Discrediting an entire concept or insight because it fails to EXACTLY match a specific definition.

You know, like saying Trump's not a fascist because he hasn't invaded Poland or rounded up Jews into camps--yet.

Yes, a lot of people throughout history have condemned slavery. Some philosophies and religions (like Christianity and Judaism) have also condemned slavery. That's not what I was implying. And racism was NOT always there. Is race even mentioned in the Old or New Testaments? Or Homer? Other than maybe the Queen of Sheba. The Romans were not racist, the Greeks were not racist, the concept of race didn't even exist back then because most everybody in the Mediterranean littoral was Caucasian. Nowhere in any literature or account of the ancient world have I ever read any racist concepts. Of course, in those days people were suspicious of people from other lands, who worshiped other gods, or spoke other languages, or even were from other social classes, but it wasn't about race. In those day, loyalty was to family, caste, tribe, nation, class, not skin color. The conflation of race and servitude is a thoroughly modern invention. Like I said, look up the Triangle Trade.

And I went way out of my way to say " Capitalism made wide-scale chattel slavery possible, which is not to say there is a causal connection." That is, capitalism did NOT invent or cause modern day slavery, it just made it possible to arise. Europeans HAD to dehumanize the blacks because their religion did nor allow slavery.

Of course, in lieu of slavery, there have been a lot of arrangements that substitute nicely for it, in all but name. And yes, our founding fucking fathers took full advantage of that. Indentured servitude, serfdom, apprenticeships, tenant farming, sharecropping, and internships (a modern corporate variation) and of course, regular good old wage slavery. And in the Gilded Age, there were all those Eastern and Southern Europeans, and Chinese, and yes, Irish, so desperate to be exploited. And what about forced military conscription? And what about convict labor (even if its voluntary)? And lets not forget special "minimum wage exemptions" to provide "opportunities" for the disabled, and the underage, and the overaged, and the mentally challenged. Aren't the bosses GENEROUS? The whole point is to lower the amount you have to pay the workers, that is, avoid that old Glorious Law of Supply and Demand. That gets quickly swept under the rug when it benefits the worker and not the boss. If you look it up in the dictionary its not actually slavery. They always have another name for it.

There is a dividing line, even in our enlightened society. Its the line between owning and renting, front office and shop floor, suit and uniform, officer and enlisted, salary and wage (and now, GIG and contract laborers!), college and high school, management and labor. I know its there because I've crossed it several times in my life and there is NEVER any question of which side of it you're on. They never let you forget it. Trying to get over that line, or trying to not fall back under it, is why people get up in the morning and go to work. Fascism is caused when the working class realizes they're about to fall below it, or their kids will never get past it. You know immediately whenever you cross it, on the way up, or on the way down. Its not about money, there's a lot of overlap there, but its about prestige and power and respect and dignity. Of course, there has been some progress in the last few hundred years, things aren't as bad as they used to be, oh bla di, oh bla da. But let the economy take a bit of a hit and things slide back again real quick. Everybody has folks below him, and folks above him. Like they say, shit rolls down hill. But that line is real and its clear, its as sharp as a knife and you can't miss it. Especially when you're on the wrong side of it.

And if you haven't figured that out by now, pal, you'd better wise up quick.