Talk:Wage slavery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Can someone knowledgeable improve the order of the citations/footnotes?

the first citation should start with a number 1, but it has a number 4. Also, the footnotes consist of both, links and references. Maybe they should all be made into references Wardanuclear (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New and better definition (with sources)

Wage slavery is a term first coined by the Lowell Mill Girls in 1836[1], though articulated in concept as early as 1763 [2] and elaborated on by various subsequent thinkers. It refers to the similarities between buying and renting a person, and denotes a hierarchical social condition in which a person chooses a job but only within a coerced set of choices (primarily working for a boss under threat of poverty or starvation), [3] [4][5][6] which make that "person dependent on wages or a salary for a livelihood,"[7] "esp[ecially] with total and immediate dependency on the income derived from...[wage] labor"[8] Wage slavery, in the pervasive socialist and anarchist usage of the term, is often understood as the absence of 1) democratic or non-hierarchical worker's control of the workplace and the economy as a whole,[9] [10][11], 2) unconditional access to a fair share of the basic necessities of life, [12] [13] and 3) the ability of persons to have say over economic decisions in proportion to the degree they are affected by those decisions.[14] In terms used by some critics of capitalism, statism and various authoritarian systems --particularly anarchists-- wage slavery is the condition where a person must sell his or her labor power, submitting to the authority of an employer in order to prosper or merely to subsist.[15] [16] [17] unsigned comment added by Wardanuclear (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate definition edit

The definition for the past 6-8 months:

'Wage slavery' is a term used to refer to a hierarchical social condition in which a person chooses a job but only within a coerced set of choices (i.e. work for a boss or starve) which usually excludes democratic worker's control of the workplace and the economy as a whole and unconditional access to a fair share of available food, shelter and health care. It is used to express disapproval of a situation where persons are effectively compelled to work in return for payment of a wage, and are therefore barred from having a say over economic decisions in proportion to the degree they are affected by those decisions—hence reducing control over their destinies.[1] In terms used by some critics of capitalism, statism and various authoritarian systems --particularly anarchists-- wage slavery is the condition where a person must sell his or her labor power, submitting to the authority of an employer in order to prosper or merely to subsist.


has been suddenly changed by operationspooner to:


Wage slavery is a term that was used by Karl Marx to mean that individuals have to work in a capitalist factory or die of starvation.


This is obviously an inferior, biased and inaccurate definition. Apart from the lack of explanatory subtlety and the fact that that is not exactly what Marx said (his concept was much broader and wasn't reduced to "factories"), many relevant people before, during and after Marx, from different political ideologies (from liberals, to republicans and anarchists) have spoken about wage slavery, as the article shows. A few examples were provided on this discussion page some days ago. For example, way before Marx--in 1763-- Simon Linguet says (footnote 2) that:

“The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him… Men's blood had some price in the days of slavery. They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market…It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat, and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live. It is want that drags them to those markets where they await masters who will do them the kindness of buying them. It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him… what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men, it is said, have no master—they have one, and the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. It is this that reduces them to the most cruel dependence. They live only by hiring out their arms. They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?”

The wage laborers at Lowell, Massachusetts (the Lowell Mill Girls) in 1836 say

"Oh! I cannot be a slave, I will not be a slave, For I'm so fond of liberty, That I cannot be a slave"

Around the same time as Marx, the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin also spoke about wage slavery:

...the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom -voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory in the economic sense - broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery.This slavery manifests itself daily in all kinds of ways. Apart from the vexations and oppressive conditions of the contract which turn the worker into a subordinate, a passive and obedient servant, and the employer into a nearly absolute master - apart from all that, it is well known that there is hardly an industrial enterprise wherein the owner, impelled on the one hand by the two-fold instinct of an unappeasable lust for profits and absolute power, and on the other hand, profiting by the economic dependence of the worker, does not set aside the terms stipulated in the contract and wring some additional concessions in his own favor. Now he will demand more hours of work, that is, over and above those stipulated in the contract; now he will cut down wages on some pretext; now he will impose arbitrary fines, or he will treat the workers harshly, rudely, and insolently. But, one may say, in that case the worker can quit. Easier said than done. At times the worker receives part of his wages in advance, or his wife or children may be sick, or perhaps his work is poorly paid throughout this particular industry. Other employers may be paying even less than his own employer, and after quitting this job he may not even be able to find another one. And to remain without a job spells death for him and his family. In addition, there is an understanding among all employers, and all of them resemble one another. All are almost equally irritating, unjust, and harsh. Is this calumny? No, it is in the nature of things, and in the logical necessity of the relationship existing between the employers and their workers. [18]

In 1883 Henry George (footnote 18) says

"That a people can be enslaved just as effectually by making property of their lands as by making property of their bodies, is a truth that conquerors in all ages have recognized" [19]

Also, anti-abolitionists like George Fitzhugh argued about the "oppression" and "slavery" of wage laborers (footnote 13, 14, 22) and said things like

"Capital exercises a more perfect compulsion over free laborers, than human masters over slaves: for free laborers must at all times work or starve, and slaves are supported whether they work or not. Free laborers have less liberty than slaves, are worse paid and provided for, and have no valuable rights. Slaves, with more of actual practical liberty, with ampler allowance, and constant protection, are secure in the enjoyment of all the rights, which provide for their physical comfort at all times and under all circumstances. The free laborer must be employed or starve, yet no one is obliged to employ him. The slave is taken care of, whether employed or not. Though each free laborer has no particular master, his wants and other men's capital, make him a slave without a master, or with too many masters, which is as bad as none" [20]

Noam Chomsky, another scholar widely quoted in the article (who was called by the New York Times 'arguably the most important intellectual alive") has often used the term "wage slavery" [21]

The important American union, the IWW, says in its preamble:

"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth."[22] Wardanuclear (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Your point? If the current references does not back up the old defintion. You better get some that does or it is Oiginal Research. Lord Metroid (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Visionthing still placing "OR" & "verify" requests after being exposed as someone with an agenda

I'd like the administrator to note that visionthing and operationspooner continue their attempts to discredit this article even after being recently exposed

Take, say, Visionthing, whose dishonesty can be easily proven by the fact that in the last post he wrote something that was demonstrably false. I'll quote him:

"This entire article seems to be a piece of original research. I made a brief search through some of the sources, and the term "Wage slavery" was not used in any of them. Term is not mentioned even in the quotations used in the article. If this is not corrected soon, I propose deletion of all questionable content." -- Vision Thing -- 18:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My response, quickly pointing at a few footnotes proving him wrong, showed that he hadn't bothered to look at the sources.

The term "wage slave" was often used by Karl Marx (e.g. in Das Kapital [23]) , who explained the concept (footnote 6) by saying “The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole. The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.”

Noam Chomsky, another scholar widely quoted in the article (who was called by the New York Times 'arguably the most important intellectual alive") has often used the term "wage slavery" [24]

Henry George in footnote 18 says

"That a people can be enslaved just as effectually by making property of their lands as by making property of their bodies, is a truth that conquerors in all ages have recognized" [25]

When anti-abolitionists like George Fitzhugh argued about the "oppression" of wage laborers (footnote 13, 14, 22) and said things like

"Capital exercises a more perfect compulsion over free laborers, than human masters over slaves: for free laborers must at all times work or starve, and slaves are supported whether they work or not. Free laborers have less liberty than slaves, are worse paid and provided for, and have no valuable rights. Slaves, with more of actual practical liberty, with ampler allowance, and constant protection, are secure in the enjoyment of all the rights, which provide for their physical comfort at all times and under all circumstances. The free laborer must be employed or starve, yet no one is obliged to employ him. The slave is taken care of, whether employed or not. Though each free laborer has no particular master, his wants and other men's capital, make him a slave without a master, or with too many masters, which is as bad as none" [26]

What do you think they were referring to?

When the wage laborers at Lowell (the Lowell Mill Girls) in 1836 say

"Oh! I cannot be a slave, I will not be a slave, For I'm so fond of liberty, That I cannot be a slave"

what do you think they are referring to?

When Simon Linguet says in 1763 (footnote 2) that:

“The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him… Men's blood had some price in the days of slavery. They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market…It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat, and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live. It is want that drags them to those markets where they await masters who will do them the kindness of buying them. It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him… what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men, it is said, have no master—they have one, and the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. It is this that reduces them to the most cruel dependence. They live only by hiring out their arms. They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?”

What do you think he is referring to?

I understand that some people may not agree with the term, but there is no doubt that the term deserves exclusive treatment due to its unique historical significance.

[edit] Right wing fanatics vandalizing this article

i urge the administrator to note that operationspooner, visionthing, lordmetroid and other users with extreme right wing political affiliations expressed on their page, are vandalizing this article out of a hostility for its political implications. This is unethical, unacceptable, and violates wikipedia regulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.66.87 (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just because someone with another view edits the article and it clashes with yours doesn't mean it is vandalism. Lord Metroid (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalistic placement of [citation needed]

There are a number of people like operationspooner who continue to vandalize the definition because of their dislike of the concept. This kind of thing already happened in the past, and I've encouraged critics to write a "criticisms" section (which was finally started some days ago).

They place [citation needed] requests after

1) hierarchical social condition[citation needed]

2) in which a person chooses a job but only within a coerced[citation needed] set of choices (i.e. work for a boss or starve)

3) which usually excludes democratic worker's control of the workplace[citation needed]

If anyone disagrees with the definition of wage slavery, I suggest they propose a new one, but it is clear to anyone who bothers to read the entry that these 3 points and the whole definition of wage slavery, have attempted to accurately portray the historical understanding of the term and the philosophical concepts behind it--expressed by people from different walks of life and political persuasions--from the Lowell mill girls to thinkers like Bakunin, Kropotkin, George Fitzugh, Simon Linguet, Noam Chomsky Henry George, Silvio Gesell, Thomas Paine, the Catholic church, Erich fromm etc and rooted in the ideas of people like Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Proudhon and so on. In other words, the definition is a distillation of longer and more elaborate/established definitions. The requested citations encompass the WHOLE article, which contains close to a hundred footnotes. It is impossible and unnecessary to include them in the definition


Careful there. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. No one should "propose" a new definition. Synthesizing a definition is "original research" and that's no allowed on Wikipedia. Definitions have to come from a source explicitly defining "wage slavery." Operation Spooner (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


There's is no "synthesizing" or "original research" going on; the definition comes from the aforementioned sources which explicitly define wage slavery--just as other concepts like capitalism, nazism, bolshevism, fascism etc are defined on wikipedia, in spite of there being people who disagree with their definition: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.66.87 (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you've tried to cite some sources, but they're not acceptable. An Anarchist FAQ is not acceptable, nor are websites. This is because they haven't been published in a peer-reviewed journal or in a non-self-published book. Operation Spooner (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your self-published vandalism is what is not acceptable. The political affiliations expressed in your main page show that you are not fit to be the judge of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.66.87 (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your emotional attachment to the topic makes you equally unfit. Lord Metroid (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I put back the word "hierarchical" before "social condition" in the opening

I've written 95% of this article, and I've put a lot of time and thought into it. I understand why 63.95.64.254 thinks "hierarchical" is clumsy, but he obviously hadn't read the post (titled "I think I added some clarity to the definition") I wrote a while back. I believe the significance and concise usefulness of the word outweighs the perceived "clumsiness". This is what I wrote:

"What I was trying to do when I asked for help with the definition is to counter the argument made by a right wing critic that cavemen living in egalitarian societies, facing dangers, harsh weather, with little food, resources or knowledge were also subject to a coerced set of choices and were--by my standards-- therefore also "wage slaves" That's why I added "hierarchical social" to "condition", because that excludes from the "coerced set of choices" of wage slavery cavemen who had to hunt for 14 hours straight to survive or who had to risk their lives to catch an animal. The point is that with these hypothetical cavemen there is no SOCIAL hierarchy and the corresponding psychological effects would seem different from wage slavery--even if one could say that they were "coerced" by the harsh choices they faced or that they were "enslaved" by their cold winters, their supposed ignorance or lack of food. And needless to say, wage slavery is a term associated primarily with capitalism and the industrial revolution, so bringing in cavemen doesn't make any sense. But nevertheless, I think it's a useful addition." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.28.245 (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] I cleaned up the article

I put in order a few footnotes that weren't part of the rest, improved the main definition, and added a few sentences toward the end about social movements associated with wage slavery. I've thus removed the tag. If this is not justified, let me know why and which parts need improvement.

[edit] Suggestion for Immoralist: write a "criticisms" section rather than complaining about POV

You say that you "put an NPOV thing on the article because it says that going to work actually is coerced instead of being neutral by saying that the term is based on the perception that it is coerced". It's clear that what you object to is the notion of wage slavery itself (a term of historical importance, given that it was first expressed by people like Marx and Bakunin). The non NPOV qualification is therefore not appropriate. If you want to do a scholarly description of why you (or others) don't agree with the term, I suggest you write a "criticisms of the concept of wage slavery" at the end of the article. If you read what I've written on this page before, you'll see that the reason why I declined to merge this article with wage labor is PRECISELY because there are people who do not agree with the implications of the term. Let me repeat part of what I wrote when the merge was suggested:

"as I've tried to document in the article, the term's extensive, influential and unique historical use merits exclusive treatment....Depending on what your political leanings are, you may find "wage slavery" to be a loaded term. I think it's an accurate descriptive term; just as valid as choosing "chattel slavery" over "chattel labor". Nevertheless, many don't agree that our current relations of production are authoritarian enough to warrant the term "slavery" (for reasons that I attempt to explain in the article) and though this may change in time, I suspect that merging wage labor and wage slavery could lead to vandalism and a poorer description of a term that deserves exclusive treatment due to its historic importance."

[edit] Note for user called Immoralist

Please, refrain from adding the words "what are perceived to be" and "believed to be" , as they are already implied in the paragraph, particularly in the exlusionary phrase "in terms used by some critics of capitalism, statism and various authoritarian systems" which makes clear that there are non-users of "a term used to refer to...". It may be true that the degree of subjectivity and opinion of political terms means that they are "perceived to be" or "believed to be" to a higher degree than a tomato, a tree or a window are "perceived to be" or "believed to be". Nevertheless, such subjectivity is implied. We have to ask how much clarity is gained by adding terms such as "what are perceived to be". In fact I could add "what are perceived to be perceived" or "what are perceived to be perceived to be perceived" etc ad infinitum without adding any clarity. I've reverted the paragraph to the original. The words Immoralist added are in caps:

Wage slavery is a term used to refer to a hierarchical social condition in which a person chooses a job but only within WHAT ARE PERCEIVED TO BE a coerced set of choices (e.g. work for a boss or starve) which usually excludes democratic worker's control of the workplace and the economy as a whole and unconditional access to food, shelter and health care. It is used to express disapproval of a situation where persons are BELIEVED TO BE effectively compelled to work in return for payment of a wage,and are therefore barred from having a say over economic decisions in proportion to the degree they are affected by those decisions--hence reducing control over their destinies. [1] In terms used by many critics of capitalism, statism and various authoritarian systems, wage slavery is the condition where a person must sell his or her labor power, submitting to the authority of an employer merely to subsist.

Note to the unsigned commentator above, Please recognize that you do not own this article.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I think I added some clarity to the definition

What I was trying to do when I asked for help with the definition is to counter the argument made by a right wing critic that cavemen living in egalitarian societies, facing dangers, harsh weather, with little food, resources or knowledge were also subject to a coerced set of choices and were--by my standards-- therefore also "wage slaves" That's why I added "hierarchical social" to "condition", because that excludes from the "coerced set of choices" of wage slavery cavemen who had to hunt for 14 hours straight to survive or who had to risk their lives to catch an animal. The point is that with these hypothetical cavemen there is no SOCIAL hierarchy and the corresponding psychological effects would seem different from wage slavery--even if one could say that they were "coerced" by the harsh choices they faced or that they were "enslaved" by their cold winters, their supposed ignorance or lack of food. And needless to say, wage slavery is a term associated primarily with capitalism and the industrial revolution, so bringing in cavemen doesn't make any sense. But nevertheless, I think it's a useful addition.

[edit] Help with the definition

Hi again, I'm the person who has written most of this article. After arguing with someone who doesn't like the implications of this article (and who was therefore trying to find holes anywhere he could), I momentarily changed the definition:

from

Wage slavery is a term used to refer to a condition in which a person chooses a job but only within a coerced set of choices (e.g. work for a boss or starve) which usually excludes democratic worker's control of the workplace and the economy as a whole and unconditional access to food, shelter and health care.

to

Wage slavery is a term used to refer to a condition in which a person chooses a job but only within a coerced set of choices (e.g. work for a boss or starve) which usually excludes democratic worker's control of the workplace and the economy as a whole and unconditional access to a fair share of available food, shelter and health care.

though I changed it back, not knowing if it adds or clarifies anything. Comments please.

I think the second explanation gives a broader and more egalitarian view of what is needed to survive where wage slavery exists. Tswold 08:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

After reading both wage labor and wage slavery many times I find a fatal flaw in the argument for wage slavery. Calling a thing something doesn't make it so. Slavery is, above all, an involuntary state of existence. I can call a cat a dog, but it doesn't make it a dog. Hiring oneself out for wages, voluntarily, necessarily obviates the condition of slavery. If ones intent is to criticize capitalism then perhaps the appropriate venue is the article on capitalism, not a phantasm labeled wage slavery. In spite of the months of work that have gone into this article I see no mention of involuntary servitude experienced by persons who are working off alleged fees for being smuggled into a foreign country, to pay advances made to parents who have sold their children into slavery, and no mention of the effect of fear of life and limb which enforces these situations of involuntary wage earners. And the most glaring omission, that of involuntary sex slaves. If one wishes to promote worker cooperatives in contrast to capitalism, I'm sure there is a proper forum for expression of those views and perceived advantages. After reading The Law of the Labour Market, Deakin and Wikinson, I find that while the authors examine the effect of Poor Law in Britain in exhaustive measure, they allude to the period of workhouses, during which Marx experienced capitalism, which drove innovations in methods of providing for the poor and unemployable. In their review of recent wage and welfare programs in Britain they emphasize the rise of collective bargaining as the determining force behind the improvement in wages and the egalitarian drive to relieve the wage earner from oppressive power wielded by industry and capitalists.

The Poor Laws of Britain were aimed not just at the individual worker, but at poor families as a class, the feeble and infirm, who were oppressed by circumstances mostly beyond their control. That those beginnings have evolved into the welfare stare of Britain is not a criticism of capitalism as much as it is a condemnation of the human make up in its baser aspects. Britain is a state in which the prevailing belief is that one must work if one is able. That is not a fault of capitalism, it is a reflection of the mores of a people. That one would find the inalienable right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness to be mere slavery to the institution or state is capriciously oppositional. The entire argument of wage slavery is specious when applied to those who work. The writer perhaps could devote their efforts to examining the real wage slavery of sex worker or sweatshop captive. Tswold (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested merge with wage labor

I'll set up the section for discussion of this topic here:

I've written about 95% of this article from different computers since I started editing it late this summer. I don't think merging it with wage labor is a good idea. For one, as I've tried to document in the article, the term's extensive, influential and unique historical use merits exclusive treatment. Also, the article on wage labor is short and badly written (I actually share responsibility, as I wrote part of that article in a rush early this year). Depending on what your political leanings are, you may find "wage slavery" to be a loaded term. I think it's an accurate descriptive term; just as valid as choosing "chattel slavery" over "chattel labor". Nevertheless, many don't agree that our current relations of production are authoritarian enough to warrant the term "slavery" (for reasons that I attempt to explain in the article) and though this may change in time, I suspect that merging wage labor and wage slavery could lead to vandalism and a poorer description of a term that deserves exclusive treatment due to its historic importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.4.118 (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solution?

Aren't ESOPs a win-win proposition between management and employees? Known 07:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I.E. management is controlled by employees? That takes care of some of the issues of Wage Slavery, however I would argue that with a majority of wealth in the hands of the minority, it does not answer all the questions, and any value you may be able to gain out of it is still not an optimal situation. Working people must be in control of production, and communities must be in control of their own lives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.208.38.164 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC).


ESOP's make no provision for employee input into the decision process. Generally, a Board of Directors manages the economic activity and decisions and passes them down to the employees. There is a disparity as well in terms of 'vestment' and shares to those in differing status levels within the organization. Tswold 08:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Older talk

This page is weak from a theoretical perspective but should be rewritten rather than deleted. In addition to the colloquial U.S. usage a Marxist analysis should be added. --Daniel C. Boyer

Yes, it needs a major overhaul. First, it sounds like a "point/counterpoint" argument. Second, much of the article really misses the point, as if the complaint about wage slavery is that a person needs to work. sheesh! AdamRetchless 15:31, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's not a Marxist analysis, a large part of the population in America have held this view without being Marxist. This page does not express anything like that properly. The basic view is that Slavery and Wage Slavery are not very different from each other. Those that work in the factory should own the factory, and this has been a very large view although U.S. history into the 20th Century. This view has been a Libertarian view and not Marxist. The working class press in the mid 19th century was calling for those who work in the mills should own them. Even the republican party regarded wage labor a preliminary to free labor. A large portion of the population fighting the Civil War was fighting under that pretext. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.208.38.164 (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't really like this article, though I'm not entirely sure why and I don't know how to fix it. I think the problem is that I come away thinking that the "dissenters of the capitalist status quo" advocate, as a primary solution to the problem, things like purchasing more businesses and real estate. Aside from being terrifically unrealistic, I can't imagine a whole lot of anarchists and communists suggesting this because it would seem to run counter to their central ideals. Maybe it's an organization thing, and not a content thing--I'll try to take another look tomorrow when I'm not as tired, but I thought I'd flag it now so someone more educated might get to it before me. Tokerboy 01:19 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

The author's point of view appears to be more Groucho Marxist than Marxist. To quote Groucho, playing a hotel manager in The Cocoanuts faced with a group of employees asking for their pay: "Do you want to be wage slaves? Answer me that! No, of course not. But what makes wage slaves? Wages!"

I've tried to eliminate the "point-counterpoint" format of the article and make it clear which type of person advocates which solution. In the process, I eliminated many of the explicit statements against use of the term "wage slavery", but I think I managed to incorporate the ideas into paragraphs that explain the concept of "wage slavery". Unfortunately, I didn't get to the end of the article and it is still a bit rough down there. AdamRetchless 02:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If it were point/counterpoint then the Capitalist view is poorly represented. I see no information from the capitalist view of labor and wage here. Tswold 08:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giving the article some structure

I think that the article needs some structure. I'm not confident of how it should be changed, so I'm not going to change it right away. Anyway, I suggest these three sections: Introduction, comparison to chattel slavery, and responses to wage slavery (such as labor laws). It might also be good to have a section for how each school of thought (anarchism, liberalism, etc.) has treated the idea of wage slavery. AdamRetchless 19:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Access to Free Land

To: AdamRetchless

I made revisions to the article to emphasize the fact that wage work (as an institution) is the result of not having access to free land. By reverting back to the original version, you have made the decision that this point is irrelevant. Can you back up this decision?

The changes that you have made disrupt the flow of the article, and overemphasize one perspective at the expense of others. The connection between wage slavery and land were noted in the second paragraph. Furthermore, not everyone accepts "slavery" as being an accurate term, so the article discussed the pros and cons of using that term. You have changed the article so that it takes a particular stance on a controversy surrounding this term. That violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Wikipedia relies on striking a balance between the perspectives of everyone involved here. I spent a fair amount of time trying to do that, and I think that your edits have disrupted that balance. Wikipedia is not the place to make arguments, it is the place to summarize arguments that others have made. If you can't identify where those ideas came from (land ownership and taxation), then a detailed arguement doesn't belong in this article. If you can't justify why this particular argument deserves priority over everything else written in this article, then it doesn't belong in the introduction. AdamRetchless 04:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In reference to, "not everyone accepts slavery as being an accurate term", Anyone who thinks it’s legitimate to be a wage laborer is internalizing oppression in a way which would have seemed intolerable to people in the mills 150 years ago. Because at this point you question the validity of slavery doesn't change the fact this was a widely held opinion not 100 years ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.208.38.164 (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I cut the following from the intro paragraph, and could not find an appropriate spot for it in the remainder of the article:

This condition is brought about by prohibiting free access to subsistence land. It exists when land is monopolized by landlords and where the government imposes a property tax. This forces everyone to enter a money economy, and most people become wage workers. Such a condition is rightfully called "slavery" because a wage worker is forced into it. If the worker refuses, he must either turn to criminal activity, rely on charity, become a scavanger (homeless), or starve.

This needed to be removed from the intro primarily because it was too detailed for the intro. The intro should cover the entire scope of the issue, rather than one particular perspective on it. Furthermore, it makes strong POV statements ("rightfully called 'slavery'") and presents deteailed theorization without reference to where that theory came from. AdamRetchless 15:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RE: . . . wage work (as an institution) is the result of not having access to free land. Could you write something that explains how a teacher, doctor or lawyer working for wages would be better off with free land? Or, did you omit the 17th century context? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] socialism includes anarchism, Marxism, and communism

The article described "wage slavery" as being a concept that was common in "anarchist, Marxist, communist, and socialist criticisms of capitalism." This is difficult to read, so I cut out anarchism, Marxism, and communism. I understand the term socialism to include all of those ideologies, and they are all listed rather prominantly on the socialism page. I am a bit wary of relying on a second page to make a point relevant to this page, but I really disliked that long list of ideologies. AdamRetchless 18:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was common to many people who didn't hold any of those ideologies. It should be called a term, not a socialist, anarchist, or marxist term. q 03:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wage slavery in a communist state

It seems a bit weird to call the labor situation in the USSR "wage slavery". In many cases, as the author pointed out, labor was explicitly forced--in which case it's just plain slavery, not wage slavery. Otherwise, there wasn't a market for labor as I understand... I'll have to think about it. AdamRetchless 01:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the USA, proponents of chatel slavery often argued that "free" laborers weren't any better than slaves, thereby justifying their slavery. This seems to be similar to how things were handled in the USSR. Perhaps the second section could be translated into a discussion of how the fear of wage slavery has been used to justify other forms of slavery, or discuss proposed alternatives to wage slavery. We should also think about restructuring and renaming the sections--the "capitalism" section is too long, and the idea of wage slavery is completely about capitalism, so having a section dedicated to capitalism is redundant. AdamRetchless 19:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are correct about proponents of chatel slavery argued that free laborers weren't any better, because they treated Slaves better because they owned them. When you rent labor, you don't care what happens to them. It's like owning or renting a car.

This objection has been here for a year, and is still unanswered. It looks like the section is original research and does not have any sources to back it up. -- infinity0 20:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue of wage slavery in the USSR is discussed in certain communist circles, see eg. [27]. The section points out that this usage is not common. Still, it is justified. The definition "legally (de jure) voluntarily employed but practically (de facto) a slave." is 100% fit for all Soviet agricultural labor. `'mikka (t) 20:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, then. What about renaming the section heading? At the moment it makes it seem like a major and serious point of those states. -- infinity0 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just restored a verison which made much more sense. Someone butchered it into, I have to agree, a text which made little sense.

Renaming: I am OK with the section title, e.g., "Other usage".

"Major point of those states": The issue requires more research. In fact, it was slavery for good. I am starting to think that the definition in our article is a bit vague. I started reading it a bit more carefully and see that after removing concrete facts and slightly tweaking the wording you will get the description of the USSR. Just for fun, later I will do it in this talk page. `'mikka (t) 21:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was the point of the objection - wage slavery isn't what was in the communism states, but slavery. Also, what's this "The application of the term "wage slavery" to the economy of 'socialist' states has been hardly used outside of the ultra-left and Left communist political discourses." based on? The above source is from one person - hardly a "political discourse"; and the passage makes it sound like it's common even within "ultra-left and left communist discourses". -- infinity0 21:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The "ultra-left" part wasn't my addition. "The above source from one person" is just an example I've found to demonstrate that the term is in use and sufficiently so as to cause some polemics among some modern communists. So I guess it makes at least four persons in total who recognizes the usage. I am not an expert in modern communism to write more, but the usage is provably in circulation, so the section stays. `'mikka (t) 22:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Slavery": it wasn't slavery in the USSR either. It is an abuse of the term. We can say this informally, but slapping such labels in serious articles does not help to understand what exactly it was there. Communists say it was "true democracy". And indeeed, if 3/4 party members voted against Stalin, he'd be gone without question. So what was it? A short answer: Communism, a nice theory in practice. `'mikka (t) 22:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The source you give cites this source as its critique. In that source, the author mentions "wage slavery" once. He does not use it in a formal way. I cannot find any other examples of it being used this way: [28] gives no results on the first few pages about this usage. If it is used in this way, it's certainly not used seriously, or by any notable people. -- infinity0 22:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, the section reads like a joke. I will remove it by will not persist if it is restored. The communist system had many issues of evil, but it doesn't mean that any possible evil may be applied to it. Wage slavery is just a plain wrong term.
Gulag and other forced labor is just that, forced labor, not wage slavery. lack of freedom for agricultural workers until Khrushchev's passportization was a kind of enserfement but not wage slavery.
The phrase "workers' and especially peasants' wages were on the subsistence level" is plain BS at least for the Golden Autumn of the USSR years (60s-80s).
If someone insists on the existence of this section, please write is as a criticism of the applicability of the term and not a bunch of unrelated statements. --Irpen 05:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
My young friend, my best years were spent during these "golden soviet autumn". Exactly in these "golden" years a joke was coined: "they pretend they are paying, we pretend we are working". It was precisely subsistence level, "ot zarplaty do zarplaty" in a city. Countryside was way below subsistence level. Don't even start this. People in towns could feed themselves only because of articificially low prices for staple foods. People in villages lived off their tiny parcel. By 1980s many city dwellers could reasonably eat only thanks to dachas. `'mikka (t) 21:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, I have no intention to present late USSR as a paradise. I hated much of what was there. However, subsistence level claim is just false. People (I am not saying all) went for vacation to the sea (some occasionally, some yearly), had refrigerators and many had even washing machines. There was this obsession with dachas and that people were spending money to have at least a shed there shows that this was no subsistence. A very significant percentage of population lived in big cities, which were telephonized (not all had telephones, true enough), had the electricity and running water (in some cities by scheduled hours of the day), houses were heated, schools and hospitals worked, buses and elektrichkas were running, ambulance came on call (I am talking cities here) and hospitals were open and so on. I don't need to tell this all to you, I am sure.

The joke you refer to was coined out of comparison of the Soviet and Western life standards but not out of comparison of the Soviet standrads with the "substistence level" nations. Please do not tell me that I try to present the Soviet life a paradise. It was in many ways a ridiculous life, but it has to be exposed properly. This section just didn't do the job. --Irpen 21:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved here text from the article, see above:

Wage slavery in communist states

TotallyDisputed-section
OriginalResearch

In theory, under Marxist communism labor is supposed to be voluntary: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.". However, some authoritarian communist states, such as the USSR, employed a wide range of involuntary labor, from slave labor of Gulag camps to obligatory labor of the former Soviet Union, where failure to have a job was a criminal offence, known as "parasitism" (тунеядство, tuneyadstvo).

Bearing in mind that most workers' and especially peasants' wages were on the subsistence level, the laborers' condition would fit most definitions of "wage slavery". However, the application of the term "wage slavery" to the economy of Communist states has been hardly used in this way.

If a "wage slave" has no other possible employers but the state, as in the major communist countries, then apparently the anti-Capitalists' own argument applies to the system they advocate!
Communist countries have not been Socialist. That was/is Propaganda, so your question doesn't make any sense within that context.
Have any published authors pointed out this irony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wing Nut (talk • contribs)

[edit] Jefferson

first comment moved from Older Talk, because I want to reply to it. Please tell me if that was inappropriate.

The reference after "Thomas Jefferson" is a broken link... It's gotten me very curious, so if someone knows where the intended page can be found, please fix it...

As a libertarian capitalist who, like many of us, see Thomas Jefferson as "one of us," I was surprised to see this and eager to follow the link. Ubermonkey 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noam Chomsky

If I'm not greatly mistaken, Noam Chomsky has used the term 'wage slavery' quite a few times -- perhaps that merits mention here? Blockle

Maybe on his page, but it's not his term, or his idea. Just because he explains the history behind it better than this page does, does not mean that he should be mentioned. His ideas however would be worth looking at to see if they merit inclusion because they are less his ideas, and more his vocalization of the ideas of the majority 150 years ago.

[edit] India

85% of people are desperate wage slaves.

The remaining 15% are always in search of collusion.

A credible basic income guaranteed system for every one whether they work or not will bring in dignity instead of desperation for the working poor and inheritance taxes will stimulate compassion instead of collusion.Known 16:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "... what practical conditions would qualify a worker as a wage slave"

As of February 28, 2007 the article says, in part, "Sources disagree about what practical conditions would qualify a worker as a wage slave. For example, wage slave can denote a worker who has no choice in who they work for, or it can denote a worker who has no choice in the type of job they can get." As one who has been a Marxist for about forty years, I believe the second sentence is misleading and could be improved. In the socialist viewpoint, it is irrelevant that a worker has a choice for whom to work and a choice in the type of job. What makes the worker a wage slave is that a particular demographic group, all people who don't own sufficient capital to enable them to live on profits, must, in order to survive, seek and obtain employment by another demographic group, all people who own sufficient capital to enable them to live on profits. If the relationship were instead based on some physical characteristic, e.g., if all blue-eyed people were predetermined to be the bosses, and all brown-eyed people could acquire food and shelter only by obtaining employment as the servants of the former, then the system's character as a form of slavery might be easier for the average person to recognize readily. Ownership and nonownership of capital, based primarily on family inheritance, is nearly as deterministic as a physical characteristic. The worker's opportunity to reject one job and select another job does not ameliorate this dominance of one population group over another. Furthermore, all possible jobs, including the ones accepted by each worker as well as the ones rejected, will be identical in terms of certain characteristics, such as the requirement to work the number of hours that are equivalent to the employer's profits in addition to working the number of hours that are equivalent to one's own wages, and the general requirement on the working class to obey the social policies established by people who are not democratically elected representatives. In choosing a particular job over others, the worker merely chooses from a menu of options that are always in certain respects very similar to one another. Mike Lepore, Stanfordville, New York 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please disregard my opinionated words above, indicated by strike-out, and replace with this: The article can be improved because the consistent historical usage of the concept of wage slavery makes no reference to the worker's choice in the type or location of a job. Documentation to be determined. Mike Lepore, Stanfordville, New York 19:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm glad you disagree with the sentence since you are discussing it from a Marxist and socialist viewpoint and Wikipedia intends that it not be discussed from these or other defined viewpoints, but rather from a neutral viewpoint--except among a collection of identified and various viewpoints . Good job to the editors. Wikipedia is not the discussion location for this, either, there are blogs all over the place for socialists and non to discuss their personal viewpoints, including plenty of opportunity for you to discuss yours with other like-minded or non like-minded posters. If you would like to discuss the article, rather than your personal view of it, please do so. But, if what you want to discuss is your relatioinship with socialist and Marxist ideas, please search the web for an appropriate venue. KP Botany 02:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about developing a correct statement of the views of, e.g., Karl Marx, who was a principal pioneer of the concept of wage slavery. That view holds that the worker's opportunity to change jobs has no effect. For example, Karl Marx, in his pamphlet 'Wage-Labor and Capital' (1849), wrote: "The worker leaves the capitalist, to whom he has sold himself, as often as he chooses, and the capitalist discharges him as often as he sees fit, as soon as he no longer gets any use, or not the required use, out of him. But the worker, whose only source of income is the sale of his labor power, cannot leave the whole class of buyers, i.e., the capitalist class, unless he gives up his own existence. He does not belong to this or to that capitalist, but to the capitalist class; and it is for him to find his man, i.e., to find a buyer in this capitalist class." Mike Lepore, Stanfordville, New York 08:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Karl Marx was not a principal pinoeer of the concept of wage slavery, many people who had never heard of Marx discussed wage slavery in our history through workers publications.
But you don't seem to be able to tie it in to the article. You've discussed it from the viewpoint of your being a Marxist, now you've quoted Marx without any tie-in to the article. Do you understand that it's about giving information to the reader of the article, not about your views on Marx? Can you tie this quote directly into a specific section of the article, via another scholar discussing this comment of Marx's? For example, by finding some peer-reviewed literature on Marx and wage-slavery? It's not necessary to post your address--the content and your references will suffice. KP Botany 22:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a tie-in to the article when I suggested that improvement is possible around the section that currently says "wage slave can denote a worker who has no choice in who they work for, or it can denote a worker who has no choice in the type of job they can get." The position of Marx and Engels, who described the wage system as a form of slavery, was, as Engels wrote, "In what way do proletarians differ from slaves? The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence." (Friedrich Engels, _Principles of Communism_, 1847) The concept of wage slavery is that the entire capitalist class as a set enslaves the entire working class as a set, and it does not focus on how much choice the worker has regarding where or for whom to work. In Engels' words: a proletarian is the property of "the entire bourgeois class." Mike Lepore, Stanfordville, New York 20:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're trying to convince me of your viewpoint on Marx and Engels. I could not be less interested. This is an encyclopedia, there are lots of articles that need improvement, but nothing requires you convincing anyone else of your personal viewpoint on Marx and/or Engels. See WP:NOR. KP Botany 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The only issue I have addressed is how best to develop a definition of the term "wage slavery" by referencing the classical literature written by those who wrote about that subject, such as Marx and Engels. You claim that in raising this issue, the historical background of the terminology, I am giving my "viewpoint of Marx and Engels", in which you are not "interested", which is YOUR viewpoint. I am discussing a possible means to improve to the article through additional literature searches, and you are discussing your personal state of mind. Yes, one of us here is using this forum as a platform for personal views, and it is not me. Mike Lepore, Stanfordville, New York 15:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies, I saw this in your first post (copied and pasted here), and I assumed you were the one who wrote it, "As one who has been a Marxist for about forty years, I believe the second sentence is misleading and could be improved." My bad. KP Botany 22:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If no one expresses an objection, in about 48 hours from now I can replace my entire posting dated 1 March 2007 with a single summary sentence, omitting the "I" and "me" stuff which seems to have generated this interpersonal communication problem. Or tell me if it would be better if I leave it alone since others have already appended replies to it. Mike Lepore, Stanfordville, New York 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, it would be useful to fix this article, it needs a lot of work, so let's get on topic and focus on fixing the article. My concern was your heavy introductory emphasis on your viewpoints on Marxism. Oftentimes, on Wikipedia, editors who start with their POV have a hard time with neutral writing in the article, and you haven't quite focused it on qualified discussions of Marx, but rather kept it on your interpretation of Marx's words, by inserting his quotes.
I don't disagree with adding information to this article, but it has to be done in the context I described, as this is an encyclopedia, not the place to apply just quotes from Marx, but rather discussions of Marx and his viewpoints on wage slavery and his historical place in the discussion, fully referenced to credible secondary sources. All things considered it would be better if you improved the article in this manner. Can you do so by adding information from credible secondary sources about Marx's viewpoints on wage slavery? Or only by adding direct quotes from Marx? KP Botany 05:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I edited out some nonsense about "Kelly Van Houten" or whomever being "hottt." It was put back and I just took it out again. JBDay 16:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Original or Secondary Sources?

Regarding sources, it seems to me that the original source if notated is better than someone's interpretation of it. This topic, unlike the discussion of, say, flower types, is going to have varying comments. That is because, while people can easily agree on the type of pistel a certain flower has, they will not necessarilly agree on what wage slavery IS. In other words, there is not much debate as to the biology of plants, but there is plenty on the topic of wage slavery. Comments? JBDay 16:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it were an undisputed science topic, I still don't get the point. (1) I see that the article on Isaac Newton reports what Newton said by quoting Newton's own memoir. It doesn't report what Newton said by quoting a modern author who describes what he or she had found when reading Newton's memoir. Does that mean that the Newton article violates a rule? (2) Does that hearsay-is-mandatory rule apply to the article only, or also to the talk page? Someone is complaining because I added to the talk page, and never touched the article. Mike Lepore, Stanfordville, New York 09:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is the interpretation or evaluation of what the person said. If you are simply quoting the person and not discussing what they said, then simply quoting the person is fine. However, quotations are not generally used this way, simply quoting what a person says in their biography. What is done, is the quote is used within the context of discussing the issue, and this is where the interpretation comes in. What is the value of the quote, what is the meaning of the quote? There is a place for simply quoting people, it's called WikiQuotes, and these are quotes out of context without discussion. This is not what Wikipedia is, though. It's an encyclopedia, not a collection of quotations. Did Marx evaluate his own quotes? Then include original source material of him discussing his own quotes. Or have his comments been discussed by scholars elsewhere? Then include the quotation in the pertinent section in the article AND show readers how Marx's quotation is relevant to a discussion on wage slavery by tying it in with the research of scholars and their discussions and research into Marx's views on wage slavery. Your original interpretations of Marx as applied to wage slavery, however, are not a part of Wikipedia. KP Botany 22:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I too would like the content and form to be perfected before editing the article, but I didn't think the content and form had to be perfected before adding to the article's talk page. I thought the talk page was a place for working on it. Mike Lepore, Stanfordville, New York 09:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is complaining that you added to that talk page? The issue I am discussing is what you want to add to the article. Again, it would be useful to improve this article, a topic upon which much has been written. But it needs to be done within Wikipedia guidelines, which don't really include your interpretation of quotes from Marx. What it does include is information about how scholars, journalists and others have viewed Marx and his opinions on wage slavery. KP Botany 05:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


You said "what you want to add to the article." I have never begun to discuss what I might want to add to the article. All I meant to contribute was the thought, "something seems not right, so let's all do some more searching" -- which many people do in 90 percent of talk pages. In the way I did it, I was too verbose.

As to quotations. If the article on Thomas Jefferson can say (which it does) "Jefferson would later refer to them as the 'three greatest men the world had ever produced'", then an article can say "Marx held that the worker 'does not belong to this or to that capitalist, but to the capitalist class.'" Both are the insertion of quotes and are in nearly identical form. One can't be allowed and the other disallowed. Perhaps you are saying that I shouldn't have clogged up the talk page with the raw data without making any actual editing suggestion. If that's it, then I am grateful that I was so advised; just please tell me which guidelines page says so.

The guidelines do not ban all use of primary sources. According to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources page: "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." "Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material." The use of the Jefferson quote above, and by a parity of reasoning the Marx quote also, which are uninterpreted quotes, and are from primary sources, the facts that those men said what they said, are "descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge."

I do not suggest, nor have I ever suggested, the insertion of my own interpretations or viewpoints into any article. I expressed my viewpoints to introduce why I came here with some doubts. The page Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset says, "When in doubt, take it to the talk page." I was and did. Mike Lepore, Stanfordville, New York 18:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the most useful things to remember in any situation is, don't show an example of someone else doing it wrong to justify why you should be allowed to do it wrong--let's stick with doing it correctly, rather than showing others have done it wrong, too. No, the Jefferson quote is not justification for the Marx quote, and you've taken the former out of the context of the paragraph. It is also not quoted directly from a work by Jefferson, but from a book by an author of the collected writings of Jefferson. And, the article discussed in other places, and relates to Jefferson's politics, the influence of John Locke on Jefferson. In other words, it is a quote, from a secondary source, (even if it is a primary source inside that secondary source), tied in with the context of the article.
It's become difficult to follow what it is you want to do with the article. What are we discussing if your personal viewpoints are now struck out and you have "never begun to discuss what you might want to add to the article?" If we're not discussing adding anything to the article we should not be doing it on the article's talk page. KP Botany 04:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
KP, you seem to be complaining more about Mike's personal views than anything. I don't see how you can talk about wage slavery WITHOUT including some form of Marxist interpretation. Whether Marx was a "pioneer" or not he was an influential figure and wage slavery was at least one of his reasons for why a communist society was needed. You can complain that saying something like that is "interpreting" Marx but it's no more interpreting than we would any other source. Why don't you stop arguing about Mike wanting to make the article NPOV (which is far from clear that he wants to do) and see whether Mike's suggestions have value and how they might make this article better? Hammy 10:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wage Slavery in Ancient Rome?

I think I remember reading somewhere that Roman Emperor Diocletian passed a law which required everybody to work at the same job their father had worked at. Does that count as an example of wage slavery? Life, Liberty, Property 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wage slavery per se only came about with the rise of capitalism. In ancient times, the proletariat was a group that was fed on the labour of the slaves and was kept in stupor with "bread and circuses." When chattel slavery(actual ownership) was abolished then and only then could the rapidly growing proletariat be reduced to what is now known as wage slavery, the practise of being forced to sell ones labour power to a capitalist in exchange for a pittance. So, the answer to your question is No. JBDay 03:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I looked this up in The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World the most scholarly work on the topic known to me (G.E.M. de Ste. Croix) and I think what you are thinking of is the Price Edict of Diocletian which was an attempt to fix wages and the prices of slaves articulated in great detail as price fixing schemes usually are. Various users correctly assess something wrong with the article and it is clear in the opening lines: the concept itself is Marxian and an attempt to explain it when one is fundamentally biased against the essential arguments of that philosophy comes off sounding funny. Most people understand that wage laborers are in fact compelled to sell their labor to live and yet the referred to text casts this as an attitude problem which from some perspectives it is.Lycurgus 13:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. This page is a disaster. Someone has an affinity for massive quotation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.129.78 (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No criticism

The article seems lacking in that there is no discussion of criticism of the wage slavery concept. Superm401 - Talk 02:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Picture Problem

I am still new to the business of editing Wikipedia, so I was hoping that someone would be able to help me here. A picture of "Eric Fromm" is shown in the article, but the article that the text under the picture directs one to is not the article for the correct "Erich Fromm" (I believe I got the spelling right...). If we could either change the spelling of our psych-Erich/c or direct the user to the correct site, it would be very helpful! Trying2help (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the link. --Mardhil 05:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I put an NPOV thing on the article because it says that going to work actually is coerced instead of being neutral by saying that the term is based on the perception that it is coerced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immoralist (talk • contribs) 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] seemingly random edit

I changed "hegemony" back to "wage slavery". I didn't see anything in the discussion about why it was changed and the change didn't make sense to me. If anyone thinks I did this in error, feel free to discuss! Ljpernic (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening sentence

I took 'hierarchical' out of the opening sentence. It was clumsy, out of place, and unnecessary. It read "wage slavery is a term used to refer to a hierarchical social condition in which a person chooses a job but only within a coerced set of choices..." Beautiful article BTW. I remember seeing this article a few months back and it was just a big mess of sloppy text. It looks much much better now. Good work. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British military picture removed

Don’t know why the ‘British Military’ was singled out. Why not the US military? Or the Dutch, Russian or Venezuelan military? And the article only makes passing references to the military. Picture added nothing to the article in making any connection between the military and supposed 'wage slavery'. Chwyatt (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture now says Militaries epitomize the subordination of labor. Which is a bit better, removes the 'why Britain' bias. But article still does not discuss the military and its relation to the wage 'slavery' theory. Chwyatt (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

This entire article seems to be a piece of original research. I made a brief search through some of the sources, and the term "Wage slavery" was not used in any of them. Term is not mentioned even in the quotations used in the article. If this is not corrected soon, I propose deletion of all questionable content. -- Vision Thing -- 18:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, I noticed that AFAQ is used as a source in this article. However, WP:RS says: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." Social anarchist "collective" is without a doubt an extremist organization, and it shouldn't be used as a source here or anywhere else. -- Vision Thing -- 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


That is simply ridiculous, apart from ignoring your own extremist right wing affiliations, you haven't bothered to look at the sources.

For example Henry George in footnote 18 says

"That a people can be enslaved just as effectually by making property of their lands as by making property of their bodies, is a truth that conquerors in all ages have recognized" [29]

When anti-abolitionists like George Fitzhugh argued about the "oppression" of wage laborers (footnote 13, 14, 22) and said things like

"Capital exercises a more perfect compulsion over free laborers, than human masters over slaves: for free laborers must at all times work or starve, and slaves are supported whether they work or not. Free laborers have less liberty than slaves, are worse paid and provided for, and have no valuable rights. Slaves, with more of actual practical liberty, with ampler allowance, and constant protection, are secure in the enjoyment of all the rights, which provide for their physical comfort at all times and under all circumstances. The free laborer must be employed or starve, yet no one is obliged to employ him. The slave is taken care of, whether employed or not. Though each free laborer has no particular master, his wants and other men's capital, make him a slave without a master, or with too many masters, which is as bad as none" [30]

What do you think they were referring to?

The term "wage slave" was often used by Karl Marx (e.g. in Das Kapital [31]) , who explained the concept (footnote 6) by saying “The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole. The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.”

Noam Chomsky, another scholar widely quoted in the article (who was called by the New York Times 'arguably the most important intellectual alive") has often used the term "wage slavery" [32]

When the wage laborers at Lowell (the Lowell Mill Girls) in 1836 say

"Oh! I cannot be a slave, I will not be a slave, For I'm so fond of liberty, That I cannot be a slave"

what do you think they are referring to?

When Simon Linguet says in 1763 (footnote 2) that:

“The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him… Men's blood had some price in the days of slavery. They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market…It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat, and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live. It is want that drags them to those markets where they await masters who will do them the kindness of buying them. It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him… what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men, it is said, have no master—they have one, and the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. It is this that reduces them to the most cruel dependence. They live only by hiring out their arms. They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?”

What do you think he is referring to?

I understand that some people may not agree with the term, but there is no doubt that the term deserves exclusive treatment due to its unique historical significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.66.87 (talk)

[edit] Citation

How about starting with citations #"1", "2", and "3"? Why does this article start with citation #"4", instead? Do the authors of this article speak any English? Do they count with the same number system as the rest of the planet? I think "arithmetic" is at least one language we can all agree on, right? Wikipedia provides some guidelines regarding citation. Could we at least tip our hat to those guidelines in this article? Or is someone trying to invent their own citations "template"? David Kendall (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC) !!!

Well, Mr. Kendall, why don't you correct it it? I have no idea how to do it Wardanuclear (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:David graeber.png

The image Image:David graeber.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)