Obama comparing Slavery to the Holocaust

[oladub]

Red herring.

We weren't discussing trade, we were discussing labor of those who produce, which in capitalism is chategorized as a cost of production.

One of the guiding principles of capitalism is to reduce the cost of production, and what could be cheaper than free? Therefore slavery is far from "opposite and antithetical" to capitalism; on the contrary, depending on the cost of keeping slaves vs. paying workers, slavery is merely good business practice.

As I mentioned before, work camps and gulags accomplished many of the same economic advantages for their national socialist and Soviet socialist masters. Prisoners in either of these socialist applications of cheap labor sometimes had the hope of returning home but unlike chattel slaves were disposable and cheaply replaced. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich is a good book to help understand aspects of the plight of slaves.

Slavery is also alive and well today in the Sudan where black Christians are enslaved by their Muslim neighbors from the north. Are the Muslim slavers capitalists because they read Adam Smith or Ayn Rand? Or are they the coming from same same place as their forefathers who captured Africans three hundred years ago?

[firstandten]

The overwheming majority of nations in Europe had nothing at all to do with slavery.
By constantly blaming Europeans you are lumping them all in together with the deeds of the English,Portugese,French,Dutch,Spanish.


My ancestors have not a thing to do with the problems those nations along with Americans,Africans and Arabs created for themselves.

So please, since this is a liberal PC site act like it and show EUROPEANS the same respect you want .

In a strict sense you are correct. Not all European nations were involved.
Portugal, Spain, France,England, Scotland , Brandenburg-Prussia, Denmark and Holland were involved in the slave trade.

The European nations involved in colonization where basically those same countries along with Germany and Italy. All major countries

So yes, we aren't speaking all of Europe as you said, but were talking enough of it that you get the gist of what we are trying to get across.

I speak in terms of europe and I'm generalizing, you speak of europe as a single entity. Whats wrong with that picture ?

[Detroit Stylin]

Trading with an individual for that person's property is not slavery...therefore capitalism is the opposite and antithetical to it [[slavery)..

Hmmmm funny you say that....so by that logic back int he day when we WERE considered property then it was nothing less than good ol' 'merican capitalism ri?

[rb336]

Isn't slavery where one person [[or a group of people) claims as their own the products of another person's physical or intellectual labor?

hmmm...capitalists claiming the lions share of the value labor adds to the project, while cutting labor's real wages at the same time as labor's productivity goes up -- that sounds EXACTLY like what you defined as slavery.

[Detroitej72]

hmmm...capitalists claiming the lions share of the value labor adds to the project, while cutting labor's real wages at the same time as labor's productivity goes up -- that sounds EXACTLY like what you defined as slavery.

Yes but conservatives conveniently forget that little detail.

The right wing's god, Rush is proud that his indoctrination of the ignorant and gullible masses is achieving the desired results.

[Omaha]

Capitalism relies on markets where goods and services are bought and sold. Making a profit off of a commodity that's sold in the market is the essence of capitalism.

Now, slavery existed in different cultures, continents, etc. forever. If everybody engaged in some or another form of slavery and it's still happening in other places in the world that means our version wasn't abhorrent...we are no better or worse than others...historical reality can be denied...gotcha...yadda, yadda, yadda. See my earlier post on chattel slavery.

In some people’s minds, slavery may be MERELY claiming the products of another’s labor. Chattel slavery, as experienced in the U.S., is actually claiming to own THE PERSON AND THEIR CHILDREN, AD INFINITEM. In our peculiar version of chattel slavery, women were especially important because they are the vessels who can produce more wealth in the form of human beings. Slave women can produce children [[profits)...even if impregnated by whites.

Chattel slavery or the actual owning of people so that they can be bought and sold as a commodity wasn’t elevated, as we know it from history, until capitalism was instituted. Chattel slavery is inextricably tied to the evolution of markets and therefore to the development of capitalism.

Denying that reality is par for the course among some posters.

Be careful elganned, you might incur the wrath of DY’s most prolific poster by making such logical statements about the selling of "free" labor. He’ll deny them or find a Randian form of twisted logic to deny exploitation. I’ll just say it sucks to be a worker and sell your intelligence, experience, and strength to earn a wage.

For capitalism to work fairly in ways that insure a level playing field for all…a number of things must occur simultaneously: lots of small producers [[sellers) competing with one another [[oligopoly and the advantages it brings would be unknown); all resources, like labor, are freely mobile [[not tied to families and communities); there's perfect knowledge of the market [[and market conditions) by all players so that informed decisions could always be made; and there's easy entry into the market for producers who want to enter and compete.

But in the real world, the trade of labor for wages is rigged in ways that favor employers. There is no perfect competition. There is no perfect knowledge. Equal accessibility to all jobs that require the same knowledge and skill base is only found in books. A place where employers do not collude is only in someone’s head.

So, in today’s so-called free markets, where there are more applicants than jobs, employers wisely conduct a “reverse auction.� In a reverse auction, the most desperate job seekers will perform work for the lowest wages and in the worst working conditions. The most desperate job applicants who can do the job, will get the job.

In the reverse auction, workers compete with each other to see who will be the lowest bidder. In the U.S. employers always were able to find a new or less privileged group of workers to compete with the established workforce. Free v. slave; free v. indentured; women v. men; adult v. children; native born v. newly arrived; white v. people of color; documented v. undocumented; U.S. v. the most desperate in developing countries, etc. Let the competition begin…sometimes with the help of “free trade� laws.

Fair exchange of labor for wages? Hardly! But hey that's Social Darwinism applied to the workplace.

The textile industry established itself in the Northeast U.S. and moved to the South. Why? Cheaper labor. Then southern states were upset with the industry left the U.S. Why? Cheaper labor.

Mexico was happy when industry moved into the Maquiladoras. It was unhappy when some industries left for South Korea and other Pacific Rim nations. Why? Cheaper labor. There's a theme there, if you are paying attention.

“If the world operates as one big market, every employee will compete with every person anywhere in the world who is capable of doing the same job. There are lots of them and many of them are hungry.� Andrew Grove, president of Intel Corp., in his book "High Output Management" 1995

“Ideally employers should put every plant they own on a barge so that it could move around the world to take advantage of lower wages.� Jack Welch, former CEO, General Electric Corporation

Choose your parents well, it's the best way to attempt to insure a good life. If you can't do that…too bad. But please DON'T support labor unions. They were formed to end the reverse auction. Keep profits high for the rich and well-born by keeping wages low.

[ccbatson]

There is no element of generosity or compassion in the formula used by a market system/capitalism. Pay the lowest wages possible [[the labor market will bring them up to a market driven level), incentivise productivity from labor at the same time, maximize profit to grow the business and leave the person/persons who are solely responsible for the product/service/business in the first place with the fruits of their labor and property to dispose of as they please [[consumption, investment...all feed back into the economy on other levels).

[Omaha]

As a Colbert Conservative and Social Darwinist, I agree. Being a wage earner [[unless you are among those who can negotiate great individual contracts) sucks. An owners game it to exploit cheap labor while you can. Divide and conquer. Fight equal pay laws. Fight unionization. Fight anything law that would limit an owner’s right to take the product of another’s labor as cheaply as possible and sell it for as much as the market will bear.

“Any man who pays more for labor than the lowest sum he can get men for is robbing the stockholders. If he can secure men for $6 and pays more, he is stealing from the company.� Stockholder of American Woolen, [[Lawrence, Massachusetts) told to the Rev. Harry Emerson Fosdick, 1911

As for it must be legal, controlling who gets elected helps insuring not too many get passed. If they get passed, make sure they are poorly enforced. Limit their effectiveness in as many ways as legally possible.

It's in our heritage as a nation to make and break laws that help property owners on this side of the Atlantic.

White male property owners in the Colonies broke a legally binding agreement that the mother country [[and the English corporations that started them) had with those living in North America. English regulation of who we could sell to, buy from and who could transport goods to and from the colonies limited the financial rewards flowing to the young entrepreneurial class living here. Then there was the "taxation without representation thing" that limited profits here.

“For what purpose were they suffered to go to that country [the American colonies], unless the profit of their labour should return to their masters here?� The Marquis of Carmarthen commenting before Parliament in 1774 on the purpose of establishing colonies in America

It took a revolution to break away from a legally binding relationship, but what the heck. It hurt the “right� of the owners in England make money off of our efforts, but it opened the world to Colonial economic dynamos. Go King Cotton, Go ship building, go manufacturing, go railroads, go oil, go Robber Barons. Fairness has NOTHING to do with it. Make no bones about it. Maximizing profits is all that it’s about.

“So the question is, do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? And my answer to that is: no they do not.� Economist and Nobel Prize recipient Milton Friedman, ChemTech, 1974

White property owners at first were able to keep the right to vote to themselves. They elected white male property owners who passed laws and selected the same as those who sat as judges. Pretty good system. Great for profit maximization.

“The people who own this country ought to govern it.� John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

The expansion of the right to vote to non-property owners was the beginning of the end. But with the ability to buy and sell politicians it wasn’t as big as a problem as it seems. As an advocate for the rich and elite I am glad that it works the way it does.

“There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.� Warren Buffett Omaha’s billionaire investment specialist and chairman of Berkshire Hathaway speaking to Ben Stein in “Everybody's Business: In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning,� New York Times, November 26, 2006.

[rb336]

incentivise productivity from labor at the same time

hmmm, so by your standard, workers SHOULD be getting better compensation for higher productivity. yet again, facts show just the opposite to what your debunked dogma claims will happen

[Omaha]

“Incentivize it� for those who can get individual employment contracts like those getting bonuses with government bail out money.


“Reverse auction it" for average workers…as I described in an earlier post. Where there is a lot of competition for jobs, there is enough incentivizing by just paying the least amount possible. What is the least amount possible? Whatever is the lowest amount job seekers will work for after they bid against one another in a race to the bottom.

Hey the same process was at work 200 years ago, 100 years ago, and will still be working to the advantage of employers 100 years from now. As a Colbert Conservative and Social Darwinist…that’s just the way I like it.

[ccbatson]

In the long run, if labor is a commodity in demand [[ie growth in an industry) than productivity will be valued and bid for increasing wages, or, even better, resulting in upward mobility/promotions.

[Omaha]

Cc and I agree!?!

For the few, the elite, “the high priced spread,� who can negotiate individual contracts [[often with golden parachutes) the sky is the limit. For the rest of the schmucks who sell their intelligence, experience and labor to an employer “the reverse auction rules.� Fairness, and justice as values commonly understood in our culture have NOTHING to do with how the economy works. It’s all about short term profit maximization. It's an eternal truth of capitalism.

IF everyone looks after their own self-interest [[those with $ having a distinct advantage on an unlevel playing field) the Randian equivalent of Smith’s Invisible Hand of God makes it all good. NOT!

Cc and I also agree that generosity and compassion are best left to religion. But thank goodness for the Calvinists and their promotion of the Protestant work ethic among the working class.

“The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for - not by labor agitators, but by the Christian men to whom God in His infinite wisdom has given control of the property interests of the country, and upon the successful management of which so much depends.� George Baer, President of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad [[one of the largest coal operators) 1902. When asked about the conditions of those working in the coal mines, George Baer replied, “Suffer?!...They don’t suffer! Why, they can’t even speak English!!�

Some bleeding heart liberals may complain that it is exploitation. But I say, “too bad…so sad.� The class that I advocate for will enjoy the best life has to offer, living off the labor of others, while communities die. Hey, compassion and generosity are options and NOT mandates.

I urge you working stiffs to ignore Adam Smith and Abe Lincoln who believed that labor creates all wealth.

“Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased.� Adam Smith, Scottish political economist and author of The Wealth of Nations

“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much higher consideration.� Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States in his first message to Congress, December 3, 1861

As a Colbert Conservative and Social Darwinist, I know the game is rigged against working slobs and their families and communities in which they live.

If you have a job in the U.S. that doesn’t require your presence right here to provide a good or service, you are or will be in a world of hurt. Thanks to our modern communication system Ph.D.s are finding themselves competing with cheaper labor from around the world. Heck, some of our smarter employers are finding ways to import highly educated employees here claiming that they can’t find job applicants here. B.S. They can’t find them for what they are willing to pay. But when the government, no matter who is in power, is in your back pocket…those visas will be made available when needed.

The game is set up by the rich and well-born to favor the rich and well-born. Upward social mobility in this country is the great exception to the rule…but happens often enough to give hope to the toiling masses…the fools!

Labor unions are an attempt to end the reverse auction, They were first declared illegal in the U.S. [[1806) under judge-made common law. It wasn’t an accident that employers formed an association to look after their economic self-interest had the right to vote and working stiffs didn’t. The judge made a decision that favored the mildly rich [[minimum property ownership requirement required for voting) and smacked white males without property in the face!

“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people…Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government.� Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury, major author of the Federalist Papers and advocate of a strong central government

Haves v. have nots...not much different from the way greed-driven English nobility treated their subjects in the Colonies. Then the damn colonies formed a union, “united we stand, divided we fall,� to deprive the wealthy owners in England who were “solely responsible for the product/service/business in the first place� of their profits.

I am being no more open and honest than Omaha’s billionaire Warren Buffett. As always, the best way to increase your odds of enjoying a good life is to choose your parents well. Those who enjoy the summer at the Little Club know what I am talking about.

[mjs]

Did anyone else catch this in Johnnny5's article? "Crowley, 42, had been selected to be a police academy instructor on how to avoid racial profiling." Doesn't sound like the top brass considered him a racist.

TKshreve called it exactly right. What happened hear sounds like a typical episode of COPS which usually ends with handcuffs and disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. I always told my mentally defective clients, if a cop approaches you, do what he says and argue it to a Judge or supervisor at a later date. You'll never win an argument with a cop.

It would have been classic if he framed his comments just a little differently and asked, "Do you know who the fuck I am?"

[ccbatson]

Profiling with good judgement and restraint is a necessary part of police work and it is not limited to race.

[firstandten]

Profiling with good judgement and restraint is a necessary part of police work and it is not limited to race.

Good point, the problem however people bring their hangups and biases into their profiling. When people feel they are in a situation in which they are basically powerless they tend to get defensive, sometimes angry. Unfortunately instead of the good judgement and restraint you mention, you get back more defensiveness and anger and the police have the ultimate trump card.

[ccbatson]

They can't help but do that. So long as they behave professionally, so be it.

[Detroitej72]

In the long run, if labor is a commodity in demand [[ie growth in an industry) than productivity will be valued and bid for increasing wages, or, even better, resulting in upward mobility/promotions.

Yeah, because it worked so well in the early 20th century, before unions.

[firstandten]

They can't help but do that. So long as they behave professionally, so be it.

But Cc thats my point, the biases and hangups render them incapable of acting professionally

[ccbatson]

That period of history was the time of rapid growth that allowed for the ill conceived organized labor movements that followed. IOW, if not for the industrial revolution [[made possible but capitalism), organized labor would have been a moot point.

Firstandten....pronoun trouble..it isn't "them" but "him" that works in your reply.

[Detroitej72]

The fact is, before unions, the wages and working conditions were horrible. Unions were necessary to get the companies to provide safer conditions and better wages that they refused before.

If the companies didn't have the unions, they would still have the hellish conditions prior to unions. You need only to look at the sweet shop conditions that the same companies are currently using in China, Malaysia, India, and all other third world nations.

Even though I'm not a big fan of the unions, I see how they were necessary, at that time.

[rb336]

Bats, as you will notice, has these odd "rand vision" goggles that permanently distort his sense of history and, frankly, everything else

[ccbatson]

How can anyone know what would have developed in the absence of unions?

[Detroitej72]

How can anyone know what would have developed in the absence of unions?

We have a pretty good gage by seeing how they treated workers before unions. With the companies making money, there was no incentive for them to change wages or conditions unless the worker's united and demanded safer factories and better wages.

[gibran]

in someone's dream world we would be Bangladesh...or if lucky India...hopefully not Sub Saharan Africa..man I long for the days of a dollar a day...maybe then we could weed out those pesky poor...maybe I will bring that up in my next staff meeting...

owner: hey guys you love capitalism and being American don't you?
guys: yes why certainly!
Owner: well today I did something really patriotic and capitalistic.
guys: you did great!
Owner: Yep, I just outsourced your job to Mexico..don't worry I will be ok...and besides ...next year after adjusting to making a strong profit.. I will move to China...
guys: wow, guess we can't swim to China.
Owner: well maybe you can look at the bright side...being unemployed now will save me paying your health care benefits...and besides, I just bought a new Benz.

[East Detroit]

How can anyone know what would have developed in the absence of unions?

By opening a history book and studying the industrial age up until the unions were formed.