Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Wage Slavery


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 18 November 2012 - 11:21 AM

You are (Probably) a wage slave.

http://www.classwarf.../#ixzz2CYUAeNo8


The concept of wage slavery is one that is commonly contested, by left- and right-wingers alike. It is often assumed that it is intended as a degradation of the hard working people of the world — but it is more just a recognition of reality.

Most people object to being told that they are a Wage Slave… but why?

The notion of wage slavery, taken reasonably, is actually rather difficult to refute. The idea that we are in an entirely different social position to chattel slaves is based upon the assumption of our freedom. But this sense of freedom is an illusion which rests upon the contradiction between law and reality. The law grants us personal liberties, and we therefore have the right to make our own decisions: where to live; who to work for; or whether to work at all. But underlying this veil of freedom are the real, material, physical facts, and they run as such: you can only live where you can afford to live; you can only work for someone who will willingly employ you; and while you are under no legal obligation to work for anyone at all, you will find it a struggle to live while not doing so.


“Some people giving orders and others obeying them: this is the essence of servitude. Of course, “one can at least change jobs,” but you can’t avoid having a job … freedom means more than the right to change masters.”
- Bob Black


Such a strong feeling of personal aversion to claims of wage slavery no doubt stems from a sense of pride. But this objection to the mere notion of wage-slavery only acts to perpetuate the reality of the condition: people’s misplaced sense of pride paradoxically serves to maintain their humiliating position. Imagine, of those chattel slaves who fought for political emancipation, if they had instead simply denied the existence of slavery. But it’s difficult to express the common sense behind, and the political importance of, the term ‘wage-slavery’ when somebody has already decided that what you’re saying is offensive.

Those who are so quick to erect barriers against the spread of alternative ways of running society should consider the question: what is it that you are defending, and in whose interest? Capitalism is an inefficient social system which causes a catastrophic level of death and destruction on a daily basis. It is a system in which many are forced to live in poverty or die through starvation in a world of unprecedented abundance; a world capable of providing life’s necessities for all of its inhabitants. Capitalism is a miserable social order in which those who own but do not produce live parasitically off the labour of those who produce but do not own. But its continuation ultimately depends upon the continuation of workers’ consent. Those of us who think a different world is not only possible but desperately essential if we are to survive as a species, have withdrawn ours and we urge you to do the same: until then, the onus for justification lies with you.Moral or immoral, with or without an acceptable face, involving fundamentalist or free markets, with or without a state, (the latter an oxymoron if ever there was one) capitalism shouldn’t be supported by the majority it exploits. We don’t have to choose the lesser of two evils – we can aim for something much better. A world where the resources of the planet have stopped being the property of rich individuals, corporations or states and have become the common heritage of all. On that basis goods and services can be produced directly to meet people’s needs without the intervention of markets. Neither a free market nor a controlled market but a non-market society.

A more equal, fair form of capitalism which is a little bit kinder to workers is not being advocated, but the abolition of capitalism altogether: that is, the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and of the wages system, and the establishment of a society based upon the maxim of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”.

In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there would be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.

Given the required nature of the revolution, i.e. carried out by the majority, all we can really do at present towards achieving this is to try to persuade other workers of its necessity. The time will come for more practical efforts towards socialism, but while the majority of workers still support capitalism and cannot think beyond merely changing political leaders, we have a long way yet to go.

Perhaps it’s time we organized and “took the big bag” as it were — and began truly living.

“The most bewildering thing about man is his idea of work and the amount of work he imposes upon himself, or civilization has imposed upon him. All nature loafs, while man alone works for a living.”
- Lin Yutang, The Importance of Living


Read more: http://www.classwarf.../#ixzz2CZXNsupr
Follow us: classwarfareexists on Facebook

#2 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 12:40 PM

Lets form a commune.

#3 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 18 November 2012 - 12:57 PM

I'm not sure if I completely buy into everything this article is saying, but people are thinking about alternatives to capitalism.

Everything has its pros and cons.

My idea is this: Why can't there be both socialism and capitalism combined? There already is. Children can attend either public school or private school. You can send a package via the USPS, or FedEx.

There should be more government run (non-profit) businesses with affordable goods and services for anyone who wants it.

Anyway, a commune would be really cool. Ours would have the hottest chicks.

#4 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 18 November 2012 - 01:05 PM

this is interesting:

http://www.worldsoci...s_socialism.php

What is Socialism?

Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.

In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.

Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organize the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.

We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them.

In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.

#5 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 01:07 PM

:lmao:

#6 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,353 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:02 PM

Lets form a commune.


I lean toward some other sort of intentional community, but a commune could maybe be ok. :)

#7 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:17 PM

I don't really think I'd want to be part of a commune, either... to be honest. It doesn't sound like real freedom. My mind is open to all ideas.

I do think that capitalism can coexist with socialism and democracy.

The details of it all will have to be worked out democratically and incrementally.

Also, I don't see any drawback to all of North and South America being all one country -- America. That would take care of a lot of border issues.

#8 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:27 PM

the reason why I think socialism doesn't have to fail as it has in the past is because of the communication advances in modern society that have never existed before.

These days, you really are the Eyes of the World.

With the internet and cellphone technology, everyone can truly have a voice in government.

#9 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:55 PM

I feel there will always be snakes in the grass capable of taking advantage of the naive and uneducated, and find ways togame any system.

There will always be predators and prey. I think its a natural law or something.

#10 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:46 PM

fer serious

I think you just have to accept that and add it into the equation. Fighting it seems futile.

people do need to have a choice, though... even if it's just an illusion... I'm a big fan of the matrix. In the end, the machines win no matter what. That's not what I'm a fan of, though... that's kind of scary...