Was Slavery A Progressive Force In history?

[Rainie]

I've been reading a book by the old-time leftist William Paul---- The State: Its Origin and Function (1917). He says slavery was initially a step forward since it freed prisoners of war from being eaten by other nomadic tribes because food was scarce and mankind had not learned horticulture nor how to domesticate animals. Goes to show you learn something apalling every day.

[RGacky3]

Progressive is a really really subjective word, so its hard to tell. Also Social development is not universal, slavery was different in different areas, and its reasons were different in different areas.

[rouchambeau]

This is kind of confusing. Is he talking about slavery in general? Slavery in the Middle Passage? What time period is he talking of here?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, there are different types of slavery:

1) Wage slavery
2) Slave-mode-of-production (before feudalism) type of slavery (Greece, Rome, etc.)
3) Slavery in feudalism and in the Asiatic mode of production (more restrictions on slaveowners as opposed to rights for the slaves)
4) Slavery in early capitalism (the South, slave trade, etc.)

[Saint Street Revolution]

No matter what "progress" Slavery made, it was an atrocious period of all histories, if you are talking about the early American South, Feudal Slavery, or anything else, Slavery is, simply put, bad.

It's okay to look at the light side of bad things, such as Stalin's economic improvements to Russia being recognized as a good thing, which they were, but Stalin is, in my books, a bad person.

So the thread title and original question, Was Slavery a Progressive Force in History? No.

[p.m.a.]

While slave-labor has been utilized in many economic systems of production, slave-labor was once a hegemonic labor force in the slave-system societies, which came before the rise of feudalism. So, it follows to assume at its inception, slave-labor was a progressive force, and it forced human society to progress to a less destructive and anti-humanistic tendency. It doesn't mean slavery wasn't wrong, just as admitting capitalism at first doesn't absolve wage-labor; but wage-labor was a progressive hegemonic force in comparison to slavery before it, and slavery was progressive for human society in comparison to what came before it.

[Labor Shall Rule]

"Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that has given the colonies their value; it is the colonies that have created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance."

"Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe out North America from the map of the world, and you will have anarchy - the complete decay of modern commerce and civilisation."

Marx wrote that in Poverty of Philosophy, and has brutal and dehumanizing as it sounds, it was historically necessary; it was a necessary stage in the development of the forces of production. It layed the foundations of the modern development of production, which is progressive, whether we like it or not. But it is no longer historically necessary; we are materially capable of taking control of the means of production and controlling the surplus we produce ourselves.

[Severian]

I think the William Paul argument originally mentioned - is more about slavery at the origin of civilization.

And yeah, it was progressive in a very non-subjective sense - increasing economic productivity.

[RGacky3]

And yeah, it was progressive in a very non-subjective sense - increasing economic productivity.

Which really does'nt mean much unless its benefiting the people, but I guess if you don't consider slaves people then yeah its great :P.

[chimx]

Marxist historiography and Historical Materialism are founded on the concept that human history and the long-term social developments are inevitably progressive. So yes, slavery very much so was progressive -- but so was feudalism and capitalism.

[chimx]

Plenty of historians disagree with Marxist historiography and viewing history as progressive. I would say one of the more common themes is viewing history processively, without apply values to changing historical epochs. My point is that Marxists view slavery as progressive compared to the prior historical epoch. You are more than welcome to disagree with Historical Materialism though, and you won't be alone.

[chimx]

This conversation isn't productive. If you disagree with Historical Materialism than explain your reasoning.

[CornetJoyce]

"Pardon," said Candide to the Baron; "once more let me entreat your pardon, Reverend Father, for running you through the body."

"Say no more about it," replied the Baron. "I was a little too hasty I must own; but as you seem to be desirous to know by what accident I came to be a slave on board the galley where you saw me, I will inform you. After I had been cured of the wound you gave me, by the College apothecary, I was attacked and carried off by a party of Spanish troops, who clapped me in prison in Buenos Ayres, at the very time my sister was setting out from there. I asked leave to return to Rome, to the general of my Order, who appointed me chaplain to the French Ambassador at Constantinople. I had not been a week in my new office, when I happened to meet one evening a young Icoglan, extremely handsome and well-made. The weather was very hot; the young man had an inclination to bathe. I took the opportunity to bathe likewise. I did not know it was a crime for a Christian to be found naked in company with a young Turk. A cadi ordered me to receive a hundred blows on the soles of my feet, and sent me to the galleys. I do not believe that there was ever an act of more flagrant injustice. But I would fain know how my sister came to be a scullion to a Transylvanian prince, who has taken refuge among the Turks?"

"But how happens it that I behold you again, my dear Pangloss?" said Candide.

"It is true," answered Pangloss, "you saw me hanged, though I ought properly to have been burned; but you may remember, that it rained extremely hard when they were going to roast me. The storm was so violent that they found it impossible to light the fire; so they hanged me because they could do no better. A surgeon purchased my body, carried it home, and prepared to dissect me. He began by making a crucial incision from my navel to the clavicle. It is impossible for anyone to have been more lamely hanged than I had been. The executioner was a subdeacon, and knew how to burn people very well, but as for hanging, he was a novice at it, being quite out of practice; the cord being wet, and not slipping properly, the noose did not join. In short, I still continued to breathe; the crucial incision made me scream to such a degree, that my surgeon fell flat upon his back; and imagining it was the Devil he was dissecting, ran away, and in his fright tumbled down stairs. His wife hearing the noise, flew from the next room, and seeing me stretched upon the table with my crucial incision, was still more terrified than her husband, and fell upon him. When they had a little recovered themselves, I heard her say to her husband, 'My dear, how could you think of dissecting a heretic? Don't you know that the Devil is always in them? I'll run directly to a priest to come and drive the evil spirit out.' I trembled from head to foot at hearing her talk in this manner, and exerted what little strength I had left to cry out, 'Have mercy on me!' At length the Portuguese barber took courage, sewed up my wound, and his wife nursed me; and I was upon my legs in a fortnight's time. The barber got me a place to be lackey to a Knight of Malta, who was going to Venice; but finding my master had no money to pay me my wages, I entered into the service of a Venetian merchant and went with him to Constantinople.

"One day I happened to enter a mosque, where I saw no one but an old man and a very pretty young female devotee, who was telling her beads; her neck was quite bare, and in her bosom she had a beautiful nosegay of tulips, roses, anemones, ranunculuses, hyacinths, and auriculas; she let fall her nosegay. I ran immediately to take it up, and presented it to her with a most respectful bow. I was so long in delivering it that the man began to be angry; and, perceiving I was a Christian, he cried out for help; they carried me before the cadi, who ordered me to receive one hundred bastinadoes, and sent me to the galleys. I was chained in the very galley and to the very same bench with the Baron. On board this galley there were four young men belonging to Marseilles, five Neapolitan priests, and two monks of Corfu, who told us that the like adventures happened every day. The Baron pretended that he had been worse used than myself; and I insisted that there was far less harm in taking up a nosegay, and putting it into a woman's bosom, than to be found stark naked with a young Icoglan. We were continually whipped, and received twenty lashes a day with a heavy thong, when the concatenation of sublunary events brought you on board our galley to ransom us from slavery."

"Well, my dear Pangloss," said Candide to him, "when You were hanged, dissected, whipped, and tugging at the oar, did you continue to think that everything in this world happens for the best?"

"I have always abided by my first opinion," answered Pangloss; "for, after all, I am a philosopher, and it would not become me to retract my sentiments; especially as Leibnitz could not be in the wrong: and that preestablished harmony is the finest thing in the world, as well as a plenum and the materia subtilis."

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:23 am
Plenty of historians disagree with Marxist historiography and viewing history as progressive. I would say one of the more common themes is viewing history processively, without apply values to changing historical epochs. My point is that Marxists view slavery as progressive compared to the prior historical epoch. You are more than welcome to disagree with Historical Materialism though, and you won't be alone.
Exactly.

Slavery existed in the society of Human History in various forms. Naturally it is a shame on humanity on the whole that this miserable thing existed. History should deal with facts not with Morals.

The point of History is not Moralising it,but top learn from it.

[Red Rebel]

Slavery is more progressive than primitive communism (native americans, cavement, ect.).
Capitalism is more progressive than slavery (ancient Rome, Greece and the Confederate States of America).
Socialism is more progressive than capitalism.

[settlefornothin]

If we are talking about chattel slavery in the era leading up to and including the birth of capitalism, it is arguable that european capitalism was built on the wealth created by slavery. In this sense, colonialism combined with African slavery helped to create capitalism. A very good book on this is Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams. This book was written in 1944 and since as fallen under some criticism by such scholars as Seymour Drescher. In this sense slavery was instrumental in the progression towards capitalism.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by red rebel
Slavery is more progressive than primitive communism (native americans, cavement, ect.).

There is no such thing as "Primitive Communism". What you are referring to is calledcommunalism.

[RGacky3]

Slavery is more progressive than primitive communism (native americans, cavement, ect.).

How So?

The Problem with Historical Materialism, is it tries to put a Materialistic Scientific approach to something involving ethics, human relations, social relations and people with all their diferent ideas and emotions. You can't take a Materialistic approach to an ethics problem, like the quesiont "Was Slavery Progressive." Because there is no Material Basis for what constitutes progressive.

[Red Militant]

"chimx" wrote:


Plenty of historians disagree with Marxist historiography and viewing history as progressive. I would say one of the more common themes is viewing history processively, without apply values to changing historical epochs. My point is that Marxists view slavery as progressive compared to the prior historical epoch. You are more than welcome to disagree with Historical Materialism though, and you won't be alone.


I see Marxist dialectics and historical materialism as one analytical viewpoint that sheds some light on things, but I don not believe in dogma, it is a scientific theory, it is only true to an extent it is not completely true or false. Let go of dogma and see.
Leftists think you must either be dialectical or non-dialectical, if we could simply recognize both its truths and its misconceptions we would be far better off than simply accepting a theory as dogma or outright rejecting it, if you want to be a Scientific Socialist than be Scientific.

[Red Militant]

"Red Rebel” wrote:


Slavery is more progressive than primitive communism


This not fully true not to mention a very ugly way of putting things!
This is true in the sense that the over productivity of slavery led to feudalism which led to capitalism which helps lead to socialism, it is true in the material aspect of social (over) production, but it ignores other material aspects the aspects of both economic and political liberty that is the aspect in which the epoch of the slave state was a Digression from Primitive Communism for humanity!

In primitive Communism close to nothing is wasted, they where productive in that they harvested and hunted what they needed and little else they where not over-productive, in this epoch humans where more vulnerable to nature but they where also more rugged and ready for nature and they lived in harmony with nature, Survival of the Fittest has always been a part of human society but in this epoch it was survival against nature, where as in every other epoch it has been survival against your fellow man, in this way Primitive Communism is far more noble than every other Epochs Social Mode of Production!

The nobility ethicalism and humanism of Primitive Communism can only be surpassed by Industrial Communism, which will put an end to Survival of the Fittest once and for all because both through the gains of modern Industry man is no longer so vulnerable to nature and because Socialism's goal of an end to the "Exploitation of Man by Man" shall finally be realized once again.

[PRC-UTE]

"It was slavery that first made possible the division of labour between agriculture and industry on a considerable scale... We should never forget that our whole economic, political and intellectual development has as its presupposition a state of things in which slavery was as necessary as it was universally recognised. In this sense we may say: Without the slavery of antiquity, no modern socialism."
-Engels, part II chap. 4, Anti-Duhring

[LSD]

Yes, slavery was progressive; it progressed human society and made possible the development of more advanced civilization. Obviously it sucked for the people who lived through it (most of them, anyway), but then so did feudalism. And so, as we well know, does capitalism.

Progressive doesn't mean "pleasant", it doesn't even mean "good". The word has taken on all sorts of connotative meanings, especially due to its association with the labour movement and liberal political causes.

But at its core, "progressive" simply means causing progress. And while we may not like slavery or what it entails, that it lead to objective progress in human society is uneniable.

[RGacky3]

But at its core, "progressive" simply means causing progress. And while we may not like slavery or what it entails, that it lead to objective progress in human society is uneniable.

What does progress mean? More produced? More Technology? More needs fulfilled? Better living Standards?


Yes, slavery was progressive; it progressed human society and made possible the development of more advanced civilization. Obviously it sucked for the people who lived through it (most of them, anyway), but then so did feudalism. And so, as we well know, does capitalism.

Civilization is another word that is very very subjective, like who was more civilized during the 1700s, the Europeans or the American Indians?

[LSD]

What does progress mean? More produced? More Technology? More needs fulfilled? Better living Standards?

All those things and more. Progress merely means developmental growth, that manifests as improvements in technology, economics, and all other areas of human society.

Obviously the word "progressive" has taken on a secondary, more "ethical" meaning, one deeply rooted in the liberal political tradtion and enlightenment social values. But from an objective analytical perspective, slavery was undeniably progressove; that is, it progressed society. Whether it was "good" or "bad" is frankly irrelevent.


Civilization is another word that is very very subjective, like who was more civilized during the 1700s, the Europeans or the American Indians?

The Europeans.

[PRC-UTE]

progressive in the marxist sense means basically producing more. the basic contradiction in human society is the struggle over nature to take more from it and dominate it. that's not a popular idea these days, but look at the alternative. when nature dominates us it isn't so pleasant.

[hajduk]

i still didnt hear what slaves think about this

[chimx]

That is irrelevant to this discussion of historical progression, as is it is used by Marxists.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:12 pm
That is irrelevant to this discussion of historical progression, as is it is used by Marxists.
how could be irrelevant if we not ask what slaves think abou this thread?

[chimx]

Because obviously they would think that slavery sucks. But you are using progressive moralistically. As has been discussed, slavery as a progressive force simply means that it advanced (i.e. progressed) societies production power. People's feelings are irrelevant.

[blackstone]

LSD says,


Yes, slavery was progressive; it progressed human society

and settlefornothing points out,


If we are talking about chattel slavery in the era leading up to and including the birth of capitalism, it is arguable that european capitalism was built on the wealth created by slavery. In this sense, colonialism combined with African slavery helped to create capitalism.


One says, slavery progressed human society and the other one says that European capitalism was built on the wealthy created by slavery, a phenomena defined by Marx as the primitive accumulation of capital.

Is human society equated with European society? Something to think about.

I feel hajduk's question is very valid.

What do the slaves feel about this suggestion that slavery was progressive, in the fact that it progressed human society.

In this light we can see that slavery, capitalism, colonialism were very progressive to European / American society but damn right regressive for African society!

Hajduk's question is very valid.

Belgium's colonialism was very progressive...to the Belgium. But what about the African in the Congo?

Missionary John Harris of Baringa, for example, was so shocked by what he had come across that he felt moved to write a letter to Leopold's chief agent in the Congo:

"I have just returned from a journey inland to the village of Insongo Mboyo. The abject misery and utter abandon is positively indescribable. I was so moved, Your Excellency, by the people's stories that I took the liberty of promising them that in future you will only kill them for crimes they commit."

I think a very good book to read is How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney.

It shows that Africa really didn't witness any progress in means of "developmental growth, that manifests as improvements in technology, economics, and all other areas of human society".

Slavery didn't progress shit for human society, unless by human you just mean European and American and excluding all Colored people of the world. :star:

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:17 pm
LSD says,


Yes, slavery was progressive; it progressed human society

and settlefornothing points out,


If we are talking about chattel slavery in the era leading up to and including the birth of capitalism, it is arguable that european capitalism was built on the wealth created by slavery. In this sense, colonialism combined with African slavery helped to create capitalism.


One says, slavery progressed human society and the other one says that European capitalism was built on the wealthy created by slavery, a phenomena defined by Marx as the primitive accumulation of capital.

Is human society equated with European society? Something to think about.

I feel hajduk's question is very valid.

What do the slaves feel about this suggestion that slavery was progressive, in the fact that it progressed human society.

In this light we can see that slavery, capitalism, colonialism were very progressive to European / American society but damn right regressive for African society!

Hajduk's question is very valid.

Belgium's colonialism was very progressive...to the Belgium. But what about the African in the Congo?

Missionary John Harris of Baringa, for example, was so shocked by what he had come across that he felt moved to write a letter to Leopold's chief agent in the Congo:

"I have just returned from a journey inland to the village of Insongo Mboyo. The abject misery and utter abandon is positively indescribable. I was so moved, Your Excellency, by the people's stories that I took the liberty of promising them that in future you will only kill them for crimes they commit."

I think a very good book to read is How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney.

It shows that Africa really didn't witness any progress in means of "developmental growth, that manifests as improvements in technology, economics, and all other areas of human society".

Slavery didn't progress shit for human society, unless by human you just mean European and American and excluding all Colored people of the world. :star:
exactly

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:01 pm
i still didnt hear what slaves think about this
I think we know how they'd feel basically. And we'd support their revolts. Progress in class societies can only be made by labourers revolting against those who exploit them.

Again, we're not saying slavery is 'good', just that it increased production, so set the stage for further developments.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+September 07, 2007 02:31 pm--> (PRC-UTE @ September 07, 2007 02:31 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 09:01 pm
i still didnt hear what slaves think about this
I think we know how they'd feel basically. And we'd support their revolts. Progress in class societies can only be made by labourers revolting against those who exploit them.

just that it increased production, [/b]
blakstone say for whom.
so we speak that Americans and Europeans are only humans in the world?

[Vargha Poralli]

blakstone say for whom.
so we speak that Americans and Europeans are only humans in the world?

No.

But Europeans are fortunate grow past slavery before Asians and Africans. So they progressed more quickly than others in turn enslaving the Africans and Asians as they cannot enslave their own people anymore.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:18 pm

blakstone say for whom.
so we speak that Americans and Europeans are only humans in the world?

No.

But Europeans are fortunate grow past slavery before Asians and Africans. So they progressed more quickly than others in turn enslaving the Africans and Asians as they cannot enslave their own people anymore.
so for the Americans and Europeans slave was "progressive" and for others not?
this mean to me that also for chetnicks genocide was "progressive",right?

[Vargha Poralli]

so for the Americans and Europeans slave was "progressive" and for others not?

For Europeans yes it had been progressive. It created a social surplus which lead Europeans to historically advance the productive forces and transform to feudalism and then to capitalism.

I can't explain why did it happened fastly in Europe alone. It is a very complicated to explain why it happened in such a way.


this mean to me that also for chetnicks genocide was "progressive",right?

I would suggest to carry on your arguments with DJ-TC in the respective threads. Don't mix-up everything in all threads and hijack the thread from the original topic.

And no body really said Milosevic and Chetniks and their genocidal actions are progressive in this thread

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by hajduk+September 07, 2007 03:12 pm--> (hajduk @ September 07, 2007 03:12 pm)
Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 07, 2007 02:31 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 09:01 pm
i still didnt hear what slaves think about this
I think we know how they'd feel basically. And we'd support their revolts. Progress in class societies can only be made by labourers revolting against those who exploit them.

just that it increased production,
blakstone say for whom.
so we speak that Americans and Europeans are only humans in the world? [/b]
Are you saying only europeans and Americans had slavery? cos that's not so.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:40 pm

so for the Americans and Europeans slave was "progressive" and for others not?

For Europeans yes it had been progressive. It created a social surplus which lead Europeans to historically advance the productive forces and transform to feudalism and then to capitalism.

I can't explain why did it happened fastly in Europe alone. It is a very complicated to explain why it happened in such a way.


this mean to me that also for chetnicks genocide was "progressive",right?

I would suggest to carry on your arguments with DJ-TC in the respective threads. Don't mix-up everything in all threads and hijack the thread from the original topic.

And no body really said Milosevic and Chetniks and their genocidal actions are progressive in this thread
you get me wrong
i compare genocide and slavery
on same way you can discuse about genocide same as slavery

[hajduk]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+September 07, 2007 03:42 pm--> (PRC-UTE @ September 07, 2007 03:42 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:12 pm

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 07, 2007 02:31 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 09:01 pm
i still didnt hear what slaves think about this
I think we know how they'd feel basically. And we'd support their revolts. Progress in class societies can only be made by labourers revolting against those who exploit them.

just that it increased production,
blakstone say for whom.
so we speak that Americans and Europeans are only humans in the world?
Are you saying only europeans and Americans had slavery? cos that's not so. [/b]
of course today everybody make own proffit with slavery
the only difference that is today is not called slavery
today we have better demagogical name

HUMAN TRAFFICKING
so in this manner i will ask becouse i got warnning from Varga that i mixup the topics

IS THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING A PROGRESSIVE FORCE TODAY?
i mean initially

[Vargha Poralli]

of course today everybody make own proffit with slavery
the only difference that is today is not called slavery
today we have better demagogical name

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

I assume you mean this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_in_human_beings)

Well yes Human traffiking is a problem and it was never progressive.

The type of slavery we are discussing is the one which is prevalent in the Roman Empire and the during the early days of American colinies.



so in this manner i will ask becouse i got warnning from Varga that i mixup the topics

I didn't warn you just gave you a suggestion.


IS THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING A PROGRESSIVE FORCE TODAY?
i mean initially

No not initially and definitely not finally.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Vargha [email protected] 10, 2007 11:30 am

of course today everybody make own proffit with slavery
the only difference that is today is not called slavery
today we have better demagogical name

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

I assume you mean this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_in_human_beings)

Well yes Human traffiking is a problem and it was never progressive.

The type of slavery we are discussing is the one which is prevalent in the Roman Empire and the during the early days of American colinies.



so in this manner i will ask becouse i got warnning from Varga that i mixup the topics

I didn't warn you just gave you a suggestion.


IS THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING A PROGRESSIVE FORCE TODAY?
i mean initially

No not initially and definitely not finally.
so if we speak about genocide in same whay in that manner we can ask

IS THE FALL OF TROY BEEN PROGRESSIVE FOR GREEKS?

becouse that was a genocide for the people of Troy

[Vargha Poralli]

so if we speak about genocide in same whay in that manner we can ask

IS THE FALL OF TROY BEEN PROGRESSIVE FOR GREEKS?

becouse that was a genocide for the people of Troy

Well you have given a very bad fictitious example. Can you come up with something else ?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Vargha [email protected] 10, 2007 12:09 pm

so if we speak about genocide in same whay in that manner we can ask

IS THE FALL OF TROY BEEN PROGRESSIVE FOR GREEKS?

becouse that was a genocide for the people of Troy

Well you have given a very bad fictitious example. Can you come up with something else ?
as i know Troy wasnt a fiction so your exuse for avoiding the answer is not god

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by hajduk
as i know Troy wasnt a fiction so your exuse for avoiding the answer is not god

Well ok I am not well informed about Troy. All I know about is from the hollywood movie with Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom.

Any I answer your previous question

No Genocide is not Progressive.

[Labor Shall Rule]

My best guess is that we would be centuries backward if we did not have slavery - I am guessing that computers would of not been invented by then, and that we would all be shoved into wooden huts located between the Appalachian Mountains and the Atlantic seaboard. We would probably still be subservient to the British. I am also guessing that we would also still be using muskets. There would be simple commodity production based on sustaining the community, rather than an economy based on obtaining enough of a surplus to meet the general needs of the entire populace. In other words, there would be famines, people dying due to lack of adequate healthcare, maybe a few widespread diseases that kill millions more, and ongoing backwardness.

Can you imagine living without slavery? Being in a society in which your crops might freeze, leaving your family without harvest to keep you going? Being in a society in which modern forms of medication are thrown off the shelves? Being in a society in which none of what you have today exists? Slavery, whether you like it or not, has laid down modern capitalist production. As so, it laid down the foundations of socialism also.

Of course it is obvious if we looked at this from a slave's perspective, we would look at it differently. But we are not slaves. We are in the modern age. We can't say "if I lived back then I would of supported the slaves", because we can never go back then. If we correctly examine slavery from our perspective, which is truly what matters in the first place, we would discover that it was a progressive force. As far as it's historical leftovers, such as the super-exploitation of black workers, we will recognize this based on our modern understanding of the material situation of the colored sections of the working class today, rather than complaining about the problems of yesterday.

[gilhyle]

I cant even understand what this thread is about now - obviously slavery was progressive in the role it played in the development of the trading empires around the medittaranean. What is the question, is it whether 18/19 century slavery was still progressive ?

[LSD]

What is the question

Whether slavery at its origin was progressive.


It shows that Africa really didn't witness any progress in means of "developmental growth, that manifests as improvements in technology, economics, and all other areas of human society".

Yes it did!

Unless you're proposing that Africa today is the same as Africa 150 years ago? or 500 years ago? or 50,000 years ago?

And, by the way, it's important to remember that slavery was not a European invention. Africans had been enslaving one another long before Europeans came along, as indeed had Europeans long before they invaded Africa.

Slavery may have been a racial issue durring the latter-half of the last millenium, but for most of human history it was a class issue, nothing more.

For some reason, you've decided that this thread is about the 17th century. Well, it isn't. It's about the origins of slavery and the economic transition that accompanied it.

That is, we're talking about thousands of years ago, just after the invention of agriculture and the neolithic revolution. We're talking about the Sumerians and the Egyptians and other Africans who enslaved populations and in so doing vastly increased their productive capacity.

And to deny that slavery helped these peoples develop and progress both economically and socially is to deny the objective facts of history.

No one is protesting that the life of a slave is a miserable one, but then so is the life of a serf ...or of a worker. But that doesn't change the historical fact that slavery and feudalism and capitalism were all progressive forces compared with what came before.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:44 pm
I cant even understand what this thread is about now - obviously slavery was progressive in the role it played in the development of the trading empires around the medittaranean. What is the question, is it whether 18/19 century slavery was still progressive ?
Both were progressive at some point. However, ancient slavery stopped being progressive when Hellenic civilization reached its peak. Then, slavery stopped being a progressive force and became reactionary, leading to the downfall of Athens. And I am not yet know enough about American history to tell you when slavery in the Americas stopped being progressive.

Hajduk: You can have a moralistic view on history, you can have a materialistic view on history, but you cannot have both. What makes something progressive does not necessarily have to be pleasant.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:44 pm
I cant even understand what this thread is about now - obviously slavery was progressive in the role it played in the development of the trading empires around the medittaranean. What is the question, is it whether 18/19 century slavery was still progressive ?
right, the question here is ilil-defined. obviously slavery ceased to be a progressive force in improving production oh say... around the time fuedelism took off or so. No one here is defending the slaver that occured in modern times under a capitalist economy which was far more brutal as many historians claim.

[hajduk]

Alcaeos slavery is not progressive force whatever you say,that is illussion
LSD africans living by tribe rules and been killing becouse white people considered them like savages and by that you say white people took slavery from them...
then who is savage?
Red Dali like i told to Alcaeos slavery aint make computers
people whos got a knowledge made computers
so like Varga said genocide is not progressive force in history
i say slavery is not progressive force in history
wisdom and knowledge are progressive force in history
and to make slave you dont need wisdom
to make slave you need to become a FASCIST
so is the fascism progressive force in history?
NO

questions

DO YOU WILL BECOME SLAVE IF THAT GIVE BIG CHANCES FOR MAKING A CLASS REVOLUTION?
DO YOU WILL USE SLAVERY LIKE PROGRESSIVE FORCE FOR MAKING A CLASS REVOLUTION?

[gilhyle]

It is of interest to note how Marx charts (in his ethnographic notebooks) the way slavery was emerging in Irish society in the 5th to 10th centuries and how this improved the productive capacity of that society.

Just on the moral point, it is also worth pointing that if you listen to the voice of SOME of the former slaves in 19th century U.S. or in 5-6th century AD Europe you might get the answer that they preferred slavery - because within slavery they had an established exchange value which gave them some protection from indigence. To push the 19th century example a bit further, where are you if you find the Marxist arguing that slavery should be abolished as no longer progressive and you have a slave/former slave arguing that it should be maintained/reintroduced as protective ?

The moral stance is a slippery slope.

[Red Rebel]

Originally posted by "Vinny Rafarino"+--> ("Vinny Rafarino")There is no such thing as "Primitive Communism". What you are referring to is calledcommunalism.[/b]

Close enough.


Originally posted by "RGacky3"@
How So?

Slavery is the starting phase of class conflict. If class antagonism doesn't exist then what the hell are the socialist/communists/anarchists/ect. fighting?


"Red Militant"
This not fully true not to mention a very ugly way of putting things!
This is true in the sense that the over productivity of slavery led to feudalism which led to capitalism which helps lead to socialism, it is true in the material aspect of social (over) production, but it ignores other material aspects the aspects of both economic and political liberty that is the aspect in which the epoch of the slave state was a Digression from Primitive Communism for humanity!

I don't like to type. :P Yes slavery was a "digression" for humanity but slavery is more efficent and thus it naturally won over primitve communism. I don't disagree with anything you said though.