Capitalism Requires An Underclass To Exploit?? (unemployment, wisdom, Jesus, compare)
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.
1) In America, we don't have capitalism in the classic sense. In reality, its a kind of "corporatism", which is quite different.
2) As for your question, maybe history can answer it:
When Columbus discovered the new world (for Europeans) he found the native Americans. First idea was to put them to work (a kind of slavery), but for different reasons, they were not a good fit. Then, they started bringing Africans, mainly from the west coast of Africa. After the African Americans were freed in late 19th century, new waves of immigrants from China, Ireland, Italy and eastern Europe became the new exploited class. In the 30s and 40s, refugees from Europe and WW2 played this role in part. In the 1960s, with no more lower class to take advantage of, America reopened its gates, letting millions of Mexicans, Latinos, Indians, Pakistani and others, flood the country. Since the 1980s, a tsunami of illegals crossing the Mexican border, were welcomed by businesses and employers, hungry for underpaid workers.
In parallel, with increased regulations and worker rights in the US in 70s and 80s, a new economic philosophy advocating outsourcing (using poor people from other countries), even at the price of ruining our economy.
Does that answer your question?
For capitalism to flourish, there are three required socioeconomic classes: the ruling class, the middle class, and the underclass. The ruling class controls production, banking, politics, and the media. They share enough of the proceeds with the middle class as is necessary to keep the middle class docile. Invariably, a few crumbs filter-down to the underclass.
The existence of the middle class is necessary to provide a physical and cultural buffer between the ruling class and the underclass. The existence of the underclass is necessary in order to provide someone for the middle class to blame when the abuses of the ruling class begins to affect them acutely.
For capitalism to flourish, there are three required socioeconomic classes: the ruling class, the middle class, and the underclass. The ruling class controls production, banking, politics, and the media. They share enough of the proceeds with the middle class as is necessary to keep the middle class docile. Invariably, a few crumbs filter-down to the underclass.
The existence of the middle class is necessary to provide a physical and cultural buffer between the ruling class and the underclass. The existence of the underclass is necessary in order to provide someone for the middle class to blame when the abuses of the ruling class begins to affect them acutely.
Spot on!!!!!! You took the words right out of my mouth!!!!!
I've often heard that coming from some who oppose capitalism. Can someone explain what that means?
I mean if you look at capitalist America it is reliant on consumers and workers for it to funtction. But the financial status of these American consumers and workers varies. Some are low income(underclass) people but many American consumers and workers are working class,middle class and wealthy. So it's not true in U.S capitalism that the system is totally dependent on poor underclass consumers and workers to function.
An underclass would not help a capitalist system, it's a drag on the system, not a boost. A desperate and dependent underclass is a must for socialists, because they are easily manipulated by the state.
I've often heard that coming from some who oppose capitalism. Can someone explain what that means?
It's just something losers say.
They like to cloak their Penis Envy and Butt-Implant Envy in the mantra of Compassionâ„¢ in an attempt to hide the stench.
See the next post for a good example of propaganda and disinformation.
Capitalistically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
1) In America, we don't have capitalism in the classic sense. In reality, its a kind of "corporatism", which is quite different.
2) As for your question, maybe history can answer it:
When Columbus discovered the new world (for Europeans) he found the native Americans. First idea was to put them to work (a kind of slavery), but for different reasons, they were not a good fit. Then, they started bringing Africans, mainly from the west coast of Africa. After the African Americans were freed in late 19th century, new waves of immigrants from China, Ireland, Italy and eastern Europe became the new exploited class. In the 30s and 40s, refugees from Europe and WW2 played this role in part. In the 1960s, with no more lower class to take advantage of, America reopened its gates, letting millions of Mexicans, Latinos, Indians, Pakistani and others, flood the country. Since the 1980s, a tsunami of illegals crossing the Mexican border, were welcomed by businesses and employers, hungry for underpaid workers.
In parallel, with increased regulations and worker rights in the US in 70s and 80s, a new economic philosophy advocating outsourcing (using poor people from other countries), even at the price of ruining our economy.
Does that answer your question?
So then why did "Native Americans" (snicker) have slaves?
Prior to the "discovery" of the New Worldâ„¢ by Columbus, were "Native Americans" (snicker) Capitalists?
Because you see, "Native Americans" (snicker) enslaved each other. In fact, "Native Americans" (snicker) exterminated other "Native Americans" in genocidal campaigns to gain slaves.
Council between Cadillac and the Odawa to resolve the Odawa and Miami hostilities. Cadillac demands Le Pesant, Miami and Huron demand vengeance, and Cadillac gives them Odawa slaves.
Oh, so sorry to rain all over your pity-party parade.
And why did you intentionally refuse to state that African tribes practiced slavery?
Were they Capitalists, too?
So what do you call it when non-Capitalists practice slavery?
Is there some kind of special lefty-liberal politically correct euphemism for that?
Perhaps "Socialist Associates?"
Debunking....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
An underclass would not help a capitalist system, it's a drag on the system, not a boost. A desperate and dependent underclass is a must for socialists, because they are easily manipulated by the state.
I've often heard that coming from some who oppose capitalism. Can someone explain what that means?
I mean if you look at capitalist America it is reliant on consumers and workers for it to funtction. But the financial status of these American consumers and workers varies. Some are low income(underclass) people but many American consumers and workers are working class,middle class and wealthy. So it's not true in U.S capitalism that the system is totally dependent on poor underclass consumers and workers to function.
Capitalism is an economic system that treats labor as a commodity in such a way that people can sell there labor. It differs from other economic systems where people do not own their own labor, but are in essence assured employment by virtue of someone else owning their labor. (E.g. serfs and slaves.)
As to creating an underclass, there are certain people who want a large number of marginally employed people, particularly marginally employed people with skills, because that keeps skilled labor cheap and labor is a very large cost in capitalism. As such while Capitalism does not per-se require an underclass since in capitalism labor, like other commodities, prices are set by the market there are people who benefit from having an underclass.
The thing about capitalism is that it sometimes creates feedback loops that are bad.
The upper class is the Federal Government and the Federal Goverment's friends like Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citi, Al Gore, General Motors, etc.
Maybe the Federal Government needs to be guillotined.
The upper class is the Federal Government and the Federal Goverment's friends like Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citi, Al Gore, General Motors, etc.
Maybe the Federal Government needs to be guillotined.
The merge of government and corporations is a form of Fascism.
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.
