The more or less symbolic retribution that the modern order taker gets from the employer for its work is clearly distinguishable by the based lack of a free exchange relationship that is specific to the classical slavery. Yet even here the difference is not too big because we know that the most effective slaves were those days encouraged like as today with special "gifts". Likewise the slave mistresses had greater privileges than other female slaves, much like today... The daily or longer periods free time (paid vacations) and the possibility of resignation are other elements to differentiate between classical slavery and the modern order taker status.
The unfair retribution is another common point among certain modern work relations and the classical slavery. The classical slave was paid only with the minimum necessary for existence. If the remuneration received in return for its labors is food and shelter only, without the satisfactions diversifying possibility and with major social discrimination, then the slavery is a classical one. In contrast, the free work relations from allow a clear diversification fulfillment for the everyday life needs. But if the fee is too low, smaller than the labor value, then the modern order taker is practically as unpaid as the classical slave.
Here is a trick made under the shape of free trade between pay and labor, by giving the modern order taker a symbolic retribution just for making some kind of differentiation from slave free classical slave. There is an employer interest in camouflaging this crime in a respectable sheath in order to avoid the periodical typical slave uprising, but also to obtain support from the public if blood drowning such a potential rebellion. When the retribution for labor exchange is inconsistent with the free market (meaning that it should not be influenced by manipulation and other social engineering maneuvers), that is genuine slavery. The slavery degree infiltrated in these free work relationships is directly proportional to the discrepancy between the actual labor value that one person makes and the value that evaluated by its recipient.
This type of relationship can be called false free trade slavery as the work offered is not sufficiently fair paid by the one who benefit from it, just like in the case of classical slavery. This type of slavery has been developed especially by sellers. The bourgeois mentality of the eighteenth and nineteenth century continued in the contemporary business mentality, replacing feudal classical slavery. For example, if such a seller convinces or forces through various means a citizen to buy some functional object at up to a 1,000 times higher value than the real market, this is a 999/1000 scam. 1/1000 is the exact ratio between the actual value of the exchange item and the work that is not covered by this exchange. The difference between the product received value and the product given value in this exchange relationship is a full-fledged theft.
If the good offered in this exchange to such a trader is another object, then the exchange relationship is a scam. If this exchange involves some services, possibly in the long term, then this is a sign of slavery infiltrated inside the remunerated employment relationship. The retribution is then only a specific trade hoax that can be detected or not. Unfortunately, in modern society there are special designed institutions of mystification and elevation to the religion rank value for items or services in order to enslave those who are caught in their spells.
Unfortunately there are too many products on the market that appear to be innovative only because they profit from false advertising or seductive deceiving design, as noted here. These products only create the false illusion of being innovative. And their higher prices than real worth is modern slavery practicing. Here is a true insular or partial slavery that is subtly infiltrates into a free trade contractual relationship between employer and employee in the modern age. Unfortunately, many such free trade contractual relationships became abusive relationships due to the victims’ lack of reaction.
It should be categorically pointed out here however that not any profit is equivalent to slavery. Not all the profit situations are immoral. Imagine an inventor who facilitates the life and work for the whole community or society after its invention. Such activity increases the standard of living for all those involved in its implementation as for all the community or society members. If the inventor makes profit from the sale of the product, according to community members’ free trade and without market manipulation, then it is gained on merit. Here it is really a win-win situation where everyone benefits from this innovative product. The society has to reward this emblematic figure. It really should encourage this kind of fair profit and to invest in training these people under the human civilization natural interest to evolution. For example, Bill Gates deserves his social status thanks to the innovations that the company he created has made in society, with profound changes in all our lives. This text could not be read without the social revolution made by his team and the rival teams. It remains of course debatable whether he was fair in some practices regarding his employees, but he has not created the system, he just took it as found.
Karl Marx identified the profit with the social exploitation. From his point of view, the profit is achieved by the fact that the modern order taker is remunerated less than deserved, as the employer gains more profit through what he called "surplus value". As it turns out, he was right in the case of the profit that is excessive, unfairly and with no living standards rising for those involved in it. But he was wrong when considered that any kind of profit is immoral. Of course, Marx was influenced by the naive and poorly documented JJ Rousseau's ideas about the primitive society beauty that seems to be egalitarian. From this ideal, he developed the theory of communist equality for all citizens, as idealistic as that that Rousseau imagined. But later, the cultural anthropology very clearly showed that there is very visible social stratification in primitive societies, determined either on cultural criteria (totem) or based on personal abilities, as in every community or society. Most advanced animals’ species have higher or lower differences between their members. The more genetically advanced members take their species on higher status. The profit as the social classes’ differences on the skills, capacity and other basis, is a natural fact. Of course, it remains debatable whether the economic activities profit is enough to become a general criterion of human values, but this is another discussion topic.
At the opposite pole from that of Bill Gates, exemplified above, there is George Soros. He dose not deserve the rich man's status in contemporary society. He only speculated the market and immorally enriched without innovating or inventing something that would have changed the people’s lives. Unfortunately, the contemporary society is suffocated by these people that unjustly got rich. Any such false innovation or social engineering, which involves civil liberties or living standards loss, is a sign for hidden slavery in free trade relations. Then, the living standards collapsing are explained by politicians through various stratagems that persuade citizens to accept, and thus their corporations and intelligence services governed caste obtain the slavery type profit. For example, the Iraqi war and the bad loans artificial granting by banks to potential bad debtors are modern slavery practices. These practices served for citizens’ deceiving with false explanation in order to cover up this kind of phenomenon: . that modern slavery usually uses. Moreover, the non ecological environment exploitation by cutting down forests, or fracking, that pollutes the waters, are examples of economic maneuvers that do not lead to the whole community rising living standards but, on the contrary, they lead to their decline. These social engineering actions are identical to that of water privatization, which I have mentioned above, and they are genuine modern slavery practices.
The surplus value theory was later justly rejected by many philosophers and sociologists. Here is not the time for showing their objections. But Marx was right when analyzed the exaggerate discrepancy between rich and poor. Such differences are caused by the specific modern slavery market manipulation. The existence of such rich people like George Soros falsely implies the existence and the poor unfairly. These rich wrongly speculated just social system to reach the position where they are without the company brought some improvement. Their status as social cheaters has the other extreme recoil, namely those who do not receive from society what they ought.
Unfortunately, quite often the profit is equitably divided between the other community members in general or those who directly contributed to getting it, namely the order takers. The most important clue to observe this fact is the number of poor and criminals people. The two categories of people are interrelated. These people have a lower standard of living than that of primitive tribes. They feed on garbage and risk getting sick because of germs and toxic substances that pollute urban areas. They also are often addicted to psychoactive substances and risk to freeze to death in cold areas. One can see from a mile away that these people life standard is far below the primitive. The economic standards raising false argument brought by capitalist expansion into the world primitive areas has the same value as that of the colonialists in the past centuries who grotesquely twisted Jesus moral philosophy. Such practices reveal the most odious habits of human being.
Such practices of negatively influencing the social and natural environment only create a certain illusion of free trade relationship by painting the more or less visible wage slavery into brighter colors. But if the employer pays the employee with a lower wage than the labor value market offered in exchange, then this type of employment relationship is infested by slavery. In this case Marx is right to amend the exaggerated surplus value as the "partner" does not socially progress in proportionate manner or, even worse, it is experiencing social regression.
In the next article I will insist on hiding, disguising the sources of threat to modern slaves for hijacking their uprising to other targets than those responsible for organizing and maintaining the slave crime.