8 ms·

That's right, don't talk about suffering now, because it used to be way worse! How about this: robbing everyone of any means of survival short of selling their

by 1stop 11y ago

That's right, don't talk about suffering now, because it used to be way worse! How about this: robbing everyone of any means of survival short of selling their labour is the very definition of slavery. We just obfuscate it with money, but never offer a real chance of owning capital. I'm not taking modern Western society, I'm talking historical/modern capitalism. In all societies.

fsloth 11y ago
"How about this: robbing everyone of any means of survival short of selling their labour is the very definition of slavery. We just obfuscate it with money, but never offer a real chance of owning capital." So by your definition any position short of economic independece would be slavery? I'm not depreciating suffering. Calling employees in a poor bargaining position "slaves" is muddled argumentation. Any arbitrary non-negotiable position is not slavery - unless one wants to be poetic (i.e. "we are all slaves to laws of physics" etc). As to the definition of slavery I would refer to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery "Slavery is a legal or economic system in which principles of property law can apply to humans so that people can be treated as property,[1] and can be owned, bought and sold accordingly, and cannot withdraw unilaterally from the arrangement." Capital has been always a lopsided thing - few have it. It's quite different not having capital, than being treated as a capital asset and having almost no human rights. As a fairly modern example Frederick Douglas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass) has more than a few words to say about his time as a slave. "I do not remember to have ever met a slave who could tell of his birthday... A want of information concerning my own was a source of unhappiness to me even during childhood. ... I was not allowed to make any inquiries of my master concerning it. He deemed all such inquiries on the part of a slave improper and impertinent," http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23/23-h/23-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23/23-h/23-h.htm Being bound to only few means of sustenance is one thing. Having ones birthday robbed is another entirely.
- 1stop 11y ago
  Capital hasn't always been a lopsided thing. There was a time when a great number of people had access to productive land, and had the means to survive without relying on "employment". The industrial revolution changed this dramatically. I'm sure you have heard the term "wage slavery". Sure you can argue: "hey at least you know your birthday now, and technically we don't own you". But that's ignoring the fact that we have still robbed that person of free will because we have robbed them off the means of production. Saying that " they can quit if they want " is equivalent to saying a slave can kill himself if he doesn't like it. I'm not saying that the situation hasn't improved. Slavery has changed, it is a more sustainable model now, with less chance of uprising, as people such as yourself actually defend it even though chances are, you are on the wrong side of it (I.e you sell your own labour rather than benefit from others labour in order to survive). But it is still a massive inequality and it literally robs people of choice in their life.
  - fsloth 11y ago
    I think you need to specify your historical period and geographical region before you can claim that a great number of people had access to productive land and economic independence before industrial revolution. My perception of history is that the majority of people in post-hunter-gatherer societies have always lived under someones thumb. "But that's ignoring the fact that we have still robbed that person of free will because we have robbed them off the means of production" Who is "we" and what are the means of production that have been robbed from this person? Sure, poverty makes people dumb because all their energies are go to economic struggle - but being born to poverty does not imply that anything was stolen from them. I'm not saying poverty does not suck because it does. But it's not an act of personal malfeasance but a systems error. It would be very cathartic if one could just blame all the rockefellers for the economic inequality in this world but the world is not that simple. "Slavery has changed, it is a more sustainable model now, with less chance of uprising, as people such as yourself actually defend it" I think you are being silly. The specific difference between slavery and current economic trends now is that to fix slavery the people needed to implement fundamental changes to the economy and legal system at large scales. Nowadays to give people a little more independence in developed economies would only require a sustainable model of basic income which is more of a political hassle rather than anything since most developed countries already have extensive systems of income transfer.

by 1stop 11y ago

fsloth 11y ago

"How about this: robbing everyone of any means of survival short of selling their labour is the very definition of slavery. We just obfuscate it with money, but never offer a real chance of owning capital." So by your definition any position short of economic independece would be slavery? I'm not depreciating suffering. Calling employees in a poor bargaining position "slaves" is muddled argumentation. Any arbitrary non-negotiable position is not slavery - unless one wants to be poetic (i.e. "we are all slaves to laws of physics" etc). As to the definition of slavery I would refer to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery "Slavery is a legal or economic system in which principles of property law can apply to humans so that people can be treated as property,[1] and can be owned, bought and sold accordingly, and cannot withdraw unilaterally from the arrangement." Capital has been always a lopsided thing - few have it. It's quite different not having capital, than being treated as a capital asset and having almost no human rights. As a fairly modern example Frederick Douglas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass) has more than a few words to say about his time as a slave. "I do not remember to have ever met a slave who could tell of his birthday... A want of information concerning my own was a source of unhappiness to me even during childhood. ... I was not allowed to make any inquiries of my master concerning it. He deemed all such inquiries on the part of a slave improper and impertinent," http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23/23-h/23-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23/23-h/23-h.htm Being bound to only few means of sustenance is one thing. Having ones birthday robbed is another entirely.

1stop 11y ago
Capital hasn't always been a lopsided thing. There was a time when a great number of people had access to productive land, and had the means to survive without relying on "employment". The industrial revolution changed this dramatically. I'm sure you have heard the term "wage slavery". Sure you can argue: "hey at least you know your birthday now, and technically we don't own you". But that's ignoring the fact that we have still robbed that person of free will because we have robbed them off the means of production. Saying that " they can quit if they want " is equivalent to saying a slave can kill himself if he doesn't like it. I'm not saying that the situation hasn't improved. Slavery has changed, it is a more sustainable model now, with less chance of uprising, as people such as yourself actually defend it even though chances are, you are on the wrong side of it (I.e you sell your own labour rather than benefit from others labour in order to survive). But it is still a massive inequality and it literally robs people of choice in their life.
- fsloth 11y ago
  I think you need to specify your historical period and geographical region before you can claim that a great number of people had access to productive land and economic independence before industrial revolution. My perception of history is that the majority of people in post-hunter-gatherer societies have always lived under someones thumb. "But that's ignoring the fact that we have still robbed that person of free will because we have robbed them off the means of production" Who is "we" and what are the means of production that have been robbed from this person? Sure, poverty makes people dumb because all their energies are go to economic struggle - but being born to poverty does not imply that anything was stolen from them. I'm not saying poverty does not suck because it does. But it's not an act of personal malfeasance but a systems error. It would be very cathartic if one could just blame all the rockefellers for the economic inequality in this world but the world is not that simple. "Slavery has changed, it is a more sustainable model now, with less chance of uprising, as people such as yourself actually defend it" I think you are being silly. The specific difference between slavery and current economic trends now is that to fix slavery the people needed to implement fundamental changes to the economy and legal system at large scales. Nowadays to give people a little more independence in developed economies would only require a sustainable model of basic income which is more of a political hassle rather than anything since most developed countries already have extensive systems of income transfer.