Talk:Wage slavery/Archive 3

What Contract?

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

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

LK, low wages, peonage & the unexplained "pragmatism" of the change from "wage slavery" to "wage work"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Working towards concensus

NF,
Please please realize that you have a blind spot because of an emotional attachment to this topic. There are certain rules that we must live by on wikipedia, otherwise this project would never work. Those rules include, presenting facts not opinions, keeping language and presentation neutral and balanced. Not including original research or synthesis, and only presenting arguments that have already been made elsewhere, and that can be sourced to a reliable source. Also, we should try to be polite to each other, and not use sockpuppets to argue on our behalf.
I'm sure you wouldn't like it if the page on Trickle-down economics were heavily tilted in favor of the policy, presenting without criticism the view that tax cuts for the rich will make everyone richer and happier, and in fact is the only way to advance society, and suggesting that people are just stupid or evil to oppose tax cuts for the rich.
This is essentially what you are doing here from the other side of the political spectrum. Please, lets try to avoid another edit war. I suggest that:

1. No one makes any changes to the article unless we have concensus.
2. First presenting here on the talk page suggested changes together with appropriate cited sources.
3. Trying to avoid synthesis by using only sources that actually literally refer to 'wage slavery or 'wage slave'.
4. Presenting only points of view that have clearly been expressed by a cited reliable source, not tilting the arguments to 'sell' a particular viewpoint (Wikipedia is not a soapbox for particular views).
5. Lastly, I suggest patience and restraint. That fact is, no one is going to read this page and go out and start a revolution no matter what it says.
   

LK (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Changes and cartel-like behavior

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

1st

I changed

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

for

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

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

2nd

I added

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

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

3rd

I added this image

Red Army troops attack Kronstadt libertarian socialist workers who had demanded among other things that "handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour."

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

4th

I also added this in the Psychological Effects section

The Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments--both dealing with the negative consequences of hierarchical relationships, have been found useful in the psychological study of authoritarian wage work relations.

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

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

5th

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

"Environmental Pollution"

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

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

Intro sentence

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

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

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

1st

I changed

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

for

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

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

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

NF, First, do try to be polite. That's a baseline community standard. People can be banned from Wikipedia for rudeness. Also, we would all appreciate it if you could indent your replies. It makes for easier reading.

Now, let's take your proposed changes one step at a time. Let's discuss the change to the lead first. IMO, it's mainly ok, except there's still some synthesis going on. Give me a while and I'll post here an alternative. Essentially, what we're trying to communicate is that 'wage slavery' used to refer to all wage work, but has evolved over time to refer to more limited exploitative situations, and the former use has become controversial. Is that right?

LK (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of 5 proposed additions/changes

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

Political over weighted material

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

Factually wrong/unsourced statement

The statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

American financier Jay Gould. After he hired strikebreakers; according to labor unionists, he said at the time "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half."

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 Wikipedia: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 [1]. 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 Wikipedia: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 [2]. 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)