Was slavery/feudalism terrible for all slaves/serfs?

[Kukulofori]

anti-revisionist reasons only, I obviously don't condone slavery or feudalism.

[jake williams]

It's not really easy to answer. On one hand, systems of oppression prevent the free and full development of all oppressed individuals. On the other hand, there are happy women under patriarchy and there were/are happy slaves.

[#FF0000]

I'm sure there were happy slaves and serfs. I'm also willing to bet that they were the only ones that wanted to be slave or serfs.

[Black Sheep]

There must have been slaves and serfs who were given a bit more rights and a chunk of authoritah to watch over the rest.Like the one-eyed individuals in the land of the blind.

Just as we have the workers' aristocracy nowadays :glare:

[jake williams]

There must have been slaves and serfs who were given a bit more rights and a chunk of authoritah to watch over the rest.Like the one-eyed individuals in the land of the blind.

Just as we have the workers' aristocracy nowadays :glare:
There's this part of it, but I also think it's possible to know you're being oppressed and enjoy your life in spite of it.

[Q]

anti-revisionist reasons only
Uh what?

[Grunt]

[...]Just as we have the workers' aristocracy nowadays :glare:
But wouldn't those not already fall in the
category: Petite Bourgeoisie ?

(At least they think and live like the Petite Bourgeoisie)

[eyedrop]

But wouldn't those not already fall in the
category: Petite Bourgeoisie ?

(At least they think and live like the Petite Bourgeoisie)

Not exactly, since they still have a boss to adhere to although they also have other workers under them. (Talking about semi-managers and such in firms)

While the small bourgouise have no bosses over them, they just get fucked over by the tilted market and big corporations. Although franchise-store owners are small bourgeouise almost with bosses over them.


My country had it's last independent grocery store taken over this year.

[piet11111]

in ancient Rome the slaves where reasonably well off certainly better then the poor as the rich bastards that owned them looked after them like rich people take care of their horses these days.

they where guaranteed food shelter and some medical care and that is a lot more then Rome's poorest got.

[Grunt]

Not exactly, since they still have a boss to adhere to although they also have other workers under them. (Talking about semi-managers and such in firms)

While the small bourgouise have no bosses over them, they just get fucked over by the tilted market and big corporations. Although franchise-store owners are small bourgeouise almost with bosses over them.
It's a very fine line isn't it?

[Black Sheep]

It's a very fine line isn't it?
Not really- one's relation to the means of production is the 'key' factor by which "technically,you can define in what class he/she belongs to.

But that alone is not enough to say that that worker will benefit from a proletarian revolution.

[Black Dagger]

anti-revisionist reasons only, I obviously don't condone slavery or feudalism.

What is the purpose of this discussion? If you don't condone slavery or fedualism and thus are not attempting to make a de facto argument in their favour - what is the point of the members here speculating on the personal satisfaction of people we have never met and can never know? Besides it's such an absurd question - 'is being a slave all bad?' What do you think? :unsure:

[jake williams]

What is the purpose of this discussion? If you don't condone slavery or fedualism and thus are not attempting to make a de facto argument in their favour - what is the point of the members here speculating on the personal satisfaction of people we have never met and can never know? Besides it's such an absurd question - 'is being a slave all bad?' What do you think? :unsure:
Well I think the fact that slaves could still tolerate slavery, even still enjoy their lives, makes an important point about how the capitalist system is still intolerable, even though not all workers are miserable all the time. It's almost a trivial point except that it's not obvious to everyone.u

[Oneironaut]

What is the purpose of this discussion? If you don't condone slavery or fedualism and thus are not attempting to make a de facto argument in their favour - what is the point of the members here speculating on the personal satisfaction of people we have never met and can never know? Besides it's such an absurd question - 'is being a slave all bad?' What do you think? :unsure:

Well it is the learning forum where no question is absurd. But I must say I do agree with you...

[Black Dagger]

Yeah sorry, i wasn't trying to be harsh - i should have said 'odd' rather than 'absurd' - my apologies.



Well I think the fact that slaves could still tolerate slavery, even still enjoy their lives, makes an important point about how the capitalist system is still intolerable, even though not all workers are miserable all the time. It's almost a trivial point except that it's not obvious to everyone.

Sure, but as you say - i thought that would be obvious. We don't need to talk to the slaves of past centuries to know that they must have tried to make the best out of their situation - which was nevertheless terrible on the whole. They would have been happier if they weren't slaves etc.

[jake williams]

Sure, but as you say - i thought that would be obvious. We don't need to talk to the slaves of past centuries to know that they must have tried to make the best out of their situation - which was nevertheless terrible on the whole. They would have been happier if they weren't slaves etc.
It's obvious, but there are way more obvious things people aren't aware of.

[Junius]

Uh, I think its a very relevant issue on the extent to which those oppressed perpetuate their own oppression. For example, you could argue that women are oppressed as a gender, but they continue to enforce their own oppression by, for example, mothers giving dolls to their daughters and fire-trucks to their sons, passing on patriarchal values to their daughters and sons, i.e. perpetuating gender lines which tend to disadvantage females. Likewise, many are opposed to abortion; and that includes many women (this depends where, of course). So far as capitalism is concerned, the worker perpetuates capitalism by definition of their role in their society; essentially being the creators of capital.

On all these issues, however, 'happiness' is not the relevant criteria to assess whether change is possible or desirable (although I would argue that a society where the majority is unhappy deserves to be changed), but whether these social values and economic relations are an actual fetter to the development of human society as a whole. I think they are. The Devil's greatest accomplishment was convincing the world he didn't exist. Capitalisms greatest accomplishment is convincing the world that exploitation doesn't exist.

[ZeroNowhere]

Capitalisms greatest accomplishment is convincing the world that exploitation doesn't exist.
Also that scarcity was natural (they never seem to tell anybody about Veblen except for conspicuous consumption...)

More importantly, what the hell is an 'anti-revisionist reason'?

[Black Dagger]

Uh, I think its a very relevant issue on the extent to which those oppressed perpetuate their own oppression. For example, you could argue that women are oppressed as a gender, but they continue to enforce their own oppression by, for example, mothers giving dolls to their daughters and fire-trucks to their sons, passing on patriarchal values to their daughters and sons, i.e. perpetuating gender lines which tend to disadvantage females. Likewise, many are opposed to abortion; and that includes many women (this depends where, of course). So far as capitalism is concerned, the worker perpetuates capitalism by definition of their role in their society; essentially being the creators of capital.

On all these issues, however, 'happiness' is not the relevant criteria to assess whether change is possible or desirable (although I would argue that a society where the majority is unhappy deserves to be changed), but whether these social values and economic relations are an actual fetter to the development of human society as a whole. I think they are. The Devil's greatest accomplishment was convincing the world he didn't exist. Capitalisms greatest accomplishment is convincing the world that exploitation doesn't exist.

I agree that is an interesting topic for discussion - but how does that relate to the question, 'was slavery/feudalism terrible for all slaves/serfs?' I don't understand the connection you're making.

[Junius]

Originally posted by Black Dagger
I don't understand the connection you're making.

The connection that its pretty irrelevant whether some people were/are happy with their slavery, even if they are also the ones whom help perpetuate it. I don't think history revolves around single content individuals at specific times, but progresses with class action.

I was writing words for you to read. :confused:

[Black Dagger]

The connection that its pretty irrelevant whether some people were/are happy with their slavery, even if they are also the ones whom help perpetuate it. I don't think history revolves around single content individuals at specific times, but progresses with class action.Ok, thanks for clarifying.


I was writing words for you to read?

[Grunt]

Well I think the fact that slaves could still tolerate slavery, even still enjoy their lives, makes an important point about how the capitalist system is still intolerable, even though not all workers are miserable all the time. It's almost a trivial point except that it's not obvious to everyone.u

Exactly! That's what it's about! I have been pondering
the same question for a long time.

There are workers who are in high positions, earning a lot
of money and gladly work as 'henchman' and 'executioners'
for the bourgeois capitalists helping gladly to assist them
in exploiting and oppressing the real proletariat!

Although they technically belong to the proleatriat -
(since they don't own the means of production)
de facto they do not! That is my opinion.

(On a sidenote: Many of those traitors own stocks - so
that techincally means that they do own means of
production.)

I think that the question(s) raised here in this thread
are very important!

[eyedrop]

It's a very fine line isn't it?I was just about to say that the line wasn't just fine, the franchise stores was just another way in which the petite bourgouise was decreasing. Then I went to check up my facts.

I checked out some statistics and found out that, contrary to my belief, the petit bourgouise has inccreased the last 6 years. Or atleast the statistics seem to imply it.


2002
Næring Bedrifter i alt Ansattegrupper Uten ansatte 1-4 ansatte 5-9 ansatte 10-19 ansatte 20-49 ansatte 50-99 ansatte 100 ansatte og over
I alt 436 300 272 857 87 092 33 853 21 619 13 837 4 332 2 710
SSB (http://www.ssb.no/bedrifter/arkiv/tab-2002-07-01-01.html)

2008

Economic activity Total number of establishments No employees 1-4 employees 5-9 employees 10-19 employees 20-49 employees 50-99 employees 100-249 employees 250 employees
and more
Total 481 819 292 629 100 356 38 702 25 777 16 450 4 921 2 318 666
SSB (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/01/bedrifter_en/tab-2008-10-10-01-en.html)

This seems to imply that there have been a 9.6% increase in small establishments since 2002, in Norway, which should mean that there are more petit bourgouise now than in 2002, if there hasn't been an overall change in ownership trends.


Edit: Check out the sources, this software suck at showing tables, or it's just that I suck.