Capitalism, socialism vs. slavery

Thinking about this today, I was wondering--I consider capitalism to be pro freedom and socialism anti-freedom. Then it hit me that slave-traders are capitalists, whether they're legal or "black" market entrepreneurs.

Can free market capitalism be considered pro-slavery? The answer must be yes if capitalists are given absolute power, meaning, the power to create a double standard favoring one group over another. Capitalism must then, morally, require the enforcement of equal rights and equal justice FOR ALL individuals. That would eliminate the establishment/justification of slavery based on any anti-individualistic prejudice due to race, religion, gender etc.

OK, the other shoe.

Is it possible for a socialist government to establish equal rights and equal justice for ALL individuals? Since socialism gives priority to group rights over individual rights, no. Slavery can then be justified even if it isn't the Plantation variety. 100% taxation would be slavery. And 95% would just be little different. At what point is it not slavery?

Back in High School I had a friend who's whole entire tenth grade year was 'accidentally' deleted in the school's database as if he had never been there for that year.

'Slavery' is a lot more complex than this.

Pure capitalism does not have any restrictions, even those that are preventitative of racism, sexism, or other prejudices, not to mention monopolistic business practices. A person who believes in pure capitalism supports economic darwinism of sorts, in that the strongest survive and gets to make their own rules in doing so.

Pure socialism also does not have restrictions, as it believes in the human power of self-management, believing that, under it's purest form, humans would have no desire to posses anything over that what others possess, much less try to do so.

So, both ideals contain 100% freedom. However, we are far from either, and, therefore, have restrictions to that freedom.

That's not involuntary servitude, that's a screw up that can happen in any situation within even the most minimal bureaucracy.

Indeed. Pure capitalism has a name--anarchy.

Moral capitalism prohibits any double standard.

It's all about being mislead to believe that surviving is necessary and forever being ridden and slapped on the a** cheeks while we chase a carrot dangling on a stick.

Once you come to realization that the carrot isn't worth a whole lot, you become a free spirit who is just hanging around waiting for death.

This might sound sad and depressing but that carrot is so worthless that it isn't anything.

s*** happens. I mind my Ps and Qs so as not to make anything more difficult on others, like myself, that s*** happened too.

???? I don't see a connection.

You'll have to understand that I take things from a very rudimentary and child-like perspective.

When it comes to issues of politics and a portion of people being handled and regarded like slaves due to a monetary system that was destined to fail.

The only solution available to correct the situation is take the moral stance that "No man shall be left behind to suffer." and distribute resources amongst everyone in a more even manner to uphold this stance.

This solution, however, salad picks from the oh-so-dreaded socialistic and communistic idealisms.

Higher tiered jobs paying less so that lower tiered jobs pay something substantial.

Free education.

Less hours in everyones work day to open second shifts to give work to the unemployed.

But most people are idiots whom swing and sway to ancient stigmas set in dark ages to keep actual slaves under control.

I challenge that there are not enough clever people in this world to ever have the empathy and compassion for others to care enough to downgrade from luxuries so that others don't feel desperate to have to work seventy hours a week in coal mines or die of starvation.

Then why are the worst working conditions in the countries with the worst protection of their rights? Redistribution if it works at all, works only for a short time.

A rising tide lifts all boats. The trick is to not covet what those in the bigger boat has and demand part of it for yourself:

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."--A. Lincoln

An excellent statement of the principle of enlightened self-interest.

But as you've seen there is too much greed and selfishness for that to work and it leaves a bunch of desperate people attempting to pull rugs out from one another like a reality show.

It's not about feeling that since I live in an outhouse, everyone else should to, it's more about I want to live in a house and everyone should too.

In world where everything is a competition and struggle it is very true that people apprecaite things a lot more and take a lot of pride and esteem in what they have established for themselves but that system should have never been let to get out of hand where other living beings have been left forgotten, out in the elements, and dying from hunger.

And the poor people you see today came from many and many poor generations whom were never given a chance to afford their legacies into better situations.

In this system, bloodlines are left eternally poor.

Capitalism is just about to fail!

Hello, there is no such thing as a "free" market these days since all markets are being manipulated...

Also, the debt-based, fiat-money, socio-economic system (aka capitalism) is indeed a modern day "slavery" system! Essentially the sheople are "slaves" to debt...

+1 (Neo)

Socialism does not necessarily give priority to group rights over individual rights. I'd say it just recognises (rightly, in my opinion) that the latter are impossible to protect without the former. It recognises, unlike the more utopian capitalist ideals of the last two centuries, that we are not actually rational, individual free agents and are not satisfied by maximum competition. The market does not provide for everyone.

Pure capitalism seems to be more pro-exploitation than pro-slavery, if, as I understand capitalism, the goal is to obtain as much from others as you can. If everyone were pure capitalists, then the Darwinism that Leon referred to would be the regulatory force. But we're not all capitalists. When some of us become disillusioned with chasing the carrot and being ridden and slapped on the a** as Electric Banana said, we still have to protect ourselves from the capitalists desire to exploit and take advantage of us, and so we are tethered unwillingly to capitalism. That aspect could be considered a form of slavery. Thus the need for a dose of socialism to provide a counter-balance.

Well the problem with a purely libertarian society is that one person's rights will always infringe on the rights of others. It is impossible to have a society where everyone is completely free without people's rights being infringed.

The solution to that is to infringe on everyone's rights to the extent which prevents more rights from being infringed.

For example lets say everyone has the right to protection and safety. In a society where everyone is completely free then there is nothing to stop the fittest or strongest or most powerful from attacking those who are less powerful thus infringing their right to protection and safety.

To remedy this we have a police force. But the police force has to be financed, and to make it fair we finance it through taxation.

Now you could easily say that we are all being forced to pay tax. We don't chose to pay tax, but any work we do gets taxed by the government to pay for a police force.

Our right to working tax free is being prohibited, our right to keep all the money we earn is being prohibited. You could almost say it is akin to forced labour. However, the rights that are being prohibited are done so to ensure there is a system where other rights (the rights to protection and safety) will be upheld.

If justice is liberty (a theory I disagree with but that is irrelevant) then I would suggest there need to be certain liberties which are infringed to ensure the most amount of liberty prevails. The only way this can be done is through infringement.

It is possible that a socialist system is the one that leads to the most freedoms, though personally I doubt that. I would say a classic liberal system would provide the most individual liberty.

Again it all depends, do you want the maximum amount of liberty out there or do you want equality of liberty?