@rythur I feel like this is incredibly pessimistic and illustrates a kind of fatalism I strongly disagree with. The (general) purpose of amendments to a constitution is to correct historical wrongs enshrined in law. Your thesis, that you're either enslaved or free, is extreme and frankly appalling. I'd recommend you reconsider your stance.
@sojournTime Thank you for taking the time to consider the thesis, agreement or not. I did not mean to imply that one is either slave or free. Instead, I meant to imply that if a state has a will to enslave from the beginning, and systems are built in society to rely on the underclass/slave's existence, then shouldn't they need to fill this gap elsewhere, with some other set of people? I'll grant you the pessimism to the idea, but I can't make all of my ideas happy! 😁 Have a good day!
@rythur I mean, that is still a very simplistic view that glosses over a lot of history.
To address your statement: "if a state has a will to enslave from the beginning, and systems are built in society to rely on the underclass/slave's existence, then shouldn't they need to fill this gap elsewhere, with some other set of people?"
Your logic does not consider the following:
1) Society improves technologically to improve resource extraction, thus reducing the need for a large enslaved class to fulfill this role. A classic example is the industrial revolution, which eventually developed what we would now call the middle class. Of course everyone likes to point out the cotton gin as a counter example, but in general, this idea seems to hold true.
2) Societal/political revolutions change people's perception of their current state (usually out of necessity) which can in turn elevate an underclass/slave class and/or overthrow a ruling class. The Haitian or French revolution are classic examples.
What do these two things have in common? Both are considered types of revolutions and occur outside of the state's control. Which brings me to your original toot on constitutions. Constitutions, specifically ones that can be amended democratically, allow, to borrow a phrase from my high school history teacher, "government overthrow without revolutions". Which is why I disagree with your statement that "If a constitution is made with an implied or stated slave class, then there will always be a slave class...". That is just patently untrue.
"Always" is a strong word, especially in an ever-changing world. The world does not have to be a zero-sum game, and absolutes only exist in mathematics 😉.
@sojournTime The point could be made that overthrow represents a new constitution? If so, then the presence of an underclass is not an issue as the questions is about the maintenance of an underclass. I'm more convinced but certainly am not dissuaded from the idea that for a given constitution with an implied underclass, the underclass goes away.
Love the comment on math btw! I study probability and things like that, which are far from absolute. Still, there are probabilistic proofs!
@sojournTime Very good points here! I suspect you study history 😁
As for the points on revolutions, and interesting to add that point from your HS teacher, as it's quite thought provoking. Point 1 implies better conditions but does it truly imply the complete extraction of the underclass from matters? I don't think so. I mean that an underclass assumed constitution stays that way, which point 1 doesn't seem to discredit. As for 2, the point could be made that overthrow reps... (next)