Capitalists may have the same mentality as Nazis: that people must be enslaved

[Kathryn]

i... ya, i know its sarcasm, like the marxist gen z moron who is hired to hold a sign board and thinks he founded the company.

I hope it's sarcasm but ya never know around here.

 

[Estro Felino]

Since, all governments always have and always will be controlled by whoever has the most resources, thru a variety of methods- a powerful state will never benefit the weak. The only chance the weak have is to minimize the size and power of government, and then the rich have money, but not power.

Money means power.
European countries are not plutocracies.
The rich will be reprimanded by the State if they oppress the weak.
USA is a plutocracy, yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you can get a brand machine for the same price as a no-name, you go for the brand every time, so it's a bad comparison.
Contemplate a 500 bucks brand machine that costs 250 bucks to make (which you don't know) and a no-name machine for 400 bucks (that cost 100 bucks to make, which you don't know).
How many people will go for the 400 bucks machine? And when the company goes belly up, no problem. The investors have made their quick buck (and more than they would have made by investing in the brand company). It's only important to know when to jump ship.

Still assuming the scenario where the no-brand machine is build from cheap and unsafe materials, the 500 bucks machine is the better choice as it will last a lot longer and will work better. Many / most consumers are quite comfortable paying a premium if it means the product will last much longer - since that's cheaper in the long run (no need to replace it quickly).

That's not to say there is no market segment for cheaper, lower-quality machines. There is.
But that's not what @Estro Felino was referring to.

If you use cheaper materials and have the sale price reflect that (lower quality machine = cheaper then higher quality machine), then there is no "profit maximalization" to speak of like she insinuated, since margins remain the same.

What @Estro Felino was referring to, was more in the area of scamming people. Charging a premium while building non-premium products.
Most investors, furthermore, aren't looking to make a "quick buck" and hoping to pull out before it blows up in their face. Most investors look for sustainable businesses able to make them money for a long time.

Imagine doing a pitch to an investor and telling him "we're going to build inferior products and trick people into buying them. The company will go broke in 2 years when people realize how ****ty the product is, but we'll have made some money by then"

Do you think an investor will think that is a good idea and give you a couple million?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since, all governments always have and always will be controlled by whoever has the most resources, thru a variety of methods- a powerful state will never benefit the weak. The only chance the weak have is to minimize the size and power of government, and then the rich have money, but not power.

The whole purpose of a constitutional democracy, is to protect the weak and minorities.

 

[Heyo]

Still assuming the scenario where the no-brand machine is build from cheap and unsafe materials, the 500 bucks machine is the better choice as it will last a lot longer and will work better. Many / most consumers are quite comfortable paying a premium if it means the product will last much longer - since that's cheaper in the long run (no need to replace it quickly).

That's not to say there is no market segment for cheaper, lower-quality machines. There is.
But that's not what @Estro Felino was referring to.

If you use cheaper materials and have the sale price reflect that (lower quality machine = cheaper then higher quality machine), then there is no "profit maximalization" to speak of like she insinuated, since margins remain the same.

What @Estro Felino was referring to, was more in the area of scamming people. Charging a premium while building non-premium products.
Most investors, furthermore, aren't looking to make a "quick buck" and hoping to pull out before it blows up in their face. Most investors look for sustainable businesses able to make them money for a long time.

Imagine doing a pitch to an investor and telling him "we're going to build inferior products and trick people into buying them. The company will go broke in 2 years when people realize how ****ty the product is, but we'll have made some money by then"

Do you think an investor will think that is a good idea and give you a couple million?

Do you know how many ****ty products there are on the market? Have you ever heard the term "planned obsolescence"? Have you followed the news about corporations refusing to declare the contents of their products (especially GMOs)?
It's all about cutting corners and getting away with it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe you. However, I've noticed a common tendency among a lot of people (not just business owners) that they believe that they do more work or that their job is harder or more valuable to a given enterprise. Or that they're just smarter, better, faster than others.

Sure. But as another user said, it's not just about the hard work. It's also about what the work entails. It's also about smart work.
I can break my back doing hard work of smashing up stone. I can also use a machine and not break my back.
I can also hire people to do it for me and spend my time networking to get contracts to smash other people's stones.

Not in an era of a global economy where countries are interconnected with each other on an economic basis. There's a cause-and-effect relationship in which much of the capitalist world is gripped by poverty, exploitation, and despair, while a few lucky countries (such as ours) hoard most of the wealth.

I think that's simply a misrepresentation. It's not so much that we "hoard" the wealth. It's rather that our countries have many laws in place which regulate working conditions, minimum wage, etc. It's also about the general market of labor, which goes hand in hand with the economic situation of a country.
A given paycheck of, say 1000 euro's a month, will make you the richest man in the village in some african country while it will make you near-homeless in a western democracy. There are many many different factors at play here.

I understand what you're saying, but I just don't think it's right to point out that just because it's another country, it doesn't count.

I didn't say it doesn't count. I said it's not comparable.

It's still within the global capitalist economy, so it has to be included in any thorough and honest analysis of capitalism.

All too often, I see people looking solely at the U.S. or Western Europe and proclaim "Capitalism is wonderful," while blatantly ignoring the original source of most of their wealth to begin with or the vast majority of countries where people aren't living quite so well.

And in your case, if you treat your employees well and don't exploit them, then that's a credit to you as an individual human being, not a credit to "capitalism" in general.

See, again... you are generalizing. Using "cheap" labor in other countries is not "exploiting people". You don't seem to realize that that word "cheap" is contextual as compared to wages in OUR economies. We consider 1000 bucks a month to be ridiculous. In fact it's even illegal as it's below minimum wage. But it's not over there. Over there, 1000 bucks a month is a LOT. It's perhaps the equivalent of 10k over here.

I would also wonder why we, the West, don't do anything about these atrocious situations in countries like Congo.

On a nearly daily basis, we hear about how horrible it is in places like Iran, North Korea, etc. and justify sanctions against those countries, yet conspicuously silent about countries like Congo. No sanctions on them, since Western capitalists make money from it.

Or even Saudi Arabia, which also has a horrible human rights record, but as long as capitalists make money, then they're A-OK. Then there's China, where we've heard a lot of hate towards lately, yet Western capitalists can't put their money where their mouth is and extricate themselves their economic relationships with China. Why don't we cut off all trade with any and all countries not considered "free" by Western standards?

Because we can't. As I already told you, if you do that, you'll see the "price of life" in our countries go up by a factor of 3.
Next to that, you'll have many empty shelves in stores.

You talk as if "cutting off all trade" is some kind of trivial thing to do. You don't seem to realize what the consequences would be for prices in general, and the economy at large, if we would do so.

As for your example of the "toilet lady" at the truck stop, it's interesting to note that, in recent years, businesses have had more difficulty in filling some of these menial, low-wage positions - even to the point of having to shut down operations due to a lack of staff (such as what has happened to a number of restaurants). The irony about it is that most capitalists don't seem to understand why. They just chalk it up to "nobody wants to work" without giving much serious examination to the issue. It's similar to arguments from business owners whose livelihood has depended upon employing undocumented immigrants and having them work under the table.

So what do you suggest the solution to be then?
Pay the toilet lady the same wage as someone with a masters degree in engineering?

Yes, but just because you are personally moral and decent, that doesn't negate the overall arguments and perceptions about capitalism in general. A small business owner in a Western country is hardly in the same league as the top corporate and banking leaders (along with the owners of those sweatshops), yet they're all operating within the same global capitalist economic system where one part affects the other.

Hold on a minute there. I said that it's just not part of my business. The profiles I require in my company are highly trained software engineers.

Suppose we (you and I) are partners in some kind of manufacturing.
We need a factory and 1000 factory workers to produce the required volume.

We have 2 choices...
A 50 million dollar facility in a western country, where the minimum wage cost of a worker comes down to 75k a year.
Or
A 5 million dollar facility in China, where the minimum wage cost of a worker comes down to 30k a year.

Each of the options produces the same volume and quality products.
It just so happens that everything, including labor, is cheaper there.

Why wouldn't you put your manufacturing in China?
I certainly would.

I've heard this argument before, so I'm familiar with this particular angle you're presenting here. And there is truth to what you say, at least in terms of how much prices would rise if manufacturing of things like shoes, clothing, and electronics were brought back to Western countries.

However, there was once a time when most of these things were made in the U.S. In 1945 (for obvious reasons), half of the world's manufactured goods were made in the USA. However, wages and living standards also increased in the years that followed, and America experienced a great economic boom which lasted until the early 1970s - even before there was really much outsourcing or talk about "global economy" or free trade. We even still had tariffs and duties on imports, and yet, America was still doing great. Life was good, and it seemed to be getting even better (not just economically, but also in terms of civil rights and social justice). If not for our government's incessant warmongering, things could have been even still better.

Another thing that happened since then, is the rise of worker rights and social reform.
That kind of living works for a while and then it crashes. It is not sustainable in the long run.
You are also talking about a time before micro-chips etc. We no longer live in such a world.

In any case, I don't see how there was any pressing need or urgency to push for outsourcing. Reagan and his ilk claimed to want to "fix" the American economy when it wasn't even broken.

Unfortunately, the Powers That Be in America threw caution to the four winds and embarked on this program which encouraged companies to close up their US-based operations and relocate overseas where the labor was (and still is) significantly cheaper. This has led us to the current situation as it stands today, where companies like Nike make a fortune on exploited sweatshop labor, as you describe above. The situation you describe isn't something that just happened out of the blue. It was due to choices made by our government - choices they didn't need to make and choices they should not have made. But it was all touted as something that would be good for our economy.

Now, from what you're saying here, we can't seem to go back.

Are we in a situation analogous to the South on the eve of the Civil War? That was their argument when faced with the prospect of actually having to end slavery and pay plantation workers fair wages. It would have been too expensive and it would have negatively impacted upon their economic well-being.

Of course, they might have also argued that there was more to it than capitalist greed. There was also a lot of talk about "preserving a way of life." That's another big thing that the US government claims to want to do.

I don't think that's a good comparison. Reason being that freeing slaves and paying them wages means they become citizens who can also spend that money and thus they would turn into consumers also, which would offset it.

This is not the case with dropping cheap labor in other countries. They do not turn into extra consumers who can inject capital into the economy.
In fact, I would even say that it would only negatively impact those people in the countries they are in, because there's no companies left to give them other jobs. Meaning that they are now at the mercy of their authoritarian governments and domestic companies, which will likely treat them a lot worse then western companies.

Yes, I'm aware of many of these rags to riches stories where individuals or companies might start out very small and then build up a huge financial empire. They're very compelling and inspiring to a lot of people. One also hears such stories about athletes, too. Musicians, actors, and others who started out from humble beginnings and made it big. I remember hearing that Madonna first showed up in NYC with only $50 in her pocket and turned into an international superstar. It's these kinds of stories which make people believe that America is truly the land of opportunity and that all it takes is hard work (and a bit of luck and pluck) to build one's fortune. All one has to do is "want it," and it will happen.

But to your point, I agree that this is not an easy problem to solve. But it is something that will have to be solved, one way or another. There are indications that parts of the world aren't too happy with the current situation where they're facing dire consequences because Western consumers want cheaper iPhones. At this point, I think most Americans might be willing to forego cheaper iPhones if they can get cheaper housing, cheaper food, cheaper gas, and universal healthcare - among other things which are more necessary than iPhones or Nike shoes.

I think the eventual solution will be a combination of things:

1. a mentality change among western citizens. "consumerism" has to end.
2. social revolution in the countries where sweatshops / exploitation as still far too common
3. a slow and steady trend of economic improvement in "cheap labor" countries.

Ironically, for point 3 what they likely need is to transform into democracies that value a free market. Aka, capitalism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you know how many ****ty products there are on the market? Have you ever heard the term "planned obsolescence"? Have you followed the news about corporations refusing to declare the contents of their products (especially GMOs)?
It's all about cutting corners and getting away with it.

I think it's very delusional to think this is common practice.

Most companies are not out to scam people.

 

[Stevicus]

Sure. But as another user said, it's not just about the hard work. It's also about what the work entails. It's also about smart work.
I can break my back doing hard work of smashing up stone. I can also use a machine and not break my back.
I can also hire people to do it for me and spend my time networking to get contracts to smash other people's stones.

Yes, "hard work" is a misnomer. It's actually "smart work," not "hard work."

Still, is there any truly objective way to measure whose job is more difficult or more important as to be able to attach a specific number to it? Here's an old joke: When the Body was First Made, All Its Parts Wanted to be Boss...

Spoiler: Crude Joke

THE BRAIN SAID : Since I control everything and do all the work I should be boss.

THE FEET SAID: Since I carry man where he wants to go and get him to do what the Brain wants, I should be boss.

THE HANDS SAID: Since I must do all the work and earn all the money to keep all the rest of you going, I should be boss.

THE EYES SAID: Since I must look out for all of you and tell you where danger lurks, I should be boss.

And so it went with the Heart, the Ears, and the Lungs.

Finally the ******* spoke up and demanded that he be boss. All the other parts laughed and laughed at the idea of an ******* being boss.

The ******* was so angered that he blocked himself off and refused to function. Soon the Brain was feverish, the Eyes crossed and ached, the Feet were too weak to walk, the Hands hung limply at his side, the Heart and Lungs struggled to keep going.

All pleaded with the Brain to relent and let the ******* be boss, and so it happened. All parts did the work and the ******* just bossed and passed out a lot of ****.

MORAL: You don't have to be a brain to be boss, just an *******.

I think that's simply a misrepresentation. It's not so much that we "hoard" the wealth. It's rather that our countries have many laws in place which regulate working conditions, minimum wage, etc. It's also about the general market of labor, which goes hand in hand with the economic situation of a country.
A given paycheck of, say 1000 euro's a month, will make you the richest man in the village in some african country while it will make you near-homeless in a western democracy. There are many many different factors at play here.

I'm aware of the disparities between the West and the countries we're talking about, but how do you suppose that situation got that way in the first place? Consider that aspect, and maybe it's not quite the "misrepresentation" you're claiming it to be.

I didn't say it doesn't count. I said it's not comparable.

No, it's not "comparable," just as the salary of a CEO is not comparable to that of a toilet lady, but they're all part of the same capitalist system.

See, again... you are generalizing. Using "cheap" labor in other countries is not "exploiting people". You don't seem to realize that that word "cheap" is contextual as compared to wages in OUR economies. We consider 1000 bucks a month to be ridiculous. In fact it's even illegal as it's below minimum wage. But it's not over there. Over there, 1000 bucks a month is a LOT. It's perhaps the equivalent of 10k over here.

Yes, I'm aware of all of this, but what do you mean when you say I'm "generalizing"? If capitalists find a bunch of people living in squalor, despair, and destitution, they find people who are desperate and ripe for exploitation. It's also convenient that they can deal with a sovereign, independent government open to generous "gifts" and who are not subject to those pesky Western wage and labor laws. Capitalists see an opportunity, and they take it.

But that doesn't mean that Western governments are required to endorse and encourage such practices. The governments of the West have largely condemned and expressed deep regret over the colonial era and the greed-driven atrocities associated with it, but rather than make amends, the capitalists just want to take advantage of the situation for their own profit. Are they really that much different or more enlightened than colonialists?

Because we can't. As I already told you, if you do that, you'll see the "price of life" in our countries go up by a factor of 3.
Next to that, you'll have many empty shelves in stores.

You talk as if "cutting off all trade" is some kind of trivial thing to do. You don't seem to realize what the consequences would be for prices in general, and the economy at large, if we would do so.

Well, it wouldn't necessarily be done in one fell swoop. It could be done incrementally, with minimal shock to the system.

We could do it, if we're a society which stands by basic principles of human rights, which includes the right of workers to be treated fairly and given just compensation for their work. If it means we have to sacrifice or get by on a little less, then maybe that's what it means.

Otherwise, what are we trying to do? Do we want to move forward, as a society, or do we want to move backward? As it has appeared lately, Western capitalists, along with many conservatives and right-wingers, seem to want to take us backward. For example, some states are discussing the idea of removing child labor laws.

I'm well aware that this is not a trivial thing to do. But I also understand the grave long-term consequences we will face by maintaining this uneven status quo. It is not sustainable for the long haul. If we "can't" share our wealth with the world because it would bring too much hardship upon ourselves, then sooner or later, we're going to have to defend ourselves against a world with generations of built-up resentment and anger against us. We already see signs of this already in a time of international tensions, as well as the massive influx of immigrants from impoverished areas of the world into more affluent areas. None of this is "trivial," but this is the situation we currently have.

So what do you suggest the solution to be then?
Pay the toilet lady the same wage as someone with a masters degree in engineering?

Not necessarily the "same wage," but a livable wage. Just as an aside, I don't generally share many Western liberal bourgeois attitudes about people who do the "dirty jobs" in society. It's really only a cultural value judgement that decides that the job of "toilet lady" is some low, menial job deserving of the lowest pay and the worst treatment possible. I never could quite understand the logic behind such attitudes. If it's a job that needs to get done by a human being, then human beings have rights and needs, which includes adequate compensation for their work.

 

[Stevicus]

Hold on a minute there. I said that it's just not part of my business. The profiles I require in my company are highly trained software engineers.

Suppose we (you and I) are partners in some kind of manufacturing.
We need a factory and 1000 factory workers to produce the required volume.

We have 2 choices...
A 50 million dollar facility in a western country, where the minimum wage cost of a worker comes down to 75k a year.
Or
A 5 million dollar facility in China, where the minimum wage cost of a worker comes down to 30k a year.

Each of the options produces the same volume and quality products.
It just so happens that everything, including labor, is cheaper there.

Why wouldn't you put your manufacturing in China?
I certainly would.

Well, for one thing, our relations with China have deteriorated somewhat in recent years, so putting manufacturing there comes with a greater risk. The supply chain difficulties we've been seeing since the pandemic showed us a glimmer of the kinds of consequences one might face by putting most of your eggs in someone else's basket.

Also, over the years, I've read up a bit on the conditions for factory workers in China (as well as other countries which the West outsources to). It should suffice to say that the working conditions are not good. I read about a factory where they had to install "suicide nets" on the side of the building to prevent people from committing suicide by jumping out the window. Does that sound like a nice place to work? Does our survival really depend on pushing people in other countries to the brink like that?

Your example here illustrates the main part of the problem. You present a hypothetical scenario where business partners decide to open a factory in China because the labor is cheaper, which means higher sales and higher profits. Of course, a capitalist whose sole interest is in making money is going to take that deal. As long as it's legally allowed by the governments which hold jurisdiction, then they can be expected to do whatever they can to maximize their profits. That's something that we already know about capitalism.

However, I would suggest that we need to look at the bigger picture.

Another thing that happened since then, is the rise of worker rights and social reform.
That kind of living works for a while and then it crashes. It is not sustainable in the long run.
You are also talking about a time before micro-chips etc. We no longer live in such a world.

Historically, we've been traversing through uncharted territory for the past few centuries since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. I'm not sure if anything is sustainable in the long run at this point. With climate change, resource depletion, overpopulation, war, and growing international tensions, the future is looking a bit grim no matter what we do. And with this capitalistic "me first," dog-eat-dog, every-man-for-himself mentality dominating the culture, it's not very conducive towards the cooperation which will be needed for humanity to tackle and deal with its shared problems.

Ultimately, if we can't find a way to work together and cooperate, then nature will take its course.

I don't think that's a good comparison. Reason being that freeing slaves and paying them wages means they become citizens who can also spend that money and thus they would turn into consumers also, which would offset it.

That's not entirely what happened in the years and decades after the freeing of the slaves. Many freed slaves became sharecroppers - which would have put them a situation analogous to the workers in the developing world. They're free to walk away (and many did), but in some ways, it was like moving from one frying pan to another.

The bottom line is this: If the only way for capitalism to flourish is to maintain and oppress large segments of the population as a permanent underclass to do all the menial, difficult, and/or dangerous jobs under grisly conditions (regardless of what country they're in), then what does that make us?

I'm not saying that capitalists are "Nazis," but then again, our government sides with and endorses authoritarian regimes around the world. So, in a way, they're like proxy "Nazis," viewed as yet another "dirty job" to be outsourced to another country.

This is not the case with dropping cheap labor in other countries. They do not turn into extra consumers who can inject capital into the economy.
In fact, I would even say that it would only negatively impact those people in the countries they are in, because there's no companies left to give them other jobs. Meaning that they are now at the mercy of their authoritarian governments and domestic companies, which will likely treat them a lot worse then western companies.

There may be other ways of accomplishing positive goals in this. I still have hope that humans are capable of great creativity and ingenuity in coming up with solutions to problems. We can think outside the box - or at least, we used to be able to do that.

A lot of these people live under authoritarian governments already, propped up or endorsed by our own democratic governments. The US has a military presence in over 80 countries in this world. When you really look at it, "cheap labor" isn't as cheap as it might seem, if it requires maintaining a permanent global military establishment and a huge chunk of our national budget to build and maintain it.

I think the eventual solution will be a combination of things:

1. a mentality change among western citizens. "consumerism" has to end.
2. social revolution in the countries where sweatshops / exploitation as still far too common
3. a slow and steady trend of economic improvement in "cheap labor" countries.

Ironically, for point 3 what they likely need is to transform into democracies that value a free market. Aka, capitalism.

There may well be a "mentality change" among western citizens, but considering some of the baser aspects of human nature, I'm not confident it will be a change for the better. There have been some revolutions, uprisings, riots, and/or movements in that direction, and I would expect that to continue and grow in the coming decades. The West will likely find itself more and more entrenched, just as the haves entrench themselves in gated communities out of fear of the have nots.

It seems that a growing number of Westerners are just plain scared that all these billions of impoverished people from around the world will just pour into their countries, kill them all, and take their stuff. It sounds like paranoid lunacy, but it seems to be on some people's minds. But it's also true that we have had a pretty lopsided situation here for quite some time, and some people aren't quite sure what to do about it.

That's why I would favor an international socialist union of sorts. If we wish to avoid self-destruction in world war, then we have to learn to share and cooperate with each other as best we can. You are correct in that we need a serious "mentality change." But in the end, humans will make their own choices, and we'll get what we get.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you know how many ****ty products there are on the market? Have you ever heard the term "planned obsolescence"? Have you followed the news about corporations refusing to declare the contents of their products (especially GMOs)?
It's all about cutting corners and getting away with it.

The beauty of capitalism is that I have the ability to
eschew crappy products, & buy good ones instead.
Go to a store like Menards. They carry different lines
of tools, some being...
Tool Shop - Cheap
Performax - Professional
Knipex - The best <--- This & Snap-On are my wrenches of choice.
I get to select whichever suits my intended use.
Don't blame someone else if you always buy crap.

If you want to claim socialism is better than capitalism
because there are some bad things that happen under
capitalism, this is a failed argument. Your keen gaze
never looks at socialism's dark side.

 

[clara17]

Money means power.
European countries are not plutocracies.
The rich will be reprimanded by the State if they oppress the weak.
USA is a plutocracy, yes.

The rich ARE the state. In all cases, in all times and places you will find the money controlling the power by one method or another. This is the case for limited govt. And the reason socialism fails every time. USA has the biggest govt in world history and the gap between richest and poorest has corresponded with govt growth. Solution: move govt! Good luck with that. Which European country(ies) would be a good model for US to follow?

 

[Estro Felino]

The rich ARE the state.

That's the evidence you live in a plutocracy.


No, the State is all citizens.
Including the public servants who work for the citizens.
So public property means that I own that public thing too.

In all cases, in all times and places you will find the money controlling the power by one method or another.

Not always.
There are also honest politicians who won't be bribed.

This is the case for limited govt. And the reason socialism fails every time.

This is because, deep inside, you want it to fail.
Because you don't believe enough in the common good.

USA has the biggest govt in world history and the gap between richest and poorest has corresponded with govt growth.

The government freed the slaves in the 19th century....for the record.

Which European country(ies) would be a good model for US to follow?

The ones with the best education, best healthcare and with the best trade unions.

 

[clara17]

No, the State is all citizens.
Including the public servants who work for the citizens.
So public property means that I own that public thing too.

On paper yes. In the real world, the state is always, in every example in history, controlled by money powers.

Not always.
There are also honest politicians who won't be bribed.

Kind of. There are honest people who get into politics to make a difference, but they are soon corrupted, or removed if they wont be corrupted.

This is because, deep inside, you want it to fail.
Because you don't believe enough in the common good.

I wasnt even around most of the times it was tried. I don't believe in the common good yes. you good, me bad. Thats the real problem.

The government freed the slaves in the 19th century....for the record.

Actually the people sort of rose up and did it. Lincoln quote 3/4/61 "I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,"
And, it was actually too much govt, which made slavery possible. Left to their own devices, slaves could have owned firearms. Just like that, slavery gone. Instead laws were passed preventing them from owning guns, and reducing them to 3/5 of a human.

The ones with the best education, best healthcare and with the best trade unions.

And those are?

 

[Kfox]

And, it was actually too much govt, which made slavery possible. Left to their own devices, slaves could have owned firearms. Just like that, slavery gone. Instead laws were passed preventing them from owning guns, and reducing them to 3/5 of a human.

Slaves were never considered 3/5ths of a human the USA

 

[Estro Felino]

I wasnt even around most of the times it was tried. I don't believe in the common good yes. you good, me bad. Thats the real problem.

I do believe in the common good.
In the economic circuit.
That is, if all citizens are fine, I am fine too.

 

[clara17]

Slaves were never considered 3/5ths of a human the USA

3/5 Compromise. but either way thats a side note to what we're talking about

 

[anotherneil]

Slaves were never considered 3/5ths of a human the USA

Yes they were, for census tally purposes: Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

The Slave South wanted slaves counted so they could have more seats in the House of Representatives and the Abolitionist North did not want slaves counted, since the Slave South said they were property and wouldn't let them vote or have rights. The Slave South got a good deal not only because they were able to partially count them towards the census for determining number of Reps, but also because they got to have a tally greater than half.

The Democrats ran the Slave South and the Republicans ran the Abolitionist North, and just like the Democrats wanted to use their cheap labor slaves to count in the census back then, they also want illegal aliens to be counted in the census in their states so they get more reps. Illegal aliens are the modern day pool of cheap labor & the only question is whether they'll try to ask for a 3/5ths compromise again, somehow.

 

[clara17]

I do believe in the common good.
In the economic circuit.
That is, if all citizens are fine, I am fine too.

i was quoting you not saying i dont
Its ok if you cant really apply any of your ideas to reality, none of you guys ever have or ever will

 

[Kfox]

Yes they were, for census tally purposes: Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

For representative purposes, they were COUNTED as 3/5ths of a person, but they were never considered 3/5 of a human being. Recognize the difference.

 

[Kfox]

3/5 Compromise. but either way thats a side note to what we're talking about

It kinda contradicts what he was talking about, because it would have been better had slaves not been counted at all.