100 million deaths due to capitalism in the 20th century.

[IDB87]

are you really that naive, or are you purposefully obtuse?
when you worked for your uncle, was your job essential in order for your family to eat?
i doubt it.
we are not talking about kids with paper routes here, but you knew that.

Please respond to the other points Zigg and I brought up.

 

[bikerdruid]

Please respond to the other points Zigg and I brought up.

it is obvious that you are disinterested in honest communication....
but i knew that before.....
no.

 

[Humes fork]

How is Capitalism guilty of slavery?
How is Communism innocent of slave labour?

Slavery existed in Ancient Greeck. Were they capitalists?
Slavery existed in precolonial Native American nations. Were they capitalists?

BikerDruid says the answer goes without saying. I think this means he does not have an answer or fears it will show him to be wrong. I think that is response is a cop-out.

Obviously the ancient Greek slave-traders were capitalists, because they were nasty. Meanwhile, Stalin wasn't nice so he was not a real communist.

 

[IDB87]

it is obvious that you are disinterested in honest communication....
but i knew that before.....
no.

I'm curious where you got that impression. We are discussing some pretty involved and convoluted topics, and if you don't have anything to bring to the table besides "capitalism is evil" then I suppose I don't blame you for backing down.

 

[Virus]

Who did the most to stamp out the slave trade? The British Empire. That's right, capitalists, colonialists and imperialists.

The left totally flip out when you tell them that.

 

[Ziggurat]

allow me to reiterate:

fervent hand-waving noted.
the operant words in my question were:
do you deny that children... working in third world sweat shops is slave labour?

if you can, in any way, excuse this, you are clearly part of the problem.

Do you deny that stealing someone's car is rape? Well, then you must be pro-rape.

Come on, bikerdruid, even you can do better than that. Whatever your complaints are about child labor in third world countries, if it doesn't fit the definition of slavery, then it's not slavery. If you get paid for your work and you're free to leave a job, it's not slavery. Words have meaning. You don't get to change their meaning simply to justify an absurd claim you made. That's not hand-waving either: that's basic logic and an elementary understanding of the English language. So which part are you not getting? Are you confused about the definition of slavery? Or are you confused about the logical requirement that something actually fit the definition of a word before you use that word to describe it?

 

[bit_pattern]

The left totally flip out when you tell them that.

What, all of them? At the same time?

 

[bikerdruid]

Do you deny that stealing someone's car is rape? Well, then you must be pro-rape.

Come on, bikerdruid, even you can do better than that. Whatever your complaints are about child labor in third world countries, if it doesn't fit the definition of slavery, then it's not slavery. If you get paid for your work and you're free to leave a job, it's not slavery. Words have meaning. You don't get to change their meaning simply to justify an absurd claim you made. That's not hand-waving either: that's basic logic and an elementary understanding of the English language. So which part are you not getting? Are you confused about the definition of slavery? Or are you confused about the logical requirement that something actually fit the definition of a word before you use that word to describe it?

wow....more fervent handwaving clearly noted.
allow me to reiterate, yet AGAIN:

the operant words in my question were:
do you deny that children... working in third world sweat shops is slave labour?

if you can, in any way, excuse this, you are clearly part of the problem.

try and convince yourself that having children working in sweat shops is okay.
you will not convince me, or most people following this thread.

 

[Humes fork]

wow....more fervent handwaving clearly noted.
allow me to reiterate, yet AGAIN:

the operant words in my question were:
do you deny that children... working in third world sweat shops is slave labour?

if you can, in any way, excuse this, you are clearly part of the problem.

try and convince yourself that having children working in sweat shops is okay.
you will not convince me, or most people following this thread.

Talk about missing the point.

 

[Virus]

It's not slave labour if you chose to do it and can leave.

 

[bikerdruid]

It's not slave labour if you chose to do it and can leave.

many can't leave if they wish their families to eat.
are you possibly, actually, that clueless?

 

[bikerdruid]

Talk about missing the point.

au contriare....
talk about YOU missing the point.

children working in third world sweatshops, in the name of profit, is morally reprehensible.
any who feel this is not the case, are also 'morally reprehensible'.
and any who do not see this as a form of slavery, are deluded.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

So, bikerdruid, question. Define sweatshop. Give me a comparable wage from a local business. What's the cost of living?

If we're going to go into semantics.

 

[bikerdruid]

So, bikerdruid, question. Define sweatshop. Give me a comparable wage from a local business. What's the cost of living?

If we're going to go into semantics.

.....children should not be working in factories.
no semantics involved at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

wow....more fervent handwaving clearly noted.
allow me to reiterate, yet AGAIN:

the operant words in my question were:
do you deny that children... working in third world sweat shops is slave labour?

Of course it isn't. It doesn't fit the definition of slavery. I have already explained why it doesn't fit the definition of slavery. And how have you responded? In your own words, "more fervent handwaving". It is you, not me, who has failed to actually address the question. Which is doubly ironic since it was your question to begin with.

if you can, in any way, excuse this, you are clearly part of the problem.

Excuse what, exactly?

try and convince yourself that having children working in sweat shops is okay.

Why would I do that? It's not even a very relevant question. The relevant question is whether it's better or worse than the alternatives. You have not presented a better alternative. And your communist beliefs have repeatedly shown themselves to be worse.

you will not convince me, or most people following this thread.

Of course I can't convince you. I can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into in the first place. The only thing you have going for you is an emotional repulsion to sweatshops. It's an emotion I sympathize with, but in your case it's decoupled from any logic. Which is why you go around calling it slavery even though it doesn't fit the definition, then getting upset and claiming people are excusing horrible things just because they don't want to go along with your twisting of the English language.

It's time to grow up and put your big boy pants on, bikerdruid. Your purely emotional arguments aren't enough.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

OK. So if they need money for food or to support their parents I assume you think the state should provide.

 

[Ziggurat]

.....children should not be working in factories.
no semantics involved at all.

True. But it doesn't answer KoihimeNakamura's question. You seem to have a problem doing that.

And accepting this statement doesn't mean that sweatshop labor is slavery either. Hell, it doesn't even answer the question of whether or not it's better than the available alternatives. Children should not have to go through chemotherapy either, yet if they get cancer, it's still better than not going through chemotherapy. If you've got a cure for poverty, go ahead ant tell us, but it sure as hell isn't communism.

 

[Virus]

Child labour was common in the West when it was industrializing. It was common in pre-capitalist economies and remains common in rural areas that have undergone little development. Why do we have the luxury to turn away from it? Because we have advanced, highly developed economies.

If you want real slavery look at the communes, collectives, labour camps and re-education camps that people were forced into under communism.

 

[Humes fork]

Child labour was common in the West when it was industrializing. It was common in pre-capitalist economies and remains common in rural areas that have undergone little development. Why do we have the luxury to turn away from it? Because we have advanced, highly developed economies.

If you want real slavery look at the communes, collectives, labour camps and re-education camps that people were forced into under communism.

It's a telling fact that when the US and/or some European countries want labor conditions written into trade agreements in, say, WTO, the fiercest protesters are the developing countries.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Because I find it plenty relevant to repeat:

Stalin: 20 -50 million

Mao: 40 Million

Hitler: ~ 6 million

Kim Jung Il:


Wanna continue playing that numbers game bikerdruid? I only listed three people's figures, there's plenty more authoritarian leaders we can have a look at.

But I suppose more importantly, did the OP ever address what he/she believes to be a viable alternative economic system for the United States?

Thou shant use facts to argue agaqnst Liberalsim, the one true and only valuable faith, lest thou be labled a racist, bigot, islamaphobe and quoted out of context or have an onslaught of logical fallacies engulf thee. For the ends justify the means and we all want to live in the leftist utopia and we will aquire it by any means. Forget that it is not obtainable. For we Liberals cannot do thine mathematics and cling to the belief that our GED's level the playing field.

Just joking. A little.