Re: The stock market responsible for the decline in British industry?

On 25 May, 16:57, FriarTuck <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 06:57:50 -0700, Mel Rowing wrote:
Slavery? There is no place in slavery within capitalism if only because
it is too damned inefficient. A man works better for the prospect of
personal reward and enhancement rather than mere maintanance. Did the
impetus to end slavery in the US (and ipso facto the Western World
altogether) come from the conservative plantation owners in the south or
the progressive industrialists of the north?

I was referring to the abolition of slavery in the UK (1805) not the yanks
whose civil war wasn't until 1861, seems twisted logic to claim the
plantation owners were anything but capitalists, and as for the so called
progressive industrialists... not a great deal better.

It is true that there were slaves in the UK itself prior to 1805.
However, they were relatively small in numbers and mainly took the
form of house servants. They were of near total insignificance to the
economic history of the UK. Far more important ramifications of the
1805 Act was abolition throughout the British Empire with particular
reference to the West Indies, South and Central America.

The abolition of slavery in the US after the Civil War in 1865
represented the virtual end of slavery in what was later to become
known as the Western World.

I would suggest that the plantation owners were closer to feudalists
than capitalists. There are important distinctions. Capitalists seek
profit through the use of capital goods (plant, machinery, land, etc.)
to enhance the productivity of paid labour to make profit. The labour
itself is not owned and so is free to seek it fortune elsewhere.

Not so with feudalism and slavery where the labour represents the
capital goods perhaps with the exception of the odd horse and cart and
simple hand tools. Depreciation losses were made good through the
purchase of more slaves. The labour itself was owned though just like
the medieval serf could seek his master's favour and earn freedom
status so could a slave.

This freedom enjoyed by the labourer as opposed to the slave was
fundamental to the success of capitalism. It meant that the employer
had to pay sufficient wages and provide the requisite conditions to
maintain his workforce. For all the deprivations experienced in the
factories and sweatshops of the 18th and 19th centuries, conditions in
the countryside and agriculture were even worse. This is why tens of
thousands of farm labourers (my own ancestors amongst them) forsook
the land where the agrairian revolution had driven farm labourers
wages down to starvation level and living conditions likewise and fed
the expanding towns of the industrial revolution.

Since then increased prosperity has led to progress. Employers one way
or another have learned that there is a percentage in what is now
known as corporate loyalty, better wages, fringe benefits and so on.

And your assertion there was no place for slavery within capitalism seems
an attempt to gloss over the facts which you should be aware of.

The very fact our business leaders are outsourcing to China is evidence of
the requirement for labour that is cheaper than that available from free
people in our own country.

There is a difference and a very big difference between a slave and a
low paid labourer.

If the difference in unit labour cost of a manufactured good or
service between two geographical points is a mere 5p when spread
across millions of units represents a considerable loss in
productivity. This translates to an equivalent loss in profits wages
(elsewhere) and tax. In short others are subsidising these expensive
units.

We are talking of differences well in excess of 5p. The workers
displaced should be put to more profitable enterprise. In fact that is
what is happening as the economy moves over towards service
industries, design, research and development and high tech
manufacture. The danger, as I see it, is the adequacy of the skill
base.

It is true that we have lost a large number of basic manufacturing
jobs over past years. It is not the case that people are dependent on
soup kitchens or that the unemployed stand about on street corners as
they did back in the 30's

People as a whole are better off than at any time in our history are
they not?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The stock market responsible for the decline in British industry?
    ... I was referring to the abolition of slavery in the UK not the yanks ... plantation owners were anything but capitalists, and as for the so called ... It is true that there were slaves in the UK itself prior to 1805. ... to enhance the productivity of paid labour to make profit. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: The stock market responsible for the decline in British industry?
    ... than capitalists. ... to enhance the productivity of paid labour to make profit. ... had to pay sufficient wages and provide the requisite conditions to ... wages down to starvation level and living conditions likewise and fed ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $120 AN HOUR!!
    ... >society with two people, Robinson and Friday. ... >capitalists, and assume perfect competition. ... >continuously differentiable production functions. ... > which they can exchange with each other, namely, labour, and the ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Venture Communism
    ... >Venture Communism is an alternative Revolutionary Strategy to Violent ... >Capitalists. ... >Capitalism in it's investment performance it can achieve this goal. ... >In the growth theory and production functions of economics, Labour ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: About impeaching Bush...
    ... very few people are capitalists. ... physical labour themselves in order to keep their business afloat. ... likes to think they're 'middle class' just because they have enough money ... poor, miserable, de facto colonial countries like those in Africa or South ...
    (rec.music.beatles)