>"Just between us, slavery, preferably with a smile, is inevitable then. But we must not admit it. Isn’t it better that whoever cannot do without having slaves should call them free men? For the principle to begin with, and, secondly, not to drive them to despair. We owe them that compensation, don’t we? In that way, they will continue to smile and we shall maintain our good conscience."
What did he mean by this? Its from The Fall.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Ethical capitalism doesn't exist.
I don't know who this assclown is, but that's some of the most absurd shit I've ever read.
He needs slaves to make his coffee
...
Fucking epic
rim shot
>“The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: "I feed on your energy.”
I forgot how great Camus is
The second one isn't Camus, it's Frank Herbert.
fpbp.
capitalism places capital above the people and will only function correctly for as long as capital remains the priority.
socialism places the people above the capital and cannot be sustained technologically, economically, or diplomatically because of it.
there must be a slave class doing the necessary heavy lifting. humanity is the price of a functioning civilization
It's like this OP.
Say you have a slave. Slave lives in housing afforded to him by his master. Slave eats. Slave works. The profit from his toils fall 100% to his master who pays the minimum to house slaves in bulk.
Emancipation comes. Slave is now sharecropper. Sharecropper is "rented" everything he had as a slave on credit. All of his profits are eaten up by the landowner. Sharecropping is slavery with extra steps, we know this.
Now you have company towns. The general store is owned by the company. Transactions occur in their currency. The houses are rented out by them to the worker. The worker pays back all of his wages to the company.
Now you have "free men". Their employer keeps some profits from their wages. Their grocer takes a share. Their land lord takes another share. The companies are diversified and owned by many shareholders. The little details changed. The free man doesn't see that he works in a company town, which is sharecropping with extra steps. He doesn't think about how sharecropping is just slavery with extra steps.
A free man thinks nothing about toiling at one company, spending his money at another company's grocery store, renting from a third company, and buying entertainment from a fourth. His hours, time, and toils are consumed not by him, primarily, but so long as he cannot name his masters he enjoys the illusion of freedom.
Give me a break. All these people who are "taking shares" from this "free man" are all working as well and putting in their labor. If this free man really thinks his labor is worth so much he should quit and produce himself, but chances are he can't so that's why he works for companies that provide the tools for him.
>but chances are he can't
And why is this?
If he can't, than he is the slave to the company he works for.
> men can not be ethical without government
I didnt know fascism was popular on lit
Are the rich kids whose trust funds hold shares in the grocery corporation who maybe show up to a board meeting twice a year working as well? Is the franchise owner who dines at the country club while his workers toil putting in his labor?
>he should quit
And continue the same arrangement with another employer?
>and produce himself
Does he own the means of production?
Because he is dumb and lazy.
and no one seems to know what to do with dumb and lazy people except keep them distracted with entertainment so they consume more.
Dumb lazy people = Slaves?
>All these people who are "taking shares" from this "free man" are all working as well and putting in their labor.
And the slave's master isn't?
Not him, but he obviously comes from the American school of slave tending.
See, if you show your slaves ways out through education, business, and investment even knowing that few can make their way out, you can damn them to slavery for their laziness.
In the European style of slave owning you make sure that your slave is pampered enough to never starve but you don't dangle the prospect of escape so readily before him.
Different styles.
put me in the screencap
Is this just your interpretation or is this based on something else? Interesting, none the less.
Does slavery imply the idea that the slave is considered subhuman or inhuman?
My understanding of labor economics based on education in the differences between European and American social structures and economics. Call it an educated opinion.
slavery implies i hate my fucking b*ss and just want to stay home and watch anime
Chances are the franchise owner put in years of work to get into his position, and his position requires a lot more expertise and risky decisions.
>franchise
>expertise
>risky decisions
My cousin owns and runs a franchise. I can tell that you do not.
Why should he own the means of production if he can't create them himself?
Or, since capital can be accumulated and passed, along the franchise owner already has much more power than the worker (which compounds as he accumulates more).
You act as if most owners and CEO merely got into that position because their parent gave it to them. That is totally far from the truth. Most of them spent years and years working in lower positions, gaining skills and climbing their way up. The accumulated knowledge and ability is much harder to replace than a typical manual worker, which is why they get paid so much more.
Lol. That just requires 30k of capital and a willingness to live in burbia.
>Most of them spent years and years working in lower positions, gaining skills and climbing their way up.
hahahahahahahahha a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Your smug response doesn't change reality. It's true. You clearly have no understanding of the actual business world.
Most CEOs had parents who were elites user.
en.wikipedia.org
While I don't think it's always a good idea to link wikipedia, the page is a good resource as a starting point for delving into elite theory. Personally I subscribe somewhat to the 13 step ladder idea of American social class as presented by O'Church because it struck a chord with my own observations, but it isn't necessary to understand this.