97
It was still slavery
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
97 points (98.0% liked)
History Memes
2567 readers
420 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
-
History referenced must be 20+ years old.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:
- !historyruins@piefed.social
- !historyart@piefed.social
- !historyartifacts@piefed.social
- !historyphotos@piefed.social
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The US also had (and in some ways has) the same effect going with ye olde company towns and paycheck to paycheck living.
If you work at Walmart and buy your groceries and things from Walmart; congratulations, you're effectively a slave.
I don't think you understand what slavery is.
EDIT: Blocking, then unblocking, and reblocking, to make replies without the possibility of a response? Cute. Enjoy your ban.
I don't think you understand what the word, "effectively" means.
Working at Walmart and buying things from Walmart is neither literal nor effective slavery at present.
Notice how I didn't say either of those things. It's BOTH working at Walmart AND buying most all things from Walmart that qualify.
Though you go ahead and pretend there is no such thing as effective slavery in modern times compared to what quality of life we SHOULD have on average.
I didn't say "Working at Walmart or buying things from Walmart"; I said "Working at Walmart AND buying things from Walmart".
I didn't change the framing you argued. It's still not effectively slavery. Not even fucking close.
what.
What the fuck is this argument? "Slavery is when quality of life is bad"?
"Effective" slavery is when your income completely disappears back into your employers' pockets.
Why is this such a fucking difficult concept!? I ALREADY gave you the example of company towns. Does your understanding of history stop at American shores?!
You're genuinely pathetic sometimes, Pug.
In that case, I can cite many examples of literal slavery that are not effective slavery. Including examples of race-based chattel slavery in the USA.
I'm sure the revelation that they're not effectively enslaved would have heartened many of those folk.
Not to mention that consumer purchases are far from the majority or even the plurality of expenses of most working-class folk in the modern USA. But I suppose that would require a greater understanding of modern economic conditions than the one you currently hold.
In company towns, there was no effective choice at where to spend one's money. Furthermore, company towns had deeply restrictive and abusive contracts that amounted to debt slavery; and on top of that, often paid in company script that could not be used anywhere else. When we describe historical company towns as effective slavery, it's not because of fucking regional horizontal integration.
Funny enough, American history in particular is far from my fields of interest, but I suppose that would require having some actual familiarity with me instead of a weak attempt at an insult, lmao.
Okay. Fine. Can’t we all just admit that we all work at Walmart and that it is more than a little bit fucked up. There, I said it.
Sure, it's fucked up. But slavery isn't "when your income disappears into your employers' pockets."
Do you speak English? That’s one way people who speak English use the word slavery.
So every person in the Soviet Union was a slave?
That’s quite a strawman
Or maybe a red herring I get them all mixed up
I’m down for beating down the strawman if you have a pitchfork I can borrow
That's the literal fucking implication of the definition YOU offered.
Ummmm… no
The implication is such a distraction to the topic to make me laugh.
Wage slavery is a thing. It’s a word. People know what it means. It’s a simple concept. It’s well known and used often. It’s in the dictionary. Google Translate can translate it into different languages and people will understand what it means.
If you don’t know what it means, you’re one of the few
You offered a definition of slavery that you, presumably, meant to be coherent and meaningful.
I pointed out that the definition was so broad as to be incoherent.
I'm sorry that you don't have enough intellectual honesty to even own up to your own points even when they're fucking written down for everyone to see. I hope you get better - but I know cretins like you rarely do.
Again, you fail to underatand what "effectively" means.
Why are you so hellbent on defending modern "slavery"!?
Ohhhh noooo, someone had it worse in the past, so that means the present cannot be bad or on a backwards slide!
Again, you are truly pathetic sometimes, Pug.
I'm sure those people desperate for a better life will be totally relieved by your news that they're not literally slaves.
Your empathy is broken.
... fucking what.
That's not nearly what I said, but I guess literacy isn't your strong point, considering this conversation.
Nor are they effectively slaves.
Conditions can be shitty without being slavery, which is a term with an actual definition.
Because I... think slavery has a meaning?
Sorry that you don't think words have meanings. I hope you get better.
What.
What.
... supporting Israel is, apparently, having supported the complete abolition of aid to Israel for more than a decade-and-a-half at this point.
Way to completely and utterly demonstrate how you are absolute trash at learning from history...
You know a lot about it, but your knowledge is merely academic. You are an absolute failure at understanding history.
Much like how you are repeatedly offended at people being completely unwilling to support Israel. You do not understand the human cost of what you talk about.
Again; Pathetic.
Why are people like this.
Reply to reply since you blocked me lol:
Look I'm as lefty as the next lemmite, but we have to turn money into goods. That's how money works. Its just a representation of useful goods as currency.
If I have to lose the money either way to eat, then it really doesn't matter where the money goes. And generally an employee gets a discount. To your point, they're probably still making a profit off food purchases but its still a better deal than without it.
My mom works at Walmart and always bought most of our groceries there because she got a 15% employee discount. I'm sure Walmart was still making money off groceries (minus produce) unless they gave like a 50% discount.
My current job offers an employee discount of "cost plus 6%" so they aren't making money off me buying our own products, but they're not losing anything either.
Again, learn from history. Every dollar you spend back to your employer is a dollar you effectively didn't earn.
Why are humans so fucking incapable of understanding ONE step further from face value?! You all are genuinely pathetic.
Where do you think the money goes that you give RIGHT BACK TO YOUR EMPLOYER?!