4 ms·

Slavery predates capitalism, it’s definitely not a consequence of it. In fact, since slaves can’t be consumers, capitalism works as an incentive for freedom.

darkpuma 8y ago
> "In fact, since slaves can’t be consumers," That's not broadly true. It might be true in some limited contexts, but it's not true when you consider the broader picture of slavery throughout human history.
watwut 8y ago
Surveillance exists with or without capitalism too, nevertheless we do analogical complain about capitalism being corrupted by it. Why the difference? Having slaves was profitable. A lot profitable. The only capitalist incentive for freedom was that north laborers did not wanted to compete with slaves. Competing with slaveholders sux, because slaves are cheaper and free men social status goes down if he do slaves like work. The rest of anti-slavery arguments had zero to do with "slaves will consume" nonsense that is absurd contemporary construction. Once the other guy own slaves, his competitors have to buy slaves on their own, because free people require more salaries. So if you don't use them, your company won't be able to compete on price. That is how market makes slavery more and more common, assuming there is enough slaves available (either by transport or breeding) and no laws to prevent it. Slavery existed for long. However, there were not that many societies where slave ownership was that large part of wealth and livestyle.
- CptFribble 8y ago
  Ancient Rome was around 30-40% slaves, though there were many different kinds used in addition to chattel slavery (various forms of indentured servitude, etc), so it's hard to make clear comparisons. However, the Roman empire wouldn't have existed in it's highest form without slaves. They were integral to the economy.
  - jahaja 8y ago
    I remember reading that the Greeks or Romans would probably consider today's average wage earner a slave. Interesting to ponder about.
    - yellowbuilding 8y ago
      Capitalism is feudalism with polymorphism.
    - watwut 8y ago
      There are important difference among others ability of wage earner to leave without being beaten or killed for it. Feudal system gets closer to it and it is still not the same thing.
    - Padefrel 8y ago
      Check Jonathan A.C. Brown's forthcoming Islam and Slavery (October 8, 2019) for a very detailed treatment of that question (Note that I checked the drafts of his book that he posted on his academia profile).
  - watwut 8y ago
    I am not sure what exactly does that prove or show? Once there was slavery somewhere we can not talk about how slavery evolved and got big elsewhere? Since it was in Rome, it was not profitable in south? Or which of my points is invalid by slavery being in Rome too? Julius Caesar basically committed genocide and that is Rome, therefore we should not analyse origins and philosophies of contemporary genocides?
- mulmen 8y ago
  Surveillance can exist without capitalism and capitalism can exist without surveillance but this conversation is about the effect of both coexisting in a symbiotic relationship.
chillacy 8y ago
I think the example alludes to the fact that the Atlantic slave trade was grown mainly by companies, not government.

darkpuma 8y ago

> "In fact, since slaves can’t be consumers," That's not broadly true. It might be true in some limited contexts, but it's not true when you consider the broader picture of slavery throughout human history.

watwut 8y ago

Surveillance exists with or without capitalism too, nevertheless we do analogical complain about capitalism being corrupted by it. Why the difference? Having slaves was profitable. A lot profitable. The only capitalist incentive for freedom was that north laborers did not wanted to compete with slaves. Competing with slaveholders sux, because slaves are cheaper and free men social status goes down if he do slaves like work. The rest of anti-slavery arguments had zero to do with "slaves will consume" nonsense that is absurd contemporary construction. Once the other guy own slaves, his competitors have to buy slaves on their own, because free people require more salaries. So if you don't use them, your company won't be able to compete on price. That is how market makes slavery more and more common, assuming there is enough slaves available (either by transport or breeding) and no laws to prevent it. Slavery existed for long. However, there were not that many societies where slave ownership was that large part of wealth and livestyle.

CptFribble 8y ago
Ancient Rome was around 30-40% slaves, though there were many different kinds used in addition to chattel slavery (various forms of indentured servitude, etc), so it's hard to make clear comparisons. However, the Roman empire wouldn't have existed in it's highest form without slaves. They were integral to the economy.
- jahaja 8y ago
  I remember reading that the Greeks or Romans would probably consider today's average wage earner a slave. Interesting to ponder about.
  - yellowbuilding 8y ago
    Capitalism is feudalism with polymorphism.
  - watwut 8y ago
    There are important difference among others ability of wage earner to leave without being beaten or killed for it. Feudal system gets closer to it and it is still not the same thing.
  - Padefrel 8y ago
    Check Jonathan A.C. Brown's forthcoming Islam and Slavery (October 8, 2019) for a very detailed treatment of that question (Note that I checked the drafts of his book that he posted on his academia profile).
- watwut 8y ago
  I am not sure what exactly does that prove or show? Once there was slavery somewhere we can not talk about how slavery evolved and got big elsewhere? Since it was in Rome, it was not profitable in south? Or which of my points is invalid by slavery being in Rome too? Julius Caesar basically committed genocide and that is Rome, therefore we should not analyse origins and philosophies of contemporary genocides?
mulmen 8y ago
Surveillance can exist without capitalism and capitalism can exist without surveillance but this conversation is about the effect of both coexisting in a symbiotic relationship.

chillacy 8y ago

I think the example alludes to the fact that the Atlantic slave trade was grown mainly by companies, not government.