Modern slavery question

[aste]

Recently Leo asserted that the west is more developed than the rest of the world because they have lower rates of slavery but when you look around the website of the research you will find that the countries that contribute the most with the slavery (their lifestyle and the things they buy) are the richest ones, they only displace slavery to someplace where they can't see it directly.  That's not so developed in my opinion and make me think that westerners always think they are superior because they are in the upper end of the slavery system that has been developing since the advent of the modern world.

 

What do you think?

Edited 12 hours ago by aste

[Buck Edwards]

You got a point. Demand favors supply. 

[Twentyfirst]

Westerners always use bullshit charts, development graphs, colors of spiral, pseudo science, projection, finger pointing etc etc

It means literally nothing. Just way to derail the real conversation 

 

[Bobby_2021]

Here is what Claude thinks of the blog post:

I'll provide a careful analysis of this post, which touches on complex topics of global development and cultural values.

The post uses the Global Slavery Index data to make several arguments about development and cultural relativism. While the map does show concerning patterns of modern slavery, we should examine the underlying factors with nuance:

The post makes some valid observations - modern slavery is indeed a serious human rights violation that causes harm to both victims and societies. The data does show higher rates in certain regions. However, there are some problematic aspects in how the post frames these differences:

1. Development is multi-faceted and influenced by many historical, economic, and social factors. While the post acknowledges this somewhat, it oversimplifies the relationship between development and human rights outcomes.

2. The post correctly critiques both cultural relativism that might excuse human rights violations and racist/ethnocentric interpretations of development differences. However, it could better explore how factors like historical exploitation, colonialism, and global economic inequality contribute to current conditions.

3. The framing of "Western values" vs "non-Western values" creates a false dichotomy. Human rights, including freedom from slavery, are universal values that have advocates and violations across all societies.

The data itself is important for understanding where interventions are most needed to combat modern slavery. However, addressing this issue requires understanding complex systemic factors and supporting development while respecting human rights and dignity universally.

Would you be interested in exploring what factors contribute to modern slavery and what approaches have been effective in combating it?

-------

Bobby: Is it not the case that western corporations are the beneficiaries of slavery? So is it truthful to argue that western values result in less slavery?

Claude: This is an excellent and important counterpoint that reveals a significant flaw in the original post's argument. Let me expand:

 

The modern slavery system is indeed deeply connected to global supply chains that often terminate in Western corporations and consumers. Some examples:

- Fast fashion companies benefiting from forced labor in textile manufacturing

- Tech companies whose supply chains include cobalt mining under exploitative conditions

- Seafood industries relying on forced labor on fishing vessels

- Agricultural products harvested using exploited workers

So while Western nations may have lower rates of slavery within their borders, they are often the end beneficiaries of exploitation occurring elsewhere. This creates a form of outsourced slavery, where the economic benefits flow to Western corporations and consumers while the human costs are borne by people in other regions.

This also points to a deeper issue with the original post's framing of "Western values." If we look at actual economic relationships rather than just geographic incidence, Western economic practices often perpetuate or incentivize exploitative labor practices. The lower domestic slavery rates in Western nations don't necessarily reflect superior values, but rather:

1. Greater wealth allowing exploitation to be outsourced

2. More sophisticated legal and economic structures that obscure exploitative relationships

3. Historical advantages gained through past exploitation including colonialism

A more accurate analysis would look at the entire global economic system and how different regions are positioned within it, rather than treating each nation's slavery statistics in isolation.

What are your thoughts on how this global dynamic should affect our understanding of responsibility and solutions for modern slavery?

---------

Bobby: Do you consider it west bashing to make the case that west has done significant degradation to the development of the countries of global south which the post overlooks?

Claude: No, discussing the historical impact of Western colonialism, resource extraction, and economic exploitation on Global South development isn't "West-bashing" - it's engaging with documented historical realities that continue to shape global inequalities today.

The original post overlooks crucial context about how Western development was often achieved through:

- Colonial exploitation and resource extraction

- Forced labor and slavery

- Destruction of existing economic systems and local industries

- Creation of dependent economic relationships

- Installation and support of authoritarian regimes favorable to Western interests

- Structural adjustment programs that enforced harmful economic policies

- Debt mechanisms that extract wealth from developing nations

These aren't matters of opinion but historical processes that help explain current global disparities. Understanding this context is essential for:

1. Accurately analyzing current development challenges

2. Developing effective solutions that address root causes

3. Creating more equitable international systems

4. Acknowledging ongoing responsibilities to address historical harms

The post's framing of Western "development" as simply reflecting superior values ignores how that development was achieved and maintained through systems that actively underdeveloped other regions. This isn't about assigning blame but understanding actual historical processes that shaped our current world.

So critiquing this omission isn't "West-bashing" but rather insisting on a more complete and accurate analysis of global development patterns.

[Breakingthewall]

By today's standards, many things that seem unfair would have been paradise on earth 150 years ago. Nobody said that humanity had to evolve towards industrialization, but it did. The potential process of development has no limits, but it has a natural rhythm, and that rhythm includes the differences between those at the top and those at the bottom.

China or India lived in the Middle Ages 60 years ago, with levels of poverty very different from those of today. Africa has 1.4 billion inhabitants, there is great poverty, but hunger and war are decreasing. Thinking that it is unfair that Africa is not the same as Denmark is not the way, the way is to evolve

[The Crocodile]

2 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

Westerners always use bullshit charts, development graphs, colors of spiral, pseudo science, projection, finger pointing etc etc

It means literally nothing. Just way to derail the real conversation 

 

No, the question is why the West was able to conquer all this countries in the first place.

Obviously there should be universal cooperation, but a delusional "West bad East good, equally developed" narrative is very stupid.

[Raze]

12 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

No, the question is why the West was able to conquer all this countries in the first place.

Obviously there should be universal cooperation, but a delusional "West bad East good, equally developed" narrative is very stupid.

That’s conflating moral development with military development.

It also can depend on various other factors, there were periods in history where a larger power chose not to conquer smaller countries.

[The Crocodile]

7 minutes ago, Raze said:

That’s conflating moral development with military development.

It also can depend on various other factors, there were periods in history where a larger power chose not to conquer smaller countries.

Development and complexity have a general element. Do you think the United States or Afghanistan is more morally developed?

[Raze]

6 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

Development and complexity have a general element. Do you think the United States or Afghanistan is more morally developed?

Is current Afghanistan more morally developed then 60’s Afghanistan?

https://www.businessinsider.com/afghanistan-photos-before-war-2017-2#the-country-was-undergoing-a-process-of-modernization--9

[The Crocodile]

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

Is current Afghanistan more morally developed then 60’s Afghanistan?

https://www.businessinsider.com/afghanistan-photos-before-war-2017-2#the-country-was-undergoing-a-process-of-modernization--9

No.

Don't be dense.

[zazen]

3 hours ago, aste said:

Recently Leo asserted that the west is more developed than the rest of the world because they have lower rates of slavery but when you look around the website of the research you will find that the countries that contribute the most with the slavery (their lifestyle and the things they buy) are the richest ones, they only displace slavery to someplace where they can't see it directly.  That's not so developed in my opinion and make me think that westerners always think they are superior because they are in the upper end of the slavery system that has been developing since the advent of the modern world.

 

What do you think?

I wrote this in another thread:

On 20/01/2025 at 0:56 PM, zazen said:

Us Westerners love to conflate development with higher values, and wealth with worth. Never mind how we developed or obtained that wealth - which was through the lower values of exploitation, domination, accumulation and materialism. We then use the material gains of this as evidence of embodying higher values.

We claim to uphold high values, but approach them through lower values. Freedom comes through dominating others, democracy comes through the deception of elitists playing musical chairs. Its plutocracy wearing the costume of democracy.

The more we trumpet these higher values, the more we sink lower in practicing them, and the more the hypocrisy becomes glaring. If the Iraq saga took the clothes off the empire, Gaza took the mask off it - rendering it naked for the world to see. Even if we do practice these values domestically (lol) they very much disappear when we deal with other nations. We don’t have partners but vassals, we don't believe in win-win.

We think we found these values, never mind that they are universally aspirational and that other cultures may even approach them in more multi dimensional and mature way. That lesser freedoms are given up for larger ones, or that dignity is in modesty rather than the freedom of vulgarity. That freedom is not absolute but relational, or that human rights must balance individual and collective well being.

We conflate that because we are democratic - that this confers some higher paradigm or supremacy.  The plutocratic reality of the West is not an aberration but a continuation of the West’s feudalistic roots, where power was concentrated in the hands of the few.

If governance reflects values, then the West’s plutocratic system reveals its true priorities: wealth, power, and control, not the higher ideals of equality, justice, and freedom it claims to champion. By this logic, Western governance reflects lower values, not higher ones.

Perhaps, countries can approach development and higher values differently - and the Wests approach to these higher values isn’t the only valid one.

Arnaud rebutting De Villepin:

“Universalism isn't Europe's salvation - it's largely what destroyed it.

This way of dealing with the world whereby you proclaim yourself the gatekeepers of values and principles that you deem universal, and insist the rest of the world adopt, is over. And this "great fight to be fought" between different conceptions of humanity that Villepin sees coming is precisely what we need to avoid, because it doesn't need to be fought: we should make our peace with the coexistence of different civilizations and cultures.

And not only is this universalist approach over, it is now thoroughly counterproductive as it screams of hypocrisy after Europe's own performance with regards to its stated values and principles. Gaza in particular completely obliterated this, and De Villepin ought to know this given how vocal he's been on the matter. He speaks of Europeans as being "guardians of the law," but he knows all too well that no-one had done more to undermine international law than the West these past few years.

The new multipolar world we're entering into is not, as De Villepin suggests, an arena for a "great fight" between competing universal visions - the fight between "American individualism, Chinese collectivism and European citizenship" as he puts it. Instead it must become the age of understanding and managing differences between civilizations and cultures. 

Europe's biggest challenge going forward is to learn some measure of humbleness. We need to relearn that there is no measuring scale between civilizations and, especially looking at its record these past few decades, that Europe certainly isn't the paragon of anything. And if there's a fight to be fought, Europe needs to fight to avoid the emergence of a civilizational war, a fight to promote coexistence and mutual understanding.

Granted, it is undeniable there are such things as universal values and principles. For instance I think we can all agree that killing innocent civilians is bad. We can also all agree that there shouldn't be child soldiers. We can all agree there is but one Earth and that protecting it is important for our collective survival. And, as such, international law has a place.

But given its record, if Europe truly believes in these principles it should support them and the institutions that underpin it - like the ICC or the ICJ - in the way an ex-convict promises to behave: with humility and a commitment to do better - not with the sort of misplaced arrogance of presenting itself as their guardian or moral custodian, which would be completely out of order given its own failures to uphold them.

Lastly, perhaps more than anything, the way universalism destroyed Europe is by destroying the notion of sovereignty in Europe. Because see, if you're convinced as Europe has been that your values and principles are universal, then the world becomes borderless since any deviation from them within your own borders becomes not just a difference of perspective or a sovereign choice, but a moral failing that must be corrected. When every political or cultural difference is framed as a deviation from universal norms rather than an expression of national sovereignty, the very concept of meaningful self-determination goes away.

If a policy is framed as implementing universal values - whether on migration, economic policy, or social issues - then national populations' objections can be dismissed as parochial or even morally suspect. This effectively turned universalism into a tool for circumventing genuine democratic deliberation at the national level, all while claiming to act in democracy's name. The result was a gradual hollowing out of national decision-making power through the implicit assumption that resistance to "universal" norms was itself illegitimate.

The tragic irony is that this universalist approach actually always loses out when you have nations out there that actually do act in their sovereign interests, as they should. Because you end up with a deep asymmetry: a bunch of nations in Europe whose leaders are essentially denationalized, seeing themselves as vectors of an ideology often explicitly at odds with their own nations' wellbeing, versus leaders who remain grounded in the concrete reality of national interests and understand their primary duty as protecting and advancing their people's prosperity and security.

This mismatch creates an almost absurd dynamic where European leaders regularly sacrifice their nations' vital interests while facing counterparts who view such behavior as nothing more than naïveté to be exploited. The United States, in particular, has masterfully taken advantage of this situation - happy to let European leaders indulge in grand universalist proclamations while systematically advancing American interests, often at Europe's expense. 

De Villepin correctly identifies this "system of predation and vassalization," but fails to see how Europe's own universalist pretensions enable it. And how could it be otherwise? When one side's leaders fundamentally see themselves as working to transcend and even dismantle their own nation's sovereignty, while the other's remain firmly committed to national advancement, the outcome is predetermined.

That's not the way to approach universal values or international law. European nations should approach international institutions and universal principles as sovereign equals entering into mutual commitments, not as self-appointed moral arbiters. The path forward lies in first reclaiming genuine sovereignty, for only sovereign nations can make meaningful choices. From this foundation, European nations can then exemplify their values through concrete actions: by treating other nations with respect rather than condescension, by accepting that different paths of development are legitimate, and most crucially, by focusing first on doing right by their own citizens.

This last point is essential - a nation that cannot or will not protect and advance the wellbeing of its own people has no business lecturing others about universal values. True universalism, if it is to exist at all, must emerge organically through the example of nations that successfully balance sovereign self-determination with voluntary participation in a world order, not through moral imperialism disguised as universal principles. The stake isn't, as De Villepin suggests, whether "universal man exists" - it's whether we can respect and coexist with those who see humanity differently.”

Edited 8 hours ago by zazen

[Raze]

12 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

No.

Don't be dense.

After multiple wars it is far more militarily developed. Thereby the example disproved your point.

[The Crocodile]

13 minutes ago, Raze said:

After multiple wars it is far more militarily developed. Thereby the example disproved your point.

No, "military development = moral development" is what you said and has literally nothing to do with anything.

The West was able to conquer many countries because they were generally more developed.

Yes, I agree when Afghanistan was Westernizing and appropriating Western technology and Western clothing they were more developed than now them being ruled by the literal TALIBAN.

Yes, the British Empire was more perspectivally developed than the literal taliban.

[Leo Gura]

Yes, West corps do outsource the dirty work to the 3rd world, but that's only possible because the 3rd world is behind in development and doesn't have things like labor protections and environemntal protections which only exist at higher levels of development. So the West is exploiting the situation, for sure. But the situation exists independent of the West.

It's like if a rich man abuses a prostitute. Yes, he is exploiting her weak state, but she was a prostitute for long before he came around and her problems are much deeper than this rich white man. If she was healthy and strong she would not allow this rich white man to abuse her.

Blaming the rich white man misunderstands the depth of the prostitutes problems.

What your AI said does not contradict what I said. The West IS more developed and that is not due merely to exploiting the non-West.

You can see that a nation like Russia is fucked up all on its own.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[aste]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, West corps do outsource the dirty work to the 3rd world, but that's only possible because the 3rd world is behind in development and doesn't have things like labor protections and environemntal protections which only exist at higher levels of development. So the West is exploiting the situation, for sure. But the situation exists independent of the West.

It's like if a rich man abuses a prostitute. Yes, he is exploiting her weak state, but she was a prostitute for long before he came around and her problems are much deeper than this rich white man. If she was healthy and strong she would not allow this rich white man to abuse her.

Blaming the rich white man misunderstands the depth of the prostitutes problems.

What your AI said does not contradict what I said. The West IS more developed and that is not due merely to exploiting the non-West.

You can see that a nation like Russia is fucked up all on its own.

 

 

A man abusing prostitutes is not developed is just a savage that doesn't understand how a weak human being is not there for being abused but to be helped and healed. 

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, aste said:

A man abusing prostitutes is not developed is just a savage that doesn't understand how a weak human being is not there for being abused but to be helped and healed. 

Actually he is more developed than the prostitute, but obviously he could be more developed.

The West has much development ahead.

"More developed" does not mean one is always good. People jump to that conclusion. Development levels are all relative to one another and the highest levels are actualized by nearly no one.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[JTL]

30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Actually he is more developed than the prostitute, but obviously he could be more developed.

The West has much development ahead.

"More developed" does not mean one is always good. People jump to that conclusion. Development levels are all relative to one another and the highest levels are actualized by nearly no one.

why do prostitutes/pornstars have low developed? Iknow they have, but courius to why.

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, JTL said:

why do prostitutes/pornstars have low developed? Iknow they have, but courius to why.

Because only a psychologically damaged mind would sell itself for sex.

[Something Funny]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Because only a psychologically damaged mind would sell itself for sex.

How do you measure development in this case?

Do you have specific traits you judge it by like with high/low perspective. What makes a prostitute objectively less developed?

Also, what's the connection between being psychologically damaged and selling yourself for sex?

How is it different from selling yourself by being a cashier or a lawyer?

[Twentyfirst]

3 hours ago, The Crocodile said:

No, the question is why the West was able to conquer all this countries in the first place.

Because they are the best in the world at war, theft, deception. Not something to be proud of. Something to be ashamed of

Quote

Obviously there should be universal cooperation, but a delusional "West bad East good, equally developed" narrative is very stupid.

Nobody is saying the West causes 100% of problems and the East causes 0% of problems. It's more like West causes 80% and East causes 20% whether worldwide or inflicting on each tother

When one "continent" and I put that in quotation marks because it looks like Europe is just connected to Asia or it all looks like Eurasia....when one of the 7 continents has colonized every single continent including 2 permanent colonizations of USA and AUS and then everyone who had to suffer is talking about it. Then no that narrative is not stupid at all. But shutting down that narrative with colors of a spiral is extremely stupid. And it's just part of the Western musical chairs that is used to avoid such obvious accountability 

Don't talk to the East about values, human rights, freedom, the ability to choose ones own destiny, governance, etc etc. Ya'll don't know. And when every single country tells you that you don't know you have so much arrogance to just reject them all and claim that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Somehow you were born in the most empathetic superior place on Earth and everyone else was born in a mud hut. It's like how religious people believe their religion is the best simply because they happened to be born in the geography that preaches that religion 

If you are drunk at a party and someone tells you that you are embarrassing yourself and go home. Maybe he is just spiteful or jealous. But when every single person at the party tells you that. It means you are drunk. But the West doesn't regard all the people at the parties opinions as valuable because they don't regard anyone that doesn't follow the white west agenda as a valuable human being 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Twentyfirst