Debt Enslavement

[Positivist]

Does anyone have a Marxist analysis of this, or have a link to one?

[Luís Henrique]

What would "debt enslavement" be, the process of expropriation that characterises the transition between Ancient and slave-based modes of production, indentured servitude during the colonial process in the Americas, or the increased dispossession of popular classes in contemporary capitalism by means of credit?

Luís Henrique

[Positivist]

I am referring to the contemporary dispossession through credit.

[Pombero]

Debt slavery is simply another tool used by capitalists to keep the lower classes poor. If you're working all the time to repay student loans, for example, you probably don't have much time to complain. Let alone start a revolution...

[Davide]

Well Debt slavery is simply another tool used by capitalists to keep the lower classes poor.

[Luís Henrique]

I am referring to the contemporary dispossession through credit.

In which case I think we shouldn't call it "debt slavery"; it is a quite different phenomenon.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

In which case I think we shouldn't call it "debt slavery"; it is a quite different phenomenon.

Luís Henrique

Debt serfdom, then? As in Michael Hudson's far more accurate take on today's "Road to Serfdom"? :confused:

There's a reason why early socialists referred to wage labour as wage slavery. Likewise, debt slavery is quite valid. It sure isn't the same as chattel slavery, though.

[Gman]

Debt slavery is just the bourgeoisie enacting it's rule over the proletariat. Not much more than that I think.

Anyways, it's very easy to see. Everyone is in debt to the ruling classes in one or another.

[Luís Henrique]

There's a reason why early socialists referred to wage labour as wage slavery. Likewise, debt slavery is quite valid. It sure isn't the same as chattel slavery, though.

The problem is that there is already something we actually call "debt slavery", and it is the process of reducing people to chattel slavery through debt - which certainly isn't what is happening today.

"Wage slavery" is a good expression in that it equates capitalist exploitation with slavery; "debt slavery" in the context of the OP is a not a good expression in that it seems to dissociate such process from its actual cause, capitalism.

It looks much more like a renewed primitive accumulation of capital, or a new form or stage of enclosure. An attack on the property rights of the working class and petty bourgeoisie.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Marxist theory, as you should know, does not at all amount to ideological rhetoric. The nature of how Marx classifies and defines slavery is quite strict and objective. For one, proletarians are not slaves, despite the ideological rhetoric of the Socialist movement (I.e. Wage Slavery), scientifically. In this same sense, "debt slavery" doesn't exist and doesn't have a place into our definition and conception of the capitalist mode of production.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Marxist theory, as you should know, does not at all amount to ideological rhetoric. The nature of how Marx classifies and defines slavery is quite strict and objective. For one, proletarians are not slaves, despite the ideological rhetoric of the Socialist movement (I.e. Wage Slavery), scientifically. In this same sense, "debt slavery" doesn't exist and doesn't have a place into our definition and conception of the capitalist mode of production.

Marx and Engels wrote about chattel slavery, though. :confused:


The problem is that there is already something we actually call "debt slavery", and it is the process of reducing people to chattel slavery through debt - which certainly isn't what is happening today.

"Wage slavery" is a good expression in that it equates capitalist exploitation with slavery; "debt slavery" in the context of the OP is a not a good expression in that it seems to dissociate such process from its actual cause, capitalism.

It looks much more like a renewed primitive accumulation of capital, or a new form or stage of enclosure. An attack on the property rights of the working class and petty bourgeoisie.

Luís Henrique

For the sake of accuracy and maximizing agitational potential, would indebted (not indentured) servitude be more appropriate? :confused:

[Rafiq]

Marx and Engels wrote about chattel slavery, though. :confused:


I know, but the point is that chattel slavery falls into this definition as such, simply because chattel slaves do not own their own labor.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Marxist theory, as you should know, does not at all amount to ideological rhetoric. The nature of how Marx classifies and defines slavery is quite strict and objective. For one, proletarians are not slaves, despite the ideological rhetoric of the Socialist movement (I.e. Wage Slavery), scientifically. In this same sense, "debt slavery" doesn't exist and doesn't have a place into our definition and conception of the capitalist mode of production.

but surely you can give a marxist analysis of what is going on behind the curtains of rhetoric? Now, I admit I'm not familiar with debt enslavement (or debt slavery, whichever you prefer), but if that mere word is, as you call it, "ideological rhetoric", there must be material conditions behind the mere ideological phrase that should be of interest as it concerns capitalism and the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat?

If i didn't make myself clear: There surely must be material situations that give rise to the "ideological rhetoric" of "wage enslavement/slavery", and these/this situation(s) surely should be both possible and of interest to examine?

[Rafiq]

but surely you can give a marxist analysis of what is going on behind the curtains of rhetoric? Now, I admit I'm not familiar with debt enslavement (or debt slavery, whichever you prefer), but if that mere word is, as you call it, "ideological rhetoric", there must be material conditions behind the mere ideological phrase that should be of interest as it concerns capitalism and the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat?

If i didn't make myself clear: There surely must be material situations that give rise to the "ideological rhetoric" of "wage enslavement/slavery", and these/this situation(s) surely should be both possible and of interest to examine?

I know precisely what you mean. Wage Slavery is in itself socialist rhetoric, so, materially, it has origins in the proletarian class. Debt enslavement, on the contrary, is a relatively new phonemana which has some ground with the Petite Bourgeoisie (in origin) but that doesn't mean, rhetorically, it can be turned around and fit into socialist rhetoric.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I know, but the point is that chattel slavery falls into this definition as such, simply because chattel slaves do not own their own labor.

Ah, what Luis didn't mention above: owning their own labour.


Debt enslavement, on the contrary, is a relatively new phenomenon which has some ground with the Petite Bourgeoisie (in origin) but that doesn't mean, rhetorically, it can be turned around and fit into socialist rhetoric.

Don't you mean "can't" instead of "can"? :confused:

Also, though I asked Luis, what are your thoughts about indebted servitude and its parallels?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Debt enslavement is what Portugal has now, we are slaves to a debt our state accumulated and forces us to pay for them.

The german lady tells us we must honor the agreement, although I do not recall signing any agreements recently, the prime minister tells us we must have hope and work hard in order to the debt, even though the debt is not ours, it is the state's.

This is why there are strikes in Portugal almost every month, and is also why the revolutionary movement is growing.

[Luís Henrique]

Ah, what Luis didn't mention above: owning their own labour.

We don't own our own labour, we own our own labour power.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

For the sake of accuracy and maximizing agitational potential, would indebted (not indentured) servitude be more appropriate? :confused:

If the purpose is agitation, then I don't particularly mind the use of such terms. The problem arises when we start building theory upon rhetoric devices (as in Brazil we had a politician claiming about the necessity of "abolishing poverty" just like we once abolished slavery - which was of course the basis for much interclassist drivel).


Debt enslavement is what Portugal has now, we are slaves to a debt our state accumulated and forces us to pay for them.

This is a further different phenomenon; the OP was about the rise and crisis of personal debt in countries like the United States, resulting in the dispossession of much of the working class and petty bourgeoisie from their private homes.

So, back to Die Neue Zeit's point, I would say that a better agitational slogan should include the word "mortgage": "mortgage dispossession", "mortgage proletarianisation", "mortgage robbery", or something like that.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

You didn't comment on the "servitude" part of indebted servitude, though. :confused:

My point behind all this is to shatter all illusions of "free labour" under bourgeois capitalism.


If the purpose is agitation, then I don't particularly mind the use of such terms. The problem arises when we start building theory upon rhetoric devices (as in Brazil we had a politician claiming about the necessity of "abolishing poverty" just like we once abolished slavery - which was of course the basis for much interclassist drivel).

I'm not one who builds theory around such, of course. I tend to build "sensationalist" rhetoric devices around them.


This is a further different phenomenon; the OP was about the rise and crisis of personal debt in countries like the United States, resulting in the dispossession of much of the working class and petty bourgeoisie from their private homes.

Whatever the indebted servitude, it's only part and parcel of the Iron Law of Disproportionate Immiseration, to borrow from Lassalle's skills: http://www.revleft.com/vb/classical-marxism-and-t165389/index.html?p=2312049


So, back to Die Neue Zeit's point, I would say that a better agitational slogan should include the word "mortgage": "mortgage dispossession", "mortgage proletarianisation", "mortgage robbery", or something like that.

That's only part of the personal credit problem, though. Rising debt through proliferation of lines of credit, ever-high-interest credit cards, etc. that aren't "secured" isn't part of "mortgage dispossession/proletarianization/robbery/etc."

So, what about servitude?

[Rafiq]

Don't you mean "can't" instead of "can"? :confused:

Also, though I asked Luis, what are your thoughts about indebted servitude and its parallels?

Yes, I meant can't. My head was a bit fucked up.

In regards to indebted servitude, to the unfortunate individuals who are put in such a situation, in modern times, do they not still own their own labor power? Debts have existed for a long time in the history of capitalism, but do they always imply indebted servitude? I don't think so.

[freeeveryone!]

considering that debt slavery is a real thing separate from what is being discussed, it is a bad idea to start using the term debt slave in this way.

there's no real marxist analysis of the specific thing you're talking about. that's just how debt works. people get in a lot of debt and need to constantly work to try to pay it off.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, I meant can't. My head was a bit fucked up.

In regards to indebted servitude, to the unfortunate individuals who are put in such a situation, in modern times, do they not still own their own labor power?

Yeah, but so did those who were under indentured servitude, providing labour for a predetermined time in exchange for goods or services.


Debts have existed for a long time in the history of capitalism, but do they always imply indebted servitude? I don't think so.

OK. :confused:

[RedMaterialist]

We don't own our own labour, we own our own labour power.

Luís Henrique

I wonder if labor/labor power is a useful distinction any more. Why not, "We own our own labor, which we are forced to sell, but we don't own the products of our labor."

[Luís Henrique]

David Harvey uses the phrase "accumulation through dispossession". Might be useful.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

David Harvey uses the phrase "accumulation through dispossession". Might be useful.

I've already used that, though, as only part of the broader Iron Laws of Immiseration and Macro-Capitalism frameworks. :(

[Rafiq]

Yeah, but so did those who were under indentured servitude, providing labour for a predetermined time in exchange for goods or services.


If this is really the case, then I suppose you're correct, there does indeed exist parallels between the social phenomena of indentured servitude.