Let’s NOT Equate Socialism with Slavery

Is Socialism Another Form of Slavery

A journalist condemns that portion of American history that fostered slavery.

Libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara defends America.

His larger point is that statism is form of slavery, differing only in degree.

Reader Art is having none of it:

No, sorry, this writer is wrong. Socialism and slavery are not the same thing. Not socially, not economically, not morally.

To the extent we have economic systems independent of freely given maintenance, through any means including a supportive natural environment all work is limited slavery, or more rightly, prostitution. I get up at an unnatural time but one convenient for my employer, I go to a location of his choosing even though I otherwise would not go there, I do things with my mind and body I wouldn’t care to otherwise do, and in return he gives me tokens I use to support my existence.

In this context all economic systems, short of living in the land of ‘milk and honey’ , where work is not necessary (if only those grapes would fall into my mouth) are, some more or less, watered down version of slavery.

Likewise all forms of government, some more than others, seek a monopoly on the use of violence. Kind of like, I dunno … slavery.

So if all economic systems have similarities to slavery, and all government systems are somewhat similar to slavery perhaps the problem is using slavery as solvent to analyze economic and governmental systems. Perhaps categories are being smeared, not illuminated.

Slavery is unique. All other systems can, do, exist outside the ownership of one man by another. Ownership of one man by another is the central theme and essential operation principle of slavery. Eliminating slavery is not a panacea. It doesn’t eliminate hate, racism, bigotry. or the exploitation of one man by another. It does eliminate the outright ownership of one man by another. And that, in and of itself, is/was something worth eliminating.

Controlling the means of production and coming together to provide provision of the group by the group is not slavery. The assertion by the writer otherwise is not convincing.