NY Times has new series on 400 years of slavery

[PatYoung]

The New York Times has a promising new series called “1619” that marks the 400th Anniversary of the first African slaves being brought to Jamestown. Today’s installment tries to answer the question of why American capitalism can be so much more brutal than capitalism in many other Western countries. According to the authors, part of the answer can be found in American capitalism’s origins in slavery.

https://thereconstructionera.com/ny...on-the-conditions-of-modern-american-workers/

 

[pool boy]

“This is a capitalist society. It’s a fatalistic mantra that seems to get repeated to anyone who questions why America can’t be more fair or equal. But around the world, there are many types of capitalist societies, ranging from liberating to exploitative, protective to abusive, democratic to unregulated. When Americans declare that “we live in a capitalist society” — as a real estate mogul told The Miami Herald last year when explaining his feelings about small-business owners being evicted from their Little Haiti storefronts — what they’re often defending is our nation’s peculiarly brutal economy. “Low-road capitalism,” the University of Wisconsin-Madison sociologist Joel Rogers has called it. In a capitalist society that goes low, wages are depressed as businesses compete over the price, not the quality, of goods; so-called unskilled workers are typically incentivized through punishments, not promotions; inequality reigns and poverty spreads. In the United States, the richest 1 percent of Americans own 40 percent of the country’s wealth, while a larger share of working-age people (18-65) live in poverty than in any other nation belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (O.E.C.D.).

Or consider worker rights in different capitalist nations. In Iceland, 90 percent of wage and salaried workers belong to trade unions authorized to fight for living wages and fair working conditions. Thirty-four percent of Italian workers are unionized, as are 26 percent of Canadian workers. Only 10 percent of American wage and salaried workers carry union cards. The O.E.C.D. scores nations along a number of indicators, such as how countries regulate temporary work arrangements. Scores run from 5 (“very strict”) to 1 (“very loose”). Brazil scores 4.1 and Thailand, 3.7, signaling toothy regulations on temp work. Further down the list are Norway (3.4), India (2.5) and Japan (1.3). The United States scored 0.3, tied for second to last place with Malaysia. How easy is it to fire workers? Countries like Indonesia (4.1) and Portugal (3) have strong rules about severance pay and reasons for dismissal. Those rules relax somewhat in places like Denmark (2.1) and Mexico (1.9). They virtually disappear in the United States, ranked dead last out of 71 nations with a score of 0.5.”
__________________________
Does the author ever ask the question, “why then is this the one place on Earth where so many millions want to emigrate”?

 

[Andersonh1]

That article is a prime example of how modern racial politics infests and abuses the discussion and understanding of history, in this case to push socialism over capitalism. I'm sorry, that article is NOT history. It's just another entry in the "why America is a terrible place" category.

 

[pool boy]

That article is a prime example of how modern racial politics infests and abuses the discussion and understanding of history, in this case to push socialism over capitalism. I'm sorry, that article is NOT history. It's just another entry in the "why America is a terrible place" category.

Exactly. The NYT doesn’t even try to hide it anymore.

 

[jgoodguy]

That article is a prime example of how modern racial politics infests and abuses the discussion and understanding of history, in this case to push socialism over capitalism. I'm sorry, that article is NOT history. It's just another entry in the "why America is a terrible place" category.

Can you quote some examles of this 'not history' thanks

 

[Andersonh1]

Can you quote some examles of this 'not history' thanks

The entire article. It uses modern terminology instead of historically accurate terminology ("slave labor camps" instead of "plantations" for example), and creates a specific narrative of the past in order to indict the present. That's not history, that's pushing an agenda, in this case wondering why the "brutal" American economy can't be more like other countries, and more "fair". Most of us grow up and quit whining about life not being "fair", but not the NYT.

So because plantation owners used accounting (instead of just guessing how much they spent and how much they made, I suppose) and modern corporations use accounting, that must mean modern American capitalism has its roots in slavery!! We can "still feel the looming presence of this institution" is an opinion, not a fact. That the American economy is capitalist is a fact, not a "fatalistic mantra". On and on it goes.

Do you see this as a neutral article that simply attempts to explain where we are by where we came from? Why or why not?

 

[Al Mackey]

That article is a prime example of how modern racial politics infests and abuses the discussion and understanding of history, in this case to push socialism over capitalism. I'm sorry, that article is NOT history. It's just another entry in the "why America is a terrible place" category.

So is it your contention that slave owners were not capitalists? Were they socialists instead?

 

[Al Mackey]

The entire article. It uses modern terminology instead of historically accurate terminology ("slave labor camps" instead of "plantations" for example), and creates a specific narrative of the past in order to indict the present. That's not history, that's pushing an agenda, in this case wondering why the "brutal" American economy can't be more like other countries, and more "fair". Most of us grow up and quit whining about life not being "fair", but not the NYT.

So because plantation owners used accounting (instead of just guessing how much they spent and how much they made, I suppose) and modern corporations use accounting, that must mean modern American capitalism has its roots in slavery!! We can "still feel the looming presence of this institution" is an opinion, not a fact. That the American economy is capitalist is a fact, not a "fatalistic mantra". On and on it goes.

Do you see this as a neutral article that simply attempts to explain where we are by where we came from? Why or why not?

What type of labor did a "plantation" depend on for its survival?

Did those laborers live at the "plantation?"

 

[Andersonh1]

Calling a plantation a "slave labor camp" is inaccurate in that it is 1) not the correct historical term, and 2) it narrows the scope of what the plantation existed to do to produce an inaccurate impression that is racially charged, so it's useful for divisive modern politics. The plantation did not exist simply as a place to make slaves work, it was essentially an agricultural production facility, meant to provide a product that was certainly produced in large part by slave labor, but the labor itself was not the end goal, which is what the absurd "slave labor camp" term implies. And it was in many ways a community or settlement, not a camp. That the majority of the population were slaves does not change that fact.

 

[jgoodguy]

The entire article. It uses modern terminology instead of historically accurate terminology ("slave labor camps" instead of "plantations" for example), and creates a specific narrative of the past in order to indict the present. That's not history, that's pushing an agenda, in this case wondering why the "brutal" American economy can't be more like other countries, and more "fair". Most of us grow up and quit whining about life not being "fair", but not the NYT.

So because plantation owners used accounting (instead of just guessing how much they spent and how much they made, I suppose) and modern corporations use accounting, that must mean modern American capitalism has its roots in slavery!! We can "still feel the looming presence of this institution" is an opinion, not a fact. That the American economy is capitalist is a fact, not a "fatalistic mantra". On and on it goes.

Do you see this as a neutral article that simply attempts to explain where we are by where we came from? Why or why not?

What would be an accurate historical description of a pretty Greek Revival house, with mint juleps on the veranda supported by slave labor?

If I want to read about real capitalism, I'll read books about real capitalism, not pop capitalism. OTOH the failed promises of capitalists made in the 1980s about the nirvana of unfettered capitalism are starting to embarrass even the GOP. It is the curse to live in interesting times.

 

[jgoodguy]

Calling a plantation a "slave labor camp" is inaccurate in that it is 1) not the correct historical term, and 2) it narrows the scope of what the plantation existed to do to produce an inaccurate impression that is racially charged, so it's useful for divisive modern politics. The plantation did not exist simply as a place to make slaves work, it was essentially an agricultural production facility, meant to provide a product that was certainly produced in large part by slave labor, but the labor itself was not the end goal, which is what the absurd "slave labor camp" term implies. And it was in many ways a community or settlement, not a camp. That the majority of the population were slaves does not change that fact.

What would be an accurate historical description of a pretty Greek Revival house, with mint juleps on the veranda supported by slave labor?

 

[Andersonh1]

So is it your contention that slave owners were not capitalists? Were they socialists instead?

The question is, are modern capitalists and their methods rooted in slavery? Is American capitalism uniquely brutal and harsh because of those roots? Should we incorporate more socialism into our system so we're more fair and can atone for past sins, as the article advocates?

This article is not a history lesson. It's an "America needs to be more socialist" advocacy column. If you boil it down, it's essentially saying "America's roots are steeped in slavery and racism, and the only way to expunge that is to abandon who we are and become more like these other nations." There, I've summed the whole thing up in a single sentence.

Part of the problem with "observing" the 400th anniversary of the first slaves being brought to America is that it's crucial to remember that slavery in America had a start date, but it also had an end date. A heavy price was paid to end it. To act as though that price accomplished nothing and means nothing because slavery lives on in other forms is an insult to the memory of those who fought and died and voted to end it.

 

[Al Mackey]

The question is, are modern capitalists and their methods rooted in slavery? Is American capitalism uniquely brutal and harsh because of those roots? Should we incorporate more socialism into our system so we're more fair and can atone for past sins, as the article advocates?

This article is not a history lesson. It's an "America needs to be more socialist" advocacy column. If you boil it down, it's essentially saying "America's roots are steeped in slavery and racism, and the only way to expunge that is to abandon who we are and become more like these other nations." There, I've summed the whole thing up in a single sentence.

Part of the problem with "observing" the 400th anniversary of the first slaves being brought to America is that it's crucial to remember that slavery in America had a start date, but it also had an end date. A heavy price was paid to end it. To act as though that price accomplished nothing and means nothing because slavery lives on in other forms is an insult to the memory of those who fought and died and voted to end it.

I note the dodging of the question.

The accounting methods still in use today had their roots in how planters kept track of the "production" at their slave labor camps.
Planters took advantage of economies of scale, buying more slaves and planting more land.
Planters developed a workplace hierarchy one can see reflected today, with foremen, superintendents, etc.
Planters extracted all the work they could from their enslaved laborers and punished those who didn't meet their production quotas. Those who don't meet their quotas today are subject to disciplinary action and, if they fail to improve, firing.
Planters maximized profit and minimized their cost by spending as little as possible on their enslaved work force. That's something we can see today--maximizing profit while minimizing costs by spending as little as possible on workers, hence the argument over raising the minimum wage to a living wage.

I didn't see where the author called for "America needs to be more socialist." Perhaps you can point me to where he said it.

 

[Andersonh1]

The accounting methods still in use today had their roots in how planters kept track of the "production" at their slave labor camps.
Planters took advantage of economies of scale, buying more slaves and planting more land.
Planters developed a workplace hierarchy one can see reflected today, with foremen, superintendents, etc.
Planters extracted all the work they could from their enslaved laborers and punished those who didn't meet their production quotas. Those who don't meet their quotas today are subject to disciplinary action and, if they fail to improve, firing.
Planters maximized profit and minimized their cost by spending as little as possible on their enslaved work force. That's something we can see today--maximizing profit while minimizing costs by spending as little as possible on workers, hence the argument over raising the minimum wage to a living wage.

Now carry this further and make the link. Walk us from A to Z how modern American capitalism uses those methods because the slave owners did.

 

[Al Mackey]

Calling a plantation a "slave labor camp" is inaccurate in that it is 1) not the correct historical term,

I note the attempt to dodge the questions.

Did they or did they not depend on slave labor?

Did they or did they not force their laborers to live there?

Did they or did they not forbid their laborers to move elsewhere?

and 2) it narrows the scope of what the plantation existed to do to produce an inaccurate impression that is racially charged, so it's useful for divisive modern politics. The plantation did not exist simply as a place to make slaves work, it was essentially an agricultural production facility, meant to provide a product that was certainly produced in large part by slave labor, but the labor itself was not the end goal, which is what the absurd "slave labor camp" term implies. And it was in many ways a community or settlement, not a camp. That the majority of the population were slaves does not change that fact.

What a bunch of horse dung.

A slave labor camp isn't there simply to get slave labor. It's there to produce using slave labor. That's exactly what these antebellum operations were. They existed to produce goods and make a profit by stealing the labor of their enslaved work forces. The very definition of a "planter" is someone who owned at least twenty slaves.

The truth just makes you uncomfortable. Deal with it.

 

[Al Mackey]

Now carry this further and make the link. Walk us from A to Z how modern American capitalism uses those methods because the slave owners did.

I did in that post. That you couldn't understand it and couldn't understand the article isn't my fault. No one is saying these methods are used today specifically because slave owners used them. The point is the methods being used today were developed by slave owners.

 

[jgoodguy]

The accounting methods still in use today had their roots in how planters kept track of the "production" at their slave labor camps.

'Plantations of the Antebellum South did not have a uniform accounting system and it differed from modern methods a great deal.

Conclusion

On the basis of the Minor ledger, it appears that a fairly sophisticated accounting system was in use on at least three sugar plantations in the ante-bellum south. The accounting records studied, of William J. Minor, reveal the use of a “hybrid” system. Although essentially on the cash basis, receivables and payables were also recorded. In large part, this resulted from the use of factors who handled most crop sales and many purchases for the plantations.

The system appears to be double entry when transactions were made through factors, but single entry when purchases or sales were made directly by the plantations. Finally, there was no provision for depreciation or accounts for fixed assets, other than the entries at the beginning of the Waterloo Plantation account.

It must be remembered that most plantations were family-owned and, since there were no income taxes and few regulatory bodies, governmental interference in the affairs of businesses was rare. In addition, the planters’ factors often maintained records of the plan-tations’ revenues and many of the plantations’ expenses. Minor was probably atypical in that he paid so many expenses in cash, rather than with drafts drawn against his factors. Being a banker, he was probably less willing to place his fortune in the hands of outside parties than were his fellow planters.
​

History Double entry account predates the Antebellum South.

Double-entry bookkeeping was pioneered in the Jewish community of the early-medieval Middle East.[1] Jewish bankers in Old Cairo, for example, used a double-entry bookkeeping system which predated the known usage of such a form in Italy, and whose records remain from the 11th century AD. It has been hypothesized that Italian merchants likely learned the method from their interaction with ancient Indian merchants from the sea trade; the double-entry system was founded on a "Jama–Nama" system which had debits and credits in a reverse order.[2] The oldest European record of a complete double-entry system is the Messari (Italian: Treasurer's) accounts of the Republic of Genoa in 1340. The Messari accounts contain debits and credits journalised in a bilateral form, and include balances carried forward from the preceding year, and therefore enjoy general recognition as a double-entry system.[3] By the end of the 15th century, the bankers and merchants of Florence, Genoa, Venice and Lübeck used this system widely.​

 

[Andersonh1]

I did in that post. That you couldn't understand it and couldn't understand the article isn't my fault. No one is saying these methods are used today specifically because slave owners used them. The point is the methods being used today were developed by slave owners.

You have not demonstrated that modern capitalism in America is more brutal and less fair than capitalism in other nations because ours began as methods employed by slave owners. I'm not even sure that is true, and even if it is, would their methods not simply be further refinements of earlier capitalist ventures? Capitalism existed long before America did, and cannot be said to have originated here. Why pick an arbitrary starting date and area? Is that accurate history?

 

[jgoodguy]

The question is, are modern capitalists and their methods rooted in slavery? Is American capitalism uniquely brutal and harsh because of those roots? Should we incorporate more socialism into our system so we're more fair and can atone for past sins, as the article advocates?

No, Yes, Yes

This article is not a history lesson. It's an "America needs to be more socialist" advocacy column. If you boil it down, it's essentially saying "America's roots are steeped in slavery and racism, and the only way to expunge that is to abandon who we are and become more like these other nations." There, I've summed the whole thing up in a single sentence.

What is wrong with that?

Part of the problem with "observing" the 400th anniversary of the first slaves being brought to America is that it's crucial to remember that slavery in America had a start date, but it also had an end date. A heavy price was paid to end it. To act as though that price accomplished nothing and means nothing because slavery lives on in other forms is an insult to the memory of those who fought and died and voted to end it.

Slavery has about 7,000 years of existence. It's ending in America, was not for high moral reasons, but politics and war ended it.

 

[jgoodguy]

You have not demonstrated that modern capitalism in America is more brutal and less fair than capitalism in other nations because ours began as methods employed by slave owners. I'm not even sure that is true, and even if it is, would their methods not simply be further refinements of earlier capitalist ventures? Capitalism existed long before America did, and cannot be said to have originated here. Why pick an arbitrary starting date and area? Is that accurate history?

The relationship between slavery and capitalism is hotly debated. My view is that current capitalist views outside of the pop authors are that capitalism would have developed without slavery. However without the profits from slavery, much more slowly.