On a more considered note after actually reading the thread (poor choice on my part, I know), it’s hard not to connect this to the broader line-goes-up mentality that we see so often here. As evidenced by the long history of the “live free or die” ethos, whether enslaved people were/are actually better off than had they been killed is more of an open question than our friend’s argument would imply. This is especially true if you ignore all the ways that chattel slavery was deeply cruel and inhuman even in the history of unfree labor to the point where historians consider it an abberation, closer to being worked to death in Mauthausen than being a medieval serf. I’m not qualified to talk about the history of dehumanization, but even in ancient Greece and Rome there existed some legal protections for slaves, provided you could find someone with citizen standing who was willing to plead your case, and this was thousands of years before the liberal ideas of what being a full human being and a free individual meant, so we need to understand the position of unfree people in those periods differently. But even if you ignore all that context and treat slavery like a universal practice from the prehistoric “sea peoples conquered my tribe” days to the antebellum American South, the primary benefits that you get from slavery don’t go to the enslaved people, obviously. Rather it comes from the conquerors having a new source of labor to work their new fields, and the economic benefit they get from that. Rather than needing to allow population growth to expand your people’s farms into new lands, you have a ready-made labor force to start (or in some cases continue) working there. It makes the line go up faster, in other words. The argument relies on ignoring all the questions of justice and the impact that these practices have on people’s actual lives because it makes line go up, and in that sense it fits right in with all the other ways that ostensibly-libertarian ideologies end up supporting fascism.
but even in ancient Greece and Rome there existed some legal protections for slaves
We don’t know much about Greece, but in Rome if you were released from slavery (by the master’s will, contract expiring, etc.) you were treated equally to people that haven’t been enslaved at all. And slavery was extremely common, independent of your state allegiance or color of skin.
That being said, we’re talking about a deeply fucked up system where the paterfamilias held complete control over not only his slaves but his wife, children, the entire family. And being treated “equally” to other commoners in Rome isn’t really saying that you were treated any good.
The main difference is that slavery as in the USA went through so many iterations of bad faith laundering that it had an entire ideology tacked on top to explain why it was good and Christian, actually. In Rome no one bothered, it was a clear power dynamic - we conquered you, now we own you because we have bigger dicks, simple as that.
That’s why I meant by talking about the differences.in citizen status. The Greek cities had a lot of variation, but usually had a variety of free noncitizens as well as actual slaves, so the line between citizen and slave was wider than the line between slave and “person who lives and works here.”
Also if memory serves the Roman aesthetic sensibility actually found bigger dicks weird and vulgar, but that’s not important right now.
‘Fun’ (not fun, horrible) detail about slavery vs genocide. During the holocaust, some capitalists saw all these people in concentration camps as nice business opportunity and convinced the nazis to sell them slaves to work in some factories. These people were basically beaten to death because they didn’t work fast enough. (because they were hungry). So the statement is a bit counterfactual here (also, another point for ‘capitalists would gladly work with genocidal fascists’ for the people keeping score (also for any Jordan Peterson fans this will come as a big shock (he, as self proclaimed expert on this subject, famously said that the nazis were more evil than people thought because they didn’t work the Jewish people to death)). For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monowitz_concentration_camp
Jordan Peterson fans this will come as a big shock (he, as self proclaimed expert on this subject, famously said that the nazis were more evil than people thought because they didn’t work the Jewish people to death)
And, it gets worse, this wasn’t a remark from his ‘crazy on benzos and attention’ period. He did this in class. (the clip itself is a bit interesting as you can see what he is trying to say (trying to make a point about Jung), but you can also see why it is failing re the analysis of the war front because imho he doesn’t understand facism and the nazis that well, so he makes it into a ‘chaos for chaos sake’ thing).
— eigenrobot
Sounds like what someone who’s about to endorse chattel slavery would say, but okay.
On a more considered note after actually reading the thread (poor choice on my part, I know), it’s hard not to connect this to the broader line-goes-up mentality that we see so often here. As evidenced by the long history of the “live free or die” ethos, whether enslaved people were/are actually better off than had they been killed is more of an open question than our friend’s argument would imply. This is especially true if you ignore all the ways that chattel slavery was deeply cruel and inhuman even in the history of unfree labor to the point where historians consider it an abberation, closer to being worked to death in Mauthausen than being a medieval serf. I’m not qualified to talk about the history of dehumanization, but even in ancient Greece and Rome there existed some legal protections for slaves, provided you could find someone with citizen standing who was willing to plead your case, and this was thousands of years before the liberal ideas of what being a full human being and a free individual meant, so we need to understand the position of unfree people in those periods differently. But even if you ignore all that context and treat slavery like a universal practice from the prehistoric “sea peoples conquered my tribe” days to the antebellum American South, the primary benefits that you get from slavery don’t go to the enslaved people, obviously. Rather it comes from the conquerors having a new source of labor to work their new fields, and the economic benefit they get from that. Rather than needing to allow population growth to expand your people’s farms into new lands, you have a ready-made labor force to start (or in some cases continue) working there. It makes the line go up faster, in other words. The argument relies on ignoring all the questions of justice and the impact that these practices have on people’s actual lives because it makes line go up, and in that sense it fits right in with all the other ways that ostensibly-libertarian ideologies end up supporting fascism.
We don’t know much about Greece, but in Rome if you were released from slavery (by the master’s will, contract expiring, etc.) you were treated equally to people that haven’t been enslaved at all. And slavery was extremely common, independent of your state allegiance or color of skin.
That being said, we’re talking about a deeply fucked up system where the paterfamilias held complete control over not only his slaves but his wife, children, the entire family. And being treated “equally” to other commoners in Rome isn’t really saying that you were treated any good.
The main difference is that slavery as in the USA went through so many iterations of bad faith laundering that it had an entire ideology tacked on top to explain why it was good and Christian, actually. In Rome no one bothered, it was a clear power dynamic - we conquered you, now we own you because we have bigger dicks, simple as that.
That’s why I meant by talking about the differences.in citizen status. The Greek cities had a lot of variation, but usually had a variety of free noncitizens as well as actual slaves, so the line between citizen and slave was wider than the line between slave and “person who lives and works here.”
Also if memory serves the Roman aesthetic sensibility actually found bigger dicks weird and vulgar, but that’s not important right now.
‘Fun’ (not fun, horrible) detail about slavery vs genocide. During the holocaust, some capitalists saw all these people in concentration camps as nice business opportunity and convinced the nazis to sell them slaves to work in some factories. These people were basically beaten to death because they didn’t work fast enough. (because they were hungry). So the statement is a bit counterfactual here (also, another point for ‘capitalists would gladly work with genocidal fascists’ for the people keeping score (also for any Jordan Peterson fans this will come as a big shock (he, as self proclaimed expert on this subject, famously said that the nazis were more evil than people thought because they didn’t work the Jewish people to death)). For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monowitz_concentration_camp
jesus christ
And, it gets worse, this wasn’t a remark from his ‘crazy on benzos and attention’ period. He did this in class. (the clip itself is a bit interesting as you can see what he is trying to say (trying to make a point about Jung), but you can also see why it is failing re the analysis of the war front because imho he doesn’t understand facism and the nazis that well, so he makes it into a ‘chaos for chaos sake’ thing).
Hitler: *writes a whole ass manifesto”
JBP: hitler did all that because he was a messy bitch that lived for drama
More like JBP looking at his tool box with his hammer called Jung in it. Ah! A nail!