4 ms·

Some would compare it to a form of slavery, and I think such comparisons are reasonable. "The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is th

by ue_ 9y ago

Some would compare it to a form of slavery, and I think such comparisons are reasonable. "The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class." (Engels) "The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general." The idea that you can "quit at any time" is a farce; you must then find employment under someone else in order to survive, or manage to amass sufficient capital, something which is not an option for most people, especially with family. An extreme example of this logic utterly failing is in those developing nations with sweatshops.

supremesaboteur 9y ago
Disagree. Slavery requires lack of consent. If you were taken by force and sold to a master who is entitled to your labour by law, that is an oppressive situation to be in and it must be abolished. This is not the same thing as someone voluntarily exchanging their brains or brawns for a limited period of time for money. > An extreme example of this logic utterly failing is in those developing nations with sweatshops Poverty means making hard choices. If your choices are : 1. Starve to death 2. Work in a sweatshop Most people would pick 'Work in a sweatshop'. Nobody who has the choice to work in a sweatshop or be a doctor is working in a sweatshop
- ajnin 9y ago
  > If your choices are : 1. Starve to death 2. Work in a sweatshop Then it's not a choice. Therefore there can be no consent, you are not made to work by force but by threat of starvation or homelessness, it is an oppressive situation even if these people don't have literal chains at their feet.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - supremesaboteur 9y ago
    If the employer created a famine to help recruit cheap labour, I agree, there is no consent
    - ue_ 9y ago
      Why is whether the employer created it or not relevant? What matters is the fact that the employee is forced to work, or to starve. In the times of widespread slavery, a slave owner didn't create the system of slavery, yet nobody would disagree that the slave owner is exploiting the slave, for the slave has no choice but to be a slave, either to this particular owner or to any other owner. It is not a consensual relationship, and at the very least it is exploitative, just as a prostitute who must sell herself on the street to make ends meet is being exploited - not by any particular person, but by the system perpetuated by the individuals who force her to sell herself in this way. When the only alternative is starving, I'm afraid to say that it's not consent when someone agrees not to starve.
      - supremesaboteur 9y ago
        Someone has to work to produce the goods and services we need In slavery the owner is creating the conditions of oppression. In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty Equating all hardships to slavery is pure folly
        ue_ 9y ago
        > Someone has to work to produce the goods and services we need I agree, but they don't have to work for someone else who extracts surplus. They can organise themselves and work themselves, voluntarily. They then own the products they make and decide how and if to distribute them. >In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty In slavery, the slave owner is providing the housing and food which could potentially lift the slave out of being in a state without food or shelter. The owner and employer both perpetuate the system of oppression, this much is a fact. If there were no capitalists, there would be capitalism. If there were no slave owners, there would be no slavery. If there were no lords, there would be no feudalism. You cannot escape the fact that the capitalist is taking advantage of the lack of choice and lack of capital by virtue of accident of birth and the property system which the capitalist defends and supports.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  >Disagree. Slavery requires lack of consent. Rape is a thing, so I don't think this is a very good moral standard. Informed, active assent is the usual standard.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  The choice between death and servitude is exactly how slavery worked. That choice was often used as a justification, even: whoever values life more than freedom doesn't really deserve to be human any more. Make no mistake, slavery also requires consent: the slave can always kill himself at the very least.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Your point about consent is inane, you are ignoring their intended meaning, a meaning that is pretty well clear enough (agreement without coercion).
    - loup-vaillant 9y ago
      Forget the intended meaning, and focus on facts and consequences. When people have to chose between servitude and death, for whatever reason, whoever chooses servitude is effectively a slave. Good old slavery or modern sweatshop, it doesn't matter: the situation is the same. Coercion (or lack thereof) is immaterial. And even if it's not, we could argue that there is a coercion of sorts: how come the employers don't offer better choices? Are they even talking to the government to help them offer better choices? Or do they just want to maximise profits, using whatever means necessary? Sure, their responsibility is much more diffuse and less clear cut than that of a slaver who would personally kill unwilling slaves. But from the point of view of the slave/employee, the result is the same: servitude or death. Note that the sweatshop situation is dire enough that some people do chose death over the sweat shop. Enough of them that some shops have nets around them to prevent their employees from jumping off.

by ue_ 9y ago

supremesaboteur 9y ago

Disagree. Slavery requires lack of consent. If you were taken by force and sold to a master who is entitled to your labour by law, that is an oppressive situation to be in and it must be abolished. This is not the same thing as someone voluntarily exchanging their brains or brawns for a limited period of time for money. > An extreme example of this logic utterly failing is in those developing nations with sweatshops Poverty means making hard choices. If your choices are : 1. Starve to death 2. Work in a sweatshop Most people would pick 'Work in a sweatshop'. Nobody who has the choice to work in a sweatshop or be a doctor is working in a sweatshop

ajnin 9y ago
> If your choices are : 1. Starve to death 2. Work in a sweatshop Then it's not a choice. Therefore there can be no consent, you are not made to work by force but by threat of starvation or homelessness, it is an oppressive situation even if these people don't have literal chains at their feet.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- supremesaboteur 9y ago
  If the employer created a famine to help recruit cheap labour, I agree, there is no consent
  - ue_ 9y ago
    Why is whether the employer created it or not relevant? What matters is the fact that the employee is forced to work, or to starve. In the times of widespread slavery, a slave owner didn't create the system of slavery, yet nobody would disagree that the slave owner is exploiting the slave, for the slave has no choice but to be a slave, either to this particular owner or to any other owner. It is not a consensual relationship, and at the very least it is exploitative, just as a prostitute who must sell herself on the street to make ends meet is being exploited - not by any particular person, but by the system perpetuated by the individuals who force her to sell herself in this way. When the only alternative is starving, I'm afraid to say that it's not consent when someone agrees not to starve.
    - supremesaboteur 9y ago
      Someone has to work to produce the goods and services we need In slavery the owner is creating the conditions of oppression. In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty Equating all hardships to slavery is pure folly
      - ue_ 9y ago
        > Someone has to work to produce the goods and services we need I agree, but they don't have to work for someone else who extracts surplus. They can organise themselves and work themselves, voluntarily. They then own the products they make and decide how and if to distribute them. >In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty In slavery, the slave owner is providing the housing and food which could potentially lift the slave out of being in a state without food or shelter. The owner and employer both perpetuate the system of oppression, this much is a fact. If there were no capitalists, there would be capitalism. If there were no slave owners, there would be no slavery. If there were no lords, there would be no feudalism. You cannot escape the fact that the capitalist is taking advantage of the lack of choice and lack of capital by virtue of accident of birth and the property system which the capitalist defends and supports.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>Disagree. Slavery requires lack of consent. Rape is a thing, so I don't think this is a very good moral standard. Informed, active assent is the usual standard.
loup-vaillant 9y ago
The choice between death and servitude is exactly how slavery worked. That choice was often used as a justification, even: whoever values life more than freedom doesn't really deserve to be human any more. Make no mistake, slavery also requires consent: the slave can always kill himself at the very least.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Your point about consent is inane, you are ignoring their intended meaning, a meaning that is pretty well clear enough (agreement without coercion).
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    Forget the intended meaning, and focus on facts and consequences. When people have to chose between servitude and death, for whatever reason, whoever chooses servitude is effectively a slave. Good old slavery or modern sweatshop, it doesn't matter: the situation is the same. Coercion (or lack thereof) is immaterial. And even if it's not, we could argue that there is a coercion of sorts: how come the employers don't offer better choices? Are they even talking to the government to help them offer better choices? Or do they just want to maximise profits, using whatever means necessary? Sure, their responsibility is much more diffuse and less clear cut than that of a slaver who would personally kill unwilling slaves. But from the point of view of the slave/employee, the result is the same: servitude or death. Note that the sweatshop situation is dire enough that some people do chose death over the sweat shop. Enough of them that some shops have nets around them to prevent their employees from jumping off.