Is benign slavery still slavery?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Perhaps, it is.

But what I mean is this: suppose workers are protected and cared for, given housing and education, reduced working hours and all that, put simply, they are able to live happy, productive lives, would class conflict then matter at all? If leftists argue that it is still wrong, in what sense? Leftists don't believe in morality but in materialism. So if workers are *materially* well-off, then where is the question of 'wrong' in that?

A moralist may say that exploitation is always wrong as a matter of principle even if that exploitation were to somehow feed and clothe and benefit the exploited. Marxists, on the other hand, are pragmatists and so if exploitation is going to be materially beneficial to the exploited, under what pretext would they protest?

In fact, a pragmatist would go so far as to argue that this situation would benefit both parties because, while the slave is happy with his improving material conditions, his master is happy that the slave is happy! Therefore, conflict and bloodshed are avoided.

Just trying to understand this; that's all. Not advocating slavery or anything, so don't jump down my throat. All I am saying is, Most people in this world are already slaves--slaves to their employer, to capital, to the state and police, to social norms, to ruling class ideas and ideals, and so forth. Slavery exists and it exists on all levels possible, be it economic or political or emotional or social.

Since slavery pervades every aspect of our lives, would it be wise to make it more palatable instead of fighting a losing battle against it?

[RGacky3]

No,

[#FF0000]

No.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

No.

No to the thread title?

[#FF0000]

No to this.


Since slavery pervades every aspect of our lives, would it be wise to make it more palatable instead of fighting a losing battle against it?

[Raúl Duke]

Once, in the past, when there was chattel slavery in the U.S....

There were slave reformers that asked for shaded blocks, better conditions for slaves, better chains.

Than there was the abolitionists, who only sought to boldly end slavery completely, who were considered radical.

In the end, who is looked fondly by history? Who is considered boldly right and who is looked at with snide for their lack of backbone?

[AK]

I don't give a shit what adjective you put in front of it, slavery is still slavery.


Perhaps, it is.

But what I mean is this: suppose workers are protected and cared for, given housing and education, reduced working hours and all that, put simply, they are able to live happy, productive lives, would class conflict then matter at all? If leftists argue that it is still wrong, in what sense? Leftists don't believe in morality but in materialism. So if workers are *materially* well-off, then where is the question of 'wrong' in that?
The wrong in that is that the workers put in labour but the capitalists still do not. The capitalists are still exploiting their sources of labour.


A moralist may say that exploitation is always wrong as a matter of principle even if that exploitation were to somehow feed and clothe and benefit the exploited. Marxists, on the other hand, are pragmatists and so if exploitation is going to be materially beneficial to the exploited, under what pretext would they protest?
The exploiters are still much better off than the exploited.


In fact, a pragmatist would go so far as to argue that this situation would benefit both parties because, while the slave is happy with his improving material conditions, his master is happy that the slave is happy! Therefore, conflict and bloodshed are avoided.
But it would benefit one party more than the other.


Since slavery pervades every aspect of our lives, would it be wise to make it more palatable instead of fighting a losing battle against it?
No.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

I don't give a shit what adjective you put in front of it, slavery is still slavery.
The wrong in that is that the workers put in labour but the capitalists still do not. The capitalists are still exploiting their sources of labour.

You mean it is morally wrong? Hmm...


The exploiters are still much better off than the exploited.

Someone will always be better off than someone else.


But it would benefit one party more than the other.

Even if workers were to control the MoP, this problem would persist with some workers being 'more' equal than the rest.

[RGacky3]

You mean it is morally wrong? Hmm...

Yeah, its morally wrong .... And what? Everything that is considered wrong is considered morally wrong.


Someone will always be better off than someone else.


So? That does'nt equate slavery.


Even if workers were to control the MoP, this problem would persist with some workers being 'more' equal than the rest.

What does that mean? More Equal in what sense?

Heres the thing, I would address your points, but its really pointless, If you ask people whether freedom and autonomy is important to them, most people would say yes, so its not ok. Also your conditions are impossible, because the ruling class will NEVER take a hit before the workers do.

[Sir Comradical]

Perhaps, it is.

But what I mean is this: suppose workers are protected and cared for, given housing and education, reduced working hours and all that, put simply, they are able to live happy, productive lives, would class conflict then matter at all? If leftists argue that it is still wrong, in what sense? Leftists don't believe in morality but in materialism. So if workers are *materially* well-off, then where is the question of 'wrong' in that?

1. Slavery in the scientific sense describes a relationship where people are bought and sold as commodities. Whether the slavery being practiced is brutal or benign is irrelevant.

2. This next part makes you sound confused "Leftists don't believe in morality but in materialism". Do you even know what materialism means? Or do you think it's synonymous with consumerism?

[iskrabronstein]

Perhaps, it is.

But what I mean is this: suppose workers are protected and cared for, given housing and education, reduced working hours and all that, put simply, they are able to live happy, productive lives, would class conflict then matter at all? If leftists argue that it is still wrong, in what sense? Leftists don't believe in morality but in materialism. So if workers are *materially* well-off, then where is the question of 'wrong' in that?

A moralist may say that exploitation is always wrong as a matter of principle even if that exploitation were to somehow feed and clothe and benefit the exploited. Marxists, on the other hand, are pragmatists and so if exploitation is going to be materially beneficial to the exploited, under what pretext would they protest?



These are all fundamental mischaracterizations of Marxist positions, which stem I suspect from viewing Marxism as simply a political and economic criticism of society, without taking into account its philosophical reasoning.

The answer to the first criticism is the concept of alienation, and it is a fairly developed term - Marx, having isolated human labor power as the basis of economic systems as a whole, argued that the conditions in which that labor is organized and directed, combined with the material productive potential of a society determines the social and class composition of that society. But the increases in material social productivity, throughout history, that catalyzed the development of class society and whose development have forced revolutionary changes in those societies are fundamentally divorced from the workers who developed and implemented them. The form of this oppression varies according to the class composition of the society under discussion - but this fundamental exploitation, this alienation of the worker from the conditions and end-result of his labor, is an ineradicable feature of class society.

This dehumanizing relationship is what Marxists oppose - we are not either moralists or vulgar materialists.


Just trying to understand this; that's all. Not advocating slavery or anything, so don't jump down my throat. All I am saying is, Most people in this world are already slaves--slaves to their employer, to capital, to the state and police, to social norms, to ruling class ideas and ideals, and so forth. Slavery exists and it exists on all levels possible, be it economic or political or emotional or social.

Only if you think you can equate the buying and selling of human beings as commodities and chattel labor to the exploitation of human labor power on a capitalist market. Seriously, slavery has a specific definition. Exploitation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it.



Since slavery pervades every aspect of our lives, would it be wise to make it more palatable instead of fighting a losing battle against it?

No.

Coward.

[x371322]

Wait wait wait, what? You're defending slavery? Really? Slavery?

Just making sure.

[Dimentio]

Wait wait wait, what? You're defending slavery? Really? Slavery?

Just making sure.

Don't feed it.

[Ele'ill]

Another fine thread by Gandhi and my level of acceptance of this thread is best described as No.


Edit: by 'fine' I mean vague and powdery like dust.

[scarletghoul]

:laugh: Why do I even bother opening these threads

[AK]

You mean it is morally wrong? Hmm...
No kidding. Show me where I denied that.


Someone will always be better off than someone else.
You think inequality just 'happens'? You do realise that class inequality was always the result of an individual's relation to the means of coercion and sources of power within a society? And that races, nations, ethnicities, sexes and genders were only ever unequal because those with direct control of the sources of power within a society always acted in their own interests and tried to appease those who they ruled over?

Oh, I'm sorry. Inequality just fell out of the fucking sky, after all - there were no variables involved in it at all :rolleyes:


Even if workers were to control the MoP, this problem would persist with some workers being 'more' equal than the rest.
You tell a lie. If all the workers directly controlled the means of production then they would all be equal (so long as they also each had an equal say in the over running and actions of government).

[synthesis]

No, and a red point for trolling.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

No kidding. Show me where I denied that.

Morality and materialist analysis don't always mix. That's what I am hinting at.


You think inequality just 'happens'? You do realise that class inequality was always the result of an individual's relation to the means of coercion and sources of power within a society? And that races, nations, ethnicities, sexes and genders were only ever unequal because those with direct control of the sources of power within a society always acted in their own interests and tried to appease those who they ruled over?

People fight each other even when there is no politics involved. All this shows that politics is only part of the problem, not the whole. People have an intrinsic desire to dominate ... which is why even those are weak try to attack those who are weaker still. What do you think bullying is? Your economic reductionism fails on this account.


You tell a lie. If all the workers directly controlled the means of production then they would all be equal (so long as they also each had an equal say in the over running and actions of government).

All workers are not equal insofar as qualifications, knowledge and skills are concerned. This situation would make some workers 'more equal' than the rest, if you know what I am saying. Besides, if a billion workers had to determine every single thing, nothing would ever get done. So it is obvious that there is going to be hierarchy, if only to simplify matters.

Mahatma

[AK]

Morality and materialist analysis don't always mix. That's what I am hinting at.
Don't always. But it is possible for me to mix the two - having an ideology which promotes anti-discrimination, justice, freedom, equality and unity fits in perfectly with most people's morals.


People fight each other even when there is no politics involved. All this shows that politics is only part of the problem, not the whole. People have an intrinsic desire to dominate ... which is why even those are weak try to attack those who are weaker still. What do you think bullying is? Your economic reductionism fails on this account.
Bite me. Human nature is bullshit and you know it. If I can change how I behave and think, surely it is possible to for nearly everyone else to?


All workers are not equal insofar as qualifications, knowledge and skills are concerned. This situation would make some workers 'more equal' than the rest, if you know what I am saying. Besides, if a billion workers had to determine every single thing, nothing would ever get done. So it is obvious that there is going to be hierarchy, if only to simplify matters.
Oh shit guys. He's played the "democracy/self-management/self-government doesn't work card". Allow me to fap to some Kropotkin:

The objection is known. "If the existence of each is guaranteed, and if the necessity of earning wages does not compel men to work, nobody will work. Every man will lay the burden of his work on another if he is not forced to do it himself." Let us first remark the incredible levity with which this objection is raised, without taking into consideration that the question is in reality merely to know, on the one hand, whether you effectively obtain by wage-work the results you aim at; and, on the other hand, whether voluntary work is not already more productive to-day than work stimulated by wages....

What is most striking in this levity is that even in capitalist Political Economy you already find a few writers compelled by facts to doubt the axiom put forth by the founders of their science, that the threat of hunger is man's best stimulant for productive work. ....

They fear that without compulsion the masses will not work.

But during our own lifetime have we not heard the same fears expressed twice? By the anti-abolitionists in America before Negro emancipation, and by the Russian nobility before the liberation of the serfs? "Without the whip the Negro will not work," said the anti-abolitionist. "Free from their master's supervision the serfs will leave the fields uncultivated," said the Russian serf-owners. It was the refrain of the French noblemen in 1789, the refrain of the Middle Ages, a refrain as old as the world, and we shall hear it every time there is a question of sweeping away an injustice. And each time actual facts give it the lie. The liberated peasant of 1792 ploughed with a wild energy unknown to his ancestors, the emancipated Negro works more than his fathers, and the Russian peasant, after having honoured the honeymoon of his emancipation by celebrating Fridays as well as Sundays, has taken up work with as much eagerness as his liberation was the more complete. There, where the soil is his, he works desperately; that is the exact word for it. The anti-abolitionist refrain can be of value to slave-owners; as to the slaves themselves, they know what it is worth, as they know its motive.

Moreover, Who but economists taught us that if a wage-earner's work is but indifferent, an intense and productive work is only obtained from a man who sees his wealth increase in proportion to his efforts? All hymns sung in honour of private property can be reduced to this axiom.

For it is remarkable that when economists, wishing to celebrate the blessings of property, show us how an unproductive, marshy, or stony soil is clothed with rich harvests when cultivated by the peasant proprietor, they in nowise prove their thesis in favour of private property. By admitting: that the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour--which is true--the economists only prove that man really produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly, when he sees his work bringing in a profit to him and to others who work like him, but bringing in nothing to idlers. This is all we can deduct from their argumentation, and we maintain the same ourselves.

Besides, since when did qualifications, knowledge and skills determine one's place in a social hierarchy? This is not some weird meritocracy; we live in a fucking plutocracy - or would you have us believe that the ruling class is truly made up of smart, skilful people with the right qualifications?

[RGacky3]

Morality and materialist analysis don't always mix. That's what I am hinting at.

THey are do different things you moron, Morallity is values, and analysis is analysis of a situation, Thats like saying Cooking and eating don't always mix.


People fight each other even when there is no politics involved. All this shows that politics is only part of the problem, not the whole. People have an intrinsic desire to dominate ... which is why even those are weak try to attack those who are weaker still. What do you think bullying is? Your economic reductionism fails on this account.

Bullying happens for many different reasons, but what your saying has little scientific basis, people are more altruistic and social NATURALLY then they are selfish.

But even if you are right, that there is some domineering part of human nature, does'nt that mean that we should avoid any system that allows that part to control others?

Hell if people were altruistic thats a much bigger argument for capitalism or monarchy than it is for communism or democracy.


All workers are not equal insofar as qualifications, knowledge and skills are concerned. This situation would make some workers 'more equal' than the rest, if you know what I am saying.

Equality in say over the economy, not everyone is as politically savvy, but we all have one vote, thats what it means.


Besides, if a billion workers had to determine every single thing, nothing would ever get done. So it is obvious that there is going to be hierarchy, if only to simplify matters.


Let me explain to you why thats retarded. In American democracy, if they want to open a public park in say, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, does AMERICA vote on it? NO, oh look at that. Listen socialism is the same as democracy, if you can't grasp democracy, or how it works, start with that.

[Sir Comradical]

Morality and materialist analysis don't always mix. That's what I am hinting at.

Can you give me an example?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Morality and materialist analysis don't always mix. That's what I am hinting at.

Bollocks. As material and moral beings, it is obvious that there is some crossover.


People fight each other even when there is no politics involved. All this shows that politics is only part of the problem, not the whole. People have an intrinsic desire to dominate ... which is why even those are weak try to attack those who are weaker still. What do you think bullying is? Your economic reductionism fails on this account.

Bullying is a bad example, since it's a phenomenon on a personal level, rather than a socioeconomic level.


All workers are not equal insofar as qualifications, knowledge and skills are concerned. This situation would make some workers 'more equal' than the rest, if you know what I am saying.

People may vary in personality and aptitude, but that does not mean they should not be given the same opportunities to excel themselves.


Besides, if a billion workers had to determine every single thing, nothing would ever get done. So it is obvious that there is going to be hierarchy, if only to simplify matters.

Not if you replace vertical, hierarchical management with horizontal, technical collaboration between specialised sectors of society.

[eclipse]

The question I read in the subtext here is: can capitalism be reformed to a state where everyone lives happily insinde it, is a much cared for economically that there is no need for a revolution anymore.

And the answer is, as exspected, no it`s impossible. It lies in the tendency of accumulation of wealth. Capitalists are in need to erode worker rights once more, to invade private spaces and commercialize them. Not because they are morally evil, but because if they don`t the people who do have the advantage over them.
So we cannot erode and reform capitalism to a state where it benefits everyone in form of a life - worthy condition, we have to destroy it completely.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Bollocks. As material and moral beings, it is obvious that there is some crossover.

Hmm, you now sound like a Christian. Good boy!:thumbup1: And they say Christian Marxism is impossible....


Bullying is a bad example, since it's a phenomenon on a personal level, rather than a socioeconomic level.

Isn't everything a form of bullying? Why do you think rich nations invade poor nations? Rich man exploiting the poor man? And so forth. It is not about money (because the rich have more already) but power-it is about exerting one's authority and showing who the boss is. It is bullying, although in a different form.


People may vary in personality and aptitude, but that does not mean they should not be given the same opportunities to excel themselves.

"There are many princes and there will continue to be thousands more, but there is only one Beethoven."

You'll be ruining people's lives if you tell them they can do and be anything; you'll be setting them up for one disappointment after another.


Not if you replace vertical, hierarchical management with horizontal, technical collaboration between specialised sectors of society.

Empty fancy. By the time you do this (if at all you do this), many workers are going to suffer. Workers want results, not your idealism.:mad:

[Queercommie Girl]

Concretely, slavery or not is a matter of fundamental rights.

Slaves may be well-cared for, but it doesn't change the fact that slaves have no ownership rights, no freedom, and in many cases, not even the right to live. The slave-lords of Shang dynasty China might have cared about their slaves quite well in some cases, but after the lord's death it is still the fate of human sacrifice that awaits the slaves.

So no, your question is ridiculous, and it is far more than just an empty abstract slogan to say that "we oppose slavery of all kinds, benign or not", it is a matter of very tangible and concrete rights.

If you say what about if the slave has all the rights as a free man but is just still called a slave, well then in that case it is just a purely meaningless semantical question, because by definition a "slave" who has all the rights as a free man is no longer a slave, no matter what he or she is called.

[synthesis]

Is benign slavery still slavery?

Is date rape still rape?

Is a painless murder still murder?

Is it still robbery if the gun isn't loaded?

Is an obvious troll still obvious? (Apparently not.)

[AK]

Hmm, you now sound like a Christian. Good boy!:thumbup1: And they say Christian Marxism is impossible....
But you still sound like an asshole.


"There are many princes and there will continue to be thousands more, but there is only one Beethoven."

You'll be ruining people's lives if you tell them they can do and be anything; you'll be setting them up for one disappointment after another.
In what way does giving people opportunities equate to ruining their lives?


Empty fancy. By the time you do this (if at all you do this), many workers are going to suffer. Workers want results, not your idealism.:mad:
Dismissing something as "idealist" or "utopian" is a good way to both troll and forget to make any proper arguments at the same time.

I'm not sure you realise this, Mahatma Gandhi, but no-one wants your annoying, preaching, trolling ass here. GTFO.

[RGacky3]

Hmm, you now sound like a Christian. Good boy!:thumbup1: And they say Christian Marxism is impossible....

Because morality only exists in christianity ... moron.


Isn't everything a form of bullying? Why do you think rich nations invade poor nations? Rich man exploiting the poor man? And so forth. It is not about money (because the rich have more already) but power-it is about exerting one's authority and showing who the boss is. It is bullying, although in a different form.

Depends how you define bullying, but yes it IS about money, because money = power, having enough to live good is'nt the point, its having enough to control stuff.

But schoolyard Bullying is'nt always about power, to reduce it to that would make no sense.


"There are many princes and there will continue to be thousands more, but there is only one Beethoven."

You'll be ruining people's lives if you tell them they can do and be anything; you'll be setting them up for one disappointment after another.

What? What does that have to do with what he said?

OK, so this is your argument, some people are less capable in somethings, thus, they should be slaves.

You calling yourself a christian is deplorable, your a sociopath.


Empty fancy. By the time you do this (if at all you do this), many workers are going to suffer. Workers want results, not your idealism.

Maybe if you understood what he was saying you'd see why he WAS talking about results. Your answer is, "workers should be happy to be slaves and just ask to be treated nicer."

Its one thing if you don't see how capitalism is essencially slavery and tyranny.

But you see it, and your OK with it, thast another level of douch baggery. But if your fine with that, ok, but don't expect anyone to accept your amoral douchbaggery.

[NGNM85]

A gilded cage is a cage, nontheless. Rights should not be purchased at the expense of other rights. Fundamental rights are not up for grabs, all people should be entitled to all of them. Until that is so we should devote ourselves to making it so. The day afterwards, I perscribe a well-deserved nap.