Whitewashing US history with 'patriotic education' -Trump

[JonNC]

Maybe I went to a more southern apologetic school.

Run by Democrats like Northam, I take it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Exactly

Okay. You’re wrong, but okay.

As near as I can tell, the 1619 Project does not teach Socialism as a good thing either.

Are you denying that the 1619 Project is being taught in done schools?

It is being used as a resource in some, yes.

If they did, do you believe They teach that slavery was a capitalist practice?

Well, wasn’t it? It had markets, pricing by supply and demand, investors in the shipping that brought the slaves here. It was as much a capitalist business as cotton, tobacco, and pocket watches.

 

[JonNC]

Well, wasn’t it? It had markets, pricing by supply and demand, investors in the shipping that brought the slaves here.

No. It wasn’t. In fact, it denied people the right to the fruits of their labor. It was the essence of socialism in that way.

It was the essence of socialism in that way.

And it was imposed by government

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Well, wasn’t it? It had markets, pricing by supply and demand, investors in the shipping that brought the slaves here.

No. It wasn’t. In fact, it denied people the right to the fruits of their labor.

The definition of capitalism says nothing about rights of people to the fruits of their labor. Please don’t try to redefine capitalism to suit whatever point it is you are trying to make. For your convenience I quote here some authoritative definitions of “capitalism”:

an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market—known as a market economy—rather than through central planning—known as a planned economy or command economy.

The purest form of capitalism is free market or laissez-faire capitalism. Here, private individuals are unrestrained. They may determine where to invest, what to produce or sell, and at which prices to exchange goods and services. The laissez-faire marketplace operates without checks or controls.

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

As you see, these descriptions fit the business of buying and selling slaves to a T.

Please stick to authoritative definitions, not ones you make up.

 

[JonNC]

The definition of capitalism says nothing about rights of people to the fruits of their labor.

Really? It is the very foundation of it. Socialism means the opposite.

Please don’t try to redefine capitalism to suit whatever point it is you are trying to make

Free Markets. Free. As in, free.

Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods.

You can’t own capital goods if you’re prohibited from keeping the fruits of your labor. So, capitalism depends on individual rights and freedom.

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations,

Again, private individuals own the means of production. You can’t participate in investment and ownership of the means of production if you cannot keep the fruits of your labor?

As you can see, socialism, where ownership or strict control of the means of production is maintained by government. Slavery was sanctioned by government.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Most wage workers don’t have any control over the product of their labour.

I think New World slavery was totally a product of capitalism, but I don’t think all slavery is. We evidently have different understandings of what capitalism is though.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually, it’s not that they abhor those principles, it’s that they find those principles an inconvenient obstacle to the maintenance of the murderous regimes they cling to

I agree. I don’t think any of the leaders, from Lenin onward, actually believed in what they preached.

it was actually the conservatives who opposed the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Depends on what one means by “conservative”. Those who opposed it supported a dictator who was backed by a corrupt oligarchy. A milder version of the left wing dictatorships that are unfortunately still with us. The signers, on the other hand, believed in the freedom of individuals to be lightly governed and free to act in their own interests. That is called conservatism today.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Civil War was fought over Slavery.

Depends on where one was. While the subject is debated, it’s pretty plain that my state’s legislature passed articles of secession that were signed by the duly elected governor. It was officially admitted into the confederacy.

Here, it was not about slavery at all. There were very few of them. It was about being invaded from the east by Gen Lyons’ troops from Illinois and from the west by James Lane of Kansas.

Neighboring Arkansas first voted secession down, but then voted for it when it became obvious that the state was going to be invaded by one side or the other.

Tribes in the then-Indian Territories (Oklahoma) joined the Confederacy because the Confederacy promised them statehood as an Indian state.

It wasn’t always about slavery.

 

[GKMotley]

History is complicated.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The definition of capitalism says nothing about rights of people to the fruits of their labor.

Really? It is the very foundation of it.

So you say. So none of the authoritative definitions say.

Please don’t try to redefine capitalism to suit whatever point it is you are trying to make

Free Markets. Free. As in, free.

The slave market was a free market. The government did not set prices. Individuals retained ownership of the process, made the decisions on when to sell and for how much. It was very much a free market in line with capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods.

You can’t own capital goods if you’re prohibited from keeping the fruits of your labor. So, capitalism depends on individual rights and freedom.

And indeed the captains of the slaving ships kept the fruits of their labors. All the businesses involved in the buying and selling and managing of the slave trade got to keep the fruits of their labor. A very capitalistic business!

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations,

Again, private individuals own the means of production.

Again, the slaving industry owned the ships, the crews that captured slaves in Africa, it was not owned by the government. It was capitalism pure and simple.

As you can see, socialism, where ownership or strict control of the means of production is maintained by government. Slavery was sanctioned by government.

“Sanctioned” does not mean “controlled”. It actually means the opposite. It means “we won’t stop you if you want to sell slaves.” Socialism would be where the government sets prices, quotas, and owned the slaving ships. They did not. Private individuals and corporations did.

But if you want to see another example of government “sanctioning” a capitalistic practice, you need only look to the US Patent Office.

 

[JonNC]

Most wage workers don’t have any control over the product of their labour.

Yes they do. They apply for a job. They agree to exchange time and effort for pay. The pay is their fruit of their labor.

I think New World slavery was totally a product of capitalism, but I don’t think all slavery is.

Yes you do, because you think freedom is slavery and rights come from government, but you are wrong on both counts.

We evidently have different understandings of what capitalism is though.

Exactly. I see free markets as freedom and socialism as oppression.

 

[JonNC]

So you say. So none of the authoritative definitions say.

You mean the leftist definitions.

The slave market was a free market.

No it was not. It did not honor the individual rights of al human beings involved. Just like socialism doesn’t.

Individuals retained ownership of the process, made the decisions on when to sell and for how much. It was very much a free market in line with capitalism.

The moment someone’s individual rights are denied, it isn’t freedom. Free markets require the freedom to enter into a business relationship. Slaves, just as those who live under authoritarian socialism, do not have that freedom. Now, unless you can show me where slaves negotiated their enslavement with plantation owners and Democrat politicians, free markets were not in play.

Again, the slaving industry owned the ships, the crews that captured slaves in Africa, it was not owned by the government. It was capitalism pure and simple.

Again, show me where the slaves had freedom to enter into a free market relationship. If they didn’t, it want capitalism.

Sanctioned” does not mean “controlled”.

It was statutory.

It actually means the opposite. It means “we won’t stop you if you want to sell slaves.”

It supported slavery, even to the point of denying all other individual rights. The moment individual rights are denied, the slave is denied the right to enter into a free market relationship, which means it is not a free market.

 

[JonNC]

The primary issue if the Civil War was slavery. Does that mean no other issues exist? Of course not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

So you say. So none of the authoritative definitions say.

You mean the leftist definitions.

You are free to offer right-wing authoritative definitions of capitalism for balance. But I would be very surprised if they differ from the ones I have quoted, which go back decades, and are not specifically leftists. Is Merriam Webster leftist now?

The slave market was a free market.

No it was not. It did not honor the individual rights of al human beings involved. Just like socialism doesn’t.

You have yet to produce an authoritative definition of capitalism that includes that it must honor in the individual rights of all human beings involved. It just isn’t there, as much as you try to imagine that it is.

Individuals retained ownership of the process, made the decisions on when to sell and for how much. It was very much a free market in line with capitalism.

The moment someone’s individual rights are denied, it isn’t freedom.

It is not freedom of the person whose rights are denied, but capitalism never required that individual rights of slaves be assured. Slaves were property - purchased with capitol - and part of the private property of the one who owned them. Capitalism through and through.

Free markets require the freedom to enter into a business relationship. Slaves, just as those who live under authoritarian socialism, do not have that freedom.

Slaves are not involved in the business, according to capitalism. They are the property of the business, not the participants. Slaves did not live under socialism, because their fate was determined by their owner, not by the government or the collective or anything smacking of socialism.

Now, unless you can show me where slaves negotiated their enslavement with plantation owners and Democrat politicians, free markets were not in play.

As I said, they were not involved in the market at all. Capitalism is for those with the capital or the labor to sell. The slaves had neither. They certainly had no capital, and their labor was not theirs to sell, since it was the property of their owner.

Again, the slaving industry owned the ships, the crews that captured slaves in Africa, it was not owned by the government. It was capitalism pure and simple.

Again, show me where the slaves had freedom to enter into a free market relationship. If they didn’t, it want capitalism.

The slaves were not part of the market. For those that were in the market, it was a free market.

Sanctioned” does not mean “controlled”.

It was statutory.

So is the US Patent Office statutory, and it also supports capitalism by sanctioning certain rules that businesses must abide by.

 

[JonNC]

You are free to offer right-wing authoritative definitions of capitalism for balance.

I don’t need another definition. I should how the words in yours completely defeats your Mischaracterization of free markets.

You have yet to produce an authoritative definition of capitalism that includes that it must honor in the individual rights of all human beings involved. It just isn’t there, as much as you try to imagine that it is.

Go back and read your own definition where I identified just this point: free markets depend on the right of individuals to freely participate in a business relationship. That is distinguishable from socialism that insists on government control of the market. And it doesn’t matter if the government is fascist or communist, the result is the same.

Slaves are not involved in the business, according to capitalism. They are the property of the business, not the participants.

They you go destroying your own argument. If the individual is not free to participate in the business relationship, as happens in slavery and socialism, it is not free markets.
Thanks for your help.

The slaves were not part of the market. For those that were in the market, it was a free market.

Of course they were, but against their will, and therefore it was not a free market.

 

[MikeInVA]

The primary issue if the Civil War was slavery.

So, was the primary issue for the war in Iraq oil?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The primary issue if the Civil War was slavery. Does that mean no other issues exist? Of course not.

I think it can be said that but for slavery there would have been no civil war, though there are those who would disagree with that and do. But I think it’s beyond question that some states, at least, were not motivated by slavery. Geography determined the participation of some of them.

 

[JonNC]

So, was the primary issue for the war in Iraq oil?

Is that what new came away with? How much free oil did we get? I assume that Bush was honest in his belief about WMD’s. In the same way, so was Lincoln.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You are free to offer right-wing authoritative definitions of capitalism for balance.

I don’t need another definition. I should how the words in yours completely defeats your Mischaracterization of free markets.

And you failed at that attempt. The slave market was not government controlled. It was sanctioned the same way the patent system is sanctioned today.

free markets depend on the right of individuals to freely participate in a business relationship.

And that was true of the slave market as well. Anyone with a slave to sell could sell him. Anyone with money to buy one could buy one. Citizens had the right to participate in the business relationship to whatever extent they desired and had the capital for.

Slaves are not involved in the business, according to capitalism. They are the property of the business, not the participants.

They you go destroying your own argument. If the individual is not free to participate in the business relationship, as happens in slavery and socialism, it is not free markets.

If you are referring to the slaves themselves, the situation is the same as any poor white with regard to participation in the market. If you don’t have the money, you can’t participate in the market. If you don’t have anything to sell, you can’t participate in the market. The market is free, but only for those with the means to participate in it. That is the way capitalism has always been. There is not always a place for everyone. Someone who is indigent cannot buy stock. Someone who is totally disabled cannot sell his labor. The capitalist market has always been open only to those with something to trade. The slave market is no different. Slaves had no money, and they couldn’t sell their labor because their labor belonged to someone else.

The slaves were not part of the market. For those that were in the market, it was a free market.

Of course they were…

Only to the same extent that horses are part of the horse market. They are not participants. They are property. But for those that buy and sell horses, the market is free.

 

[MikeInVA]

The Union may have been fighting to abolish slavery (after the rallying cry of preserving the Union fell flat) but the Southerners certainly were not fighting for slavery - it may have been an economic issue for the states, but not for the men who were in the ranks.