not stupid, but living in ignorance. by and large because of capitalism, yes.
we are born not knowing what ignorance is because we are not born with the knowledge of what is ignorance and its opposite, for we are also not born with the innate ability to communicate with language.
those born before us have the power to decide and influence what we will and will not be taught, for they have knowledge and we do not. more importantly, they have knowledge we do not yet have. this is what enables an ideological justification for submitting workers to class society and making them self-justify it, nothing else.
indeed. nobody is contesting this.
which is not fundamentally relevant to the process of justifiying exploitation. those who accept it on ideological grounds and not primarily coercive grounds are by definition the ones capable of abstract reasoning. that is to say the overwhelming majority of what ultimately become workers.
it doesn't, because we have previously concluded (if we follow a materialist line of thought AKA A must precede B) that any and all developments stemming from understanding come from the passing on of information. positing this as your elaboration of what "human nature" supposedly encompasses would shatter the fact that a working class person can in practice become a capitalist in a same life time. this is indicative of a development in material posessions and intellect within that worker which are required to do more with their wages than serve their supposedly preassigned "naturally human" role as wage slaves to the "naturally human" counter-part that exploits them.
at least we're getting somewhere in your mess of a train of thought now. easy does it, i suppose.
except in historical records of tribal societies we saw the same development of an abuse of contemporary human ignorance that determined who got which position, using the supposed existence of primitive deities and spirits as the base of ideological schemes. your romanticization of tribal society as one divided between alphas and betas, strong and weak, wise and unwise, etc. is inherently rooted in an idealist train of thought that logically ends up positing B before A or erecting B out of nothing, for it categorically avoids a materialist analysis.
you are here not contrasting slavery and a supposed "non-slavery" that is somehow not slavery because it has more developed means of production. you are here simply seeing higher efficiency in the more technologically developed slavery. you can force a man at gunpoint to work in either a mine or behind a computer. both are forms of slave labor which create value.
you just said it yourself; both are exploitation of labor, but one is less exploitative and rewards the exploited with a commodity instead of just the means to subsist.
there is none here. you could force a man by gunpoint to work behind a computer or solve scientific problems, just like you could force a man by gunpoint to extract raw minerals or assemble products in a factory, both for the sake of profit. forcing them as much as humanly possible at gunpoint would net you more of the value of their labor than merely making them work 40 hour work weeks and giving them a wage minus surplus value for it in return. this is what we are contending here; the form of labor is irrelevant towards determining this as all forms of labor can be forced to be done in slave-like conditions.
you're replying to my post without understand what i was talking about. attempt to do some reading comprehension before going on a tirade against something i didn't claim or say.