The Commies Finally Get It!

[Christians4LessGvt]

First of all it is not the largest or the greatest anything

"By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest
government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure
in the federal budget..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

[sirs]

ouch

[Michael Tee]

<<"By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest
government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure
in the federal budget...">>

By benefits delivered it is probably one of the most puny efforts in the civilized world.  Of course, measured in absolute dollar amounts, the program would appear to be huge, since the U.S.A. is a country of over 300 million people.  But in terms of dollars spent as a percentage of GDP or as a percentage of total federal tax revenues, I am certain it must be a pathetic effort in comparison with, for example, most of the countries of Western Europe.

[Plane]

<<"By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest
government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure
in the federal budget...">>

By benefits delivered it is probably one of the most puny efforts in the civilized world.  Of course, measured in absolute dollar amounts, the program would appear to be huge, since the U.S.A. is a country of over 300 million people.  But in terms of dollars spent as a percentage of GDP or as a percentage of total federal tax revenues, I am certain it must be a pathetic effort in comparison with, for example, most of the countries of Western Europe.

You may be certain , but we can tell you haven't looked.

The life expectancy of slaves was indeed short , that is hardly even the worst part .

Slaves were quite expensive , so giveing them a good diet and safe liveing quarters was good business.



Slave owners were harsh but had economic motive to preserve the strength of slaves , Communist heads of states lacked any profit motive to keep their population alive , mostly had the attitude that there were plenty more where those came from. So if they were not co-operative  they could be starved into submission , if there was s fight to be fought they could be chased into the battle armed or not , if the casualties of mass punishment and battle are included I doubt that the people trapped by Communism would show much advantage to the expensive slave.

[Michael Tee]

<<The life expectancy of slaves was indeed short , that is hardly even the worst part .>>

LOL.  Looking at the brighter side of it, are we?  I guess ten years of slave life aren't quite as valuable as ten years of plane life, are they?

<<Slaves were quite expensive , so giveing them a good diet and safe liveing quarters was good business.>>

As I said before, it was obviously not good business if the money expended on any slave's health and welfare threatened to exceed the cost of his or her replacement.  Good business would demand that the slave be given exactly the diet and living quarters necessary to enable him to labour at the production of goods or services that would cover the cost of his food and housing and provide a decent profit over that as well.  Any more than the bare minimum required would be a waste of good money.  The manager of any slave labour camp would know the principles well enough - - what's the bare minimum required to keep these slaves/prisoners able to work their asses off under the lash?  Slaves get the bare minimum required, unless the owner is a poor businessman, in which case they get either more or less than the minimum requirement.



<<Slave owners were harsh but had economic motive to preserve the strength of slaves >>

If they wanted to run a tight ship in which slaves would put out maximum effort for minimum food and housing, then examples must be made of some slaves and it would make economic sense to injure them in order to keep the rest working harder for less food and harsher accommodation.

<<Communist heads of states lacked any profit motive to keep their population alive . . . >>

How could their workers produce anything for the state if they were not "kept alive?"  You are just talking nonsense.  Profit motive or lack thereof is not an incentive to any ruler to kill off his subjects in large numbers.

<< mostly had the attitude that there were plenty more where those came from. >>

Astonishing.  I'm sure that you have examples of socialist leaders who justified disregard for workers' lives on the grounds that there were plenty more.  Please, just one example will suffice.  Inquiring minds need to know.

<<So if they were not co-operative  they could be starved into submission , if there was s fight to be fought they could be chased into the battle armed or not , if the casualties of mass punishment and battle are included I doubt that the people trapped by Communism would show much advantage to the expensive slave.>>

Give it up, plane, none of that ever happened.  I don't know what particular sick fantasy of Cold War propaganda you are recycling but it doesn't really matter.  It's nonsense and there's not even any point to debating it.  If that's what you believe, then that's what you believe.

[Xavier_Onassis]

In Brazil and Haiti (and also in the other French colonies during the monarchy), the goal was to work the slaves to death. This was also done in the US, but when the Brits started capturing slave ships and the plantation owners considered that slaves could be a more valuable cash crop with no competition from abroad, the US decided to ban new importations, at least legally. Plus, the Plantation owners liked to say that the Plantations were much better for the darkies than the jungles of barbarous Africa, plus, the slaves got their souls saved as well, an added plus, with Biblical justification.The slave population increased in the South even more than it did no Brazil, where new slaves were imported all the time and legally.

Jefferson Davis' brother had a plantation on some legendary isle in the Mississippi where the massa rarely bothered to visit, and where everyone was a darkie, happily toiling away and singing and dancing and jumpin de broom jes' like in Uncle Remus.

This is the myth of slavery that Plane is quoting.  Southerners believed that slavery wasn't all bad. It was, in many ways, a GOOD thing, and economics was on the side of decent treatment, because the market is always wise. The Northerners, they just didn't understand.

It is harder to kill a myth about barbarism than it is barbarism itself.

The rightwing always wants to return to them good ol' days, when justice always came swiftly with a silver bullet and left with a hearty "Hi-yo Silver, awaaaaay!".

[Christians4LessGvt]

And people like XO pretend they give a rats ass about slavery....
all they wanna do is demonize the US and the South in particular while
around the world as we speak there are 10 of millions of people
living in slavery in the year 2010 and yet all they cry about is
something that happened over 150 years ago in the US and ended
when whites in the US fought and died in the hundreds of thousands
to free the slaves. Demonize, demonize, demonize the US....
thats all they know how to do!

[kimba1]

well
you could look at it this way ,slavery made the africans and the various decendents what they are today. lets just say the after effects is not finished.

demonizing america will not help but ignoring the damage will not help also.

[Plane]

  Southerners believed that slavery wasn't all bad. It was, in many ways, a GOOD thing, and economics was on the side of decent treatment, because the market is always wise. The Northerners, they just didn't understand.

It is harder to kill a myth about barbarism than it is barbarism itself.

The rightwing always wants to return to them good ol' days, when justice always came swiftly with a silver bullet and left with a hearty "Hi-yo Silver, awaaaaay!".

You are just about to get my point, don't be distracted.
I would never say that slavery was anything like a good deal for the slaves, most especially in the form that Slavery took in the new world.

There was indeed a myth that slavery was good for the slaves , rescuing them from miserable lives in primitive Africa and giveing them a chance at slavation. The lie is put to this myth now just as then with the very strong contrary evidence , if you really wanted someone to thrive and do well , and or learn scripture , you would certainly not forbid them to learn to read . The strongest evidence of all that the myth of slavery being good for slaves was a false construction was the extrodinary lengths slaves owners had to use to ensure that the slaves would not escape.

When I compare the rationalisation of slave owners, that slave institutions were good for the slaves  ,  to the rationalisations of Communist leaders that communism was good for the people roped in to it , I most certainly am not complementing slavery , I am pointing out a simularity in myths.

The myths even have very simular evidences that put them to the lie , that the ones in charge insisted on controlling what their subjects were allowed to learn, and that it required a lot of energy to prevent escape.

So we don't entirely disagree , when you say;"It is harder to kill a myth about barbarism than it is barbarism itself." I am just applying it as a general principal more widely than you are.

[sirs]

  Southerners believed that slavery wasn't all bad. It was, in many ways, a GOOD thing, and economics was on the side of decent treatment, because the market is always wise. The Northerners, they just didn't understand.

It is harder to kill a myth about barbarism than it is barbarism itself.

You are just about to get my point, don't be distracted.
I would never say that slavery was anything like a good deal for the slaves, most especially in the form that Slavery took in the new world....When I compare the rationalisation of slave owners, that slave institutions were good for the slaves  ,  to the rationalisations of Communist leaders that communism was good for the people roped in to it , I most certainly am not complementing slavery , I am pointing out a simularity in myths.

Can't get much "plainer" than that.  Well done, Plane     

[kimba1]

how about this newer myth about the european slavers tricked african leader into selling thier political prisoners to them. that slavery in africa is nicer than european slavery. it`s thier justification that the majority of slaves were not captured but sold by other africans.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Africa was an assortment of tribal societies in the time of slavery. As a rule, tribes dominated or sought to dominate one another: there was no such thing as "political prisoners"  in those times, though I am sure that many of those sold as slaves to the Europeans were members of tribes in the interior who had lost battles with the coastal tribes, who had better weapons and other items, such as chains and shackles that they had obtained from the Europeans.

[Plane]

how about this newer myth about the european slavers tricked african leader into selling thier political prisoners to them. that slavery in africa is nicer than european slavery. it`s thier justification that the majority of slaves were not captured but sold by other africans.

You should read up on this from reliable sorces rather than take my word for this , this is a huge subject.

Portugal started harvesting slaves from Africa before the New world was discovered , they remained big in the game as long as it remained profitable.

And it was very profitable once the new world was discovered. Spainish and English slavers dominated eaqch in turn as their national merchant marine waxed or waned in power.

IN the new world Indians exposed to European and Asian diseases for the first time were dieing in numbers that shall never be accounted for , abandoning large tracts of farmed land ,land that could support crops of Indigo , Sugar cane , Cotton and Tobacco.

 but in return new world crops like the  peanut supported a population boom in Western Africa.

Africans did indeed raid each other to sell captives to traders , but does this absolve the traders who offered the bountys of any fault?

There was a huge demand for disease resistant farm labor in the new world , and in Africa a large sorce of human strength poorly defended from this sort of exploitation.

The central mover was the profit , this was a lot of profit , it is a miracle that the system was ever shut down.The profit wasn't over .

[Plane]

As I said before, it was obviously not good business if the money expended on any slave's health and welfare threatened to exceed the cost of his or her replacement. 

How long did it take Mao to replace his losses in Korea?

If there is a real diffrence in Communism and Slavery , it is primarily that the peoiple are cheaper to the Communists.

[kimba1]

The central mover was the profit , this was a lot of profit , it is a miracle that the system was ever shut down.The profit wasn't over .


maybe thier are aspects about slavery that eventually makes it non-viable. A good guess is slavery throught the years would not stay the same. labor responsiblity/complexity will of course grow. eventually many will not be farm labor. but these factor may cause a counter-productive effect. look at haiti.