|
The MoA Week In Review – OT 2022-31 (NOT Ukraine)
Last week's posts at Moon of Alabama:
(Another week of all out Ukraine. I'd love to write on other stuff, but it is the world moving story of these day.)
— Other issues:
Covid-19:
 bigger
ISS:
Middle East:
Torture:
Empire of hypocrisy:
Use as open (NOT Ukraine) thread …
@Tom Herrera #42
You said:
One group of folks had the idea that they were superior to another group of folks, and implemented on that idea through violence and intimidation. It seems pretty conscious to me, and based on an idea that I suspect you and I do not share.
This is ahistorical and wrong. The reality is that slavery, for most of human history, was within a given group of people – not of one ethnicity/race over another.
Even in the late 1700s – the largest numbers of slaves weren’t actually African – they were European. The Barbary Coast – what is now Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Libya were infested with pirates who preyed on the Mediterranean and even Atlantic Coast shipping – taking crews and passengers as slaves or hostages, depending on ability to pay. It was not until the cotton gin and after the 1820s that plantation scale slavery became a thing – and note that the US outlawed the slave trade (bringing in new slaves) in 1808. This law was, in fact, why the New Englanders got out of the slave business and many converted to whaling…
So the only “idea” here is the Woke Left’s bullshit about America’s original sin. I also note that the purveyors of slaves for America were, respectively: African tribes capturing each other to sell; Portuguese for establishing the first trading stations in Africa; New Englanders – like many of the guys who built houses on Nantucket – who took over the business of transporting slaves to the Colonies as part of the “Triangle trade”: rum for slaves for molasses
The same goes for labor exploitation. One group manages to convince itself of its superiority and inherent right to subjugate another, then works to achieve its goals again via violence and intimidation, in this case in a capitalist setting.
More ahistorical nonsense, now combined with a complete lack of understanding of business.
The New England sewing factories did not explicitly seek women and children due to ideas of superiority; they used them because they are cheaper labor than men.
Women and children are cheaper labor than men because their labor is less valuable in a pre-industrial, pre-ICE labor environment where raw muscle power matters far more than anything else.
Let’s not forget that these New Englanders were often literally the same people against slavery because “morals”.
You said
Capitalism does not inherently have to be exploitative, or at least that is my take on it at this point. It could also function like our local farmers market here where I live. People do work and bring the fruits of those labors downtown and offer them for sale. No one can force anyone to buy anything, and everyone is free to attend or not as they see fit. In the end everyone benefits from the local produce, goods, and services offered.
I immensely dislike this nonsense about “capitalism does not need to be exploitative”. You can just as easily say that “slavery does not need to be exploitative” – there were plenty of Southerners who were not utter monsters and cared for their slaves as some people care for their capital equipment today like 18 wheeler trucks.
The issue is limits: while you can be a “good” slaveowner or capitalist, ultimately you are going to get outcompeted by the “bad” slaveowners and capitalists.
So no, I don’t agree with your naive view – especially your example of farmers selling at farmer’s markets. From what I have seen, those farmers are selling overpriced goods to moderately to fairly wealthy people. It is no more “non-exploitative capitalism” than the Whole Foods…
The idea that corrupts capitalism, to me, is the idea you would wish to limit those choices, and do it via some mechanism that involves coercion. Generally that is law and politics, so far as I can tell. To relieve the pressure of this sort of yolk is difficult, to put it mildly, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. That’s what MoA is all about, so far as I can tell.
Good luck with that.
You are very early to the discussion and lack both depth and common sense. Consider this: who sets the limits on “choice limiting”? On whom? By what means?
The truth is that there can be no “non-exploitative” capitalism without highly intrusive government, to ensure that no monopoly occurs. The US in the 1945-mid 1960s was exploiting the rest of the world; the US since the 1990s has been exploiting its own people.
Posted by: c1ue | Mar 21 2022 15:04 utc | 110
|