might stay North Korea, forever. The North Korean people overwhelmingly have no idea what is even going on. Because propaganda keeps them completely ignorant and delusional.


I'm very concerned for the future. I think that, if the goal is to create a one-world government(and I think it is), then a lot of freedoms will have to be curtailed, especially freedom of speech. Hate-speech laws exist because it is difficult to keep such diverse countries together if people are allowed to speak openly.

The state is run by people. And the private personal interests are very different than the interests of a nation. Thats why corruption and tyranny are such tremendous obstacles to development and progress. It doesnt have to be any conspiracy. When there are converging interests, no formal conspiracy is needed. Corrupt oligarchs and aristocrats have for thousands of years prevented development from taking place fearful of losing their power. We see it today as well. Basically every country in the world is capitalist. Far from every country is progressing rapidly. The elites in lots of countries are in no hurry at all and continue to rule with an iron fist, through corruption, monopolies, abuse of power, denying people a good public education etc. Measures that are intended to prevent change and it severely harms development and the economic power of the country.

If America was the only country in the world, the economic elites would have no reason to give people the freedom to challenge the status quo and there would be a permanent plutocracy of stagnation where a self-serving elite no longer reluctantly give the people some freedom to challenge their power. Very little technological and medical progress would take place. Development would slowly grind to a halt. I think there is a good reason why communists and the capitalist democracies joined forces and co-operated to crush worker co-operative societies. Both communists and capitalists believe in a top-down authoritarian economic system. Any challenge to that system is a huge threat to the ruling class.