• cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.comBannedEnglish
    8·
    17 days ago

    Lol but we can’t change or discard the artificial systems we cobbled together hundreds of years ago to maintain the power of wealthy aristocrats and pretend are democratic through an increasingly diaphanous facade.

    Wouldn’t it just be easier to genetically re-engineer ourselves from scratch to better conform with the will of our masters? Or at least a little eugenics? Oh! Have you ever read the ‘red rising’ series? That seems pretty cool. Why not shoot for that?

  • Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.caEnglish
    61·
    16 days ago

    The odd thing is, the concept that “owning humans as property is bad” is a rather recent notion in the scheme of human civilization.

    • elfpie@beehaw.orgEnglish
      4·
      16 days ago

      Isn’t the idea of owning humans just a fad in the history of civilization? Pure subjugation by force died down and we started experimenting with different forms of exploitation and some justification.

      • Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.caEnglish
        5·
        16 days ago

        I tend to examine the issue from the economic and technological perspective. Until the widespread adoption of electricity and steam power, nearly all physical work was performed through a biological mechanism which actuated a simple machine (wheel, lever, etc.). Now yes there were items such as water wheels and windmills but these were static. If you wanted a source of motive power that you could move around, it was primarily biological. Now this biological engine could either be something like a horse, mule, water buffalo or elephant or it could be a human being. The latter has certain advantages on that it is capable of a wider series of actions and is not necessarily buttonholed into a single role. Now to make use of this resource you can either entreat it to do so (provide pay and benefits) or you can compel it to do so which reduces it to the level of a smart ox. The latter course allows you to reduce your resource usage (just provide sustenance and shelter) while maximizing the return. And thus we have the institution of slavery and all the horrific things it entails.

        • elfpie@beehaw.orgEnglish
          1·
          16 days ago

          How do you account for slaves that don’t do manual labor? How do you account for slaves in gilded cages? It’s not how we usually see it, but a scholar could be a slave.

          And profits were maximized with better working conditions and / or the lie you were not being exploited and could reap the fruits of your labor.

          • for_some_delta@beehaw.orgEnglish
            1·
            16 days ago

            House slaves are still slaves. Scholar slaves like Oman ibn Said existed. I raise the argument to concubines.

            Exploitation seems to be an evolving technology. The gig economy allows you to be your own boss, for example.

  • JakenVeina@midwest.socialEnglish
    11·
    17 days ago

    If Socialism is supposed to be the analogue to Feudalism in this meme, that’s… not exactly an endorsement.

    • Fifrok@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      10·
      17 days ago

      This is either making fun of Winston Churchill’s quote “democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried.”, or of the idiom that came from it “It’s not perfect but it’s the best we got” and is frequently used to defend capitalism

    • msantossilva@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      8·
      16 days ago

      I think feudalism is supposed to be feudalism in this meme. I do not think this is supposed to be an analogy at all. Just a “demonstration” of how non-sensical the “this is the best it will ever be” mentality is.