Originally posted by DeepThoughtTo compare slavery (i.e. you will do this work for this amount of time and receive such and such in return or face actual physical force) with the virtually limitless options the world has to offer a free (possibly landless) person is utterly preposterous.
What I mean is that people who own land have the option of self-sufficiency - which involves copious amounts of work, but not working for anyone else. People who don't own land don't have that option. People who don't own land may well own capital. There are also the self-employed, in 1997 they accounted for about 12% of the UK workforce - although th ...[text shortened]... on't think you can claim that the existance of self-employed people undermines my argument.
Originally posted by WajomaNot the same as doesn't imply a vast improvement on. The fact that the coercion to work doesn't come in an immediate way doesn't imply that it does not exist. What you seem to regard as a free and fair society is riven with massive inequalities born out of the essential problem which is that the only thing that is free is capital; it can do what it wants, humans on the other hand find themselves with a choice between selling their time or immiseration.
You've said that wage salvery isn't slavery, and that is my main point of contention, well done.
In one of your earlier posts you mentionned that you don't think anyone else owes you a meal and vice versa. But when you came into the world you were utterly helpless, and had to have everything done for you; no matter how independent you think you've become in the meantime you depend on a myriad of other people, most of whom you'll never meet. We live in mutual interdependence, so I actually think that in quite a real sense we do owe each other a meal.
Originally posted by WajomaPeople have killed themselves when faced with redundancy. Your notion of violence is too narrow.
To compare slavery (i.e. you will do this work for this amount of time and receive such and such in return or face actual physical force) with the virtually limitless options the world has to offer a free (possibly landless) person is utterly preposterous.
3 edits
Err...who was it that killed who? Did someone initiate force against another?
Comparing a helpless baby to an adult is nearly as bad as your earlier comparisons.
Yep I depend on someone to rear a cow, slaughter it, process it, transport it, market it, cook it but that does not mean anyone along the way owes anyone anything other than what they've voluntarily agreed to trade. So, no, I wont be buying you dinner anytime soon.
"Your notion of violence is too narrow."
It sure dosen't include making someone redundant, unless it's done with the toe of a boot. When it comes to words it's better to stick to definitions than notions otherwise we wont have any notion as to what you're on about.
Originally posted by WajomaThat comparison is actually spot on. One of Mao's better notions was that if 100 peasants are needed to support one person through education (that is farmers, sewage workers, binmen etc), then that person owes it to those peasants to use his education for their benefit, not just so that he can have a better lifestyle.
Err...who was it that killed who? Did someone initiate force against another?
Comparing a helpless baby to an adult is nearly as bad as your earlier comparisons.
Yep I depend on someone to rear a cow, slaughter it, process it, transport it, market it, cook it but that does not mean anyone along the way owes anyone anything other than what they've volu ...[text shortened]... to definitions than notions otherwise we wont have any notion as to what you're on about.
Maybe financially he might not owe any of those 100 peasants anything, but he sure does morally.
Slavery does still exist in western civilisation by the way, read about meat processing plants in America
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/usa0105/
and salad packing in Spain (2/3 down the page)
http://www.pan-uk.org/Projects/RCML/RCML2004.htm
Originally posted by WajomaTaking away someones means of providing for themselves is an act of violence. It causes harm to the person it's been done to, which is why it's an act of violence. You seem quite unwilling to accept that anything other than immediate brute force has any coercive power. Hunger and thirst are weapons and will kill you just as surely as a gun will.
Err...who was it that killed who? Did someone initiate force against another?
Comparing a helpless baby to an adult is nearly as bad as your earlier comparisons.
Yep I depend on someone to rear a cow, slaughter it, process it, transport it, market it, cook it but that does not mean anyone along the way owes anyone anything other than what they've volu ...[text shortened]... to definitions than notions otherwise we wont have any notion as to what you're on about.
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI do not accept terminating employment as being "violent", if you can come up with a reputable source that it is so then I will consider the point, until then it's just you twisting words.
Taking away someones means of providing for themselves is an act of violence. It causes harm to the person it's been done to, which is why it's an act of violence. You seem quite unwilling to accept that anything other than immediate brute force has any coercive power. Hunger and thirst are weapons and will kill you just as surely as a gun will.
I have never said "immediate brute force" is the only coercive power, I make quite a point of also including the objective threat of force (and I would also include fraud, but let's keep it simple for now).
The employer/employee relationship is one of mutual benefit or, mutual exploitation, if it's not then you're doing it wrong. When either the employer or employee is no longer benefiting from the arrangement they terminate such relationship. If an employee quits, that's not an act of violence. When an employer ceases the relationship, that's not an act of violence.
Originally posted by mrstabbyI think we've been over the meatpacking one before, it's your pet. I'll say the same thing, if a person is physically restrained in a job, that is slavery. If they have signed up to some bizarre contract, well, more fool them.
That comparison is actually spot on. One of Mao's better notions was that if 100 peasants are needed to support one person through education (that is farmers, sewage workers, binmen etc), then that person owes it to those peasants to use his education for their benefit, not just so that he can have a better lifestyle.
Maybe financially he might not owe an ...[text shortened]... nd salad packing in Spain (2/3 down the page)
http://www.pan-uk.org/Projects/RCML/RCML2004.htm
If they have been duped i.e. some fraud has been commited, then they should be able to seek legal assistance.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaWhy is fraud a form of violence and not the removal of someones livelihood?
I do not accept terminating employment as being "violent", if you can come up with a reputable source that it is so then I will consider the point, until then it's just you twisting words.
I have never said "immediate brute force" is the only coercive power, I make quite a point of also including the objective threat of force (and I would also include frau ct of violence, when an employer cease the relationship that's not an act of violence.
Your employer exploits you, you don't exploit them. They exploit you because you generate more wealth for them than they pay you in wages, which is how they make a profit. Just so we don't pointlessly argue about what is meant by exploitation, I mean it in the sense that any resource is exploited, not in the sense of hyper-exploitation. You can't get away with claiming that an employee leaving is equivalent to the employer sacking them, the power in the relationship is not balanced - an employer is always going to be able to find new staff, all they face is having to look for a new worker; a redundant worker is looking at immiseration.
Edit: In your reply to mrstabby you mentioned "if they sign up for a bizzare contract more fool them." The point is that they have little choice but to sign up for a contract like that, they are under the threat of hunger.
Originally posted by WajomaI get the impression that you believe that as long as something is within the law then it is necessarily good. That is very dangerous.
I think we've been over the meatpacking one before, it's your pet. I'll say the same thing, if a person is physically restrained in a job, that is slavery. If they have signed up to some bizarre contract, well, more fool them.
If they have been duped i.e. some fraud has been commited, then they should be able to seek legal assistance.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt's not a oneway street, if both parties are not profiting from the arrangement then it's time to end the arrangement. For employees there is a resource, that resource is the group of employers looking for employees. The power can be either way, good employees are an asset and they can exploit their position i.e. push for a raise or better conditions.
Why is fraud a form of violence and not the removal of someones livelihood?
Your employer exploits you, you don't exploit them. They exploit you because you generate more wealth for them than they pay you in wages, which is how they make a profit. Just so we don't pointlessly argue about what is meant by exploitation, I mean it in the sense that any ...[text shortened]... they face is having to look for a new worker; a redundant worker is looking at immiseration.
The redundant worker is looking for another job. The employeeless employer is looking for someone to fill the position.
I would say fraud is a cousin of force, it's not force and it's not violence but if two parties enter into an agreement whether it's the buying and selling of ones talents and time, or the buying and selling of ones car, if something is promised and it dosen't happen then the contract has been broken and assistance from the law should be available.
To remove a persons livelihood? Are they being hobbled in some way?
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtDid the employer make them hungry? Did the employer hold them in one place and then deprive them of food?
Edit: In your reply to mrstabby you mentioned "if they sign up for a bizzare contract more fool them." The point is that they have little choice but to sign up for a contract like that, they are under the threat of hunger.
If this is what is happening you can rightly call it slavery. If you are aware of this happening in your country (the US? edit: I see now it's the UK, smaething applies) it is illegal and you should report it.
- Joined
- 29 Nov 06
- Moves
- 16790
Originally posted by WajomaThe point is that slavery has become more subtle. Overt opression has morphed into repression. A man thinks he is living the best of all possible lives while he spends a significant fraction of it toiling for the grand wealth of others. Because a man is not starving, he thinks he is lucky (lucky!), and will willingly sacrafice more of his life in toil.
Did the employer make them hungry? Did the employer hold them in one place and then deprive them of food?
If this is what is happening you can rightly call it slavery. If you are aware of this happening in your country (the US? edit: I see now it's the UK, smaething applies) it is illegal and you should report it.
Think of how much time we spend laboring. And for what? If we are lucky (lucky?) enough to be in a develpoed country, chances are we spend a significant fraction of our lives working to create the enormous surplus we enjoy. A surplus that is surly more than we need. Think of this: we spend our lives engaged in labor we despise to create things we do not need. Those who benifit most own the means of production (or manage large amounts of capital), as they use our surplus to free themselves of labor. Conclusion: we spend our lives in toil so that a priveleged few don't have to. This is not the most oppressive form of slavery, to be sure, but a form nonetheless