Thought's on wage slavery and domination

[assasin7]

The concept of wage slavery, in its most literal sense seams somewhat stupid to me, I find it insulting to victims of “real” slavery, but when you count wage slavery as a from of domination, it makes sense. I think that waged labor gives to boss undo power, the classic example being sexual power (“fuck me or your fired”). This is a real threat, that can cause serious harm to the victim of the advance. One of the reasons I’m not an ancap or a believer in the Rothbardian NAP, is the ability to hurt without threatening or attacking. In the deep south being outed as gay is as much a death sentence as being shot.

[Disengage]

I don't typically use the phrase "wage slavery".   But don't think it is meant to imply that a person is a "slave" to his employer.   It means they are bound to a "system" that that holds them in a cycle of debt/work from which they have no real way to escape, all with the illusion of freedom.     

Don't like your boss?   Find another one!   Just make sure you keep doing real work to pay back the fake money we created for you!     Don't want a boss at all?   Then pay us for the privilege of starting your own business, which we will tax mercilessly.   Slave?  No!   There's a way out!   Look at all these other people who started their own businesses and got rich!   (Just don't look too closely at the statistics, or at how much richer they'd be without our interference.)

I'm not sure where were going with the violence/threatening bit.   Are you trying to justify violence against "the system" or against employers?   

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

 Your analysis of wages as slavery is completely incorrect, and another example of the Marx/Communist fallacy. I became interested in the issue of wages in the free-market after the debacle in Wisconsin over unions, and started to do a little research into them. I read "Why Wages Rise" and a tidbit from Tom Woods. Bosses need to exist within the medium of the wage question because bosses are the ones that take the time to invest the money the business makes into better quality items for the workers to use. These tools allow the workers to speed up their ability to produce, which, in turn, raises their standard of living (i.e. wages). Marx's theory, which is what I assume you hold on to, advocates giving one hundred percent of a business's earnings to the workers. Here's the problem with that analysis: if all of the money is given to the workers, how does the business expand upon itself through investment of better quality goods for the workers to use? 

 The free-market has proven to be better at improving wages than collective forces such as Unions. "Why Wages Rise" expands upon this through highly detailed charts outlining the expansion of wages through the years. 

 Having an entire system free from bosses is just silly. You need to have a moderator is willing to overlook things in a business to make sure their place in the market is running smoothly.

[Disengage]

I don't know if you were responding to me or the OP, but I don't have a problem with the free market at all.   It's the currency system and taxation that I find oppressive.

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

 No, no, no. I wasn't responding to you. You're being rational. It's our little commie friend that I'm dissenting against.

[LegesNullae]

The free-market has proven to be better at improving wages than collective forces such as Unions.

Market forces can be individualistic or associative. Unions are market forces, and therefore have a role in determining the compensation which workers receive.

if all of the money is given to the workers, how does the business expand upon itself through investment of better quality goods for the workers to use? 

There's nothing preventing a co-operative from pooling some of the returns for future investment. Perhaps contributing to said pool and being offered a voice in what it goes toward could be a condition of membership. The absence of a boss does not mean the absence of organization, just as the absence of a state does not mean the absence of order.

As a general bit of advice for everyone, let's be careful not to reject good points simply because the person presenting them is a communist.

[assasin7]

Finally, the co-operative picture shows money (wages) being distributed equally to all the workers. The IWW aims for the abolition of wage labour. And if the idea is that after a revolution everyone will have to keep working and just all earn the same amount of money than actually this is not a socialist society at all but will actually be a form of dysfunctional capitalism.3

Another key problem I have with the graphic is that what was good historically about the IWW (and what is still good about elements in it today) is that it is about workers fighting together in their own interests, regardless of the dictates of capital. This idea seems absent from the image, which seems to propose setting up co-ops instead of fighting.

One minor issue is that I would disagree with the emphasis given to the point on unemployment being created by design to hold down the rate of inflation. While unemployment can hold inflation down, that is not why it was created. Mass unemployment exists to keep wages down. It is a weapon to use against workers who demand better wages or conditions, as there is a large pool of people who could take their place. Similarly, inflation can be used to attack workers' wages as well, where if employers grant wage rises they can claw back profits by increasing their prices further.


Co-operatives, capitalism and the IWW

http://libcom.org/blog/co-operatives-capitalism-iww-18022012#footnote3_mhnxetc

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

I have nothing wrong with workers organizing themselves within a co-op system. Even Rothbard was supportive of them.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Thanks for bringing this thread back BlackandGr9y.

@assasin7

"...regardless of the dictates of capital."
^ The "dictates of capital? Please. You're speaking out of the communist playbook again, with the misuse and misunderstanding of some economic term (capital) thrown in with a negative word (dictates, in this case). Your sentence doesn't even have meaning.

The unemployment/inflation "tradeoff" that is often mentioned in the news is very misunderstood. We'll leave it at that for now. It's not worth going onto new topics when you still don't understand prices, profits, or capital. You've admitted to not knowing economics before, and it's probably time you started learning. Without relevant knowledge it's too easy for you to be manipulated by meaningless propaganda. Most of what you've written is just a regurgitated array of words intended to evoke emotion. Just as the planners intended, you fell for it, and subconsciously inserted meaning where there was none as a way of compensating for your knowledge gap.

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

I feel the same way. He's stated many times already that he's new to the ideas, so I don't see why he feels justified in posting anything.

I'm also not understanding his views on why unemployment occurs.

[assasin7]

I feel the same way. He's stated many times already that he's new to the ideas, so I don't see why he feels justified in posting anything.

I'm also not understanding his views on why unemployment occurs.

I was quoting an article from libcom, I didn't write it.

fixed

[assasin7]

"...regardless of the dictates of capital."

here capital means bosses

[Hanzo]

I was quoting an article from libcom, I didn't read it.

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

^Carl, FTW! 

 

[assasin7]

This is something I do understand:

claim 1: A company wants to make money

claim 2: When a company does well it fires workers and replaces them with automated machines

claim 3: this allows them to sell more products, lower costs, undercutting the competition.

claim 5: the competition goes under, firing workers

result: the system collapses because all work is automated, so their are no consumers to buy procucts

this is what caused the financial melt down.