I'm reading How Europe Underdeveloped Africa right now, and Rodney offers that the inherent opportunity for sabotage in more advanced machinery means transitioning beyond a certain stage in development requires "free" workers, that slaves require high degrees of surveillance and are limited to using tools that are hard to destroy.
This is a convincing argument to me for why a transition away from slavery has a material requirement for free workers under capitalism when it comes to factories, but there was still (and is still) a ton of labour that is ultimately performed without advanced machinery, principally agriculture.
I suppose my question is, wouldn't a maximally beneficial set-up for the bourgeoisie have been one in which the cities had free worlers, but the countryside still was allowed slaves to pick oranges etc? (I do know that most agricultural labour has been replaced by complex, easily sabotage-able machinery now, but that was not true in the 19th century)
(and if anyone has any recommended reading on the topic that's appreciated too)
From a materialist perspective, the rise of industrialization created new economic opportunities and wealth, which led to changes in social and political power structures. The ownership class, made up of capitalists, merchants, and industrialists, saw slavery as a hindrance to their ability to maximize profits and expand their businesses. They began to use their political and economic power to advocate for the abolition of slavery, both in their own countries and abroad.The materialist argument also points to the role of the working class in the abolition of slavery. The growth of industrialization created a large, urban working class that was becoming increasingly organized and politically conscious. This working class saw slavery as a source of cheap labor that competed with their own wages and working conditions. They also saw slavery as a source of oppression that perpetuated social and economic inequalities. As a result, they began to demand the abolition of slavery as part of their broader struggle for social and economic justice.In summary, the materialist argument for the abolition of slavery posits that changes in the economic and social structure of society, driven by the rise of industrialization and the growth of the working class, were the main factors behind the end of slavery. The ownership class and the working class, with their own distinct economic and political interests, came to see slavery as a hindrance to their ability to maximize profits and improve their own lives, and they used their collective power to push for its abolition.What the fuck
:cyber-lenin:
I'm sorry if my previous response was not what you were looking for. Is there a specific question or topic you would like to discuss? I'd be happy to help. Please note that using inappropriate language or being disrespectful is not productive and goes against OpenAI's use case policy.not that surprising you phrased your question in a way that would likely be equated by the model as similar to marxist literature so it pulled your answer from the theory it was trained on
Huh, it's impressive that AI can generate comprehensive sentences, but it uses a lot of unnecessary political jargon to hide the fact that its output is incredibly shallow in meaning.
I mean, in typically AI fashion it didn't actually answer the question or really seemingly understand it. I kind of hate this bot outside of a bit, but I am optimistic that when this becomes prevalent enough it will destroy the apparent validity of interacting with strangers on the internet and we'll start talking to each other again.