Black People And Capitalism DON'T Mix

[A Real Human Bean]

Central planning was a necessity when those ideals were applied (especially at the magnitude of millions). No system works exactly as intended.

There's nothing inherent in a Socialist organization of society that necessitates central planning. Some people believed in a kind of authoritarian Socialism that attempted to force the will of the people, which was directly antagonistic to popular Socialist (which would later be termed libertarian-socialist, or anarchist-socialist and other such creations) thought of that time.

Look at the CNT during the Spanish Civil War for an example of a successful practice of real Socialist ideals in a society. There's no reason to believe that that those results couldn't be replicated and improved upon today, on an even grander scale.

 

[Poitier]

Look at the CNT during the Spanish Civil War for an example of a successful practice of real Socialist ideals in a society. There's no reason to believe that that those results couldn't be replicated and improved upon today, on an even grander scale.

The scale itself unless you don't believe in human behavior and scarcity.

 

[theworldismine13]

This is completely wrong and bears no resemblance to the reality. Exploitation of child labor was outlawed and eventually stopped because workers organized and fought for it (and also because the level of child mortality had risen to level of horror that parliament was simply unable to ignore). Likewise, the standard of living rose, in part, because workers organized and fought for it. There has always been a middle/upper class bourgeois/aristocracy and they only sought to give as much concessions to the workers as they thought was absolutely necessary to prevent social upheaval. They were completely fine with accumulating capital while the majority of the population lived in terrible poverty. This is clear from the actual record of labor history.

But even when there were laws protecting child labor, factory owners evaded them and in some cases just broke them completely.

And Socialism doesn't imply centrally planned states. That's how some people carried out their form of governing under the banner of Socialism, but it had virtually nothing to do with the actual ideals of Socialism. Centrally planned totalitarian dictatorships are as far as you can get from a Socialist organization of society. But the term has undergone such perversion in the US that it's barely worth using any more.

The fact that wealth and standards of living rose under capitalism isn't an argument for capitalism. Germany experienced extraordinary economic growth under Nazi dictator rule. Is that an argument for totalitarianism?

i would agree with you about child labor, it wasnt capitalism that ended child labor, or slavery or gave worker rights, what did it was individual rights and democracy

those things are what balances capitalism out

like i said before, capitalism is not moral code, it says nothing about whats right and wrong

but saying socialism doesnt imply centrally planned states is just , please stop with the ridiculous statements

 

[DEAD7]

This is completely wrong and bears no resemblance to the reality. Exploitation of child labor was outlawed and eventually stopped because workers organized and fought for it (and also because the level of child mortality had risen to level of horror that parliament was simply unable to ignore). Likewise, the standard of living rose, in part, because workers organized and fought for it. There has always been a middle/upper class bourgeois/aristocracy and they only sought to give as much concessions to the workers as they thought was absolutely necessary to prevent social upheaval. They were completely fine with accumulating capital while the majority of the population lived in terrible poverty. This is clear from the actual record of labor history.

Before capitalism the idea of having children not work was insane. It wasnt exploitation, it was survival... you think families back then suddenly realized that having children work was immoral? No the standard of living began to rise and social standards rose along with it.

The moral crusades were made possible by capitalism.

I'm not gonna argue the details, cause I dont want to make this about child labor, but capitalism definitely enabled this nation to provide social safety nets and fund public education.

and to the nay sayers let me ask, where do you think the wealth to fund these endeavors came from? how was this waelth created?

 

[DEAD7]

i would agree with you about child labor, it wasnt capitalism that ended child labor, or slavery or gave worker rights, what did it was individual rights and democracy

those things are what balances capitalism out

like i said before, capitalism is not moral code, it says nothing about whats right and wrong

but saying socialism doesnt imply centrally planned states is just , please stop with the ridiculous statements

slavery and child labor both still exist in those nations that rejected capitalism...

 

[theworldismine13]

slavery and child labor both still exist in those nations that rejected capitalism...

yeah slavery and child labor still exist in countries without individual rights and without democracy

and capitalism works fine with or without slavery and with or without child labor, capitalism doesn't ask the question of whether child labor or slavery is wrong

the point im making is that you cant just be pro capitalism, you also have to be for individual rights and for democratic rights (right to vote, assemble and protest)

 

[A Real Human Bean]

Before capitalism the idea of having children not work was insane. It wasnt exploitation, it was survival... you think families back then suddenly realized that having children work was immoral? No the standard of living began to rise and social standards rose along with it.

The moral crusades were made possible by capitalism.

I'm not gonna argue the details, cause I dont want to make this about child labor, but capitalism definitely enabled this nation to provide social safety nets and fund public education.

and to the nay sayers let me ask, where do you think the wealth to fund these endeavors came from? how was this waelth created?

You display an extraordinary ignorance of the facts of history. Children worked (usually doing menial farm/craft tasks that were appropriate for their age) but they were never subject to the brutal exploitation as they experienced under industrial capitalism. Never before were children of three or four years old set to work in in industrial prisons for hours on end in such abysmal conditions. The child mortality rate in these factories during the rise of capitalist industrialization was downright appalling . And it wasn't just the families of the children that realized this was "immoral", it was Parliament, members of the bourgeoisie, and anyone with a sense of ethical behavior. Did you honestly think families thought it normal for their small children to be forced to work in factories and die of exhaustion? Again, this is all clear to anyone familiar with the actual labor history.

 

[DEAD7]

You display an extraordinary ignorance of the facts of history. Children worked (usually doing menial farm/craft tasks that were appropriate for their age) but they were never subject to the brutal exploitation as they experienced under industrial capitalism. Never before were children of three or four years old set to work in in industrial prisons for hours on end in such abysmal conditions. The child mortality rate in these factories during the rise of capitalist industrialization was downright appalling . And it wasn't just the families of the children that realized this was "immoral", it was Parliament, members of the bourgeoisie, and anyone with a sense of ethical behavior. Did you honestly think families thought it normal for their small children to be forced to work in factories and die of exhaustion? Again, this is all clear to anyone familiar with the actual labor history.

right...
We are talking about two completely different things then. if it was force it wasnt the market.
Like i said i dont wanna debate child labor, my point is social standards rise with the standard of living.

 

[A Real Human Bean]

right...
We are talking about two completely different things then. if it was force it wasnt the market.
Like i said i dont wanna debate child labor, my point is social standards rise with the standard of living.

No, we're talking about the same thing. You thought 19th century families believed it was "moral" for their small children to be worked to death in factories, as if it was some kind of fact of life or "survival" tactic. The attitudes of workers towards the machinations of industrial capitalism and its effects on their families is well documented. You should make an effort to familiarize yourself with them.

 

[DEAD7]

No, we're talking about the same thing. You thought 19th century families believed it was "moral" for their small children to be worked to death in factories, as if it was some kind of fact of life or "survival" tactic. The attitudes of workers towards the machinations of industrial capitalism and its effects on their families is well documented. You should make an effort to familiarize yourself with them.

well played.
Since you're gonna force the child labor thing, which ironically is where all capitalism debates end up, lets debate it.

If we are being completely honest it took a market crash to finally sway public opinion. During the Great Depression, Americans wanted all available jobs to go to adults rather than children. Unions who couldn't gain traction during this time, latched onto it and the political push became 'a thing'. Reforms swept the nation and child labor was done.

None of which, whether you agree or not, has anything to do with my point... which is social standards rise with the standard of living. I'm sure at some point my point will be "children should work in factories" but it is what it is.
I'm curious as this mechanism by which companies forced children into their factories against their parents will, where they would kill them without repercussion...

 

[How Sway?]

yeah, i cant agree with the Lady.

Now , If it was up tome we'd go back to agrarian society, but those days have been long gone.

This type of thinking will continue to hold black people back.

 

[Truth200]

Capitalism has no moral base and it explains why the world is the way it is.

There is no such thing as good or evil just winners and losers on earth

Young nikkas killing each other in the hood for $50 because capitalism has no moral base.

People made other people slaves in the past because capitalism has no moral base.

Whats not to understand about that considering the origins of the human species comes from Africa.

Your ancestors would never fathom one day that kids in the hood would kill each other for Air Jordans

 

[Medicate]

at the knowledge in this thread......

 

[DEAD7]

Capitalism has no moral base and it explains why the world is the way it is.

There is no such thing as good or evil just winners and losers on earth

Young nikkas killing each other in the hood for $50 because capitalism has no moral base.

People made other people slaves in the past because capitalism has no moral base.

Whats not to understand about that considering the origins of the human species comes from Africa.

Your ancestors would never fathom one day that kids in the hood would kill each other for Air Jordans

Economics are amoral.
Conditions can be added for ethics/morality etc., but they are not inherent in the allocation of scarce resources.

Spoiler

... and the notion that the market economy and/or capitalism* makes people greedy, selfish, and amoral is simply fallacious.

 

[CHL]

Economics are amoral.
Conditions can be added for ethics/morality etc., but they are not inherent in the allocation of scarce resources.

Spoiler

... and the notion that the market economy and/or capitalism* makes people greedy, selfish, and amoral is simply fallacious.

Spoiler

It at the very least incentivises selfishness and greed