quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hey! darwin was bombed!

i stand corrected!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN The USSR was a super power for much of the 20th Century and it had none of those characteristics. indeed, i can think of many examples where 'minimal government' and 'free exchange of ideas' were anything but an american institution. honestly

to add to that, at the beginning of the post-war period industry in the US was subject to more government regulation than it is today. Deregulation of most vital industries took place from the late 70s through today.

also, during the war - which was the period when our industrial strength really kicked in - private property all over the country was taken for public use (e.g., car plants turned into tank plants, etc...). To me, that doesn't sound like government restraint.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on May-13-2009 at 04:55

I thought it was the lack of taxation that helped jump start the US to that level...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You misrepresented my original argument into something I never stated. I never said countries dependent on slave labor become super powers. I said many of the world's super powers were dependent on slave/forced labor. When I let you know this, now you tell me I'm tip toeing around. Every super power had an advanced economy. Like I said, most super powers were dependent on slave/forced labor, or at least very low wage labor. Notice how America's manufacturing base has been shipped of such low wage locales as China and Vietnam?

I see your point. So are super power's dependent on slave labor, or now dependent on very low wage labor? The story seems to change. But yeh yeh I get the basic point.

I honestly don't think America went into WWII thinking, "well we benefited from all these slaves 80 years ago so we'll win." But maybe people who slave others tend to want dominate other countries too. I'll give you that much. But slavery does not lead to world domination. There's a third factor that leads to both slavery and world domination.

___________________
www.facebook.com/DigitalSixable
www.soundcloud.com/DigitalSixable

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 how did slave labor, which was largely confined to the south (and mainly limited to the agricultural arena), improve our industrial output in our industrial powerhouse areas of new england and the great lakes regions?

Slavery was not just confined to the south and agriculture and was also not in just the black African form. After the Civil War, alternative forms of slavery persisted such as slave wage labor (sweatshops), and sharecropping, just name a couple examples. Slave wage labor persisted basically until unions became strong enough to fight for workers' rights.

quote:

again, this was confined to the south and limited to agriculture. How did that increase our industrial strength of the time?

Above.

quote:

you missed it. i know charlemagne was king of the franks at the height of their power. However, charlemage was just a person, not a nation.

You know I'm referring to the Frankish Empire.

quote:

what's your evidence that our progress was built on the backs of slaves, other than your self-serving conclusory statement?

We could not have had industrialization without slave wage labor.

quote:

Don't confuse slaves with low wage labor. Slaves are forced to do the work without choice. While low wage employees may have economic pressures exherted upon them, they have other opportunities that were unavailable to slaves and they make their choice based on free will, not the will of their owner. In any event, low wage labor will always be important for an progressing nation because it is a progessing nations competitive advantage against other nations. Moreover, much of america's low wage labor during our industrial boom was not former slaves, rather, it was european immigrants (and now it's latin american immigrants).

I don't think working just to eat, and working as a slave are much different from each other. It's no surprise that many families sent their young children off to work because no family member could earn a livable wage alone.

quote:

Would you argue that China's rising status is a result of slavery (i.e., since you are implicitly equating slavery and low wage labor, and since china is increasing its global status on the backs of low wage labor, then your position seemingly would be that china's status is a result of slavery)?

Yes, I would say China's progress is built upon the backs of slave wage labor. I do not think you can deny that. When companies can pay their workers close to nothing, how can they not prosper?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Slavery was not just confined to the south and agriculture and was also not in just the black African form. After the Civil War, alternative forms of slavery persisted such as slave wage labor (sweatshops), and sharecropping, just name a couple examples. Slave wage labor persisted basically until unions became strong enough to fight for workers' rights.

First of all, the "slave wage" for labor was $0.00/hr, and it often involved torture and rape. Sharecropping and "sweatshops" aren't even close to slave labor. They are voluntary arrangements between consenting adults, and neither party would have taken part if they didn't feel they were receiving a benefit from the arrangement.

quote:

We could not have had industrialization without slave wage labor.

Orly? Industrialization didn't happen across most of the US until after the civil war..in the late 18/early 1900s. That was the period of many new inventions, new power systems and manufacturing processes that helped businesses sprout and spread across the country. Slaves were used mostly on farms, not in industrial/factory work. That boom really kicked in after slavery was abolished. However if you define "sweatshops" as slave labor, I guess you are correct.

quote:

Yes, I would say China's progress is built upon the backs of slave wage labor. I do not think you can deny that. When companies can pay their workers close to nothing, how can they not prosper?

It's only a temporary stage my man. You can expect sweatshops in any country moving from an agrarian to an industrial society. China will move beyond sweatshops in a few decades and not through legislation or union bargaining..but because the infrastructure will be complete and the balance of laborers to jobs will reach an equilibrium. Right now there is a huge imbalance between in these areas. Their infrastructure is inadequate and the number of people flocking to cities vastly exceeds the number of jobs available. It is the same situation the USA was facing in the late 1800s so naturally conditions are going to be pretty sh!tty in China for a while. At the rate they are advancing however, I wouldn't be surprised if the average per capita income exceeds the USA within 50 years. Despite tyranny on the political side, in many ways (economically) they are more free than the USA today.

Last edited by Capitalizt on May-17-2009 at 18:30

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Slavery was not just confined to the south and agriculture and was also not in just the black African form. After the Civil War, alternative forms of slavery persisted such as slave wage labor (sweatshops), and sharecropping, just name a couple examples. Slave wage labor persisted basically until unions became strong enough to fight for workers' rights. Above. You know I'm referring to the Frankish Empire. We could not have had industrialization without slave wage labor. I don't think working just to eat, and working as a slave are much different from each other. It's no surprise that many families sent their young children off to work because no family member could earn a livable wage alone. Yes, I would say China's progress is built upon the backs of slave wage labor. I do not think you can deny that. When companies can pay their workers close to nothing, how can they not prosper?

slave labor is not the same as low wage labor. people have the free will not to take jobs that pay low wage labor. that low wage worker could just as easily stay in the country and farm. slaves, on the other hand, are forced to work without compensation. A chinese factory worker CHOOSES to work in a factory, whereas, a slave has NO CHOICE. this is the same thing that happened in the US. I agree that industrialization requires low wage workers, but that is not the same thing as slavery. You are being extremely careless with your choice of words.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt First of all, the "slave wage" for labor was $0.00/hr, and it often involved torture and rape. Sharecropping and "sweatshops" aren't even close to slave labor. They are voluntary arrangements between consenting adults, and neither party would have taken part if they didn't feel they were receiving a benefit from the arrangement.

Slave wage labor is not $0. But it is close to it. And yes they are close to slave labor. Working for pennies or starving to death is hardly something you can call "free". Simon Linguet said, "The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him… They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market… It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat… It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him… what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men… [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. … They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...-value/ch07.htm

quote:

Orly? Industrialization didn't happen across most of the US until after the civil war..in the late 18/early 1900s. That was the period of many new inventions, new power systems and manufacturing processes that helped businesses sprout and spread across the country. Slaves were used mostly on farms, not in industrial/factory work. That boom really kicked in after slavery was abolished. However if you define "sweatshops" as slave labor, I guess you are correct.

I never defined sweatshops as slave labor, I said they were slave wage labor.

quote:

It's only a temporary stage my man. You can expect sweatshops in any country moving from an agrarian to an industrial society. China will move beyond sweatshops in a few decades and not through legislation or union bargaining..but because the infrastructure will be complete and the balance of laborers to jobs will reach an equilibrium. Right now there is a huge imbalance between in these areas. Their infrastructure is inadequate and the number of people flocking to cities vastly exceeds the number of jobs available. It is the same situation the USA was facing in the late 1800s so naturally conditions are going to be pretty sh!tty in China for a while. At the rate they are advancing however, I wouldn't be surprised if the average per capita income exceeds the USA within 50 years. Despite tyranny on the political side, in many ways (economically) they are more free than the USA today.

Okay awesome, no where in this thread am I complaining about sweatshops or slavery. My only premise is that superpowers, based on history, relied heavily on slave and/or slave wage labor during their rise to the top.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 slave labor is not the same as low wage labor. people have the free will not to take jobs that pay low wage labor. that low wage worker could just as easily stay in the country and farm. slaves, on the other hand, are forced to work without compensation. A chinese factory worker CHOOSES to work in a factory, whereas, a slave has NO CHOICE. this is the same thing that happened in the US. I agree that industrialization requires low wage workers, but that is not the same thing as slavery. You are being extremely careless with your choice of words.

They are pretty damn close. If you don't work, you don't eat. How does being forced to send your children off to the factories sound to you? Who wants to choose to do that? That isn't freedom. It's the closest thing to slavery there is without being slavery. Anyways, that's not the point of this thread. The point is, superpowers almost always rely on slave and/or slave wage labor in their rise to the top. The Soviet Union relied heavily on forced labor. The Chinese rely on sweat shop labor. The Roman Empire relied on slave labor. The Frankish Empire basically created the feudal system of serf labor (way too close to sharecropping if you ask me). It's ubiquitous throughout history.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Ah! That is his misfortune… These men… [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. … They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?" http://www.marxists.org/

Wow krypt, great source. I can't believe you are regurgitating that bile as a serious argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The point is, superpowers almost always rely on slave and/or slave wage labor in their rise to the top.

oh yeah (what the hell is slave wage labor anyway?).

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton If you look at history, most of great super powers that have existed, we heavily dependent on slave/forced labor. The Greeks, Romans, Persians, Charlemagne, USSR, etc. So did the 100-200 years of American slavery build the foundations of a future superpower?

doesn't sound like low wage labor was the point until people began pointing out flaws in your theory.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Wow krypt, great source. I can't believe you are regurgitating that bile as a serious argument.

Attacking the source instead of the message huh?