xyz;1343304 wrote: Which began with Henry VII, if not earlier.
You apply capitalist and socialist labels to an age where they were not distinct.
The seeds were there I'm not disputing that, but to see history as a struggle between capitalism and socialism is absurd and simplistic, It's like putting a black and white border round a grey picture, very pretty but doesn't really make things clearer and detracts from the centeral pictire. Socialism may have existed in the early church and been communist in a non marxian sense but like all such communities it didn't last long did it. Democracy didn't last long in the roman or greek republics either and arguably you could make a case that the "capitalist" classes ruined it, but it was hardly a socialist paradise before that.
You still haven't been able to list the technical reasons for why capitalism cannot create a just society.
Capitalism/Socialism
Capitalism/Socialism
gmc;1343308 wrote: The seeds were there
Not seeds, real capitalism. Real, hurting, capitalism.
Not seeds, real capitalism. Real, hurting, capitalism.
Capitalism/Socialism
Accountable;1343277 wrote: Amending is not rewriting. The amendment process is what gives the system its strength, its ability to stay valid over centuries.
Still, the war was not inevitable. The system did not force the war. The system did not collapse into complete civil war. A Machiavellian Washington chose war as an expedient means to an end, Constitution be damned. It is a scenario that's repeated many times in our history.
If the Constitution isn't the problem, then what is the orderly process by which a state can leave the Union? I see one tiny section on adding states, but none on them breaking off. The founders didn't foresee that case (or didn't want to address it) and still don't handle it properly. The Constitution only covers U.S. law. If some state leaves the Union, the U.S. laws would not apply anymore, as the state would no longer be part of the U.S. legal system. IMO this is still a gaping legal hole in the initial system that wasn't completely fixed. One answer might be that it's illegal to sucede. But even if it's illegal under U.S. law, these laws can't apply to another country (after it's gone). I think there should be clear rules on leaving and also conditions for being kicked out. Like paying down debts, getting a vote from the rest of the states, etc.
Still, the war was not inevitable. The system did not force the war. The system did not collapse into complete civil war. A Machiavellian Washington chose war as an expedient means to an end, Constitution be damned. It is a scenario that's repeated many times in our history.
If the Constitution isn't the problem, then what is the orderly process by which a state can leave the Union? I see one tiny section on adding states, but none on them breaking off. The founders didn't foresee that case (or didn't want to address it) and still don't handle it properly. The Constitution only covers U.S. law. If some state leaves the Union, the U.S. laws would not apply anymore, as the state would no longer be part of the U.S. legal system. IMO this is still a gaping legal hole in the initial system that wasn't completely fixed. One answer might be that it's illegal to sucede. But even if it's illegal under U.S. law, these laws can't apply to another country (after it's gone). I think there should be clear rules on leaving and also conditions for being kicked out. Like paying down debts, getting a vote from the rest of the states, etc.
Capitalism/Socialism
Over the last few weeks on TV there has been a series on the life of Mahatma Ghandi. A very interesting man. His plea was for non-violence and egalitarian thinking on the part of everyone. His cause was up and down over the years but when Britain finally saw fit to kill 400 non-violent unarmed resisters the tide changed and Ghandi was finally victorious. He reminds me of Jesus. Perhaps he was the Jesus of the 21st century. He was certainly more Christian than many christians.
Shalom
Ted
Shalom
Ted
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Capitalism/Socialism
yaaarrrgg;1343338 wrote: If the Constitution isn't the problem, then what is the orderly process by which a state can leave the Union? I see one tiny section on adding states, but none on them breaking off. The founders didn't foresee that case (or didn't want to address it) and still don't handle it properly. The Constitution only covers U.S. law. If some state leaves the Union, the U.S. laws would not apply anymore, as the state would no longer be part of the U.S. legal system. IMO this is still a gaping legal hole in the initial system that wasn't completely fixed. One answer might be that it's illegal to sucede. But even if it's illegal under U.S. law, these laws can't apply to another country (after it's gone). I think there should be clear rules on leaving and also conditions for being kicked out. Like paying down debts, getting a vote from the rest of the states, etc. :)So far as I know, there's no law allowing or prohibiting individual citizens from denouncing their citizenship. Likewise, there should be no law allowing or prohibiting states from denouncing their membership from the federation. The name is the United States of America, meaning each state is sovereign. If this weren't so then the name would be different. If some state leaves the Union, the U.S. laws would not apply anymore, as the state would no longer be part of the U.S. legal system. This IS the system as it is supposed to be. Lincoln violated the system.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Capitalism/Socialism
Ted;1343236 wrote: Recovering conservative:
Thanks for an excellent post. You did it well.
Here are some statistics from The Rev. Dr. Matthew Fox.
"In the 1960s, the overall income of the richest 20% of the world's population was thirty times that of the poorest 20%.Today, it is 224 times larger! In the 1960, the richest 20% held 70% of the world's revenues; in 1999 it was 85%. Today the income of the richest 225 people in the world is equal to the income of 3 billion poor people. The income of the three richest people in the world is equal to the collective national incomes of the poorest forty-nine countries! It would take no more than 5 % of the overall annual sales of arms in the world to feed all the starving children, to protect them from dying of preventable diseases, and to make basic education accessible to all."
For any country that calls itself Christian and stands by while this happens is anything but Christian. It is a denial of the Biblical message and the message of Jesus himself. (Matt 25)
It was like this 2000 years ago. Obviously we have learned nothing in that time.
Shalom
Ted
No doubt globalization has a lot to do with the widening gap in living standards around the world. It's been a race to the bottom for most of the world forced to take lower wages and no health or environmental standards, in order to compete for jobs. And the large multinational corporations can evade taxes. Take Exxon-Mobil for example:
Here's a simple question in Economics: If Exxon Mobil, the largest U.S. energy company, made a profit of $35 billion, and if the income tax paid is $15 billion at a tax rate of 47%, how much did it pay to the IRS? The answer is, according to a report published recently in Forbes magazine, zero.
How come the results when 47 percent of the profit had been paid as taxes? Well, it helps to have wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in countries such as Bermuda, Cayman Island and Bahamas to pipeline cash flows from operations in Azerbaijan, Abu Dhabi and Angola.
How Exxon paid zero taxes in 2009
And on a more local level, the arguments of the supply-siders -- that economic growth depends on cutting ALL taxes -- has only benefited the top 10%, and particularly the top 1% of income earners. It's the same story in the U.S., Canada, England, and every other country stupid enough to fall for the line that millionaires will create jobs if they get tax cuts. The fact is that the rich are the ones who don't need to spend the money, and the ones who can afford to move that money gained in tax cuts right outside of the country altogether!
The Canadian Center For Policy Alternatives published a study two years ago on Canada's growing wealth gap. The findings almost exactly mirror what has happened in the U.S.. For example:
“Between the Second World War and 1980, the economic pie was growing at all points in the distribution, even if income shares in Canada didn’t change much†says Osberg. “But today, there are very different trends for the top, the bottom and the middle 90% of the income distribution.
it's worth pointing out here that this was the era of progressive taxation, which the Mulroney Government started "reforming" in the 80's. And what do you know......
Growth in Canadians’ average real wages has been stalled since 1979 which, Osberg points out, is “a dramatic change from Canada’s historical experienceâ€.
“A quarter of a century ago, circa 1980, someone who wrote about economic inequality in Canada was writing about a country in which real wages had been rising strongly,†Osberg says. “- but the ‘new normal’ for Canada’s middle 90% is for stagnant or declining real wages, despite unprecedented improvements in education and skills.â€
the Meanwhile, incomes for richest 1% of Canadians have been growing very strongly, especially since the 1990s – with even greater gains going to the richest 0.1% and 0.01%. They are literally pulling away from the rest of Canadians.
And Canada’s disadvantaged face a much nastier reality now than twenty years ago, since cuts to social assistance have substantially increased the poverty gap – even in Canada’s richest provinces.
Wealth, income inequality rising: Study | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Thanks for an excellent post. You did it well.
Here are some statistics from The Rev. Dr. Matthew Fox.
"In the 1960s, the overall income of the richest 20% of the world's population was thirty times that of the poorest 20%.Today, it is 224 times larger! In the 1960, the richest 20% held 70% of the world's revenues; in 1999 it was 85%. Today the income of the richest 225 people in the world is equal to the income of 3 billion poor people. The income of the three richest people in the world is equal to the collective national incomes of the poorest forty-nine countries! It would take no more than 5 % of the overall annual sales of arms in the world to feed all the starving children, to protect them from dying of preventable diseases, and to make basic education accessible to all."
For any country that calls itself Christian and stands by while this happens is anything but Christian. It is a denial of the Biblical message and the message of Jesus himself. (Matt 25)
It was like this 2000 years ago. Obviously we have learned nothing in that time.
Shalom
Ted
No doubt globalization has a lot to do with the widening gap in living standards around the world. It's been a race to the bottom for most of the world forced to take lower wages and no health or environmental standards, in order to compete for jobs. And the large multinational corporations can evade taxes. Take Exxon-Mobil for example:
Here's a simple question in Economics: If Exxon Mobil, the largest U.S. energy company, made a profit of $35 billion, and if the income tax paid is $15 billion at a tax rate of 47%, how much did it pay to the IRS? The answer is, according to a report published recently in Forbes magazine, zero.
How come the results when 47 percent of the profit had been paid as taxes? Well, it helps to have wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in countries such as Bermuda, Cayman Island and Bahamas to pipeline cash flows from operations in Azerbaijan, Abu Dhabi and Angola.
How Exxon paid zero taxes in 2009
And on a more local level, the arguments of the supply-siders -- that economic growth depends on cutting ALL taxes -- has only benefited the top 10%, and particularly the top 1% of income earners. It's the same story in the U.S., Canada, England, and every other country stupid enough to fall for the line that millionaires will create jobs if they get tax cuts. The fact is that the rich are the ones who don't need to spend the money, and the ones who can afford to move that money gained in tax cuts right outside of the country altogether!
The Canadian Center For Policy Alternatives published a study two years ago on Canada's growing wealth gap. The findings almost exactly mirror what has happened in the U.S.. For example:
“Between the Second World War and 1980, the economic pie was growing at all points in the distribution, even if income shares in Canada didn’t change much†says Osberg. “But today, there are very different trends for the top, the bottom and the middle 90% of the income distribution.
it's worth pointing out here that this was the era of progressive taxation, which the Mulroney Government started "reforming" in the 80's. And what do you know......
Growth in Canadians’ average real wages has been stalled since 1979 which, Osberg points out, is “a dramatic change from Canada’s historical experienceâ€.
“A quarter of a century ago, circa 1980, someone who wrote about economic inequality in Canada was writing about a country in which real wages had been rising strongly,†Osberg says. “- but the ‘new normal’ for Canada’s middle 90% is for stagnant or declining real wages, despite unprecedented improvements in education and skills.â€
the Meanwhile, incomes for richest 1% of Canadians have been growing very strongly, especially since the 1990s – with even greater gains going to the richest 0.1% and 0.01%. They are literally pulling away from the rest of Canadians.
And Canada’s disadvantaged face a much nastier reality now than twenty years ago, since cuts to social assistance have substantially increased the poverty gap – even in Canada’s richest provinces.
Wealth, income inequality rising: Study | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Capitalism/Socialism
gmc;1343237 wrote: posted by recovering conservative.
Perhaps if you had free trade there might be a possible answer to the first part.
If you had free trade you wouldn't have subsidies. The US food subsidies are a major bone of contention in world trade, they allow the dumping of cheap food in third world countries to the detriment of local food producers who can't compete with imported foreign foodstuffs.
Why Does the US Government Give Out Farm Subsidies?
US Farm Subsidies and the Farm Economy: Myths, Realities, Alternatives | Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy
The EU do it as well and the common agricultural policy is a major bone of contention. Free trade is much talked about but little practised
When the talk of "free trade" started in the 70's, most people likely thought it meant opening borders and removing tariffs etc. The trade deals have more to do with making multinational corporations completely transnational, and able to force governments to change laws that they feel restrict their business practices.
Nevertheless, even in principle I'm not a free trade supporter. The argument in favour of open trade is based on the premise that overall wealth will increase, and most nations will find areas of business that they excel at, and specialize in them, rather than protecting smaller, less efficient industries. Capital would be unrestricted by borders, and able to move production to cheaper sources -- and they would not only be looking for cheap labour! Dirty industries move to places where there are no environmental regulations or worker safety laws are not enforced. And needless to say, they want to move to places that don't allow unions! And this is a big part of the reason why union membership among workers in Canada and the U.S. is half of what it was in the 70's.
Before I forget -- all of the U.S. farm subsidies, marketing boards in Canada, and the EU roadblocks to food imports -- all betray the fact that all of these nations were too afraid of losing domestic food production to test their free trade notions here.
Sound like you are a socialist at heart. Most intelligent people are once they get away from thinking of it as the same russian communism.
The funny thing is there were more socialists in Canadian politics 30 years ago than there are now, at a time when the Cold War and Soviet Communism has become a distant memory.
Perhaps if you had free trade there might be a possible answer to the first part.
If you had free trade you wouldn't have subsidies. The US food subsidies are a major bone of contention in world trade, they allow the dumping of cheap food in third world countries to the detriment of local food producers who can't compete with imported foreign foodstuffs.
Why Does the US Government Give Out Farm Subsidies?
US Farm Subsidies and the Farm Economy: Myths, Realities, Alternatives | Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy
The EU do it as well and the common agricultural policy is a major bone of contention. Free trade is much talked about but little practised
When the talk of "free trade" started in the 70's, most people likely thought it meant opening borders and removing tariffs etc. The trade deals have more to do with making multinational corporations completely transnational, and able to force governments to change laws that they feel restrict their business practices.
Nevertheless, even in principle I'm not a free trade supporter. The argument in favour of open trade is based on the premise that overall wealth will increase, and most nations will find areas of business that they excel at, and specialize in them, rather than protecting smaller, less efficient industries. Capital would be unrestricted by borders, and able to move production to cheaper sources -- and they would not only be looking for cheap labour! Dirty industries move to places where there are no environmental regulations or worker safety laws are not enforced. And needless to say, they want to move to places that don't allow unions! And this is a big part of the reason why union membership among workers in Canada and the U.S. is half of what it was in the 70's.
Before I forget -- all of the U.S. farm subsidies, marketing boards in Canada, and the EU roadblocks to food imports -- all betray the fact that all of these nations were too afraid of losing domestic food production to test their free trade notions here.
Sound like you are a socialist at heart. Most intelligent people are once they get away from thinking of it as the same russian communism.
The funny thing is there were more socialists in Canadian politics 30 years ago than there are now, at a time when the Cold War and Soviet Communism has become a distant memory.
Capitalism/Socialism
Unbridled capitalism is evil.
When will the people wake up and take back their nation????
According to Dom Crossan in "The Historical Jesus . . ." when taxation approaches 65% there is usually armed revolution. I do wonder how close we are.
Shalom
Ted
When will the people wake up and take back their nation????
According to Dom Crossan in "The Historical Jesus . . ." when taxation approaches 65% there is usually armed revolution. I do wonder how close we are.
Shalom
Ted
Capitalism/Socialism
recovering conservative
Thanks
Shalom
Ted
Thanks
Shalom
Ted
Capitalism/Socialism
an interesting article on politics and religion.
Anglican Journal: Guest reflection: Should religion and politics mix?
Shalom
Ted
Anglican Journal: Guest reflection: Should religion and politics mix?
Shalom
Ted
Capitalism/Socialism
Accountable;1343395 wrote: So far as I know, there's no law allowing or prohibiting individual citizens from denouncing their citizenship. Likewise, there should be no law allowing or prohibiting states from denouncing their membership from the federation. The name is the United States of America, meaning each state is sovereign. If this weren't so then the name would be different. If some state leaves the Union, the U.S. laws would not apply anymore, as the state would no longer be part of the U.S. legal system. This IS the system as it is supposed to be. Lincoln violated the system.
The thing is though, Lincoln's actions are still consistent with the Constitution. There's nothing in the rules that prevents us from attacking another country. As the South became a "new" country (no longer U.S.), Lincoln was free to attack it. This is the same principle that the founders used to expand into Native American, and Mexican territories. If the U.S. had some pacifist clause in the rules, it would still be a tiny pea-sized country.
Having no law doesn't mean it's legal or not legal. It just means we are navigating the action under total anarchy. In which case all is fair in war. There needed to be some orderly way to back out of membership of the Union explicitly written in the Constitution, because it raises a lot of hairy problems. EG: attacking the new country needs to be illegal in the Union (for the protection of the smaller country). Also, what happens to existing contracts? If I pay for land in Kentucky, and then they say they are not part of the U.S. anymore, do I still own the land?
The thing is though, Lincoln's actions are still consistent with the Constitution. There's nothing in the rules that prevents us from attacking another country. As the South became a "new" country (no longer U.S.), Lincoln was free to attack it. This is the same principle that the founders used to expand into Native American, and Mexican territories. If the U.S. had some pacifist clause in the rules, it would still be a tiny pea-sized country.
Having no law doesn't mean it's legal or not legal. It just means we are navigating the action under total anarchy. In which case all is fair in war. There needed to be some orderly way to back out of membership of the Union explicitly written in the Constitution, because it raises a lot of hairy problems. EG: attacking the new country needs to be illegal in the Union (for the protection of the smaller country). Also, what happens to existing contracts? If I pay for land in Kentucky, and then they say they are not part of the U.S. anymore, do I still own the land?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Capitalism/Socialism
yaaarrrgg;1343493 wrote: The thing is though, Lincoln's actions are still consistent with the Constitution. There's nothing in the rules that prevents us from attacking another country. As the South became a "new" country (no longer U.S.), Lincoln was free to attack it.For that to pass the smell test, the US had to first recognize the confederacy as a sovereign nation, which it never did. Not only that, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, which was overreaching his powers as president. There were other constitutional violations, but this is enough to clearly show that Lincoln's actions were anything but consistent with the Constitution.
Capitalism/Socialism
xyz;1343310 wrote: Not seeds, real capitalism. Real, hurting, capitalism.
Oh bollocks it wasn't capitalism in the way seem to believe. - OK have it your way, the merchants of Venice were early venture capitalists, walter raleigh was a corporate raider and the trade guilds were the first trade union closed shops. Historical materialism is a a useful way of looking things but is far too simplistic. There is always more going on than simple economics. Marx got it right only in part, (just as the great man historical theorists are right in part) the logical progression he saw was just never going to happen. It's logical but the basic premise is flawed. Human nature always gets in the way. Material forces play a part but they are by the whole means the most important part. You're are not going to get a socialist society without capitalism because you need some means of generating the material wealth that make it possible. It's not one or the other you need both. That's why the wealth of nations also contains the seeds of what we would now call socialism. You also need an industrial society not an agrarian one. It wasn't all new it was just one of the first clear articulations of the ideas in a way that made sense. The levellers didn't succeed not because they didn't have the military power - they had regiments of them. they hadn't the economic power perhaps but if you have an army you can get that. the majority hadn't the will to force the issue and seize power for themselves. The moment passed. It's the same with the peasants revolts. There was more going on than simple materialism and there always will be. Historical materialism does not explain what happens, it's a good theory but it's only part of the answer there was far more going on. The view of early societies as communist is nice in theory but would only last as long as the dominant ones in the group were prepared to let it. If it were that simple the one country where there would be socialist would be the united states where the gulf between rich and poor is one of the greatest in the world and where the basic premise of it's existence is the idea that are all men are yet it doesn't happen and probably won't. Marx never explained how his socialist paradise would work probably for the simple reason it can't, you always come back to human nature getting in the way.
Historical materialism is a machinistic view and explanation of the way society society that has it's merits but in reality doesn't explain everything although like all good theories if you ignore the facts you can make it fit. If you like we can simply agree to disagree
Now are you going to give the technical reasons why you think capitalism will never work or not?
Oh bollocks it wasn't capitalism in the way seem to believe. - OK have it your way, the merchants of Venice were early venture capitalists, walter raleigh was a corporate raider and the trade guilds were the first trade union closed shops. Historical materialism is a a useful way of looking things but is far too simplistic. There is always more going on than simple economics. Marx got it right only in part, (just as the great man historical theorists are right in part) the logical progression he saw was just never going to happen. It's logical but the basic premise is flawed. Human nature always gets in the way. Material forces play a part but they are by the whole means the most important part. You're are not going to get a socialist society without capitalism because you need some means of generating the material wealth that make it possible. It's not one or the other you need both. That's why the wealth of nations also contains the seeds of what we would now call socialism. You also need an industrial society not an agrarian one. It wasn't all new it was just one of the first clear articulations of the ideas in a way that made sense. The levellers didn't succeed not because they didn't have the military power - they had regiments of them. they hadn't the economic power perhaps but if you have an army you can get that. the majority hadn't the will to force the issue and seize power for themselves. The moment passed. It's the same with the peasants revolts. There was more going on than simple materialism and there always will be. Historical materialism does not explain what happens, it's a good theory but it's only part of the answer there was far more going on. The view of early societies as communist is nice in theory but would only last as long as the dominant ones in the group were prepared to let it. If it were that simple the one country where there would be socialist would be the united states where the gulf between rich and poor is one of the greatest in the world and where the basic premise of it's existence is the idea that are all men are yet it doesn't happen and probably won't. Marx never explained how his socialist paradise would work probably for the simple reason it can't, you always come back to human nature getting in the way.
Historical materialism is a machinistic view and explanation of the way society society that has it's merits but in reality doesn't explain everything although like all good theories if you ignore the facts you can make it fit. If you like we can simply agree to disagree
Now are you going to give the technical reasons why you think capitalism will never work or not?
Capitalism/Socialism
gmc;1343596 wrote: Oh bollocks it wasn't capitalism in the way seem to believe.
The century before 1640 saw considerable industrial expansion. Coal production in England rose from 200 000 tons to 1 500 000 tons, three times more than in the rest of Europe put together. Iron production rose by 500%. Increased demand for iron, tin, copper and lead required improved means of both extraction and smelting. Capital investment of £1000, a century's wages for one man, might be necessary just to reach a coal seam. Just one smelting works employed 4000 men. Satisfying demand for such commodities as bricks, ships, cannon, refined sugar, paper, soap, glass, beer, dyes, salt, required very large amounts of capital.
That's capitalism by any definition of the term.
Added to that was the decreasing ability of ordinary people, evicted from their homes and land, to keep themselves by their own labour, having to sell their labour to a capitalist on his terms. Reduced opportunity to do this was the cause of emigration to North America. Starving children were even collected and shipped there. In the 17th century, real wages fell by 66%, leading to penury if not starvation. Working hours were long and unregulated, and there was no organised protection for wage labourers. Wages, otoh, were fixed at the lowest possible rates, often with subsidy from grudging local rate-payers.
That's hurting capitalism, by most definitions of the term.
The century before 1640 saw considerable industrial expansion. Coal production in England rose from 200 000 tons to 1 500 000 tons, three times more than in the rest of Europe put together. Iron production rose by 500%. Increased demand for iron, tin, copper and lead required improved means of both extraction and smelting. Capital investment of £1000, a century's wages for one man, might be necessary just to reach a coal seam. Just one smelting works employed 4000 men. Satisfying demand for such commodities as bricks, ships, cannon, refined sugar, paper, soap, glass, beer, dyes, salt, required very large amounts of capital.
That's capitalism by any definition of the term.
Added to that was the decreasing ability of ordinary people, evicted from their homes and land, to keep themselves by their own labour, having to sell their labour to a capitalist on his terms. Reduced opportunity to do this was the cause of emigration to North America. Starving children were even collected and shipped there. In the 17th century, real wages fell by 66%, leading to penury if not starvation. Working hours were long and unregulated, and there was no organised protection for wage labourers. Wages, otoh, were fixed at the lowest possible rates, often with subsidy from grudging local rate-payers.
That's hurting capitalism, by most definitions of the term.
Capitalism/Socialism
xyz;1343627 wrote: The century before 1640 saw considerable industrial expansion. Coal production in England rose from 200 000 tons to 1 500 000 tons, three times more than in the rest of Europe put together. Iron production rose by 500%. Increased demand for iron, tin, copper and lead required improved means of both extraction and smelting. Capital investment of £1000, a century's wages for one man, might be necessary just to reach a coal seam. Just one smelting works employed 4000 men. Satisfying demand for such commodities as bricks, ships, cannon, refined sugar, paper, soap, glass, beer, dyes, salt, required very large amounts of capital.
That's capitalism by any definition of the term.
Added to that was the decreasing ability of ordinary people, evicted from their homes and land, to keep themselves by their own labour, having to sell their labour to a capitalist on his terms. Reduced opportunity to do this was the cause of emigration to North America. Starving children were even collected and shipped there. In the 17th century, real wages fell by 66%, leading to penury if not starvation. Working hours were long and unregulated, and there was no organised protection for wage labourers. Wages, otoh, were fixed at the lowest possible rates, often with subsidy from grudging local rate-payers.
That's hurting capitalism, by most definitions of the term.
The start of the uindustrial age and the social changes that gave rise to our modern day society, not least the rie of wage based economy. If you want to see feudal lords as capitalists and early industrial magnates as caitalists then I'm not going to argue with you. If you want you can argue those forced off their lands were early socialists indeed you can't have socialism when you still have peasants and slaves. If you want to be really pedantic the century before 1640 helped lay the foundations for capiltalism as we now know it, or how about the black death did more to change a feudal society to a capitalist one than anything else by rendering an economy based on mass peasant labour impossible by killing of the work force and putting the remainder in a stronger position to demand payment for their work.
I note you still haven't been able to list the technical reasons why capitalism won't work. Since we haven't yet progressed to a socialist society predicted by marx that rather suggests capitalism does work, perhaps not in a good way all the time but it works. At least capitalism recognises the need to control the greed of corporations and prevent the exploitation of the workers whuile at the same time allowing opportunity for individuals to make the best of things rather than the inane belief in the goodness of man marx seemed to favour. It's the rise of capitalism in russia and china that is helping to change things for the better. If the west went back to a capitalist economy in the clasical sense we might do better as well. Corporatism is a feature of capitalism as is mercantilism and protectionism but not an inevitable one. There's always going to be a to fro in the power balance between capitalists, or the ruling elites, and society as a whole. Communism can never work because all you do is put in place a new set of rulers with the same arrogance of a king who believed they have a divine right to rule that brooks no argument it has the seeds of it's own destruction as does every commune, hippy, anarchist or otherwise.
That's capitalism by any definition of the term.
Added to that was the decreasing ability of ordinary people, evicted from their homes and land, to keep themselves by their own labour, having to sell their labour to a capitalist on his terms. Reduced opportunity to do this was the cause of emigration to North America. Starving children were even collected and shipped there. In the 17th century, real wages fell by 66%, leading to penury if not starvation. Working hours were long and unregulated, and there was no organised protection for wage labourers. Wages, otoh, were fixed at the lowest possible rates, often with subsidy from grudging local rate-payers.
That's hurting capitalism, by most definitions of the term.
The start of the uindustrial age and the social changes that gave rise to our modern day society, not least the rie of wage based economy. If you want to see feudal lords as capitalists and early industrial magnates as caitalists then I'm not going to argue with you. If you want you can argue those forced off their lands were early socialists indeed you can't have socialism when you still have peasants and slaves. If you want to be really pedantic the century before 1640 helped lay the foundations for capiltalism as we now know it, or how about the black death did more to change a feudal society to a capitalist one than anything else by rendering an economy based on mass peasant labour impossible by killing of the work force and putting the remainder in a stronger position to demand payment for their work.
I note you still haven't been able to list the technical reasons why capitalism won't work. Since we haven't yet progressed to a socialist society predicted by marx that rather suggests capitalism does work, perhaps not in a good way all the time but it works. At least capitalism recognises the need to control the greed of corporations and prevent the exploitation of the workers whuile at the same time allowing opportunity for individuals to make the best of things rather than the inane belief in the goodness of man marx seemed to favour. It's the rise of capitalism in russia and china that is helping to change things for the better. If the west went back to a capitalist economy in the clasical sense we might do better as well. Corporatism is a feature of capitalism as is mercantilism and protectionism but not an inevitable one. There's always going to be a to fro in the power balance between capitalists, or the ruling elites, and society as a whole. Communism can never work because all you do is put in place a new set of rulers with the same arrogance of a king who believed they have a divine right to rule that brooks no argument it has the seeds of it's own destruction as does every commune, hippy, anarchist or otherwise.