>>479616When farm laborers were kicked off their land and entered the cities, it was understood to all that their condition was effectively slavery. They had no legal rights, no legal standing, nothing at all that the bourgeois city had to respect or regard. The only distinction is that there wasn't formally a deed saying this person is property in total of another person - but what is an employment contract and the worksheet every worker was obligated to show to receive pay? What is their condition if they are obligated by contract to police their entire life on and off the clock to conform to the dictates of the city and their boss? In an economic and moral sense, the proletarian was considered devoid of any more rights than a slave, and would be treated accordingly. You might convince proletarians to spit on slaves or nigras, or sell them some ideology, but no one is confused about the nature of their relation to society, and what their lives have been. Usually the behavior of slaves is that they don't want this situation to be worse, because existential wank is not a condition laborers in general care for. That's always been an aristocratic vice - and it is an aristocratic vice rather than a bourgeois vice or the vice of producers or technocrats. The typical middle class bourgeois man is not a frilly pissant, but someone thinking how he can make a buck, swap his wife at the parties, and play the part of the game he is allowed to play. Usually the bourgeois man is practical rather than given over directly to fetishism by some blind and unknowable impulse. The reasons why middle class people buy into fads are not difficult to discern if you are allowed to make comparisons with reality, and disregard the mythology regarding social class and what this really is. No middle class person, bourgeois person, is unaware of his own situation and relations to others of his kind at a basic level. It would be impossible for him not to be, and the bourgeois man is more acutely aware of this than any other class, precisely because the bourgeois life is a precarious one by the standards of history. We didn't always have a stable population of city-dwellers with this particular concept of civic participation, where they adopted a very alien manner of speaking compared to what humans had been doing for centuries in the same sort of social position.
Also, slaves are tied to a market - slavery was big, big money. Slaves are collateral, are souls which the master can own for all intents and purposes. A master can do to a caged and chained slave far different things than he can to a proletarian, and this is not a result of a sentiment or legal fiction, but because the slave is chained, whipped, beaten, and this is expected in society. Free labor may be in a legal sense treated like a slave, but in a social sense, free laborers will not be treated that way unless they are at the very bottom, and those poor souls are either abject slaves of a different sort, or in the residuum which is by objective reckoning a much worse social rank than slave. The example to discipline the proletarian wasn't the slave, but the workhouse - and if you know anything about the American South, the workhouse and forced labor camp was the fate of poor whites who didn't get with the program. That forced labor, by the way, did not end with the civil war. It remains a part of the South's "culture" to this day. They make it clear that if you don't make it as a white man, they see you as a race traitor at the least. That's your Southern hospitality for you. It was the workhouse and the fate of the condemned that kept workers fearful more than anything else. Legal slavery was a condition very far from the white proletarian's existence, barring imprisonment for crimes that were regarded as the fate of bad people, or military conscription which will always be seen as a terrible slavery of its own sort. It was not so removed that the prospect of enslaving outright the white man was unthinkable, but before it came to that, large parts of the white race would have been pushed into the workhouse, marked as invalids and already broken through a process understood to be lower in civic and moral worth than slavery. This is what happened with black Americans after the civil war - intended beforehand as a "soft Final Solution", while the eugenists were screaming harder than anyone to go turbo Nazi on them and never gave that up for a moment.
When you think the distinction between slavery and freedom is a legal abstraction or a fiction of no consequence to "civilized times like ours", you have all sorts of funny ideas that are entirely inverted from what workers and slaves alike have seen their entire life. This has been understood by anyone honest the whole time. It wasn't until 1970 and a huge PR offensive that the idea that it wasn't this was promulgated widely. Liberals had their smug bubble for a while in the post-war order, but they always knew when push came to shove what the class war really was and their position in it. More often, the liberal believed that there was a technocratic fix to class struggle - that's what communism entailed, a technocratic fix to claim you can resolve the struggle by reason and being the right sort of person, rather than a blind impulse and rage like some retard screaming at the world impotently. This is where the Germanic Nazi ideology regarding "freedom" and wordplay really took off, and insinuated that we had to accept that as the "default" even though so many people knew this was insanity. That's where you get these funny ideas that the class struggle pertains to these abstractions, rather than a struggle in the world we actually live in with genuine stakes. For the low of today, they know they lost. The people are beyond defeated - they have been literally decimated and are about to get worse. That's what the humiliations of Germanic schooling are - a more obnoxious and pervasive form of the Roman practice of decimation, except the Romans knew decimation from archaic and fucked up. The teachers have a quota to set aside so many children as failures and publicly expose their status and humiliation, to make it clear just what this is. The quota works out to roughly 10% - that's how many are consigned to the failure track of maximal humiliation, Epsilon caste programming. This, by the way, lacks any of the disciplinary function that decimation would have had for the Roman legion, and the legionnaires were in war and the military cult - and decimation of a legion was a very exceptional punishment, when a legion really, really fucked up. It wasn't something you did to project stronk - any general who has to resort to decimation is probably a shitty general and has to do this to restore order to a near-mutinous legion and make it clear just what war is. The idea that decimation would be an institutionalized, ritual, and regular feature is a Germanic perversion. The full horror of Germanism is yet more pervasive, since the whole point of the Germanic way of life is to uphold their perverse fantastic racism and tell people they are what they are not. Romans were never this impractical. They hated the sort of person who would bray like a faggot about being stronk and that is not hard to see.