Page 1 of 5 [ 74 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

23 Oct 2011, 5:41 am

the following essay by david graeber is certainly interesting, but i find of particular relevance to specific past and ongoing discussions on this discussion forum the argument he constructs in favour of the notion that paid work, in the capitalist sense, can be equated to slavery. i would recommend that anyone with an interest in this kind of thing might wish to read the essay in it's entirety, however if not, for the sake of discussion, some of you might wish to consider the extract quoted below and offer your opinions and thoughts on it.

as an aside, graeber is a fairly interesting character. he is an anthropologist, with a generally anarchist worldview, who i am led to believe was apparently sacked from a research post held at yale on the grounds of his political belief.


read on...



http://www.countdownnet.info/archivio/A ... ca/449.pdf

***************************************

A mode of production (MoP) is born of the relation between
two factors, the forces of production (FoP) and the relations
of production (RoP). The former is largely concern with
factors like the quality of land, level of technological
knowledge, availability of machinery, and so on. The latter
are marked by a relation between two classes, one a class of
primary producers, the other an exploiting class.

The relation between them is exploitative because while the
primary producers do in fact create enough to reproduce their
own lives through their labors, and more to spare, the
exploiting class does not, but rather lives at least in part
on the surplus extracted from the primary producers.

This extraction, in turn, is carried out through one or
another form of property arrangements: in the case of slave
mode of production, the exploiters directly own the primary
producers; in feudalism, both have complex relations to the
land, but the lords use direct jural-political means to
extract a surplus; in capitalism, the exploiters own the means
of production and the primary producers are thus reduced to
selling their labor power. The state, in each case, is
essentially an apparatus of coercion that backs up these
property rights by force.

*******************************************


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

23 Oct 2011, 6:19 am

There are two problems with this.

First: No one is forced to go to work.
Second: People who work are paid wages
Third: There is opportunity to advance oneself up the scale. There is no slave becoming an emperor censure like in the Bible.
Fourth: All Humans at the bottom of the scale have the same rights as those at the top.

That is why work is not slavery.

Not controlling the means of production isn't slavery. That's the fundamental error of all communist thought. What is slavery is being chained to a job that you aren't paid to do, can't reliably escape and in a position where your rights are few or non-existent.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

23 Oct 2011, 8:36 am

Gedrene wrote:
There are two problems with this.

First: No one is forced to go to work.


well you may say this, and this is indeed the argument of american right wing libertarians. however, under the capitalist mode of production, workers are inherently coerced into taking employment. effectively, there is no other valid choice. see:

Quote:
in capitalism, the exploiters own the means
of production and the primary producers are thus reduced to
selling their labor power. The state, in each case, is
essentially an apparatus of coercion that backs up these
property rights by force.


Gedrene wrote:
Second: People who work are paid wages


they are, yes. but their wages are not equivalent to their productive output. there is little they can do about this, because they do not own the means of production, and are reduced (coerced, read "forced") to work for an employer. the employer takes advantage of this by paying them less than the equivalent of their productive output, effectively skimming off a slice for themselves. see:

Quote:
The relation between them is exploitative because while the
primary producers do in fact create enough to reproduce their
own lives through their labors, and more to spare, the
exploiting class does not, but rather lives at least in part
on the surplus extracted from the primary producers.


Gedrene wrote:
Third: There is opportunity to advance oneself up the scale. There is no slave becoming an emperor censure like in the Bible.


theoretically yes. but the system cannot support everyone advancing up the scale. so in practical terms, this is in no way a safeguard against exploitation.

Gedrene wrote:
Fourth: All Humans at the bottom of the scale have the same rights as those at the top.

That is why work is not slavery.


they may have the same rights theoretically, yes. however in practice they do not. besides, i don't think this is relevant to the discussion as to whether wage labour is a form of slavery.

Gedrene wrote:
Not controlling the means of production isn't slavery. That's the fundamental error of all communist thought. What is slavery is being chained to a job that you aren't paid to do, can't reliably escape and in a position where your rights are few or non-existent.


well so you say. you base this on the points you list above, however i dispute their validity.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

23 Oct 2011, 9:25 am

peebo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
There are two problems with this.

First: No one is forced to go to work.


well you may say this, and this is indeed the argument of american right wing libertarians. however, under the capitalist mode of production, workers are inherently coerced into taking employment. effectively, there is no other valid choice.

Yes but they aren't forced in to doing work as in they aren't bought and told to do one job, which is slavery. They can choose their job. They can also go on the dole if they need to wait for a better job. So what? They need to get a job. That isn't slavery. That's called a responsibility.

peebo wrote:
see:

Quote:
in capitalism, the exploiters own the means
of production and the primary producers are thus reduced to
selling their labor power. The state, in each case, is
essentially an apparatus of coercion that backs up these
property rights by force.

I already said that just because certain people don't own the means of production doesn't mean they are slaves. You didn't listen to me.

peebo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Second: People who work are paid wages


they are, yes. but their wages are not equivalent to their productive output. there is little they can do about this, because they do not own the means of production, and are reduced (coerced, read "forced") to work for an employer. the employer takes advantage of this by paying them less than the equivalent of their productive output, effectively skimming off a slice for themselves.

You're trying to change the argument to fit your own ends. Trying to judge the value of what someone gives to the company is not only impossible, but illogical too. One cannot organise production according to the value they give because otherwise the company wouldn't exist because it wouldn't earn a profit. Labour theory of value has the inherent flaw of thinking that prices have a real value that can be set by human beings. That ignores the theory of supply and demand.

Furthermore it suggests that workers should be given a higher wage because they change the product. This ignores the fact that managers are more important because they organise production, and thus allow it to occur in the first place.

peebo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
]
Third: There is opportunity to advance oneself up the scale. There is no slave becoming an emperor censure like in the Bible.


theoretically yes. but the system cannot support everyone advancing up the scale. so in practical terms, this is in no way a safeguard against exploitation.

Nothing is perfect in any system. Welcome to reality. It is not sensible to think that because not everyone rises the system is unfair. This is fact. People can advance up the scale still. Thus they aren't slaves fixed to certain jobs. Thus not slaves.

Furthermore you're wrong. Society has advanced up a scale if you look from the outside. Britain and so forth have seen great leaps in the wealth of the poor since the 19th century. They may still be humble but they are far from as mean as they used to be.

peebo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
]
Fourth: All Humans at the bottom of the scale have the same rights as those at the top.

That is why work is not slavery.


they may have the same rights theoretically, yes. however in practice they do not. besides, i don't think this is relevant to the discussion as to whether wage labour is a form of slavery.

No, in practice they often do have equal rights. The fact is that slavery inherently means less rights than a normal person, because otherwise they can't be slaves. The reason why a poor man may have less rights is incidental, but it has nothing to do with the inherent wrongness of the system. it has to do with Humans being jerks. Stop trying to constrain me without your marxist dielectic. I live in the real world.

peebo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Not controlling the means of production isn't slavery. That's the fundamental error of all communist thought. What is slavery is being chained to a job that you aren't paid to do, can't reliably escape and in a position where your rights are few or non-existent.


well so you say. you base this on the points you list above, however i dispute their validity.
[/quote]
You dispute this validity and...

Absolutely pointless arguments.

You say theorietically to say I am wrong but then don't back this up with any real evidence. You regurgitate marxist theory but then don't back this up with any hard fact. You point to utopia as the way to solve things, utopia because they can't actually be practiced in reality.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

23 Oct 2011, 9:31 am

Frankly, people are "slaves" to many things....often of their own choosing.

"Slavery" is when one person or institution "owns" a living being as if he/she is property.

So long as a person has the ability to choose to walk away, they are not a "slave." I know there are times you can be a virtual slave because the option to leave is really not much of an option, but I think in most cases it is one of courage. People are afraid to leave and risk losing everything by doing so. Others will take the risk. In such a case, you are really a slave to your fears.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Oct 2011, 9:39 am

zer0netgain wrote:
Frankly, people are "slaves" to many things....often of their own choosing.

"Slavery" is when one person or institution "owns" a living being as if he/she is property.

So long as a person has the ability to choose to walk away, they are not a "slave." I know there are times you can be a virtual slave because the option to leave is really not much of an option, but I think in most cases it is one of courage. People are afraid to leave and risk losing everything by doing so. Others will take the risk. In such a case, you are really a slave to your fears.


Exactly! He who holds the whip is the true taskmaster.

ruveyn



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

23 Oct 2011, 10:34 am

I would think that when you are working, as long as your immediate superior is not acting TOO "high and mighty" with his underlings, and that there is mutual respect (as in, he realizes that he's screwed without them, but so do they), that there is a humane business relationship going on. The "slavery" qualificative, would mostly show up when the balance of power shifts towards either parties, where neither can (or afford to) back out.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

23 Oct 2011, 11:16 am

Gedrene wrote:
Yes but they aren't forced in to doing work as in they aren't bought and told to do one job, which is slavery. They can choose their job. They can also go on the dole if they need to wait for a better job. So what? They need to get a job. That isn't slavery. That's called a responsibility.


the most broad and general definition of slavery, a word which has various definitions, is simply forced labour. the proletariat are effectively coerced into working. you talk of the welfare state. have you ever used it? if you have, you will be aware that in actual fact it is no longer a welfare state, and might effectively be better referred to as a penal state.

the point you make does not detract from the fact that, due simply to the unequal bargaining power between labour and capital and lack of self-management, the ruling classes do exert coercive force over the proles. and to broaden out the argument, what about sweatshop labour, both in the west and the third world?

Quote:
I already said that just because certain people don't own the means of production doesn't mean they are slaves. You didn't listen to me.


i did listen. i disagreed. they are effectively slaves. they are coerced into working for a wage that is less than the sum total of their production. and they generally do not have a choice. thus, coercion, which is ultimately a type of force.


Quote:
You're trying to change the argument to fit your own ends. Trying to judge the value of what someone gives to the company is not only impossible, but illogical too. One cannot organise production according to the value they give because otherwise the company wouldn't exist because it wouldn't earn a profit. Labour theory of value has the inherent flaw of thinking that prices have a real value that can be set by human beings. That ignores the theory of supply and demand.


i am not. the problem you are experiencing in understanding what i am saying is the result of your considering it only within the paradigm of capitalism.


Quote:
Furthermore it suggests that workers should be given a higher wage because they change the product. This ignores the fact that managers are more important because they organise production, and thus allow it to occur in the first place.


but i advocate self-management.


Quote:
Nothing is perfect in any system. Welcome to reality. It is not sensible to think that because not everyone rises the system is unfair. This is fact. People can advance up the scale still. Thus they aren't slaves fixed to certain jobs. Thus not slaves.


the majority of them are fixed to menial work and low wages. otherwise the system wouldn't work. therefore, they are effectively slaves. a small minority of them might become upwardly mobile, but not the majority.


Quote:
Furthermore you're wrong. Society has advanced up a scale if you look from the outside. Britain and so forth have seen great leaps in the wealth of the poor since the 19th century. They may still be humble but they are far from as mean as they used to be.


in actual fact there are several recent studies that suggest real spending power among the lowest paid demographic in the uk has actually decreased steadily since the sixties.



Quote:
No, in practice they often do have equal rights. The fact is that slavery inherently means less rights than a normal person, because otherwise they can't be slaves. The reason why a poor man may have less rights is incidental, but it has nothing to do with the inherent wrongness of the system. it has to do with Humans being jerks. Stop trying to constrain me without your marxist dielectic. I live in the real world.


not at all. in fact, the broad definition of slavery simply means forced labour. the poor do, in practical terms, have less rights than the rich. this is a fact. however it is in actuality irrelevant to the discussion.



Quote:
You dispute this validity and...

Absolutely pointless arguments.

You say theorietically to say I am wrong but then don't back this up with any real evidence. You regurgitate marxist theory but then don't back this up with any hard fact. You point to utopia as the way to solve things, utopia because they can't actually be practiced in reality.



but this is a theoretical discussion. whether work = slavery does not affect the reality of work in the real world, although it may affect the outlook of the worker in the event he begins to look at it this way.

this doesn't mean it isn't an interesting point to discuss. and i have backed my points up.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

23 Oct 2011, 11:18 am

phil777 wrote:
I would think that when you are working, as long as your immediate superior is not acting TOO "high and mighty" with his underlings, and that there is mutual respect (as in, he realizes that he's screwed without them, but so do they), that there is a humane business relationship going on. The "slavery" qualificative, would mostly show up when the balance of power shifts towards either parties, where neither can (or afford to) back out.


no, this isn't right. you are arguing that it's a matter of severity. but that would imply that we are either more or less enslaved, not that we are or are not enslaved. so where is the cut off point? and how would this be empirically measured?


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


spirtualpatterns
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 56

23 Oct 2011, 6:25 pm

What prehistoric humans had is probably as close to a free society as there we will possibly ever be. Sure they were worried about the bare necessities, but then again a small group didn't own the means of water, production, and land.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Oct 2011, 6:35 pm

spirtualpatterns wrote:
What prehistoric humans had is probably as close to a free society as there we will possibly ever be. Sure they were worried about the bare necessities, but then again a small group didn't own the means of water, production, and land.


And they lived very close to the margin of bare survival.

When the hunting was good, it was fat city. When it was bad starvation loomed.

ruveyn



spirtualpatterns
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 56

23 Oct 2011, 7:45 pm

ruveyn wrote:
spirtualpatterns wrote:
What prehistoric humans had is probably as close to a free society as there we will possibly ever be. Sure they were worried about the bare necessities, but then again a small group didn't own the means of water, production, and land.


And they lived very close to the margin of bare survival.

When the hunting was good, it was fat city. When it was bad starvation loomed.

ruveyn

But they also knew if they stayed in one place for to long that they would die hence migration. They were also free from the unnecessary psychological restrictions that are now weighing down our minds in present day society.



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

23 Oct 2011, 8:53 pm

peebo wrote:
phil777 wrote:
I would think that when you are working, as long as your immediate superior is not acting TOO "high and mighty" with his underlings, and that there is mutual respect (as in, he realizes that he's screwed without them, but so do they), that there is a humane business relationship going on. The "slavery" qualificative, would mostly show up when the balance of power shifts towards either parties, where neither can (or afford to) back out.


no, this isn't right. you are arguing that it's a matter of severity. but that would imply that we are either more or less enslaved, not that we are or are not enslaved. so where is the cut off point? and how would this be empirically measured?


When either side becomes vociferous about the demands of the other party?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Oct 2011, 10:29 pm

spirtualpatterns wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
spirtualpatterns wrote:
What prehistoric humans had is probably as close to a free society as there we will possibly ever be. Sure they were worried about the bare necessities, but then again a small group didn't own the means of water, production, and land.


And they lived very close to the margin of bare survival.

When the hunting was good, it was fat city. When it was bad starvation loomed.

ruveyn

But they also knew if they stayed in one place for to long that they would die hence migration. They were also free from the unnecessary psychological restrictions that are now weighing down our minds in present day society.


The migrations meant follow the animals to hunt them.

Intellectual activity was not feasible until agriculture and herding became the dominant mode of living. The food surplus enable a class of priests and thinkers to exist. A city like Athens or Alexandria could not have existed in a hunter-gathering society. That is why mathematics and philosophy did not develop prior to 4000 - 3000 b.c.e. Once agriculture was in place along with governments that collected taxes from the farmers it was possible to have a class of star-gazers and surveyors.

ruveyn

ruveyn



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

24 Oct 2011, 12:31 am

phil777 wrote:
peebo wrote:
phil777 wrote:
I would think that when you are working, as long as your immediate superior is not acting TOO "high and mighty" with his underlings, and that there is mutual respect (as in, he realizes that he's screwed without them, but so do they), that there is a humane business relationship going on. The "slavery" qualificative, would mostly show up when the balance of power shifts towards either parties, where neither can (or afford to) back out.


no, this isn't right. you are arguing that it's a matter of severity. but that would imply that we are either more or less enslaved, not that we are or are not enslaved. so where is the cut off point? and how would this be empirically measured?


When either side becomes vociferous about the demands of the other party?



no. things can't be defined based upon whether someone complains enough or not.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

24 Oct 2011, 9:53 am

Well, I still need to think about that bit then, I guess. Maybe I'm just not explaining myself clearly. =.=