MS Paint Gigachad
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2022
While I agree, this is still the Capitalist version of the It wasn't real Communism argument. Capitalism always leads to exactly this. Amusingly, I see people claim China to unfairly advantage its native businesses, and how Capitalism can't succeed in such conditions. I thought only the evil Communists wanted the entire world under Communism, so it could work. It's the same thing either way, with only minor differences.
I'm not very well-versed in this aspect of Roman history, so I will accept what I've been told here, and will still argue with it. Now, this isn't the thread for arguing about the finer points of Roman slavery, so I'll be brief and try not to mention it again for at least a few pages.
I'd rather die on a water wheel than be shot to death delivering pizzas in a bad neighborhood, or some similar death. As we know, executives never molest their employees or drive them to suicide for one reason or another. Yes, being driven to suicide by liars, while cries of my freedom drum everywhere around me, is so much better than being worked to death by more honest masters. I suppose that's my main point; did the Romans lie about slavery? Some people are obviously natural slaves, as has been mentioned already, but we live in a society that pretends otherwise, and all this really accomplishes is torturing those smart enough to see through the bullshit. I know not how realistic it was for the average Roman slave to buy his freedom, but how realistic is it for the modern American man to buy his?
In principle, sure; in actuality, how many people can afford to leave a bad job in the greatest country on Earth? In Roman society, was a farmer expected to work as hard as he could constantly, while being dragged away to endless meetings about the importance of men pretending to be women? Was any Roman ever subjected to the total surveillance to which every single one of us is subjected? Did the slave on the water wheel have Manna on his ankles telling him to work a little harder so he could meet the average slave quota, like any Amazon warehouse worker? Was the Roman slave given a fake education, so he could be a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, or the more honest no education? I think I would've learned it by now if Roman society had major unemployment issues, although I suppose the bread and circuses count.
I think I'd rather walk around delivering my master's messages than feed people poison in a McDonald's, and on the topic of McDonald's, did Roman slaves eat mass-produced poison or real food such as apples and wheat? I think I'd rather be a Roman slave than some insane man on LinkedIn who tells himself and believes that a corporation ever could be more important than his family, and I believe the average Roman worker didn't need his wife to sell herself so they could afford rent and no children like today's man, or am I wrong here?
No, I'd rather be a Roman slave than own nothing and be happy.
Chill out buddies, the objective of this thread is not to prove that romans had it worse or better, it's to prove that the modern guys are dumb.Slaves had no rights, couldn't buy their freedom and were literal property.
Also, that article you linked about the suicides goes into no detail about what happened, other than employees being giving humiliating jobs. You know what they could do that slaves can't do? Get up and leave, organize a protest, anything short of suicide, really.
No, they had a task master that would whip them or otherwise physically abuse them, and if they felt so inclined, kill them.
Many slaves were better educated than the average Roman simply because they were the survivors of a lost war, such as the Greeks & Carthaginians.
Some were given trade educations where Roman citizens were given real, general educations, so in a way yes, they were given 'fake' educations.
They certainly weren't given standardized Roman educations guaranteeing the ability to read, right or count.
Yes, they did have major unemployment issues, due to slaves taking all the jobs Roman soldiers were promised upon their return from war. It caused civil unrest in 121 BC. Slavery actually deepened the divide between elite aristocrats who bought the land of bankrupt middle class Roman soldiers who couldn't compete with slave farms. Slavery completely disrupted the economics of Rome.
You know what modern America has in abundance which Ancient Rome doesn't? Beef, poultry, pork, meat. Americans are significantly better fed than the Ancient Romans.
Roman slaves had no rights and couldn't marry, and if they had family already they would have their children stolen from them. Lots of Romans were rendered homeless due to the slave trade in Rome.
Rome was not this shining beacon of what makes for a perfect society, it had constant economic problems because it was a nascent nation and more or less stayed that way for centuries, pulling amateur moves like inflating their currency to pay debts, restricting Roman citizens from wielding arms or letting in strangers from foreign lands only to get sacked a day later.
Rome had immense potential which it regularly squandered only to end up in a cycle of repeated crises where it needed to be rescued by one lone Roman general who knew what he was doing only to be stabbed to death by his own guard to let the national rot begin again.
Roman slaves owned nothing and were very much unhappy.