does work = slavery?

Post Reply New Topic

it's not relevant as to the question "does work = slavery". it either does or it doesn't. the kind of system of social organisation in which the worker lives does not in any way change the question. what you are doing is inventing sets of mitigating circumstances that might appear to make it seem less like work = slavery. but you are not really challenging the question at all.

it's maybe not quite so black and white. however, i don't think capitalism makes the most out of a crap human condition. not in any way. perhaps it makes life for the few better at the expense of the many. the human condition experienced by the majority in the current global milieu is certainly the product of capitalism.

The fact is that in any system people try to be jerks and misuses a system to their advantage. It's up to the rest of society to deal with them. Considering that the poor in the UK are probably better off that the poor in china I'd say a free market system wary of abuses is the best way. Communism as it has been called in nearly all cases has led to either cases of democide or Human Rights abuses on a vast scale, poverty and ultimately an entrenched inequality. Why> Because it is utopian in theory in many places.

To put a creative thinking exercise to that, if capitalism had never happened and we had an entirely different economic system in its stead, what would the be if it were to offer a better world? How would that work? What do you think the present state of innovation would be in that alternate circumstance?

So, when it's your assertion, it's a binary state. But when it's someone else's assertion, things might not be so black and white.

This strikes me as intellectual hypocrisy of the laziest kind.

I am perfectly prepared to agree that people have been exploited--sometimes most cruelly--in the workplace. But I am not prepared to reduce these cases down to an uncritical, intellectually stilted assertion that employment is the logical equivalent of slavery.

When you are prepared to join me in the real world and work for meaningful workplace protections, the constitutional protection of the right to collective bargaining, and other substantive legal protections for workers, than you and I can have a meeting of the minds.

I saw on a panel that they were discussing OWS and one of the interviewees they had on video was a college girl who said that she didn't like the concept of corporate personhood. Charles Krauthammer mentioned that he found that particular comment comical in that, in China, 350 million people were lifted out of abject poverty by China's acceptance of corporate personhood in the 1980's and that it was the biggest chunk that any one thing had ever taken out of global poverty. I suppose that's not to say that industrializing the developing world country by country would be a panacea but it definitely shows what people can do when they're adding more value to their system than having the majority of their populous tied up in sustainance farming.

Also, back to Peebo's point earlier about capitalism making the few and breaking the many; if he's truly speaking in a global sense I think he'd have a better argument with 'colonialism' as that would make more sense from that perspective. Kind of like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square - colonialism could (and did) happen under a very barbaric and underdeveloped version of capitalism but capitalism still isn't so restricted that it would even need to include that. I tend to agree with visagrunt as well - the people involved in capitalism are what also can tip its quality either toward more malignant or more benevolent, based on the pressures they place on it. Socialism/communism unfortunately aren't so adaptive that you can make of them what you wish.

I agree. There ought to be a saner way of limiting liability than pretending a group of people is a person.

ruveyn

not at all. most of the people i come across and have cause to discuss this major issue that is affecting millions in the uk at present, in addition to those who read newspapers, are well aware of this.

it is not speculation at all. it is a big issue in the uk at the moment. and neither is it used in an ad hominem way. i simply made a suggestion about your country of residence.



proof:
http://www.disabilityalliance.org/ibmigrate.htm

it's clearly a penal policy being used against the poor. describe it as you see fit. regardless, the discussion drifted onto this.





i have no idea what you mean by this.



then you are betraying your general lack of knowledge in the area. firstly, we don't really have institutions anymore, other than for "mentally disordered offenders". have you never heard of care in the community? it's been a fact for quite a long time. besides, people in psychiatric hospitals, even long term in-patients, generally ARE on disability benefits.



no i don't. i work with people every day who are in such situations as outlined above. there is no speculation.




what do you mean, i say so? i don't say who qualifies for benefits or who doesn't. you just need to look at the statistics. i've been looking around for a page clearly outlining this but the most accurate information is to be found on rightsnet, a subscription website run for people working in the area of welfare rights. the following article is not available without a subscription, and i can't post it here, however the headline, available on the front page of the site, says it all really:


here is a recent guardian article discussing the issue in more general terms

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... y-benefits

as for atos, they are the company that oversee benefit tribunals, and who built the computer system that is used to make decisions.


as for disabled people not being workers, as i said, the discussion has drifted onto the benefits system after you brought it up. the benefit system is in no way any kind of real safety net for people who are out of work or those who can't work. it is, in effect, a penal system.





can you outline what this false premise is, please?


That is a complete load of utopia. Whether it favours workers or managers or even the damned top brass bargaining power will always favour someone. I'd just prefer a good wage, a perk or two and no industrial strife thanks. Voicing your opinion is a right. protest is a right. Life is a right. Liberty is a right. That covers this already.[/quote]

the opinions of the poor are ignored. if they protest, they are demonised. look at the difference in reactions between the student riots and the more recent rioting. and neither do the masses of low paid workers have liberty.



it is not in any way an ad hominem attack. it appears you don't really understand the meaning of ad hominem, either.




ok.

the point here is that the neo-liberal globalist model of capitalism is simply the logical conclusion of colonialism. i feel this is self evident and doesn't require much further explanation, but there has been much written on it, at great length. if you would like me to point out some links i'd be happy to.

One could assert that wage-earners are not forced to work, and therefore are not slaves, but one could just as easily assert that slaves are not forced to be slaves, the alternatives being running away, or suicide, which are, in some ways, the same thing. Wage-earners are made to be as dependent upon their 'masters' as slaves were upon theirs. Yes, you may leave. But where will you go, and on what will you subsist? Even if you want to go live in the forest and collect wild berries and roots and such, you can't, because someone else owns the land. There is no 'free land' as far as I know. So, one is forced to work, if one does not wish to be jailed. In a sense, one must resign oneself to one sort of jail in order to avoid another. When one asserts that wage-earners are not forced to work and be subservient to a 'master', can one also provide reasonable alternatives to this so-called 'choice'? Because as far as I can see, the only alternative is to break one or more laws.

They had Mike Kantor on a CSPAN'ish channel and were grilling him a bit on NAFTA as a lot of people feel like that and the global free trade agreement later did a lot of damage to our economy. His stance was that pre-NAFTA business were already talking about doing this, by the mid-80's, and that the whole purpose was to make sure that the process was regulated rather than unregulated (a bit of the 'give kids condoms' type logic). I know economists scream bloody murder if you suggest tariffs and the net result of globalization seems to be the lesser of two evils from that standpoint.

On one side China's costs are starting to increase and as that's happening their practice of undervaluing their currency is getting more and more conspicuous. Seems like Asia will be getting to the point though where it just won't be practical and a lot of this stuff will be coming back to our shores, though I get the impression that by the time it does so much more of it will be robotic - the minute China stops feeling like quite as much of an investment the unions ratchet up their demands over here and put the Chinese factories a little bit closer to the green again.

The thing I would have to argue though - I've heard it said before by people and it seems like, at *least* within the first world, income-wise yes, the rich get richer, the middle-class get richer but at maybe a 1/3 to 1/2 pace with the rich, and the poor get richer but by only 1/3 to 1/2 the pace of the middle class; hence yes, the income inequality gaps are widening although they're trending upward for those who aren't in the bottom 10% where they stay the same (and none of this is counting technological innovation and what that does for all). As far as the third world is concerned though you do have major charities attempting to do work, you do have things like the Gates Foundation, which both Bill and Warren will be giving their entirety to, and within the next twenty years if our manufacturing of infrastructure type items strengthens it means that our ability to actually even GIVE Africa or remote parts of Asia infrastructure or technology to unfold it in a couple decades, such actions on our part will be within our means to give thanks to the march of technology; something which is, while not on a personal level but on an economic/societal one, is elevated by capitalism in ways that it couldn't as easily be under a pure egalitarian system.

We can also look at the original act of colonialism and the acts of barbarism that were carried out by the big five empire builders at the time and see that yes, we treated people terribly back then. The only question though is; would these places without outside influence be much more advanced of their own action or would they be indiscernible from what they were in 1000 AD, 2000 BC, etc.? I'll never say that colonialism was a great thing but we may be fantasizing, more than a little, to assume that they'd be first world countries or anything close without it either. In an anthropology sense it seems like groups of people flip culture or move forward when things aren't practical anymore. Same reason the Europeans out-teched everyone would be the same reason Filipino morrow could hand anyone their head in hand to hand combat - the environment and pool of influences lent that reality. A lot of it is climate, a lot of it is geography, the prevailing local religious mythology plays a big role as well.

well put.

but this is not necessarily the case. recent reports have actually found that in real terms, in the uk at least, those earning around the minimum wage and on benefits are actually worse of now than they were a decade ago:

http://www.socialequality.org.uk/~sepuk/content/britain’s-rowntree-foundation-poor-are-getting-poorer



in addition to this, the general trend is that relative poverty is increasing yearly.




the problem with this is that the problems the third world nations are facing are, in reality, a consequence of neocolonial/neoliberal intervention. the activities of the imf, the world bank and multinational corporations are not at all in the interests of the general populations of these nations. rather, they are in the interests of furthering the neoliberal agenda. they are driven by corporate profit, and are in no way benevolent. third world nations need to be self-sufficient, the propping up of corrupt regimes and selling off of assets and resources to the ruling classes is not in any way in their best interests. rather, it further increases the quandary that such nations find themselves in.

this report, using copper mining in zambia as an example, is a case in point, and fairly.

http://www.actsa.org/Pictures/UpImages/ ... report.pdf


additionally, i think it is imprudent to cite examples of the activities of the most hideously wealthy of the western elites. organisations such as the gates foundation exist to further an agenda in which those in control of such organisations have a clear vested interest.

see, for example, this analysis of their activities in africa:

this report, using copper mining in zambia as an example, is a case in point, and fairly.

http://www.actsa.org/Pictures/UpImages/ ... report.pdf



i don't think anyone is arguing that these nations would be first world countries, and indeed this is not really the point. the point is that what is happening there today is nothing more than colonialism operating under the guise capitalist globalisation. the lot of workers in the third world has not been improved by neoliberal intervention, and indeed neoliberal intervention is not in any way benevolent. it is purely agenda driven.

There are parts in the country that live off the grid or live in extremely rural areas. but people vote with their feet and the general trend in the search for a more enjoyable quality of life where one can consume has been to:

1.) move to more urbanized places with community,
2.) private property,
3.) infrastructure,
4.) private sector jobs,
5.) free education powered by taxes from a powerful workforce,
6.) public services and safety nets,
7.) and it certainly offers more vices, places of entertainment, and options for recreational fun.

Your 9 to 5 to maintain this may be, from a certain perspective, slavish and most people have their issues with their employer but it, for the most part, works

When people get into motive-mongering I really don't go down that road simply because its about as meaningless when supposedly selfish intentions have good outcomes as it is when good intentions have bad outcomes. Particularly with the later a bad outcome is a bad outcome and negligence is still negligence.

If they have been able to go into starving continents, take all their stuff, and leave no industry behind or locals owning more resources I'd love to know how they'd achieve that. Military coupe? Banana Republics?


The question we're still stuck with - if no one had never interceded in their continents respectively, where or who would they be today in terms of development? In many cases I would figure they'd still be either living in villages or hunter-gatherer depending on the region but they would not have electricity, running water anywhere, medicine, etc.. Its far from peaches and cream over there and I agree that history could have been much kinder, particularly to Africa, but if we are now in a place where we can assist in their development I think we by all means should. If the innovation we're coming up with can get a lot done then by all means, if we can apply nanotech to infrastructure building in a few decades they may be in a place no one's been in - like the American experiment before you'll have Africa as the most futuristic society of the 22nd/23rd centuries in that it will be built from the ground up, quite possibly, on a post fossil fuel basis. They may have most of their power supplied by fusion, they'll have electric or hydrogen cars without the need of changing out fossil fuel based infrastructure. It seems like there are very big and promising things for that continent as well as rural Asia in the future.

Also, there's tremendous capitalistic incentive to turn continents like South America and Africa into 'have' regions, partly for tourism, partly for development, but just in that the world does crave new thoughts, new ideas, new blood in the science and technology world, etc..

Some people like to say that, I still don't see anywhere that its warranted. They're a venture in philanthrocapitalism that at worst has done things awkwardly and at times may not have realized that while handing out vaccines helps 'some' its still not the same thing as building infrastructure or working to get farming so efficient that they can leave their aggrarian base. The good news is that people are critical of them, are examining their actions and results, and many people over here (this is where I agree - people like yourself can do a lot of good) are giving them input on how they're doing it wrong, if and when they are, and what they should be doing instead to help these countries be self-sufficient rather than skewing their economies with a foreign parasite sector that collapses when that foreign power leaves.

You have to remember as well that with people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet they're not born or legacy money. The legacy rich can often be out of touch with what reality is for other people just because they've never had the possibility over their heads that most people do - ie. that if they don't keep their job or don't make something of themselves they'll fall and that they could legitimately be in poverty. Being self-made means that for Bill and Warren thinking that way and understanding it isn't a hypothetical exercise. That and - no one, aside from maybe John D Rockafeller, has given this much money; and really, you have the second and third richest men in the world not just giving token amounts to these organizations but when they pass their entire wealth accumulation.

When you really think about it the world is filled with the rich. Yes, they have a lot and yes they can live flashy if they want but on the pages of history, like anyone else, if they don't do something great, perhaps after another 100 years very few people will remember them for much and after 200 it will be like they never existed. When you realize that you have the monumental opportunity to do something great, something world-changing with the wealth you've been given simply by being able to direct other people's money better than they can and create jobs with that money (when you can give people close to 20% ROE or better money quite literally chases you), also when you see the Paris Hiltons of the world and realize you'd just be propping up decades of trailer trash with what you accumulated; I think most people would rather give themselves to the history books rather than be a name no one has ever heard of. You get a lot farther with generosity in that sense and, if you need to see that as a selfish motivation as well - people have a need to do things and give back simply because they feel vacant without it. As for Bill and Warren as well being 2nd or 3rd richest, what kinds of overarching capitalistic goals would they have? Push Carlos Slim down to 3rd? Trying to take top position really doesn't give much gratification and as soon as you beat someone else for the richest spot someone else will likely pass you. In a realistic respect they're at the finish line and then some.

I think this is what people forget when they scourge the rich. Some people just have tremendous talents with money and at the same time they have souls and they want to contribute back to things simply because its part of being human. They're wealth comes largely from their investments and it is housed in their 'net worth' or the companies they own which are in and of themselves cultivators of wealth for people who work within them. To that extent, for those who are successful simply because they are, yes - you do need to be clear that anti-trust laws can't be broken and monopolies are to be avoided at all cost, but aside from that issue the act of knocking them down is like knocking down a brilliant front-running physicist for being better than other people at what they do. I suppose that wealth without contribution or wealth without giving back can be seen as a bit stingy but, even there the bare minimum is that wealth resides in investments and typically these are still industry and leadership.

but this isn't motive mongering. i think an objective look at the facts bears my statement out.



is it fair to conclude you are not particularly familiar with the foreign policy of the us of a over the last century or so?


well all of this is conjecture really. perhaps if things worked out as you've described here, we could all live peacefully and co-operatively in a world of happiness, but i don't think it's likely. perhaps to some it would be great to live in a world where the oligarchs of big business watch over us in a benevolent fashion and benignly sculpt for us a technological paradise, but unfortunately a cursory glance at reality strongly suggests this is not going to be the case.



again, reality suggests that this is not in any way at all what is actually happening.



i really feel that you are missing the point in the criticism that is poured on the likes of gates. it's not that he is simply a slightly clumsy and naive but ultimately well meaning benefactor making silly mistakes, who needs to be gently nudged in the right direction by his critics. gates is a ruthless, cut-throat capitalist tycoon who has systematically built his empire on the back of building monopolies, using the might of his empire to shut down opposition, there are screeds of information all over the internet exposing him as an egomaniacal narcissist. while there may be a lot of exaggeration, through his own behaviour he has exposed many of these traits.



while gates has clearly amassed a disgusting fortune through his own foul deeds, it's a well known fact that he came from a wealthy and powerful family, the wealth of which, not at all incidentally, was responsible for his rise to global oligarch. trying to paint gates as some average guy off the streets who at any point whatsoever was at risk from poverty is at the very least disingenuous.





praising the actions of cut-throat, ruthless people who make their way to the top via underhand and at times outright criminal means is all well and good, but in reality, as i see it at least, they and their actions serve as nothing more than an indictment on the nature of neo-liberal capitalism. rather than being praised, i really feel they should be pilloried. i can't be bothered getting further mired in this discussion though, i feel the thread has drifted pretty far away from the topic at hand.


so, what do you think on the notion that work = slavery?