2 ms·
Not the OP, but one might argue that slavery disincentivises the slave-holder from innovating the labour process. The (Nietzschean?) counterargument here is th
by mafribe 10y ago
Not the OP, but one might argue that slavery disincentivises the slave-holder from innovating the labour process.
The (Nietzschean?) counterargument here is that slave-labour enables division of labour and frees enough from non-specialised labour (e.g. individuals being responsible for all of producing food, building dwellings, providing security, raising children, caring for the elderly etc, and thus not being particularly good at any of them) to allow the emergence of a 'caste' of full-time scientists, engineers. Such a 'caste', such division of labour is required to drive technological progress to a level where slavery becomes unnecessary.
My historically uninformed and naive suggestion would be that ancient Greece was an example of the latter while most other societies with substantial slavery (such as South America and Africa) were examples of the former.
Aside: Any serious discussion of
slavery must begin with the question: what do you mean by "slavery",
for the term is used in wildly different ways.
- ThomPete 10y agoThen it's a negative to society but only if all of society was run by slave owners. In any other case the slave owner would have a benefit over the non slave owner when it came to cost of production.
- xyzzy123 10y agoIt's both hilarious and excellent to watch both of you try to justify the utility of human labour.
- mafribe 10y agoI'm not sure what you mean. Human labour has utility, that why we work.
- xyzzy123 10y agoFrom a certain perspective human labour is the most perfect waste of time. But keep going. As long as you keep it up I'll pretend I want to keep working.
- mafribe 10y agoIs that "certain perspective" interesting? Nobody wants to work that's a given that doesn't need to be argued, whence work needs incentives (in a generalised sense) from salary to force. Most human labour has historically related to food production, production and maintainance of dwellings, sanitation, health, care of the young & elderly, and security (from animals, natural forces, other humans). Since division of labour became possible additional forms of labour emerged, such as science, engineering, and organisation of labour whose raison d'être is to lighten humanity's workload. One can and should certainly ask if work could be organised better, but there is a base load of things that need to be done to perpetuate humanity.
- Qworg 10y agoI disagree that no one wants to work - in many ways, working (being of use), is enobeling. What will replace it culturally when we don't have any work?
- aleksei 10y agoHobbies, ie. work you you enjoy and are not forced to do.
- mafribe 10y agoI'm not denying that some work has enobling aspects (e.g. social recognition (in various forms)), but much work doesn't. Speaking from years worth of bitter experience ... Moreover there is probably quite a bit of rationalisation going on: since I can't avoid work I might as well pretend I like it, for that makes life more bearable. More importantly, there is a virtue-signalling aspect to finding work enobling: since human emotions are contagious and human behaviour involves a lot of mimesis (= copying others), my public display of taking pleasure in my own work increases the probability that others find their work enobling, which in turn increases the amount/quality of their work, and that leads a better / more productive society which in turn is in my own selfish interest. Aside: Max Weber uses a somewhat similar (but more elaborate) argument when he seeks to explain the emergence of modern society out of the protestant spirit. The issue of whether we do good because doing good is intrinsically good or because we crave the social recognition of good works, has been discussed since antiquity, see for example Plato's Republic. What will replace it culturally when we don't have any work? Why not look at the facts? Society has always had some members who did not have to work, for example children, pensioners, the sick, the offspring of the very rich, wives of middle/upperclass husbands (until recently), women who divorce a rich husband (under current US alimony laws), the Saudi/Qatari/Bahreini/Kuwaity royal families. Etc. Most of them don't have a major problem spending their time. Typically they engage in a variety of play, fornication, sleep, sport, shopping, eating, hunting, socialising, playing music, drawing and the like. Moreover, even those who work have leisure time (e.g. weekends, evenings, holidays) and generally have no problem filling that time. There is no reason to believe that this will change when all work has been automated away.
- ThomPete 10y agoNot sure what you mean? I am not trying to justify anything I am simply saying that the claim about slave labour being a negative for the slave owner is wrong. I am quite certain ai will take over most jobs.