[Mulletsoldier]

There is a difference between "free market" capitalism and "supply side" corporatism. Corporatism is the fascist cousin of capitalism.
The word corporatism was used interchangably with fascism in the 1930's specific to Germany's rebound from economic hardships following WW I.

If corporatism had a motto it would be "People selling People to People"

If Africa was left to develop its own natural resources they could feed the world. Instead British exploitation and abandonment has left most of Africa underdeveloped and its people undereducated
with most African states being run by warlords.

100% exactly Rhino, I completely agree.

[CDB]

Voluntary CDB? Hardly. None of these countries chose to be colonized, did they?

That's kind of my point. Colonization has nothing to do with capitalism... In fact it's the ideological opposite of capitalism. Colonization is an integral part of mercantilism though, which is a completely different economic system and often what people hold up as an example of 'capitalism' because they either have an agenda or simply lack education on the issue.

Nor did they choose to have corrupt domestic leaders installed as a means for indirect control, until basically after World War II did they? And I would expect someone as socially adept as you to know the FUNDAMENTAL base for capitalism is the exploitation of one class over another, in whatever terms you wish to place exploitation in.

No, it isn't. Capitalism is about property rights, voluntary association and little to no government intervention in the market. It is about private ownership of the means of production. Colonization means the violation of property rights, it is not capitalist. Colonization means the enforcement of association, it is not capitalist. Colonization means the militarization of the market, it is not capitalist. Colonization means the appropriation and nationalization of someone else's means of production, it is not capitalist.

Saying you don't understand how exploitation fits with capitalism, especially as it pertains to the Third World is like saying you don't understand how a penis can fit in a vagina, it is pretty elementary

It's elementary to socialists who like to shoot down strawmen.

"Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

"Mercantilism: The theory and system of political economy prevailing in Europe after the decline of feudalism, based on national policies of accumulating bullion, establishing colonies and a merchant marine, and developing industry and mining to attain a favorable balance of trade."

The distinction is even in the common definitions in dictionary.com.

Well, although for the most part I completely and utterly disagree with most of the things you feel on this issue, the fact that they may not be neccessarily agricultural is a fair assertion. But, once again I will state that we cannot prod them into the accepted Western agricultural model, so teaching them how to farm as we would here is not plausible. Arm them? Seriously? So more genocide can occur because now the entirety of the continent is armed?

Generally speaking genocides are only committed against groups who cannot fight back. It is people who have been robbed of the means of self defense that are the most likely victims of genocide. There's a nice DVD called Innocents Betrayed which details the disarmament and subsequent genocides that have occurred throughout the 20th century. It's kind of hard to kill people en masse when they can effectively fight back. If you think an armed citzenry would not be effective against a modern army, I point to Iraq and how much trouble a few thousand arabs with AK 47s and often improvised explosives have been giving our troops.

I hope that was sarcastic. The concept of aid itself has to change and begin to manifest itself in grassroots social programs, fixing the root problems of things like overpopulation, AIDS epidemics, etc.

AIDS is a matter of not ****ing high risk people, plain and simple. That information is out and fairly available. Beyond telling that to someone there's not much else you can do. Areas which are considered "over populated" normally don't have population densities higher than those typically found on the US coast lines, sometimes even those found in the midwestern US. In fact our urban areas massively outstrip these supposedly overpopulated areas, yet somehow people seem to be doing mostly okay despite these high population densities. Worrying about over population is a nice clean PC way of being racist. I believe that people who have kids in these "over populated" areas want them as much as we want our kids, love them as much, etc. And were their governments not completely screwing their economies up, they'd be just as capable of feeding them.

Part of the reason these governments are empowered is the kind of attitude which conventional aid has conveyed "here is some money, we don't give a **** what you do as long as you pay us back"

Then how do you propose to solve the problem? How do we get aid to these people who need it without using their government's infrastructure? The reigning government's permission is a prerequisite for the delivery of aid of any kind, and they aren't going to agree to aid unless it benefits them. Therefore there is no way to deliver aid without subsidizing the very system which makes aid necessary.

[Mulletsoldier]

"Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

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

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. 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.

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.

Generally speaking genocides are only committed against groups who cannot fight back. It is people who have been robbed of the means of self defense that are the most likely victims of genocide. There's a nice DVD called Innocents Betrayed which details the disarmament and subsequent genocides that have occurred throughout the 20th century. It's kind of hard to kill people en masse when they can effectively fight back. If you think an armed citzenry would not be effective against a modern army, I point to Iraq and how much trouble a few thousand arabs with AK 47s and often improvised explosives have been giving our troops.

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.

AIDS is a matter of not ****ing high risk people, plain and simple. That information is out and fairly available. Beyond telling that to someone there's not much else you can do. Areas which are considered "over populated" normally don't have population densities higher than those typically found on the US coast lines, sometimes even those found in the midwestern US. In fact our urban areas massively outstrip these supposedly overpopulated areas, yet somehow people seem to be doing mostly okay despite these high population densities. Worrying about over population is a nice clean PC way of being racist. I believe that people who have kids in these "over populated" areas want them as much as we want our kids, love them as much, etc. And were their governments not completely screwing their economies up, they'd be just as capable of feeding them.

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

Then how do you propose to solve the problem? How do we get aid to these people who need it without using their government's infrastructure? The reigning government's permission is a prerequisite for the delivery of aid of any kind, and they aren't going to agree to aid unless it benefits them. Therefore there is no way to deliver aid without subsidizing the very system which makes aid necessary.

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

[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?

[kwyckemynd00]

If Africa was left to develop its own natural resources they could feed the world. Instead British exploitation and abandonment has left most of Africa underdeveloped and its people undereducated with most African states being run by Warlords.

That's easy to say, but I don't see anything that indicates this to be true.

Just because a country has the natural resources to do something, doesn't mean that they'll be utilized in that way.

[CDB]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 course:

Mr. Diamond gives no credit to eurasian intellgence but says that the sole reason they are where they are is because they got the best plants and animals.

a wealth of information, but biasly written . i could write so much more about the other factoids that i learned but then this would take forever! lastly....i read it all and felt no shame on my "western heritage"...lol, im not even western, but if i was i wouldnt be ashamed

[Mulletsoldier]

Wow, I don't think I have ever seen two individuals in the same place so seriously affirm Social Darwinism or try to back up racist ideals w/ medical legitimacy.

And kwyck? Changing your post to make it seem 'edgier' or like you got the best of me? I expect more out of you that is incredibly ****ing weak. Seriously dude.

Anyway, I cannot BELIEVE you actually mentioned the 'Bell Curve' as a legitimate piece of science. I am wholeheartedly ashamed that Rushton (a major contributor to that book) ever taught at a Canadian institution. He was threatened with prosecution of hate crimes, and even the Prime Minister of Ontario had called for him to be fired at one point.

Onto the book (ripping this piece of crap should be fun).The 'Bell Curve' has so many holes in it I am not sure where to start. Someone who is so adept at 'history and biology' (as you had in your original post, before you changed it) should know it operates on regurgitated Social Darwinism, and is rejected by most Anthropologists. The book's complete failure as a scientific work stems from its premise that the two obscure concepts like 'race' and 'intelligence' can be measured and meaningfully correlated in terms of causal connections. 'Race' is not a biological entity with any real existence, there are so many differences on what constitutes 'race', and so many conflicting estimates as to how many races exist the entire concept should be abandoned. Similarly the concept that 'intelligence' can be reasonably quantified by a number is dubious. Furthermore, Hernstein and Murray completely ignore the social and political construction of intelligence. Ironically on the topic of not being able to quantify 'intelligence' the authors show little of it as they completey confuse causation and correlation (i.e., many black people score lower on IQ test it must be because they are black, although, there is no evidence as to why that would be so). They misuse statistics, and their political objectives and affiliations need to be seriously considered when talking about this book as a legitimate work. They rely heavily on material from Mankind Quaterly and other publications from that journal, which has been widely criticized as white supremacist and for disseminating psuedo-scientific racial material. It is also widely disregarded by the scientific community as a journal of merit. Not to mention they share some key funding in such groups as the Pioneer Fund, started by a US textile tycoon with Nazi Sympathies and an interest in eugenics. As a whole the book has been rejected and shown to be highly misleading and flawed/

Honestly Kwyck, I lost alot of respect for you in mentioning this book. Do they teach this garbage to you as legitimate science down there?? As someone who obviously prides himself on the knowledge of human physiology w/ a key interest in politics/history I am still in awe that you would put your name behind such an explicitly racist book with almost NO LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC BACKING...Just wow...

To Mrs.Gimpy, I am not sure where your relevant arguments are so I will leave that alone.

[Mulletsoldier]

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

I am not sure what constitutes those professions in the United States, but following an education in those studies here in Canada means dissecting pieces of **** like the 'Bell Curve' for what they are, not swallowing them wholeheartedly.


Man, I am sorry for writing so much about this or seeming like a **** I just cannot believe I am really in contact with people who give this kind of garbage real thought. These concepts are so laughable I am just flabbergasted.

[Mrs. Gimpy!]

To Mrs.Gimpy, I am not sure where your relevant arguments are so I will leave that alone.

my "relevant arguments" was just pertaining to the recommendation of one of the most laughable books i've ever read in my life. its just that anyone who "whole-hearted swallows " up all of any information (especially of that book) should always really analyze it and not take its words for gold. you had recommended that book to try to educate us as to why the europeans are unfairly ahead in the world do to ....luck? the book actually explains (though its purpose was just the opposite) why the europeans got to where they were and it was the facct that some were alittle more ingenious than others and that africa had all of the means to be the europe of today but never took advantage of all of its resources.

[CDB]

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.

No, it doesn't. If it did, then the labor is being equally exploitative by expecting the capitalist to front money to make sure the labor is paid regularly even though the production process is oriented towards the future. But bottom line is there can be no exploitation in a voluntary relationship. If the laborers were willing to cut their own spending perhaps they could save up the necessary resources to engage in a lengthy production process. They could guarantee their own living. But since the prefer to take a discount they 'appropriate' the capitalist's resources, 'exploiting' his ability to save and thus subsidize the production process. How horrible of them.

By the way, what decade are you stuck in? Was your economics teacher really old? There is no real distinction in reality between capitalists, laborers, landowners, and entrepreneurs in modern economics. Most people at various times fill more than one role at the same time. So I guess we're all exploiting one another.

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.

Actually the definition of money is the most sellable commodity. That's how it becomes money, or a general medium of exchange... Labor is not always sellable because it is too specialized.

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.

Which ignores the fact that the capitalist fronted the resources to make the production process possible to begin with. It is agreed he is given ownership of the final product. Otherwise he would not front the resources to pay the labor to engage in the production process. What's the capitalist/entrepreneur supposed to do, save up all these resources, front them on a risky production process and then just do a quick fade when it's completed and let everyone else make money on the activity but him? Rubbish.

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.

Mullet, your posts are almost word for word rhetoric from Marxist tracts.

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.

Well since the majority of the world is engaged in some type of mercantilism or outright socialism, blaming our current problems of capitalism is a bit odd. Oh yeah, I forgot. Capitalism is whatever you want it to be so you can blame your problems on it... Specifically to the US though the fall in living standards despite increased productivity was predicted by capitalist economists like Freidrick Hayek, Ludwig Von Mise, Gottfried Von Harberler and Murray Rothbard. It's a natural side effect of continual inflation that monetarist and keynsian economists have been promoting for some time, and most certainly not capitalist as its cause is government mismanagement of the monetary system. Those same capitalist economists predicted the Great Depression, and were right. Those same capitalist economists predicted the stagflation of the 60s and 70s, and were right. And those same capitalist economists predicted the end of Clinton's internet bubble, and were right.

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

Pedistol or not, arrogance or not, bottom line is you are wrong. Go to any school of economics besides Marx 101 and you'd learn that. There are distinct differences between the types of systems you are describing and lumping under capitalism. Incidentally even modern marxists don't take your approach, the stuff you're spouting about capitalists appropriating surplus wealth went out of style in the fifties.

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.

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

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

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.

I notice you ignored every point I made. We can't improve their situation, only they can. And the best way to accomplish that end is to leave them the hell alone. You cannot escape the political necessities that giving aid requires engagement and thus support of the regimes which are perpetuating the conditions making aid necessary. There is no way to help those people unless they are willing and able to help themselves. Were they willing and able, they wouldn't need our help. That's why aid turns into a subsidization of their misery. And while you may consider it Darwinist, I simply don't think surrendering to the continuous call to "do something!" about this or that problem is wise. We make enemies, subsidize misery, and sew the seeds for more and worse problems for us and those we supposedly want to help. There is no way to give aid without hurting those we want to help and ourselves.

[anabolicrhino]

... there can be no exploitation in a voluntary relationship....

... that the capitalist fronted the resources to make the production process possible to begin with. It is agreed he is given ownership of the final product.

Well since the majority of the world is engaged in some type of mercantilism or outright socialism, blaming our current problems of capitalism is a bit odd. .... There are distinct differences between the types of systems you are describing and lumping under capitalism. ...

There is no way to give aid without hurting those we want to help and ourselves.

Capitalism as a "conceptual theory" provides the worker a "fair wage" to compensate him for his labor. This is an operating cost. It is the price of doing buisness. The "capitalist owner" accepts this price with an understanding of it directly leads to a profitable outcome. When the concept of capitalism becomes the real practice of mercantilism, the real human elements of avarice(greed) and ignorance(lack of information) become tools for exploiting the worker. The worker can enter an agreement to be compensatd at a certain rate without any knowlege of the actual value of his labor to the owner. The owner can use this knowledge to maximize his profits without any further compensation to the worker. This practice oonflicts with the concept of a "fair wage".
However, the international buisness world is governed by the Law of Commerce, which is based on Maritime Law in respect to mercantile trade. The concept of "exploitation" does not exist in the Law of Commerce. A worker is a "tool" and as such garners no claim to "profit sharing" with the owner. This disparity came to a head about 100 years ago when "labor unions" started to form to protect the workers from exploitation by the owners. When you examine that part of history there is much revolt by the working class. The owners realized that they would have to compensate the workers with "additional benifits" to appease the workers demands for "equity". Some of these benifits include health care, credit unions and profit sharing. All of these benifits affect the bottom line of the owner, but are still part of the price of doing buisness. The loss of profit to the owner from these accrued benifits are neccassary to prevent worker revolt, which would become even more costly to the owners bottom line.
The real concern for the worker is when the practice of "corporatism" leads to the same people(owners) controlling the work place, the bank and the food and goods market. When the ownership becomes centralized the human element of greed can exploit the worker further when scarcity is manipulated to create dependence on the owners for the very survival of the worker. Total control is total power and total power can lead to total corruption. So, the workers must alway stay informed about the owners ultimate goals to ensure this dose not happen in pratical applications. There is an old Roman adage to the effect"...let him that can be deceived, be deceived"

[CDB]

Capitalism as a "conceptual theory" provides the worker a "fair wage" to compensate him for his labor. This is an operating cost. It is the price of doing buisness. The "capitalist owner" accepts this price with an understanding of it directly leads to a profitable outcome. When the concept of capitalism becomes the real practice of mercantilism, the real human elements of avarice(greed) and ignorance(lack of information) become tools for exploiting the worker. The worker can enter an agreement to be compensatd at a certain rate without any knowlege of the actual value of his labor to the owner.

Indeed he can. However over time this arrangement is impossible to maintain because the profits from production are apparent. And they don't have to be apparent to the workers, just to the competition. That's why worker's wages over time tend towards their actual MRP. Say some greedy, unethical, horrible man hires people to work for 2.50 USD an hour when their actual MRP is around 10.00 USD an hour. This creates an opportunity for another entrepreneur to outcompete him. Instead of paying his workers MRP-7.50 USD, he pays them MRP-7.00 USD. This process over time continues until the price of labor, like all other prices, pretty much reflects its actual value to people. As a capitalist it becomes clear over time that you profit more by paying people their actual MRP. What's more, if you invest and increase their productivity you end up making even more money even though their real wages increase because of the additional productivity. It's the incentive for profit that over time makes it impossible to pay people less than they're worth.

If it were otherwise, why had wages risen at all before unions, OSHA, the department of labor, etc? If businesses/capitalists were so empowered to pay people whatever measley wage they wanted to, why didn't they? Why did wages rise 75% during the first Industrial Revolution, and then again by 50% (DiLorenzo) during the second IR when supposedly these businesses could simply just keep their workers' wages the same? Why was there a differential between skilled and unskilled labor when businesses could simply force them to accept the same bs low wage? Evidence doesn't bear out your theory.

The owner can use this knowledge to maximize his profits without any further compensation to the worker. This practice oonflicts with the concept of a "fair wage".

If they live in a vacuum then yes. But that's the difference between theory and the real world process of capitalism. You can't keep paying people less than they're worth because it creates an opportunity for someone else to make more money than you by attracting more labor and having it be more productive because you're paying each laborer more. Additionally there is no such thing as a 'fair' wage. Fair is normative. There is no fair wage except what two people agree upon voluntarily. Anything else is just someone's subjective judgement of fair. The only objective measure of value is what someone is willing to pay/accept voluntarily for a product or service.

However, the international buisness world is governed by the Law of Commerce, which is based on Maritime Law in respect to mercantile trade. The concept of "exploitation" does not exist in the Law of Commerce. A worker is a "tool" and as such garners no claim to "profit sharing" with the owner. This disparity came to a head about 100 years ago when "labor unions" started to form to protect the workers from exploitation by the owners. When you examine that part of history there is much revolt by the working class. The owners realized that they would have to compensate the workers with "additional benifits" to appease the workers demands for "equity". Some of these benifits include health care, credit unions and profit sharing. All of these benifits affect the bottom line of the owner, but are still part of the price of doing buisness. The loss of profit to the owner from these accrued benifits are neccassary to prevent worker revolt, which would become even more costly to the owners bottom line.

Forgotten Facts of American Labor History

The real concern for the worker is when the practice of "corporatism" leads to the same people(owners) controlling the work place, the bank and the food and goods market. When the ownership becomes centralized the human element of greed can exploit the worker further when scarcity is manipulated to create dependence on the owners for the very survival of the worker.

Unfortunately this has nothing to do with the market but government interference in the market. Such centralization as you refer to is impossible to achieve on an open market without government help as the work of Armentano, DiLorenzo, Stigler and Brosen pretty much have proved over the last 20/30 years.

[anabolicrhino]

I agree that the key to workers rights and continued opportunities are directly related to the "openess" of the market place. I believe that "fairness" is negotiated by the parties involved in any agreement labor or civil. Even in an open market the uninformed and under skilled are always at a disadvantage.

[CDB]

I agree that the key to workers rights and continued opportunities are directly related to the "openess" of the market place. I believe that "fairness" is negotiated by the parties involved in any agreement labor or civil. Even in an open market the uninformed and under skilled are always at a disadvantage.

You're missing the point. Everyone is uninformed. Imperfect information is the nature of the market. Those who are best at predicting actual outcomes in practice will become richer and get more money. Were that not the case the market would never advance. Even were all outcomes known such as in the "evenly rotating economy" the capitalist still takes a hit because he is the one who has to save a ton of money/resources to front for others to begin production. That's why he earns a rate of return on the final product and workers take a wage discount so they can get paid now without curtailing their living instead of getting paid at the end of the process and/or cutting back on their own living standard to add resources to the production process. The existence of the capitalist at the begining of a production process infers a higher productivity and level of frugality on his part in the past.

When you add in the entrepreneurial factor, risk and uncertainty, the capitalist/entrepreneur is not only fronting the resources so production can begin at all, he's taking a massive risk because he doesn't know the outcome. Capitalist-Entrepreneurs are the ones taking the most risk despite the uncertainty, therefore they get the most profit. When you look at the histories of the most successful people you don't just see the successes, but massive failures too. The risk has to come with the reward, otherwise there's no point and we'd all still be in caves.

[Nullifidian]

Indeed he can. However over time this arrangement is impossible to maintain because the profits from production are apparent. And they don't have to be apparent to the workers, just to the competition. That's why worker's wages over time tend towards their actual MRP. Say some greedy, unethical, horrible man hires people to work for 2.50 USD an hour when their actual MRP is around 10.00 USD an hour. This creates an opportunity for another entrepreneur to outcompete him. Instead of paying his workers MRP-7.50 USD, he pays them MRP-7.00 USD. This process over time continues until the price of labor, like all other prices, pretty much reflects its actual value to people. As a capitalist it becomes clear over time that you profit more by paying people their actual MRP. What's more, if you invest and increase their productivity you end up making even more money even though their real wages increase because of the additional productivity. It's the incentive for profit that over time makes it impossible to pay people less than they're worth.

If it were otherwise, why had wages risen at all before unions, OSHA, the department of labor, etc? If businesses/capitalists were so empowered to pay people whatever measley wage they wanted to, why didn't they? Why did wages rise 75% during the first Industrial Revolution, and then again by 50% (DiLorenzo) during the second IR when supposedly these businesses could simply just keep their workers' wages the same? Why was there a differential between skilled and unskilled labor when businesses could simply force them to accept the same bs low wage? Evidence doesn't bear out your theory.



If they live in a vacuum then yes. But that's the difference between theory and the real world process of capitalism. You can't keep paying people less than they're worth because it creates an opportunity for someone else to make more money than you by attracting more labor and having it be more productive because you're paying each laborer more. Additionally there is no such thing as a 'fair' wage. Fair is normative. There is no fair wage except what two people agree upon voluntarily. Anything else is just someone's subjective judgement of fair. The only objective measure of value is what someone is willing to pay/accept voluntarily for a product or service.



Forgotten Facts of American Labor History



Unfortunately this has nothing to do with the market but government interference in the market. Such centralization as you refer to is impossible to achieve on an open market without government help as the work of Armentano, DiLorenzo, Stigler and Brosen pretty much have proved over the last 20/30 years.

This assumes 2 things that I can see, right off the bat:

1) That jobs at other companies are available to the worker
2) That the worker is informed abotu those jobs and what they pay


That isn't always true. Additionally, in many countries that do not have anti-trust laws, companies get together and set flat wages to maximise all their profits. So they are all paying the same dirt wage that can't even feed a single human. Then they go and hire anyone willing to work there. When these capitalists built their factories they usually build it over previous farmland or some other area that used to provide a natural source of food. So now the peoplee of the region are starving and whereas before they lived without need of money now they have to because the corps took their food away. So their only answer is to go work in the factories and die slowly from starvation.