A Escravatura dos Nossos Tempos

by Leo Tolstoy, Nina Guerra (Translator), Filipe Guerra (Translator)

Crítica feroz das formas de exploração que se seguiram à abolição da servidão e da escravatura, este ensaio conserva toda a sua pertinência e actualidade. Lev Tolstói (1828-1910) questiona a natureza das leis e das instituições governamentais, para afirmar que a opressão do povo assenta na violência exercida por aqueles que o governam. Fazendo uma análise das estruturas de poder que subjugam a maioria em benefício de uma minoria, o escritor russo rejeita as ideias socialistas que apelam à revolução por métodos violentos e incita à desobediência como meio de resistência à escravização moderna. Na esteira de clássicos como Discurso sobre a Servidão Voluntária, de La Boétie, e A Desobediência Civil, de Thoreau, A Escravatura dos Nossos Tempos (1900) é um livro para espíritos insubmissos em tempos incertos.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Classics, Anarchism, Political Science, Russia

104 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1900

About the author

Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Лев Николаевич Толстой; most appropriately used Liev Tolstoy; commonly Leo Tolstoy in Anglophone countries) was a Russian writer who primarily wrote novels and short stories. Later in life, he also wrote plays and essays. His two most famous works, the novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina, are acknowledged as two of the greatest novels of all time and a pinnacle of realist fiction. Many consider Tolstoy to have been one of the world's greatest novelists. Tolstoy is equally known for his complicated and paradoxical persona and for his extreme moralistic and ascetic views, which he adopted after a moral crisis and spiritual awakening in the 1870s, after which he also became noted as a moral thinker and social reformer.

His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him in later life to become a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist. His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God Is Within You, were to have a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reviews

[Dihia · Rating 4 out of 5]

The slavery of our times is a pamphlet written by Tolstoy in 1900.
In this book, Tolstoy describes the miserable situation of the laborers that work for thirty-six hours in succession and suffer from the tyranny exerted by their masters. These workers do not enjoy the conditions of a decent life. They lead a miserable life, they are malnourished, badly dressed and they earn only a few rubles which must later send to their families.
Tolstoy thinks that slavery never ended and that Russia like many other countries still suffers from this savagery towards humanity.
Then, he criticizes the government that establishes the enactments for the good of the upper class and use organized violence to make these enactments respected. These enactments are the principal cause of slavery.
As a solution, the author think that we should all return to our values for not participating to these organized crimes under the capitalist system.

[Ghadeer Jallad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whenever i read a book for this great thinker, i believe more and more that he is not just a great writer and philosopher who has an honest feeling for all humanity, but he is just a prophet and no less. Tremendous, influencing and provocative work. 5 stars are unfair to rate it; for it is just like a holy book against the indirect slavery of our time.

[Marwa Assem Salama · Rating 4 out of 5]

The last thing I was expecting from myself, is to admire any book for nothing but its extreme pessimism. This pessimism unexpectedly led me to a sense of deep gratification, which in turn bestowed me a set of peaceful mind and soul. In 1900, with a lucid foresight Tolstoy had portrayed a precise picture of our present miserable world. Where capitalism and consumerism have the upper hand on both rich and poor. You are simply a slave, once you adjust your alarm every night, according to the others' wishes. Surely I have read this fact, many times before. But this time Tolstoy helped me read it with enough maturity to stop hoping for a change. Now I see clearly my position in this huge global ox-driven mill. I am only still reading to maintain my awareness, so I can enjoy spit on it from time to time.

With a hidden anger tone, Tolstoy says: “ A vast number of books have been written and an endless number of sermons have been delivered upon the theme of this world-conception. This theme was worked out from the most disparate points of view. It was proved that God created different kinds of men – slaves and masters – and that both ought to be satisfied with their situation. Then it was proved that the slaves would be better off in the world to come. Then it was made clear that, although the slaves were slaves and must remain such, their situation would not be bad if their masters were merciful toward them. Then, after the liberation of the slaves, the last explanation was that wealth was entrusted to some people that they might use part of it for good acts, and that in this case the wealth of some and the poverty of the others did not represent anything bad. These explanations satisfied both the poor and the rich, especially the latter, for a long time. But the time came when these explanations became insufficient, especially for those who began to understand their condition of poverty. New explanations were then needed, and just at that time these new explanations made their appearance. These appeared in the form of the science of political economy, which asserts that it has found the laws according to which labor and the use of its products are distributed among men. These laws, according to the doctrine of this science, consist in the distribution and use of labor depending on supply and demand, capital, interest, wages, prices, and profit, and in general on invariable laws which condition men’s economical activity."

And in some way or another, you and I ended up with a new version of the same old slavery. Except that this new one has a multiple various shades, he says:
"If it is hard to draw as sharp a line between the slaves and the slave-owners of the present time as the one which separated the former slaves from the slave-owners, and if among the slaves of our time there are such as are only temporarily slaves and later become slave-owners, or such as at the same time are slaves and slave-owners, this mingling of the two at their points of contact does not weaken the truth of the proposition that all the men of our time are divided into slaves and masters, just as definitely as, in spite of the twilight, the twenty-four hours are divided into day and night. If a slave-owner of our time has not an Ivan whom he can send into a privy to clean out his excrements, he has three rubles that are so much wanted by hundreds of Ivans that he can choose any one out of a hundred Ivans and appear as a benefactor to him, because he has chosen him out of the whole number and has permitted him to climb into the cesspool. "

In order to discuss the reasons behind this new slavery, Tolstoy had written many pages. The common feature between them all, was only his continuous unsatisfaction with any of these supposed causes or even its suggested solutions. These following parts are what I collected to represent his analysis as much as I could:
"For example, you see the freight-handlers, who are ruining their lives by their work of thirty seven hours’ duration, or the women in the factory, or the laundresses, or the compositors, or all those millions of people who live under grievous, unnatural conditions of monotonous, stultifying slave labor. You naturally ask, “What has brought these people to such a state, and how can they be liberated from it?” Science answers you that these men are in such a state because the railroad belongs to such and such a company, the silk factory to such and such a master – all the plants, factories, printing offices, and laundries belong to the capitalists. Science says that their situation will improve when the working people attain a shortening of the workday, an increase in wages, and passage of all the implements of production into their hands. This will be accomplished by uniting into unions and cooperative societies, by means of strikes, and, through participation in the government, by exerting an ever-greater influence upon their masters and the government.”


Then he added: " But all that cannot improve their condition because the wretchedness of the position of the people working upon the railroad, or in the silk factory, or in any other factory or plant does not consist in a greater or lesser number of working hours. (The farmers work, while quite satisfied with their lot, as much as eighteen hours a day and thirty-six hours in succession.) It does not consist in the small pay, or in the railroad or factory not belonging to them, but in the fact that the working people are obliged to work under injurious, unnatural, and frequently dangerous and pernicious conditions, in city barracks that are full of temptations and immorality, doing slave work for other people. "

And about the governmental rules as a main reason, he says: "The slavery of our time is due to three enactments: concerning land, concerning taxes, and concerning property. And so all the attempts of men who wish to improve the condition of the working people are of necessity, though unconsciously, directed at these three enactments. Some abolish the taxes that weigh upon the working people by transferring them to the rich. Others propose to do away with the right of ownership of the land, and attempts have been made at realizing this in New Zealand and in one of the States of America. Others again, the socialists, assuming the socialization of the implements of labor, propose the taxing of incomes and inheritances, and the limitation of the rights of the capitalist speculators. It would seem that those very enactments which produce slavery are being abolished, and that we may expect the abolition of slavery itself on this path. But we need only look more closely at the conditions under which the abolition of these enactments is proposed and accomplished in order to become convinced that all practical and theoretical projects for the improvement of the working men’s condition are only the substitution of other enactments that establish new forms of slavery. Thus, for example, those who do away with the taxes levied on the poor by transferring them from the poor to the rich must necessarily retain the enactments about the ownership of land, implements of production, and other commodities to which the whole burden of taxation is transferred. But the retention of the enactments about land and property, by freeing the working people from the taxes, turns them over into slavery to the landowners and capitalists. And those who do away with the enactments about ownership propose new enactments about a compulsory land rent. But the compulsory land rent will inevitably establish a new form of slavery, because a man, obliged to pay the rent, or single tax, will be compiled at every failure of crops and at every misfortune to borrow money from him who has it, and will again fall into slavery. And those who, like the socialists, do away with the enactments about the ownership of land and the implements of production, retain the enactments about the taxes, and, besides, are obliged to introduce enactments about compelling men to work – they again establish slavery in its primitive form. "

"Thus, all the practical and theoretical abolitions of one set of enactments which produce slavery of one kind have so far always been followed by new enactments which produce slavery of another, a new kind. What is taking place is very much like what a jailer does, when he changes the chains from the neck to the arms, or from the arms to the legs, or when he takes them off, but fastens the bolts and bars. All the ameliorations for the working people so far proposed have consisted of nothing else. The enactments about the masters’ right to force the slaves to do work have given way to enactments about the ownership of the whole land by the masters. The enactments about the ownership of the whole land by the masters have given way to enactments about taxes, the establishment of which is in the power of the masters. The enactments about taxes have given way to the strengthening of the right to own articles of use and implements of labor. The enactments about the right to own land, articles of use, and implements of production are now to be abandoned for enactments about compulsory labor. "

Regarding the hell machine we all are trapped in, he says:
"The cause of the wretched condition of the working people lies in slavery. The cause of slavery lies in the enactments. But the enactments are based on organized violence. Consequently, the amelioration of the men’s condition is possible only with the destruction of organized violence. But organized violence is the government, and is it possible to live without any government? Without government there will be chaos and anarchy, all the progress of civilization will perish, and men will return to their pristine savagery. “ Just touch the existing order of things and the destruction of government will produce the greatest calamities, riots, pillage, and murder. In the end, all the bad will rule and the good will be enslaved by them.” We are generally told this, not only by those for whom this order of things is advantageous, but also by those for whom it is obviously disadvantageous and who are so used to it that they cannot imagine life without any governmental violence. But, to say nothing of the fact that the riots, pillage, and murder, at the end of which will come the kingdom of the evil and the enslavement of the good, have existed so far and exist now, the supposition that the violation of the existing order will produce troubles and disorder does not prove that this order is good. "

Once before, I have told my family the same comparison that Tolstoy talked about here. I never imagined that it was not only told many years ago, but also was behind the suffering of a well-known writer:
"The German writer, Eugen Schmitt, who edited the newspaper Ohne Staat in Budapest, printed in it an article, true and bold not only in expression, but also in thought. In it, he said that the governments, in justifying their existence by saying that they provide a certain amount of security for their subjects, do not differ in this from a Calabrese bandit who imposes a tax upon all those who want to travel safely over the highways. Schmitt was tried for this, but the jury found him innocent. We are so hypnotized by the governments that such a comparison seems to be an exaggeration, a paradox, or a jest. But it is no paradox or jest. In fact, the comparison is incorrect, because the activity of all the governments is much more inhuman and, above all things, much more harmful than the activity of the Calabrese bandit. The bandit for the most part robs the rich, while the governments for the most part rob the poor, while they protect the rich, who help them in their crimes. The bandit, in doing what he does, risks his life, while the governments risk nothing and build all their deeds on lying and deceit. The bandit does not forcibly take anybody in his band, while the governments generally draft their soldiers by force. All those who pay tribute to the bandit receive equal security, while in the state a man receives more security, and even more reward, the more he takes part in the organized deception. The emperor, king, or president is the most secure (he is always surrounded by a guard of protection), and he spends the greatest amount of money, which is collected from the subjects who are burdened with taxes. Then, in proportion to their greater or lesser participation in the governmental crimes, come the commanders-in-chief, ministers, chiefs of police, governors, and so on, down to the policemen, who are least protected and who receive the least salary. But he who does not take part in the governmental crimes at all, refusing to serve, to pay taxes, or to have anything to do with the court, is subjected to violence, as one is subjected to it by the robbers. The bandit does not intentionally corrupt people, while the governments corrupt whole generations of children and adults for the attainment of their purposes by false religious and patriotic doctrines. Above all things, not even the cruelest bandit – not even Sténka Rázin or Cartouche - can compare in cruelty, heartlessness, and refinement of tortures with sovereigns famous for their cruelty, such as John the Terrible, Louis XI, the Elizabeths, and so forth. The cruelest bandit cannot even compare with the present constitutional and liberal governments, with their solitary cells, disciplinary battalions, pacifications of riots, and slaughters in wars."

Now go watch “Fight Club” film once more, and try to fully enjoy dreaming of the great ending scene that will never come true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2N6H...

[Arsène · Rating 5 out of 5]

Astonishing analysis of socioeconomic conditions written more than a hundred years ago. Describes the problems of the division of labour, wage slavery, capitalism's and socialism's problems with regard to human spirit and naturality of the types of labour, progress, greed, temptation, economic theories like georgism, etc. The book is a reflection of what we see nowadays - nothing is changed and people are same blind.

[Victor · Rating 4 out of 5]

To all you critics out there.
In as much as I acknowledge your right to any opinion of Tolstoy's work that you may hold (particularly opposing opinions) , I think it would be very much appreciated if you could back it up like the writer has.

Tolstoy has taken pains to produce this wonderful piece of work.
What pains have you taken in opposing his stance?
What research or meticulous observation of society have you done?
How much time have you devoted to it?
What tests or experiments have you conducted?
Are you opposing merely by instinct or impulse?

I for one do not fully agree with some of Tolstoy's assertions but until I can come anywhere close to the effort he put into writing this book, I will keep my ....... unsubstantiated opinions to myself.

My fellow readers, I do not say that we should not express opinions contrary to that of the writer. In fact opposition is, has always been and will always be required.
There are two sides to every coin, as we all know. Tolstoy has ........ manfully shown his side of the coin.

Can we (opposing) critics not do the same?
Is this too much to ask?

[J.V. Llàcer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Siempre es un placer leer clasicos, como éste, donde precibes el paso del tiempo.

En «la escalvitud moderna», León Tolstoi reflexiona sobre algunos trabajos de su tiempo presentandonos su profunda opinión, su pensamiento libertario de conseguir que los cambios a través del amor y la moralidad. En este libro se defiende la libertad y el derecho de los pobres, y el pacifismo y la no violencia como forma para conseguirlo.
Un libro que desde la primera página, con diversos ejemplos de trabajos esclavistas entre sus contemporaneos, con jornadas laborales de 36 horas. Hace que percivas la Rusia de finales del siglo XIX. Pero no nos podemos quedar en que es una batalla ya ganada, las ideas transmitidas en este libro son atemporales.
Me quedo con la idea para la reflexión: «El pueblo es culpable tanto o más que sus conquistadores por permitir que los maltraten. Olvidan su origen y que frente a Dios son iguales, omitiendo su calidad de humanos, solo porque sus depredadores tienen uno o dos reales más.»
Es un libro para tenerlo en la mesilla de noche y leer unas páginas para reflexionar antes de dormir.

[Ines Kisfaludi · Rating 4 out of 5]

C’est comme si Tocqueville et Marx avaient eu un bébé

[Rui Torres · Rating 3 out of 5]

Este livro aborda uma temática social que, ainda hoje, podemos enquadrar em diversos lugares e que nos levantam questões pertinentes.

A abolição da escravatura é o sumo desta narrativa. Tolstói, entrega ao leitor uma visão crua e retrata o défice de condições a que os trabalhadores eram submetidos na labuta. A exploração era o prato do dia.

Levantam-se ainda, questões relacionadas com a liberdade e o poder das entidades governamentais que condicionam essa mesma liberdade. Ou seja, as leis e a justiça são argumentos válidos que demonstram o mecanismo do poder na sociedade que visa favorecer uns em prol dos mais desfavorecidos. Aqui, existe o foco no papel das minorias e da servidão das mesmas.

O autor rejeita a ideia socialista de derrubar o poder instaurado através da violência e apela à desobediência para fazer frente à escravização moderna.

Um livro bastante pertinente de um dos autores soviéticos mais conceituados.

[Eva Lourenço · Rating 5 out of 5]

Uma obra que nos conduz a uma reflexão profunda e incisiva sobre as injustiças e opressões que ainda moldam a nossa sociedade, oferecendo uma crítica feroz aos sistemas que perpetuam a escravização moderna (e uma das favoritas de 2025).

“As pessoas dos nossos tempos consideram a situação dos trabalhadores como uma condição económica natural e inevitável, e não denominam de escravatura esta situação.”

[Cassandra Kay Silva · Rating 4 out of 5]

When luxuries become necessities, you find the enslavement of our fellow man. Its unbelievable that for all of the "betterment" of the modern workers the enslavement of our fellow man has only moved to a more global sphere. I don't think Tolstoys "answers" to this question in regard to the lack of a need for government makes sense. But I don't think that this means we should not ask the question of what we do to our fellow man in our effort to consume ever more and more. Our humanistic benchmark for our desires ever changing. I do believe that not acknowledging governments rule through violence is perhaps ridiculous but I think there needs to be a better counter argument to these issues.

[Mehmet Ali Aytekin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tolstoy neden deha anlıyor insan..

[Valdemar Gomes · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a wonderful book! Great writing and fantastic discourse. I am amazed to see such a classic writer write such a politically honest (as in unaffraid of demonstrating his political thought clearly), bravely challenging text! Its analysis is outdated but powerfully current, as predicted in the book, we're just living in another type of slavery.
Great book, I am lacking of proper adjectives out of happiness and excitement.

[Trotalomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una excelente lectura. Un ensayo sobre la organización social, política y relaciones con nuestro entorno que parece escrito ayer y no hace más de 100 años. Tal vez algo utópico (de momento está claro que no somos capaces de organizarnos del modo que propone), lo que sin duda es indiscutible es que habrá que lucharlo para que pueda ser: un mundo más libre, una sociedad más justa.

[7aleo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un libro profundamente reflexivo que te invita a cuestionar los sistemas que gobiernan nuestra sociedad y las violencias que se ejercen sobre la clase obrera. En esta obra, Tolstói expresa su faceta más política, defendiendo una sociedad libre, justa y pacífica, sin las ataduras del Estado.

Si bien no comparto todos sus argumentos, me resulta muy interesante su pensamiento general. Me gusta que, tras exponer sus ideas, proponga una alternativa organizativa en la que se deroga el Estado, aunque creo que su planteamiento es utópico. Lamentablemente, la sociedad no es pacífica ni justa. Además, el poder es anhelado por el ser humano en todos los ámbitos de sus vidas.

Aun así, ojalá existieran más personas como Tolstói, capaces de imaginar y aspirar a una sociedad verdaderamente pacífica y justa para todos.

Años después, sus ideas continúan cuestionando el sistema y defendiendo una vida digna para todas las personas. Sin embargo, el sistema sigue ejerciendo violencias sobre la clase obrera y privilegiando el poder y el dinero por encima del bienestar común.


Si Tolstói levantara la cabeza, ¿qué le avergonzaría más, la autoridad que sigue oprimiendo o el pueblo consciente de su esclavitud?

[Paulo Teixeira · Rating 4 out of 5]

(PT) Um tratado sobre o trabalho e a sua violência, a lei e a sua aplicação como perpetuador, não só da violência, como o perpetuador das hierarquias societárias, e como certas alternativas não acabam a violência, pelo contrário, é apenas uma continuação sob novas cores.

[Yaotl Altan · Rating 5 out of 5]

León Tolstoi narra las condicione infrahumanas en que trabajaban los obreros rusos a principios del siglo XX. Analiza los abusos de una oligarquía que despilfarra el ingreso, mientras la clase trabajadora merma su salud y tiene una esperanza de vida reducida como consecuencia del desgaste físico prolongado.

Tolstoi retrata los obreros que cargan trenes en jornadas de hasta 36 horas con mala alimentación, salario bajo y hacinados. Los obreros son renuentes a protestar porque temen perder el empleo ante la gran demanda laboral de la época. Pocas cosas han cambiado desde entonces.

Tolstoi no alcanzó a ver las TVs de plasma ni el Ipod pero ya hablaba del consumismo de la gente. Su bajo salario lo gastaban en objetos inútiles que en nada elevaban su nivel de vida, incrementando en cambio sus deudas y eternizando su problemática. Para imponer estas condiciones de esclavitud, dice Tolstoi, muchas sociedades han usado la violencia y la han institucionalizado. Las policías y los ejércitos cumplen las funciones de protectores de esa "paz social". Tolstoi llama a terminar con esta violencia organizada y las leyes emanadas de la misma que el estado utiliza contra el hombre.

Me llamó la atención que en esta vieja edición del libro usaban el término "camino de hierro" para referirse al ferrocarril.

5 estrellas de 5 posibles para la obra de este insigne anarquista. ¡Nunca te mueras Tolstoi!

======================================================================
"Modern Slavery" by Lev Tolstoy.

Lev Tolstoy recounts the subhuman conditions in which the Russian working-class worked in the early twentieth century. He analyzes the abuses of an oligarchy which squanders income, while the working-class decreases its health and sees a reduction of its life expectancy as a result of prolonged physical efforts.

Tolstoy portraits workers loading cargos into trains during 36 hours journeys with a poor diet, low wages and overcrowded. The workers are reluctant to complain because they fear losing their jobs in view of the high labour demand of the time. Little has changed since then. Tolstoy could not see the plasma TVs nor the Ipods but he criticized people's consumerism. Their low wages were spent on useless objects which didn't help to raise their standard of living, instead increasing their debts and perpetuating their problems. To impose these slavery conditions, Tolstoy says that many societies have used violence and have institutionalized it. Polices and the armies exert the protective roles of the "social peace". Tolstoy called for an end to this organized violence and the laws resulted from it used by the the state against man.

5 out of 5 possible stars for the work of this famous anarchist. Never die, Tolstoi!

===================================================================
"La schiavitù moderna" di Lev Tolstoi.

Lev Tolstoi racconta le condizioni subumane in cui gli operai russi lavoravano all'inizio del secolo vento. Analizza gli abusi di una oligarchia che dissipava le entrate, mentre la classe operaia diminuisce la sua salute e soffre una riduzione della sua aspettativa di vita a seguito di sforzi fisici prolungati.

Tolstoi ritratta i lavoratori caricando le merce su treni durante giornate di 36 ore con una cattiva alimentazione, bassi salari e pigiati. I lavoratori sono riluttanti a lamentarsi perché temono di perdere il lavoro in vista della grande domanda di lavoro in quelli anni. Poco ha cambiato da allora.

Tolstoi non poté vedere la TV al plasma, né gli iPod, ma criticava il consumismo della gente. I loro salari bassi lo spendevano in oggetti inutili che non aiutavano ad aumentare il loro livello di vita, aumentando invece i loro debiti e perpetuando i loro problemi. Per imporre tali condizioni di schiavitù, Tolstoi afferma che molte società hanno usato la violenza e l'hanno istituzionalizzata. Le polizie e gli eserciti rivestino il ruolo protettivo della "pace sociale". Tolstoi ha chiesto la fine di questa violenza organizzata e le leggi emanate utilizzate per lo Stato contro l'uomo.

5 su 5 stelle possibile per l'opera di questo famoso anarchico. Non morire mai, Tolstoi!

[Adrián Suárez López · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lev Tolstói, a pesar de ser conocido principalmente por obras colosales como "Guerra y paz" y "Anna Karénina", también escribió numerosos textos breves, algunos de cuño político, social y económico. Uno de ellos es este pequeño ensayo, "Contra aquellos que nos gobiernan", redactado ya en 1900, casi al final de su vida, a través del cual podemos acercarnos al pensamiento político que mediante su experiencia fue madurando a lo largo de los años.

A grandes rasgos, partiendo de la observación y el análisis de las condiciones de vida de los proletarios surgidos por las exigencias de la Revolución Industrial, Tolstói reflexiona sobre cómo, desde los albores de la civilización humana, y recorriendo toda la Historia, la prosperidad y el aparente progreso de las sociedades se han fundamentado en las desigualdades entre los hombres y en el sometimiento de la gran mayoría ante una privilegiada minoría. A este respecto, Tolstói plantea que el denominador común de todas las épocas históricas ha sido la existencia de diferentes formas de esclavitud ejercidas mediante diversos actos de violencia. Y la Contemporaneidad surgida a finales del siglo XVIII y eclosionada en el siglo XIX no hace más que cimentarse sobre un nuevo sistema de esclavitud que amenaza con convertirla en un experimento claramente fallido. Los mecanismos sociales son cada vez más sutiles, políticamente correctos e inadvertidos, pero el fondo sigue intacto. Los trabajadores urbanos e industriales de las fábricas de finales del siglo XIX que contempla Tolstói ya no son esclavos "de iure" como en la Antigüedad, o vasallos feudales como en la Edad Media, pero, a través del gobierno del Estado, las exigencias de sus patronos, la propiedad privada, la presión fiscal o la socialización de los medios de producción, siguen siendo "de facto" desposeídos sometidos tristemente al sistema. Y lo peor es que estos "esclavos" contemporáneos parecen subordinarse por voluntad propia ante estos mezquinos poderes, permitiendo que los dirigentes se laven las manos de su culpa.

Tólstoi, rechazando a partes iguales el capitalismo y el marxismo más radical, escribe en este ensayo una proclama que trata de alentar la liberación social. Se acerca si acaso a un socialismo bien entendido, se aproxima a un anarquismo bienintencionado, pero sobre todo apuesta por regresar a una vida rural, conformada por pequeñas comunidades fácilmente administrables, donde las personas, con la mejor de las voluntades, renuncien a la violencia y practiquen un humanismo empático. No le falta razón a Tolstói en todo lo que dice, pero, en efecto, su detección de los problemas de la sociedad contemporánea es bastante más lúcida y acertada que las soluciones que propone, pues estas permanecen demasiado ancladas al plano de lo utópico, vago e irreal.

Quizás, simplemente debamos aceptar que, una vez hemos llegados a estadios tan evolucionados de la civilización humana, encontrar un orden en este caos, un sentido en este sinsentido, sea sencillamente imposible. Habría que demoler y empezar de cero, y aún así se cometerían de nuevo errores, pues la condición humana está repleta de abismos. De hecho, para terminar, tal vez solo podemos compadecernos del "iluso" Tolstói, que a principios del siglo XX creía que el hombre ya no podía errar más y caer más bajo. Él ya no lo vería, pero aún quedaban por delante dos guerras mundiales, el advenimiento y el fracaso del más recalcitrante comunismo en su Rusia natal y el triunfo definitivo del más feroz capitalismo mundial. Y parece que en este proceso histórico la esclavitud social, cada vez más sibilina y camuflada, sigue siendo el motor de los acontecimientos.

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is available in the public domain, in any preferred format. It is an excellent testimony in history, and sadly remains completely relevant 120+ years after its initial publication. Tolstoy, carefully, and effectively, dissects the rise of capitalism in a post-serfdom industrialist society, and explains how the labor class is extremely exploited by, and subjected to, the will of non-workers, (i.e. landowners, capitalists, the state, etc.) and how this led to a complex and unjust distribution of power, wealth, and knowledge all throughout the world, (his home country of Russia is not the only example he draws from.) He considered this the "new slavery," claiming that, regardless of the abolition of serfdom in Russia and slavery in America, one notion of slavery was merely replaced with another.

He begins with testimonies from interviews he conducted with workers, all of whom worked in impossibly inhumane conditions, (starving, fueled by vodka, living in unhealthy, claustrophobic living quarters, living to an average of 29,) all for the sake of the production of goods and the economic benefit of the non-working class. Being of an individual of vast intellect, Tolstoy views things on a systemic level by scrutinizing the roles of governments and taxes, to examining the dignity of the human soul. He powerfully expresses the nuances and dynamics between individuals who live in relative states of comfort, who accumulate goods produced at the cost of their fellow humans' pain and misery, to the labor class who tends to be at the mercy of production and capital.

Tolstoy recognizes that any system set up for profit or production inevitably harms the individual, thus harming society. It's difficult to grasp his vision of a just society, (a utopia, if you will,) but my guess would a non property-owning, agricultural society would have appealed to him, (at least as a place to start.) Everything I read in this book resonated with our lives in the here and now, particularly here in the west.

[Omar Velásquez · Rating 1 out of 5]

De todos es sabido que si se desarrolla un tema basado en premisas falsas, el resultado es desastroso. Una pena que un libro que prometía tanto, en especial cuando la editorial dice que el tema sigue "absolutamente vigente", sea tan malo.

[Keith Zuniga · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great read regarding property, laws, debt, money, government and organized violence.

A great read for any governmental or philosophically interested person. A must.

[Nisham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Never ending slavery and it's modern forms including yourself. Inevitable reality. Good points, Well thought.

[Xiti L · Rating 4 out of 5]

Finalizada la lectura "La esclavitud moderna" he conocido la tesis y la idea general de Tolstoi sobre el sistema financiero y del trabajo.
La esclavitud moderna se da cuando patronos (empleadores) dan empleos prolongados, extenuantes, mal pagados y sin descanso. Tolstoi inicia relatando las jornadas de trabajo de 36 horas continuas de los coteros del ferrocarril, a los que solo se les da unas pocas horas de descanso a la semana y un espacio pequeño para dormir, la mayor cantidad de lo que reciben de paga lo envían a los familiares que tienen en los pueblos. También, importante menciona, que su comida es a crédito y se les descuenta de su paga.
Además, señala el autor, la esclavitud moderna se da porque los mismos empleados permiten que exista. Esta es una declaración que para mí es polémica y que parece a la frase "el pobre es pobre porque quiere". De esta forma Tolstoi señala que se debe evitar hacer aquellas cosas negativas que son las posibilitan la esclavitud moderna.
También esto lo puedo relacionar con lo de evitar ir a trabajar o realizar las tareas más importantes pero peor remuneradas en todo el mundo según presentan en el libro "Trabajo de mierda" de David Graeber. En este libro hay un apartado en el que indica que si los enfermeros, los profesores, los recolectores de basura, los conductores de transporte, los cajeros y los de servicios generales deciden no ir a trabajar por un día la economía se colapsa. Eso lo hemos evidenciado cuando inició las cuarentenas por la COVID.
Cada día que salgo de un barrio exclusivo en el que trabajo de la ciudad en la que vivo e inicio mi larga travesía a casa, hacia el sur, y veo la cantidad de asistentes, vendedores informales, vigilantes, cuidadores de personas mayores o niñeros, aseadores y más pienso en que si todos decidiéramos un día no ir a ese barrio la economía de ese lugar trastabilla y nos pagan poco por todo lo que hacemos para que ese lugar funcione.
En cierta forma, esta sentencia de Tolstoi muestra el poder que tiene el proletariado y que no usa o tiene miedo de usar, entre otras cosas, si no se va a trabajar hoy probablemente no coma mañana y, probablemente, seré reemplazado fácilmente, aunque en mi experiencia, algunos trabajos de mierda (por referirme a lo de Graber) no son fácilmente ocupados.
Siguiendo con el poder del proletariado, las naciones que han adoptado la visión socialista, de compartir de cooperativas han colapsado terriblemente que solo provoca pavor llegar a esas condiciones de huelgas.
Tolstoi también reniega del socialismo, afirma que requiere de obligación para que el mundo funcione, es decir, si se hace una cooperativa en el que los trabajadores reciban las ganancias de lo que exploten implica que se debe designar quienes hacen las otras cosas para complementar a los de la cooperativa (transporte, medicamentos, alimentos, etc), es por esto que Tolstoi afirma que el socialismo también incluye la esclavitud moderna.
Que el capitalismo con su esclavitud moderna es peor que un amo cuando era legal la esclavitud, pues, -hace la siguiente analogía- si un esclavo tiene caballos para transportes sabe que no puede forzar tanto al animal porque se fatiga y puede enfermar, de ahí a que le respetara el descanso, esto lo afirma a partir de su observación de los coteros del ferrocarril.
El miedo al socialismo y el progreso de las luchas por los derechos civiles desde la década de 1960 (¡y aun falta!) ha hecho que actualmente, en la década de 2020 el neoliberalismo esté en aumento: Trump, Breixt, Millei son ejemplos del cambio de aires y de hacer creer a las nuevas generaciones de que lo "subversivo" ahora es ser conservador. A todo llaman progre y se olvidan de que la jornada laboral de 8 horas (cuando eran 36 según el relato de Tolstoi) no fue dada fácilmente, detrás hay marchas, arengas, amenazas y muertes de quienes pedían el cambio
Y es un poco decepcionante que luchas laborales como pago de horas extras, recargos nocturnos, recargos dominicales y festivos sean derogados en algunas naciones. Es echar un paso atrás.

Otra consigna extraña para mí es la supresión de los impuestos, Tolstoi habla de que un trabajador no debe pagar impuestos, debo informarme del contexto de aquel momento, actualmente, los planes de gobiernos, subsidios, pagos a pensiones, pagos a la salud y más son gracias a los pagos de impuestos, claro está que en algunos países los impuestos caen fuertemente sobre la persona natural y han ido bajando progresivamente a las personas jurídicas (Empresas) y los multimillonarios buscan 'maromas' para evitar el pago que les corresponde.
Todo está viciado y los años muestran los progresos desde que un autor ha publicado sus opiniones pero también es desconcertante ver como se hacen cambios que no han sido progresivos, como la pérdida de derechos laborales
Este es un libro que hay que leer con el contexto y solo conozco que en la Rusia previa al Octubre Rojo era la hambruna y la apatía de un Zar que al parecer no lo podía ser o no quería

[Elprimordial Sorel · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Estamos tan corrompidos por una larga tradición de esclavitud, que no podemos conseguir que los hombres se administren sin gobierno".

"Sabemos todos, pues no podemos ignorarlos, los terribles efectos de la industria moderna. Parece, pues, inadmisible que seamos tan crueles como bestias feroces, para someter a un trabajo funesto a tantas vidas humanas sin perder para siempre la paz de nuestra conciencia. Sin embargo, nosotros, que vivimos en la abundancia, que hablamos de liberalismo y de humanidad, que decimos compadecer a los otros hombres, y hasta a los animales, no pensamos sino en aumentar nuestras riquezas, es decir, en aprovechar más y más ese trabajo asesino, y no cesamos de ver transcurrir días dichosos en la más perfecta calma".

"En la actualidad, un propietario no tiene a su disposición un esclavo que acepte limpiar, sin retribución, su excusado; pero es dueño de tres rublos que hacen mucha falta a centenares de obreros, y aquel al que escoja de entre todos esos hombres, por tan exigua suma se apresurará a realizar tan innoble tarea".

"La abolición de la servidumbre y la liberación de los negros marcaron tan solo la desaparición de una antigua forma arcaica e inútil de la esclavitud y el advenimiento inmediato de una forma nueva más sólida, más general y más opresiva".

"La esclavitud de los hombres es la consecuencia de las leyes; las leyes han sido establecidas por los gobiernos. Para libertar a los hombres no hay más que un medio, la destrucción de los gobiernos".

"La sola definición precisa, indiscutible, comprensible para todos que se puede dar de las leyes, es la siguiente: las leyes son reglas establecidas por hombres que se apoyan en la violencia organizada, reglas que deben observarse bajo pena de golpes, de cárcel, e incluso de muerte".

"Los gobiernos, como las iglesias, no pueden inspirar sino piedad o disgusto. Mientras el hombre no haya comprendido lo que es un gobierno o una iglesia lo natural es que sienta hacia ellos un piadoso respeto. En la medida en que se deja guiar por ellos, debe creer, para satisfacción de su amor propio, en su grandeza y santidad. Pero desde el momento en que advierte que no hay en el gobierno ni en la iglesia nada absoluto ni sagrado, y que son simplemente invenciones de los malos para imponer al pueblo, de un modo artero, un método de vida que sea útil a sus intereses, siente enseguida una impresión de asco por los que le engañan indignamente, y su decepción es tanto más profunda cuanto que la ficción, cuya vanidad descubre, le orientaba en otro tiempo en las cuestiones más graves".

[Chris Holly · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book was excellent, Tolstoy never ceases to amaze me. He is a very forward thinker and unusual in his time to challenge things as he did. The purpose of the book is an evaluation of capitalism, it's inhuman attention to using people like gears in a machine and the violence that is inherent in property rights. He equates this with a Christian viewpoint, which is interesting but where his pamphlet seems to fall a bit short. He spent a lot of time explaining that government is evil - ok, so what's the alternative? He never says, but says that people will be upset that he didn't offer an alternative in the text. I, as the reader, am not upset but a bit perturbed. I guess that is my responsibility, to eschew violence and seek the alternatives. Back to the library for the next set of ideas. I am not always excited about wholesale rejection of government, but there is certainly a decent argument to be made for reevaluating the purpose and power of government and whether or not it is focused as it ought to be. Overall, a great read and a good reminder that not all things that seem to be long determined can be re-evaluated.

[Sfarda · Rating 5 out of 5]

“𝘖𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘪𝘵.”

A incredible first foray into anarchist and abolitionist philosophy for anyone looking to delve in but not necessarily wanting to throw themselves into the deep end of 400–page tomes. Tolstoy writes with conviction, with wisdom; without obfuscating dissenting views, but with reasoned refutation of establishmentarian, state-ocratic, neoliberal, and conservatively dogmatic arguments which may, and indeed are, posed against Tolstoy’s own abolitionist and anti-statist declarations.

Such an important sociopolitical text, and while I personally disagree with a portion of the non-violence—verging on political pacifism—argued for by Tolstoy, the short yet thorough read that is SLAVERY OF OUR TIMES opens innumerable doors towards further philosophical inquiry into denser, lengthier, more exhaustive, and politically radical (in tone of expression rather than idea, for Tolstoy is plenty radical in the latter) texts.

[Benjamin · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's odd that someone who's fiction embodies so much of life demonstrably didn't know how the economy worked. Only someone that was completely naive would think that working for a living was slavery. He didn't seem to understand that people were trading time and talent for money. They "fruits of their labor" that he claimed workers didn't keep are their wages.

He followed the logic of his argument only part way. He said, "If everyone is an owner of the means of production" (and therefore didn't *have* to work) "how would you convince someone to clean a cess pit?" Capitalism answers the question by saying that they would be compensated more. In his vision of society where there is no private property, there's no inducement to do the unpleasant necessary things so they wouldn't get done. Also, without supply and demand and distinct owners of the means of production, decisions couldn't get done since no one would be in charge.

[Sónia Santos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Este tratado histórico sobre outras formas de escravatura de uma Rússia de 1900, pode parecer desactualizado. No entanto, encontramos tantos paralelismos com novas formas de escravatura observadas ao longo dos nossos tempos modernos, que temos que reconhecer a afirmação de Tolstói: Um meio de escravização só fica anulado quando outro já o substituiu.

Dantes era vantajoso ter verdadeiros escravos - então, foram criadas leis de escravidão pessoal. Depois, tornou-se vantajoso ter terras próprias, cobrar tributos, manter a propriedade adquirida - então, a respectiva legislação foi estabelecida. Agora, é vantajoso manter a distribuição e a divisão do trabalho existentes - então, elaboram-se as leis que obrigam as pessoas a trabalhar nas condições actuais da distribuição e da divisão do trabalho. Por isso, a causa principal da escravatura não reside nas leis, mas no facto de haver pessoas que têm o privilégio de poderem estabelecê-las.

[Nektarios kouloumpos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Δεν πρόκειται για κάποιο λογοτεχνικό αριστούργημα του Λέων Τολστόι αλλά για ένα κείμενο της πολιτικής του φιλοσοφίας. Και όμως ναι, έχει πολιτική άποψη και αυτή συνοψίζεται σε έναν ιδιότυπο χριστιανοαναρχισμό. Ένα μίγμα που περιέχει την άρνησης της βίας από όπου κ αν προέρχεται και την κατάλυση του κράτους. Σε γενικές γραμμές δεν υποστηρίζει κάτι παράλογο, θεωρώ όμως ότι οι προκείμενες του περιέχουν κάποια λογικά σφάλματα. Αν δεν τα περιείχε ίσως θα μπορούσαμε να μιλήσουμε για ένα πολιτικό μέγεθος ανάλογο των μεγάλων αναρχικων στοχαστών. (Και αυτοί ωστόσο υποφέρουν από τις ίδιες λανθασμένες αποδοχές).

Παρόλα αυτά πρόκειται για ένα έργο που αξίζει να διαβαστεί από όλους, καθώς τα προβλήματα που αναπτύσονται σε αυτό απασχολούν και την σημερινή κοινωνία.

Καλή ανάγνωση σε όλους!

[Derek Kreider · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was very concise and jam packed. I loved chapters 11-14 in particular, where Tolstoy argues against government and shows how legislation produces slavery. I also thought his brick wall analogy was great. If you remove the brick of government from the wall and everything crumbles, maybe that’s a bad setup to have.

Finally, I thought the analogy of the Crimeans releasing prisoners from chains after they cut open their feet and put bristles in them was great. Sure, you’re “free,” but you were only freed because you’ve been bound in another way. Tolstoy is one of the few true anarchists who gets that alternative methods - like communism and forced labor - have the same problems as current systems of capitalism and democracy.

[Liz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tolstoy in his best utopic mood. If you want a good time, listen to this as an audiobook at 2x speed and take a shot every time you hear "means of production."

On a more serious note, this book is one of those few that make you really think about government: formation, revolution, and its relationship to slavery. In particular, he talks about how slavery is never really abolished, but rather it's transferred. Chattel slavery is transferred to sharecropping, but done in such a way that only one is seen as abhorrent at any time. That's a really insightful way to think about the evolution of the human condition and how we desire to see ourselves prosper while others suffer.