Sunday, March 16, 2014

David Graeber — Two notions of liberty revisited - or how to disentangle Liberty and Slavery

The modern liberal concept of liberty has roots in Roman law and the Roman understanding of the master and the slave. We need to unpick that heritage to imagine a better basis for our political aspirations.
Our idea of human freedom, with its origins in Roman law, is permeated through and through with the institution of slavery. But its links to slavery twisted the meaning of "freedom" from an empowering notion of what it is to live with dignity in a society of equals to one of mastery and control. Understanding the history of the concept should help us to regain the first and fight the second of those notions....
To understand the history and, ultimately, incoherence of the notions of liberty grounded in Roman notions of dominion is to potentially free ourselves to re-imagine liberty. For example, to recognise the forgotten "obligations owed everyone in the entire world" inherent in our freedoms; but also to resurrect the older notion of liberty as the state achieved by citizens acting together in determination of a common good.
Open Economy

23 comments:

Matt Franko said...

No word that can be accurately translated into the English word "liberty" appears in the Greek scriptures...

So if anyone purports to be a "Christian", so-called, today, this word should be foreign to them... not part of what Paul would describe as "a pattern of sound words, which you hear from me..." 2 Tim 1:13

This word should be without meaning to a "Christian", so-called... as Paul NEVER USED IT...

"Slave" as translated from the Greek "duolos" or "bond-servant" though appears frequently for instance here in Romans 1:

"Paul, a slave (duolos) of Christ Jesus, a called apostle, severed for the evangel of God... to all who are in Rome..."

This word "slave" or in Greek 'duolos' is not a word that means what we would today think of as meaning chattel "slavery" of the sort associated with that practiced later in western history under the metals; for instance in the pre-Civil War period in US history.

That form of "slavery" or trading in human beings as chattel, was reserved for the west solely for the time that we were under the metals...

No mention of "slavery" here for instance:

http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html

We didn't need it at that time ... we were not subjected to metals during this era, the Roman Empire used state currency which gets its value NOT from nature, but rather from law.

So chattel "slavery" does not appear during the times we were not under the metals, rather we had "bond-servants" during this time, true chattel "slavery" came in when we went under the metals which seems to have coincided with "the church" (metonym alert! and btw another non-scriptural term Paul NEVER used...) successfully challenging and usurping the true superior authority of our institution of civil government.

So today we are dealing with at least the vestiges of these false/dark concepts of "liberty" and "slavery" but it seems (hopefully) that these concepts are withdrawing from the scene and we are getting back to the way it was/should be.

rsp,



Unknown said...

"Augustus imposed a 2 percent tax on the sale of slaves, estimated to generate annual revenues of about 5 million sesterces—a figure that indicates some 250,000 sales.[25] The tax was increased to 4 percent by 43 CE.[26] Slave markets seem to have existed in every city of the Empire, but outside Rome the major center was Ephesus.[27]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome#Trade_and_economy

Matt Franko said...

y,

"Bond servants" (duolos) could probably be "traded" or exchanged, perhaps sold during the period that they were bonded ... that doesnt mean they were "slaves"...

You're reference: ^ W.V. Harris, "Trade," in The Cambridge Ancient History: The High Empire A.D. 70–192 (Cambridge University Press, 2000), vol. 11, p. 721.

And where did this guy get this information? Most likely from a document that probably radio-carbon dates to near 1,000 years after the events described when we were under full fledged metal subjection...

There are no descriptions of chattel "slavery" in any of the contemporaneous documents such as this one here (in bronze) and the Codex Sinaticus (2nd Century animal skin) all of that was written up 1,000 years later its revisionist history just like the metal-loving libertarian idiot historians today who point to "debasement of the currency" as somehow leading to "the fall of Rome" or whatever... its all false.

rsp

The Rombach Report said...

Matt - No slavery in ancient Rome? Huh? Ever heard of the Spartacus rebellion?

Unknown said...

plenty of slaves in Rome, Matt. You could buy them in a shop on the high street - the were displayed naked so buyers knew what they were getting.

Matt Franko said...

y,

Were you there????

Where are you getting this?

rsp,

Ed,

from the wiki on Spartacus: "Although not contradicted by classical historians, no historical account mentions that the goal of the rebels was to end slavery in the Roman Republic, nor do any of the actions of rebel leaders, who themselves committed numerous atrocities, seem specifically aimed at ending slavery."

Maybe because they werent really "slaves" but some sort of conquered people who owed some sort of "bondage-debt" of some sort to Rome... like as a result of losing a war in the first place...

Ed, We have to be careful with our libertarianism... where imo it could become that all libertarians think that they are "slaves" in some regard.... we can get carried away and then all forms of any hierarchical system of authority starts to look like "slavery" of some sort...

rsp,

Unknown said...

Matt,

I don't understand your desire to disagree with every single historian alive and argue that slavery didn't exist in ancient Rome.

Unknown said...

hierarchy is not the same thing as slavery. Thus we use different words to describe them.

Matt Franko said...

y, right that's why I am bringing up this word "duolos" as that is the specific word that I have seen most often translated as "slave" in English

... was a "duolos" what we would believe today to mean chattel "slavery" as per the type that was practiced in the south in the US pre civil-war?

Are historians proposing that the Romans sailed over to Africa and captured humans and clapped them in chains and took them back to Rome to work for free and all of their children for ever? I hardly think that is what was going on... its some form of legal relationship where the 'duolos' was indebted to provide their services (labor?) for a period of time to those he/she was indebted to... iirc I've read accounts where "slaves" went home at night.... that doesnt sound like what was going on in N. America a couple hundred years ago.... perhaps unless you are a libertarian with "slavery glasses" on where everywhere you look you see "slavery"....

rsp,

Unknown said...

I really don't see the point of your argument. What is the point of coming up with a theory off the top of your head that slavery didn't exist in Rome, when if you ask any historian they will tell you "yes, slavery existed in Rome"... ?

"Are historians proposing that the Romans sailed over to Africa and captured humans and clapped them in chains and took them back to Rome to work for free and all of their children for ever?"

I don't know about Africa but yes they did go around conquering people, clapping them in chains and selling them as slaves.

Matt Franko said...

y,

I'd like to see your evidence of that?

Not the simple assertions of libertarian historians 1,000s of years later, but rather, evidence... empirical evidence....

Above I've linked to a bronze plaque commissioned by Augustus at the time where this is the only mention of "slavery":

pgh 25: "25. I restored peace to the sea from pirates. In that slave war I handed over to their masters for the infliction of punishments about 30,000 captured, who had fled their masters and taken up arms against the state. "

and pgh 27 " I recovered all the provinces which lie across the Adriatic to the east and Cyrene, with kings now possessing them in large part, and Sicily and Sardina, which had been occupied earlier in the slavewar. "

Looks like there was a "slave war" where some "slaves" rebelled against the state... ok this doesnt say anything about how these "slaves" came to be "slaves"... what the terms were, etc...

so now you come up with a contemporaneous piece of evidence that says Romans used to go all around taking human captives and chaining them into chattel slavery.... I dont think that you can... that is all made up 1,000s of years later by metal-loving libertarians seeking to demonize/denigrate authority...

btw here is another one I'd like to see some evidence of: " 'Christians' thrown to the lions, etc...." I dont believe that actually happened either.... I'd have to see some sort of contemporary art exhibiting that to even begin to believe this was true...

rsp

The Rombach Report said...

"if you ask any historian they will tell you "yes, slavery existed in Rome"... ?"

Not only did slavery exist in ancient Rome, but the empire was predicated on it. Conquered lands provided the slave labor for Roman rulers to build roads, aqueducts, arenas and public buildings not mention to work on farms and in the mines and to fill the brothels. Rome was the quintessential slave economy. Most of the ancient world had slaves to one degree or another. Egypt had the Hebrews.

The Rombach Report said...

"so now you come up with a contemporaneous piece of evidence that says Romans used to go all around taking human captives and chaining them into chattel slavery.... I dont think that you can... that is all made up 1,000s of years later by metal-loving libertarians seeking to demonize/denigrate authority... "

Matt - Just Google "Rome" & "Slavery" and see what you get. Seriously, I think it might be time profitably spent for you to take a break from this subject matter and read some fiction or go see a movie. My wife and I saw Dallas Buyers Club over the weekend and it was rather good. Also, if you haven't seen it yet, go see American Hustle. On a scale of 1 to 10 I give it an 11!

Matt Franko said...

Ed its a big issue and I'm not the only one banging this drum D Graeber is getting into it here and Izzy's post upthread hits on the "slavery" issue too ....

so this is starting to be addressed by thoughtful people... call it what ever you want (i call it 'libertarianism' perhaps there is a better word ...) we have a failure of leadership that remains blind to authority and has tilted WAAAAAAY to far to the libertarian side imo hence "we're out of money!"... this is absurd...

and things are not getting any better we have inequality off the charts, employment is not even a major concern of these people anymore, the elites are threatening our seniors with death panels and we are at risk of losing the young generation to student debt "slavery".... its a f-ing mess....

and I will not be "shouted down" on this... the west needs to have this discussion about how much "libertarianism" is enough? where does this end? nobody gives a shit about anybody else anymore... its all about "as long as I have my freedom... blah blah blah...." I dont want any part of this type of system anymore....

rsp, matt

Tom Hickey said...

It's the difference of focusing on one's own freedom and everyone's freedom. Those focusing chiefly on autonomy promote the rights of life, liberty and property, while those focusing on freedom for everyone focus in human rights and civil rights.

The former emphasizes individual independence in term of self-ownership while the later emphasizes individual freedom in terms of citizenship in a state (Greek polis). The former is the Roman model based on property law that Graeber describes and the latter is the Athenian model that is taken as the basis for subsequent development of democracy in the Enlightenment. For the Athenians, there was no freedom outside of the context of state governed by the consent of free individuals imbued with rights of citizenship. cooperating to advance the common good.

John Locke conflated the two ideas and classical liberalism came to be understood ambivalently. Now the two foundations are conflicting as independence versus interdependence.

Anonymous said...

Or, we are all slaves!

Wake up in the morning; there is a quiet spot, just you within You, conscious, aware! Then the mind kicks in. First thing it gives you is a list of things to do. And it doesn’t listen to any of your protests. Then it beats you up if you don’t get through the list, or do everything perfectly. Or somebody else is employed to beat you up just to make sure you get it in the neck. Then it tells you how good you are, or how bad you are. And you nod your head, meekly, like a good little servant in assent. Lord and Master has spoken! Then it judges you, telling you what an idiot you are; or how clever you are, how weak you are, how strong you are, how important you are, how unimportant you are. Setting you up! Then it leads you out into the middle of the desert, without any water (which it told you for certain you would never ever need) and leaves you there. Now you’ve been softened up and are good and vulnerable, it sets to work on your ego, telling you what an idiot you are for getting yourself into this situation. ‘I told you soooo ….’ Nicely groomed huh, and you didn’t have a clue – why has this happened to me??? Then you crawl out of the desert, wondering why you are alive, anyway?

Kabir had something to say about this: ‘ Oh Mind, you make me work hard quarrying a piece of stone, and hours sculpting an image of my own making. Then you compel me to fall down and worship it’. Then after faithfully following your mind your whole life long, you lay down and die. And everything you learnt, everything you struggled for goes out the window with you. Empty handed came; empty handed go. And all the answers mind promised that were just on the horizon end up as just more questions.

And we say, ‘Oh, I am free’!!!!! Bound head and foot by concepts: ‘Oh, I am free ….!’

Matt Franko said...

Excellent JR....

And if you look at this: ‘ Oh Mind, you make me work hard quarrying a piece of stone, and hours sculpting an image of my own making. Then you compel me to fall down and worship it’."

Yes that is what we did for quite a long time BUT then i figure around 300AD we started to do THE SAME THING but only with the "precious metals" and this went on until 1971....

Complete subjection to these metals...

So we stopped with the idolatry, ie offering divine service to images of our ancestors, but then rather than continuing to exercise the authority we have to operate our economies as we see fit thru our institution of civil govt, we surrendered this authority of ours over to what is behind the metals.... pretty sad...

That said, we seemed to have started to turn the corner currently as a logical step 1 to get out of that trap would be to #1 throw the yoke of the metals which we have somehow been able to do between 1933 and 1971 ... so step 1 complete...

though there are still some vestigal metal-loving, moron, wild, lawless, chaos inducing, drunk, traitorous libertarians still running amok among us (many actually still in policy positions!) who continue to be caught up in this "empty seduction" of the metals.

So this is going to take some more time looks like until these vestigal metal drunk people can sober up and join the rest of us in human sobriety....

rsp,

Matt Franko said...

"And we say, ‘Oh, I am free’!!!!! Bound head and foot by concepts: ‘Oh, I am free ….!’"

JR, what these libertarian idiots want is NOT for us (we humans) to be 'free' they actually want us to be SLAVES to the metals again... what a bunch of dopes!

Have you ever seen a more disgraced cohort of human beings? I cant think of any...

rsp,

The Rombach Report said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Rombach Report said...

".... moron, wild, lawless, chaos inducing, drunk, traitorous libertarians..."

Come on Matt, that's fascinating, but why don't you tell us how your really feel?

Tom Hickey said...

Idol worship is worshipping the individual self, a combination of body, mind and personality that one identifies with as "I," and takes as one's true nature. That is the "original sin," and "sin" is defined as separation from the whole. Real freedom is found in overcoming that separation. This is the universal teaching of perennial wisdom.

Anonymous said...

Idol worship is worshipping the individual self, a combination of body, mind and personality that one identifies with as "I," and takes as one's true nature.

And the world our living mirror. And we don't like a lot of what we see! So we keep on trying to fix the mirror!

Was thinking about 'love of metals' Matt. I think technically it is 'like metals'? Because love needs to be reciprocated for it to be love. So, for love to be perfect ....

Tom Hickey said...

Those that love the material and metals are about as material as one can identify with the body. As a metaphor, gold is indestructible and functions as a symbol of physical immortality, which is the idol behind the idol of identification with the body. Ray Kurzweil is a classic example of this in his quest for physical immortality. Then, of course, the next objective is protecting the body from harm by controlling one's physical environment.