Similarities and differences between the classical slave and the modern order taker
From now on I will publish a series of 9 interconnected entries on the very critical issue of the classical slavery as it has remained in the modern labor relations reflexes, even after its official abolition. I will show during this series that abusive things exist also in the modern contractual work relations so that there are amazing similarities between them and the traditional slavery. To understand how these abuses are possible we need to first understand the classical slavery typical abuses and then to compare them with those of modern relations free trade false appearance.
Each section corresponds to a particular article, the following items are interconnected. I will start with a first group of three entries focused on the similarities and differences between the two types of labor relationships. Then I will continue with the 4th entry in which I will show clear examples of what was said in the first 3 ones. In the 5th and 6th entries I will show how the classical slavery physical and mental threats were camouflaged to modern order taker to make believable historically proportions lie, namely that the slavery would have totally disappeared from 150 years ago
The purpose of this series of articles is to materialize a comparative analysis of the evolution of slavery from ancient times to the present in other future articles. I'll start with the first description of unjustified profit slavery similarity between classical and modern employment relationship.
1. The classical slavery specific abuse of property made by direct threats
So, in this section I will focus on specific abuses classical slavery. The classical slave is a person who produces goods for someone else without receiving a wage or without even receiving anything in exchange for its goods and its services made right under. This means that that person is forced to work through unethical means, such as death threats or beating. He is captured as war booty or "harvested" as a commercial product from its social and geographical environment, usually primitive, and brought in a classic environment. This is the case of slave trade from Africa that so civilized Europe and the Americas have mightily benefited from until little more than a century ago. The ancient slave mostly came from community conquest by another military stronger community. However, the ancient slave could also come from free people. There were situations of transforming a classical social environment free person into a slave, either due to the social rules abuses or due to other similar events. Even the ancient philosopher Plato went through the experience of being a classical slave for a short period.
There are two situations that resemble to classical slavery from a certain point of view, but which differ in others. The first one is the motherhood and the romantic love, as emotional regression (or poetic progression) to motherhood. Both the mother and the lover meets offspring or the loved one desires as the slave does for the master. But their gestures are not forced by threats, but by maternal and / or sexually instincts according to their own desire to protect and promote. Then, such goods and services disposal produces one of the most powerful personal satisfaction (if not the strongest), unlike the depression caused by the master to slave. And finally, they are temporary because, after the goods and services are given in, after motherhood and / or sexually will be fulfilled, the ratio will sometimes radically change. It may happen that, after some unpleasant events, those goods may be reclaimed back... Or, after reaching adulthood, the former infant may consistently return favors to its parents that came to inability. This happened in classical slavery as only as a symbolic gesture, in a certain day of the year, in Rome. And we can imagine that the Roman slaves would have not totally turned into masters as the masters would have not totally turned into slaves that day. It was more a game, like an announcement to early modern corporatism...
The other situation is the charity. The charity acts come after the wealth accumulation that makes them possible. In the classical period the wealth is usually made by using the slaves. So the charity magnanimity is actually a certain attempt to adjust the moral conscience to the slavery injustice reality. Other ones use these gestures to improve their bad public image after some dubious facts made in the past. There must be taken into account the poor in spirit situation inaugurated by the Christianity, in which the repentant willingly gives its wealth to the poor and go on living an ascetic life. But these situations are very rare, firstly according to the number of ascetics themselves. Moreover they are also temporary because, after handing over its goods, the ascetic person usually does not return to building new ones to give them to the needy once again. And if that person somehow decides to end up its ascetic life and returns to the "profane things", then usually it will keep those goods for itself.
The difference between these gestures and classical slavery relies therefore in the concrete threats and their constancy. No one willingly gives up its goods or services constantly without getting something in return to be used in some way or another. Even the ascetic person can enjoy the specific slavery psychological war pressures decreasing after its charity acts. He renounces the "worldliness" but can escape the slave’s mixed admiration combined with hatred feelings, which is equivalent to a lesser stressful life. It also should not be forgotten the eternal life promise in which that person believes. The charity would prove in this case a long-term very cost-effective affair symbolically, psychologically. But, as has been proven for many times, the charity has been used much more for mercantile purposes, as washing bad image in the public eye. Of course, in this case there is fake charity made as an investment in productive forces rather than a genuine charity.
The typical slavery threat consists in that kind of influence the natural or social environment in order to cosmeticize abusive relationships into an free trade appearance. The specific classical slavery negative environment influence involves three forms of profit as follows:
1. the robbery;
2. the slave seizing on the master property;
3. the master property extending in such an extent that there is no room for other properties;
Unfortunately the robbery was the criterion for a primitive society passing into the classic one. There is no traditional society that was not previously formed on the foundation of plundering smaller communities unable to defend themselves against their better performing weapons. After the community goods get exhausted, the plundering community has three options to continue its way of life:
1. moves on to robbing another community;
2. takes human war plunder, the future slaves seized on its old homeland property;
3. It sets the new residence into the conquered by war community place, turning its people into slaves, which means continuously stealing its later produced goods by various threats.
The robbery set society is military structured and will continue looting of other communities tu conquer and robber until it will exhaust them or will face considerable resistance that will annihilate each other. The war seizing human prey structured society uses the classical slave relocation on the master property. The new territories annexation war structured society increases its property so that the others are forced to live "at the master mercy", fulfilling its orders in exchange for food and shelter. This latter form is that of medieval serfdom or vassalage. Compared with the sequestration antique slavery, the serfdom looks more equitable; the expansion form of slavery threats are not as brutal as those of slavery sequestration, but somewhat diluted, as I will detail in a future entry dedicated to the slavery evolution.
It is noticeable that the first classical slavery sign is the abuse against the potential servant property given that it is already lower than the abuser one. The main difference between classical slavery and modern contractual employment relationship is that the right to property is enshrined in law. The contemporary society has allowed servants to have some property and even vigorously worshiped it on paper. But this reality applies more to the strong ones properties than to the weakest ones. The modern servants’ property is constantly violated today, even if not as brutal as in classical slavery period. The most frequently way of abusing the weak ones property is by exchange deception, which I will analyze in the next section .