When will slavery be financially viable again?

[Jedi Knight]

housing and upkeep was actually quite expensive. if you ever actually study the economy of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century, you will find that enonomical non viability of slavery was a major player in its downfall. saying that you have great sophistication is laughable. if your posts are your actual beliefs, then sophistication is the opposite of who you are. the thought that all people who ever owned slaves are evil is irrational, because there was a time when slave ownership was a societal norm and considered moral. would you consider Thomas Jefferson evil because he owned slaves?

You need to get a clue about American history. The slave holders in the south derived all their wealth from the institution of slavery. It was cheap to house and feed slaves and the labor produced by slaves made many southern land owners fabulously wealthy.

Southern wealth began to decline when northern bankers became the forced middle-men of the cotton and tobacco industries. These bankers, allied with northern textile plants, ports and railway systems which the south never invested in historically, was the beginning of the end of the institution of slavery.

The American Civil War was a total war on the fiscal south at the institutional level. The American Civil War attacked slavery directly since southern wealth was directly attached to slavery and the land.

The south did not have the infrastructure necessary to fight a protracted war against the north and they predictably lost. All the wealth of the southern landowners evaporated overnight when slavery was finally eliminated from the United States.

Slavery = free labor. In history, slavery has existed on every continent. Slavery is still prevalent in the Sudan, Egypt and other countries. It is all about free labor and the cost to 'upkeep' slaves is pennies compared to the profits made through slave labor.

JK

 

[Malachi151]

You need to get a clue about American history. The slave holders in the south derived all their wealth from the institution of slavery. It was cheap to house and feed slaves and the labor produced by slaves made many southern land owners fabulously wealthy.

Southern wealth began to decline when northern bankers became the forced middle-men of the cotton and tobacco industries. These bankers, allied with northern textile plants, ports and railway systems which the south never invested in historically, was the beginning of the end of the institution of slavery.

The American Civil War was a total war on the fiscal south at the institutional level. The American Civil War attacked slavery directly since southern wealth was directly attached to slavery and the land.

The south did not have the infrastructure necessary to fight a protracted war against the north and they predictably lost. All the wealth of the southern landowners evaporated overnight when slavery was finally eliminated from the United States.

Slavery = free labor. In history, slavery has existed on every continent. Slavery is still prevalent in the Sudan, Egypt and other countries. It is all about free labor and the cost to 'upkeep' slaves is pennies compared to the profits made through slave labor.

JK

Holly smokes! When JK stops talking about the communist matriarchial consipracy to destroy America he makes sense!

Good post JK

 

[Malachi151]

BTW, to anwser the origional question, slavery will only become a large issue again for the "civalized world" if and when our infrastructure collapses. Machines and computers are chaper to sue then slaves, so the push will also be for mechanization, not slavery. Mehcanization is what makes high society without slavery possible. Machines essentially take the place of slaves. If the machines go, then slavery will come back.

However, you can argue that slavery is an issue for the west today, because forced labor and virtual slavery in sweat shops around the world is what makes products for western markets as we speak. So we are still using and supporting virtually slave like conditions as a society.

 

[Blue Monk]

If one wants proof of the viability of slave labor, one does not have to turn to the 19th century but merely study the movement led by Ceasar Chevez on behalf of migrant workers in the 60s.

These workers were kept in conditions so closely akin to legal bondage that I find it difficult to understand how anyone could feel that slavery could not be profitable in modern times.

They were kept in sub-standard housing far from any urban areas and not provided adequate health care or educational opportunities. They were paid sub-standard wages while at the same time forced to buy all of their essentials from the growers themselves, keeping them forever in debt to their employer with no hope of breaking the cycle, not unlike the situation in many mining communities in Appalachia that also continued well into the mid-20th century.

Ultimately the out of pocket cost for the grower was no different than if he had owned them outright

The entire situation was fueled by one motivation alone, lower labor cost equals lower prices and higher profits. Always has and always will.

Slave labor will always be cheaper than paid labor.

The only thing that broke the back of this system was a well-organized boycott on the growers. Simple economics. Public outrage and boycotts eventually made this practice more expensive.

Never underestimate the power of the Almighty Dollar.

Now the practice continues with large companies turning to third world labor where they can get away with paying wages that can only barely sustain life yet still maintain a captive work force with no where else to turn.

 

[ceo_esq]

You can only have slavery when the government enforces it.

You can only have any kind of private property when the government enforces it.

 

[Ed]

It may be considered evil now, but it wasn't always evil. There was a time when almost everyone had slaves or you were a slave.

As I said, our current "universal" aversion is quaint.

 

[ahirst]

Can conscription be considered a form of slavery ?

 

[Malachi151]

As I said, our current "universal" aversion is quaint.

Not really. There have always been people opposed to slavery, even back to the Greek and Roman days, and obviously even back to the days of Egypt, because afterall the Biblical story of the Jews is one of emancipation from slavery!

To say that slavery was not wrong before because many people were able to get away with it is the stupidest thing I ever heard, yet I know that many people say it, mostly as a way of legitamizing our own past.

Slavery was never right, it was never acceptable, it was just that teh majority of the people did not have the power to prevent the powerful minorities from having their way.

This IS what the history of humanity IS all about, the on going struggle for equality of power among individuals, it is a struggle that has gone on since the dawn of civilization.

Was Jefferson "evil" for having slaves? No, he was a hypocrite that was able to justify doing to something to himself that he knew was wrong becuase he derived wealth from it.

The man who wrote teh Declaration of Independance, and who later worked to make the slave trade illigal in Virginia knew good and well that it was wrong to hold people against their will as animals, to use them as forced labor. However he was not concerned with the plight of blacks, he was more concerned with the advancement of his own culture and slavery was a tool that was useful in advancing the interests of Anglo culture, as well as his own wealth, so he accepted it.

The Bahamas formed its own constituion well before the US did, back in the 1500s I believe, and they explicitly outlawed slavery, and the Bahamian settlers in fact worked against the slave trade and freed andy blacks that ended up in the Bahamas, sometimes when slave ships wrecked there they would help save the slaves and not the captians of the ships, and they were often hostile to the slave traders.

All of these people were British Puritans, who specifially went to the Bahamas because they didn't like slavery in the Americas.

There was opposition to slavery in America even before 1776, there was opposition to it from the very beginning.

I do agree with Marx, all of history is class struggle and can be seen as the fight of the less privilaged majority to gain equality with the minority wealthy elite. I do agree with the Communist Revolutionaries that modern democracy is "bourgouise democracy", that is democracy of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy. I do agree that we do not have "true democracy" and agree with the goal of striving for true democracy where money does not influence politics.

Our current president is the prefect example of the pathetic state of western democracy. A third generation multi-millionair who has had his entire way though life bought and paid for by his family, who is engaging in politics to support his wealthy cronies and the status quo that supports the wealthy elite, who cannot and does not understand the plight of the average American, nor I doubt would care even if he could, who gained his position because he raised the most money for his campaign, had the most ties to wealthy Americans, and who obtained power in a corrupt and fraudulent election scandal, which was made possible because of his wealthy connections.

This is a country of, by, and for the wealthy, just as it was when it was first formed, which was why slavery was legal then.

 

[EdipisReks]

You need to get a clue about American history. The slave holders in the south derived all their wealth from the institution of slavery. It was cheap to house and feed slaves and the labor produced by slaves made many southern land owners fabulously wealthy.

if you read what i said, i was not talking just about the American Civil war and the economic situation there in. during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, slavery was not necessarily a recipe for success among plantation owners in America. while it is true that great wealth was built up with the use of slavery among a certain section of the population in the mid 19th century, they were not neccessarily able to amass this wealth only through the use of slaves. as in any other industry, the planation industry was subject to standard industrial phenomena. while slave labor did indeed give a certain labor acumen to those that were succesful, it was not necessarily the slavery itself that gave that success.

throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, there were many plantation owners who, because of slavery, were not succesful. during times of draught and crop failure, which was quite common before the era of modern agriculture, slavery was not a benefit. when a profit is not being brought in, one still must pay for the upkeep of the slaves. while it is true that a plantation owner could sell their slaves to make a living during a particular season of hardship, this was not commonly done as it would be very difficult to rebuild the work force the next year since the profits from those slaves would be going towards the continued existance of the plantation. those that went on to have success owed that success not necessarily to the slaves, but to their own business acumen and luck when it comes to weather and soil conditions. while it is true that slavery would allow a somewhat higher profit margin, this only mattered to those that were able to make enough money to make a net profit every year. the average plantation owner did not make a significant profit over their expenses, so the increased profit margin with slavery did not make a real difference. if anything, slavery only allowed those lucky enough to make real profits, which were rare, or to be independantly wealthy outside of agriculture even more wealthy than they only would be. the very rich plantation owner in the 1850's in the South was the exception, not the rule.

Originally Posted by Blue Monk

If one wants proof of the viability of slave labor, one does not have to turn to the 19th century but merely study the movement led by Ceasar Chevez on behalf of migrant workers in the 60s.

outside of America proper, in tropical and sub tropical areas, slavery has a different prospect. since crop failures are much less common due to large amounts of rainfall and generally good conditions, slavery could indeed increase profits even for those that were of the lower wealth brackets among planation owners. due to these environmental conditions, and also due to the great difference in agricultural technique between the 1760's and 1960's, it is most likely not fair to compare the abilities of a slave economy in latin and south america in the 20th century to those of the colonial and early republic era in America.

 

[EdipisReks]

Can conscription be considered a form of slavery ?

it depends. if it is forced conscription and the soldiers are not paid, then it could be considered a form of slavery. however, if you are talking about consciption such as that done by the US Military when it implements the draft, i would not consider it slavery.

 

[Ziggurat]

Slavery did not exist because government permitted it. Laws helped institutionalize slavery, but did not create it. Slavery can exist anywhere that government does not forbid it. In practice, it does exist today in places where it is illegal but enforcement is lacking. Even in first world countries, what amounts to slavery still happens in small numbers, in places such as the sex industry which force immigrants into prostitution.

Slavery on the massive scale of the 1700's and 1800's is unlikely to ever make a comeback, even if permitted, for economic reasons. But small-scale slavery, such as in the sex industry, will pop up anywhere it's permitted, either by law or by lack of enforcement. There are always some terrible people who are willing to do horrible things to other people, with or without government sanction, and government intervention is necessary to prevent this.

 

[shanek]

Free labor? That has always been a huge motivator of evil men in history.

I said what they don't want to do. If they're motivated to do something, then by definition they want to do it.

 

[shanek]

Everything that isn't outlawed is able to be done.

Which is why we need laws preventing the initiation of force or fraud.

I dont' see how allowing people to do something is the same thing as "causing" them to do it.

Because it wasn't just a case of the government allowing it! They subsidized and enforced it! If you were a slave, and you escaped, the government would arrest you and take you back to the slaveowner! Even if you had managed to escape into another state!

The people did it of their own free will, they choose to aquire and use slaves.

But the slaves did not become slaves of their own free will. And as Gandhi showed quite clearly, you cannot enslave an unwilling people without the use of extensive government force.

Let us assume that there was no clause in the constitution one way or the other about slavery.

Then there would have been no recourse for a slaveowner whose slave had escaped. They needed the government to enforce that just like we need the government today to enforce our property rights.

We or course know this of even of tribes who had no formal government, but still had slavery.

No "formal" government...nice out. They still had an effective government in some form, usually that of the elders, and the slavery was very much enforced.

LOL, so now you call even the initial "bare bones" government of the US "big".

It was big in that respect. Big government is government that acts outside the principles of liberty, and slavery does exactly that.

The free market, you go and on about it, but of course the very definition of "free market" is even up for debate. What exactly is a" free market"? It is a market that is not controlled by any outside means. Well, WTF does that mean? Some economists, and I agree with them, state that a free market cannot exist in a capitalist system, because capital itself is a controlling force on the market, and this is correct. The truth is that a there is no such thing as a free market, it is a theoretical concept that is not and cannot be real.

If you can't answer the question, just say so...

By free-market I assume that you mean a market with no legal controls effecting it, in which case that means that all actions would be legal, including slavery.

No, because slavery is not a function of a FREE market, just like theft isn't. It's called a FREE market for a reason.

[many, many irrelevant paragraphs excised]

Wow...I have never in my life see a person take so much to avoid answering a simple, straightforward question...especially when that questionw as nothing more than a request to support his own contention! That's gotta be some kind of record...

 

[shanek]

Now, I also ask you, if slavery were not economically benefical, then why were people essentially fighting to preserve it?

Slavery was more of a status symbol of the elite than anything else. I come from four separate lines of North Carolina farmers, and there's no evidence that any of them owned slaves. None were reported in the censuses between 1810 and 1850. They were large families who worked the farms themselves. So, let me ask you this: If slavery is so economical, why didn't these farm families, who each had over 500 acres of farmland, not have any?

 

[shanek]

Holly smokes! When JK stops talking about the communist matriarchial consipracy to destroy America he makes sense!

Good post JK

Hmph...When JK and Malachi both agree on something, you know it can't be anything of worth...

 

[shanek]

Machines and computers are chaper to sue then slaves, so the push will also be for mechanization, not slavery. Mehcanization is what makes high society without slavery possible.

And mechanization is a product of the free market. Thank you for supporting my point.

 

[shanek]

You can only have any kind of private property when the government enforces it.

True, and as I pointed out above, the government treated slaves as if they were the private property of the slaveowner.

 

[shanek]

Can conscription be considered a form of slavery ?

I believe so.

 

[shanek]

Not really. There have always been people opposed to slavery, even back to the Greek and Roman days,

Any references? I'm unaware of any ancient Greeks opposing slavery.

and obviously even back to the days of Egypt, because afterall the Biblical story of the Jews is one of emancipation from slavery!

But if you keep reading the Bible, you'll see that it allowed those very same Jews to keep slaves!

Slavery was never right, it was never acceptable, it was just that teh majority of the people did not have the power to prevent the powerful minorities from having their way.

Demonstrate that the majority ever opposed it until recent centuries when it started being abolished.

 

[shanek]

Even in first world countries, what amounts to slavery still happens in small numbers, in places such as the sex industry which force immigrants into prostitution.

I think you mean illegal immigrants here, which just goes further towards proving my point.