Hello, thanks for your post. Interesting topic, imho. I'm just trying to follow the train of thought, concerning dependency and slavery. Could you define what you mean any further? I think i might know, but it's safer not to assume. There is also the concept of interdependence, as some kind of middle ground between dependence and independence. Though i am hard pressed to come up with an example of anything that is absolutely independent, needing nothing from nor giving anything to anyone else. As for people having to do difficult, dangerous, or dirty jobs; as long as they are compensated very well for it there seems to be less of a problem. Although kids probably will never dream of becoming a sewer cleaner. :D

I think the first order of business here is deciding whether slavery is in itself wrong, which I'm not so sure. I find myself wondering if the pedagogus of ancient Greece or Rome had it so bad, seeing as he/she could climb the social ladder just as well as any ordinary citizen. Additionally, a distinction that's worth mentioning would be between voluntary and involuntary slavery. The African slave in 19th century America might find involuntary slavery to be a heinous sin (as I would), but not the pedagogus of antiquity. Furthermore, I'm unsure if the debt slaves of Rome or ancient Mesopotamia, in contrast, thought their voluntary servitude was petty or unduly constraining.

Consider homelessness in America, for a moment. Most who find themselves homeless arrived at their predicament involuntarily, as a generalized result of the corporate capitalist economy. Yet, there are a staggering amount of homeless citizens in the US who have voluntarily chosen "houselessness" as a particular lifestyle. On one hand we have people who fall through the cracks, so to speak, and are in the doldrums not of their own volition, and on the other, we have people who very much choose to fall through the cracks. Are both of these people in the wrong?

We're better when we come together to feed, clothe, shelter, and defend one another. When does this dependence become slavery? — Mongrel

If I don't want to work at McDonalds in order to cloth, shelter, and feed myself, am I voluntarily falling through the cracks because I don't want to do what society deems that I must?

Is it something that's done to us? — Mongrel

I might like being forced to be a poet and accompany someone's child to and from school, seeing as I'd be doing what I want (be a poet, perhaps), and am given my basic needs, like food, shelter, and clothing.

Or is it something we're all collectively creating?

Society creates more immoral involuntary slavery than it does potentially moral voluntary slavery.

Also, who/what decides if society in fact "better" provides for one's necessities? It seems like society decides, otherwise you'll be put in prison.

I think the beginning of it starts with a sense of being forced to comply and this depends a lot on our awareness of our environment. In the more well off societies the compensation we get for labour can be seen as a trade off for freedom (doing something against ones own volition with the idea of reaping a benefit at a later time in being able to provide for a family / self actualisation etc.

I feel most can see some sort of logic / rationale behind a judicial system and can also notice that there's usually a majority view on having certain laws which make it such a force it's not regarded as something forcing someone to comply but more like the weather. The way basic needs like food, shelter, health are seen as a right or as needs which need to be met on a daily basis makes a lot of difference in what people will tolerate and this also depends on the environment. A tribe somewhere in a pristine jungle would not see it as self evident that they'll be fed if hungry, someone living among people who are all considerably wealthy might.

Religion also plays a big role, the way the caste system works in India gives people an excuse to comply. I've read theories that the way Christianity was eventually implemented in Europe served as an excuse to have a few "chosen ones" be able to pass their wealth along generations without too much repercussions from the "serfs" paving the way for feudalism.

I think I'm quite fortunate to be somewhat unaware how the immediate threat of violence comes into play in all this.

(And if you could consider awareness playing a big part in the degree to which people feel forced to comply, this article might be of interest: http://harvardmagazine.com/2015/05/the-science-of-scarcity)

When does dependence become slavery? The moment the IT Department installs filters which interfere with freely surfing the web?

A human society is different from that. The idea of slavery causes revolts and revolutions. I'm trying to find the beginning of that. Is it something that's done to us? Or is it something we're all collectively creating? — Mongrel

Slavery existed for a long time within Greek and Roman culture without causing any (successful, at least) revolutions. And slavery in Greece and Rome wasn't all about pedagogues (παιδαγωγός) teaching children poetry. The model of slavery in Rome may not have been as implacable as slavery in America.

Marxists speak of wage slavery. In harsher capitalistic societies if you do not work, you do not eat and that is "your problem, not mine". Marx (or maybe the American socialist DeLeon) noted that in America it was cheaper to hire an Irish worker to fix a roof than use a slave. If the Irish worker fell of the roof and died, the largest possible cost would be the day's wages before he died. If a slave fell off the roof and died, one would be out a good deal of money.

Capitalism has moderated; crumbs are dropped on the chronically unemployed -- General Assistance (like, $250 a month). Unemployment helps short term unemployment. Disability programs help those who can't work. But still, if you don't work, you get very little. This isn't an accident.

It takes visibly impoverished unemployed people, slums, shelters, food shelves and such to make millions of people drag themselves into their dreary jobs, spend the day being managed by overseers, getting paid too little for the value produced (the key to capitalism), and then drag themselves back home for whatever is left of the day.

Only a small proportion of hourly wage workers are engaged in labor that is not alienating. A good share of salaried workers aren't doing anything very fulfilling either. A relatively small minority of workers are engaged in labor that provides personal satisfactions. (Maybe 15%? 20%?)

It's pretty much wage slavery for most of us,

Hello, thanks for your post. Interesting topic, imho. I'm just trying to follow the train of thought, concerning dependency and slavery. Could you define what you mean any further? — 0 thru 9

I've been spinning yarn, which for me is a hobby. For Gandhi it was about self-sufficiency which provides the power to stand up with dignity. Why was power and dignity lost to begin with? How did India become an object of exploitation? They were conquered during a window of weak political power. So doesn't it come back to defense? If you don't invest in the ability to kill, you may never pay a price for it but your descendants might.

I'm suggesting that it really isn't so much a slow insidious loss of self-direction. Violent subjugation comes first. True or deluded?

On one hand we have people who fall through the cracks, so to speak, and are in the doldrums not of their own volition, and on the other, we have people who very much choose to fall through the cracks. Are both of these people in the wrong? — Heister Eggcart

Why are there cracks to fall through in the first place?

A tribe somewhere in a pristine jungle would not see it as self evident that they'll be fed if hungry, someone living among people who are all considerably wealthy might. — Gooseone

Exactly. Cool article, thanks.

Only a small proportion of hourly wage workers are engaged in labor that is not alienating. — Bitter Crank

And recently the crowd mourns that there isn't more of this kind of work. "Provide more wage slavery" is basically the Trump mandate, right?

Righto. But bear in mind that in a system of wage slavery, not having a place on the assembly line means yet another more severe form of degradation. Unemployed wage slaves have just about no reason whatsoever to exist, as far as the system is concerned.

There is no intention within the power elite to reorganize society so that people who do not want alienating labor can find a path to something better.

Some people, in some situations, are happy doing alienating labor. I've been there a couple of times doing fairly simple shit work that had absolutely no value to me, but the setting was interesting. (It was reboxing old, water-damaged trust files for First Bank and Trust (now US Bank). What made this task moderately interesting was that most of the other people working on the project were patients from Hazelden Drug Treatment and we were free to talk while we worked. It was practically a graduate seminar on drug abuse and drug treatment.)

Another thing that made this crap job OK was that the management didn't care what we were doing as long as there was a steady flow of unboxed, sorted, reboxed, labeled, and cataloged boxes to be shipped out to a storage company--and the bank hoped, never to be looked at again.

Why are there cracks to fall through in the first place? — Mongrel

Those aren't cracks. What you call "cracks" is the grating in the bottom of the machine.

Why are there cracks to fall through in the first place? — Mongrel

More generally, because of the world. More specifically, because of society. If you try and survive outside of society, you'll probably be arrested or shot for farting around on someone's lawn. Is it their lawn? No, but you don't have the power to resist an enforced authority unless you're okay with the consequences.

I'm currently reading a book by a Dutch author (https://www.amazon.com/Utopia-Realists-Universal-Borders-Workweek/dp/9082520303/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8) and it has some interesting notes.

I already knew it was a form of indoctrination (with which I'm indoctrinated to some degree also) but the book is making some nice observations on "deserving poor" vs. "undeserving poor" where the undeserving bit seems to follow the prejudiced notion most have of conservative doctrine: "every one is an individual responsible agent", "you can make it if you try hard", you create your own success", "losers lack attitude", etc.

I was somewhat stunned to hear it was Nixon not so long who came close to providing the whole of the US with a basic income scheme. (article from the author of the book: https://thecorrespondent.com/4503/the-bizarre-tale-of-president-nixon-and-his-basic-income-bill/173117835-c34d6145).

It also has some interesting titbits about how Harrah's Cherokee casino does wonders for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and other stuff which appears to make a good case against the doctrine most of us are familiar with. Not to mention the well known concerns about the future where more and more jobs will become automatized.

Though I have some doubts still, there's a correlation to be drawn with our "age of reason" in which everything needs to be quantified for people to be (mistakenly) assured they have a handle on it. If the common doctrine is that people will become bums if they don't have the incentive we're all familiar with (wage slavery) and there's little means to quantify what actually will happen if people are left to their devices and also very little historic precedent.... it comes down to trust in humanity...

It's also worth noting that, what you might consider wage slavery, is utopia for many, many people around the globe and there are also a lot of people who are still very, very ideological, whereas a lot of people in secular "advanced" societies might be suffering from a distinct lack in ideology. (Where I would consider myself a cynical humanist when it comes to ideology).

Uhh, really? The reason that livers don't decide to give up but people do is because livers lack the ability to decide.

And that's exactly why I equate the difference between dependency and slavery with our perceived notions of choice / awareness.

I promised my liver I would behave after next week. >:)

A human society is different from that. The idea of slavery causes revolts and revolutions. I'm trying to find the beginning of that. Is it something that's done to us? Or is it something we're all collectively creating? — Mongrel

Enter Foucault, stage left. Each of us is complicit in the framework of power we find ourselves in, indeed I oppress myself, I self-censor, I apologise when I don't need to, I accede when I could have asserted. This does seem to me something in us - each of us spends years accepting parental / institutional authority, before each of us breaks out in our own way, with all sorts of residual obedience to habit / instruction / people.

Not that I'm disagreeing with BC. There are elaborate skeins of structures in which we are entangled and to which we often acquiesce. Systems that elaborate.

I promised my liver would behave after next week. >:) — Cavacava

The reason that livers don't decide — Hanover

Gilbert and Sullivan mention liquified livers in one of their songs...

A more humane Mikado never
Did in Japan exist;
To nobody second,
I’m certainly reckoned
A true philanthropist.
It is my very humane endeavour
To make, to some extent,
Each evil liver
A running river
Of harmless merriment.

Not that I'm disagreeing with BC. — mcdoodle

God forbid!

Enter Foucault, stage left. Each of us is complicit in the framework of power we find ourselves in, indeed I oppress myself, I self-censor, I apologise when I don't need to, I accede when I could have asserted. This does seem to me something in us - each of us spends years accepting parental / institutional authority, before each of us breaks out in our own way, with all sorts of residual obedience to habit / instruction / people. — mcdoodle

Yours is a succinct summation of our situation.

Just as there is no government without the consent of the governed (a statement which is generally true if not applied too literally), everyone in the workplace gives daily assent to the rightness of the bosses (of no special merit) telling many people (who the bosses don't need to know much about) what to do--when, where, and how.

a lot of people in secular "advanced" societies might be suffering from a distinct lack in ideology. — Gooseone

Indeed they might.

It takes clear ideology, along with strong solidarity, to successfully challenge the dominant paradigm. Do it alone and you will be kicked out the door. Do it together with vague understanding and you'll find all of your wages docked.

It takes clear ideology, along with strong solidarity, to successfully challenge the dominant paradigm. Do it alone and you will be kicked out the door. Do it together with vague understanding and you'll find all of your wages docked. — Bitter Crank

Maybe it's the same doctrine I'm (we?) criticizing but: "No risk, no reward".
If you were to sum up the ideology behind any revolution....

...I do get kicked out of the door at the times, I'm self employed though ...so I suffer for it.

You're referencing show tunes. I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere.

"No risk, no reward".
If you were to sum up the ideology behind any revolution.... — Gooseone

Less than an ideology, "No risk, no reward" is more a truism, but one well worth remembering.

An ideology would be "The role of a capitalism is to extract maximize profit from the productive process." Or oppositely, (but related) "Labor produces all wealth." Following the wrong ideology can lead to autofucktative results. When labor thinks that it is just fine for capitalists to extract the maximum from their work, they are fucking themselves. Capitalists don't usually make the same kind of mistake because they have clearer class consciousness. Capitalists understand which side of the bread is buttered.

Workers tend to think that with hard work, gumption, a couple of bright ideas, "no risk, no reward", and so on they too will become rich capitalists. Workers who lack accurate information about class structure and operation are not sufficiently aware that hard work will tire them out without making them rich. Add gumption, a couple of bright ideas, and so on -- and they will still be tired out and be no richer than they were before.

If workers want to get rich, they have to do more than merely emulate capitalists: They have to seize the property of the capitalists and operate it for their own benefit. Former capitalists become workers like everybody else (but like as not an unusually resentful, bitter, hateful, and unhappy batch of workers). That's OK. If they don't work, then they won't eat very well. If they do work, they'll get the same rewards as everybody else. If they don't like this deal, there is always a one way ticket to the scenic Aleutian Islands.

You need to get out and see more shows.

I suppose Gilbert's and Sullivan's work could count as "show tunes" even though The Mikado was written in 1885 and counts more as operetta (or opera to some people).

You might be one of those unfortunates that rushes into a theater without reading the marquee first and doesn't know whether he is watching Parsifal or Pinafore.

Social situations become metaphorical as opposed to literal slavery when the person making the slavery accusation wants an easy way to gain converts to their position and they haven't yet figured out a way to compare the opposition to Hitler. The hope in this cliched gambit is that the mere accusation of "slavery" will make the other person so uncomfortable in their support of the other side that they'll jump ship--they're hoping for a gut-level reaction against possibly being seen as supporting slavery.

The reason that livers don't decide to give up but people do is because livers lack the ability to decide. — Hanover

Agreed. Livers, nor their cells can think or compare/contrast or choose to put their job into perspective.
Again I suggest that slavery involves a build up of resentment towards that which or whom they are enslaved by.

'Swing low sweet chariot' is well-known as a song sung by escaping slaves, but this is an elegant lyric supposedly devsed by Harriet Tubman to guide escapees along the 'underground railroad': (sung version at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw6N_eTZP2U)

When the Sun comes back
And the first quail calls
Follow the Drinking Gourd,
For the old man is a-waiting for to carry you to freedom
If you follow the Drinking Gourd

The riverbank makes a very good road.
The dead trees will show you the way.
Left foot, peg foot, travelling on,
Follow the Drinking Gourd.

The river ends between two hills
Follow the Drinking Gourd.
There’s another river on the other side
Follow the Drinking Gourd.

When the great big river meets the little river
Follow the Drinking Gourd.
For the old man is a-waiting for to carry to freedom
If you follow the Drinking Gourd.

Thanks for that.

"The Drinking Gourd" references the big dipper constellation. The edge of the cup (two stars furthest from the handle) point toward Polaris, the north star, which is the first star in the handle of the little dipper. So, "follow the north star" north.

I'm most familiar with Pete Seeger's performance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgakshXwosA The Drinking Gourd was popular with American folk groups back in the 50s and 60s. Seeger, Weavers, New Christy Minstrels, etc. Seeger, the Almanac Singers and the Weavers were all far left. Pete Seeger and the Weavers were big radio hits (pre TV era), which is surprising considering the post WWII right wing backlash in the 1950s.

Everyone is dependent all of the time on others; the road-mender, the shop assistant, the farmer, the computer programmer, the long-suffering parent.

It is slavery when the dependence is sustained by fear instead of by love.

Enter Foucault, stage left. Each of us is complicit in the framework of power we find ourselves in, indeed I oppress myself, I self-censor, I apologise when I don't need to, I accede when I could have asserted. This does seem to me something in us - each of us spends years accepting parental / institutional authority, before each of us breaks out in our own way, with all sorts of residual obedience to habit / instruction / people. — mcdoodle

I'm not familiar with Foucault. Does he talk about self-oppression?

It is slavery when the dependence is sustained by fear instead of by love. — unenlightened

True. And I guess simply abandoning fear is a kind of emancipation.

I guess simply abandoning fear is a kind of emancipation. — Mongrel

I've always wondered how one does that. If fear were like a pair of shoes, one could easily leave it by the roadside, but alas, I find it is more like a pair of feet.