The question that makes fundies hostile

[Ben Davis]

Education is not the answer to slavery.

It's certainly part of the answer. People who know how to think are able to identify possible abuses therefore more likely to oppose the mechanisms which lead to those abuses.

Society needs to have the Haves and Have nots in order for it to work. If everyone 'has,' then who will do the menial jobs only the 'have nots' normally did?

No it doesn't. That's a fallacy spread by those who have a vested interest in the continuation of free-market capitalism. If there were no controlled shortages of basic resources, as is the case right now, do you really think that society would grind to a halt? That everyone would simply stop striving and become lazy? That human innovation wouldn't redirect towards other more worthwhile goals?

Also, those who understand labour principles know that all work of value is of equal value. The social stigma of 'menial' labour is a byproduct of our social development and therefore subject to as much change as any other social principle. Technological advances also allow us to free ourselves from the repetitive tasks which often charactarise 'menial' labour thus freeing us from the historic imperatives to which you refer.

Look at what 20+ years of pushing higher education has done for this country. Everyone has a collage degree, which makes a collage degree worthless. why? because everyone has on. (Everyone 'has.') One would be luck to get a job as a 'bug man' with a collage degree now. Because the market is now flooded with worthless degrees. It's like printing money, the more you print the less value it actually has.

That's an extremely nihilistic attitude towards education. Do you not understand the social benefits of having a population composed of knowledgeable people? Just because there's a disparity between our levels of education and our social exploitation of that intellectual wealth doesn't mean we should cut the well off at the source!

The only way what you are suggesting will work is in a communist society, and even then as per China and the USSR's example we know that does not work either.

Once again, simply not true. There are a number of capitalist models in which my outline is practical and there are plenty of governments in Europe who have working methods of parts of my suggestions; I'm not basing my points on idealism, rather I'm building on evidence. Also, communism has only been tried in extremist dictatorships (a result of global tribalistic conflicts). If tried in more relaxed governmental frameworks, we might well have seen different results.

We NEED slaves inorder for the current model of society we know to work. There is no way around that. The only option we have is to pretend that we don't, and shun those who suggest otherwise. (To bury our heads in the sand.) Which means those who do work as slaves have to work for people who go completely unregulated. Which if history is any indicator, is not a good thing.

Nonsense. No-one 'needs' to be owned, as property, by another individual. Most people in most societies recognise this which is why it's illegal in most of the world. Even in terms of 'wage slavery' (the tacit 'ownership' through social constructs to which you've refered), the more successful civilisations have developed mechanisms to fight this (e.g. unionisation).

There is no context in which it's right for one person to own another as property, even if that ownership is inveigled by or delegated to socio-political frameworks.