5 ms·

Some beast working a field would be treated quite well. If you’re a subsistence farmer who relies on an animal for ploughing and it gets injured because you dri

Some beast working a field would be treated quite well. If you’re a subsistence farmer who relies on an animal for ploughing and it gets injured because you drive it too hard, you’re totally screwed.

atatatat 5y ago
And yet...people bought new horses after doing this, regularly.
- olliej 5y ago
  Not the subsistence ones
  - Retric 5y ago
    Actual substance farming doesn’t get to use beasts of burden. Farmers need trade with an outside source to get new horses after the old one dies. However, a farm at break even can be paying for needed supplies like horses, which is in effect subsistence farming because there is no long term surplus.
Emma_Goldman 5y ago
That's the point, they're treated as a locus of labour power and nothing more. Workers are hired solely to drain as much labour power from them as possible, a condition of which is obviously giving them the rudimentary means of reproduction. Keep in mind your argument applies equally to chattel slaves, in fact even more so: for they were owneed, whereas Amazon merely rents its labour, and in case of ill-health can easily replace them. I don't think slaves were, by any meaningful standard, 'treated quite well' - and neither do I think most Amazon workers are.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- staticautomatic 5y ago
  No, my point is that this analogy conveys something other than what the author intended to convey.
  - Emma_Goldman 5y ago
    That Amazon doesn't work its employees to the literal point of death, only up to the point at which they are unable to continue to work? There are many gradations of suffering and torment up to that limit, that are more than sufficient to wreck someone's life.
    - staticautomatic 5y ago
      No, that farmers don’t work their animals to the point that they’re unable to work.
      - Emma_Goldman 5y ago
        I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, because that's exactly what I said in my last comment. I'm arguing that 'not exploiting a sentient being under one's control to the point of death' is a low standard consistent with all kinds of terrors. I'm assuming you weren't just randomly throwing your comment into the cybervoid. The person to whom you responded said that Amazon employees might prefer a company where 'workers aren't driven like some beast working a field' - implying that they are treated as such at Amazon. You suggested that beasts aren't treated so badly by their masters, which following the analogy, suggests that Amazon workers aren't treated so badly. I'm countering that suggestion.
        staticautomatic 5y ago
        I’m making a point about the parent’s use of the analogy, not yours.
pjc50 5y ago
Immediately reminded of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_(Animal_Farm) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_(Animal_Farm) , the horse in Orwell's analogy for Stalinism.

atatatat 5y ago

And yet...people bought new horses after doing this, regularly.

olliej 5y ago
Not the subsistence ones
- Retric 5y ago
  Actual substance farming doesn’t get to use beasts of burden. Farmers need trade with an outside source to get new horses after the old one dies. However, a farm at break even can be paying for needed supplies like horses, which is in effect subsistence farming because there is no long term surplus.

Emma_Goldman 5y ago

That's the point, they're treated as a locus of labour power and nothing more. Workers are hired solely to drain as much labour power from them as possible, a condition of which is obviously giving them the rudimentary means of reproduction. Keep in mind your argument applies equally to chattel slaves, in fact even more so: for they were owneed, whereas Amazon merely rents its labour, and in case of ill-health can easily replace them. I don't think slaves were, by any meaningful standard, 'treated quite well' - and neither do I think most Amazon workers are.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
staticautomatic 5y ago
No, my point is that this analogy conveys something other than what the author intended to convey.
- Emma_Goldman 5y ago
  That Amazon doesn't work its employees to the literal point of death, only up to the point at which they are unable to continue to work? There are many gradations of suffering and torment up to that limit, that are more than sufficient to wreck someone's life.
  - staticautomatic 5y ago
    No, that farmers don’t work their animals to the point that they’re unable to work.
    - Emma_Goldman 5y ago
      I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, because that's exactly what I said in my last comment. I'm arguing that 'not exploiting a sentient being under one's control to the point of death' is a low standard consistent with all kinds of terrors. I'm assuming you weren't just randomly throwing your comment into the cybervoid. The person to whom you responded said that Amazon employees might prefer a company where 'workers aren't driven like some beast working a field' - implying that they are treated as such at Amazon. You suggested that beasts aren't treated so badly by their masters, which following the analogy, suggests that Amazon workers aren't treated so badly. I'm countering that suggestion.
      - staticautomatic 5y ago
        I’m making a point about the parent’s use of the analogy, not yours.

pjc50 5y ago

Immediately reminded of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_(Animal_Farm) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_(Animal_Farm) , the horse in Orwell's analogy for Stalinism.