slavery today

[dmm]

I had never tackled such a complex issue like this one in English. The topic, in my opinion, is very interesting, and yields a huge scope to express opinions and facts. I would appreciate any comments, not only about the content, but also the phrases.

Slaves of our little freedom

Describing the decline of an old political and social system, at the end of the II World War, Lampedusa wrote: “Everything has to change for everything to remain the same” (Gat 127). This paradoxical thought can also be profitably used to understand the historical changes that the term slavery has undergone through ages and countries: During the distant times of Roman rule, the enslaved people were appointed and treated as “res” (things); their lifes and luck depended on their masters, and they were neither subjects nor objects of “common law”. A form that resembled this legal exploitation was widespread in the US from the first settlement of the colonists, in 1607, to the passage of the thirteenth amendment in the Constitution, in 1865. In the nineteenth century, slavery was acknowledged as a biological issue; even the church did not oppose it: Saint Paul gave advice of humbleness and patient to slaves and proposed them gentle submission to their master, as a very Christian virtue. In the twentieth century, in many parts of Africa, the subjects had to obey specific obligations and carry out forced works. All this forms of former slavery feature (obey) a pattern that is the core of its conventional definition: The explicit existence of people which are considered the property of others, held against their will and prevented from leaving or demanding any labor right (including being paid for their work). That situation seems to be a thing of the past. Though banned in almost any country notwithstanding, slavery does not only remain today; it has also become one of the essential pillars for society and the establishment to exist and endure.
Here, we are talking about a question of semantics. What slavery means is, most and foremost, lack of freedom, which is undoubtedly the condition “sine qua non” one cannot be a slave. There are many causes that lead to different kinds of slavery, but they all produce the same outcome: Slavery of things –drink, money, drugs, to name a few- annuls the will. Slavery of someone cancels the capacity to feel love –or hate- properly. Slavery of work distorts our perception of other activities. In all cases, one neglects the part of their personality whereby freedom is exerted. And that happens in almost every part of our social life, so it would be probably more accurate to speak about of slavery of society itself.
This idea of every people being slave of society stems from several sources. To pick just one, it could be appropriate to quote Nietzsche, who wrote:
Europe today is, above all, rich in stimulants; it seems that there is nothing more indispensable than stimulants and alcoholic beverages. This is the origin of that enormous counterfeiting of the ideal, hard liquor of the spirit. From here it is also emitted this disgusting, repugnant atmosphere, loaded with fallacies and pseudo-alcoholic that is breathed everywhere” (Gen 46). Hypocritical varnish that covers all the bourgeois institutions: all seem to be products of morality, for example, marriage, work, family, order, law. But since all are intended for the most mediocre class of men, who they want to defend against all exceptions and the exception needs, it must be admitted that in this case it is legitimate to lie heavily”. (Pod 473)
Nietzsche forecast the idea of a edulcorate modern society based on ersatz values that enslave people, rather than make them think or live freely. This semantical misunderstunding lead people astray; work is identify with independence and freedom, and technical advances with more opportunities to grow as a person, whilst the truth is that we still do not know our own essence. Instead of encourage people to see deeply into their real needs, society creates more and more artificial needs for them to be bound. Hereby, we have substituted the Utopia suggested by Thomas Moro for the Welfare State.
It is not possible for people to change the de facto powers of society, neither as individuals not as a collective. This is a peoplelike system, within which there is a dormant extintion danger for humanity. Why? Because the personal vision, the reality of every person has been aborted, destroy, overturn, declared null and void. Hence, slavery is neccesary for the system, which is against individual´s freedom and will. The two head´s beast that appears in the Apocalypse´s book represents two of the most by hand de facto powers: politic and religion, which provide a sheer shelter for people who wander around with no convictions, with no single truth. They cast a vote to support the very parties that have established an order to be followed. The parties members are slaves of their own ideas, and the people who vote give a ballot that contains their freedom. They open their thumb and their index finger and let drop their little freedom. And the same process occurs with religion: People go to church in search of salvation and redemption. Curiously, there are certain people -who call themselves “ministries of God”- that have become enablers, so that people can use the resources generated within their Church to know the will of God. Yet if people were free, they would not need to be promised neither a paradise beyond terrenal life, nor forgiveness for their sins. The sin itself does not exist in nature, is a human creation to wield power. In the bible´s quote, the beast is a wolf with lamb´s appearance, and so is religion for people: It seems to be a spiritual guide that provides relief, knowledge and piece of mind, but to what costs? The cost is, again, being a slave, in this occasion, of their punishment/reward system, their doctrine and so forth.
I am not judging. I am just contemplating the facts: The facts are that there are powers that subject people to the established values, which will be always wrong, providing that, historically, we have been trying to adapt the world to us, which is not possible. This is a regression historical stage, because people look for something without the capacity to generate it. Techlology have enormously improved, but human´s spirit does not follow this quick pace because, among sciences, there is the possibility to transmit knowledge, but that not happens for the spirit. People´s mind does not see things, it just speculates. To tackle concepts like “sin”, people just use another word, like “mistake”, instead. Politics´minds are so closed, their options and opinions so twisted and confused, that what is defended is the dialectic itself, nor one opinion or another. That leads to a very subtle slavery that could be named the “dictatorship of law”: Military people, who exerted power many years ago, have been substituted by lawyers, who are supposed to know the meaning of all social concepts. But who really understand the concept of “freedom”? Is freedom is defined, one become slave of this definition. There is also the concept of free will, but that again means to pick one between two choices, being forced to choose. People are always conditioned by one thing of another, so it seems that human nature is “per se” corrupted. Therefore, they need to be lead. Although hidden behind a seemingly real freedom, our ultimate choice is finally narrowed to decide wheter to drink Pepsi or Coca Cola. Slavery exists today, because every human being who does not do exactly what they want to is a slave, and everything that distorts our personal power is a drug. But no one wants to see slavery. No wonder, because is just so easy... Just take the train at six in the morning and ask people there. Who would be in other place if they could? That is slavery.

[billl]

I think you make some great points--especially regarding how all of this relates to technological development, and its affect on people. It definitely seems to me that technology tends to do certain things very well, and its development seems to be funneled in certain directions, and is sort of dragging us along with it.

The accelerating speed of information transfer, the seeming 'demand' by information technologists and technology for more and more networks, the growing importance of easily measurable things in comparison to difficult-to-measure things--it sometimes seems like it's on the verge of getting out of hand. People are, more and more, serving the tech and the networks.

Is it helping us to connect, or is it helping us to accept avatars, smileys, and status updates for actual human interaction? Probably both, I guess. But the 'neat' factor of 'the latest' tech seems to be an unfortunate driver of the latter. It's not all bad news, maybe, and with more and more advances, tech might get very close to facilitating real, complete, fulfilling human interaction--if we don't forget what that is, along the way--and perhaps we will remember to value our control over the when's and what's of our participation via tech.

But dmm, when you use the word 'slavery' to refer to habits, addictions of varying seriousness, and compromises and restrictions resulting from societal norms, tech, etc.--I think it might be a little unfair to the many who suffer and have suffered under real, traditional, slavery. Not that I think you meant to lump it all in the same category. And I do see the parallels. But not everybody is at the train station. And I think the oppression felt by most of those who are at the train station is more akin to that of a farmer working in the rain, or a fisherman fixing the same dang problem in his net again. 'Slavery' traditionally refers to something a lot further along on the oppression-meter :). I mean :(.

[backline]

"...so it would be probably more accurate to speak about of slavery of society itself..."


I think I follow this, and the context and example are clear enough, but to me this is or could be the central crux of where you're going. I would develop this line of thought further because it seems to broach a view that would benefit from research and more support from other sources. Erich Fromm's "Escape From Freedom," comes to mind as a possible resource.

As a line in context of the larger article I think it could become the focus of the piece.

I as a reader may think I understand what you're saying in that line without further clarification needed, however I'd like to see it expanded somewhat to include perhaps the mechanism by which "society" becomes, aids and abets, or enables the divorcing of personal freedom from adherence to societal norms or mores.

My personal view (if I am getting the implication) is that while technology has enhanced a certain standard of living which was previously hoped would allow the human psyche to get on with existencial questions societally, the very involvement of human affairs in what turns out to be a lot of left brain activity actually militates against the realization of self, which I believe is a right brain activity. That, I believe, causes the means to utopia to become our personal undoing.

For myself I have found that years of technical work, though a convenient way to make a living, did nothing to enhance my sense of connectedness to the universe I find myself in, or to others. Much of my negotiating with others became therefore a cyclical attempt to lift myself up by my bootstraps that I might glimpse what the founding fathers of America seemed to grok about our humanity (and "self-evident" rights, status, what-have-you). Their's was perhaps an expression of what they experienced personally, and perhaps even corporately, as the "essence" of being. A word that for me is experientially right brain.

To wit, it has only been since retirement from technology centered wage-earning that I have even taken up the quest of personal self-realization, and that only after painful loss of the sense of continuity to life's experience through loss -through death- of loved ones. Certainly a series of existential crises drove me to seek serenity and personal essence outside societal norms (which I see now as a form mind and spirit numbing "slavery," seeing as those norms seem to support commerce more valuably than individual freedom, at least in my era).

Certainly the U.S. Constitution's writers beheld a utopian vision of being for all men -as a reaction from injustices perceived. This same vision implied and eventually led to (later) the 13th amendment. Sort of inductively, if you will.

The essential meaning and experience of "slavery," to my mind, is anything that prevents an individual from gaining the sense of self-realization (personally experienced "essence"), be it financial, physical, or more existentially apprehended.

[mmaria]

Slavery comes from the lack of knowledge. In the remote past slaves were forbidden to learn to read and write. Modern slaves are not forbidden to be literate, but there are some other knowledges that are forbidden to approach.

[billl]

There are still slaves in chains. There is also sexual slavery going on.

I know it would be inconvenient to make up a new word for the societal slavery sort of thing, but i just wanted to point out the difference, for the record, if we're going to include people with jobs that require them to wait on a train while listening to their ipod. I would be much happier waiting on a train for a crappy job than being chained with real chains, humiliated and beaten by someone who sincerely believed I was their property.

As far as the enslavement via technology goes--I think the size of this problem already is pretty alarming, and it looks to be on a course to grow faster and faster. Frankly, I am 100% in favor of any kind of scary language people want to use to describe it, just to get people's attention before it's too late.

[backline]

...I am 100% in favor of any kind of scary language people want to use to describe it, just to get people's attention before it's too late.



How about, "Narrow is the path and few who find it that leads to life. Broad is the path that leads to destruction..."?

The person who is credited with originally stating this premise was speaking in broader terms than just technology or distraction, yet I sometimes project onto the ancients an uncanny ability to distill the truth down to a universal human experience.

[billl]

that's a good one, backline--took me a second to grok it, but yeah, good one.

[dmm]

I think you make some great points--especially regarding how all of this relates to technological development, and its affect on people. It definitely seems to me that technology tends to do certain things very well, and its development seems to be funneled in certain directions, and is sort of dragging us along with it.

The accelerating speed of information transfer, the seeming 'demand' by information technologists and technology for more and more networks, the growing importance of easily measurable things in comparison to difficult-to-measure things--it sometimes seems like it's on the verge of getting out of hand. People are, more and more, serving the tech and the networks.

Is it helping us to connect, or is it helping us to accept avatars, smileys, and status updates for actual human interaction? Probably both, I guess. But the 'neat' factor of 'the latest' tech seems to be an unfortunate driver of the latter. It's not all bad news, maybe, and with more and more advances, tech might get very close to facilitating real, complete, fulfilling human interaction--if we don't forget what that is, along the way--and perhaps we will remember to value our control over the when's and what's of our participation via tech.

But dmm, when you use the word 'slavery' to refer to habits, addictions of varying seriousness, and compromises and restrictions resulting from societal norms, tech, etc.--I think it might be a little unfair to the many who suffer and have suffered under real, traditional, slavery. Not that I think you meant to lump it all in the same category. And I do see the parallels. But not everybody is at the train station. And I think the oppression felt by most of those who are at the train station is more akin to that of a farmer working in the rain, or a fisherman fixing the same dang problem in his net again. 'Slavery' traditionally refers to something a lot further along on the oppression-meter :). I mean :(.

I truly appreciate your comments, make me feel proud of my little essay because the issues I tried to pinpoint seem to make sense for an English native speaker with a very good command of its own language.
Yet still the topic is probably way too complex for me to explain it in English. Your comments enable me to be aware of a couple things that I probably should have further developed: I talked about techlology not to blame it for today´s evil and society´s flaws, but just as a way to higlight the fact that there is a kind of knowledge that is not possible to share with others, and that that is exactly the only kind of knowledge that allows us to have conciousness of ourselves as human beings. There is a huge gap between our inner reality and appeareances. Technology makes this gap bigger, as long as it encourages material success and alienation. Though I would not go as far as to say that technological advances are only "bad news", there are way too much downside elements within it that prevent me from being as optimistic as you. "brave new world" or "1984" yield an ample supply of examples on how the "advantages" of technology can easily enslaved us.
And for the second part of your comment, regarding the traditional meaning of slavery, I see what you mean (you explained it with very apt examples), but I thought this question was implicitly explained in the essay. Yes, I did not write, word by word, that I was talking about another kind of slavery, probably because I did not find the correct way to name it -spiritual? yeah, but not only; metaphorical? yeah, but very real, at the same time. That´s why I started mencioning examples of the traditional meaning of slavery: those examples are quite obvious for everyone, yet their existence does not means that this kind of slavery im talking about is less important. Firslty, because it is possible to recognize both without denying any of them. Secondly, because the way in which western society is built is one of the main reasons for the existence of traditional slavery. And last -but not least- because, as strange as it seems, some of the people that you mentioned (a farmer, a fisherman) probably dont suffer from this subtle kind of modern slavery.
In broad terms, I was talking about slavery as a human condition that have led to the world as we know it today. We are slaves of our thoughts, of our feelings, of our fears. But, if we were able to recognize it, society would fall apart. Slavery is necessary for the social and economical system to exist: as long as there are poor people, there is slavery. Thats the point, and thats how it works (do not forget that im using examples to illustrate what im saying, do not take them personally): people´s representatives, like lawyers, doctors, judges and so forth, they follow the "survival of the fittest", and the laws support them. Again, Im just saying this as an example. We all are, in a way or another, slaves of society, but there are some which are at the top of what Nietzsche called a society defined by the counterfeiting of the ideal, the bourgeois institutions that defend the most mediocre class of men. I do not blame those who have achieve to have a confortable life, but some of them just lose contact with human reality and become a too much integrated part of this society, based of deceit and concealment. No one, I mean, no one have the right to judge other´s life or behaviour. If we all had a better appreciation of what we are, things would be a lot better. We make life more complex because we dont understand things, we dont see the problems. Society is just make opposed to human life. Take the example of the works you mentioned: Among all productive sectors, the more scorned are agriculture, fishing and cattle raising, although they contribute with the real whealth. No we are in crisis, but that would not happen if there were no slavery, if a bricklayer would be paid as much as an architect. Because the architect dont know, and dont want to place a brick. It all works this way: From basic products to institutions: Milk is not milk anymore, is water mixed with milk, and is very expensive. Courts, banks, they are all sustained by the interests we pay.
There are many signs of the existence of this slavery: we are demeaned to the extend that many employees treat their bosses like masters. But no one can do anything to change this situation. No one can reach the truth, neither the judge, not the attorney or the lawyer.

[dmm]

"...so it would be probably more accurate to speak about of slavery of society itself..."


I think I follow this, and the context and example are clear enough, but to me this is or could be the central crux of where you're going. I would develop this line of thought further because it seems to broach a view that would benefit from research and more support from other sources. Erich Fromm's "Escape From Freedom," comes to mind as a possible resource.

As a line in context of the larger article I think it could become the focus of the piece.

I as a reader may think I understand what you're saying in that line without further clarification needed, however I'd like to see it expanded somewhat to include perhaps the mechanism by which "society" becomes, aids and abets, or enables the divorcing of personal freedom from adherence to societal norms or mores.

My personal view (if I am getting the implication) is that while technology has enhanced a certain standard of living which was previously hoped would allow the human psyche to get on with existencial questions societally, the very involvement of human affairs in what turns out to be a lot of left brain activity actually militates against the realization of self, which I believe is a right brain activity. That, I believe, causes the means to utopia to become our personal undoing.

For myself I have found that years of technical work, though a convenient way to make a living, did nothing to enhance my sense of connectedness to the universe I find myself in, or to others. Much of my negotiating with others became therefore a cyclical attempt to lift myself up by my bootstraps that I might glimpse what the founding fathers of America seemed to grok about our humanity (and "self-evident" rights, status, what-have-you). Their's was perhaps an expression of what they experienced personally, and perhaps even corporately, as the "essence" of being. A word that for me is experientially right brain.

To wit, it has only been since retirement from technology centered wage-earning that I have even taken up the quest of personal self-realization, and that only after painful loss of the sense of continuity to life's experience through loss -through death- of loved ones. Certainly a series of existential crises drove me to seek serenity and personal essence outside societal norms (which I see now as a form mind and spirit numbing "slavery," seeing as those norms seem to support commerce more valuably than individual freedom, at least in my era).

Certainly the U.S. Constitution's writers beheld a utopian vision of being for all men -as a reaction from injustices perceived. This same vision implied and eventually led to (later) the 13th amendment. Sort of inductively, if you will.

The essential meaning and experience of "slavery," to my mind, is anything that prevents an individual from gaining the sense of self-realization (personally experienced "essence"), be it financial, physical, or more existentially apprehended.

Thanks a lot for your comments, you gave me some useful clues about a couple of starting points to further develop the issue, which is exactly what I want to do.
The line you suggested to be the core of the text is a very apt one, although when i have the time, i would like to go beyond the influence of society in the definition of this "metaphorical" slavery, in the sense of being everyone´s inner quest, regardless its position in society.

[backline]

...there is a kind of knowledge that is not possible to share with others, and that that is exactly the only kind of knowledge that allows us to have conciousness of ourselves as human beings...


I think this is very perceptive.

Words cannot communicate a state of consciousness. There are individuals who can use symbols and communicate with words a path that may lead the hearer to experiencing a common ground state of consciousness.

I generally experience dealings with technology as a fairly left brain affair.
Symbolism, art, and abstract "humanities" concepts seem to me to reside in my right hemishere.

I'm sure your polemic will be fruitful. You've taken on a big task.

[billl]

I agree with backline, dmm. And your written English is very impressive. You might feel that you could express yourself much more accurately in your own language, but I get the feeling that what I'm reading is pretty much what you want me to read. You express your (rather subtle) ideas quite well.

[billyjack]

But dmm, when you use the word 'slavery' to refer to habits, addictions of varying seriousness, and compromises and restrictions resulting from societal norms, tech, etc.--I think it might be a little unfair to the many who suffer and have suffered under real, traditional, slavery. Not that I think you meant to lump it all in the same category. And I do see the parallels. But not everybody is at the train station. And I think the oppression felt by most of those who are at the train station is more akin to that of a farmer working in the rain, or a fisherman fixing the same dang problem in his net again. 'Slavery' traditionally refers to something a lot further along on the oppression-meter :). I mean :(.

this is true but at least the chained up slave knows his lot in life. the working man's slavery is a bit more hopeless in that our slavery is seen as the norm, the way the working world works, in some cases as good as it gets, and often times we have a nagging sense that something just isnt right with our lives but can't quite put our finger on it--sort of a looming existential doom affiliated with goin to work everyday. at least the chained slave always has that hope of literal escape. the modern day slave doesnt have this hope. if she does make an attempt to escape she's labeled a bum or a deserter or vagabond. if the chained slave escapes she's heroic.

[dmm]

this is true but at least the chained up slave knows his lot in life. the working man's slavery is a bit more hopeless in that our slavery is seen as the norm, the way the working world works, in some cases as good as it gets, and often times we have a nagging sense that something just isnt right with our lives but can't quite put our finger on it--sort of a looming existential doom affiliated with goin to work everyday. at least the chained slave always has that hope of literal escape. the modern day slave doesnt have this hope. if she does make an attempt to escape she's labeled a bum or a deserter or vagabond. if the chained slave escapes she's heroic.

That was exactly my point: Slaves today are so chained they dont even see their chains. And even if they could, they would not able to do anything against their masters. Slavery is so subtle that they have to assume their condition is unavoidable and normal. Here where I live there is a very curious note on the underground´s trains, preventing poor people to ask travellers for money. The note read: "You may remember that illegal exploitation of people is forbidden". They hereby are recognizing the existence of legal exploitation. Other issues that illustrates the situation are prostitution or drugs, which are forms of slavery from which hypocritical and interested opinions arise, mix together, to help the mediocre kind of men to have their concious in peace. If slavery wouldnt exist, prostitution would not exist neither. Nevertheless, our lack of freedom and personal power lead us to bear in mind such a concept as evil; furthermore, we have to be taught what evil is, so prostitution happens to be a manifestation of evil. That is funny, because neither prostitution nor evil or sin exist in nature, so the concepts are bring about by society. And society is built around the principle of power and profitability: If you have something profitable to offer to society -being that your brain, for thinking, writing, or painting; or your hands, for driving, cooking or counting money- you get some little power by hiring this parts of your body, and that is, as you said, "the norm"; whereas if either a man or a woman hire their body for money -Im not saying that that should happens, is just an example-their are treated as scum.

[backline]

...we have to be taught what evil is, so prostitution happens to be a manifestation of evil. That is funny, because neither prostitution nor evil or sin exist in nature, so the concepts are bring about by society. And society is built around the principle of power and profitability: If you have something profitable to offer to society -being that your brain, for thinking, writing, or painting; or your hands, for driving, cooking or counting money- you get some little power by hiring this parts of your body, and that is, as you said, "the norm"; whereas if either a man or a woman hire their body for money -Im not saying that that should happens, is just an example-their are treated as scum.


An excellent summation or criticism of the kind of fruit commerce has wrought upon humanity.
I never gave much creedence to anarchism or knew what their gripe was until I read the above.
You've hit something squarely on the head of the nail here. It (an inherited sense of morality) may have been expressed before from other perspectives, but your perspective is really getting close to the central human dilema of life in "civilization."
Very courageous. Expect some resistence!

Anybody with an original thought faces persecution.

[billl]

Without society's chains, would we be angels, devils? Lions, lambs? Would we lend a helping hand, or sneak away with stolen bread? Would might make right, when there isn't enough?

Abuse and scarcity bring people to do the wrong thing, sometimes, without society's involvement. A drought might bring on gangs, raiding for food, etc. Victims of the raiders might abuse their children, out of frustration, and/or resort to crime themselves.

There might be solutions to such problems, in a new paradigm, but it's hard for me to envision at this point. There are consequences to getting rid of 'society'.

[backline]

Oh I wasn't avocating that.
Just that I see some justified criticism of the staus quo I had never really considered before. It's almost like Criticism.
Takes me a long time to synthesize other's perceptions (and usually a LOT of words which, as we've stated here already: can't really communicate a state of consciousness: though sometimes it seems it's all we have).

[dmm]

Oh I wasn't avocating that.
Just that I see some justified criticism of the staus quo I had never really considered before. It's almost like Criticism.
Takes me a long time to synthesize other's perceptions (and usually a LOT of words which, as we've stated here already: can't really communicate a state of consciousness: though sometimes it seems it's all we have).

I´m getting some feedback here. Billl´s argument is very common in this kind of discussion, and is dangerous when used to justify certain facts. But, as I said before,I´m just contemplating the facts. What i wanted to do when writing about this topic is to know the reason´s limits to describe conciousness, and human nature. There is, obviously, a stage in this reasoning that inevitably leads either to anarchy or to faith (in some superior order, or in whatever you want to call it). The time will come for everyone to... decide? to... chose? I dont know if there is a verb to define this action in which every of us take position towards its own reality; it doesnt really implies neither a decision nor a choice, is just the act of living. You can call it fate, destiny, does it matter? But the point, in my opinion, is that we should have, at least, the courage to believe in freedom, and to recognize that we are trapped in an ill-suited way of dealing with our own nature. And, most and foremost, to try and live without selling anything to anyone. I dont want to sell or buy any opinions or salvation. I dont want to cheat myself everyday when i wake up and feel emptyness, by saying: "well, that´s how it works, thats what there is", because probably thats how we just think it works, and probably there are many other things we presently just dont see. As a matter of fact, im not stating here that that is wrong or this is fine. Im just discovering things by affinity, which is one of the most notable things we can do with our brain. Therefore, billl is right when saying that this society is the only thing we have, and im right too when saying that there are plenty of other ways to understand human nature, although we are barely able to communicate them, or to put them into practice.

[Bark]

Let me just wade in with a Marxian thought. The line goes, "The instrument of labour strikes down the labourer" What this means is that in contract negotiations the power of labour is diminished. Slavery relies on a paternalistic aristocracy. They must issue some form of benevolent intent, historically speaking, uplift of culture, praise to God, etc. This is the only way the oppressor nation can accept the degradation of the soul. Read as much as you can, you will find that all slavery had a benevolent intent. The society which harnesses slavery is the determining factor. As Machiavelli said, in a democracy the morals and values of the society will arise. In America our value was money. As it was in the constitution that land ownership was a prereq to voting. The landowners of the south, and the racist elitists of the north, combined to pass laws denigrating blacks. The reason was solely, in the US, driving down labour costs. Slavery can be harnessed as an economic machine. the body of the black was the instrument of labour. By having slaves, the poor white was likewise struck down. Not until the populists would blacks and white trash ally. The motivation for an aristocracy is not dead. Before long all GDP and political power in North Dakota will be wielded by about five capitalists, just like all media in the US being controlled by the five corporations, quality drops, cost drops, labour is denigrated. Slavery is acceptable today. In Texas I have no right, as a state employee to strike, neither may I collectively bargain. Given the 'right-to-work' status of this state, I must accept what is offered or refuse, but never will I set my own terms without a contract. Mark Twain speaks to the heathens of the seventh century on labour laws. He says one day in the 19th century man will be able to set the price for their labour. And so it was in his day, but as industrialization came on strong, and speculation was rising, the slave ensured low cost labour, today the machinery assures that there is little power in labour contract negotiations, and like a slave of the antebellum south, I have no right to set the price of my labour, or associate with my colleagues regarding worker concerns.

[backline]

Jeez Bark, you're right!
I retired after 30 years in the Public Sector, only to see my "contract" (that I retired under) retired! The point of law in America leaves me no recourse.
I held up my end of memorandums of understanding for thirty years. None of it means anything now.
They have changed policies and passed resolutions, and my family is as screwed as the guys who lost it all through Enron's dealings.

It is exactly as you have posted.

[Bark]

Economics is a beast. Humanity has no relevance to it.

[Bark]

As I posted is what my philosophic fathers spoke. there is enough data to tell the future on any given issue.