Modern Slavery In The So Called Enlightened West.

[realunoriginal]

@Cyrene

I don’t disagree that equality problems massively exist, and that lots of them are even potentially addressable.

Maybe the problem is “artificially” trying to equalize things in the first place?

Nature has a way of cleaning things up after its children make a mess and leave the house.

[Cyrene]

@realunoriginal

@Cyrene

I don’t disagree that equality problems massively exist, and that lots of them are even potentially addressable.

Maybe the problem is “artificially” trying to equalize things in the first place?

Nature has a way of cleaning things up after its children make a mess and leave the house.

I don’t know if attempting to ‘equalize’ things is really that big of a problem. What do you mean, exactly? I mean, a problem to implement on humans maybe because we don’t want to be equal on the individual level, but besides that? It seems a better option then, just killing each other.

[realunoriginal]

@Cyrene

I don’t know if attempting to ‘equalize’ things is really that big of a problem. What do you mean, exactly? I mean, a problem to implement on humans maybe because we don’t want to be equal on the individual level, but besides that? It seems a better option then, just killing each other.

What I mean is that you can observe how many people, especially Moralists, claim that “equality” is such a great thing, and strive for it, but there’s no point for these needless propagandas. Living beings equalize themselves accordingly–the supposed “striving” or “effort” is merely a facade of social trends already in place. Things are going to be “equalized” one way or another, whether people enjoy it or not. Humanity is more than one person–that’s all I mean.

[Mr_Reasonable]

Realun I guess we’re all equal in death. But what about while we’re here? Might it be nice to make an attemp to minimize suffering? That seems reasonable to me. What exactly is a moralist? Like a preacher or an ethics professor? The term seems to be so broad that it just ends up being used as a pejorative without ever being defined narrowly enough to actually suit any individual instance of it’s use more or less than another. Tell me who’s not a moralist, and explain to me how they differ essentially from someone who is.

[realunoriginal]

@Smears

Realun I guess we’re all equal in death. But what about while we’re here?

While we’re here, we’re just authors. Some stories are clearly better than others, why?

@Smears

Might it be nice to make an attemp to minimize suffering?

To what end? Men & women are driven to do two very different things in relation to expanding the social sphere.

@Smears

What exactly is a moralist? Like a preacher or an ethics professor? The term seems to be so broad that it just ends up being used as a pejorative without ever being defined narrowly enough to actually suit any individual instance of it’s use more or less than another. Tell me who’s not a moralist, and explain to me how they differ essentially from someone who is.

Exactly that, a preacher or an ethics professor. A moralist, usually religious and dogmatic, speaks to influence others rather blatantly. Their hypocrisy is usually seething. They speak rather than listening, while claiming to have absolute and true knowledge, but knowledge doesn’t work like that. Whoever speaks the quickest and loudest, filling up the most volume, usually has the least to say.

…at least that’s my experience of life.

[Joker]

@Cyrene

I attack it because its stupid to call it slavery, and its stupid to complain about when theres no other options. People can still trry and improve society, make it a better place for us, but as long as humans are human, the trade of resources for skills will remain.

To call that slavery, is ridiculous, and most people who do it are trying to suggest some nonsensical anarchistic bullshit social idea that could work instead. ‘wage slavery’ is not wage slavery, its the way every normal human, in every society that ever existed, has expected out of his fellow people. As long as humans are engaging in human interaction, we’ll do this.

No one every said that war, inequality, or anything else was going to dissapear, they’re not. We’re human, you better come to accept that soon.

I’ve never argued for a heaven or a utopia, ever, only that living in a state of nature is about as close to hell as humanity can get, and denying this, like you do, is beyond ignorant and beyond stupid.

I attack it because its stupid to call it slavery,

It refers to the similarities between buying and renting a person, and denotes a hierarchical social condition in which a person chooses a job but only within a coerced set of choices (primarily working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or status diminution),[4][5][6][7] which make that “person dependent on wages or a salary for a livelihood,”[8] “esp[ecially] with total and immediate dependency on the income derived from…[wage] labor”[9]

Unconditional access to non-exploitative property and a fair share of the basic necessities of life[13][14], and
The ability of persons to have say over economic decisions in proportion to the degree they are affected by those decisions.[15]

In terms used by some critics of capitalism, statism and various authoritarian systems --particularly anarchists-- wage slavery is the condition where a person must sell his or her labor power, submitting to the authority of an employer in order to prosper or merely to subsist

How exactly is that not slavery?

and its stupid to complain about when theres no other options.

That’s not exactly honest considering there is always violence and rebellion as an alternative which slave masters denote such activity as being criminal enterprises.

Crime exists ( always will exist) because there are individuals not content in being the slaves of others.

People can still trry and improve society, make it a better place for us,

How? For whom? I know when you are saying this you don’t mean it for everybody.

Everytime people describe progress, improvement or betterment on a social scale they never mean it for everybody.

but as long as humans are human, the trade of resources for skills will remain

With a large population of slaves.

To call that slavery, is ridiculous, and most people who do it are trying to suggest some nonsensical anarchistic bullshit social idea that could work instead.

Even if there was no other alternative I don’t see how you could call it anything else beyond being slavery.

Oh do explain, Cyrene.

‘wage slavery’ is not wage slavery, its the way every normal human, in every society that ever existed, has expected out of his fellow people. As long as humans are engaging in human interaction, we’ll do this.

Now you are just trying to justify these sort of specific actions against other people by calling it normal.

( How naive and selfish of you.)

As long as humans are engaging in human interaction, we’ll do this.

Can’t really disagree with you there.

No one every said that war, inequality, or anything else was going to dissapear, they’re not.

I’ve never suggested that they would either.

[Joker]

@Smears

Joker I think you’re right that there’s something wrong with the way things are exchanged now. Cyrene, I think you’re right that there’s no other option. It seems like the problem is in the degree to which the average person is being exploited for profit. And I don’t mean profit that’s put back into research and development, but actual profit. Sure we all have to exchange things, and it happens all the time in ways that don’t seem like slavery, but it also can get out of hand to the point where average people cannot afford to sustain a basic standard of living while others live extravantly. Both you guys should get on the issue of figuring out economic equality for the whole world. You’re both too smart to be having some anti-capitalist vs. evolutionist contrarian debate. What kind of debate is that anyway?

Joker I think you’re right that there’s something wrong with the way things are exchanged now

I’m not saying anything is wrong or out of place. I’m merely making a neutral observation.

I just find it silly that people like Cyrene will say that slavery doesn’t exist when it clearly does on a massive scale.

[Joker]

@Cyrene

hierarchical social condition in which a person chooses a job but only within a coerced set of choices (primarily working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or status diminution)

This is the reality of human life, everywhere. *everywhere. *everywhere.

Its not going to simply change because you have insane, and baseless ideas about human nature. Your anarchistic society is impossible, because people are adapteed toact like this.

You know nothing of my anarchistic ideas or perceptions so don’t pretend that you do.

( I’ll make a thread about them later on and then you can debate me all you want there.)

[Joker]

@Cyrene

I don’t disagree that equality problems massively exist, and that lots of them are even potentially addressable.

Addressable in what way?

[Wobbly]

I don’t know of one human society where skills aren’t cashed in for resources.

This statement, with it’s “evolutionary” undertones, deserves another look. First, let us examine the historic claim that it rests on. Has every human society that has ever existed cached skills in for resources?

Well, that depends…what does one mean by “skills”. If one means by “skills” the ability to subjugate and dominate using artificial devises, then yes the statement seems to be true. But, in such a case, all meaning is ripped from the statement. Consider, for a moment, early colonial America as an example of a society where skills were not cashed in for resources. Slavery, by any standard, violates this grand theory. The knowledge and labor in slave systems rested in the hands of slaves who received no return on their labor investments. They were given only enough to keep them healthy enough to continue working. There was no exchange of labor and skill for resources, but a group of people who labored for nothing…sustained by their owners so that they could labor once again.

Or consider Capitalism in general. You have an army of workers who possess the practical skills needed to maintain a functioning society, and you have a small group of wealthy businessmen who possess no practical skills whatsoever, but own and control the army of workers. What skill does the factory owner possess? One that he made up…the ability to be a middle-man between the worker and his crystallized labor. This skill has no value whatsoever.

Here in lies the problem with your little theory about the evolution of trading labor for resources, it is abstract, at best it can be a disposition. It is an abstract precisely because what is defined as “skill” is plastic, as is what is defined as resources. Yet, how does evolution select for this disposition? I mean, what pre-historic commodity functioned as the impetus for this disposition? How does one describe that phenotype once one discovers the early commodity that is traded. Assuming the commodity is food, and assuming that the one with the most skill at acquiring the commodity is the one that has the commodity, it doesn’t make sense to say “cached”. As the most skilled has the most resources by virtue of being the most skilled, not by virtue of being socially affluent.

Not to mention the obvious problem of who gives a fuck if it does have an evolutionary basis. That is neither an argument for nor against it, but an explanation of why it is in practice.