Racial advantage also has something to do with it. Slavery existed in Africa as well, only capitalist slave owners in Africa weren't bright enough to put the slaves to any useful purpose. At least the Egyptians built pyramids, Negro Africans just carried water from the creeks to storage. All modern cognitive science shows that negro's have a very low average IQ. This was an evolutionary weakness that was exploited by the superior Asians and Europeans.
forever i think not the first types of money was from the Romans before that people just traded items that isnt Capitalism just trade for example trade a goat for a vase no money is used in the trade.
Capitalism is the historic evolution of private property relationship of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity in a modality of production for profit in a world market of ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY and manipulation to perpetuate the conditions of exploitation in the interest of the Owning/Ruling elite. Capitalism is the monetary web of deception and suppresssion of humanity for the abstract process of capital accumulation and concentration . A system of dehumanisation and devaluation
@aleckzz Maybe the therm Capitalism was not around 200 years a go but the phenomenon it self was. Just like Hydrogen-dioxide, has been around for billions of years, but for most of history people called it water.
Indeed. Good talk overall though, I thought. But do you buy Weber's account? Another thing Weber writes at the beginning of his Protestant Ethic is that race is another huge factor in the development of capitalism, but one he cannot, at the time of writing, evaluate.
A question: is not human nature exploitative? And is not our rejection of this nature itself based on (even pre-Reformation) Christianity with its doctrine of sin? In other words, is not anti-capitalism also essentially Christian?
As a pragmatist, I consider Weber's view of reality (perspective) valid and equal to all others. I will reread the part of Protestant Work Ethic about race and get back to you.
As to human nature, there is no one human nature. There were many natures before technocracy (Capitalism, Modernity, etc.) took over molding man into an interchangeable cog in the wheel - an alienated commodity. Now there is one consensus of conformity, with little difference for an anthropologist.
Certainly modern capitalism is exploitative. All societies require massive bureaucracies to run the show. Our finest minds (James, Weber, Mills) consider bureaucracy to be destructive of democracy &freedom. Therefore, all societies in modernity are exploitative. The human nature of the people molded by these societies is exploitative.
Christianity has not made a dent in the exploitative mold made by modernity. See Pt III for political thought (anti-capitalism) and Christianity.
The importance of bureaucracy is spelled out in my YT video entitled: "Max Weber and the Iron Cage."
In the Protestant Work Ethic, Weber makes the case that Calvinism (all Christianity?) teaches Christians to hate the poor. See my YT video entitled: "Why the Middle Class Hates the Poor."
Thanks for your responses. I'll watch your other videos.
Ultimately, my point is that indeed capitalism is exploitative, but that is life. Morality itself is exploitative (seeking to control people's thoughts and actions), and capitalism is just another system of control. Therefore, if one is being exploited, one seeks to overturn the exploiters; if one is an exploiter one seeks to maintain status quo. Here the exploiters can be priests, presidents, capitalists, kings, moralists, etc.
That sounds very post-modern, neo-Marxist. Do you not believe that different animal species have different natures? If so, then you also must concede that human beings, as an animal species, also have a distinct (though partly multifarious) nature.
But back to the point: do you not believe that exploitation is an essential aspect of life itself? And do you not think that your implicit criticism of capitalism is itself a form of exploitation: judging those in power so to elevate yourself?
Call me anything but late for dinner. As a pragmatist, all labels are cool. You failed to understand the very basic tools of Sociology I used in Parts I, II & III above.
No. You do not understand Solidarity because it is not seen in Modernity. Please read George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" to understand Solidarity.
Who am I exploiting? How?
Are all social critics and teachers motivated by a desire to elevate themselves? Which psychiatrists espouse this theory?
Yes, I must have misunderstood, but before I use a theoretical tool, I need it justified.
Ideology, morality, law prescribes people's thoughts and actions. This is a power structure. By using one ideology (you call it pragmatism) to attack another (capitalism), one seeks to (often subconsciously) overpower that present power structure. Marx and Nietzsche both argued this.
Pragmatism is not an "ideology." It is a uniquely American philosophy developed by America's finest minds: James, Pierce & Dewey. It is impossible for pragmatism to attack, as it considers al categories of reality valid & equal.
I refer to the 'tools of sociology' that you referred to.
I should contend your view that Pragmatism is not an ideology. By considering all categories of reality valid & equal you thereby criticise (condemn) all absolutist approaches which claim only one category of reality (theirs) is valid. Also, what is deemed a 'satisfactory outcome' in Pragmatismis conditioned by antecedent morals, i.e. ideologies.
Marx & Nietzsche both argued that ideologies are disguised power structures.
Criticism is a weapon which empowers the critic. So be it, there is nothing 'immoral' with that, as morality itself is a power structure - i.e. subjective desire disguised as objective fact.
Wasn't the protestant reformation anti Semitic? Europeans couldn't see people races doing better off than them? People payed a Tax to the Catholic church.
Certainly, the leader of the Reformation, Martin Luther, was both anti semtic and without compassion when suggesting peasants in the Peasant's Revolt be slaughtered.
Europeans were what they remain; Euro Centric. Much of European sense of superiority is based on racism infused with nationalism.
The Catholic Church found all sorts of ways to generate revenue from the flock.
You seem to read well, but that really is not remotely close in my opinion. Slavery was based off of mercantilism and not capitalism.
YEAH, what would you do if someone asked you what your ancestors were doing 400 years ago and you identified as say, a physician, and not an economist?
Yeah, everyone in Holland is really Dutch Reformed. That's why it's also called Hoe-land.
Have you read the 'Fear of Freedom' by Erich Fromm? He makes a Freudo-Marxist analysis of the rise of Protestantism and I think it really damages Weber's thesis (which, admittedly, I am no expert on by the way.) Basically it says that capitalism does indeed have its origins in material conditions, (or "psychological", if you like.)
Oh man, there's no way I can give you the whole thing in 500 words. But very basically Fromm uses his psychoanalytical views to show that the middle class that existed during the reformation were fearful of the growing ecomonic freedom of the time and therefore developed a system of complete submission to God (security) but at the same time accounted for the growth in freedom and created a different, but still morally authoritarian idea of God.
Listen to this old dope, just because people traded since "forever" does not make what they did capitaslism. No thought is given to production and its role, as if what people ahve to trade popped out of nowhere.
Aside from disparaging the most mature among us, what is your point? Are you saying that free labor (slavery) didn't jump start capitalism. Most historians believe this to be the case - even young historians.
Do you dismiss Max Weber's thesis regarding the influence of Calvinism on the growth of capitalism?
First of all there is no such thing as free labor, everything costs, even slaves. Slavery is not even an efficient or effective "system". Slavery has existed since the beguining of time, to say slavery "jump started" capitalism is like if you were to ask an arsen investigator "why did my house burn down?" and hed say "because of the oxygen in the air".And yes I do dismiss webers thesis, the only reason capitalism was able to emerge was because of the major cultural changes happening in europe.
The re-orientation towards this worldliness and not the "other world". Looking towards man and his life on this earth and an embracing of reason not of faith.
The important point in weber's theory isnt just a narration of how capitalism came to be (capitalist practices are heirs of the asethic protestant practices, but it's not just a formula, it's an historical an irrepetible process). The important thing is that he oposess two theorical stances: utilitarism (liberal) & marxism, saying that culture has also importance in economical practices its not just human rational nature, and that culture it's not just the direct result of material conditions
Weber does not clain Calvinists are "ascetic." Rather just the opposite, he asserts Calvinism [Predestination] makes folks conspicuous consumers. This is what drives capitalism. Have you read Weber's book: "The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism?"
how would you justify saying capitalism has been around "forever"? What would you say primitive peoples engaged in? is it called capitalism if trade or barter is involved? what about fuedalism? or perhaps the marxist term "primitive socialism"
The economic power overrules the political power especially in this brief epoch of human history called industrialism.
Think about this. This is something as no one randist/rothbardian could ever explain to me - the role of power in society and rule of his/her law. That's why libertarian free market is a fantasy and keep the "non-aggression principle" as a pineapple of this dream.
Huge inequalities with consumerism have to end in social unrest, violence and tyranny.
No, feudalism predated Calvinism and the European slave trade. Although serfs were tied to the land and had obligations o the lord of the area, they were not slaves.
In the strict "property" sense, i would agree with you, though i would argue that they were, for all practical purposes, indentured servants -- which is tantamount to slavery. The typical capitalist argument -- and i don't mean to belittle you -- is that "voluntary" labor, regardless of the circumstances, is by definition a "free" labor pool, insofar as they have limited choice to whom they "wish" to surrender their only basic commodity, labor -- thus, it must be consent.
It does not really introduce any revolutionary changes, it just gives European Union more power over the member states.
Ireland is the only EU country that's going to have a referendum about this, there have been many protests to make them in other countries, but European Constitution (which is basically the same thing) has not been passed in a referendum in UK and France, so they are all scared to make another one.
Sweden is often showed as an example of a socialist country that works, while it does not. Their standart of living has been decreasing since like 1970s.
Not to mention an economic crysis in 90s.
Their socialist health care does not even work.
I do know that most of countries today are going for a socialist policies, even America is becoming socialist nowadays.
Only China (People's Republic of China) is kindda free market, but it's really far from that.
Real income (adjusted for inflation) has been declining in America for over 30 years since the late 1970's. In addition to Sweden, Socialist Parties (Social Democrats) are powerful in Spain (the PM is a Socialist), France (2nd largest party), Holland (3rd largest party), Germany, England, Italy and all other Western democracies. In South America, almost all countries are controlled by Socialist parties. Life for Swedes is far better then for most Americans. China is a Communist slave state.
I lived in Europe (Holland) for 8 years and Socialism (Social Democracy) works quite well all over Western Europe. Socialist Parties are either running those countries or are the 2nd or 3rd largest parties. I can provide a very long list. In South America almost all countries are Socialist today.
I was actually born in Russia and my parents were raised in the USSR. We moved to the U.S. when I was 5. May be Europeans aren't arrogant because they don't have much to be arrogant about. The U.S. is more free and has more opportunities.
I believe you are close minded in your paranoid views of the rich and altruistic attitude toward the poor.
My complaint is that you spread unfounded and uninformed propaganda to naive people. Off course, you're free to do that in the land of opportunities.
After living in Europe for 8 years I can say Europeans live far better then Americans. While your economics predicts a better life in the future without gov't interference in the economy, the pragmatic consequences of having a socialist tradition in Europe is fine affordable housing, education paid for through college, fine affordable transportation, better doctors, universal health care, human rights and dignity.
To better understand the rich I suggest you read C. Wright Mills & R. Hofstader.
Rather then altruistic, my attitude toward the poor is one of solidarity. Solidarity is not easily understood by the bourgeoisie. To understand solidarity I recommend a book by George Orwell: "Homage to Catalonia."
If you've been to both Hong Kong and Mainland China, you'd notice that things are extremely different between them. They can't possibly have the same economic systems, and they don't. Hong Kong is thriving because they are quite free from government regulations and have minimal taxes.
I'm currently studying economics, but no I haven't studied economic history simply because it's not important. I can tell you exactly why something happened or why something couldn't have possibly happened.
Working conditions in that time were allegedly lower because there were less individual rights. The government wasn't doing a good job protecting the workers rights. Another reason is because there wasn't that much competition. It takes time for capitalism to thrive, which it not does.
Are you American? It would seem so. I lived in Europe for 8 years and I never met a European as arrogant and aggressively stupid as Americans. I miss Holland very much. I would spend my afternoons and many evenings talking with European university students. It was a great pleasure.
You are well on your way to being inauthentic and closed minded. These are the principal American traits - inauthenticity (in the philosophical and psychological sense) and bullying.
Please don't insult me, if any depressions were far worse then the GREAT depression, it wouldn't be called the GREAT Depression. There were some minor depressions cause by individual banks that only effected a limited number of people as oppose to the entire country.
I highly doubt that. Nevertheless, that's irrelevant because the government was far more corrupt. Off course capitalism cannot exist with a corrupt government.
No, Hong Kong's economy is independent from China today.
You resist historical fact and reality. Please read about the 1870's & 1890's and get back to me. Read about what life was like for labor (working men and women). How can you learn about economics without a knowledge of history?
Have you studied economics anf history at a college or university? It doesn't seem so. You are not open to knowledge. You wrap yourself in fantasy.
My wife has many relatives in Hong Kong and she and her relatives travel to Hong Kong as regularly as rain.
Please reference these great depressions you speak of.
Robber barons earned their wealth completely legally and cannot be held liable. I'm not saying we should take anything away from "poor bums" just simply stop giving them what they don't earn.
BTW, you realize that Hong Kong has a completely separate economy than greater China Right?
You only need read any history book about America. Certainly Anna Schwartz and Milton Friedman's "Monetary History of the US" covers these Great Depressions that were far worse then the 1930's.
In fact, as many or more folks died at the hands of the Robber Barons then at the hands of Joseph Stalin. Such raw capitalism is a mass murdering form of genocide. Yes, it was legal.
While Hong Kong had a separate economy under British rule, it does not today. It is ruled by Communist Chinese edicts.
I'm not talking about their dignity. Nobody should get what they don't earn or what nobody else consented to giving them. That's what freedom is.
I already said, I'm not an anarchist. The government should still exist. However, their only role should be protecting individual rights to life, property, and the pursuit to happiness. The government would do that with the police, military, and courts of law.
We agree that no one should receive what they do not earn. Are you willing to confiscate the income and wealth of the descendants of the Robber Barons? Are you eager to confiscate the earnings and wealth of all monopolies and oligopolies?
Or, are you only opposed to poor bums and supportive of high class bums? what's up with that?
There were Great Depressions in America in the 1870's and 1890's and there was no government interference in the economy at that time - no Fed, no income tax, etc. What's up with that?
Capitalism is good for those who are willing to work as opposed to those who want free handouts.
If there would be a complete separation of state and economics, the power elite wouldn't have any political influence as they do now, and there would be absolute equality under the law. Monopolies would cease to exist because of an increase of competition.
The 30% of folks who were unemployed during the Great Depression were willing and eager to work, yet they could not find work. You recommend charity, yet charity was not solving the unemployment problem in the 1930's. This was the problem Lord John Maynard Keynes was called to the White House by Presiden Franklin Roosevelt o solve. He recommended a very large increase in government spending. However, Lord Keynes noted Roosevelt was an "economic illiterate." WW II increased gov't spending.
You characterization of the poor, homeless, unemployed and hungry is degrades them and denudes them of all dignity. This is the libertarian credo - add insults to injury.
Your second paragraph is more libertarian dreaming. Please name a single geographical location in the last 200 (or 2000) years without a government? When will such anarchy come into existence? How?
"Because the Chinese people save 30% of their income while Americans have a negative saving rate."
I said Hong Kong's economic system, not China's. Hong Kong never had slavery, they have very few natural resources, and they have far more economic freedom than the U.S, and they're thriving more because of that.
The Han people are exactly the same folks whether in Hong Kong (where my wife is from) or in Communist China. Their savings rates are the same. In fact, all Asians save about 30% of their income.
As to slavery, you completely missed my point and obviously did not watch my video on the History of Capitalism. In that video I discuss China as the center of a worldwide trading system based on silver. In fact, slavery was quite common in China and remains a part of the Chinese economy today.
I agree with Advocate1234 that you don't really understand that capitalism requires protection of individual rights. There is much more progress and wealth generated in the U.S post slavery era than during it. Capitalism is something that just happened to happen post slavery in the U.S. because it is a superior form of economics. It's better for everybody, as oppose to just the slave owners.
Advocate1234 and I disagreed only about when property rights became a reality. I date it much further back then Advocate1234 - to the Greeks, at least.
Capitalism is good for the Power Elite and it leaves the rest as Post Modern serfs.
Yes, free labor is better for INDIVIDUAL businesses than paid labor. You fail to consider the impact of competition on economy.
With slavery, there isn't competition because the slaves don't have choice who they work for. It essentially creates monopolies of the people who already own slaves vs. those who don't or those who own fewer slaves.
With competition, there is more innovation that benefits the entire economy in the long run.
1. The first slaves were shipped to America by the Dutch in 1619. Slavery (free labor) allowed for the accumulation of capital needed to kick start Capitalism. This is one of the two points I made in this video.
2. Hong Kong benefited from the Indian slaves in South America that produced the silver that allowed Chinese world trade dominance of the time. This also kick started Capitalism in Asia and the world.
1) This is just baseless. Most of the capital was created from non-slave labor. Moreover, slavery existed throughout the world, where the supposed "benefits" that you talk about were not seen until property rights were protected.;
2) You have your years completely backwards. You have no basis for any of these statements about slaves in South America helping Hong Kong;
3) I'm sorry. The post WWII Japan did not have slavery. You live in a fantasy world;
1. Are you saying the slaves of Egypt, Greece, Rome, China and all other Empires weren't wealthy beyond measure? You read about property rights and you have become obsessed. Ease up on your compulsion.
2. China controlled world trade and used silver as a meas of exchange to conduct world trade. The silver was mined in South America by indigenous Indian slaves well before your 18th century dating of the beginning of capitalism.
3. Modern Japan before and during WW II, Koreans & Chinese slaves.
Slavery has been eternal, of this there is no doubt. However, the English and Dutch took the transportation of African slaves to a new height unimagined in the past. The sheer numbers jump started capitalism.
What jump started capitalism in britain is the enlightment ideas of reason and freedom not slavery. Thats why slavery ended in europe, unlike other places in the world.
4. As an Irishman with an Irish passport I can assure you England had Irish slaves dating back over 700 years ago. Cromwell shipped Irish slaves (not indentured servants) to be sold along side Africans in the Caribbean and Colonial America.
5. What is your point? African and indigenous Indian slaves kick started Capitalism in South America.
6. There were Muslim slave traders in Africa, however African culture was, in the main, not slave centered.
All of feudalism was slavery,and the socialism you advocate is more of the same. How can you attack supposed slave owners when you want the state to run our lives like slaves.
There is a distinction to be made regarding feudalism. Serfs had the freedom to work the land on their own behalf and they owed the aristocrats some labor. Historians generally do not consider serfs slaves. However, I am open to such an interpretation.
All societies that held slaves benefited economically from free labor. The wealth created was held by a very small elite upper class, regardless of the society.
While capitalism was not around forever, the accumulation of capital derived from slavery went on for centuries before any historians dating the beginning of capitalism. Two elements of slavery contributing to the success of capitalism - the English African slave, sugar, rum trade & the Spanish South American Indian slave silver trade.
4) during the advent of property rights and the industrial revolution. You statement about Irish slaves just sank your whole argument because there was virtually no economic growth 700 years ago during this time!;
5) My point it that if slavery was so beneficial, we would see some economic benefit from it from it in Africa;
6) There were more African slaves in Northern Africa than all of North America;
7) Capitalism never had anything to do with slavery. It had to do with Property Rights.
4. You can't follow an argument. There cannot be progress (i.e. wealth accumulation) in a slave state like Ireland. Slaves aren't paid. Thousands of years of slavery allowed wealth to be accumulated, culminating in capitalism as seen in Imperial Empires of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Spain, Holland, France, England, China, America.
I simply don't accept your artificial dating the beginning of capitalism in the 18th century. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
You seem to be equating capitalism with industrialization. I don't. The horse thieves who became European nobility conserved wealth in the form of land, labor & capital through the ages. Again, allow me to repeat:
I simply don't accept your artificial dating the beginning of capitalism in the 18th century. Why is that so hard for you to understand? We disagree. Why can't someone disagree with you? Let it be.
Please net out the African slave source video for me.
I equate capitalism with the protection of property rights. No other definition that you invent is relevant.
You can disagree all you want, but by all objective factors you don't even know what you are arguing against because you don't even understand what Capitalism is.
Again, I will net out the source from before for the third time....
Property rights has to do with one way to hold wealth in any society - capitalist or other. All economics classes teach there are three ways to hold wealth: Land, Labor and Capital.
Your denial of Labor and Capital as forms of wealth leads me to believe you never took the most basic course in economics. This stuff is taught on day one. Where did you study economics? Are you inauthentic?
I also totally disagree with your assertion property rights (the ownership of land) began in the 1700s.
5. You ignored my previous answer. A very tiny number of Muslim slave traders EXPORTED all slaves. There was virtually NO slave holders in Africa. Therefore, there was no indigenous free labor in Africa. Additionally, imperial colonialists (France, Belgium, England, etc.) who used slaves in Africa controlled and exported all wealth derived from Imperial colonial slavery. Again, why is history so hard for you to understand?
Are you unable to paraphrase or provide a synopsis or the video? You seem OK with the English language. Come on try to be cooperative. Give it a shot.
I disagree. My reading of history contradicts this assertion. Let's Google "African Slavery." I will get back to you. In any case, do you deny the great accumulated in North Africa - the art and cuture that settled in Spain?
Just watch the video I sent you for the fifth time. It is an interview of a guy who wrote a whole massive book on it.
You look at the art and culture of the political royal elite. That is irrelevant to the economic growth and expansion of Universal prosperity that was passed to the commoners once private property rights were protected.
7. You are artificially dating the beginning of capitalism with property rights. I disagree. Wealth is held as Land, Labor and Capital in all economics classes. You are ignoring Labor and Capital.
Furthermore, you are dating the beginning of property rights in the 18th century. I disagree. The Athenians held property and invaded all their neighbors to steal land in the name of democracy. See my YouTube video entitled Sorrows of Empire.
My degree is in Economics from The City College of New York, 1967. All economics classes in the world at all universties, teach that wealth is held in three forms: Land (the only one you recognize), Labor (free labor [slavery] is the most profitable) and capital (as in capitalist).
Your denial of Labor and Capital as forms of wealth leads me to believe you never took the most basic course in economics. This stuff is taught on day one. Where did you study economics? Are you inauthentic?
That's great that wealth can be held in three forms. I'm also glad you were able to find the root word Capital in Capitalist.
Sadly, that has absolutely nothing to do with what capitalism is. Capitalism requires a system of individual property rights, otherwise it is not Capitalism by definition.
Until property rights were protected, there was no economic growth. Your statements about slavery are weak.
I write anonymously for my blog, so I will not state where I got my degree in Economics.
Your definition of capitalism is artificial in the extreme. Where did you get a definition that ignores Labor and Capital? It's absurd, as is your dating the beginning of property rights in the 18th century (1700s).
I consider anonymous cats inauthentic. I am using the word inauthentic in the psychological and philosophical sense. You are alienated from yourself. Your anonymity is a measure of your alienation from yourself.
You need to learn about the terms necessary and sufficient.
Capitalism does not ignore Labor and Capital. But, Capitalism needs individual property rights otherwise it is not Capitalism. This is a Universally accepted requirement.
You continuous resort to addressing me personally demonstrates your lacking of an argument.
Slavery existed for 1000s of years when there was not economic growth, and nothing changed until there was protection of property rights around the 1700s (Capitalism).
1.I never heard of any economist or historian writing that Capitalism began with property rights.
2. I also never read any economist or historian claim there were no property rights until the 18th century. Greece had property rights for sure. You blow smoke.
As to my commenting on your obvious inauthenticity, don't be troubled. This is not a debate in high school. You take yourself far to seriously. I certainly don't take you seriously. We have gone over the same ground.
Racial advantage also has something to do with it. Slavery existed in Africa as well, only capitalist slave owners in Africa weren't bright enough to put the slaves to any useful purpose. At least the Egyptians built pyramids, Negro Africans just carried water from the creeks to storage. All modern cognitive science shows that negro's have a very low average IQ. This was an evolutionary weakness that was exploited by the superior Asians and Europeans.
0111001101100001 1 month ago
Thanks for your videos and comments, they really helped me to truly master all these development and sociology theories
emadjima 5 months ago in playlist Autres vidéos de radiohogan
forever i think not the first types of money was from the Romans before that people just traded items that isnt Capitalism just trade for example trade a goat for a vase no money is used in the trade.
MTCoblivsicas12345 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalism is the historic evolution of private property relationship of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity in a modality of production for profit in a world market of ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY and manipulation to perpetuate the conditions of exploitation in the interest of the Owning/Ruling elite. Capitalism is the monetary web of deception and suppresssion of humanity for the abstract process of capital accumulation and concentration . A system of dehumanisation and devaluation
arzoyan 1 year ago
capitalism's only been around since the industrial revolution, just above 200 years or sumn? not forever.
aleckzz 1 year ago
@aleckzz Maybe the therm Capitalism was not around 200 years a go but the phenomenon it self was. Just like Hydrogen-dioxide, has been around for billions of years, but for most of history people called it water.
Ramiromasters 1 year ago
Wasn't capitalism used to describe an opressive system? I mean in the beginning kings and the priesthood was included in the capitalistic system.
Imhornydadcomeinside 1 year ago
capitalism pwns slavery
greenghost2008 1 year ago
veblen stressed the idea that wastefulness is a large part of conspicuous consumption ,
homofaber08 1 year ago
It's capitalism all right, but not Laissez Faire.
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
I'd be interested in your comments on my video on neo-nihilism.
Ontologistics 2 years ago
Calvin was French, not Swiss.
Ontologistics 2 years ago
True. He lived and ministered in Switzerland.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Indeed. Good talk overall though, I thought. But do you buy Weber's account? Another thing Weber writes at the beginning of his Protestant Ethic is that race is another huge factor in the development of capitalism, but one he cannot, at the time of writing, evaluate.
A question: is not human nature exploitative? And is not our rejection of this nature itself based on (even pre-Reformation) Christianity with its doctrine of sin? In other words, is not anti-capitalism also essentially Christian?
Ontologistics 2 years ago
Hi Ontologistics:
As a pragmatist, I consider Weber's view of reality (perspective) valid and equal to all others. I will reread the part of Protestant Work Ethic about race and get back to you.
As to human nature, there is no one human nature. There were many natures before technocracy (Capitalism, Modernity, etc.) took over molding man into an interchangeable cog in the wheel - an alienated commodity. Now there is one consensus of conformity, with little difference for an anthropologist.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Part II:
Certainly modern capitalism is exploitative. All societies require massive bureaucracies to run the show. Our finest minds (James, Weber, Mills) consider bureaucracy to be destructive of democracy &freedom. Therefore, all societies in modernity are exploitative. The human nature of the people molded by these societies is exploitative.
Christianity has not made a dent in the exploitative mold made by modernity. See Pt III for political thought (anti-capitalism) and Christianity.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Part III
The importance of bureaucracy is spelled out in my YT video entitled: "Max Weber and the Iron Cage."
In the Protestant Work Ethic, Weber makes the case that Calvinism (all Christianity?) teaches Christians to hate the poor. See my YT video entitled: "Why the Middle Class Hates the Poor."
Your questions are appreciated.
All the Best / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 2 years ago
Thanks for your responses. I'll watch your other videos.
Ultimately, my point is that indeed capitalism is exploitative, but that is life. Morality itself is exploitative (seeking to control people's thoughts and actions), and capitalism is just another system of control. Therefore, if one is being exploited, one seeks to overturn the exploiters; if one is an exploiter one seeks to maintain status quo. Here the exploiters can be priests, presidents, capitalists, kings, moralists, etc.
Ontologistics 2 years ago
That sounds very post-modern, neo-Marxist. Do you not believe that different animal species have different natures? If so, then you also must concede that human beings, as an animal species, also have a distinct (though partly multifarious) nature.
But back to the point: do you not believe that exploitation is an essential aspect of life itself? And do you not think that your implicit criticism of capitalism is itself a form of exploitation: judging those in power so to elevate yourself?
Ontologistics 2 years ago
Hello Again:
Call me anything but late for dinner. As a pragmatist, all labels are cool. You failed to understand the very basic tools of Sociology I used in Parts I, II & III above.
No. You do not understand Solidarity because it is not seen in Modernity. Please read George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" to understand Solidarity.
Who am I exploiting? How?
Are all social critics and teachers motivated by a desire to elevate themselves? Which psychiatrists espouse this theory?
All the Best
radiohogan 2 years ago
Yes, I must have misunderstood, but before I use a theoretical tool, I need it justified.
Ideology, morality, law prescribes people's thoughts and actions. This is a power structure. By using one ideology (you call it pragmatism) to attack another (capitalism), one seeks to (often subconsciously) overpower that present power structure. Marx and Nietzsche both argued this.
Ontologistics 2 years ago
Hello O:
What "theoretical tool" are you referring to?
Pragmatism is not an "ideology." It is a uniquely American philosophy developed by America's finest minds: James, Pierce & Dewey. It is impossible for pragmatism to attack, as it considers al categories of reality valid & equal.
What is it you contend Marx & Nietzsche argued?
What is your point or thesis?
Live and Be Well / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 2 years ago
Hi there.
I refer to the 'tools of sociology' that you referred to.
I should contend your view that Pragmatism is not an ideology. By considering all categories of reality valid & equal you thereby criticise (condemn) all absolutist approaches which claim only one category of reality (theirs) is valid. Also, what is deemed a 'satisfactory outcome' in Pragmatismis conditioned by antecedent morals, i.e. ideologies.
Marx & Nietzsche both argued that ideologies are disguised power structures.
Ontologistics 2 years ago
What is it about my analysis you need "justified?" What to you mean by "justified?" Sources? References? Quotes?
radiohogan 2 years ago
There is no doubt the American philosophy of pragmatism stands in contrast to absolutists such as Hegel & Marx.
Pragmatists acid test of reality is the consequences of an action, idea or belief. Morals & ideology do not enter into pragmatism.
Where (what book & cahpter) do Marx & Nietzsche write about this?
radiohogan 2 years ago
You can begin with Nietzsche, 'Beyond Good & Evil', §260. And Marx on 'False Consciousness'.
Ontologistics 2 years ago
Dear OL:
Thank you!
Are you saying there is no existential authenticity? Are all stated motives suspect, if not dishonest? Is all consciousness false?
If there is authenticity in the world, how ought it be pursued?
Live and Be Well / MH
radiohogan 2 years ago
My pleasure!
Respectively, I'm not saying all; not all; not all.
Perhaps there is; not sure!
I do and I am.
Keep in touch!
Ontologistics 2 years ago
What is it about my analysis you need "justified?" What to you mean by "justified?" Sources? References? Quotes?
radiohogan 2 years ago
[continued]
Criticism is a weapon which empowers the critic. So be it, there is nothing 'immoral' with that, as morality itself is a power structure - i.e. subjective desire disguised as objective fact.
Ontologistics 2 years ago
Yes, there was a time when social critics had power. Sadly, this is not the case today.
As to your demeaning the motives of social critic, academics, etc., what can I say?
Live and Be Well / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 2 years ago
I know the Protestant reformation was anti catholic.
xcookiemonster88 2 years ago
Wasn't the protestant reformation anti Semitic? Europeans couldn't see other races doing better off than them?
xcookiemonster88 2 years ago
Comment removed
Ontologistics 2 years ago
Wasn't the protestant reformation anti Semitic? Europeans couldn't see people races doing better off than them? People payed a Tax to the Catholic church.
xcookiemonster88 2 years ago
Certainly, the leader of the Reformation, Martin Luther, was both anti semtic and without compassion when suggesting peasants in the Peasant's Revolt be slaughtered.
Europeans were what they remain; Euro Centric. Much of European sense of superiority is based on racism infused with nationalism.
The Catholic Church found all sorts of ways to generate revenue from the flock.
radiohogan 2 years ago
You seem to read well, but that really is not remotely close in my opinion. Slavery was based off of mercantilism and not capitalism.
YEAH, what would you do if someone asked you what your ancestors were doing 400 years ago and you identified as say, a physician, and not an economist?
Yeah, everyone in Holland is really Dutch Reformed. That's why it's also called Hoe-land.
numberonesurvivor75 2 years ago
Christians believe that laziness is sinful.
numberonesurvivor75 2 years ago
Have you read the 'Fear of Freedom' by Erich Fromm? He makes a Freudo-Marxist analysis of the rise of Protestantism and I think it really damages Weber's thesis (which, admittedly, I am no expert on by the way.) Basically it says that capitalism does indeed have its origins in material conditions, (or "psychological", if you like.)
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
Hello MarxBakuninMe:
Please elaborate.
I love your name / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 2 years ago
Oh man, there's no way I can give you the whole thing in 500 words. But very basically Fromm uses his psychoanalytical views to show that the middle class that existed during the reformation were fearful of the growing ecomonic freedom of the time and therefore developed a system of complete submission to God (security) but at the same time accounted for the growth in freedom and created a different, but still morally authoritarian idea of God.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
Hi MBM:
Thank you. Fromm's place in the pantheon on ideas is as great as Weber's. His theory seems to be in harmony with Weber's.
All the Best / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 2 years ago
Protestant ethic is a joke and is the biggest BS theory ever perpetrated
the WASPs (white anglo saxon protestants) gained wealth by looting other people's land and exploiting other people's labor.
Confronted by the Chinese and Japanese economic juggernaut, their supposedly impregnable walls crumbled.
By the way, the English is making a big fuss that they ended slavery in the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.
In reality, slavery did not end in the English colonies for another 50 years.
tacotony24 3 years ago
I agree with your last 3 out of 4 sentences. Have you read Max Weber's "Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism?"
radiohogan 3 years ago
hahahahahahahahaha
you hit the bullseye TACOTONY24
I never believed in this protestant ethic crap they're trying to brainwash you in schools
a lot of these clowns trying to brainwash you with their protestant ethic are probably jobless, homeless, and drowning in debt right now... LOL
campaigners 2 years ago
Interesting video. I have a feeling some people will highly enjoy your quick over-view of capitalism... so thanks!
normalpsychology 3 years ago
Listen to this old dope, just because people traded since "forever" does not make what they did capitaslism. No thought is given to production and its role, as if what people ahve to trade popped out of nowhere.
WarVideo 3 years ago
Aside from disparaging the most mature among us, what is your point? Are you saying that free labor (slavery) didn't jump start capitalism. Most historians believe this to be the case - even young historians.
Do you dismiss Max Weber's thesis regarding the influence of Calvinism on the growth of capitalism?
radiohogan 3 years ago
First of all there is no such thing as free labor, everything costs, even slaves. Slavery is not even an efficient or effective "system". Slavery has existed since the beguining of time, to say slavery "jump started" capitalism is like if you were to ask an arsen investigator "why did my house burn down?" and hed say "because of the oxygen in the air".And yes I do dismiss webers thesis, the only reason capitalism was able to emerge was because of the major cultural changes happening in europe.
WarVideo 3 years ago
It would not have been possible without the rediscovery of greek thought, the renaissance and the enlightenment.
WarVideo 3 years ago
How so? Give us a clue?
radiohogan 3 years ago
The re-orientation towards this worldliness and not the "other world". Looking towards man and his life on this earth and an embracing of reason not of faith.
WarVideo 3 years ago
I agree.
radiohogan 3 years ago
What cultural changes are you referring to?
radiohogan 3 years ago
Why are you so angry? One needs to be angry to degrade the other.
Are you a G-man agent provocateur?
radiohogan 3 years ago
The important point in weber's theory isnt just a narration of how capitalism came to be (capitalist practices are heirs of the asethic protestant practices, but it's not just a formula, it's an historical an irrepetible process). The important thing is that he oposess two theorical stances: utilitarism (liberal) & marxism, saying that culture has also importance in economical practices its not just human rational nature, and that culture it's not just the direct result of material conditions
2V01D2 3 years ago
Weber does not clain Calvinists are "ascetic." Rather just the opposite, he asserts Calvinism [Predestination] makes folks conspicuous consumers. This is what drives capitalism. Have you read Weber's book: "The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism?"
Could you clarify the rest of your rant.
radiohogan 3 years ago
how would you justify saying capitalism has been around "forever"? What would you say primitive peoples engaged in? is it called capitalism if trade or barter is involved? what about fuedalism? or perhaps the marxist term "primitive socialism"
askmenowsillygirl 3 years ago
The economic power overrules the political power especially in this brief epoch of human history called industrialism.
Think about this. This is something as no one randist/rothbardian could ever explain to me - the role of power in society and rule of his/her law. That's why libertarian free market is a fantasy and keep the "non-aggression principle" as a pineapple of this dream.
Huge inequalities with consumerism have to end in social unrest, violence and tyranny.
AlcasSin 3 years ago
very well done sir
mahyarmohaghegh 3 years ago
nice lecture! thanks!
Ritzounett 3 years ago
There are over 40 videos on the RadioHogan channel on YouTube. Just search on RadioHogan.
Thanks for the compliment.
Live and Be Well / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 3 years ago
No, feudalism predated Calvinism and the European slave trade. Although serfs were tied to the land and had obligations o the lord of the area, they were not slaves.
radiohogan 3 years ago
In the strict "property" sense, i would agree with you, though i would argue that they were, for all practical purposes, indentured servants -- which is tantamount to slavery. The typical capitalist argument -- and i don't mean to belittle you -- is that "voluntary" labor, regardless of the circumstances, is by definition a "free" labor pool, insofar as they have limited choice to whom they "wish" to surrender their only basic commodity, labor -- thus, it must be consent.
Keep up the good work
lepainiac 3 years ago
Hello Lepainiac:
Thank you for your contribution.
All the Best / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 3 years ago
did the same forces drive Feudalism?
abcrane 3 years ago
Not into European Union at all?
It basically an European constitution.
It does not really introduce any revolutionary changes, it just gives European Union more power over the member states.
Ireland is the only EU country that's going to have a referendum about this, there have been many protests to make them in other countries, but European Constitution (which is basically the same thing) has not been passed in a referendum in UK and France, so they are all scared to make another one.
ffoxis 3 years ago
Capitalism is just dead today, that's sad.
But let's add that many people in Europe oppose what is happening by showing their discontent toward socialist European union.
Let's see how Ireland's referendum turns out.
ffoxis 3 years ago
My wife and I are Irish citizens with Irish passports. This allowed us to live in the EU (Holland) for 8 years. We are also Americans.
I was unaware of a referendum in Ireland. What is it about?
The capitalist "Power Elite (see C. Wright Mills) continues to rule the world. "
radiohogan 3 years ago
This power elite are just bad people (most of them), they don't deserve to be called either capitalist or socialists.
Referendum is about the Lisbon Treaty.
ffoxis 3 years ago
What is the Lisbon Treaty about?
radiohogan 3 years ago
Sweden is often showed as an example of a socialist country that works, while it does not. Their standart of living has been decreasing since like 1970s.
Not to mention an economic crysis in 90s.
Their socialist health care does not even work.
I do know that most of countries today are going for a socialist policies, even America is becoming socialist nowadays.
Only China (People's Republic of China) is kindda free market, but it's really far from that.
ffoxis 3 years ago
Real income (adjusted for inflation) has been declining in America for over 30 years since the late 1970's. In addition to Sweden, Socialist Parties (Social Democrats) are powerful in Spain (the PM is a Socialist), France (2nd largest party), Holland (3rd largest party), Germany, England, Italy and all other Western democracies. In South America, almost all countries are controlled by Socialist parties. Life for Swedes is far better then for most Americans. China is a Communist slave state.
radiohogan 3 years ago
but they'd contribute to the economy far better if they were given money to buy that food.
ffoxis 3 years ago
So you're down with North Korea, right?
I don't know who's warping himself in fantasy.
Just face it - communism (and all forms of socialism) never, ever worked and capitalism always did.
Just tell me about one country where socialism actually worked.
Isn't stealing almost entire income from an individual slavery?
Oh, and slavery actually SLOWED progress during that era.
Africans could be working for the same ammount of money (they've been supplied with food and stuff so we can call it money)
ffoxis 3 years ago
I lived in Europe (Holland) for 8 years and Socialism (Social Democracy) works quite well all over Western Europe. Socialist Parties are either running those countries or are the 2nd or 3rd largest parties. I can provide a very long list. In South America almost all countries are Socialist today.
What dose "down with North Korea mean" mean?
radiohogan 3 years ago
It means that you support them, their government.
How come it works in Europe?
Just because they are not starving to death does not mean it works.
Europe has been going down the tubes since all that European Union stuff has been introduced.
Standard of living is decreasing in almost every west european country right now.
Not to mention that liberty in Europe is just a myth.
ffoxis 3 years ago
I was actually born in Russia and my parents were raised in the USSR. We moved to the U.S. when I was 5. May be Europeans aren't arrogant because they don't have much to be arrogant about. The U.S. is more free and has more opportunities.
I believe you are close minded in your paranoid views of the rich and altruistic attitude toward the poor.
My complaint is that you spread unfounded and uninformed propaganda to naive people. Off course, you're free to do that in the land of opportunities.
Vodka2389 3 years ago
After living in Europe for 8 years I can say Europeans live far better then Americans. While your economics predicts a better life in the future without gov't interference in the economy, the pragmatic consequences of having a socialist tradition in Europe is fine affordable housing, education paid for through college, fine affordable transportation, better doctors, universal health care, human rights and dignity.
To better understand the rich I suggest you read C. Wright Mills & R. Hofstader.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Rather then altruistic, my attitude toward the poor is one of solidarity. Solidarity is not easily understood by the bourgeoisie. To understand solidarity I recommend a book by George Orwell: "Homage to Catalonia."
radiohogan 3 years ago
If you've been to both Hong Kong and Mainland China, you'd notice that things are extremely different between them. They can't possibly have the same economic systems, and they don't. Hong Kong is thriving because they are quite free from government regulations and have minimal taxes.
Vodka2389 3 years ago
There is no difference between Hong Kong and mainland Chinese cities. Are you aware Hong Kong is governd by Communist China?
radiohogan 3 years ago
I'm currently studying economics, but no I haven't studied economic history simply because it's not important. I can tell you exactly why something happened or why something couldn't have possibly happened.
Working conditions in that time were allegedly lower because there were less individual rights. The government wasn't doing a good job protecting the workers rights. Another reason is because there wasn't that much competition. It takes time for capitalism to thrive, which it not does.
Vodka2389 3 years ago
Are you American? It would seem so. I lived in Europe for 8 years and I never met a European as arrogant and aggressively stupid as Americans. I miss Holland very much. I would spend my afternoons and many evenings talking with European university students. It was a great pleasure.
You are well on your way to being inauthentic and closed minded. These are the principal American traits - inauthenticity (in the philosophical and psychological sense) and bullying.
We simply disagree.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Please don't insult me, if any depressions were far worse then the GREAT depression, it wouldn't be called the GREAT Depression. There were some minor depressions cause by individual banks that only effected a limited number of people as oppose to the entire country.
I highly doubt that. Nevertheless, that's irrelevant because the government was far more corrupt. Off course capitalism cannot exist with a corrupt government.
No, Hong Kong's economy is independent from China today.
Vodka2389 3 years ago
You resist historical fact and reality. Please read about the 1870's & 1890's and get back to me. Read about what life was like for labor (working men and women). How can you learn about economics without a knowledge of history?
Have you studied economics anf history at a college or university? It doesn't seem so. You are not open to knowledge. You wrap yourself in fantasy.
My wife has many relatives in Hong Kong and she and her relatives travel to Hong Kong as regularly as rain.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Please reference these great depressions you speak of.
Robber barons earned their wealth completely legally and cannot be held liable. I'm not saying we should take anything away from "poor bums" just simply stop giving them what they don't earn.
BTW, you realize that Hong Kong has a completely separate economy than greater China Right?
Vodka2389 3 years ago
You only need read any history book about America. Certainly Anna Schwartz and Milton Friedman's "Monetary History of the US" covers these Great Depressions that were far worse then the 1930's.
In fact, as many or more folks died at the hands of the Robber Barons then at the hands of Joseph Stalin. Such raw capitalism is a mass murdering form of genocide. Yes, it was legal.
While Hong Kong had a separate economy under British rule, it does not today. It is ruled by Communist Chinese edicts.
radiohogan 3 years ago
I'm not talking about their dignity. Nobody should get what they don't earn or what nobody else consented to giving them. That's what freedom is.
I already said, I'm not an anarchist. The government should still exist. However, their only role should be protecting individual rights to life, property, and the pursuit to happiness. The government would do that with the police, military, and courts of law.
Vodka2389 3 years ago
We agree that no one should receive what they do not earn. Are you willing to confiscate the income and wealth of the descendants of the Robber Barons? Are you eager to confiscate the earnings and wealth of all monopolies and oligopolies?
Or, are you only opposed to poor bums and supportive of high class bums? what's up with that?
radiohogan 3 years ago
The Great Depression was caused by the government to begin with. No government involvement = no Great Depression.
Vodka2389 3 years ago
There were Great Depressions in America in the 1870's and 1890's and there was no government interference in the economy at that time - no Fed, no income tax, etc. What's up with that?
radiohogan 3 years ago
Capitalism is good for those who are willing to work as opposed to those who want free handouts.
If there would be a complete separation of state and economics, the power elite wouldn't have any political influence as they do now, and there would be absolute equality under the law. Monopolies would cease to exist because of an increase of competition.
Vodka2389 3 years ago
The 30% of folks who were unemployed during the Great Depression were willing and eager to work, yet they could not find work. You recommend charity, yet charity was not solving the unemployment problem in the 1930's. This was the problem Lord John Maynard Keynes was called to the White House by Presiden Franklin Roosevelt o solve. He recommended a very large increase in government spending. However, Lord Keynes noted Roosevelt was an "economic illiterate." WW II increased gov't spending.
radiohogan 3 years ago
You characterization of the poor, homeless, unemployed and hungry is degrades them and denudes them of all dignity. This is the libertarian credo - add insults to injury.
Your second paragraph is more libertarian dreaming. Please name a single geographical location in the last 200 (or 2000) years without a government? When will such anarchy come into existence? How?
radiohogan 3 years ago
"Because the Chinese people save 30% of their income while Americans have a negative saving rate."
I said Hong Kong's economic system, not China's. Hong Kong never had slavery, they have very few natural resources, and they have far more economic freedom than the U.S, and they're thriving more because of that.
Vodka2389 3 years ago
The Han people are exactly the same folks whether in Hong Kong (where my wife is from) or in Communist China. Their savings rates are the same. In fact, all Asians save about 30% of their income.
As to slavery, you completely missed my point and obviously did not watch my video on the History of Capitalism. In that video I discuss China as the center of a worldwide trading system based on silver. In fact, slavery was quite common in China and remains a part of the Chinese economy today.
radiohogan 3 years ago
I agree with Advocate1234 that you don't really understand that capitalism requires protection of individual rights. There is much more progress and wealth generated in the U.S post slavery era than during it. Capitalism is something that just happened to happen post slavery in the U.S. because it is a superior form of economics. It's better for everybody, as oppose to just the slave owners.
Vodka2389 3 years ago
Advocate1234 and I disagreed only about when property rights became a reality. I date it much further back then Advocate1234 - to the Greeks, at least.
Capitalism is good for the Power Elite and it leaves the rest as Post Modern serfs.
radiohogan 3 years ago
So why is Hong Kong so rich?
Vodka2389 3 years ago
Because the Chinese people save 30% of their income while Americans have a negative saving rate.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Yes, free labor is better for INDIVIDUAL businesses than paid labor. You fail to consider the impact of competition on economy.
With slavery, there isn't competition because the slaves don't have choice who they work for. It essentially creates monopolies of the people who already own slaves vs. those who don't or those who own fewer slaves.
With competition, there is more innovation that benefits the entire economy in the long run.
Vodka2389 3 years ago
Historians generally believe slavery jump started capitalism. Do you also discount the work of Max Weber and other sociologists?
radiohogan 3 years ago
1) Capitalism was not around "forever" because property rights were not protected until around the 1700s;
2) Hong Kong did not have slavery;
3) Japan did not have slavery;
4) England did not have slavery during this time;
5)More slaves went to South America than North America;
6) There was more slavery in Africa;
7) Slavery existed for 1000s of years, but we had virtually no economic growth between the years 500 to 1700s.
You're right that this is your "opinion," because it is baseless.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
1. The first slaves were shipped to America by the Dutch in 1619. Slavery (free labor) allowed for the accumulation of capital needed to kick start Capitalism. This is one of the two points I made in this video.
2. Hong Kong benefited from the Indian slaves in South America that produced the silver that allowed Chinese world trade dominance of the time. This also kick started Capitalism in Asia and the world.
3. Modern & Medieval Japan held slaves.
radiohogan 3 years ago
1) This is just baseless. Most of the capital was created from non-slave labor. Moreover, slavery existed throughout the world, where the supposed "benefits" that you talk about were not seen until property rights were protected.;
2) You have your years completely backwards. You have no basis for any of these statements about slaves in South America helping Hong Kong;
3) I'm sorry. The post WWII Japan did not have slavery. You live in a fantasy world;
4) England had no slaves contin...
Advocate1234 3 years ago
1. Are you saying the slaves of Egypt, Greece, Rome, China and all other Empires weren't wealthy beyond measure? You read about property rights and you have become obsessed. Ease up on your compulsion.
2. China controlled world trade and used silver as a meas of exchange to conduct world trade. The silver was mined in South America by indigenous Indian slaves well before your 18th century dating of the beginning of capitalism.
3. Modern Japan before and during WW II, Koreans & Chinese slaves.
radiohogan 3 years ago
There was slavery way before that time, capitalism is the system responsible for freeing mankind from whatever collective he "belonged" to.
WarVideo 3 years ago
Slavery has been eternal, of this there is no doubt. However, the English and Dutch took the transportation of African slaves to a new height unimagined in the past. The sheer numbers jump started capitalism.
radiohogan 3 years ago
What jump started capitalism in britain is the enlightment ideas of reason and freedom not slavery. Thats why slavery ended in europe, unlike other places in the world.
WarVideo 3 years ago
4. As an Irishman with an Irish passport I can assure you England had Irish slaves dating back over 700 years ago. Cromwell shipped Irish slaves (not indentured servants) to be sold along side Africans in the Caribbean and Colonial America.
5. What is your point? African and indigenous Indian slaves kick started Capitalism in South America.
6. There were Muslim slave traders in Africa, however African culture was, in the main, not slave centered.
7. What is your point in regards this video?
radiohogan 3 years ago
All of feudalism was slavery,and the socialism you advocate is more of the same. How can you attack supposed slave owners when you want the state to run our lives like slaves.
WarVideo 3 years ago
There is a distinction to be made regarding feudalism. Serfs had the freedom to work the land on their own behalf and they owed the aristocrats some labor. Historians generally do not consider serfs slaves. However, I am open to such an interpretation.
radiohogan 3 years ago
All societies that held slaves benefited economically from free labor. The wealth created was held by a very small elite upper class, regardless of the society.
While capitalism was not around forever, the accumulation of capital derived from slavery went on for centuries before any historians dating the beginning of capitalism. Two elements of slavery contributing to the success of capitalism - the English African slave, sugar, rum trade & the Spanish South American Indian slave silver trade.
radiohogan 3 years ago
4) during the advent of property rights and the industrial revolution. You statement about Irish slaves just sank your whole argument because there was virtually no economic growth 700 years ago during this time!;
5) My point it that if slavery was so beneficial, we would see some economic benefit from it from it in Africa;
6) There were more African slaves in Northern Africa than all of North America;
7) Capitalism never had anything to do with slavery. It had to do with Property Rights.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
4. You can't follow an argument. There cannot be progress (i.e. wealth accumulation) in a slave state like Ireland. Slaves aren't paid. Thousands of years of slavery allowed wealth to be accumulated, culminating in capitalism as seen in Imperial Empires of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Spain, Holland, France, England, China, America.
I simply don't accept your artificial dating the beginning of capitalism in the 18th century. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
radiohogan 3 years ago
Thousands of years of slavery didn't accumulate wealth. That is the whole point that disproves your baseless fantastical view of history.
There was virtually no economic growth between the years 500 and 1700.
To suggest there were no slave owners in Africa demonstrates your abject ignorance of historical records that prove such to be absolutely the case.
This is a good documentary of some of it.
watch?v=zMGjJJhHvqY
Capitalism did not exist by definition until property rights were protected
Advocate1234 3 years ago
You seem to be equating capitalism with industrialization. I don't. The horse thieves who became European nobility conserved wealth in the form of land, labor & capital through the ages. Again, allow me to repeat:
I simply don't accept your artificial dating the beginning of capitalism in the 18th century. Why is that so hard for you to understand? We disagree. Why can't someone disagree with you? Let it be.
Please net out the African slave source video for me.
radiohogan 3 years ago
I equate capitalism with the protection of property rights. No other definition that you invent is relevant.
You can disagree all you want, but by all objective factors you don't even know what you are arguing against because you don't even understand what Capitalism is.
Again, I will net out the source from before for the third time....
watch?v=zMGjJJhHvqY
Advocate1234 3 years ago
Property rights has to do with one way to hold wealth in any society - capitalist or other. All economics classes teach there are three ways to hold wealth: Land, Labor and Capital.
Your denial of Labor and Capital as forms of wealth leads me to believe you never took the most basic course in economics. This stuff is taught on day one. Where did you study economics? Are you inauthentic?
I also totally disagree with your assertion property rights (the ownership of land) began in the 1700s.
radiohogan 3 years ago
"All economics classes teach there are three ways to hold wealth: Land, Labor and Capital."
Where does man fit in all of this? Did the land an labor just pop out of nowhere?
WarVideo 3 years ago
You need to take a class or two in economics and argue with your professors. As to your question, man fits in everywhere:
1. Land is owned by men.
2. Labor is provided by men.
3. Capital is owned by men.
radiohogan 3 years ago
5. You ignored my previous answer. A very tiny number of Muslim slave traders EXPORTED all slaves. There was virtually NO slave holders in Africa. Therefore, there was no indigenous free labor in Africa. Additionally, imperial colonialists (France, Belgium, England, etc.) who used slaves in Africa controlled and exported all wealth derived from Imperial colonial slavery. Again, why is history so hard for you to understand?
radiohogan 3 years ago
6. We disagree. Please let me have your source for the massive number of slaves in North Africa you claim. When, where and how many?
radiohogan 3 years ago
watch?v=zMGjJJhHvqY
Advocate1234 3 years ago
Net it out.
radiohogan 3 years ago
for the fifth time.
watch?v=zMGjJJhHvqY
Advocate1234 3 years ago
Please try to use the English language. Give it a shot. I know you can do it.
radiohogan 3 years ago
cut and paste watch?v=zMGjJJhHvqY
Then place it after youtube dot com /
Youtube does not allow me to paste the whole URL.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
Are you unable to paraphrase or provide a synopsis or the video? You seem OK with the English language. Come on try to be cooperative. Give it a shot.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Okay...it documents that there were more slaves in Africa than America. Significantly more.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
I disagree. My reading of history contradicts this assertion. Let's Google "African Slavery." I will get back to you. In any case, do you deny the great accumulated in North Africa - the art and cuture that settled in Spain?
radiohogan 3 years ago
Just watch the video I sent you for the fifth time. It is an interview of a guy who wrote a whole massive book on it.
You look at the art and culture of the political royal elite. That is irrelevant to the economic growth and expansion of Universal prosperity that was passed to the commoners once private property rights were protected.
Again....watch the video for the love of god.
watch?v=zMGjJJhHvqY
Advocate1234 3 years ago
7. You are artificially dating the beginning of capitalism with property rights. I disagree. Wealth is held as Land, Labor and Capital in all economics classes. You are ignoring Labor and Capital.
Furthermore, you are dating the beginning of property rights in the 18th century. I disagree. The Athenians held property and invaded all their neighbors to steal land in the name of democracy. See my YouTube video entitled Sorrows of Empire.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Capitalism cannot exist by definition without property rights. To suggest otherwise questions my trust that you claim to be an economist at all.
Individual Property rights need to be protected...otherwise it is meaningless.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
My degree is in Economics from The City College of New York, 1967. All economics classes in the world at all universties, teach that wealth is held in three forms: Land (the only one you recognize), Labor (free labor [slavery] is the most profitable) and capital (as in capitalist).
Your denial of Labor and Capital as forms of wealth leads me to believe you never took the most basic course in economics. This stuff is taught on day one. Where did you study economics? Are you inauthentic?
radiohogan 3 years ago
That's great that wealth can be held in three forms. I'm also glad you were able to find the root word Capital in Capitalist.
Sadly, that has absolutely nothing to do with what capitalism is. Capitalism requires a system of individual property rights, otherwise it is not Capitalism by definition.
Until property rights were protected, there was no economic growth. Your statements about slavery are weak.
I write anonymously for my blog, so I will not state where I got my degree in Economics.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
Your definition of capitalism is artificial in the extreme. Where did you get a definition that ignores Labor and Capital? It's absurd, as is your dating the beginning of property rights in the 18th century (1700s).
I consider anonymous cats inauthentic. I am using the word inauthentic in the psychological and philosophical sense. You are alienated from yourself. Your anonymity is a measure of your alienation from yourself.
radiohogan 3 years ago
You need to learn about the terms necessary and sufficient.
Capitalism does not ignore Labor and Capital. But, Capitalism needs individual property rights otherwise it is not Capitalism. This is a Universally accepted requirement.
You continuous resort to addressing me personally demonstrates your lacking of an argument.
Slavery existed for 1000s of years when there was not economic growth, and nothing changed until there was protection of property rights around the 1700s (Capitalism).
Advocate1234 3 years ago
You make assertions.
1.I never heard of any economist or historian writing that Capitalism began with property rights.
2. I also never read any economist or historian claim there were no property rights until the 18th century. Greece had property rights for sure. You blow smoke.
As to my commenting on your obvious inauthenticity, don't be troubled. This is not a debate in high school. You take yourself far to seriously. I certainly don't take you seriously. We have gone over the same ground.
radiohogan 3 years ago
this guy is great.. Knows his stuff and tells it really well... great job..
ziadkoussa 4 years ago
Thank you. If you search RadioHogan on YouTube, you will find 21 other videos I have made. I will be making others. Ideas seem to come in spurts.
radiohogan 3 years ago