Not the same person but the answer is non-biological coercion of labor even if that's not the way it's often defined. If one lives in a system where they are compelled to sell their labor to survive so that someone can skim value from their labor this is a form of slavery.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I wonder what you mean by non-biological here, why is that a helpful distinction?

I don't see why we couldn't think of human coercion of other humans isn't "biological" in some sense, so I also don't understand what distinction exactly you are making with "non-biological", but I might just be a bit slow today.

Still, I agree with you that coercion seems central to the idea of slavery.

[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ah, it may have been unneeded. What I meant by that is that every living being is compelled to work on some level to survive and I wanted to be clear that I wasn't including that. Like, a lion must hunt for food, a lion is biologically compelled to do this work to survive but this isn't slavery.

To continue with that silly analogy, if some lions coerced other lions to hunt extra and took their extra food, that would be a form of slavery.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 7 months ago

ah, I see what you mean - it's an important distinction, and one that I think some existentialists looked at (not necessarily in terms of slavery, per se, but certainly in terms of freedom). Ultimately we can't avoid constraints and in that sense there is always coercion from the environment. However, there is a big difference between those inescapable constraints and the immoral and unjustified hierarchies a tiny minority of humans have successfully imposed on the rest, and pointing that out is definitely worthwhile.

Thanks for the clarification!