Slavery in Capitalism?

What is this in the eyes of a anarchist, considering i have the option of leaving and going to Canada, or Socialist Cuba for that matter, i don't see how we are near as much under slavery as it was defined in Monarchy.
(One leader, rest were their slaves that did NOT have the choice to leave, nor the free to speak their mind, nor the freedom to really stop working.)

a. In Democracy, you have alot of leading officials to say and to follow.
b. We can leave to where ever we would like to go, even to a COmmunistic area, which Capitalists are sworn enemies worse than the fascists.
c. If Monarchist slaves spoke, they were whipped or killed, if we speak..we speak. Obviously blocking from our controlled mass media which needs reformed so it will be more like Canada, were even the media allows some speak from a variety of ideas instead of Americas. I agree with this.
d. We are allowed to stop working, no one says "you must work or we will personally kill you" which will not lead to us dieing, their are many organizations that help out the lazy people who decide to not get a education nor work.

Yes monarchy is a thing of the past..but
1. i was referring to the definition of normal slavery
2. Also refer to monarchy slaves somewhat like the Chinese, who are forced to work, cannot leave unless to another communistic area (North korea cuba etc) they cannot speak their mind, and have one dictator.

So..how exactly are we slaves, compared to this type of slavery? Like mini-slavery, will they are big-time-bully slavery?
(Excuse grammar mistakes, and No offense intended to anyone by this debate topic. (besides the fascists))

Here are a few of the different types of slavery:

1) CHATTEL SLAVERY is closest to the slavery that prevailed in early American history. Chattel slaves are considered their masters’ property — exchanged for things like trucks or money and expected to perform labor and sexual favors. Once of age, their children are expected to do the same. Chattel slavery is typically racially-based; in the North African country of Mauritania, for example, black Africans serve the lighter-skinned Arab-Berber communities. Though slavery was legally abolished there in 1980, today 90,000 slaves continue to serve the Muslim Berber ruling class. Similarly, in the African country of Sudan, Arab northerners are known to raid the villages in the South — killing all the men and taking the women and children to be auctioned off and sold into slavery.

2) DEBT BONDAGE, or bonded labor, is the most widely practiced form of slavery around the world. In Southeast Asia, where it is most prevalent, debt bondage claims an estimated 15 to 20 million victims. The staggering poverty there forces many parents to offer themselves or their own children as collateral against a loan. Though they are promised they will work only until their debt is paid off, the reality is much grimmer. Thanks to inflated interest rates and fresh debts incurred while being fed and housed, the debt becomes impossible to pay off. As a result, it is often inherited by the bonded laborer’s children, perpetuating a vicious cycle that can claim several generations.

3) SEX SLAVERY finds women and children forced into prostitution. Many are lured by false offers of a good job and then beaten and forced to work in brothels. In Southeast Asia, however, it is not uncommon to find women coerced by their own husbands, fathers, and brothers to earn money for the men in the family to pay back local money lenders. In other cases, victims pay tens of thousands of dollars to get to another country and are then forced into prostitution in pay off their own debts. In still others, women or girls are plainly kidnapped from their home countries. The sex slavery trade thrives in Central and Eastern Europe and in North America. An estimated two million women and children are sold into sex slavery around the world every year.

4) FORCED LABOR often results when individuals are lured by the promise of a good job but instead find themselves subjected to slaving conditions — working without payment and enduring physical abuse, often in harsh and hazardous conditions. Victims include domestic workers, construction workers, and even human mine detectors. Migrant workers are particularly vulnerable, as their constant changes of location make the organized crime rings that traffic them difficult to bust.

5) WAGE SLAVERY is a term first coined by the Lowell Mill Girls in 1836, though articulated as a concept at least as early as Cicero and elaborated by subsequent thinkers, particularly with the advent of the industrial revolution. It refers to the similarities between owning a person and renting a person's labor, and denotes a hierarchical social condition in which a person chooses a job only over an unpleasant set of alternatives (primarily working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or status diminution), which make that "person dependent on wages or a salary for a livelihood, especially with total and immediate dependency on the income derived from wage labor". Wage slavery, in the libertarian socialist and anarchist usage of the term, is often understood as the absence of:

1. A democratic or anti-authoritarian society, especially with non-hierarchical worker's control of the workplace and the economy as a whole,
2. Unconditional access to non-exploitative property and a fair share of the basic necessities of life, and
3. The ability of persons to have say over economic decisions in proportion to the degree they are affected by those decisions.


There are different types of slavery and Wage Slavery is what exists in Capitalistic America. Sure, you can CHOSE your master or CHOSE to go and live on the streets in poor conditions -- go ahead, they wont kill or whip you if you chose to be homeless. Does the absence of violent punishment justify slavery? Not at all!


1-4 from iAbolish and 5 is from Jonathan (mr1001night)'s wage slavery article.

He does make excellant ideas, but my possesion still stands as i say, you have the choice to live in poverty, in all other branches of this slave chart, you were forced to work, or die.

Forced to work or die.
Forced to work or be poor.
Neither is good, but my point is that what we have in system today is much better than anything else that has been put in that i can recall. And even anarchists agree, that everyone should work, its life, even under anarchy you would still have to work, or you wouldn't get your items that you need, so really were is that diverson? (Sorry if im being stupid here, just never could actually find a difference between working for money or working for items)! Unless you have a mental problem that makes it so you can not, than they pay you in organizations that are designed to help them.

"America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you've lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn't belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don't care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve."
Props for whoever find's the reference.
No Props if you googled it.

Now it seems that, in order to be successful under capitalism, you have to try harder than anyone else. The only reason to try harder is if you want more money. Whoop! You've got a system that depends on greed there. If america was not kept alive by greed, they would not have poverty, Monopolies, or an economy that involves exploiting foreign peoples rights.

Public Enemy wrote:

Now it seems that, in order to be successful under capitalism, you have to try harder than anyone else. The only reason to try harder is if you want more money. Whoop! You've got a system that depends on greed there. If america was not kept alive by greed, they would not have poverty, Monopolies, or an economy that involves exploiting foreign peoples rights.

Well, what's the difference in anarchy really? You work to get your goods, than trade them for other goods. So if you want more, you would work harder also. But yes, exploitation by america needs to be reformed to...lets say canada's level.

Quote :

Forced to work or die.
Forced to work or be poor.
Neither is good, but my point is that what we have in system today is much better than anything else that has been put in that i can recall. And even anarchists agree, that everyone should work, its life, even under anarchy you would still have to work, or you wouldn't get your items that you need, so really were is that diverson? (Sorry if im being stupid here, just never could actually find a difference between working for money or working for items)! Unless you have a mental problem that makes it so you can not, than they pay you in organizations that are designed to help them.

I really don't know what your getting at ?


Being socialists most anarchists agree with social safety nets - somewhat akin to modern welfare. Everyone would be provided the basic essentials regardless of work, after all you cant just let people die, I think everyone agrees with that 'apart from the ancaps'. If by diversion you mean that you cant avail of greater material wealth unless you work then I suppose your right - however it still stands that the degree of diversion under Anarchy is immeasurably less than under the capitalist system.

I think you also misunderstand the nature of exploitation. Under capitalism the means of life are owned by a minority elite who use them as a source of coercive authority. Under Anarchy no social class holds a monopoly over capital its 'public property' and available for everyone. In addition the Anarchist mode of production allows workers to keep the full value of their produce as opposed to capitalism where the owner expropriates the workers 'surplus value' thereby exploiting him.

Rename wrote:

He does make excellant ideas, but my possesion still stands as i say, you have the choice to live in poverty, in all other branches of this slave chart, you were forced to work, or die.

Forced to work or die.
Forced to work or be poor.
Neither is good, but my point is that what we have in system today is much better than anything else that has been put in that i can recall. And even anarchists agree, that everyone should work, its life, even under anarchy you would still have to work, or you wouldn't get your items that you need, so really were is that diverson? (Sorry if im being stupid here, just never could actually find a difference between working for money or working for items)! Unless you have a mental problem that makes it so you can not, than they pay you in organizations that are designed to help them.

Someone made this argument before against Noam Chomsky when asked about living conditions. Yes, they've improved.
Slave conditions improved as more people owned slaved... Is that a valid argument for slavery!? NO.

I would rather live in a society where you work to help others than one where you work so you do not live a miserable life on the streets until you rot at an early age.

KenCat wrote:

Rename wrote:

He does make excellant ideas, but my possesion still stands as i say, you have the choice to live in poverty, in all other branches of this slave chart, you were forced to work, or die.

Forced to work or die.
Forced to work or be poor.
Neither is good, but my point is that what we have in system today is much better than anything else that has been put in that i can recall. And even anarchists agree, that everyone should work, its life, even under anarchy you would still have to work, or you wouldn't get your items that you need, so really were is that diverson? (Sorry if im being stupid here, just never could actually find a difference between working for money or working for items)! Unless you have a mental problem that makes it so you can not, than they pay you in organizations that are designed to help them.

Someone made this argument before against Noam Chomsky when asked about living conditions. Yes, they've improved.
Slave conditions improved as more people owned slaved... Is that a valid argument for slavery!? NO.

I would rather live in a society where you work to help others than one where you work so you do not live a miserable life on the streets until you rot at an early age.

Rename wrote:

Well, what's the difference in anarchy really? You work to get your goods, than trade them for other goods. So if you want more, you would work harder also. But yes, exploitation by america needs to be reformed to...lets say canada's level.

What's wrong with wanting total change versus a little bit?

KenCat wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Rename wrote:

He does make excellant ideas, but my possesion still stands as i say, you have the choice to live in poverty, in all other branches of this slave chart, you were forced to work, or die.

Forced to work or die.
Forced to work or be poor.
Neither is good, but my point is that what we have in system today is much better than anything else that has been put in that i can recall. And even anarchists agree, that everyone should work, its life, even under anarchy you would still have to work, or you wouldn't get your items that you need, so really were is that diverson? (Sorry if im being stupid here, just never could actually find a difference between working for money or working for items)! Unless you have a mental problem that makes it so you can not, than they pay you in organizations that are designed to help them.

Someone made this argument before against Noam Chomsky when asked about living conditions. Yes, they've improved.
Slave conditions improved as more people owned slaved... Is that a valid argument for slavery!? NO.

I would rather live in a society where you work to help others than one where you work so you do not live a miserable life on the streets until you rot at an early age.

Rename wrote:

Well, what's the difference in anarchy really? You work to get your goods, than trade them for other goods. So if you want more, you would work harder also. But yes, exploitation by america needs to be reformed to...lets say canada's level.

What's wrong with wanting total change versus a little bit?

Eh, people have that feeling of comfort in this system. I don't blame them, being brainwashed with pseudo speeches about liberty and justice gets to you. But I don't see any comfort in a system like this. Complete change is necessary.

InsurgenteCujo wrote:

KenCat wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Rename wrote:

He does make excellant ideas, but my possesion still stands as i say, you have the choice to live in poverty, in all other branches of this slave chart, you were forced to work, or die.

Forced to work or die.
Forced to work or be poor.
Neither is good, but my point is that what we have in system today is much better than anything else that has been put in that i can recall. And even anarchists agree, that everyone should work, its life, even under anarchy you would still have to work, or you wouldn't get your items that you need, so really were is that diverson? (Sorry if im being stupid here, just never could actually find a difference between working for money or working for items)! Unless you have a mental problem that makes it so you can not, than they pay you in organizations that are designed to help them.

Someone made this argument before against Noam Chomsky when asked about living conditions. Yes, they've improved.
Slave conditions improved as more people owned slaved... Is that a valid argument for slavery!? NO.

I would rather live in a society where you work to help others than one where you work so you do not live a miserable life on the streets until you rot at an early age.

Rename wrote:

Well, what's the difference in anarchy really? You work to get your goods, than trade them for other goods. So if you want more, you would work harder also. But yes, exploitation by america needs to be reformed to...lets say canada's level.

What's wrong with wanting total change versus a little bit?

Eh, people have that feeling of comfort in this system. I don't blame them, being brainwashed with pseudo speeches about liberty and justice gets to you. But I don't see any comfort in a system like this. Complete change is necessary.

Here's something for ya.

Liberty "1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases" (source: DICTIONARY)
What if I wanted to assemble in a group of more than seven people in a public area?
Under Obama's reign, I would be put to jail.

Hmmm, liberty.

KenCat wrote:

InsurgenteCujo wrote:

KenCat wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Rename wrote:

He does make excellant ideas, but my possesion still stands as i say, you have the choice to live in poverty, in all other branches of this slave chart, you were forced to work, or die.

Forced to work or die.
Forced to work or be poor.
Neither is good, but my point is that what we have in system today is much better than anything else that has been put in that i can recall. And even anarchists agree, that everyone should work, its life, even under anarchy you would still have to work, or you wouldn't get your items that you need, so really were is that diverson? (Sorry if im being stupid here, just never could actually find a difference between working for money or working for items)! Unless you have a mental problem that makes it so you can not, than they pay you in organizations that are designed to help them.

Someone made this argument before against Noam Chomsky when asked about living conditions. Yes, they've improved.
Slave conditions improved as more people owned slaved... Is that a valid argument for slavery!? NO.

I would rather live in a society where you work to help others than one where you work so you do not live a miserable life on the streets until you rot at an early age.

Rename wrote:

Well, what's the difference in anarchy really? You work to get your goods, than trade them for other goods. So if you want more, you would work harder also. But yes, exploitation by america needs to be reformed to...lets say canada's level.

What's wrong with wanting total change versus a little bit?

Eh, people have that feeling of comfort in this system. I don't blame them, being brainwashed with pseudo speeches about liberty and justice gets to you. But I don't see any comfort in a system like this. Complete change is necessary.

Here's something for ya.

Liberty "1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases" (source: DICTIONARY)
What if I wanted to assemble in a group of more than seven people in a public area?
Under Obama's reign, I would be put to jail.

Hmmm, liberty.

Wow.

InsurgenteCujo wrote:

KenCat wrote:

InsurgenteCujo wrote:

KenCat wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Rename wrote:

He does make excellant ideas, but my possesion still stands as i say, you have the choice to live in poverty, in all other branches of this slave chart, you were forced to work, or die.

Forced to work or die.
Forced to work or be poor.
Neither is good, but my point is that what we have in system today is much better than anything else that has been put in that i can recall. And even anarchists agree, that everyone should work, its life, even under anarchy you would still have to work, or you wouldn't get your items that you need, so really were is that diverson? (Sorry if im being stupid here, just never could actually find a difference between working for money or working for items)! Unless you have a mental problem that makes it so you can not, than they pay you in organizations that are designed to help them.

Someone made this argument before against Noam Chomsky when asked about living conditions. Yes, they've improved.
Slave conditions improved as more people owned slaved... Is that a valid argument for slavery!? NO.

I would rather live in a society where you work to help others than one where you work so you do not live a miserable life on the streets until you rot at an early age.

Rename wrote:

Well, what's the difference in anarchy really? You work to get your goods, than trade them for other goods. So if you want more, you would work harder also. But yes, exploitation by america needs to be reformed to...lets say canada's level.

What's wrong with wanting total change versus a little bit?

Eh, people have that feeling of comfort in this system. I don't blame them, being brainwashed with pseudo speeches about liberty and justice gets to you. But I don't see any comfort in a system like this. Complete change is necessary.

Here's something for ya.

Liberty "1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases" (source: DICTIONARY)
What if I wanted to assemble in a group of more than seven people in a public area?
Under Obama's reign, I would be put to jail.

Hmmm, liberty.

Wow.

That's an actual US law -- you can only be in a group of six or less. If there's a group of seven or more, you can be put to jail.

KenCat wrote:

InsurgenteCujo wrote:

KenCat wrote:

InsurgenteCujo wrote:

KenCat wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Rename wrote:

He does make excellant ideas, but my possesion still stands as i say, you have the choice to live in poverty, in all other branches of this slave chart, you were forced to work, or die.

Forced to work or die.
Forced to work or be poor.
Neither is good, but my point is that what we have in system today is much better than anything else that has been put in that i can recall. And even anarchists agree, that everyone should work, its life, even under anarchy you would still have to work, or you wouldn't get your items that you need, so really were is that diverson? (Sorry if im being stupid here, just never could actually find a difference between working for money or working for items)! Unless you have a mental problem that makes it so you can not, than they pay you in organizations that are designed to help them.

Someone made this argument before against Noam Chomsky when asked about living conditions. Yes, they've improved.
Slave conditions improved as more people owned slaved... Is that a valid argument for slavery!? NO.

I would rather live in a society where you work to help others than one where you work so you do not live a miserable life on the streets until you rot at an early age.

Rename wrote:

Well, what's the difference in anarchy really? You work to get your goods, than trade them for other goods. So if you want more, you would work harder also. But yes, exploitation by america needs to be reformed to...lets say canada's level.

What's wrong with wanting total change versus a little bit?

Eh, people have that feeling of comfort in this system. I don't blame them, being brainwashed with pseudo speeches about liberty and justice gets to you. But I don't see any comfort in a system like this. Complete change is necessary.

Here's something for ya.

Liberty "1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases" (source: DICTIONARY)
What if I wanted to assemble in a group of more than seven people in a public area?
Under Obama's reign, I would be put to jail.

Hmmm, liberty.

Wow.

That's an actual US law -- you can only be in a group of six or less. If there's a group of seven or more, you can be put to jail.

Shit thanks for informing me about that. I really didn't know.

"Shit thanks for informing me about that. I really didn't know."

Then again, you can be arrested for doing absolutely nothing wrong in this country..

KenCat wrote:

"Shit thanks for informing me about that. I really didn't know."

Then again, you can be arrested for doing absolutely nothing wrong in this country..

Thats true to..

KenCat wrote:

"Shit thanks for informing me about that. I really didn't know."

Then again, you can be arrested for doing absolutely nothing wrong in this country..

Well their we agree on something, Gitmo and the strictness needs to stop in US, reformation anyone?

I could of swore it was 15 or more the leader could be arrested though..must of been a wrong report or something

Rename wrote:

KenCat wrote:

"Shit thanks for informing me about that. I really didn't know."

Then again, you can be arrested for doing absolutely nothing wrong in this country..

Well their we agree on something, Gitmo and the strictness needs to stop in US, reformation anyone?

I could of swore it was 15 or more the leader could be arrested though..must of been a wrong report or something

Reformation? Nah, I prefer revolution.
Tweaking of the health care system is not change, equality, liberty and freedom for all is change.

KenCat wrote:

Reformation? Nah, I prefer revolution.
Tweaking of the health care system is not change, equality, liberty and freedom for all is change.

I guess it could be classified as change..but more of a switch really. Revolution is too bloody for me..i'll play it peaceful

Rename wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Reformation? Nah, I prefer revolution.
Tweaking of the health care system is not change, equality, liberty and freedom for all is change.

I guess it could be classified as change..but more of a switch really. Revolution is too bloody for me..i'll play it peaceful

ya but the corporations aren't going to roll over and let us change things

"ya but the corporations aren't going to roll over and let us change things"

Who has more numbers?

Rename wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Reformation? Nah, I prefer revolution.
Tweaking of the health care system is not change, equality, liberty and freedom for all is change.

I guess it could be classified as change..but more of a switch really. Revolution is too bloody for me..i'll play it peaceful

There IS such thing as peaceful revolution, you know.

KenCat wrote:

Rename wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Reformation? Nah, I prefer revolution.
Tweaking of the health care system is not change, equality, liberty and freedom for all is change.

I guess it could be classified as change..but more of a switch really. Revolution is too bloody for me..i'll play it peaceful

There IS such thing as peaceful revolution, you know.

Nonviolent revolution is possible only if the controlling government does not take brutal measures against protesters; which is almost like completely surrendering, which is something i highly doubt will happen in any political system

Rename wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Rename wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Reformation? Nah, I prefer revolution.
Tweaking of the health care system is not change, equality, liberty and freedom for all is change.

I guess it could be classified as change..but more of a switch really. Revolution is too bloody for me..i'll play it peaceful

There IS such thing as peaceful revolution, you know.

Nonviolent revolution is possible only if the controlling government does not take brutal measures against protesters; which is almost like completely surrendering, which is something i highly doubt will happen in any political system

Good point there not going to roll over and let us take back control... there not going out without a fight...a brutal one at that

i hate to be annoying about this, but can i see the source for the law? i want to tell my friends - but they don't believe me unless i have a source ^_^

solpacvoicis wrote:

i hate to be annoying about this, but can i see the source for the law? i want to tell my friends - but they don't believe me unless i have a source ^_^

Re say that please, what do you mean a source for the law? the law is a source itself..