Quote# 141934

Was slavery a good thing?

A problem with civilisation is that in the normal course of events a few people end up owning all the wealth while the rest starve. Suppose the currency in a given region is gold and you have a lot of gold. You will be able to loan your gold at interest since most ventures will require start-up gold. Hence you will get richer while the rest of society gets collectively poorer. Eventually you will have all the gold and everyone else will have none. Hence there needs to be some kind of redistribution system from the haves to the have nots. There are a couple of problems that tend to arise though. If you allow the plebs to vote themselves unlimited free stuff they will tend to bring about failed communist states like Zimbabwe and Venezuela and giving people unconditional free stuff tends to turn them into useless degenerates. Therefore you need a good mechanism for redistributing wealth.

One such mechanism is slavery. The slaves could be kept in line by their owners who would be prepared to spend more money on their upkeep than they would on rented laborers due to pride of ownership. Although chattel slave labor is less efficient than wage slave labor in most contexts, perhaps we should look at restoring chattel slavery.

Cornfed, Happier Abroad 16 Comments [1/10/2019 10:13:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Pharaoh Bastethotep

And you would certainly volunteer to become a slave, wouldn't you?

1/10/2019 10:12:21 AM

Malingspann

Was slavery a good thing?

No.

1/10/2019 10:16:30 AM

HS

Well, actions are more than words so, how about you show us by becoming my slave?

1/10/2019 10:52:13 AM

Kanna

"Civilization" takes many forms, and capitalization is just one of them, so you fail on that count alone. But on the whole, we don't call people "civilized" when they advocate slavery., so perhaps you want to go back and rethink this whole premise.

1/10/2019 12:13:28 PM

hydrolythe

Venezuela is in the state it's now due to a successful coup d'état by Christian socialists. And Zimbabwe was a decent country until Robert Mugabe was allowed to have near dictatorial powers. Again, neither failed due to the "plebs being able to vote". Hell, if anything, allowing the plebs to vote improves things. Just look at South Africa before and after apartheid. There's no competition. South Africa after apartheid is clearly superior.

To be fair, redistribution is indeed something we all like to have because nobody wants to live in 19th century Belgium and I'd definitely rather be a slave rather than a rented laborer. That's why I was in favor of slavery in the first place. Then again, just because it's not as bad as doesn't mean that it's good. And I can definitely see flaws with slavery even granting that slaves have better treatment than rent laborers. Such as the fact that they are legally inferior to non-slaves. That's on a level of insidiousness that can't be reconciled.

@Kanna

By your logic, a "capitalist civilization" is a contradictio in terminis.

1/10/2019 1:36:20 PM

Anon-e-moose

The good thing was Abolitionism via true son of America Abraham Lincoln, and local hero William Wilberforce. That huge memorial to the former in Washington DC, and a Nelson's Column-esque tribute to the latter outside Hull College, and not far from there his home turned into a museum/memorial preserved by Hull City Council.

Do they make you S E E T H E, Cornholed...?!

1/10/2019 1:48:40 PM

Swede

No. Next question, please.

1/10/2019 3:31:44 PM

Chloe

1) Your gold analog sucks. Banking does not work that way nor capitalism.

2) slavery is never going to become ok again. People have a hard time not being dicks without having absolute power over another person.


1/10/2019 5:52:06 PM

werewolf

"pride of ownership"? Mwahahahahahahahaha!

1/10/2019 9:08:42 PM

K'Zad Bhat

Oooh, look, half a point, and you screwed it all up!

Okay, yes, there is a problem when a small group of people hold the majority of wealth in a society, because then that wealth is much more easily weaponized, to basically enslave the rest. Exactly what you're advocating. Chattel slavery has never been good for anyone, most notably for the slaves. But it also results in a complete degeneration of the civilization itself, as having free labor results in stagnation. And say what you will about the cost of caring for slaves, the biggest cost is in labor. And who do you think does all the actual labor to house, clothe, feed, and otherwise care for slaves?

Never . . . at any point in history . . . has any culture's entire wealth been based on gold. Nor in fact, quite probably, has their wealth been based entirely on anything, even when it was based more strongly on wheat, rice, beer, salt, or wood. Want to know how that really works? One region does have great access to vast stores of gold. Another region has no such access, but has a need or desire for gold. The first region needs other things, because they don't have everything. Say, region one needs wood, for example, to support their gold mine tunnels. Region two is a gold deprived forest of dense wooded trees. The two trade their excess in return for their shortage!

As such, every civilization for millennia has based their wealth on not only what they have much of, but what they are short of. This is what makes trade so important, because a man with far more of things his area readily provides, and none of what it doesn't, is still considered poor. Not just socially. He is actually pretty likely to fail to survive without essentials that aren't there . . . which is why he trades the things he can make, grow, or extract from the ground for things he cannot provide for himself. Not only is now socially wealthy, but also more capable of actually surviving. Hence, any way you define it, he is now affluent.

Beyond that, it's come to the point, yes, that individuals can no longer maintain such a trade system to establish wealth . . . or, in other words, increased chances of survival . . . for an entire civilization. There are just far too many people, required to live in ways that we could not live 5000 years ago. 5000 years ago, by the way, is about the last time any kind of "slavery" could really work. Even that slavery was merely a case where an individual or small group was trusted to handle many aspects of decision making on how larger gathering groups would manage their affairs, particularly in their dealings with other such groups, and smaller tribes. They also managed the distribution within their own group, all in return for the work to provide goods to trade. Technically . . . yes, much of it was slavery, but the leaders usually didn't fare much better than their followers.

Compare that to plantation living in the Southern United States and the Caribbean Islands. Anyone who says the blacks of Haiti screwed themselves by kicking out their white masters hasn't been paying attention to what things were like before, and are still focused on skin color rather than action anyway.

1/10/2019 11:15:51 PM

Grey Rook

@Malingspann: Quite. It impoverished the country and inflicted immense harm to millions of innocents. No, slavery was and is in no way a good thing.

1/11/2019 12:20:35 AM



Slavery worked well before the steam engine was invented.
After that the slave owners were outcompeted by boiling water.

1/11/2019 6:18:08 AM

Doubting Thomas

Slavery... as a means of redistributing wealth?

1/11/2019 7:56:54 AM

zipperback

That just sounds like a way to go from one guy owning all the gold to one guy owning all the gold AND PEOPLE.

1/11/2019 12:58:56 PM

creativerealms

No it wasnt.

1/11/2019 3:37:57 PM

Titania

"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
- Abraham Lincoln
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/abraham_lincoln_105870

And there's nothing more I need to add to that.

1/13/2019 10:09:45 PM

1 | top: comments page