Spends money on purchasing slaves vs. Can exchange one “slave” (worker) for another: This leaves out the horrors of the slave trade, both transatlantic and domestic. Families were routinely split apart. Slave auctions were dehumanizing. Enslaved people were entirely at the mercy of their enslavers. The states would help track down escaped slaves, and the federal government attempted to force Northern states to cooperate via the Fugitive Slave Act. I won’t whitewash the poor balance in employer-employee relationships, but it’s offensive to put it in the same league. Workers can leave. They can move companies, cities, states, or countries. Workers are not forced to leave their family, at least not at a level that is utterly non-negotiable.
Pays for the total upkeep of the slaves: Yeah, in the same way you keep up a piece of machinery. If it was no longer profitable to pay for the “upkeep” of an enslaved person because of age or disability, they were subject to being sold off for medical experiments, left in the woods to die, etc. Quality health care was not in the cards.
If a slave gets sick it’s [the enslaver’s] problem: Only if it interfered with work. And if you’re making a comparison with modern capitalism, workplace injuries are very much the employer’s problem because of worker’s compensation. Likewise health care insurance is commonly employer provided. There are also pieces of the social safety net, with are partially paid for by businesses in various ways.
Slaves come to work on their own: I see no downside to people having their own homes instead of whatever half-assed shack their enslaver provides.
Only has to pay for 8 hours of their lives: That other 16 hours was a hard won victory by unions. Going over 8 means paying overtime. Slaves didn’t get overtime, but they did get over 8 hours of work.
Workers can leave. They can move companies, cities, states, or countries.
Except that’s not how it works in practice. The baseline for the conditions that the companies offer is the conditions people experience when they don’t have a job. In US, that means starving on the street. Therefore, job conditions only have to be preferable to that. Meanwhile, moving cities, states, or countries implies having the means to do so which people being exploited do not have. The fairly tale liberals tell about the workers having freedoms to choose better employment has no basis in reality. Nobody chooses to work in an Amazon fulfillment center and piss in a bottle.
Pays for the total upkeep of the slaves: Yeah, in the same way you keep up a piece of machinery. If it was no longer profitable to pay for the “upkeep” of an enslaved person because of age or disability, they were subject to being sold off for medical experiments, left in the woods to die, etc. Quality health care was not in the cards.
If a slave gets sick it’s [the enslaver’s] problem: Only if it interfered with work.
The whole point of having slaves is so that they do work.
And if you’re making a comparison with modern capitalism, workplace injuries are very much the employer’s problem because of worker’s compensation. Likewise health care insurance is commonly employer provided. There are also pieces of the social safety net, with are partially paid for by businesses in various ways.
That’s total bullshit, see Amazon example above for a counter point. In fact, there are countless horror stories of people being literally worked to death in US without being able to take sick days or seek medical help that they needed. And not just US, here’s how capitalism is working in Japan.
Slaves come to work on their own: I see no downside to people having their own homes instead of whatever half-assed shack their enslaver provides.
The point you evidently missed is that capitalism reduces the costs for the business owner where worker is now responsible for ensuring they don’t live on the street. Huge numbers of people in US are both employed and homeless. These people don’t even get a shack. Here’s an explanation for you of how this works:
Only has to pay for 8 hours of their lives: That other 16 hours was a hard won victory by unions. Going over 8 means paying overtime. Slaves didn’t get overtime, but they did get over 8 hours of work.
Most workers in US don’t get any paid overtime. This isn’t even restricted to blue collar labor. Unpaid overtime is standard practice for white collar jobs like software developers as well.
Well, I made an attempt. I just ask that you consult with someone who you will actually pay attention to as to whether this comparison is an offensive one to make. As I said, when you’re starting to sound like a neo-confederate, step back and ask whether you’re saying something offensive.
To recap, I addressed your points with concrete examples showing why they’re wrong. You come back parroting the same thing again. It’s like talking to a bot.
This comparison is only offensive from a hyper idealist moralist point of view. It isn’t like chattel slavery was better at any point or that changing it to wage slavery was not a progress, especially on a systemic scale.
We argue that wage slavery is still slavery in other form and chattel slavery was not abolished because some moralist crap but because it was more effective for the ruling bourgeoise class, which is literally what the meme was about and which should be clear especially on the example of USA. And also, that it was not entirely abolished in USA exactly because the form in which it exist now (prison labour), even if restricted in scale by its nature and by ruling social system, is bringing more profit than wage slavery - which results in absurdly high rate of incarceration.
Notice that the only objection @pingveno@lemmy.ml makes to chattel slavery in this whole thread is the brutality. Evidently, he’d be perfectly fine with the system as long as the slave owners weren’t allowed to egregiously abuse their slaves. Thus he even argues that the modern prison slavery in US is not comparable to chattel slavery.
I also love this notion that the conditions got better because of capitalism. This shows such profound ignorance of history. Pretty much all the concessions workers got were won through militant organization of workers and the threat of USSR.
Nobody remembers that rights were payed in blood. Literally nobody. Everyone thinks that at some point in history we suddenly obtained them or something.
And the fact that those rights were fought by the left is even more forgoten…
Evidently, he’d be perfectly fine with the system as long as the slave owners weren’t allowed to egregiously abuse their slaves.
Slavery is intrinsically abusive. I didn’t think I needed to bother saying that. Chattel slavery is intrinsically more abusive than other forms of slavery, especially as was practiced in the South.
Thus he even argues that the modern prison slavery in US is not comparable to chattel slavery.
Comparable? Hell no, in the same way that the Holocaust is not comparable with a few dozen people being murdered. Obviously both are evil, but one is terrible on a completely different scale than the other.
Rounding up minorities to work in labour camps is likewise intrinsically abusive. Again, the argument you’re trying to build is based on chattel slavery being excessively abusive the way it was practised in US. This implies that you don’t actually have an issue with the concept in general, just as long as slaves aren’t abused excessively. Hence, US prison system today is not comparable.
And here’s where you’re making a mistake. You’re drawing all sorts of inferences to put words in my mouth. I don’t know if you’re just a spiteful individual, but it’s a pattern of behavior.
I can only infer what you mean based on what you say. In the entirety of this thread the only criticism you’ve managed to come up with for chattel slavery is that it’s exceptionally abusive.
Nowhere do you address the fundamental issue that chattel slavery shares with capitalism which is the domination of one set of individuals by another.
That is an entirely separate point. Go read up on what the capitalist regime in Korea, that US installed, did rounding up, torturing, and forcing homeless people into work. These horrors are quite akin to the chattel slavery horrors in US.
Except that’s not how it works in practice. The baseline for the conditions that the companies offer is the conditions people experience when they don’t have a job. In US, that means starving on the street. Therefore, job conditions only have to be preferable to that. Meanwhile, moving cities, states, or countries implies having the means to do so which people being exploited do not have. The fairly tale liberals tell about the workers having freedoms to choose better employment has no basis in reality. Nobody chooses to work in an Amazon fulfillment center and piss in a bottle.
And that’s precisely how things work under capitalism as well except the capitalist doesn’t even have to worry about their worker dying on them because they just replace them. That’s why Amazon lets people just drop dead on the floor as work carries on as usual.
The whole point of having slaves is so that they do work.
That’s total bullshit, see Amazon example above for a counter point. In fact, there are countless horror stories of people being literally worked to death in US without being able to take sick days or seek medical help that they needed. And not just US, here’s how capitalism is working in Japan.
The point you evidently missed is that capitalism reduces the costs for the business owner where worker is now responsible for ensuring they don’t live on the street. Huge numbers of people in US are both employed and homeless. These people don’t even get a shack. Here’s an explanation for you of how this works:
Most workers in US don’t get any paid overtime. This isn’t even restricted to blue collar labor. Unpaid overtime is standard practice for white collar jobs like software developers as well.
Your arguments aren’t based on reality.
Well, I made an attempt. I just ask that you consult with someone who you will actually pay attention to as to whether this comparison is an offensive one to make. As I said, when you’re starting to sound like a neo-confederate, step back and ask whether you’re saying something offensive.
To recap, I addressed your points with concrete examples showing why they’re wrong. You come back parroting the same thing again. It’s like talking to a bot.
This comparison is only offensive from a hyper idealist moralist point of view. It isn’t like chattel slavery was better at any point or that changing it to wage slavery was not a progress, especially on a systemic scale.
We argue that wage slavery is still slavery in other form and chattel slavery was not abolished because some moralist crap but because it was more effective for the ruling bourgeoise class, which is literally what the meme was about and which should be clear especially on the example of USA. And also, that it was not entirely abolished in USA exactly because the form in which it exist now (prison labour), even if restricted in scale by its nature and by ruling social system, is bringing more profit than wage slavery - which results in absurdly high rate of incarceration.
Notice that the only objection @pingveno@lemmy.ml makes to chattel slavery in this whole thread is the brutality. Evidently, he’d be perfectly fine with the system as long as the slave owners weren’t allowed to egregiously abuse their slaves. Thus he even argues that the modern prison slavery in US is not comparable to chattel slavery.
Ah yes, the benevolent slaver myth.
I also love this notion that the conditions got better because of capitalism. This shows such profound ignorance of history. Pretty much all the concessions workers got were won through militant organization of workers and the threat of USSR.
Nobody remembers that rights were payed in blood. Literally nobody. Everyone thinks that at some point in history we suddenly obtained them or something.
And the fact that those rights were fought by the left is even more forgoten…
Yeah, people really need to learn how all these rights we enjoy today were won.
Slavery is intrinsically abusive. I didn’t think I needed to bother saying that. Chattel slavery is intrinsically more abusive than other forms of slavery, especially as was practiced in the South.
Comparable? Hell no, in the same way that the Holocaust is not comparable with a few dozen people being murdered. Obviously both are evil, but one is terrible on a completely different scale than the other.
Rounding up minorities to work in labour camps is likewise intrinsically abusive. Again, the argument you’re trying to build is based on chattel slavery being excessively abusive the way it was practised in US. This implies that you don’t actually have an issue with the concept in general, just as long as slaves aren’t abused excessively. Hence, US prison system today is not comparable.
I love how you further go on to minimize the scale of the US prison labour system. Entire state economies are now based around it. In the United States today there are more prisoners than farmers.
You keep on digging though.
And here’s where you’re making a mistake. You’re drawing all sorts of inferences to put words in my mouth. I don’t know if you’re just a spiteful individual, but it’s a pattern of behavior.
I can only infer what you mean based on what you say. In the entirety of this thread the only criticism you’ve managed to come up with for chattel slavery is that it’s exceptionally abusive.
Nowhere do you address the fundamental issue that chattel slavery shares with capitalism which is the domination of one set of individuals by another.