''Wage slavery isn't slavery''

[Dr Mindbender]

:lol:

Wonder if this guys ever worked a day in his life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJqd2XudwTw&NR=1

[Dejavu]

Wage Slavery is not a 'religion' nor is it dogmatic. People who speak of wage slavery do not relate it to chattel slavery so Austrolibertarian might be confused as to what wage slavery actually means. That's not surprising since mr1001nights is one of those vulgar socialist dickheads but AL is also quickly devolving into a vulgar ancap/libertarian dickhead as well. Somehow, I guess vulgar dickheads attract. :P

AL erroneously conflates capitalism with free enterprise not understanding that free enterprise is impossible in capitalism. He seems to correctly point out that we are slaves to the government but does not reserve the same criticism for capitalism and corporatism.

1. Self-sufficiency. He poses this as some kind of 'free option' we have in the current system. This is vulgar and completely untrue. Capitalist enterprises and government combine set up barriers to entry , special subsidies , and generally oppose free enterprise competition thus hording workers into choosing between capitalist masters. Sure, you're 'free' to chose who you want to work for but the equality of this decision as pertains self-starting enterprise is not the same. Wage slavery is not debunked by choosing who you work for , it is validated when individuals do not have a reasonable option , or equal to choice for employment to someone else, to have an alternative than working for wages. AL misses this point and reality completely.

2. Entrepreneurship is discouraged by capitalism. Nuff' said. Capitalism requires a monopolistic force on law i.e. guvment. In true market anarchy , capitalism doesn't exist.

3. Anyone else notice the southern twangy accent? LOL. No offense to those from the South here. :D

4. A just theory of wages is not the same as wage slavery. AL vulgarly conflates the terms himself, no better than mr1001nights. I sent him reading material from mutualist perspective.


Wages versus Wage Slavery

One of the ongoing roadblocks to left and libertarian reconciliation, one which deserves more of our attention, is the matter of conflation of context with causality, an intellectual error committed by most on both sides.
Leftists typically blame markets for state-caused injustice that takes place in markets.
Free-market libertarians often apply a shallow analysis that causes them to defend state-caused injustice merely because its visible manifestation is in the marketplace.
Both fail to recognize that the market is the context, the cause is the state.
Let’s look at the topic of wage slavery, for example.
Every marginalized worker viscerally knows wage slavery to be a very real phenomenon — yet libertarians typically bury their heads in the sand (http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/delaubenfels/delaubenfels1.html) and leftists typically fundamentally misunderstand the problem.
Most libertarians deny the existence of wage slavery, seeing only the voluntaristic nature of the concept of wages in principle rather than the real world of state-tainted injustice in practice.
Most radical leftists attack the voluntaristic nature of the concept of wages, assuming there is something inherently evil about wages for reasons that are mirror images of the intellectual errors commonly committed by libertarians.
They’re both right and both wrong.
A deeper libertarian analysis, a left libertarian analysis, points to the role of the state in artificially concentrating capital in the hands of state-allied big business — giving statist plutocrats far more bargaining power in the labor market than is their natural due. Injustice happens to play out in the marketplace, but the cause is the state.
I urge, and challenge, free-market libertarians to show their solidarity with labor by supporting radical unions such as the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) (http://www.iww.org/), rather than establishment unions (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1583670033/praxeologynet-20) in league with big business and the state. Click here to join the IWW (http://www.iww.org/en/join).

[GracchusBabeuf]

i_d8v5P_5KM

[Dejavu]

Seriously, mr1001bolsheviks is a very poor representative of the anarcho-communist and anarcho-collectivist position. I consider this guy just a vulgar as Austrolibertarian or perhaps , even more so.

This is the same bolshevik that engages in statist apolegetics , sounds like a social democrat over half the time, and believes a real anarchist society ought to be based on unchosen positive obligations. For me , he is a big FAIL.

If you want a much more knowledgable anarcho-collectivist on youtube I recommend laughingman0X.

http://www.youtube.com/user/LaughingMan0X

This kid knows his stuff. Cheers!

[Dejavu]

GeneCosta also posted some enlightening vids on youtube. (http://www.youtube.com/user/theBTMANIACGMC)

Isn't he handsome? :lol:

[GracchusBabeuf]

Name calling does not validate your position. You take a completely ahistorical approach to anarchism.

[Dejavu]

Umm, anarchism , by and large is a theory on how society should work.

We have some imperfect examples of anarchism such as the Catalonia, primitive communes, Celtic Ireland , pre-Christian medieval Iceland but these examples are extremely limited.

The vast majority of human history has been under some ruling class and thus it is very difficult to extract specifically anarchist examples that themselves are not tainted with symptoms of statism.

My arguments for anarchism are not historical or empirical. They are rational, theoretical, normative, and ethical.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Umm, anarchism , by and large is a theory on how society should work. why do you take this to mean anarchists should oppose the welfare state? No social anarchist AFAIK opposes the welfare state on anarchist principles. Your false and selective interpretation of anarchism leads you to oppose the things that enable certain classes of human beings to survive in a capitalist society and you would rather have them sacrificed or let to "magic of markets" to take care of them in the name of an abstract ideal of an anarchist society. "Vulgar dickheads" who seem to live on some other planet or another age, oppose things like economic regulation and welfare for the poor and underprivileged.

[Dejavu]

why do you take this to mean anarchists should oppose the welfare state? No social anarchist AFAIK opposes the welfare state on anarchist principles. Your false and selective interpretation of anarchism leads you to oppose the things that enable certain classes of human beings to survive in a capitalist society and you would rather have them sacrificed or let to "magic of markets" to take care of them in the name of an abstract ideal of an anarchist society. "Vulgar dickheads" who seem to live on some other planet or another age, oppose things like economic regulation and welfare for the poor and underprivileged.

Anarchists should be opposed to the welfare state in principle, certainly. That doesn't mean you oppose mutual aid or non-statist welfare. Just like they should be opposed to corporatism by the same principles. One can look at it practically and say perhaps regulation A is necessary to curb corporatism or subsidy B for a corporation is necessary to keep goods moving around but no anarchist can ever make a principled argument on these grounds.

When you make arguments against state-capitalism using state-socialist or social democratic arguments then its sort of hypocritical and begins to look vulgar. Why can't you make an argument purely on anarchist grounds? Its the same thing if one uses capitalism to make an argument against state socialism but claims to stand on anarchist principles. Such behavior is vulgar and only looks slavish to the system.

[Dejavu]

Jazzratt , I am actually surprised you underlined that.

[STJ]

I dont think so.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Anarchism promotes working class interests. If you think this man should not be helped by the state,
http://www.losingtouch.co.uk/gallery/d/18126-2/Homeless_guy.jpg
you are not an anarchist, but a stupid middle class wanker out of touch with reality. All your statements are against working class interests and pro-ruling class interests. You disgust me.

Such behavior is vulgar and only looks slavish to the system.No. Aiding the poor in all ways possible is not slavish.

[Dejavu]

Anarchism promotes working class interests. If you think this man should not be helped by the state,
http://www.losingtouch.co.uk/gallery/d/18126-2/Homeless_guy.jpg
you are not an anarchist, but a stupid middle class wanker out of touch with reality. All your statements are against working class interests and pro-ruling class interests. You disgust me.
No. Aiding the poor in all ways possible is not slavish.


Whatever, dickhead. Clearly you have difficulty reading what people actually say and resort to caricatured straw men to attack them. My suspicions about you being just like IA were warranted.

Now lets kindly disengage from further conversation.

[Dejavu]

Who would take an Abolitionist seriously if he argued on behalf of more benevolent slave masters? Who in their right mind would really consider this in the 'best interest' of the 'slave class?'

[GracchusBabeuf]

Now lets kindly disengage from further conversation.Thats all you've ever done. When your crass elitism and ignorance have been exposed, you just run away from the conversation.:lol:


Who would take an Abolitionist seriously if he argued on behalf of more benevolent slave masters? :laugh: Clearly you are not an abolitionist yourself since you believe wage labor can be non-exploitative. By your method, communists should not use computers and internet produced by capitalists. when capitalist things can be used for good, like helping poor people, only idiots wouldn't use them. the revolution cannot be made in outer space. It has to take place on earth.

[Dejavu]

Thats all you've ever done. When your crass elitism and ignorance have been exposed, you just run away from the conversation.:lol:

:laugh: Clearly you are not an abolitionist yourself since you believe wage labor can be non-exploitative. By your method, communists should not use computers and internet produced by capitalists. when capitalist things can be used for good, like helping poor people, only idiots wouldn't use them. the revolution cannot be made in outer space. It has to take place on earth.


No. I'm sick of being straw manned by social democrats parading around as 'anarchists.'

[GracchusBabeuf]

Social democrats are not the same as Bolsheviks. Make up your mind as to which swear word to use in the future against social anarchists.

[Dejavu]

Clearly you are not an abolitionist yourself since you believe wage labor can be non-exploitativeI hold that a laborer should be able trade for his produce whichever way he sees fit so long as he is not restricted to one method of production like in the capitalist system.

If a laborer has reasonable alternatives and still decides to work for or with someone else for whatever value he deems fit, are you going to ride up on your high horse and somehow forbid him from doing so? If you did that to me I'd tell you to F off.

Yeah, you're really for labor rights so long as it fits your personal idealism.

[Dejavu]

Social democrats are not the same as Bolsheviks. Make up your mind as to which swear word to use in the future against social anarchists.

The social anarchists I know would be hard pressed to defend any form of statism . You know, that's what makes them anarchists.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Abolitionists would encourage better conditions for slaves as a temporary measure. Thats what social anarchists propose by way of welfare state and the like. That doesn't make us statists.

If a laborer has reasonable alternatives and still decides to work for or with someone else for whatever value he deems fit,Why the would I oppose the laborer? That is just another of your many strawmen. Like I have mentioned before, mutualist systems can exist alongside anarchist communes in a future society. In the current capitalist society, I support temporary measures to help poor black people. That is not statist in any way. Opposing such measures to help poor people while upholding state bailouts of corporations, wars etc have been a traditional argument of conservatives and right-libertarians. You really can't claim the title of "left"-libertarians by opposing welfare state measures exactly for the same reason as the conservative right-wingers.
http://www.norelpref.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/no-exit-libertarianism-anarchy-for-rich-people.gif

[Dejavu]

Abolitionists would encourage better conditions for slaves as a temporary measure. Thats what social anarchists propose by way of welfare state and the like. That doesn't make us statists.Yet they would never justify in principle the 'legitimate' claims of the slave masters , even the benevolent ones.

You don't have to be pro welfare state in order to be pro welfare. The argument by the welfare state is that we ought to have a society based on unchosen postive obligation to meet some ideal. People like mr1001bolsheviks extrapolate this statist principle and try to fit it comfortably into his proposed version of an anarchist society.


In the current capitalist society, I support temporary measures to help poor black people. Yes , I do to and I am extremely annoyed when people propose the same old ideas that have proven not to really help but rather ended up costing society as a whole more. Of course , one problem with state welfare is that it obscures the true costs of poverty thereby inhibiting people's common senses on how to best allocate surplus resources in helping out their society. Rather, it is just drenched in sloganisms. I would not help a poor black person on the virtue he is black, in fact , I consider it demeaning to even insert the word 'black' in the description of a hypothetical poor person. I would help the person because he is poor and probably needs some necessities that are difficult for him to obtain.




Opposing such measures to help poor people while upholding state bailouts of corporations, wars etc have been a traditional argument of conservatives and right-libertarians.Indeed, I completely agree with you here. Welfare state for the corporations is still a form of state welfare ( i.e. forced externalization of costs on others). The right-wing is completely contradictory here.

And yes , If there is no preventing state welfare in general I'd rather see it for the people that need it rather than corporate bailouts and fat bonuses. That does not , however, mean that I even remotely support the welfare state or corporate state in principle and will always make that point known.


You really can't claim the title of "left"-libertarians by opposing welfare state measures exactly for the same reason as the conservative right-wingers.Yes , left-libertarians unless you consider Tucker , Proudhon, and mutalist leaning anarchists and libertarians right wing.
Right-wing conservatives don't oppose the welfare state on principle , obviously since they favor welfare for corperations and prefer a top-down trickle effect in terms of social benefits. The same is true for almost all of the right-libertarians ,though, slightly modified.

Left-libertarians like me might acknowledge a preference for poor people to get something from the welfare state over corporations but that strictly in the context of the current system. But never in my right mind would I ever support it in principle since it doesn't logically follow that I can be an anarchist opposed to unjust hiearchies if I take a principled premise in support of the welfare state.

[Dejavu]

http://www.norelpref.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/no-exit-libertarianism-anarchy-for-rich-people.gif

So wait , this is silly caricature of an anarchism false dichotomy. It implies a real anarchist can only be a punk? :laugh:

I do think the sleaze ball business man is funny but seriously now. I have never been into punk culture or experienced teenage angst to this extent. Does that some how disqualify one's anarchist credentials if they never went through this 'phase?'

[GracchusBabeuf]

Yet they would never justify in principle the 'legitimate' claims of the slave masters , even the benevolent ones. Strawman alert! Who is justifying wage labor? Me or you?:rolleyes:


People like mr1001bolsheviks extrapolate this statist principle and try to fit it comfortably into his proposed version of an anarchist society. I have watched all his videos and he makes it clear that supporting the welfare state is a necessity of capitalism. Please link a video where he " fits it comfortably into his proposed version of an anarchist society". As long as poverty exists, all measures need to be taken even if they are supposedly not in accordance with an ideal system of the future. Perhaps your points can be valid once poverty has been eradicated by some means!


in fact , I consider it demeaning to even insert the word 'black' in the description of a hypothetical poor person. I would help the person because he is poor and probably needs some necessities that are difficult for him to obtain. That would be ignoring the fact that 25% of African Americans are poor. It is that community that benefits the most because of welfare measures. Also, you cannot ignore the conditions that cause people in a capitalist system to be poor. Racism is very much institutionalized in the capitalist system.


And yes , If there is no preventing state welfare in general I'd rather see it for the people that need it rather than corporate bailouts and fat bonuses. That does not , however, mean that I even remotely support the welfare state or corporate state in principle and will always make that point known.In principle, the state was created for protecting the rich against the poor. When it comes to welfare however, the state can be made far more democratic and pro-poor than private individuals or corporations. Thats the basic reason why social anarchists support state measures to alleviate poverty in the current system rather than relying on "private" help of the capitalist class. Also the rich people and corporations cannot be held accountable by the community. However a government has that possibility.


Yes , left-libertarians unless you consider Tucker , Proudhon, and mutalist leaning anarchists and libertarians right wing. There was no welfare state in those times. Also, Proudhon and Tucker were writing in times when "individual rights" meant only the rights of white males. There are racist elements in Proudhon's writings too! Things have changed in the world since then. Even though Proudhon's and Tucker's method is still valid, you can't use their conclusions in today's circumstances: the conclusions have to change with the changing times.

[IcarusAngel]

Of course it makes sense from an anarchist perspective to acknowledge that some statist systems are worse than others. For example, I would consider a society based on chattel slavery to be particularly brutal.

And by the way, how did abolitionists even come to change the system? They brought it about by REFORMS and progressive thinking. I'm not saying "reforms" are the way to go, but everywhere slavery eventually was abolished was done through the system, including in the US, as the Civil War was about preventing southerners from breaking off from the US just to allow their "slavery."

A faily liberal system is obviously better than slavery, in much the same way that a utilitarian state, a liberal state that opposes slavery, etc., would all be closer to anarchism and better than the current corporatist slavery hellhole which requires massive government. I don't see corporate regulation as more government - corporatism in the first place is one of the worst forms of statism approximating fascism.

Remember, fascism cannot exist just because there is no "state," there has to be an "order" in much the way early anarchists talked about - but this is not the "Libertarian social order" that is about corporatism and slavery, that is far away from anarchism.

Also, Rand, Mises, etc. weren't liberals - they were conservatives who wanted to return to traditional. Liberals wanted to move forward, not backwards.

[Bud Struggle]

GeneCosta also posted some enlightening vids on youtube. (http://www.youtube.com/user/theBTMANIACGMC)

Isn't he handsome? :lol:

Is that really Gene? I always pictured him as bald. :rolleyes:

[Jack]

I've been in an arguement with Austrolibertarian, he just kept saying "how can you expect to support the world without capitalism, insisting that non capitalist societies would degenerate into primitivism.

[GracchusBabeuf]

"how can you expect to support the world without capitalism, insisting that non capitalist societies would degenerate into primitivism.How can highly industrialized and developed classless societies degenerate into primitivism? He is assuming that if there are no bosses around, people would go mad and things would go back to the stone age. Thats based on assumptions about human nature, I believe.

[Dean]

1. Self-sufficiency. He poses this as some kind of 'free option' we have in the current system. This is vulgar and completely untrue. Capitalist enterprises and government combine set up barriers to entry , special subsidies , and generally oppose free enterprise competition thus hording workers into choosing between capitalist masters. Sure, you're 'free' to chose who you want to work for but the equality of this decision as pertains self-starting enterprise is not the same. Wage slavery is not debunked by choosing who you work for , it is validated when individuals do not have a reasonable option , or equal to choice for employment to someone else, to have an alternative than working for wages. AL misses this point and reality completely.

If you accept that self-sufficiency is a farce, how can you oppose state welfare? I can understand opposition on the grounds that it makes a class of proletarian subservient to the state. However, unless your ideology is purely abstract, your critique of his "self-sufficiency" equally refers to your opposition to the welfare state.

[Dejavu]

If you accept that self-sufficiency is a farce, how can you oppose state welfare? I can understand opposition on the grounds that it makes a class of proletarian subservient to the state. However, unless your ideology is purely abstract, your critique of his "self-sufficiency" equally refers to your opposition to the welfare state.

I don't oppose people getting help when they absolutely need it. I oppose the welfare state in principle for the reasons mentioned above.

[trivas7]

If you want a much more knowledgable anarcho-collectivist on youtube I recommend laughingman0X.

http://www.youtube.com/user/LaughingMan0X

This kid knows his stuff. Cheers!
My vote for knowledgable mutualist/agorist rep on YouTube is Xomniverse.

http://www.youtube.com/user/XOmniverse

[Dejavu]

My vote for knowledgable mutualist/agorist rep on YouTube is Xomniverse.

http://www.youtube.com/user/XOmniverse


Yeah, he's good but a bit bland.

[Jack]

My vote for knowledgable mutualist/agorist rep on YouTube is Xomniverse.

http://www.youtube.com/user/XOmniverse

BAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAHAHA!!!

Seriously? The weird fat guy with an Ayn Rand fetish?

[Havet]

I've already said this in "private roads thread", but since no one paid any attention to my arguments, i thought i'd share them here now


You REALLY need to learn the concept of wage slavery. Job is not an agreement. It is slavery, for one has to get a job from capitalist. If not, you die (out of hunger, disease etc...) Therefore the workers agreed to nothing, and the employers are really just exploiters"

a job is an agreement, especially in more poorer countries. What do you think has made the people stopping living of the countryside and started coming to the cities? Because by the same hard work (and trust me, it IS hard work) they did in the fields they could get better benefits in the cities doing something else. And you don't need to get a job from a capitalist to earn a wage. You can self employ yourself. You can sell whatever you can produce on your own with whatever tools you can buy to whoever is willing to buy.

but let me adress this from another perspective. "It is slavery, for one has to get a job from capitalist. If not, you die "

by that same logic, if i were an employer, i am enslaved by the workers i hire, because if they don't produce, I die too. Capitalists are as "enslaved" by the workers as the workers are by the capitalists.

Human beings must always engage in production in order to consume and survive. Thus, by your theory, man would be enslaved to nature itself. If man is always enslaved in some form or another, according to this view, the concept of slavery is of little use in order to draw distinctions between what is a coercive interpersonal relationship and what is not, thereby defeating the analytical purpose of wage slavery theory.

On free-market capitalists being parasites:

This means that if you hire labour but do not work yourself, you eat, but dont produce. You would be quite literally a parasite, and in communist terminology: a capitalist. Do notice that I dont mean YOU, but I just use the "you-passive" in order to demonstrate.

Money does not come out of thin air. It had to be produced. Imagine i were to start as a capitalist. How would I go? I decided to take some old cardboard in the trash can and use my engineering skills to make a chair out of it. then in the street, i put it for sale, and i discover, that people are willing to pay me more than it cost me to produce the chair (in this case it cost me nothing because it was regarded as trash. But in other businesses, the cost of making something is usually very low, but people are willing to pay more for it. And if they are not, then that "forces" me to lower my price and profit margin if i want to sell at all). Same with other assets, foods, products, you name it. That is how capitalists make their money. Then, I would wonder: this has real potential here, people really seem to like this recycled chair I invented. But, i cannot make more than 3 chairs a day. If i could find someone to help me then i could make more money. Thus they employ. Desperate people may be willing to accept low wages, but there comes a time when it might be better for them to go to another job because it pays them better. I could then try and find, hopelessly, someone who would accept my poor conditions or be "forced" to raise my wages in order to keep the best to myself.

On comparison between rape and wage slavery:
It's own logic is self-defeating, but I can prove it how we are slaves to a much bigger "capitalist", one that holds every resource.

Suppose you are born in an empty world with no one but yourself and your parents. Now imagine you were born with physical capabilities and your parents died and you have to supply for yourself. Nature physically forces you to die. This is the typically conceived vision of natural death by starvation aka slavery to nature. However, it is not the only one.

Suppose you are in an empty world with no one but yourself. Nature is thus making it obvious that if you do not provide sustenance for yourself you will die. You could choose to die instead. However, this is not a reasonable alternative. There is no consent because any decision you make is made under duress; thus, this is still slavery

Next, suppose you have found another person and she is starving. Nature makes it clear you have a choice. Either you can feed the other person and starve yourself, or you feed yourself and let the other starve. Again, the choice is not a reasonable choice; it is one in which the only alternative to starve is to let other starve. Thus, there is no consent; this is still slavery.

Now suppose you fall in a a big natural hole and are hurt in your hands while you fell. Nature clearly states there are two alternatives: either you climb it up and feel excruciating pain or be there and starve yourself. The alternative is not a reasonable one; there is no consent; this is still slavery.

Finally, suppose that you, like today, have multiple choices of supplying for yourself. However they are very hard to do and the rewards are fairly diminished. You are given a choice a choice; either you can choose a way to supply for yourself (you choose which one) or you can starve to death. The fact that you is allowed to choose your way of sustenance clearly does not amount to consent; it is merely a choice between a number of situations that are all still fundamentally involuntary. Since there is no consent, this is still slavery.

To bring this to our reality is very simple. You have two choices: to live or to starve. Currently, to live, the efforts you need to make are much lesser than 100 000 years ago when humans first appeared. You either get a job if you are in the city, or if you were born in the countryside you work your land and receive what you can grow of it. The fact that you can choose which process by which to feed yourself doesn't change the fact that you are enslaved into doing something you might hate if you wish to live. Living entities are all enslaved to the fact that if they do not follow a specific course of action they die. How does this apply in reality? You can choose the way you like the most to supply for yourself, or the way that takes the least effort of you to supply for yourself.

Nothing is going to change the fact we are going to die if we don't eat. Capitalists are also included in the category of humans. They need the workers to provide for themselves as well. The fact that they have asked other people to help them who are economically poorer doesn't change that fact. Capitalists started as workers too, or as people with nothing (except in the cases they have inherited their wealth). They accumulated enough money through their effort to start their own business and being in the position to ask others to help them in the business.

Capitalists are workers who have enough money to ask other people to work for them. They are not magically special for this. If a person started a business side by side with his friend and paid him in equal terms or more to him and less to his friend, he would still be a worker, but since he came up with the idea, and his friend agreed, then he is the one who gets the return on his money and then distributes it to his friend.

to claim only workers create things is not very accurate. Unless you consider scientists, architects and engineers, all the people that thought of the things to build in the first place, and did not take any active part in actually making those things.

On unemployment:

There are many causes. The one that is hurting the most is the minimum wage.

The minimum wage law is as clear a case as you could want. The special interests are, of course, the trade unions, the monopolistic craft trade unions in particular. The do-gooders believe that by passing a law saying that nobody shall get less than $2 an hour or $2.50 an hour, or whatever the minimum wage is, you are helping poor people who need the money. You are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is to assure that people whose skills are not sufficient to justify that kind of a wage will be unemployed. It is no accident that the teenage unemployment rate -- the unemployment rate among teenagers in the USA (and overall all over the world) -- is over twice as high as the overall unemployment rate. It's no accident that that was not always the case until the 1950's when the minimum wage rate was raised very drastically, very quickly. Teenage unemployment was higher than ordinary unemployment because, of course, teenagers are the ones who are just coming into the labor market -- they're searching and finding jobs, and it's understandable that on the average they would be unemployed more. But never with a difference as high as the currently observed.

The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. It's real purpose is to reduce competition for the trade unions and make it easier for them to maintain wages of their privileged members higher than the others.

We all know that if the government raised the minimum wage by $20 an hour, many employees would be laid off. Businesses are not charities; they hire workers only when the workers create more revenue for the business than they cost in wages and compensation.

To your other point, I should first clarify working for yourself doesn't necessarily mean starting a business. There are still many people that in rural parts of their countries live of the earth or of simple businesses they created solely to supply for themselves and to not make profit.

However, most people that work for themselves are normal people who found out about a high demand for a product or service and decided to take a chance and provide it. There are many like that, who created their small companies and still keep them relatively small. Although not as many as preferable, due to regulation caused by monopoly favors or other factors, minimum wage laws, or an insane barrier to entry due to the complete state ownership of the given service or product and its production.

[mikelepore]

Human beings must always engage in production in order to consume and survive. Thus, by your theory, man would be enslaved to nature itself. If man is always enslaved in some form or another, according to this view, the concept of slavery is of little use in order to draw distinctions between what is a coercive interpersonal relationship and what is not, thereby defeating the analytical purpose of wage slavery theory.

You're right about the aspect of being enslaved to nature. This was the pressure for a two-legged animal to evolve into a tool making animal with a larger brain. The modern machinery has the potential to be the emancipator. But the invention of the machinery isn't enough. Now the machinery has to be applied according to a consciously adopted plan that will be consistent with that purpose of being the emancipator. If not, the machinery will merely modify the form of the slavery.

As De Leon wrote: "Toolless man being the slave of nature, it follows that, the tool having come into existence, the toolless individual becomes the slave of the tool-holding individual. That is capitalist society."

More about this concept: http://deleonism.org/tool.htm

[couch13]

This dude is a complete idiot. He assumes everyone has a plot of land that they can support themselves from.

[Havet]

You're right about the aspect of being enslaved to nature. This was the pressure for a two-legged animal to evolve into a tool making animal with a larger brain. The modern machinery has the potential to be the emancipator. But the invention of the machinery isn't enough. Now the machinery has to be applied according to a consciously adopted plan that will be consistent with that purpose of being the emancipator. If not, the machinery will merely modify the form of the slavery.

As De Leon wrote: "Toolless man being the slave of nature, it follows that, the tool having come into existence, the toolless individual becomes the slave of the tool-holding individual. That is capitalist society."

More about this concept: http://deleonism.org/tool.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://deleonism.org/tool.htm)

I would argue that someone created the tool which allowed for a better life for the person who had it. Therefore there are now 2 options: "slavery" to nature or "slavery" to toolholding individual. I do not think the person who has the tool owes anything to the person who hasn't one. It would be of course better for everyone to have tools, but if in order to achieve that one has to steal from others and disrespect their liberty, then the toolholders become the slaves, and the "friends of humanity" the slave owners.



This dude is a complete idiot. He assumes everyone has a plot of land that they can support themselves from.

I might've assumed it, but i stand corrected that its an incorrect assumption. However spilling ad hominem at me won't help me realize of the problem in a more intelligent way.

Anyway, most people don't start up with a plot of land. I was merely stating that those who did had decided, amidst the industrial revolution, that they can get better results from the work they did than if they stayed in their plot of land.

But the importance of this point is just to state one of the alternatives to refuse to deal with an employer. Since Earth is no longer a wide and empty space, the possibility of hunting, being a nomad and using resources until they disappear is not a viable option to support oneself. The only virtuous way of supporting onself now is by trading value for value (unless one already has its own plot of land and can survive without contacting anyone).

[couch13]

I might've assumed it, but i stand corrected that its an incorrect assumption. However spilling ad hominem at me won't help me realize of the problem in a more intelligent way.

Anyway, most people don't start up with a plot of land. I was merely stating that those who did had decided, amidst the industrial revolution, that they can get better results from the work they did than if they stayed in their plot of land.

Those people who owned enough land, are the ones who started building factories and the like. They had the land to create these things and then they made money off of other peoples labor.


But the importance of this point is just to state one of the alternatives to refuse to deal with an employer. Since Earth is no longer a wide and empty space, the possibility of hunting, being a nomad and using resources until they disappear is not a viable option to support oneself. The only virtuous way of supporting onself now is by trading value for value (unless one already has its own plot of land and can survive without contacting anyone).

Here is where your argument falls apart. The equation is not Total Labor=Wage. The equation is Total Labor=Wage+Profit. Take this example, lets pretend I work on the Longshore unloading freighters. Now to earn my wage I need to unload X items. Now I'm scheduled to work an eight hour day, but it only takes me six hours to move X items. But I'm still required to work those other two hours.

To be clear, X is the equivalent of my wages. Now I've moved X+Y items, but I'm only paid for X items. Therefore, the Y items I've moved, I'm not getting paid for, this excess is profit. That profit came from unpaid labor, I just worked two hours for free.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always understood slavery to be an unpaid form of labor.

[Havet]

Those people who owned enough land, are the ones who started building factories and the like. They had the land to create these things and then they made money off of other peoples labor.

when i mentioned the people who owned the land, i was actually referring to the "exodus", when people left the countryside for the life in the cities. I suspect that for someone to build a factory either they got a big enough land or had to buy some other people's land.


Here is where your argument falls apart. The equation is not Total Labor=Wage. The equation is Total Labor=Wage+Profit. Take this example, lets pretend I work on the Longshore unloading freighters. Now to earn my wage I need to unload X items. Now I'm scheduled to work an eight hour day, but it only takes me six hours to move X items. But I'm still required to work those other two hours.

To be clear, X is the equivalent of my wages. Now I've moved X+Y items, but I'm only paid for X items. Therefore, the Y items I've moved, I'm not getting paid for, this excess is profit. That profit came from unpaid labor, I just worked two hours for free.

I believe you might be confusing two different things. One is the model under which you are paid for, and the other is the benefits the employer gets from hiring you.

In that case, the model under which you are being paid for is highly inefficient, because not only are you wasting time that could be more valuable either for the company or yourself, but you have an incentive to work as slow and inneficiently as you wish (from those 8 hours) to finish that job. Assuming that the company is a decent one, and that they value time as money, then neither of you are getting a benefit from the way you contracted to do that work, because either you would work the time it took you to finish the job and then go home earlier or that extra time could be used by the company to tell you to do an extra job and pay you extra for it.

As for the benefits the employer gets from hiring you, there are two vital things in a job contract: what you gain from working there and what the company gains by having you there.

You are only going there because the company will pay you for that job, and the company only wants you because (lets assume) the job is a skilled job and they want people who can do their job well and fast (lets ignore that surplus of time you are left with for this).

I can saffely assume you wouldnt go to that job if you thought your work was severely underpayed for the kind of things you were doing AND you had other choices for jobs. On the other side, the company wouldn't hire you if the value of the work you would perform was equal or inferior to the return they could get from it (by selling the product, service, etc).

This is why I think education on specialized skills is highly valuable, because of the scarcity of people with that skill and thus the greater return in the kind of wage you could get.

Actually, it is better to understand this if you try and put yourself in the mind of an employer. Why would they pay the same in wages to what the person produced if:
a)the person already agreed to work on less
b)they couldn't make any profit from it thus defeating the point of the company, which is to acumulate profit so they can better their lives (not necessarily at the expense of others).


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always understood slavery to be an unpaid form of labor.

I always understood slavery to be forced labor, which means "slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages)."

But yeah, slavery could also be (very very generally) defined as an unpaid form of labor, although a badly paid form of labor is not the same as completely unpaid for of labor even though they both are generally considered bad in the view of the worker.

[Nwoye]

i'm just asking here: where is the distinction drawn between wage slavery and a mutually beneficial contract between two parties?

[Havet]

i'm just asking here: where is the distinction drawn between wage slavery and a mutually beneficial contract between two parties?

ive been trying to understand that concept of wage slavery here ever since i registered and it seems to me its not entirely based on accurate facts and assumptions, especially because human beings must always engage in production in order to consume and survive. Therefore, man would be enslaved to nature itself. If man is always enslaved in some form or another, according to this view, the concept of slavery is of little use in order to draw distinctions between what is a coercive interpersonal relationship and what is not, thereby defeating the analytical purpose of wage slavery theory.

However, wage slavery theory has some interesting parts, like pointing out the inefficiency of the hierarchical organization of most companies and businesses.

by the way, i could tell by your avatar that you like aphex twin. Good choice of music :)

[Nwoye]

ive been trying to understand that concept of wage slavery here ever since i registered and it seems to me its not entirely based on accurate facts and assumptions, especially because human beings must always engage in production in order to consume and survive. Therefore, man would be enslaved to nature itself. If man is always enslaved in some form or another, according to this view, the concept of slavery is of little use in order to draw distinctions between what is a coercive interpersonal relationship and what is not, thereby defeating the analytical purpose of wage slavery theory.
well it's not that i don't appreciate or accept the existence of labor exploitation, i have just yet to see a distinction made between a legitimate contract between a laborer and a capital owner and wage slavery.


by the way, i could tell by your avatar that you like aphex twin. Good choice of music :)
hey thanks. i really like the logo too.

[couch13]

I believe you might be confusing two different things. One is the model under which you are paid for, and the other is the benefits the employer gets from hiring you.

In that case, the model under which you are being paid for is highly inefficient, because not only are you wasting time that could be more valuable either for the company or yourself, but you have an incentive to work as slow and inneficiently as you wish (from those 8 hours) to finish that job. Assuming that the company is a decent one, and that they value time as money, then neither of you are getting a benefit from the way you contracted to do that work, because either you would work the time it took you to finish the job and then go home earlier or that extra time could be used by the company to tell you to do an extra job and pay you extra for it.

This is why I assume you've never worked an hourly wage job. You work for a set number of dollars per hour. The company decides how many hours you work that day. The amount of work you do during that day is theoretically supposed to be equal to your wages. But one of the ways companies make a profit is by having fewer workers do the work that requires more workers labor to be equal to thier wages. This is wage slavery because the company is making a profit by having people work longer than they need to, to make their total wages that day.


As for the benefits the employer gets from hiring you, there are two vital things in a job contract: what you gain from working there and what the company gains by having you there.

You are only going there because the company will pay you for that job, and the company only wants you because (lets assume) the job is a skilled job and they want people who can do their job well and fast (lets ignore that surplus of time you are left with for this).

You have just entered the territory of middle class. You have left the realm of wage slavery. This is salary work, which I could make the argument that there is a certain level of slavery in this, but I'm not going to as its not important to me.


I can saffely assume you wouldnt go to that job if you thought your work was severely underpayed for the kind of things you were doing AND you had other choices for jobs. On the other side, the company wouldn't hire you if the value of the work you would perform was equal or inferior to the return they could get from it (by selling the product, service, etc).

You're assuming something that most workers don't have in society; choices.


This is why I think education on specialized skills is highly valuable, because of the scarcity of people with that skill and thus the greater return in the kind of wage you could get.

And the fact that education costs an arm and a leg must mean nothing to you.


Actually, it is better to understand this if you try and put yourself in the mind of an employer. Why would they pay the same in wages to what the person produced if:
a)the person already agreed to work on less
b)they couldn't make any profit from it thus defeating the point of the company, which is to acumulate profit so they can better their lives (not necessarily at the expense of others).

Yet it is at the expense of others, as I point out through wage slavery.


I always understood slavery to be forced labor, which means "slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages)."

But yeah, slavery could also be (very very generally) defined as an unpaid form of labor, although a badly paid form of labor is not the same as completely unpaid for of labor even though they both are generally considered bad in the view of the worker.

[Havet]

This is why I assume you've never worked an hourly wage job. You work for a set number of dollars per hour. The company decides how many hours you work that day. The amount of work you do during that day is theoretically supposed to be equal to your wages. But one of the ways companies make a profit is by having fewer workers do the work that requires more workers labor to be equal to thier wages. This is wage slavery because the company is making a profit by having people work longer than they need to, to make their total wages that day.

who else gets to define what a person "needs" to work other than the person itself? The company merely tries to put the person working where he/she is more productive to the company. If that is how you define wage slavery then fine, but the use of the word "slavery" is misleading, because the person is no more forced to be there than to steal someone else. you could argue that "oh since they have the means of production and we have to eat to not starve, then we are also *forced* to kill to survive, so its legitimate to kill and steal".

Also, by the kind of arguments that you presented, where education costs "too much" and people have "no choices" you are assuming that if someone enters the world with nothing then they can only get that shitty job for the rest of their lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. Millions of people, indeed, had to start with a bad-paying job, but they only stayed there long enough to afford to pay for education to learn a better skill and consequently get a better job. As long as there is government interference, the exact choices you are shouting people do not have will indeed dissapear. It is only when you have a big amount of economic freedom to let people make their own businesses, succeeding or failing, that those people will be able to provide more choices for the poorer ones.



You're assuming something that most workers don't have in society; choices.

Just like to add here something. Workers have choices to the extent of their skills. You will have more choices to get a better job the more skills you learn. This is why people who invest in education get better rewards in the future.


And the fact that education costs an arm and a leg must mean nothing to you.

It is better to have costly but good quality education than to have supposedly "free" education that in the end costs more, to everyone and in the quality of education people get. And i'm not even going in terms of morality, because stealing someone (through taxes) to pay for someone else's education is surely immoral. However, i suppose that a thing such as "free voluntary education" could be achieved if either the schools were voluntary funded or there were communities that were so tight they would only let you live there if you agreed to pay a fee to fund the schools and other services.