Talk:Wage slavery/Archive 5

Please folks - ease off the attacks
Please, everyone, ease up on the personal shots being taken at various editors. There's no reason for it. Skip and Mr3003Nights/99.2.224.110 - please relax and pull back some. The hostility doesn't help anyone. I deleted the last comment added as the section was calling a specific editor out (after asking the poster not to do so) and was pretty much an attack post. There's no reason for such aggressiveness on this article. Such a style certainly won't help anyone convince other editors that they are right.

Can everyone try to respect the other side and work to improve the article? It takes both sides to do so, and I feel all parties (including me) can do better. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Recently I have tried to remove some aspects that rely on interpretations or o.r. as pertaining to sourcing and statements which draw what could be called unreasonable connections, connecting ideas from a personal pov, or that is my interpretation of parts of the article. The article still needs streamlining and copy editing for clarity and probably more close inspection looking to make for more neutral presentation. Also it would be nice to have more modern thinking aspects as to the last 10 or 20 years in the article. It is probably over-weight yet with to narrow a perspective as to political aspects, mostly leading round in the same direction, though obviously the socialist, anarchist, information is valuable. skip sievert (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Justifying huge deletions and bias against me
Ravensfire, notice you've never censored skip's attacks. Also notice that pointing at evidence of retaliation IS wikipedia policy. By deleting such evidence you're going against it. So please don't once again censor the evidence I present. Notice that while I was gone for a month or so, the article didn't undergo practically any changes. Now that I'm back and we had this heated argument, all of a sudden HUGE parts of this article were deleted, like Graeber's crucial anthropological account, Erich Fromm's psychological descriptions, as well as Carlyle's, Jay Gold's & Stuart Mill's arguments. If you look at the history o this page you'll notice this IS a pattern. These huge deletions are always made by skip after heated discussions. Pointing this out is not an "attack" against skip, anymore than saying "George W. Bush invaded Iraq" is an attack on George W. Bush. It's a description of the facts. Now, if those facts have unpleasant implications, that's not on me.

I'll post the parts that skip recently deleted so that other editors can decide for themselves:

1st deletion

Psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that wage slavery fosters alienation and is "connected with the marginalisation and disempowerment of those without authority" because "[t]hose who have these symbols of authority and those who benefit from them must dull their subject people's realistic, i.e. critical, thinking and make them believe the fiction [that irrational authority is rational and necessary], … [so] the mind is lulled into submission by clichés … [and] people are made dumb because they become dependent and lose their capacity to trust their eyes and judgement."[17] As regards the concept of self-ownership in the context of wage labor, Fromm noted that if a person perceives himself as being what he owns, then when that person loses (or thinks of losing) what he "owns" (e.g. the good looks or sharp mind that allows him to sell his labor for high wages), a fear of loss may create anxiety and authoritarian tendencies because that person's sense of identity is threatened. In contrast, when one's sense of self is based on what one experiences in a state of being (feelings, love, sadness, taste, sight etc) without regard for what one once had and lost, or may lose, less authoritarian tendencies prevail.[18]

2nd

Defenders of slavery such as Thomas Carlyle, argued that black workers were better off as slaves than they would be as wage employees. Carlyle's famous description of economics as the dismal science was coined in the course of polemical debates with anti-slavery economists such as John Stuart Mill.[19][20][21] The extreme subordination generated by wage slavery has also been recognized by right wing bosses like US financier & railroad businessman Jay Gould (1836–1892), who famously said "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."[22] The concept of wage slavery suggests that even where the conditions of chattel slavery do not apply, wage earners may experience social and psychological predicaments which are similar to those stemming from chattel slavery. Anthropologist David Graeber has noted that, historically, the first wage labor contracts we know about—whether in ancient Greece or Rome, or in the Malay or Swahili city states in the Indian ocean—were in fact contracts for the rental of chattel slaves (usually the owner would receive a share of the money, and the slave, another, with which to maintain his or her living expenses.) Such arrangements were quite common in New World slavery as well, whether in the United States or Brazil. C. L. R. James made a famous argument that most of the techniques of human organization employed on factory workers during the industrial revolution were first developed on slave plantations.[23]

3rd

A disparity in bargaining power compels wage slaves to accept a predicament they wouldn't otherwise consent to. Some critics of capitalism argue that wage slavery is present in all capitalist societies, even the richest ones. This has to do with two factors: 1.	Wealth disparities[24]

1.	Power disparities: The higher wages received by some workers in industrialized countries do not eliminate the authoritarianism critics perceive in capitalist institutions – just as the improving material conditions of chattel slaves in the American south did not eliminate the institution of chattel slavery. If Labor is treated as commodity, just like food or healthcare, the lack of democratic control of industry means that workers do not have a say over decisions in proportion to how much they are affected by those decisions. This, in turn prevents workers from directing their destinies and achieving a society where "work is not only a means of life, but the highest want in life."[25] Even high-paid professionals and intellectuals like lawyers and scientists may be considered wage slaves, since many of them rent and subordinate their mental powers to capitalists and other elites—getting ahead in the hierarchy by internalizing values that are serviceable to the powers that be.

99.2.224.110 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're entirely right to credit (blame?) your return for the back-and-forth on this article. There was a notice on WikiProject Economics that brought many editors here; that seems a more likely explanation.
 * I agree with the second and third deletions: they're massively biased and have WP:TONE, WP:WEASEL, and WP:NPV issues. The first deletion is understandable as well, though cleaning up the section might make it palatable.
 * But I'm most concerned with what appear to be personal attacks on skip. (Other editors: same goes for you! NPA is policy.) Now can we stop with this meta-discussion and get back to improving the article? It's not in good shape, and I'd like to see it improved.
 * And please don't make me bust out the mop.
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, having looked up the reference on the first deletion, I must agree with its removal as well. The passage (I see it on p. 32 rather than p. 47) is, in fact, not referring to wage slavery or wage work at all. Its examples are parents, hunter-gatherers, monarchs, murderers, charismatic politicians, statesmen, and tribal leaders. At best, the reference is a WP:SYNTH; at worst, a blatant misrepresentation. (I'm trying to assume good faith here in presenting the former.)
 * I encourage other editors to look this up and give their opinions.
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty much what I thought Greathouse. Those were also the reasons for the trimming of information. I also think there is more to trim as said. The article was so huge with o.r. and essay or bloglike commentary... that it has actually taken a while to begin to filter it out. Mostly during that process one editor has fought tooth and nail despite a general try of trying to place nice, I think by every other editor as to trying to nudge that editor along with helpful suggestions and general explanations and reasoning. So far that approach though the best, does not seem to have made a lot of difference. Thanks for checking through that info. skip sievert (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you (or any of the other editors, of course!) have the opportunity to check out other sources, please do so. Some may end up being treasures instead of refuse. The NYT article discussed earlier seems to be one of those. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That one turned out ok thanks to rewriting of the area by L.K. and others, and some research by others as to making it make sense in a different sense to the context as was formerly given... yes. skip sievert (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly think understanding the original context is important. I thank LK for his writing skills and the IP editor for finding that piece, without which the rewrite could not have occurred. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

yeah, this anthropological fact is soooo biased and irrelevant
Anthropologist David Graeber has noted that, historically, the first wage labor contracts we know about—whether in ancient Greece or Rome, or in the Malay or Swahili city states in the Indian ocean—were in fact contracts for the rental of chattel slaves (usually the owner would receive a share of the money, and the slave, another, with which to maintain his or her living expenses.) Such arrangements were quite common in New World slavery as well, whether in the United States or Brazil. C. L. R. James made a famous argument that most of the techniques of human organization employed on factory workers during the industrial revolution were first developed on slave plantations.[23]

Mr3003nights (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'll look that one up next. Does Graeber have anything else to say on the matter? And of course, feel free to suggest other sources in the meantime.
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the tail-end of the 2nd passage mentioned above. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I recognize that. The source is Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, page 71 (p. 37 in the pdf). But having now read the appropriate section, I have to say I was disappointed -- I expected much more.  It's an anarchist position piece, a non-peer-reviewed book written for a general audience. I had really hoped that this would be an interesting piece to use to expand the article, but it ends up being the same dreck rehashed throughout.  (Incidentally, it doesn't back up the assertion that's now been removed from the article -- but in this case that's a minor quibble compared to the misrepresentation of Fromm.)
 * I don't mind improving the article by removing irrelevant or biased sources, but I really wish we had others to replace them with. Mr3003Nights, IP -- please feel free to contribute other ideas.
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph is spot-on, the source's remarks are right on topic for the article. Attempts to remove it must be reverted, the more sourced content we have, the better.Sum (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the excerpt provides a much-needed anthropological perspective. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent picture


The information in the pic was wrong. The name was wrong also. Jay Gold instead of Jay Gould which was the guys name. Major mistake. It gave the guys name right on the picture file. Also the phrasing as to the caption was o.r. again. I changed it and also mentioned that this 'saying' was accredited to Gould... which is different than saying he actually said it, which apparently there is not proof for. Also made the picture smaller as it was huge. Also noted, sarcasm... as in sooooo in the section title above this one is annoying and uncalled for. It has also been shown that the information trying to be provided by the i.p. was not accurate, not to mention o.r. and syn. not neutral in multiple cases. Getting back to the picture false impressions are easily given, and sarcastic interaction could be ash canned as to discussion page. I suggest the title of the segment on this discussion page be changed by Mr3003nights. This yeah, this anthropological fact is soooo biased and irrelevant is not constructive or funny. - skip sievert (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The NYT article I cited (and which you kept in place) says nothing about that statement being "according to labor unionists". All it says is at the very end "...Jay Gould...once boasted, 'I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.'” If you have other sources that confirm that it was "according to labor unionists" then mention them. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jay Gould, apparently lots of things were attributed to this person that may or may not have been according to what could be biased sources from the time period. The Times source does not get into this, and a little research may show that he actually did not make the statement or it is questioned as whether he did in other sources. skip sievert (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article on Gould also includes the quote, attributing it to the labor unionists, but it's got a citation needed tag. It's also in Great Southwest Railroad Strike of 1886 without a cite as "allegedly said".  A quick Google search turned up lots of references to the quote, but I haven't found anything yet that gives a good context for the quote beyond the reference to the strike.  From the articles I glanced through, the quote is from that strike.  Some other articles I watch have had issues with fake quotes (W. Wilson on the Federal Reserve System), but there the quote was usually on a fringish page, not on major, notable pages.  The Gould quote doesn't have that problem.  The citation is for a book review though - maybe the book has more details?  Ravensfire (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, 99; I think "according to labor unionists" needs a citation. It certainly sounds more contentious to say 'labor unionists claim that Gould boasted' than 'Gould allegedly boasted'.  But I'd like to see more sources before making up my mind. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if we find a good source for this the best place to put it would be Jay Gould. We could then remove the reference here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Lycurgus/CRGreathouse dispute
Nice to see there's a dispute I didn't start! I'll give my take on it. I think the meat of the matter centers around distinguishing the wage system from other systems of remuneration--particularly from the critical point of view implied in the term "wage slavery". Lycurgus' concerns over the part in question are somewhat similar to mine over a different section a few months ago. So I'll first discuss that to see if it can contribute to the debate. I'll type in bold the words I wasn't comfortable with in the paragraph:

More controversially, others equate it with a lack of workers' self-management[4][5][6] or point to 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 job-related choices (e.g. working for a wage under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma)

Originally, the words "for a boss" appeared instead of "for a wage". Someone changed it, and I ended up not changing it back because the words "hierarchical social environment" already expressed something similar, and I thought that both the word "wage" and "boss" had a somewhat similar potential for misinterpretation. When I wrote "for a boss" my intention was to remind the reader once again that this opposition to wages refers to the subjection of man to man (having to work for a boss), not to the subjection of man to nature (having to work to gain one's sustenance). Bluntly speaking, it doesn't refer to lazy people who don't want to work at all, but as is written/implied at the beginning of the same paragraph: that the "work" in question does not live up to the standards of those who advocate "workers' self-management...in a [non]hierarchical social environment"--or to the standards of those who oppose the wage system for other reasons.

However, I thought the word "boss" might not succeed in dispelling other incorrect interpretations of the word "wage":

1)the one that considers "wages" as the only system of remuneration under any other past systems. For example, the article doesn't contain a clear comparison of wages with the remuneration of say, serfs--though the remuneration of chattel slaves gets a more thorough treatment in the comparisons section. Thankfully, this at least allows people to understand that even though a slave may work voluntarily to avoid a beating/starvation, or work extra to get, say, an extra pair of shoes or slice of watermelon, his status as an owned individual means that the coercive framework within which his remunerative choices takes place is different from the framework of a wage laborer.

2)the one that says that the people are "the capitalist's boss" or which equates "wages" with capitalist profit; e.g. the non-labor income accrued from granting permission to use a building, land etc (rent) or a bank loan (interest) or whatever.

On top of this, what makes clear cut descriptions of the wage system difficult is the uncertainty about its similarities with remuneration in a "[non]hierarchical social environment" with "workers' self-management"--as well as the various (and transitional!) forms that this remuneration may take. For example, a democratic, non-hierarchical collective which shares remuneration in an egalitarian manner might decide that every member who eats at home has to wash the dishes once a week. Now, if the collective decides that individual X should get less remuneration because he refuses to do the dishes, how does the reduced material (or societal) status of this individual differ from that of an individual who, in a capitalist (or Stalinist) society, suffers a reduced material or societal status due to his refusal to wash the dishes for a restaurant owner? Also, the larger society may decide to provide some basic items (food, shelter, health care) even to those who refuse to work--or it may not. But to what extent is the threat of material deprivation in any remunerative system similar enough to warrant the label "wages"?

Of course, the existence of classes seems like an important element to warrant the label, but one can't say that's the only required element (e.g. a capitalist or elite state class), because other systems like feudalism and monarchy also had classes.

The difference which warrants the use of the term "wage" has to do with the extent to which the "rental" of one's time and efforts enters into the social relationship and contributes to the accumulation/perpetuation of capital/means of production in the hands of a different set of people in the social pyramid. This is where I thought saying "working for a boss under threat of..." could be useful only if by "a boss" it was understood that this "boss" forms part of this broader class of people which maintain said collective ownership control. The word "wage" implies it--though unfortunately only with the accompanying knowledge of these facts/concepts.

Lycurgus' substitution of "...a person feels compelled to work for a wage" with "...a person feels compelled to work for the private interests of others in wage labor," might attempt to add clarity in this regard, but doesn't succeed, in my opinion. A better try might be to add the word "social class" (which also links to another interesting wiki article):

"The term is now most often used by anti-capitalists (socialists, anarchists, and other groups) to express disapproval of a social class condition where a person feels compelled to work for a wage."

Also, the link at the end of that section http://www.123exp-business.com/t/04254079490/ is either dead or an error. It doesn't contain any info.

99.2.224.110 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you have been warned before multiple times 99.2.224.110 not to make personal remarks on other editors Avoid personal remarks. I also see your long post above as a long hectoring commentary of a political nature that does not belong here. This is not a blog or place like a Forum. You also again posted two user names or avatars in the section title... which you have been asked not to do now multiple times. How is it that you repeat exactly the same behavior you have been blocked for on this article so many times... ok... that is a rhetorical question. I do not know or care... you do it though.


 * Also, the social class thing can be removed. This is injecting again your former blog/forum/essay aspects into the article. Please do not post long diatribes on the talk page anymore as to original research and your opinions except to discuss the article as opposed to speculating on obscure things. skip sievert (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that above comment is quite uncalled for. The original post was polite and well thought out. I'ld like to remind everyone that accusing someone of being impolite is also impoliteness, and that the caution against no personal comments also applies to people who are admonishing others, and that asking someone to assume good faith is itself not assuming good faith. Let's all try to behave as adults here, bend over backwards to try to be polite and not try to scare anyone out of the play room. BTW, would our long time editor please choose an account, and always log in when editing? That would be a nice thing to do, and would go a long way towards having everyone treat you with respect. LK (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * L.K. Think about this Never address other users in a heading for a number of reasons like have been discussed above, and a heading like the above is a conflict generator by a person that has created lots of conflict on this page . Also long time editor has other named accounts in case you do not know, which also have multiple blocks connected to this page. He has flipped back and forth from them in the past. Also he is free to use an i.p. - If you think a comment is uncalled for that is fine, think about going here if you are serious Dispute resolution about charges but other wise please do not create Wiki-drama. Also please do not say things like accusing someone of being impolite is also impoliteness I did not do that. What I did was make a comment about an edit summary on the discussion page. Also it looks like 99.2.224.110 may be starting to make constructive neutral edits... more recently on the article page, and that is a good change. skip sievert (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a bad misreading of policy on section name if ever I've seen one. I would also like to note that neither L nor CG have had anything negative to say about the original post, only you have seen fit to be insulted by it. Also, please meditate on the talk page history, and I think its clear who the wikidrama is coming. If you have trouble with that, feel free to ask for other opinions, I'm sure they'll be happy to point it out to you.   LK (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Taunting or baiting on the article discussion page is not suggested or trying to upload 'wikidrama' here either . Have a nice day - skip sievert (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'ld like to remind you that accusing someone of taunting and baiting is impolite. Please remember policy WP:POLITE. LK (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cease and desist L.K. - Also cease and desist baiting and taunting. What is Drama? Drama is the unnecessary creation, prolongation, and/or spreading of conflict and strife. The nature of wikis and message boards provides a natural venue for minor personal conflicts to be intentionally exaggerated and spread across multiple pages. - skip sievert (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do cease and desist Skip. And please don't pick on our long term editor anymore. He may have a checkered past, but he has not been blocked or banned, and regardless of past, all are welcome as long as they follow community rules. LK (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just acknowledging this thread since its current title includes my nick; my position already stated in the edit summary. Lycurgus (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously, as my original edit summary indicates, I concur with deletion of the entire sentence. There is a matter of fact here and I believe the summary comment captures it. In general it's not always necessary to express important truths but speaking out against important lies is ones duty. Lycurgus (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked around for a similar sourcing for the sentence. I can not find one now, and the old citation is no where around, so I concur that the sentence can be removed as it is now not really sourced to anything, and may assume to much as to its statement without sourcing it. skip sievert (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Rating
One may reasonably debate whether or not this article deserves an A or not, but saying that this article is of "mid" importance in politics and economics doesn't seem right. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's really up to a wikiproject's members to decide what the priority of an article should be for their own wikiproject group. LK (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Any one can join a wiki project and volunteer to mark up priorities on articles within the context of guidelines. skip sievert (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Slavery" template
Ultimately, I think this topic doesn't fit in with the overall series on "Slavery" which is the focus of the removed template.

The article mentions several valid similarities between chattel slavery and the situation of wage earners. However, it also indicates that this analogy was never generally accepted during the 19th century when it was first stated, and there is still no consensus today. For example, the current disambiguation page for the "Slavery" article explicitly considers "Wage Slavery" as a different subject, only related by analogy. So, I think it overstates the acceptance of this viewpoint to label this article as part of the series on slavery. All the other articles linked in the template involve a direct form of personal compulsion which is distinct from the origin of wage-earning due to general social developments. StephenMacmanus (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

unwarranted, in my opinion. The fact that the concept has *in its relation to chattel slavery* shifted in meaning and acceptance is irrelevant to the universally accepted existence of the term as a linguistic and historical entity. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the removal of the slavery template is a good idea... those are two different ideas, and as you say the current disambiguation page for the "Slavery" article explicitly considers "Wage Slavery" as a different subject, only related by analogy.. skip sievert (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. As I said, The fact that the concept has *in its relation to chattel slavery* shifted in meaning and acceptance is irrelevant to the universally accepted existence of the term as a linguistic and historical entity. And wage slavery IS universally accepted as a valid concept in the narrower definition of say, the brutally exploited workers of places like Dubai and the Philippines that Skip mentions in the article. I am nevertheless abstaining from reverting it until someone else voices their support for having the template in the article. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your refraining from changes until consensus is achieved. These comments are primarily meant for others to review and discuss who restored the deleted template anyway.


 * I certainly agree with you that the term exists "as a linguistic and historical entity", which is a perfect explanation of why it definitely deserves its own article. However, as far as I can tell, the relationship of this concept to chattel slavery has not substantially shifted in meaning or acceptance. This article already indicates that it was not generally accepted when first proposed in the 19th century, and I don't think the common understanding of this relationship is really any different today. To a large extent, the use of this term is inextricably related to attacks on the entire system of capitalism. Including the topic within the "slavery" template asserts an equality between the two which is still a matter of debate. So, it inherently represents a specific and non-neutral POV. StephenMacmanus (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you read what I wrote carefully. It's true that wage slavery as a critique of wage labor itself is, as you say, "a matter of debate". But the application of the term to one of the definitions the article describes-- "workers [who are] are paid unreasonably low wages (e.g. sweatshops)" IS universally accepted i.e. most reasonable people do not doubt that "wage slaves" of that sort exist (e.g. the ones the article mentions in places like Dubai). That definition alone deserves the template. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Being more familiar than most with the underlying conditions that are the alternative to sweatshops, I do doubt that. But that is an interesting point you raise: there are really two different concepts here. The Marxist/etc. claim is then that the two concepts are essentially the same. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of capitalism, communism and fascism sections
Deleting all 3 of these sections, especially without discussion or explanation, seems unwarranted. Those sections contain important information that's nowhere else in the article. They had been there for years. Discussing modifications and improvements seems much more sensible. Mr3003nights (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. It is also unwarranted to continue to readd material when editors revert the addition of it without discussion.  There's a strong tendency among editors on this article to ignore the talk page until drug there.  And yes, that's on both sides.  It would make things a bit easier to edit on this article if everyone would remember that.  That said, I will not revert your reversion.  You did start some discusssion, finally.  Ravensfire (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In praise of idleness
Do you think a mention of Bertrand Russell (a very wise man) comments here about "In Praise of Idleness" that we're doing too much work could be commented on: http://www.zpub.com/notes/br.html? Say we need to find ways to eliminate all or most work? Also the book "The End of Work"? Life isn't about just work & die. Stars4change (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your speculating there. while The End of Work is interesting, it is interesting for different reasons than connected to this article. Also Bertrand Russell's views on philosophy are not so relevant here either probably. Technology does destroy the price system, and purchasing power because of the labor value theory being canceled by mechanization, and energy conversion as to productivity measure... but, we can not turn the article in to a vehicle to point that out, or make a bunch of connectors to wage slavery unless we have something in a reliable source and it is neutral pov. In other words shopping around to include people we think we already know and are connected is probably original research when no notable material is around. The article took a blog/forum/essay turn previously so that is best avoided.


 * Suggestion. Instead of tying this article up into political stuff like anarchism or communism ... which the article is already loaded with... look around for actual real time things going on that are a little topical like the Dubai section in the article. The article is plenty long though now. skip sievert (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a link to child labour should be listed here please (people never think about children's existence!)? Also what do you think about adding a link to When Corporations Rule the World which explains how we were all forced to need money, & how corporations behave all over the world destroying the earth (& killing many people)? Stars4change (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Section on Communism
"there is arguably as much variety (e.g. in economic policies, popular participation, atrocity levels etc) among states termed "communist" as there is among states termed "capitalist"[69][70]-- in spite of the lack of distinctions (as well as propagandistic labeling) that have been applied due to elite ideological influence in the wage systems of the US and the USSR. These two states preserved and expanded the institutions of wage slavery by simultaneously identifying Soviet state brutality and destruction of workers' councils with socialism and communism in order to either vilify them, or exploit the aura of their ideals (esp. opposition to wage slavery).[71][72]"

Though I'm inclined to agree with the substance, this all sounds very bias and POV, it would be nice if someone re-wrote it. First, it should be put in a "Xxxxx argues that......" or "Xxxx charges that..." way, instead of phrasing it as a matter of fact thing, and second, wordings like "propagandistic labeling", "atrocity levels" or "elite ideological influence" should be avoided, I think, as they emotional and not very neutral. For example, "the influence of the privileged sectors of these societies in shaping political debate" would be more appropriate than "elite ideological influence", which kinda sounds like a conspiracy theory, and "the level of repression and authoritarianism" is better than "atrocity levels", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

New lead picture
If it shows a protest against child labor (which has its own article on wikipedia), I don't know if it belongs here.

I've changed it for the second pic (with the Lowell female workers). Let me know what you think: 69.228.251.134 (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Psychological Effects: Off topic?
The section entitled "Psychological effects" sounds construed and/or remotely related to the topic to me. The section seems to contain quotes from various thinkers who conclude the equivalent of "involuntary servitude is inhumane," "workers are not appreciated by capitalist businessmen," and the "government fails to stand up for abused workers." I'm not saying that these statements are wrong, they are correct, and they are consistent with the economics of labor as I understand them. But I don't see what point is being made. It just seems confusing and doesn't seem to be making a point. I admit I am partly saying this because the section implies that workers are unable to stand up for themselves in a free market (as a capitalist I disagree) it still is somewhat confusing as a whole, and I'm hoping people could clear it up for me. Rustyfence (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the section on psychological effects remain crucial, and I strongly disagree with your synthesis of what these thinkers "conclude". In fact, your statements in quotes have, in my view, nothing to do with the section--rather, with your own biased interpretation. If indeed you admit to coming up with such interpretations due to your support for "free market" capitalism, I suggest you find reliable sources that back your ideas, so you can add them to the criticisms section. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

19th century female workers in Lowell, Massachusetts were arguably the first people to use the term "wage slavery"
Marx did before. http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me10/me10_127.htm Lohnsklaverei is the german term. --84.113.52.244 (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Marx was only 18 in 1836, when the Lowell Mill Girls allegedly used the term. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indent above and comment: so?. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So??? well, that at age 18 he hadn't written the major works where he talks about wage slavery. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) The link above is from 1854 when Marx would have been around 36; 2) It definitely uses the german word that literally translates as wage slavery; 3) there is absolutely no reason to believe he invented the german word; 4) while Marx was politically conscious at 18, he may or may not have known of the term at that age; 5) this is irrelevant as is the etymology of the term in English, the concept has clearly been expressed in writing at least since European antiquity and finally 6) no, the given source does not establish that Marx used or originated the term in 1836. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Flow Lede around TOC
As in this mock. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looked in my supported browsers and probably if used would be best with something to force "Historical Aspects" into its own &lt;div&gt; 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally not preferred - see the last point in WP:Lead section. Ravensfire ( talk ) 02:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So fucking what? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Article withdrawn, author under investigation.
Expert on Morality Is on Leave After Research Inquiry

Inquiry on Harvard Lab Threatens Ripple Effect

I mention these news articles about Marc Hauser, with links, on this talk page solely to alert other editors to the need to check for reliable sources for this article. If an article is withdrawn from a published journal, it is no longer a reliable source. I visited talk pages of articles that cite Hauser after doing a Google search restricted to Wikipedia. You can find news articles about the current investigation of Hauser by doing a Google news search. That's all. I make no conclusions about Hauser, but thought that editors who work on articles who cite his writings might want to be aware of this. Reliable sources are always important on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Poorly written
Something's going on here. This article is really poorly written. It's pretentious, choppy and unnatural. I strongly suspect mr1001nights... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.129.117 (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what you get on an encyclopedic article which is edited by multiple editors, I would suggest a revision with a central point-of-view and narrator from a single perspective, and that the flow and structure of the article be altered to be more concise in accordance with POV. Ideally, someone will adopt this article and revise it. 75.70.221.14 (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Adjusted indentation of second comment above and did quick scan of first quarter of the obverse to make sure they were without (given the general wiki concept) merit. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Footnote #11 or the Reference to Aristotle in opening paragraph
The reference to Aristotle in the first paragraph of this article is supported by a spurious quotation of Aristotle. The footnote should be improved to prove the point made in the first paragraph of the Wage Slavery article, or the reference to Aristotle (along with the footnote) should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josiahstufflebean (talk • contribs) 00:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not in a position to independently verify that you're correct (without spending time on it), but you seem definitely to be acting in good faith, so I would encourage you to delete the mention and reference if you feel the deletion is appropriate. If anyone disagrees, the burden is on them to come back with a better mention and a defense of it, which they're free to do if so. Thanks for your efforts. — ¾-10 20:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for response, ¾-10. I have removed the phrase which refers to Aristotle as well as the footnote which supports this reference.  Best, Josiahstufflebean.  —Preceding undated comment added 06:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC).   Josiahstufflebean (talk

To find out whether or not Aristotle's quotation is appropriate, let's compare his quotation "All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind" with the dictionary-based definition of wage slavery that this article uses:

Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.[1][2] 1 # ^ wage slave - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 2 # ^ wage slave - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Is Aristotle referring to (or at least including in his criticism) "a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages" when he talks about "paid jobs"? That's the question. It seems to me that wage slavery DOES qualify as part of the "paid jobs" that Aristotle described as "...absorb[ing] and degrad[ing] the mind."69.228.251.134 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem here is not whether "paid jobs" is synonymous with "a livelihood dependent on wages." The problem is that Aristotle never says: "All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind."  This particular quote is erroneously attributed to Aristotle. Josiahstufflebean (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 07:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

Info for missing citation of Chomsky quote under Labor and Government
A citation is needed between footnotes 94 and 95 for this Chomsky quote: "Representative democracy, as in, say, the United States or Great Britain, would be criticized by an anarchist of this school on two grounds. First of all because there is a monopoly of power centralized in the state, and secondly -- and critically -- because the representative democracy is limited to the political sphere and in no serious way encroaches on the economic sphere. Anarchists of this tradition have always held that democratic control of one's productive life is at the core of any serious human liberation, or, for that matter, of any significant democratic practice. That is, as long as individuals are compelled to rent themselves on the market to those who are willing to hire them, as long as their role in production is simply that of ancillary tools, then there are striking elements of coercion and oppression that make talk of democracy very limited, if even meaningful." It is from the source, but I don't know how to do footnotes on here yet. "The Relevance of Anarcho-syndicalism," Noam Chomsky interviewed by Peter Jay, The Jay Interview, July 25, 1976. It is online at http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19760725.htm tmt (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)tmtuttle


 * OK, I added the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heptadecagon (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis/Criticism - Oligopsony conditions
Brad Spangler has written on the reality of wage slavery in current and past non-free market contexts from the Austrian perspective. Arguing that the Austrian defense of the moral neutrality or legal permissiveness of 'wage' as a form of payment or employment is predicated upon the existence of a free market, which does not currently exist. His first presenting this, is here: http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/520 and a follow up here: http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/522. I feel this perspective is fairly important as a criticism of both traditional 'sides' of this argument.
 * 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 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.
 * "Since the post on wage slavery generated a bit of a stir, perhaps it’s time to introduce a $10 word for the fifty cent concept of “screw the workers“. That word is oligopsony. Just as the word “oligopoly” is a more dispersed form of the concept of “monopoly”, so to oligopsony complements monopsony. Monopsony, in turn, is a mirror image of monopoly. Where a monopoly indicates only one seller, monopsony indicates one buyer. The essence of what I had to say about the concept of wage slavery is that the government-induced cartelization of industry creates oligopsony conditions in the labor market. It does this by artificially reducing the number of buyers of labor (businesses), thereby granting the existing ones an unnatural degree of bargaining power. Austrian economics is quite clear on the cartelizing effects in the business world of statism. By pointing to statism as the cause of resulting oligopsony conditions in the labor market, a compelling case can be made that the completely free market (i.e. anarchy) truly is the proletarian revolution."

Thorsmitersaw (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr1001nights here. I think that eliminating wage slavery requires 1) making it harder to pursue than self-management 2) having a say over the kinds of jobs that the economy OVERALL creates e.g. one may have the choice to self-manage a mining industry, but I don't think that most people in a participatory system would even agree to be a miner and have a system where mining jobs are easier to pursue than some other more desirable jobs (e.g. more artistic or social jobs)--even if people want products that require massive mining operations. I may want the best laptop, but I ain't going down to the mine to get the metals, nor should I pressure someone to do so. Also if you mean lots of people owning small businesses, you must understand that an advanced industrial system and many of its jobs require major reliance on big industry. How does a non-state, free market that accepts substantial wealth inequalities (assuming it's even possible) make self-managed, participatory (as opposed to private or elite) control of big industry easier to pursue than wage labor? And how does it allow people to make decisions such as making certain jobs easier to pursue than others in the economy OVERALL? 69.228.251.134 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The addition of Böhm-Bawerk's nonsense
Someone wrote that Eugen Böhm-Bawerk argued that "workers benefit from working under capitalists because they get wages before a final product can realize its revenue potential." This is a variation of the argument for risk already addressed in the article. A chattel slave owner may feed, house, clothe and heal the wounds of an expensive slave before selling the products that the slave made or the cotton he picked. Does that mean that the slave benefits? Secondly even the factual assumptions have low credibility, as wage laborers making, say, ice-cream (or countless other products) may sell lots of it for the capitalist before they get paid at the end of the month. In any case, should a sweatshop laborer be grateful because she gets paid one week before the product gets sold rather than a week after? Should she get paid less than someone at a more forward stage of production?

Also nonsense is the notion that "The reason why workers opt for wages is because they have a high time preference while the capitalist's low time preference has him willing to forgo capital for future returns". First of all, the origins of capitalism have practically nothing to do with deferred consumption, but with transferable accumulations of profit and wealth going all the way back to prior social systems like chattel slavery and colonialism, or heinous actions like the slaughter of native peoples. Secondly, capitalist investment is, by definition, capital not needed for the basic necessities of life, so you can't compare a capitalist forgoing buying his tenth Rolls Royce to update a machine in his factory with a mother forgoing food, shelter or her children's education. Yes, the capitalist can forgo buying his tenth Rolls Royce for another 5 years while the mother can't forgo food for as long. Her "time preference" is lower. Gee I wonder why? 69.228.251.134 (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Must say I agree on all points with 69.228.251.134. I'm ignorant of the academic literature on this subject, so I don't even know who Böhm-Bawerk is/was without looking him up; but I do know that when I've read that "time preference" sentence, it's always struck me as flawed, although I never tried to delve into replacing it. I figured to myself, "Yeah, they have a 'high time preference' alright, because they need to eat today, not 4 weeks from now." Meanwhile the factory owner is eating well regardless of what capital investments he makes this week or next month. In other words, I had the same reaction you did. — ¾-10 23:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how there is anything flawed within an argument for time preference, unless yo are claiming to be immortal and thus unaffected by time as an input into your decision making. You are both fighting or building a case against the context and not against the actual exchange itself. The context being that of a corporate capitalist world, established not through trade but conquest. One in which through political means, certain actors are given legal power and preference and protection and insulation in the market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorsmitersaw (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This pointless rant against Bohm Bawerk was I must admit, quite funny, but innapropiate for Wikipedia standards 201.215.87.119 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Fromm's materialistic notion of self
I looked through Fromm, but couldn't find where he says explicitly that the "having" mode fosters authoritarian tendencies, but that the "being" mode doesn't. It does, however, seem plausible from what is written in the book. I've added a request for a page number in case.

The passage I'm questioning starts with this:


 * Erich Fromm noted that if a person perceives himself as being what he owns, then when that person loses (or even thinks of losing) what he "owns" (e.g. the good looks or sharp mind that allow him to sell his labor for high wages), then, a fear of loss may create anxiety...--Heptadecagon (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Fromm wrote a whole book on the subject. It's called "To Have or To Be". just google it 69.228.251.134 (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry, by "I looked through Fromm," I meant I looked through "To Have or To Be." I looked at a copy in the library, but I couldn't find where Fromm says or suggests this:
 * "...if a person perceives himself as being what he owns, then when that person loses (or even thinks of losing) what he "owns" (e.g. the good looks or sharp mind that allow him to sell his labor for high wages), then, a fear of loss may create anxiety and authoritarian tendencies because that person's sense of identity is threatened. In contrast, when a person's sense of self is based on what he experiences in a state of being (creativity, ego or loss of ego, love, sadness, taste, sight etc.) with a less materialistic regard for what he once had and lost, or may lose, then less authoritarian tendencies prevail. The state of being, in his view, flourishes under a worker-managed workplace and economy, whereas self-ownership entails a materialistic notion of self, created to rationalize the lack of worker control that would allow for a state of being."
 * If you wrote this, would you supply a page number or rewrite it so that it's easily verifiable?--Heptadecagon (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Watch this BBC Interview Excerpt with Erich Fromm. It confirms the text isn't synthesis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7GpHrdXOFI 69.228.251.134 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In the video, Fromm says at 1:26, "The sense of identity based on what I have is always threatened. A person is anxiously concerned of not to lose what he has, because he doesn't lose just what he has, he loses his sense of self." I watched all four parts of the interview and he doesn't mention the effect of the having and being modes on authoritarian tendencies. It might be true, but Fromm doesn't say this, at least not in the video you linked to. Adding it is an unpublished synthesis, unless you can provide a page number in a book written by Fromm that anyone can easily verify.


 * Where does Fromm talk about the "good looks or sharp mind that allow him to sell his labor for high wages"?


 * Further, one can't verify without potentially laborious searching of Fromm's work that "the state of being, in his view, flourishes under a worker-managed workplace and economy, whereas self-ownership entails a materialistic notion of self, created to rationalize the lack of worker control that would allow for a state of being." Where does Fromm say that worker-managed workplaces are conducive to the state of being? Again, it might be true, but, unless you can provide a page number where Fromm says this, it is an unpublished synthesis. I've looked in To Have or To Be, but couldn't find it. I might have missed it. I imagine you know the book better than I do, so please provide a page number or numbers, if it appears several times in the book. I think we should note, as it says just below the text box into which I'm typing, that "encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

Heptadecagon (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll first quote from Fromm's To Have or To Be:

"To achieve a society based on being, all people must actively participate in their economic function as citizens. Hence, our liberation from the having mode of existence is possible only through the full realization of industrial and political participatory democracy...Industrial democracy implies that each member of a large industrial or other organization plays an active role in the life of the organization; that each is fully informed and participates in decision making..." (p.147)

And Fromm's The Sane Society:

"Wage slavery will exist as long as there is a man or institution that is the master of men: it will be ended when the workers...resolve[] to end the industrial system that makes them slaves. First, then, what is the nature of the ideal at which Labour must aim? What is meant by that 'control of industry' which workers are to demand? It can be summed up in two words--direct management. The task of actually conducting the business must be handed over to the workers engaged in it. To them it must belong to order production, distribution and exchange. They must win industrial self-government..." (p.278) (173.164.194.214 (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

It can't make it as article content, but we're pasting it to talk
[Cross-posted from Talk:Slavery in the United States > It can't make it as article content, but we're pasting it to talk, which see.] — ¾-10 16:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If something concrete can be added and references given, great, otherwise, the article already offers a footnoted historical treatment of the economic advantages of wage labor over chattel slavery, or the institutional and ideological ways wage labor developed and it has been maintained. (69.228.251.134 (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC))

It's a good contribution (although not to a Wikipedia article). Someone should find more current/modern info for this article, vs. all this history.

Also you should stop making bad youtube videos.--66.49.181.19 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

User 62.163.198.85 is repeatedly vandalizing the article
Not sure how to report it, but as you can see in the edit history, this user is engaging in vandalism (173.164.194.214 (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)).

References are a mess
I've noticed this pop up on Sociology GANs article alerts. Quick look suggests a quick fail on at least one count: references are a mess. See WP:CITE for how to, and try to convert everything into proper citation templates. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, can somebody fix them a bit? (173.164.194.214 (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

Child Labour
Would it be okay to add a link to "child labour"? Catlover98 (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC) I think it should be added because by studying it it shows children (and adults) were very oppressed. Catlover98 (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lowest Wages - POV
Regarding the section "Lowest Wages", the section seems to rely on a single source (a good one mind you). I am not disputing the facts, but as part of the review I thought I would flag this section so editors who are more familiar with the article can examine it. Connolly15 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over gender section
The following section has been deleted by Scott Illini

GENDER "Men occupy a large majority of hazardous jobs and therefore they suffer some 80% of occupational deaths. In high-income countries this figure is 86%. In low-income countries, where communicable diseases are much more common, the division is likely to be balanced. Recent household surveys carried out in several countries point out that in traditional agriculture the accident and disease rates are more evenly distributed between the two genders. In particular, those outcomes that are causing long-term disabilities and absences from work, such as musculo-skeletal disorders, are more common for female workers than males. These jobs are often linked to low salary levels."

He claims that this is justified because "claiming that all low wage jobs are wage slavery is POV"

Even if this were the case (which doesn't seem to be under some definitions of wage slavery given in this article (e.g."...comparatively low wages...lack of workers' self-management..."), how can low wage jobs TOGETHER WITH work related death, injury and illness not fit this article's definitions of wage slavery? And doesn't it seem relevant--just like it would be on an article on chattel slavery? That's what this section is about in gender terms. (173.164.194.214 (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC))