[CDB]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

True, the capitalist mode of production is characterized by the private ownershipship of assets and generalized commodity production. However, what the definition you chose has left out, and what I am sure you choose to ignore is that it also relies on the transformation of direct-producers to wage-labourers in the interests of realizing a profit. This profit depends on the active living-labour creating more value (with their labour as a commodity,and the capitalist appropriating this) then those who own the means of productions need to assign to them (social phenomenon form of this value is money). I.e., exploitation of living labour is the necessary base for Capitalism

Incorrect. There is no exploitation as the association is voluntary. If there is any exploitation in the search for profit it is mutual because valuations prior to a trade are reversed; you don't buy a newspaper for a dollar unless you want it more than your dollar, and the seller doesn't sell unless they want the dollar more than the paper. If there's any exploitation it is mutual and more importantly beneficial to both parties. Profit also has nothing to do with money. Money is simply a common denominator, the most sellable commodity, that comes in which makes profit easier to calculate. This ease of calculation is to everyone's advantage. Tranforming a "direct-producer" to a "wage-labourer" is a natural by-product of the division of labor, which is once again to everyone's advantage.

Strictly speaking the only thing a capitalist does in capitalism is advance resources to people so they can engage in productive work. By doing so he allows them to engage in a production process that would normally exhaust the worker's available resources. The end result is increased productivity and increased goods and services which once more benefits everyone. The association is voluntary, no one has appropriated anything. And incidentally no profit is earned from the capitalist function as there's a difference between the natural rate of return earned on a simple advance of resources, essentially a loan, and entrepreneurial profit which is based on uncertainty and assuming risk.

Now, Colonialism operated on this fundamental imperative of worker exploitation in order to realize a capital profit. You are choosing to express the forms of capitalism which best fit your imperative.

Incorrect. Capitalism is by definition based on enforcement of property rights, not violation of them. What you want to call capitalism is nothing of the sort. It is corporatism, industrial or neo mercantalism, etc. You can not say that a system which depends on secure property rights and voluntary association (capitalsim) is the same as one that depends of the violation of property rights and forced association (mercantilism). The two are mutually exclusive and one has nothing to do with the other.

{QUOTE]The process which was applied to the African continent was solely Colonialism yes. However this process was applied in the interests of realizing advantage in a common culture of Capitalism within the European continent. So, I am afraid the two have a more intrinsic connection than you would choose to admit.[/quote]

Seems to me you don't want to admit, or simply can't see, the difference between two completely different economic systems.

And I would assert that my opinions have no more to do with a "lack of education" or an "agenda" than yours do. In fact, I take a bit of offense to that assertion.

In my experience it is true. I've been in many debates, formal and informal, online and in the real world. People often confuse capitalism with mercantilism, and in my experience they do so because they have either been poorly educated in the subject of economics or because they have an agenda which requires they cast capitalism in a bad light. The two are distinct economic systems. If capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production then a system which relies on government enforced associations and appropriations of property (mercantilism) does not fall under the broader definition of capitalism. If there is a broader economic label mercantilism falls under the assumption of state power over someone else's means of production makes it more appropriately labeled a more viscious form of socialism.

True, but you are missing the point that arming the masses would in doubt just perpetuate the cycle they are in now. Arm the oppressed, they rise up to crush the oppressors and in turn reciprocate the action..Good job. So like I said, we should arm the people in order to perpetuate genocide in future generations? I don't think so.

Seems to me you're assuming a pretty malevolent nature to the people in those areas of the world. I don't doubt some would love to kill their oppressors. In my opinion they have a right to. Tribal wars aside, in general genocides are perpetuated by governments, and governments cannot carry out a genocide upon an armed populace.

The only reason why the density of the African continent is much less than that of the continental United States is the ridiculously high infant mortality rate. The point I was trying to make, and should have made more apparent is the fact that children are a necessary asset for survival in African countries and as a result birth rates are very high. I was asserting that as a root problem for massive birth rates and it came across wrong.

And the point is? Once more how many people there are in a certain area seems to have little to do with anything. The amount of people, birthrate, color, religion or whatever of people in a given area are irrelevant. The political system they live under is relevant.

And yeah, you're right CDB, I just spent a whole thread arguing about the institutionalization of racial oppression but I am a flaming Nazi...

I don't know who you are or what your ideals are. In my experience most Americans when presented with an equal number of their fellow countrymen and the average, every day people that populate most of the rest of the world, tend to think there are way too many of the latter type.

Why isn't New York City sufferring from the problems of over population when its population density is several times that of Bangladesh for example? The number of people in a given area is irrelevant. Plenty of European countries used to have much higher birth rates for similar reasons, that didn't stop their advance into the industrial revolution.

For one, UN and US military intervention when it would actually serve a purpose.

Like in Somalia? We handed out free food, undercut the local farmers and created more refugees. We made the problem worse.

For that matter extend the powers of the United Nations, make an ACTUAL IMPACT as opposed to paying lipservice to intervention as we have done and taking your defeatist attitude.

Well there is the little problem of sovereignty. Defeatist? UN or not I do not think we have the right, nor should we assume the role, of helping the world. The world needs to help itself. Put simply the competent don't need our help, the incompetent become a permanent burden if we offer them perpetual help. And all help in terms of foreign aid will end up being perpetual. We end up becoming Isabel Patterson's "Humanitarian with a Guillotine," or we let the foreign regime operate the guillotine. Either way we make things worse by perpetuating a system that needs to be allowed to collapse. Which it will eventually. I don't view prolonging the sufferring of people under a despotic regime to be a laudable goal. And that is the end result of such interventions.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

I appreciate the very well executed debate and legitimate arguments CDB and kwyck but the gym is calling my name...We shall continue this at a later date?

I'm out myself, but to the clubs. Benefits of working out in the morning.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

True, outright racial oppression was not the intention in going to the African continent. Simply put, newly self-determined nations felt the need to express their Manifest Destiny and began exploring. The racial distinction did not began until the need for resources to support rapid industrialization became apparent. You are right, it was trade and more aptly put Capitalism which was the bases for slavery and colonialism. However, the bases for enslaving these people was based on the notion they were sub-human, this was its accepted justification

True, I'm not going to disagree with any of that with the exception that capitalism didn't lead to slavery. Slavery was just another tool, already in practice, that was used at the time, similar to the wheel. They utilized all tools necessary.

And equating this to a "phenomenon where some people came out on top and others didn't" is ridiculous and makes it appear as if our contemporary socio-economic situation is a result of chance. To an extent, it was because western European cultures were given a horticultural advantage in terms of arable land which allowed them to develop faster, but in direct terms we are responsible for this situation.

There were not given a horticulture advantage, they made a horticulture advantage.

All humans originiated in south africa about 200,000 years ago, and slowly migrated out of Africa for a number of reasons. Considering the ridiculously small population at that time, it was not an overcrowding issue.


*note* the originating arrow is from south Africa. Homo Sapiens originated there 200,000 years ago.

I realize, and acknowledged that, and you are totally right. However, the point that I am making is the systematic way in which the Europeans and Americans carried this out, no other point in history was it so engrained within an economic system.

True, but the purpose for slavey is irrelevant.

Comparing which conditions of slavery were more deplorable seems like a fruitless endeavour and a moral territory I do not care to enter. All slavery is horrible.

Agreed.

That is not what I was referring to. You were comparing the conditions equitable as it pertains to the scale of European and domestic African slavery. Local populations, not entire nations and cultures were enslaved with domestic slavery.

I'm not aware of entire nations or cultures being enslaved by Europeans. Indigenous tribal memebers were sold to European slave traders, and areas with multiple indigenous tribal governments were colonized, but I'm not familiar with entire nations and cultures.

Broadview Press: Culture of Prejudice

Chapters 3, and 7-9. I am not sure if you will be able to view them anywhere, but if you want I can paraphrase.



You are presenting your case as Capitalism and economy being mutually inclusive, in fact they are not. Because material goods are not produced for the purpose of capital gain does not negate an economic system from being an economy.

Well, I guess we'd have to redefine economy. Maybe CDB can help me out here

There were hordiculture/hunter based tribes, and I'm sure there was some trade involved somewhere, but I can't call those functional economies because they have similarities. Ducks and Hawk's have similarities but I can't call a duck a hawk and vice versa.

The 'economy' the British and other Colonial powers set up were hardly functional, and as I have stated were for the sole purpose of resource extraction to support industrialization. They were in all aspects set up to fail once economic autonomy was given to them.

I wouldn't say setup to fail, but they definitely weren't guided to success either. There was probably no thought given to it. However, if the colonists never arrived, its unlikely that they would have magically flourished from tribal governments and tribal kingdoms to economic powerhouses that could "feed the world".

I said the Western World as a whole partook in such activities. My country was founded upon the genoicide of indigenous populations, we are in no way less responsible for what occurs and what continued to occur. If my verbage made it seem as if I was singling you out, I wasn't.[/quote]I understand that, my point is that, although a weaker undeveloped people were exploited, they are not responsible for third world living conditions.

[kwyckemynd00]

Okay, this is my official resignation from politics I've got tons of homework to do, and these forums don't help!!

See ya'll in a few more months

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by CDB

Incorrect. There is no exploitation as the association is voluntary. If there is any exploitation in the search for profit it is mutual because valuations prior to a trade are reversed; you don't buy a newspaper for a dollar unless you want it more than your dollar, and the seller doesn't sell unless they want the dollar more than the paper. If there's any exploitation it is mutual and more importantly beneficial to both parties. Profit also has nothing to do with money. Money is simply a common denominator, the most sellable commodity, that comes in which makes profit easier to calculate. This ease of calculation is to everyone's advantage. Tranforming a "direct-producer" to a "wage-labourer" is a natural by-product of the division of labor, which is once again to everyone's advantage.

Wrong. Your scope is extremely limited here and you are only analyzing the situation as it pertains to the North American commodity market. You are giving absolutely no mention, even in the very least, to the modes of production which produce your newspaper, or the computers we are typing on, or your shoelaces, etc., In fact, as I stated before, the continuation of the Capitalist mode of production requires the exploitation of living labour. As well, Money is not the most sellable commodity, living labour (which is also really the only commodity capable of creating new value) is the most sellable commodity. In order for this system to continue a Capitalist most appropriate the surplus value created by living labour. This is in stark contrast to the ultimate imperative of minimizing living labour for capital gain, it is by all means a self-defeating system.

Strictly speaking the only thing a capitalist does in capitalism is advance resources to people so they can engage in productive work. By doing so he allows them to engage in a production process that would normally exhaust the worker's available resources. The end result is increased productivity and increased goods and services which once more benefits everyone. The association is voluntary, no one has appropriated anything. And incidentally no profit is earned from the capitalist function as there's a difference between the natural rate of return earned on a simple advance of resources, essentially a loan, and entrepreneurial profit which is based on uncertainty and assuming risk.

Here is to your egalitarian view of Capitalism, I can only hope at some point you will join me in reality. This 'benefit for everybody' attitude you seem keen on relating is a purely formal lipservice to the all at once exploitave and egalitarian ideals of capitalism. Though Capitalists like yourself like to pay mention to equality in Capitalism, but its inherent imperatives contradict these values. Why else would production be higher today than at any other point in history yet the social standards of the VAST majority of the world are either stagnating or falling? Because of an economic construction based on the appropriation of surplus labour value, that contradicts itself with "labour-saving" technology and therefore lowers the overall social profit over time.

In my experience it is true. I've been in many debates, formal and informal, online and in the real world. People often confuse capitalism with mercantilism, and in my experience they do so because they have either been poorly educated in the subject of economics or because they have an agenda which requires they cast capitalism in a bad light. The two are distinct economic systems. If capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production then a system which relies on government enforced associations and appropriations of property (mercantilism) does not fall under the broader definition of capitalism. If there is a broader economic label mercantilism falls under the assumption of state power over someone else's means of production makes it more appropriately labeled a more viscious form of socialism.

Well, you are right bro. If you ever decide to come off your pedistol I welcome you to grace me with your enlightening knowledge.

Seems to me you're assuming a pretty malevolent nature to the people in those areas of the world. I don't doubt some would love to kill their oppressors. In my opinion they have a right to. Tribal wars aside, in general genocides are perpetuated by governments, and governments cannot carry out a genocide upon an armed populace.

And you are assuming an overly generous benevolence to them. Until the social conditions they live in are some how improved then the same cycle will undoubtedly perpetuate itself.

I don't know who you are or what your ideals are. In my experience most Americans when presented with an equal number of their fellow countrymen and the average, every day people that populate most of the rest of the world, tend to think there are way too many of the latter type.

Are you that arrogant/ignorant to assume that of me? I will let you continue in this thinking.

Why isn't New York City sufferring from the problems of over population when its population density is several times that of Bangladesh for example? The number of people in a given area is irrelevant. Plenty of European countries used to have much higher birth rates for similar reasons, that didn't stop their advance into the industrial revolution.

There are so many other factors to why Europe was the catalyst to the Industrial Revolution. I suggest you read Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Well there is the little problem of sovereignty. Defeatist? UN or not I do not think we have the right, nor should we assume the role, of helping the world. The world needs to help itself. Put simply the competent don't need our help, the incompetent become a permanent burden if we offer them perpetual help. And all help in terms of foreign aid will end up being perpetual. We end up becoming Isabel Patterson's "Humanitarian with a Guillotine," or we let the foreign regime operate the guillotine. Either way we make things worse by perpetuating a system that needs to be allowed to collapse. Which it will eventually. I don't view prolonging the sufferring of people under a despotic regime to be a laudable goal. And that is the end result of such interventions.

Social Darwinism anybody? As I have come to be taught, such ideals as you aptly put them are "a PC way of being racist". I am sorry but I cannot ignore a situation in which we are a fundamental cause of because you label them to be 'incompetent'. Should you be the one to label who should suffer and who should not CDB? You obviously consider your opinion to be divine in the way you present it.

[Mulletsoldier]

On a last note I find it fascinating CDB how you on all levels ignore the operational basis for the Capitalist mode of production. Equality is a mere formality as it pertains to competition AMONG capitalists, and has absolutely nothing to do with the means in which our consumer goods are created.

[bpmartyr]

Can't find the smiley of the guy chowin popcorn ...

Oh, well.

I am entertained!

[Mulletsoldier]

I am seriously out this time, I should have, and do have better things to do

(I lied, I am just going to be watching Pride: The Real Deal)

hehehehe

Have fun fellas!

[Mulletsoldier]

And, I am not American..You said something about 'most Americans', I am not one.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

There are so many other factors to why Europe was the catalyst to the Industrial Revolution. I suggest you read Guns, Germs, and Steel

Okay, i said I was done, but I had to but-in here.

I just can't see recommending Guns, Germs & Steel to anyone! The dude starts out his book by bashing "The Bell Curve" and any idea that genetic IQ differences amongs races exist, and then follows up shortly after with a statement claiming that the average Papua New Guinean tribal person is more intelligent than the average Western European (specifically European decendants). It was obvious that the Pulitzer was awarded to him by a bunch who were not composed of anthropologists/biologists/sociologists/historians

On a side note, I love some of the reviews: Amazon.com: Reviews for Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies: Books: Jared M. Diamond

[Mrs. Gimpy!]

guns germs and steel.... that was recommended to me once.... i read it cover to cover and absolutely love it for reasons i wasnt suppose to love it for. its an incredibly amusing and "view confirming" book IMO here was my great book review on it....


"Survival of the fittest" has never been more clearly explained to me than in this book.

"only Americans can be so stupid as to confuse poisionous mushrooms with safe ones." (144)

the author claims that he is not trying to make a bias book.....BAH! not bias my ass!

"Were those naive villagers [New Guineans] collecting every type of seed plant that they found, bringing it home, poisioning themselves on most of the species,and nourishing themselves from only a few species? no they were not that silly." (145)

the author likes to use many statements like the one above, based on nothing but his own thoughts and conclusions. i bet they did eat posionous mushrooms mr. diamond (author) and learned throught trial and error....

africa had NO domesticatable animals but europe had alot of animals, this gave the people an unfair chance at evolving. (fig9.2 page 162)

you cant be serious, africa has an abundance of animals and in the book he claims that no animals were able to be domesticated.....what about the zebra? couldnt they have been used as a horse????but no heres why according to mr. diamond:
He seems to be forgetting that wild animals are domesticatible, they are domesticated over time!
"zebras are virtually impossible to lasso with a rope...because of their unfailing ability to ....duck their head out of the way." (172)

the more and more i read the book, the more i was convinced that africa, new guinea, etc..and all those other places COULD have been in a better place than they are in now. OMG...i still can believe he used the excuse that africans couldnt use zebras as horses becasue they could not catch them becase a zebra ducks its head out of the way when being lassoed is rediculous!!!!! dont u think horses do the same!!!!!!!

"why were all new guineans and native australiansin a.d. 1800 still using stone tools likke the ones discarded thousands of years ago in eurasia and most of africa, even though some of the world's richest copper and iron deposits are in new guinea and australia respectively? all those facts explainwhy so many laypeople assume that eurasians are superior to other peoples in inventiveness and intelligence"(241)

according to that statement, i proudly call myselfe a LAYPERSON!lololol. it doesnt surprise me that the people who chose to use stones instead of the resources of the copper and iron that they had ARE not where america and other powerful countries are today.......

i could go on and on but that would mean i would be writing my own book on this. i learned so much from this book..lol the author is so smart but can not see his own information that he put together.....so sad.

to sum the book up though , in my opinion of cour