>
>
> A comment on this passage. Marx in the crucial sentences assumes the
> point of view of the slave __the instrument with a voice__ of the
> ancient slave master. The slave shows he is a human by showing that
> he does not have to care for beast or tool and can choose to treat
> them in such a way not in his master's interest. But my real question
> about it is to wonder if it is true or not. I certainly have always
> accepted it to be true, or at least a general tendency of the way a
> slave would treat the instruments, whether semi-vocal or mute, of his
> master.
If memory serves, Perry Anderson, in "Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism," argues that technology developed very slowly in the ancient world because there was no point to speeding up labor. This is a diff argument from that of the disgruntled slave and may therefore argue for the use of slavery within capitalism. However, the prison labor example supports the argument that the best labor is "free" in the same way, I suppose, that the best priest/authority is introjected.
Joanna