Apparently, Elon Musk's Girlfriend is a Communist

No. Slavery is the stealth of another person’s life and forcing that person to live their life the way ‘you’ want them to. Whether that is forced labor, forced sex, or forced … whatever, the reason for it is because someone doesn’t want to pay for something and therefore, forcing someone else to do it for free.

In ancient times it was also a system where people who couldn't pay their debts voluntarily chose to work them off for others. So no, you are not correct.

It still happens today. Many a criminal empire is built off debts which can never be paid off.

Would we not view that as stealing someone's life?

Indentured servitude is not slavery.

Fair enough.

Though one caveat, the US stopped the international slave trade at the same time as the UK, 1808. That didn't make the US less invested in slavery. If anything, it increased the powers of the Southern plantation owners, now having the only access to slaves, and a 'product' (ick) that was self-perpetuating.

Hmm - not sure I follow. The tobacco and cotton markets certainly existed as prime players in the world economy for the next 100 years. Why is rice any different? And while rice was one of the big five, it was dwarfed by both of those cash crops. Indeed, the South wasn't food sufficient.

I would agree with that, though it's often phrased as 'was entirely dependent on' and that goes too far IMO.

Chattel slavery was certainly the industrialized concept of slavery, and took something that was already vile and descended it to the absolute depths.

Tell that to the Romans, Jews, and the Code of Hammurabi. It is one of the original meanings of the term, even if chattel slavery changed that meaning for current perspectives.

Depends on how it's done. I'm not sure I'd apply the term slave to someone who is indebted who retains many of their other freedoms, other than as a euphemism.

But we are back to the many different meanings of the word.

It has a possible endpoint, yes. But many such "employers" will keep adding costs to your debt (Oh, you got sick? We'll pay for the medication, you can pay us off later. Oh, the equipment you use broke? We'll add it to your tab).

So, when you think of roads, do you think of bricks and compacted dirt?

Seriously, words and meanings change over time so we have a better understanding of each other. This discussion is specifically about slavery - the act of kidnapping and detaining a person and forcing an act - labor, sex, whatever.

We are not discussing situations in which someone is paying off an existing debt by agreeing to labor for the other person for a requisite period of time.

I literally said that it was practiced in many different ways over the years. So yes, a dirt road is still a road - indeed, I grew up in a county with quite a few of those back in the day. And a Roman or Babylonian debt slave was still considered a slave, and it definitely was one of the original meanings of the term.

So you can say 'I mean it only in terms of X', you can't say 'it only means X' and have it be accurate.

{sigh}. Ok. whatever. slavery is a state in which a person can opt into.

How exactly does that relate to the topic?

Pretty sure that was part of Derpy's original point, as being part of the social aspect of slavery.

And what was probably my extension of that point, that it existed beyond just the economic. I went there because Marxist analysis of slavery was introduced, which is right up to the point it goes, but doesn't account for all possible aspects of slavery.

So pretty much how all discussion goes on around here - someone said something that others disagreed with.

Ok, so, my point still stands. A we understand the word in 2021, English language, planet Earth, slavery is not an "opt out" kind of operation nor is it a negative balance kind of operation.

Question, would we still feel comfortable using the word where opting out is theoretically possible but so costly as to be all but precluded?

Ooh, good question. I suppose there would have to be a defining scale. Take the example you spoke of previously, I'm indentured to you, I become ill, you pay for the medical care ...

you know what. Let's stop right there. Cuz, just getting sick in the US is enough to put someone *into* indentured servitude. any additional expenses, the individual would never be able to pay off - especially as his/her health continues to deteriorate - therefore, yea, might as well be slavery.

...depending on what you mean by slavery. Because that's somewhat similar to the ancient Roman concept of debtor slavery.

It is not at all similar to what we saw with US chattel slavery. Because your children weren't born into slavery, your rights weren't totally abrogated, you were banned from reading or traveling, and you couldn't be assaulted, killed or had your loved ones raped or sold away from you.

And then we get to industrial prison slavery that we see now. Get caught smoking weed three times, in policies specifically targeting minorities, and lose your right to vote, and be forced to work for coporations for pennies on the dollar.

There are many ills in society. Many as atrocious as slavery. But, they are not slavery as we know the common use to be.

My POV is that slavery means the need to lose rights. Owing someone money is not slavery, unless you are then commended over to their authority and no longer have the right to make your own choices.

Yes, and I agree. To a point. Owing someone money is not "slavery" or even "servitude".

*If* a person willingly contracts into indentured servitude .... let's take the familiar into the modern - Planet Earth is dying. A ship is scheduled for Mars. You don't have enough to cover the cost but rumor has it that Mars has unlimited opportunities and if you could just get there, you know you could make something of yourself. So, you enter a contract with Space Exploration Technologies Corp that you will work for them for ... 20 years if they cover the cost of your trip to Mars.

Five years in, you realize you've been totally F-ed. The cost of the ticket should have been paid back 4 years ago based on the average ticket price vs average pay at another corporation doing the same job.

You've got 15 years left. You live in a shit apartment. Can only afford shit for food. Can't afford even one evening's entertainment ...

Is that slavery?

It is certainly like slavery, but again, it would depend on your meaning of the word slavery.

Compared to your modern definition based on chattel slavery, not even fucking close. And you don't need this expansive hypothetical for that. You can just look at the plight of the Irish who made these kinds of deals to get to America. Yes, they were fucked, but not forever, unto the last generation, and they still had human rights.

It is pretty similar to the ancient concept of debtor slavery though.

I think you're intentionally being obtuse here. The reason we have language is so we can communicate. Modern definition for slavery is "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." Modern definition of indentured servitude is "a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance."

Which is where I presented the modernized scenario of a ticket to Mars

Yes, that's where @spot261 and I were discussing whether or not indentured servitude constitutes slavery.

Which, again, is not the modern definition, nor is it how most people in 2021 define slavery. What used to be called "slaves" are now defined as "indentured servants".

And at this point you are arguing just to argue. By your definition then debt 'slavery' is not slavery. IMO people who routinely call themselves slaves in that context are fucking lunatics considering what chattel slavery was in this country.

But guess what? Miriam's does call it slavery.

And that's why we have discussions to place things in context, because people can't agree on what terms mean, and a lot of arguments occur because two people have different understandings of a word. Hell, sometimes they are both right.

And at the end of the day, that's what matters, the concept each person perceives. Even dictionaries are fluid, and they might not even agree.

A caveat to your caveat. The US made international slave trading illegal in 1808. Slaves were still brought to the US after this, with the last known ship reaching US shores in 1859 or 1860. Buried in the random tweet thread is a tweet about a black activist who died recently, who's mother knew at least one of the slaves from that ship.

Absolutely. Slavery was phased out slowly in the North under the name of 'apprenticeship', with real changes not occuring for a decade or two in some places after the state had banned slavery. And in the South there were hidden slaves for many decades after the civil war.

But then, there was also issues in most other countries. Even in places were slave owners received compensation there was often ridiculous corruption, such as Britain, where slave ships simply changed flags and still used British ports. Even the slave ship blockade was at issue, as they'd often impound slave ships - then sell them back to the slavers.

https://origins.osu.edu/review/after-abolition-britain-and-slave-trade-1807

Wtf? I posted something. You responded. I clarified. You responded. I attempted further clarification. You continue to respond. And now, you accuse *me* of arguing just to argue.

What is the purpose of responding to my comment? Are you asking for clarification? Or are you arguing that indentured servants are just as much victims of capitalism as slaves?

Other than that, I do not know why you continue to argue that indentured servants are also slaves.

I think @Demiurge summed up my position pretty well. In no way do I deny that slavery wasn't profitable for a lot of people; I was just contesting Jenee's original assertion that 'slavery is entirely related to capitalism.' I believe that in a historical sense, slavery has been primarily about one group of people asserting their supremacy over another--and benefiting from their slave labor not only financially, but socially and culturally as well. Take the Confederacy, for example, and Demiurge's point that slavery was explicitly protected in its Constitution. That wasn't just because planters were making money off the work of their slaves. It was a cultural institution, a social order, a class system. It was always about more than the money. Always.

Absolutely.

The counter here though is that the advent of capitalism represented the zenith of profitable slave trading, not it's demise.

Just as it's acceptance was at least partially a social construct so was it's (supposed) abolition.

I think it can honestly be argued both ways--that chattel slavery bolstered and supported capitalism (and vice versa) and that capitalism (and especially the rise of industry) eventually helped kill off slavery--or gravely wound it, as it were. In my seriously cursory reading on the subject, there's seems to still be a lot of debate amongst historians on the subject.

The only case I can really get behind for capitalism having harmed slavery is one of saturation.

Slavery could only require continue at the time whilst the public were content not to ask too many questions. Increase the value of the slave trade (which, I'm sorry, capitalism did) and you increase it's visibility. That's ultimately what led to it's demise, it was a victim of it's own success, not market forces.

It's an interesting premise. I think it can be argued in the US at least, that one of the key reasons slavery failed was the rise of public education. And historians here have certainly attributed that to capitalism and the worker class in factories. The North required an educated work force, and with that came social pressure for better working conditions and ultimately led to many reforms.

Illiteracy was rampant in the South, because they wouldn't invest in public education. The plantation class paid for their own children's education, most everyone else had to make due. It's much easier to spread information via the written word, and while Frederick Douglas and Uncle Tom's Cabin were widely disseminated in the North, that was certainly not the case in the South.

So while the slave trade certainly thrived under capitalism, capitalism was dynamic and the social pressures that came with it were ultimately what caused its demise.