djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 10:54:08 GMT -5
"Scut work"- new phrase to me too. I didn't get past the first post before I Googled it. To the question posed by the OP- imo slavery is worse than scut work. I've done scut work- dishwasher, potwasher, landscape labor, I even manned a fryolator at McD's once for a short stint. I was young, and I think it is far easier to do that work when you are 20, full of energy and enthusiasm for the world than when you are 40 and see a limitted future. Still, having said that, at whatever age you are, you still have your freedom. You still have authority over yourself. Most slaves knew no other life (thinking of American slaves) but even if they weren't mistreated or used as sexual toys for their "masters", they were bought and sold, families split up, and not free to do as they wished. They had no chance to aspire to anything. No education. Getting sick or infirm could be a death sentence. So again, I see slavery as far worse. I get the point that the OP is trying to make, I think. And it is a comparison that has been made before. The very term "wage slave" implicitly makes it as well. There are compelling reasons for adults to stay at jobs they dislike to support family and such. Ironically, it is sometimes more difficult to leave a higher level job than a scut job. I contemplated selling out the business in this last economic downturn. It was only then that I realised how inflexibly I am tied down to this place, and it was not a comfortable feeling. Fortunately I was not compelled to try to sell, but it was an eye opener for sure. I'm not suggesting that it is in any way preferable to have a scut job at all. It is not, and I am very fortunate. But I think it is an interesting side point to the discussion. Just how free are we anyway? this is a great, thoughtful response, dem. well done. i was planning on expanding the argument, btw- you have already introduced that idea, here.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 10:57:04 GMT -5
It's a relevant question. Under what circumstances do we acknowledge "effective" slavery, in the statistical sense that certain people reach a state of existence indistinguishable from slavery and remain there in perpetuity? Or put differently: If an individual is legally able to better his/her circumstances, but statistically falls into a demographic where only a tiny percentage of individuals manage to do so, does the label "slave" particularly matter? Another interesting philosophical question: Given the choice between indentured service with a high standard of living, and freedom with a low standard of living, how many of us would prefer the former over the latter? It's a tricky hypothetical. Happiness and opportunity are so intrinsically linked to freedom in our culture that freedom becomes an end unto itself. But DJ is right to ask the question; there are no physical laws equating the two. And the question becomes all the more pertinent as 'freedom' asymptotically approaches subsistence living. if you want to take this one step further, consider the King quote. if you can convince yourself that you are happy and free in a scut job, then why can you NOT do the same with a benign master? i think back to the days of live-in nannies. they were uncompensated workers. they lived on the "plantation", no different than their ancestors. was it really, PRACTICALLY, different than slavery, and if so, how? Virgil- thank you for entertaining the point, rather than just calling it "ridiculous". i think about it all the time, and i have since i was about 12 years old.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 10:58:43 GMT -5
I always found the phrase "wage slave" interesting. Even when you work for others you always have the freedom of choice. if you have freedom among scut jobs, that is not really much of a choice. choose your flavor of hell? nein, danke.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Sept 9, 2013 11:00:12 GMT -5
It's a relevant question. Under what circumstances do we acknowledge "effective" slavery, in the statistical sense that certain people reach a state of existence indistinguishable from slavery and remain there in perpetuity? Or put differently: If an individual is legally able to better his/her circumstances, but statistically falls into a demographic where only a tiny percentage of individuals manage to do so, does the label "slave" particularly matter? Another interesting philosophical question: Given the choice between indentured service with a high standard of living, and freedom with a low standard of living, how many of us would prefer the former over the latter? It's a tricky hypothetical. Happiness and opportunity are so intrinsically linked to freedom in our culture that freedom becomes an end unto itself. But DJ is right to ask the question; there are no physical laws equating the two. And the question becomes all the more pertinent as 'freedom' asymptotically approaches subsistence living. I was struck by your post because my grandfather was an indentured servent. He never entered into any contract and never received the money for his service his parents did. He was about 8 years old when he was sent away to live with a very rich family in South Africa. He was confused at first becuase he didn't understand what any of it meant or that he would never go home again. His life in Madiera was one of abject poverty. He lived with his 14 brothers and sisters in a traditional palheiro that was maybe 400 square feet plus a loftish type area. I'm pretty sure most of the time the boys slept with the animals in the pen. In South Africa he was really more of a "companion" of the 8 year old master than a true servent until he was closer to adult age. He always treated to look like the young master. They ate together almost every meal and I think my grandfater slept in a room like a changing room next to his bedroom. If the young master got new clothes my grandfather got new clothes. For all outward appearances he was treated exactly the same. The only time they were seperated was during tutoring. My grandfather was never allowed to learn to read or write. They wanted him to stay ignorant. The big difference was that he couldn't every leave without the penalty being he could be put to death. When years later the old generation of lords died they gave him the choice of freedom and $500(in the last 1800's), or stay in the same position as a regular paid employee with all the rights of any other citizen. It wasn't even a contest. He took the paper in one hand and the money in the other and bought passage to the United States where he spent the rest of his life happily doing the lowest druge work as a free man.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 11:00:36 GMT -5
Using slave or slavery to describe something, that clearly isn't slavery, is like when someone uses rape to describe something.. Ravens got raped by the Broncos. only if you are hypersensitive about the term. Virgil actually posits the point better than i did: if you had a comfortable life as a slave, how much worse that would be than having a thoroughly uncomfortable life as a scut worker? that is the question i was TRYING to ask.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 11:02:57 GMT -5
The problem with "scut work" is what exactly? if it pays in proportion to how scutty it is, then it is a trap: you can move laterally to another scut job, but you can never save up money for retirement, or aspire to anything else. at least that is the assumption i would like you to make for purposes of discussion.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 11:04:08 GMT -5
what if you finish there? Well, IMO, then that person had zero motivation to improve him/herself or that job was the peak of their skill base. either that, or they are severely handicapped, or just really really unfortunate. there are many people that fall into that category, and they are to be pitied, not loathed, imo.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Sept 9, 2013 11:04:54 GMT -5
I challenge the good folks here to come up with a work situation where there is zero chance for any type of advancement or improvement if the individual applies them-self and stands out from their peers. Well, that is operating under a FALSE premise. You do not KNOW that there is ZERO chance to advance. What has happened for some people is that they work hard and along the way, they meet someone who knows someone who knows what a dedicated hard, worker they are. That is how a lot of people in my family advanced in bygone years. So, the reality is you won't get anywhere if you don't work hard and apply yourself. But, if you do, you still might not but you at the very least that makes you a better person for having the pride of doing a job well done. And, you just might find that brass ring.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 11:04:57 GMT -5
that is precisely the kind of work i meant. find meaning in THAT. Well, I'm pretty sure the elderly residents appreciate it! yes, and the slave masters appreciate it when you shine their shoes. again, how is that BETTER?
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Sept 9, 2013 11:05:27 GMT -5
The problem with "scut work" is what exactly? if it pays in proportion to how scutty it is, then it is a trap: you can move laterally to another scut job, but you can never save up money for retirement, or aspire to anything else. at least that is the assumption i would like you to make for purposes of discussion. That could be. But so what? What is the alternative?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 11:05:45 GMT -5
I really think it depends on your personality. Allowing for your qualification that no abuse is going on I think some people really prefer to be taken care of. They aren't ambitious and like a relaxing life, relaxing in the sense of not a lot of risk taking. ETA - I think this refers to scut work jobs as well. Personally I don't think either one is a good choice. bingo. one vote for "no better".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 11:07:14 GMT -5
I think it depends on what a given person thinks of as "scut work". What might seem "scut work" to some would be entirely different to others. this is the King argument. i would argue that "scut work" is pretty obviously unpleasant, and simply brainwashing yourself into liking it is no way to live. my opinion, obviously- not shared by some others here.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Sept 9, 2013 11:08:06 GMT -5
I fail to see how doing a crappy job is going to help anyone?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 11:08:07 GMT -5
Agreed. In HS and college I got my start in the dishroom and scrubbing pans. Most kids didn't want to work in that hot steamy environment so there was as many hours available to work as I wanted. I didn't consider it scut work because it enabled me to afford the education that I knew would lead to a solid job. Plus with all the steam my skin never looked better (my hands OTOH...) i already pointed out that i liked my job, sculling. but if i were still doing it, i would be a miserable SOB.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 11:09:30 GMT -5
I challenge the good folks here to come up with a work situation where there is zero chance for any type of advancement or improvement if the individual applies them-self and stands out from their peers.. my sculling job had zero chance for advancement. in fact, every menial job i have ever held had zero chance for advancement. improvement is in the eye of the beholder. i got better at washing dishes, but who gives a crap?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 11:12:03 GMT -5
if it pays in proportion to how scutty it is, then it is a trap: you can move laterally to another scut job, but you can never save up money for retirement, or aspire to anything else. at least that is the assumption i would like you to make for purposes of discussion. That could be. But so what? What is the alternative? for purposes of this discussion: a comfortable life as a slave, where you never have to worry about economic insecurity.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 11:16:00 GMT -5
It's a relevant question. Under what circumstances do we acknowledge "effective" slavery, in the statistical sense that certain people reach a state of existence indistinguishable from slavery and remain there in perpetuity? Or put differently: If an individual is legally able to better his/her circumstances, but statistically falls into a demographic where only a tiny percentage of individuals manage to do so, does the label "slave" particularly matter? Another interesting philosophical question: Given the choice between indentured service with a high standard of living, and freedom with a low standard of living, how many of us would prefer the former over the latter? It's a tricky hypothetical. Happiness and opportunity are so intrinsically linked to freedom in our culture that freedom becomes an end unto itself. But DJ is right to ask the question; there are no physical laws equating the two. And the question becomes all the more pertinent as 'freedom' asymptotically approaches subsistence living. I was struck by your post because my grandfather was an indentured servent. He never entered into any contract and never received the money for his service his parents did. He was about 8 years old when he was sent away to live with a very rich family in South Africa. He was confused at first becuase he didn't understand what any of it meant or that he would never go home again. His life in Madiera was one of abject poverty. He lived with his 14 brothers and sisters in a traditional palheiro that was maybe 400 square feet plus a loftish type area. I'm pretty sure most of the time the boys slept with the animals in the pen. In South Africa he was really more of a "companion" of the 8 year old master than a true servent until he was closer to adult age. He always treated to look like the young master. They ate together almost every meal and I think my grandfater slept in a room like a changing room next to his bedroom. If the young master got new clothes my grandfather got new clothes. For all outward appearances he was treated exactly the same. The only time they were seperated was during tutoring. My grandfather was never allowed to learn to read or write. They wanted him to stay ignorant. The big difference was that he couldn't every leave without the penalty being he could be put to death. When years later the old generation of lords died they gave him the choice of freedom and $500(in the last 1800's), or stay in the same position as a regular paid employee with all the rights of any other citizen. It wasn't even a contest. He took the paper in one hand and the money in the other and bought passage to the United States where he spent the rest of his life happily doing the lowest druge work as a free man. this is a good response, but i specifically said to assume that you were not abused as a slave. i UNDERSTAND the reality: that many slaves ARE abused- especially disobedient ones. but that makes the alternative between abusive and non-abusive, which is a much easier choice. the choice i am asking you to consider is this: "free and uncomfortable" or "comfortable and unfree".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 11:18:38 GMT -5
there is an analagous situation that has always puzzled me: abused spouses. why do they stay in the relationships? well, this is very complicated. part of it is STOCKHOLM SYNDROME: they sympathize with their abusers. but part of it is economic insecurity. abusers tend to keep their wives (or husbands, i would presume) as untrained, unskilled, and isolated as possible. this makes it hard for them to find a life outside the abusive relationship. this is not terribly different than the general case of slavery, imo.
but i digress.......
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Sept 9, 2013 11:23:17 GMT -5
My grandfather wasn't abused. I never said he was, just that the possible punishment for wanting to "run away was too crazy to comtemplate. If his choice was to live his comfortable life, which at the time was probably better than 99.9% of people living on the Earth at the time, vs having been allowed to stay with his family he would have picked staying with his family. When he was an adult his choice was to stay in his chushy, for the times, job vs taking everything he was given and paying for passage to the US to live a life of working the lowest jobs just to exist. He didn't hesitate before picking freedom.
There is no way to take the punishment from excaping out of slavery. If there was no punishment from excaping as a slave we would just call it a job.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Sept 9, 2013 11:25:46 GMT -5
'you can move laterally to another scut job, but you can never save up money for retirement, or aspire to anything else.'
There is always time to take a class of some kind.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 11:26:28 GMT -5
My grandfather wasn't abused. i would say that keeping someone ignorant is abusive, but maybe that is just me. i will let others respond to this.I never said he was, just that the possible punishment for wanting to "run away was too crazy to comtemplate. If his choice was to live his comfortable life, which at the time was probably better than 99.9% of people living on the Earth at the time, vs having been allowed to stay with his family he would have picked staying with his family. When he was an adult his choice was to stay in his chushy, for the times, job vs taking everything he was given and paying for passage to the US to live a life of working the lowest jobs just to exist. He didn't hesitate before picking freedom. this is actually very very close to the question i was asking, and is most definitely an answer. may i ask you a question? rather than treating the answer as obvious: WHY did he choose "freedom"? try to be as concrete as possible, since freedom is an abstract concept (which is actually a central idea in this thread).There is no way to take the punishment from excaping out of slavery. no, there isn't. i have already conceded this aspect of the question to scut work, in the OP.If there was no punishment from excaping as a slave we would just call it a job. precisely. would you call it "scut work"?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 11:26:58 GMT -5
'you can move laterally to another scut job, but you can never save up money for retirement, or aspire to anything else.' There is always time to take a class of some kind. time doesn't pay for classes. money does.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:39:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2013 12:03:18 GMT -5
dj you are disqualifying all the things that people dislike about slavery to the point that it doesn't qualify as slavery anymore. If you are allowed to leave if you want with no repurcussions it is no longer slavery. And you only want to compare to the cushy slave jobs. Most are not cushy, the cushy positions are usually covered by the poor relations.
As for your "no abuse" criteria, the fact that the owner has the right to abuse you or sell your relatives is bad enough. To be that dependant on the good nature of your master is unacceptable to most people.
The freedom to move from one unpleasant job where you are treated badly to an equally unpleasant job where you are treated better is a significant differance.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Sept 9, 2013 12:09:33 GMT -5
I challenge the good folks here to come up with a work situation where there is zero chance for any type of advancement or improvement if the individual applies them-self and stands out from their peers. i was replying to that quote. i didn't make it. and i rose to the challenge
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Sept 9, 2013 12:10:18 GMT -5
Remembering my gandfather was an indentured servent in the late 1800's so there probably was a big difference between what we would call abuse or scut work and what they felt it was.
Back then, my grandfather's impression was that the family felt the worst thing that could happen to the servents, from their point of view, was for them to be educated. It wasn't like he could read or write Portuguese, when he lived there, so it wasn't that not learning in schoolg was at all unusual for the time or his "station" in life. It was very out of character for the family to treat him that way in his opinion.
He was treated just like the master in almost all other respects. They thought nothing of him eating the exact same food every day at the same table with fine china and linens ect. They thought nothing of having the tailor, that they brought in from England, making him a custom made suit just for him. He may have slept in the changing room, but it was on as fine a bed as there was in the world in that day with actual linen sheets. He wasn't kept in poor conditions or treated badly in any way for today let alone for 1895.
Strangly enough he never actually harbored any ill feelings toward them. His own family he never forgave. He had the money later in life to go back and visit, and he flat out refused. He felt if they had enough for 15 they had enough for 16.
I don't know that he ever actually thought about the fact that he was trading a life of leasure, for that time period, for a life of hard labor. In his mind he was trading the life of leasure, for the ability to decide his own fate, good, bad or indifferent.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Sept 9, 2013 12:17:55 GMT -5
This precisely the question America faces. Do you want freedom which involves risk and lack of security. Or do you want the so called security of being owned by the govt snd being beholden to govt for your daily crumb? If you are free you can create opportunity for yourself. If not you can't. We used to die for freedom. Our soldiers are willing but are we? A people that trades freedom for security will soon have neither.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 9, 2013 12:20:33 GMT -5
Interesting question. One problem inherant to slavery is it limits human potential. A person who is a slave might have had the aptitude and/or ambition to pursue another vocation that they were better suited for. A slave is trained and forced into a vocation regardless of wheather or not they're good at it.
But I do agree, there is a certain simplicity that slavery. It is a relatively "safe" lifestyle. A slave's owners have the responsibility to care for the slaves. And since it's in your economic best interest to keep them healthy, you have to provide for at least basic needs, food and shealter. Furthermore, since a slave owner would rely on the slaves for their livlihood, you wouldn't want to abuse them very much. An injured slave can't work, after all.
It's kind of like arranged marriages. I personally wouldn't want one, but I can understand the appeal of knowing your life is planned. In our society, there's a great deal of uncertainty, from your job to your home life.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:39:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2013 12:27:51 GMT -5
None of that is a written in stone fact. It is like saying it is in a company's best interest to treat it's employees well. People say it all the time, ignoring all the evidence that decisions are made based on immediated productivity and profits all the time.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 9, 2013 12:28:33 GMT -5
I think DJ is trying to make the point, or ask the question, of what's the difference between slavery and being a wage slave. He's postulating that in some ways, a slave may have it better than the janitor that mops the floor at Denny's for $7.50 an hour. At least a slave would have their housing and food provided, whereas the wage slave might work just as hard, but have no garantee of those things.
That's what I think he's saying.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 9, 2013 12:33:13 GMT -5
None of that is a written in stone fact. It is like saying it is in a company's best interest to treat it's employees well. People say it all the time, ignoring all the evidence that decisions are made based on immediated productivity and profits all the time. True, I suppose a slave owner, just like a business owner, could prioritize profits at the expense of the labor. I guess it would all depend on how cheaply/easily the slaves could be replaced.
|
|