Talk:Wage slavery/Archive 3

What Contract?
In my experience most working class people and even many professionals, at least in the United States, except where they may be part of the dwindling portion covered by collective bargaining agreements do not have explicit employment contracts as such at all! There may be various agreements and stipulations for conditions the employer wishes to impose but unless the employer is reselling the employees labor to a third party, there is more often than not no Employment contract and what would be in its place is an implicit network of commercial and common law and the specific laws of various jurisdictions. The Employment Contract &sect; thus fails to capture this aspect which characterizes "Wage Slavery" as much as it did the transition from Indentured Servitude, an explicit contract with a given term, to actual chattel slavery in the Ante Bellum U.S. The very fact of a contract implies a relation between legal equals and is normally absent in my experience for the range of phenomena which the article title covers. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See also my comments in talk page for Producerism. There is a commonality between it and the subject matter of this article wrt language and the understanding of social and economic phenomena. Unfortunately these fora are critically limited by the intellectual stature of the interlocutors. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

LK, low wages, peonage & the unexplained "pragmatism" of the change from "wage slavery" to "wage work"
LK & I had a discussion about the "pragmatism" of the change from "wage slavery" to "wage work" in the late 19th century and his POV allegations about the inclusion of "At about the same time, the rise of big business marginalized skilled workers and increased the numbers of more easily controlled unskilled ones through "scientific management", the open-shop, welfare capitalism and mass violence."

Well, I was finally able to find a free version of that essay describing the "pragmatism" of the change http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/161500532/ and it turns out that it gives remarkably similar explanations and even quotes some of the same authors I quoted, like David Montgomery. It also reveals the shift of "wage slavery" from meaning all wage work, to "low wages", i.e. directly refuting LK's POV allegations about that issue as well. In contrast, I haven't found any supporting evidence for the inclusion of peonage as the main meaning of wage slavery apart from the producerist "term used to refer to a situation where persons are dependent for a livelihood on the wages earned, especially if the dependency is total and immediate." . Here are a few quotes you may find interesting:

"[T]he structural changes associated with the later stages of industrial capitalism, including increased centralization of production... declining wages...[and] [t]he loss of competence and independence experienced by skilled labor [in the late 19th century]" meant that "A critique that referred to all work as slavery and avoided demands for wage concessions in favor of supporting the creation of the producerist republic (by diverting strike funds towards funding KOL co-operatives, for example) was far less compelling than one that identified the specific conditions of slavery as low wages and posited a plausible and empirically commensurate road to freedom (and manhood): high wages."

Producerist ideology was further eroded "by the influx of women and rural workers, both black and white to the cities, expanding the labor pool and intensifying competition within it....[as well as]... the problem of integrating immigrants from the Slavic countries and Italy, many of whom had been recruited into the organization by factory owners explicitly for the purpose of undermining unionism"

"[T]he immigrant wage slave, who was willing to work for less and to cross picket lines, clearly posed a threat to the American wage earner."

"In sum, the increasing prevalence of wage work and ethnic and race divisions that ran coincidental to skill divisions within the working class resulted in ....erosions of producerist contents of wage slavery."

Also "the relations between the AFL and the KOL, were capable of limiting what opportunities were available to articulate resonant producerist claims."

"[T]he movement constituency elected to sacrifice ideological centrality and consistency for the purpose of maintaining empirical credibility. This path, however, also has implications for movement continuance. Once the KOL was no longer able to present a comprehensive ideological and cultural alternative to the trade union movement, there was little incentive for movement members to continue their allegiance."

"[A]fter 1887, as the KOL began to disintegrate as a movement, members and credibility shifted to other labor organizations, mainly the AFL. Without an organization to carry its host ideology, wage slavery no longer referred to a real alternative of wage freedom, nor did it articulate concrete strategy by which it could be achieved."

I think it would be good to condense this material into a few words in the article that explain what the "pragmatism" was all about. NeutralityForever (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The point I was making is, the language shifted from 'wage slavery' to 'wage work', because of shifts in the labor movement itself (cf. "movement constituency elected to sacrifice ideological centrality and consistency for the purpose of maintaining empirical credibility"). It did not happen because they were being beaten about the head by capitalists and industrialists. I think the paper is a good paper (although rather left-leaning) and extremely relevant to the topic of this page, and I encourage you to summarize and add it's contents to the article. Of course, you should avoid synthesis and jumping to conclusions not actually stated in the sources. LK (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this article has suffered from almost terminal ax-grinding in the past... and is already overly long, it is probably a good idea to not relate such extreme pov in regard to politics/Capitalism/Socialism/Communism... beyond what is already there. It is a general term... sometimes used for effect... and irony, by many people that have no political affiliation. It is a popular culture term. skip sievert (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Working towards concensus
NF, Please please realize that you have a blind spot because of an emotional attachment to this topic. There are certain rules that we must live by on wikipedia, otherwise this project would never work. Those rules include, presenting facts not opinions, keeping language and presentation neutral and balanced. Not including original research or synthesis, and only presenting arguments that have already been made elsewhere, and that can be sourced to a reliable source. Also, we should try to be polite to each other, and not use sockpuppets to argue on our behalf. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if the page on Trickle-down economics were heavily tilted in favor of the policy, presenting without criticism the view that tax cuts for the rich will make everyone richer and happier, and in fact is the only way to advance society, and suggesting that people are just stupid or evil to oppose tax cuts for the rich. This is essentially what you are doing here from the other side of the political spectrum. Please, lets try to avoid another edit war. I suggest that: LK (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) No one makes any changes to the article unless we have concensus.
 * 2) First presenting here on the talk page suggested changes together with appropriate cited sources.
 * 3) Trying to avoid synthesis by using only sources that actually literally refer to 'wage slavery or 'wage slave'.
 * 4) Presenting only points of view that have clearly been expressed by a cited reliable source, not tilting the arguments to 'sell' a particular viewpoint (Wikipedia is not a soapbox for particular views).
 * 5) Lastly, I suggest patience and restraint. That fact is, no one is going to read this page and go out and start a revolution no matter what it says.


 * Yes. Turning, or trying to turn the article into what can only be termed a propaganda forum of original research... for a pov of Communism... Anarchism... Socialism... etc. is the same as trying to turn it into a diatribe to promote Libertarianism or Capitalism... in other words a nonstarter for an encyclopedia. Coming back here to reinstate deleted material that has been shown to be against consensus and non neutral over and over does not accomplish the goals of presenting well rounded and balanced information. skip sievert (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

LK, as you'd know if you bothered to look at the changes and additions, there are no opinions--I'm just quoting verifiable works. Amazingly you can't even seem to acknowledge that in the lead paragraph, all I did is add some quotes from the very work that you had used to allegedly prove that the labor movement wasn't subject to any pressures from industry. Since the essay disproves that, you've shown that you never read more than the introductory paragraph of the essay from which you were quoting. So there you are, pointing your finger at me, accusing me of bias, when you were the one coming to false conclusions based on your biased preconceptions. Same thing with the notion of wage slavery as low wages as being the main one besides lack of worker's control. Back in the day you used words such as "preposterous". Well EAT YOUR WORDS. The essay PROVES that that was one of the main uses of the term (as opposed to the "peonage" which you apparently fabricated). Now, if you choose to ignore the very essay you originally quoted because it goes against your pre-conceived notions, well, so be it, use your power and cartel relationship with skip to marginalize me, but everyone here, including yourself, will know you have no intellectual integrity. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes and cartel-like behavior
Please, let's be serious. Tell me (and try to prove) which of the 5 changes you believe to be "synthesis" as skip claims. Provide me with an explanation for each one of them of why you think they aren't important and legitimate changes. I backed every single change with substantial evidence and I tried hard to not include anything that could be labeled "synthesis". But even if you don't believe that they're all justified, reverting them all (rather than just the ones one disagrees with) and unthinkingly calling them "communist agitrop" is not the sign of a serious editor. Also, I noticed that after reverting my changes twice, to avert the 3 revert-rule suspension, skip left a note in LK's page to come to his rescue. After all this, amazingly, skip then calls me a "sockpuppet". Psychological projection anyone? Anyway, let's look at the changes.

1st

I changed

Some uses of the term refer to various forms of unfree labour, such as peonage. More controversially, others point to the similarities between owning and employing a person, and extend the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with limited aspects of wage job-related choices (e.g. working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma).

for

The two main uses of the term refer to either low wages or a lack of workers' control of the means of production, with the latter use historically preceding the former. This controversial latter use points to the similarities between owning and employing a person, and extends the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with a limited set of job-related choices (e.g. working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma).

'''This is something that had already been discussed in the previous discussion post. The change is due to the information I found in the VERY footnote that LK had placed at the end of the lead paragraph, which indeed explained the reasons for the change from "wage slavery" to "wage work" and revealed the important identification of low wages with "wage slavery". So let's not be selectively biased about what we quote from the article. As I mentioned, I (nor anyone else) has found evidence for "peonage" (hence the lack of a footnote).'''

2nd

I added

However, slaves' newly found status as wage laborers allowed for various new abuses, as on behalf of "small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations—including U.S. Steel Corp.—looking for cheap and abundant labor," government officials "enacted [laws] specifically to intimidate blacks, [which resulted in] tens of thousands of African Americans [who] were arbitrarily arrested". This resulted in "neoslavery...[at] coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, railroads, quarries and farm plantations" and "beatings and physical torture" as blacks were "hit with outrageous fines, and charged for the costs of their own arrests."

'''These, are all verifiable quotes from a scholarly work...Is anyone denying that their "newly found status as wage laborers allowed" for these new abuses? Perhaps someone will say that "That's like prison labor; not all wage laborers undergo that fate"...but that, apart from not being relevant to the historical importance of this mistreatment, ignores that the same thing could be said about chattel slaves who were subject to similar punishment (e.g. the standard of living of slaves in the South improved, and the slaves of, say, Thomas Jefferson may not have undergone the grim fate of other less fortunate slaves in the past.'''

3rd

I added this image



This image and event are extremely important to the article, not only because libertarian socialists are one of the main expositors of wage slavery, but because it was one of the very demands of this important resolution at the famous events in Kronstadt.

4th

I also added this in the Psychological Effects section

The Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments--both dealing with the negative consequences of hierarchical relationships, have been found useful in the psychological study of authoritarian wage work relations. The magnification of negative human tendencies in wage labor-based state and corporate systems has prompted some experts to regard them as psychopathic. For example, using diagnostic criteria from the DSM-IV; Robert Hare, a University of British Columbia Psychology Professor and FBI consultant, provides a detailed analysis comparing the legal person embodied in the modern, profit-driven corporation to that of a clinically diagnosed psychopath. His findings corroborate typical psychopathic behavior such as superficiality, callous unconcern for the feelings of others, incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, diffusion of responsibility, emphasis on short-term goals, predatory egotism, reckless disregard for the safety of others, deceitfulness: repeated lying to and deceiving of others for profit, incapacity to experience guilt, failure to conform to the social norms with respect to lawful behaviors etc.

'''I'm just quoting the works of respected scholars. These are perfectly verifiable works directly related to the topic'''

5th

I added a new section, this time including only UNCONTROVERSIAL statements:

"Environmental Pollution" The appearance of most of the world's pollution coincides with the industrial revolution and the "proletarization" of the work force defined as the shift toward dependence on wages for support which later came to be defined as "wage slavery". In the modern period, regardless of political affiliation, this dependence on wages for support constitutes the main relation of production in the economies of major polluters such as the former Soviet Union, the United States or China.

This seems so uncontroversial, so backed by evidence, and so incredibly essential to the topic, that I don't know which reasonable person would object to it. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro sentence
It currently starts "Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person is dependent for a livelihood on the wages earned"

The metaphor would be closer if the reference were to dependence on an employer, rather than on wage labour in the abstract - an independent, but very poor, peasant proprietor wouldn't be called a "farming slave" for example. But I'm not sure which is closer to actual usage.JQ (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually if all you guys paid attention to me, the supposed "radical" here, you'd know that I already addressed that by quoting from the very paper "from wage slaves to wage workers" that LK quotes at the end of the lead paragraph. Read the first change in the post above to see what the 2 main uses of "wage slavery" are. I'll repost it here

1st

I changed

Some uses of the term refer to various forms of unfree labour, such as peonage. More controversially, others point to the similarities between owning and employing a person, and extend the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with limited aspects of wage job-related choices (e.g. working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma).[8][9][10][11]

for

The two main uses of the term refer to either low wages or a lack of workers' control of the means of production, with the latter use historically preceding the former.[12] [13] This controversial latter use points to the similarities between owning and employing a person, and extends the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with a limited set of job-related choices (e.g. working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma).[14][9][15][16]

By the way, notice that this change and the other 4 were reverted by Skip, calling them "commie agitrop", with LK apparently agreeing. When such extremely accurate and footnoted facts are deleted, you know you're dealing with Pravda-style ideological fanatics.

99.2.224.110 (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * NF, First, do try to be polite. That's a baseline community standard. People can be banned from Wikipedia for rudeness. Also, we would all appreciate it if you could indent your replies. It makes for easier reading.
 * Now, let's take your proposed changes one step at a time. Let's discuss the change to the lead first. IMO, it's mainly ok, except there's still some synthesis going on. Give me a while and I'll post here an alternative. Essentially, what we're trying to communicate is that 'wage slavery' used to refer to all wage work, but has evolved over time to refer to more limited exploitative situations, and the former use has become controversial. Is that right?
 * LK (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, but I do get mad when my efforts are dismissed so blatantly. I've put a lot of work into this article. As for your question, I read the article you posted as footnote (from wage slaves to wage workers) and it documents precisely what I quote i.e. that its 2 main meanings are 1)lack of worker's control and 2) low wages, with the former preceding the latter for the historical reasons I cite. I am indebted to you for finding that essay. I must say that this article has benefited the most when people with different points of view had vigorous exchanges. As for your phrase "evolved over time to refer to more limited exploitative situations", I basically agree, but I wouldn't include the word "exploitative" in the text, because that would be considered POV by some. You are welcome to read the whole text "from wage slaves to wage workers" but I think the quotations I showed you earlier encapsulate the text for the purposes needed. Now, if by the controversiality of the former meaning of "wage slavery", is meant a lack of consensus, it suffices to say that many mainstream economics do not believe the employer-employee relationship in capitalism is exploitative. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize, but I do get mad when my efforts are dismissed so blatantly. I've put a lot of work into this article. Ownership of articles... OWNERSHIP, may be an issue here. Also how is it that this user has two accounts? Both of which are like tag teaming alternatives to blocking periods? N.F. take a serious look at what L.K. is saying. Accusing two editors as desperate as him and I is actually a little comical. He is a mainstream economist while I am a heterodox influenced one. We have one thing in common though. We appreciate neutral unbiased information. As long as a subject is notable, it is going to get covered in Wikipedia. By leading information as you have done to a general pov... of Communism... Socialism... Anarchy... whatever, you are doing no favor to the reader. A reader can think for themselves if presented good information. Leading a reader is obvious... and makes for a bad presentation. My opinion. skip sievert (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

don't be disingenuous. Sometimes I sign on, sometimes I don't. That IS my right. If you think I made more than 3 reverts in 24 hours prove it. We know what you did yesterday, when, to evade the suspension from violation of the 3 revert-rule, you contacted LK to request a third from him--a sockpuppet action in effect. So you better look in the mirror. Secondly, what I meant is that the additions that I made were a considerable amount of work, so when I get someone like you dismissing them right away after calling me "communist agitrop" I do not appreciate it. It would be very easy for me to call you a capitalist agitrop serving your capitalist masters (since no capitalist will pay an economist to undermine his status) but I'm trying to keep this civil. As for your complaints of bias, and "pov... of Communism... Socialism... Anarchy..." they're blatant strawmen. I challenge you to find a single unverifiable, non-factual statement. Plus you are tiring everyone here by repeating yourself. I ALREADY posted the 5 changes/additions I made. So either discuss each fact, or quit making dime-a-dozen general statements. It would be just as easy for me to say "by leading information as you have done to a general pov... of Capitalism... marginalism...Keynsianism... whatever, you are doing no favor to the reader." The difference is I would try to provide evidence: something you haven't done yet. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Suit yourself. We have tried to give friendly advice. skip sievert (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have tried to give you friendly advice as well: discuss the 5 proposed changes/additions. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion has not worked in regard to your previous editing. Presenting information only in the light of a pov does everyone a disservice. The article is already loaded with refs... anarchism... communism... socialism ... etc. - It becomes pointless to tilt things that way. Any one reading the article previously probably thought it a piece of propaganda more than an encyclopedia entry. Wage slave is a general term... used by Joe Smoe and Sally housecoat... that have no political affiliations... - The historical aspects of the term are given well enough now for understanding. More than that is making the article into someones idea of an essay on a different or different subjects. skip sievert (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep shoving your POV, making groundless accusations and refusing to discuss the 5 changes/additions, which correct serious factual inaccuracies you haven't even bothered to notice. If that is the lazy accusatory attitude you want to maintain I suggest you leave this discussion and this article and give space to those who want participate in improving the article and correcting inaccuracies and factual errors. Anything less would be a disservice to the people who want to learn from wikipedia. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of 5 proposed additions/changes
I'm starting this new section for the purpose of discussing the 5 changes/additions presented in the section Changes and cartel-like behavior 99.2.224.110 (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Political over weighted material
It seems like the article is still over redundant in political lecturing and p.o.v. which appears to be a hectoring account of Marx... Communism... Anarchism leftist politics etc... to the point of being unbalanced and original research. Probably the current material can be trimmed back in that regard further. skip sievert (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Factually wrong/unsourced statement
The statement:

Some uses of the term refer to various forms of unfree labour, such as peonage.

Is unsourced/unverified and incorrect according to scholarship. In contrast, this other statement is correct, sourced and verified (by the VERY footnote/scholarly work that LK placed at the end of the lead paragraph explaining the reasons for the change from "wage slavery" to "wage work"):

The two main uses of the term refer to either low wages or a lack of workers' control of the means of production, with the latter use historically preceding the former.

After pointing this out, one could add the rest of the present paragraph with a few modifications:

'This controversial latter use points to the similarities between owning and employing a person, and extends the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical'' social environment with a limited set of job-related choices (e.g. working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma). ''' NeutralityForever (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing neutrally
Apparently this editor wrote a movie about a subject he feels is close to Wage slavery, the concept, which I doubt, and now wants to use the article as a mouthpiece for it,, and he left a link to a donation spam site on top of that also here on this page which was removed... 99.2.224.110 who is all the people above mentioned as blocked sockpuppets etc. and also is Mr3003nights who came off his block and immediately went back to using the article for his forum/blogging space with original research as 99.2.224.110, oh no. Not this again. I removed an homage to the same redundant stuff, people have been removing from the frequently blocked and almost always disruptive editor... he says You can watch it for free at The film is based primarily on a 5 hour interview he conducted with Thomas Ferguson, the author of the book "Golden Golden which he just sourced into the article, which seems like a bad idea. Do we have to go through all this again now with  - Mr.3003night a.k.a. 99.2.224.110 and other, multiple other A.K.A's that he was blocked for over and over, conducted an interview with Thomas Ferguson and now wants to source all that on the discussion page and his pet peeves about the thoughts and feelings of this man on the Wage slavery article along with another overdose of Noam Chomsky which is in his movie also prominently... Chomsky endorsing it? Conflict of interest among a lot of other things. - skip sievert (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly the most important part of the article isn't neutral?
Skip recently deleted this addition to the bottom of the lead:

'''Prominent thinkers like John Dewey, Noam Chomsky and Thomas Ferguson have postulated that achieving true political democracy and the values that will allow for the survival of the human species depend on replacing "industrial feudalism" with "industrial democracy". '''

Yeah, some of the most important thinkers in American history think that wage slavery makes political democracy impossible and threatens the survival of the human species, but we shouldn't mention it because someone thinks it isn't "neutral". Once again we see "truth" pov over verifiable sources from thinkers who deserve way more attention than the "technate" stuff skip proselytizes about in the "criticisms" section (and which sticks out like a sore thumb). Skip, please, keep manically repeating how I've been blocked in the past. Keep repeating that I'm a "disruptive" editor. Everyone knows that I've written about 80-90% of this article. I've been working on it harder than anyone for over 2 years. What has your highness' self-anointed "neutral" and non-"disruptive" editing brought to this article? This pathologically "disruptive" and anti-"neutral" editor of yours is hard put to think of anything substantial you've contributed except the "technate" propaganda. So every time you attack me instead of discussing the facts, you seem to be insulting other editors' intelligence--and your own; as all that comes across is that you can't deal with the issues. Also, the documentary that I made freely available on the net (whose link I posted in this discussion page before you deleted it) was a perfectly fitting topic for a discussion page. By your standards, then wikipedia is a "donation spam site" because it offers the option of making donations. Ludicrous.Mr3003nights (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not accuse Wikipedia of being a spam donation site, and an edit summary or post implying that,... I did, is not giving accurate... remotely accurate even accurate information on the discussion page. If you have serious issues with anything related to aspects of editing go here Dispute resolution, but cease and desist in accusations on the discussion page Talk page guidelines. Also you have been informed many times that it is not appropriate behavior to talk about editors in article section headers. The idea is to talk about content, not your opinion or concepts of some subject. Your blogspot.com link was to a pay pal donation movie you made with it being endorsed apparently by Chomsky and Ferguson and you want to include excerpts of their talking points into the article? It looks like a conflict of interest, and also that you have serious ownership issues about the article. As to whether you edit the article or not, that is a separate issue and not connected. Wikipedia is voluntary. Your effort has to be measured in your own way.


 * As to whether you wrote 80 to 90% of the article these days I doubt, as a lot of the former info has either been removed or modified for neutrality. For your information, I added the Dubai wage slave section, which is the only modern info in the article, not connected to obscure political points or similar aspects of some so called public intellectuals... but that also does not matter.


 * I guess after all your sock puppets, blocks, insulting discourse, and now self promotion as to your contributions and its connection to promoting a movie you made, .. it is wondered, how it is that you just do not try to edit neutrally, as that is the main thing that constructive editing is... it is pointless to engage in personal attacks on Wikipedia to make some kind of obscure point, and again you have been warned multiple times about this extremely negative violations of talk page discussion aspects and editing using original research. skip sievert (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, stop your insulting discourse and personal attacks skip. Please stop projecting your own behavior onto others. We are the ones tired of your self-promotion; trying to inject your obscure "technate" stuff into parts of the article where they don't belong and deleting important parts that go against such cultist obsessions. You want to delete what important thinkers though like John Dewey and Chomsky thought about wage slavery and its relation to political democracy and the survival of the human species. And in place of their published observations, you keep writing about your irrelevant "technate" stuff. If you want to write an article about it, go right ahead, but this is not the place (plus nobody cares). If you continue spamming this article, you may be banned. And yes, you are basically calling wikipedia a "spam donation site" because it does offer the option of giving donations. I'd suggest you cool off and read these guidelines yourself Dispute resolution Talk page guidelines If you continue showing such disrespect for wikipedia and editors you may be banned. You've been warned several times. I wouldn't push it. Mr3003nights (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummm, no. We're tired of you.  Simple as that.  Well, you and your IP addresses.  *shrug*  You've been warned, you've been blocked.  Eventually, you'll learn or you'll stop editing.  Personally, I just ignore you for the most part at this point.  You don't want to listen to anyone else, and just don't get it that when multiple people disagree with you, consensus means you accept their view or find a way to convince them.  You don't do either.


 * Also, refactored the name - don't put editors names in section headings and call them out. See WP:TALK Ravensfire2002 (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking for the many editors who have complained about skip spamming their articles trying to promote his "technate" stuff. That's simply unacceptable. I have written 90% of this excellent article--which has been approved by consensus of all editors--including skip. If I wasn't the most knowledgeable and hard working editor of this article, that wouldn't be the case. Mr3003nights (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And your style also impedes others editing. Personally - I don't care who does how much of what article.  If anything, that starts throwing up a flag of WP:OWN when someone does that.  Look at the last revision you reverted of Skips - come on, that was a bad call.  The version you reverted to is poor english and has more of a POV than the changes.  "Many" vs "Some" - is the many supported by the references quoted?  Beats me - those references aren't easy to navigate through.  Adding a page number really makes it easier to verify sources.  You're both at the point of revert-on-sight with each other, and that's bad for everyone.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, ownership issues no doubt. This may be an interesting read User Mr.3003nights Words of wisdom - It just does not seem that you are getting the message no matter how many times you are blocked. Your last edit to the article put back some obscure language and was not accurate either as to saying who did the phrasing of the sentence. It was an old edit not by L.K. originally at all, he just restored it, so your edit summary... as has been the case in the past was misleading or inaccurate . The idea is not to give a pov of some idea but to present an aspect or mention things without seeming to endorse or assume some direction. Your last edit did not do that, but it did restore information that was weasily as far as the language used... again I do not believe your edit summary was correct... at all, and the edit was restoring a poorer, as in more uncreative presentation. That defeats the purpose of information presentation as to n.p.o.v. -  skip sievert (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify. I did originally write that line a few months ago. It may have been involved in some of the back and forth since then. LK (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a big issue. Improving sentences is part of editing. Information presentation can be improved and made more neutral or interesting. That is the issue. Right now the consensus is to restore the edit that was reverted by Mr3003nights which was noted by another editor as The version you reverted to is poor english and has more of a POV than the changes. "Many" vs "Some" - is the many supported by the references quoted?  Beats me - those references aren't easy to navigate through. end quote, so I think the edit by Mr3003nights can be reverted - skip sievert (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section?
I think some parts can be copied and put into a new criticism section. Note that I generally agree with the premise that wage slavery is a real issue and I know criticism is addressed elsewhere but I think the article can be improved with one. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A criticism section would be an improvement. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A copyright problem.
I removed a link to the thirdworldtraveler site. Not because it's unreliable (although that site does cherrypick some pretty fringey stuff) but for copyright reasons. There's a discussion over at Media copyright questions.... bobrayner (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Book to use as source
http://books.google.com.hk/books/about/From_Bondage_to_Contract.html?id=XoMhJoxRkY0C&redir_esc=y

From Bondage to Contract: Wage Labor, Marriage, and the Market in the Age of Slave Emancipation:

This book explores the centrality of contract to debates over freedom and slavery in nineteenth-century America. It focuses on the contracts of wage labor and marriage, investigating the connections between abolition in the South and industrial capitalism in the North and linking labor relations to home life. Integrating the fields of gender and legal, intellectual and social history, it reveals how abolitionists, former slaves, feminists, laborers, lawmakers and others drew on contract to condemn chattel slavery and to measure the virtues of free society.

LK (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Y O Y
did you bolix the arkiv ? 76.180.168.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

POV problem: Wage labor/Wage slavery
This article consistently, but not explicitly equates wage labor with wage slavery. That is highly POV, and will need to be fixed. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire concept of the article is an equation between wage labor and slavery. Putting up a POV tag for the articles definition is not warranted. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not how the NPOV policy works. You can't make an article whose "entire concept" is to be POV as an excuse for making a POV article. That wage labor is slavery is an opinion, not fact. The intro of the the article is good, and talks about "situations" that some people call "wage slavery", but the major part of the rest of the article simply equate wage labor and slavery as if this was a fact. Even if you think this is the purpose of the article (which the intro disagrees with) that still makes the article POV. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the article is written neutrally but is about what you consider "POV", namely its definition. By that standard, Flat Earth is POV because its about the flat earth theory even though its written neutrally. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No and no. Both sentences above are flatly and obviously incorrect. The Flat Earth is not POV because the article does not assume that the theories are correct. This article does, and therefore it is POV. This is now the third time I state this. Am I being unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the article does it assume its correct, it simply cites people that have opinions on it which includes those that are critical of it.CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree, but I don't have time to fix it now, and now *you* are edit warring according to your own definitions of that term. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not exactly a matter of agreement, you're alleging a POV dispute which requires at least citing some evidence instead of just asserting it. I'll keep it the way it is now and if you can cite some things that could be cleaned up I think its a good place to work from. CartoonDiablo (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is either POV or just really badly written. For example, look at "Treatment under various economic systems." "Wage slavery" is conflated with class division, but the connection is never explained. Of the provided citations, two never mention wage slavery and the third is a dead link. Most of the article doesn't even agree with the original definition! It's just a bunch of peripherally related topics (e.g. having to earn a wage, or the impact on the environment) rather than what the article is actually supposed to be about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.152.36 (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Coatrack, and synthesis
I am perplexed. Why was this reverted into the article, when it's not about wage slavery? bobrayner (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's meaningful, helpful, on-point for the surrounding section's context, and verifiable from a reliable source. Why do you imply that discussion of the lowest wages are irrelevant to the concept of wage slavery? EllenCT (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's not actually about wage slavery. bobrayner (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That implies that the lowest wages are living wages, in a liquid employment market. Where is that true? EllenCT (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * AFAIK the word "employment" in its modern sense was a capitalist invention. I don't recall it being used in Chaucer, Shakespeare or the King James Bible.  And wage slavery was used by writers other than Marx - AFAIK he never used the term.  Marx of course saw free labor as different from slave labor and saw its triumph in 1865 as a positive development, unlike the Southern slaveowners.  However, I think the section should be reduced.  TFD (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, our article on capitalism says that the word is a capitalist invention, but it's not actually true; just synthesis, based on some editor looking up the word in an etymological dictionary and finding that it appeared during what they thought was the capitalist era. In reality, the same concept has been expressed long before that era. It's not difficult to find employment in latin texts - they just don't use that exact word, being latin rather than English. Even within one language, word usage shifts over time, so the King James' rather scanty coverage of labour relations doesn't need to use that specific word. Shakepeare didn't invent the eyeball. bobrayner (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Section 1.2: "Communism" NPOV
I added the POV-Section template to Section 1.2, "Communism", because, although correct in its information, the way it's worded doesn't sound to me as being very neutral.
 * You're right; there was a serious neutrality problem. I removed it. bobrayner (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. I appreciate it. Thanks. SarahTehCat (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

POV Problem?
Making a new section as even though this was discussed earlier, it fizzled out years ago. To me, it really seems like large segments of the prose (though not all of it) are written from inside the point of the "wage-labor-as-slavery" mindset, rather than simply describing that mindset. this section in particular seems like a particularly striking example of this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B11C:53FA:D63D:7EFF:FEE4:39A6 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wage slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113204609/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F10%2F19%2F144225 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F10%2F19%2F144225
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721164116/http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199202.htm to http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199202.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)