1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




direct democracy

Home Forums Research Law and Politics direct democracy

This topic contains 37 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of J.L.-Frusha J.L.-Frusha 3 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 31 through 38 (of 38 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #12174
    Avatar of Matt
    Matt
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:

    I never said that slaves are more productive than robots. I said that slaves are more productive than workers for the same reason that robots are more productive than workers: lack of labor protections, long hours, low pay, and because they don’t quit and find a different employer after you’ve just finished training them.

    You give me 10 slaves and a whip and I’ll get them to make more widgets in 10 days than a cooperative of willing employees could in 11. The absurdly low price we pay for chinese goods is evidence of this.

    The UAE’s treatment of immigrants would be a great counter example to Yemen.

    I’m not going to bother defining wage slavery because it’s true in any form. The only advantage free workers have over slaves is creativity, which I assume why Americans are 5 times more productive than sweatshops. Not because a spoiled American can sweat with the best of them, because they can’t, but because of the definition of productivity.

    The absurdly high price of American Labor demands that mechanization and robots be used. To measure American “workers” productivity would be more appropriately compared to measuring the productivity of a slave driver on a plantation pre-civil war based on the product of his underlings. Put that same slave driver in the fields and they wouldn’t be competitive at all with the labor they compete with.

    I think the entire discussion is a waste of time honestly. Why is this even a point of contention? I’m not advocating slavery. It’s inhumane. Productive, but inhumane. I guess it’s not politically correct to acknowledge it has any merit at all, but I don’t think that’s intellectually honest. People wouldn’t put up with the stink and bullshit if it wasn’t productive.

    Most discussions specially on politics, appear to have no point at all, you decide to what point you engage and to satisfy your own curiosity and defy your own established thought.

    I don’t know why we are discussing slavery again (there’s a thread about it) but if you make the contention that slavery is more productive than industrialization and post-industrialization, then I’ll have to refute that by calling you either wrong (nothing wrong about being wrong) or intellectually dishonest in the face of the evidence.

    Let’s briefly examine that slavery arose when humans were wealthy enough to keep and feed their war captives instead of killing them. Slavery in that context was productive, but rendered unproductive by the Industrial Revolution some 8K years later. Wage slavery arose with the standarization of industry, but it is now being rendered unproductive (American case) thanks to the rise of the “Information Revolution” or however you want to call the existence of software, internet, and big businesses based solely on the mind and not at all on the muscle. On data not stone.

    The slave is freer than the corpse. The wage slave is freer than the slave. The struggling biz owner is after all freer than the wage-slave; and each occurs because it’s more productive than the stage before. In a future, hopefully inevitable, World, everybody will be free of material concerns (but will have others) in the same way that we are now completely free from the danger of wilderness unlike our cavemen forefathers. We are undergoing the same life-changing process. Thing we had for granted will dissappear, or take a different shape. The era of toiling upon the soil is almost over. It’s not back to Eden, but further away, where the toil will be different, and probably less terrible than the present one. In the same way that living civilized is less terrible than spending every night wondering whether a panther will kill you in your sleep. Eden sucked.

    #12176
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Matt wrote:

    tusavision wrote:

    I never said that slaves are more productive than robots. I said that slaves are more productive than workers for the same reason that robots are more productive than workers: lack of labor protections, long hours, low pay, and because they don’t quit and find a different employer after you’ve just finished training them.

    You give me 10 slaves and a whip and I’ll get them to make more widgets in 10 days than a cooperative of willing employees could in 11. The absurdly low price we pay for chinese goods is evidence of this.

    The UAE’s treatment of immigrants would be a great counter example to Yemen.

    I’m not going to bother defining wage slavery because it’s true in any form. The only advantage free workers have over slaves is creativity, which I assume why Americans are 5 times more productive than sweatshops. Not because a spoiled American can sweat with the best of them, because they can’t, but because of the definition of productivity.

    The absurdly high price of American Labor demands that mechanization and robots be used. To measure American “workers” productivity would be more appropriately compared to measuring the productivity of a slave driver on a plantation pre-civil war based on the product of his underlings. Put that same slave driver in the fields and they wouldn’t be competitive at all with the labor they compete with.

    I think the entire discussion is a waste of time honestly. Why is this even a point of contention? I’m not advocating slavery. It’s inhumane. Productive, but inhumane. I guess it’s not politically correct to acknowledge it has any merit at all, but I don’t think that’s intellectually honest. People wouldn’t put up with the stink and bullshit if it wasn’t productive.

    Most discussions specially on politics, appear to have no point at all, you decide to what point you engage and to satisfy your own curiosity and defy your own established thought.

    I don’t know why we are discussing slavery again (there’s a thread about it) but if you make the contention that slavery is more productive than industrialization and post-industrialization, then I’ll have to refute that by calling you either wrong (nothing wrong about being wrong) or intellectually dishonest in the face of the evidence.

    Let’s briefly examine that slavery arose when humans were wealthy enough to keep and feed their war captives instead of killing them. Slavery in that context was productive, but rendered unproductive by the Industrial Revolution some 8K years later. Wage slavery arose with the standarization of industry, but it is now being rendered unproductive (American case) thanks to the rise of the “Information Revolution” or however you want to call the existence of software, internet, and big businesses based solely on the mind and not at all on the muscle. On data not stone.

    The slave is freer than the corpse. The wage slave is freer than the slave. The struggling biz owner is after all freer than the wage-slave; and each occurs because it’s more productive than the stage before. In a future, hopefully inevitable, World, everybody will be free of material concerns (but will have others) in the same way that we are now completely free from the danger of wilderness unlike our cavemen forefathers. We are undergoing the same life-changing process. Thing we had for granted will dissappear, or take a different shape. The era of toiling upon the soil is almost over. It’s not back to Eden, but further away, where the toil will be different, and probably less terrible than the present one. In the same way that living civilized is less terrible than spending every night wondering whether a panther will kill you in your sleep. Eden sucked.

    [/quote]

    “each occurs because it’s more productive than the stage before.”

    Productive… My assertion never went beyond shovel for shovel pound per pound. I’m debating pirates vs. ninjas and you want to call me wrong because Blitzkreig renders both impotent.

    If you exceed the scope of my argument I’m sure you can prove me wrong. I’m not suggesting that we pit a tobacco plantation against a modern corporate managed farm. Obviously technology has made the issue of workers vs. slaves moot.

    I’m neither wrong, nor intellectually dishonest. If workers were so damn productive why was slavery ever practiced? You should write a management book on the subject, go back in time and show the plantation owners the errors of their ways. If they just paid their slaves and made them employees then they’d make more money. No need for all that senseless violence. You just pay them and give them labor protections and your profits will go up. Of course! Why didn’t they think of that?!

    That’s why it took a civil war to end the practice. That’s why it took unionization to put an end to wage slavery and establish labor protections! Because slavery is UNPRODUCTIVE!

    I’ve been so blind. Please forgive me.

    Next time I comment that Gasoline has a convientently high energy density both by volume and by weight, I hope someone calls me intellectually dishonest/wrong for my barbaric advocacy of antiquated fuel sources when antimatter and nuclear fussion are obviously so damn superior.

    Clearly since solar and wind power are so morally enlightened I should begin singing praises to their Proletariat hero in contrast to my regard for the bourgeois hydrocarbons which are inferior due to the fact that they’re old school and retro in contrast to the new, hip and popular GREEN ENERGY.

    “When you measure them in Miles Per Gallon* as opposed to KiloJoules/$ you can see how obvious it is which is the ethical choice.”

    Perhaps I should cherry pick some data and present it to you along with some pet historical anectotes in order to browbeat you on a subject you don’t give a shit about. If you say as much, I’ll tell you how wrong/intellectually dishonest you were for ever having the nerve to say that puppy dogs aren’t the cutest thing ever.

    Meanwhile: holmes over there is claiming that fiat currency is the root of all evil, inflation is a good thing, and that we should return to the barter system like good little nobel savages AND NOBODY THINKS TO TELL HIM HE’S OUT TO LUNCH.

    I don’t have enough liquor for this shit.

    And BY THE WAY:

    I don’t know why we are discussing slavery again (there’s a thread about it) but if you make the contention that slavery is more productive than industrialization and post-industrialization

    I never said jack shit about slaves being more productive than industrialization/post-industrialization. You put slaves to work in a modern factory and they’ll be more productive than the workers they would replace. Why? Because they’ll work longer, for less pay(none), and they can’t strike/quit/demand better conditions.

    t’s not back to Eden, but further away, where the toil will be different, and probably less terrible than the present one. In the same way that living civilized is less terrible than spending every night wondering whether a panther will kill you in your sleep. Eden sucked.

    I’m convinced that the entire reason you quoted me was because you were looking for a reason to say this, and my post almost seemed relevant. You’re not having a debate, you’re misquoting me as a strawman in order to build a platform for your own ramblings.

    #12179
    Avatar of Matt
    Matt
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:

    I never said jack shit about slaves being more productive than industrialization/post-industrialization. You put slaves to work in a modern factory and they’ll be more productive than the workers they would replace. Why? Because they’ll work longer, for less pay(none), and they can’t strike/quit/demand better conditions.

    I just can’t believe you actually believe the above quote. The reason I engaged in this debate is because I’m worried I might be wrong, but you provided abour 20% information mixed with writen violence and personal accusation. If you care to explain or present some real life evidence that slaves make better factory workers than wage slaves, I’m all ears, if not, goody bye.

    #12186
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Matt wrote:

    tusavision wrote:

    I never said jack shit about slaves being more productive than industrialization/post-industrialization. You put slaves to work in a modern factory and they’ll be more productive than the workers they would replace. Why? Because they’ll work longer, for less pay(none), and they can’t strike/quit/demand better conditions.

    I just can’t believe you actually believe the above quote. The reason I engaged in this debate is because I’m worried I might be wrong, but you provided abour 20% information mixed with writen violence and personal accusation. If you care to explain or present some real life evidence that slaves make better factory workers than wage slaves, I’m all ears, if not, goody bye.

    [/quote]

    I’ve been in quite a few flame wars and I’ve never been accused of verbal violence. Is that anything like physical debate? I’m just glad I wasn’t accused of platonic rape.

    Call me exasperated, but I don’t have time to prove the sky is blue because it’s politically correct to say that it’s optical absorbancy is relative until proven otherwise. The fact that the concept of slavery having any positive features at all is so objectionable is frankly fairly surreal to me.

    That’s what’s intellectually dishonest IMHO. I would still love to hear why slavery even came in to existence in the colonies if not for it’s productivity.

    Prior to the beginning of the triangle trade, alternatives to slaves were attempted. Workers by any other name. Indentured servents and hired labor prominent among them.

    The indentured servants would do counterproductive shit like sue their employer, convert to christianity, or get sent to debtors prison.

    Prior to the insationable demand for productive labor in the Americas, trade between Africa and Europe was a fairly regular thing.

    Racism was an attempt to justify the immorality and brutality of what became profitably productive: chattel slavery.

    They didn’t load up ships full of humans and make a dangerous voyage across the atlantic because it was a fun thing to do, or because they got their jollies out of treating people like cattle. They did it because it was productive, and because it got the job done.

    If workers were so damn superior, nobody would have paid the huge price to ship slaves across the atlantic!

    If 10 slaves and 1 slave driver aren’t more productive than 11 employees: then why not just hire 11 employees?

    #12188
    Avatar of Matt
    Matt
    Participant

    But you did say in a factory implying that you did, or have, to take into account the period, and human technological stage.

    As I was pointing out slavery began when it became sustainable (Ks years ago with the first tribes able to feed and thus not kill a captive), and faded away in some activities when it became unproductive (from the state of Sao Paulo to the state of Mississippi, landowners replaced slaves with tractors and paid, willing laborers imported from Europe. The process from slavery to “abolition” was completely different in each country but shows that it was indeed a more productive for intensive plantations.

    is what I’m trying to figure out, as I believe it’s obviously wrong.

    I am not politically correct, and where I live I don’t even have to abide by the same rules of self-censorship than in the States or, god help us, Europe, so I don’t know what you mean, I’m just baffled by the statement that 10 slaves are (today?) more productive than 11 workers.

    I might as well believe that you are indeed wrong, or more likely dropping context. For instance you mention race there somewhere, referring to the Atlantic Trade. The triangular trade lasted some 300 years? Slavery has been going on, again, since the first tribe could feed an enemy instead of eating him. All “races”, basically all ethno-linguistic groups were massively enslaved at some point.

    During the Rennaissance, Circassian slaves were highly priced and very popular among Florentine families. This people from Southern Russia were blonder and with a lot less melanine than their masters. Not to mention the millions of Euro-Mediterranean enslaved by the North Africans, not to mention the many non catholic Englishmen gangpressed into onboard slavery even after their “Bill of Rights” had passed. So race as a justifying aspect for slavery is not even that true.

    I contend that the proof that slavery doesn’t work for most productive activities is the fact that it is not as widely used as paid labourers. Slavery like in the old day still exists but only for small factories or artisan shops that can’t buy machines (but would and will), and as I said earlier in the sex industry.

    Please, anyone interested in the subject read this article about the first steam motor and why it wasn’t developed:

    http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/HeroAndLoon.htm

    #12194
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Matt wrote:

    But you did say in a factory implying that you did, or have, to take into account the period, and human technological stage.

    As I was pointing out slavery began when it became sustainable (Ks years ago with the first tribes able to feed and thus not kill a captive), and faded away in some activities when it became unproductive (from the state of Sao Paulo to the state of Mississippi, landowners replaced slaves with tractors and paid, willing laborers imported from Europe. The process from slavery to “abolition” was completely different in each country but shows that it was indeed a more productive for intensive plantations.

    is what I’m trying to figure out, as I believe it’s obviously wrong.

    I am not politically correct, and where I live I don’t even have to abide by the same rules of self-censorship than in the States or, god help us, Europe, so I don’t know what you mean, I’m just baffled by the statement that 10 slaves are (today?) more productive than 11 workers.

    I might as well believe that you are indeed wrong, or more likely dropping context. For instance you mention race there somewhere, referring to the Atlantic Trade. The triangular trade lasted some 300 years? Slavery has been going on, again, since the first tribe could feed an enemy instead of eating him. All “races”, basically all ethno-linguistic groups were massively enslaved at some point.

    During the Rennaissance, Circassian slaves were highly priced and very popular among Florentine families. This people from Southern Russia were blonder and with a lot less melanine than their masters. Not to mention the millions of Euro-Mediterranean enslaved by the North Africans, not to mention the many non catholic Englishmen gangpressed into onboard slavery even after their “Bill of Rights” had passed. So race as a justifying aspect for slavery is not even that true.

    I contend that the proof that slavery doesn’t work for most productive activities is the fact that it is not as widely used as paid labourers. Slavery like in the old day still exists but only for small factories or artisan shops that can’t buy machines (but would and will), and as I said earlier in the sex industry.

    Please, anyone interested in the subject read this article about the first steam motor and why it wasn’t developed:

    http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/HeroAndLoon.htm

    So… I experienced somewhat of a paradigm shift this morning.

    My prejudice that “the sky is blue” seems to have had it’s confidence shaken.

    I spoke with someone I trust about the subject with management experience who’s fairly well read about the subject and they laughed and told me that it’s common knowledge and that modern thought on the subject of management is that happy employees are more motivated than slaves and that fear of the whip won’t drive someone to work as hard as motivation.

    They thought it was pretty funny how difficult it was for me accept this, and told me that my resistence to embracing the idea was the same reason that some business owners had to be forced to adopt the 40 hour work week despite Ford’s experience that a shorter work week made for higher profits.

    Allegedly, abusive labor practices are as equally short sighted as raising prices when sales go down.

    Meanwhile: I’m reading “Manna” by Marshal Brain.

    My head hurts.

    #12195
    Avatar of Matt
    Matt
    Participant

    The sky is not always blue, the sky was not always blue. The atmosphere was gradually created, evolved, and in our short life-spans, and only during clear days, the sky is indeed blue.

    Likewise human relationships emerged, evolved, and continue evolving. I am not contending that paid labourers are necessarily freer for the fact of being paid, in the same way that I believe that a Russian Serf of the XIXc was not freer than an American Slave of the same period.

    However, the trend shows me that these slight changes can enable ex-slaves, ex-serfs, and ex-tax-payers to become masters of their own lives and create self-sufficient human networks free of coercion. Isn’t that what we are trying to do here?

    As Elspru reminds us, robots can do the work that would debase a person (human, star being or otherwise).

    #12234
    Avatar of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    Here ya go:

    http://cd3wd.com/SEEV/index.htm

    Later,

    J.L.F.

    Never be afraid to try something new…

    Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.

Viewing 8 posts - 31 through 38 (of 38 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate