The Structural Violence of Wage Slavery

[Think Free]

A lot of people seem to have a (perhaps intuitively based) sense of repulsion at the thought of being a "wage slave." This repulsion seems to be part of the reason for the popularity of The Zeitgeist Movement and collectivist ideas. Of course, there's no reason to think that the employer/employee model will be the dominant one in a free society. I personally believe the dominant model is likely to be one wherein everybody is a contractor and people hire a bunch of contractors to complete their projects. The person hiring on one project might be a contractor on the next project they work on--it would be a question of expertise and vision. Anyhow, the point I'm trying to make is maybe libertarians can do a better job of taking advantage of this discontent with the current system.

 

For the record, I don't actually believe that "structural violence" and "wage slave" are helpful terms--I was just being provocative in my post title.

[cab21]

there is no such thing as wage slave.it's  a oxymoron.

 

 

Of course, there's no reason to think that the employer/employee model will be the dominant one in a free society

 

what do you mean dominant?

some jobs are better with wages, some jobs are not.

I personally believe the dominant model is likely to be one wherein everybody is a contractor and people hire a bunch of contractors to complete their projects.

 

so a restaurant would hire a independent barkeeper, a independent chef, a independent server, independent bus people and so on instead of any hired staff or group of owners? i'm not sure that makes sense at all to have independent contractors do every job.

[PatrickC]

In one sense they are right. You could certainly attribute the phrase 'wage slavery' to that of debt, high property values (and in turn high rent), childcare, inflation and a stagnating economy.

 

Of course they all have little to do with your actual wages (other than feasting on them), since it's not your employer that is robbing you blind, but the banks and the state.

[tasmlab]

I have four full-time salaried employees and people often ask me why I don't use contractors, because, after all, you don't have to guarantee them a monthly check in perpetuity, you can just hire them when you need them.  It doesn't work for me because I can consistently drive demand and salary margins make the most sense.

 

Unfortunately, contractors have to bury all of their lumpy downtime risks into their hourly fees, making the employers margin disappear.

 

The salaried worker essentially trades his risk of downtime and reliable cash-flow for lower hourly pay.  The employer trades their risk of idle resources for reliable, consistent wages.

 

It usually only makes sense to use contractors for jobs that are outside of your core business.  For example, a restauranteur keeps their servers and cooks as full time employees because they are in the business of serving food day-in and day-out.  When they need to paint the restaurant, they hire a contractor who they only need for a couple of days since they aren't in the wall painting business.

 

I do think there are opportunities to liberalize and update the pervasive full-time employee model, but am not sure lots of contractors will be it.  Could be wrong.

[cab21]

do the people that call things wage slavery also call it salary slavery and ownership slavery? don't these people also call for collective bargaining and hate it when companies go to independent contractors?

[NotDarkYet]

Two people agreeing to trade work for money = SLAVERY

 

FORCING one of them to pay the other a higher wage = FREEDOM

 

 

What a wonderful double-speak we have here.

 

 

 

 

A wonderful example of what happens when you don't have a 'compared to what'.

[justice seeker]

I see some are harsh on the phrase "wage slave", but i propose the idea that it is a legitimate term. There are licensing requirements built into place for the purpose of keeping people from starting a business, money is dumped to the connected... i mean, who really knows all the regs on the books?? Then most people are dumped into publicschools and taught the best thing they can do with that education is get a good paying job! So ya, nobody has a gun pointed your way 24/7, but when regs and coercion are put there to keep you competing... its kinda like saying nobody forces you to use government roads...

[cab21]

the thing is, the people that talk about "wage slavery" are the ones that want these laws. they are not free market capitalists.

 

a capitalist might say "slavery to the government" or "tax and regulation slavery", but the problem is government, not the employer

[dsayers]

I see some are harsh on the phrase "wage slave", but i propose the idea that it is a legitimate term.

 

The moment it's a wage, it can't be slavery. The moment it's slavery, it can't be a wage. The terms are incompatible.

[MartV]

 Anyhow, the point I'm trying to make is maybe libertarians can do a better job of taking advantage of this discontent with the current system.

I think the Pauls ruined libertarianism in America, they made it into a joke of half-baked incoherent ideas they pulled out of their asses depending on specific occasions.

The moment it's a wage, it can't be slavery. The moment it's slavery, it can't be a wage. The terms are incompatible.

You make yourself look foolish with comments like that, there are no structural conditions for the vast majority of people for them to have other choices, also, wage slavery denotes the state of using all your money just to survive and not be homeless, the terminology has merit.

[Think Free]

what do you mean dominant?

 

I just mean what occurs most of the time. Like right now, among people who work, most are salaried, I believe that in a free future, that won't be the most common case.

 

the thing is, the people that talk about "wage slavery" are the ones that want these laws. they are not free market capitalists.

 

a capitalist might say "slavery to the government" or "tax and regulation slavery", but the problem is government, not the employer

 

Exactly, we need to point out what the government does to push people into being "employees" not just as a means of earning money, but as a member of the "employee" class.

[cab21]

 

I just mean what occurs most of the time. Like right now, among people who work, most are salaried, I believe that in a free future, that won't be the most common case

 

why do you think this?

 

i'm not sure it makes sense for many jobs to be independent contracts

A plane flight with only independent contracts?

so a person would not be dealing with one airline, but a supply chain of many independent contractors?

 

a plane has many people that deal with luggage for instance, each luggage loader with a different independent contract? seems like a lot of work for something where i could go to a employer instead who has employees

 

i think companies have employees because having employees makes sense.

[justice seeker]

The moment it's a wage, it can't be slavery. The moment it's slavery, it can't be a wage. The terms are incompatible.

So the premise is as long as there is compensation, no matter how small, it is not slavery? So having a gun pointed at someone to do some job is no longer slavery if you toss them a shiny quarter when the work is done? That does not seem right to me... it sounds a lot like eminent domain... and people do buy into the idea that its ok to force people to move if they are financially compensated... i argue that the term reflects reality... your opportunities are limited by force; when you have a government that defines any and all business in such a way that anything can be deemed illegal, what actually goes on in the official economy goes on because it serves some connected interest... well, is it necessarily slavery? Well, if you tell someone to run in any direction they choose, and you block everything off around them so the only direction they can go js straight, then id say that person's ability to choose is only an illusion...

[LibertyDefender]

So the premise is as long as there is compensation, no matter how small, it is not slavery? So having a gun pointed at someone to do some job is no longer slavery if you toss them a shiny quarter when the work is done?

The gun is the operative term when discussing slavery. The presence of the gun is what is negating choice, irrespective of the among of compensation. Though a ludicrous scenario, if you had a gun pointed at your head and were forced to live in a mansion with a yacht and a six-figure salary, it would still be slavery. When dsayers draws the distinction between wages and slavery, I believe he is presenting scenarios of coercion versus free-association, not so much how subjectively preferable the compensation is. If someone was truly undercompensated, their labor can always be provided elsewhere, where the compensation reflects the realistic demand for it.

 

 

what actually goes on in the official economy goes on because it serves some connected interest... well, is it necessarily slavery? Well, if you tell someone to run in any direction they choose, and you block everything off around them so the only direction they can go js straight, then id say that person's ability to choose is only an illusion...

 

I think...you are trying to draw a parallel between monopolies and the state here? If so, a true monopoly would be exceptionally rare (if even existent) in a free society. Your scenario presumes that someone who would maliciously withhold services from someone would not be boycotted once the news of such practices got out. Unless the economically victimized person was a hermit, they likely have an extended social network. Do you think their grocer, their employer, their utility provider or least of all their security provider want anything to do with a freak who uses their economic power to torture people? Even if they WERE a hermit, once the public realized this practice was occurring, do you believe it to be realistic that they would continue to do business with such a person? Would you?

[justice seeker]

So the premise is as long as there is compensation, no matter how small, it is not slavery? So having a gun pointed at someone to do some job is no longer slavery if you toss them a shiny quarter when the work is done? That does not seem right to me... it sounds a lot like eminent domain... and people do buy into the idea that its ok to force people to move if they are financially compensated... i argue that the term reflects reality... your opportunities are limited by force; when you have a government that defines any and all business in such a way that anything can be deemed illegal, what actually goes on in the official economy goes on because it serves some connected interest... well, is it necessarily slavery? Well, if you tell someone to run in any direction they choose, and you block everything off around them so the only direction they can go js straight, then id say that person's ability to choose is only an illusion...

The gun is the operative term when discussing slavery. The presence of the gun is what is negating choice, irrespective of the among of compensation. Though a ludicrous scenario, if you had a gun pointed at your head and were forced to live in a mansion with a yacht and a six-figure salary, it would still be slavery. When dsayers draws the distinction between wages and slavery, I believe he is presenting scenarios of coercion versus free-association, not so much how subjectively preferable the compensation is. If someone was truly undercompensated, their labor can always be provided elsewhere, where the compensation reflects the realistic demand for it.I think...you are trying to draw a parallel between monopolies and the state here? If so, a true monopoly would be exceptionally rare (if even existent) in a free society. Your scenario presumes that someone who would maliciously withhold services from someone would not be boycotted once the news of such practices got out. Unless the economically victimized person was a hermit, they likely have an extended social network. Do you think their grocer, their employer, their utility provider or least of all their security provider want anything to do with a freak who uses their economic power to torture people? Even if they WERE a hermit, once the public realized this practice was occurring, do you believe it to be realistic that they would continue to do business with such a person? Would you?

Well, what is meant by the phrase free association if not free to choose other alternatives? And a restricted economy means not so many alternatives, and therefore no free association. This is a "either you are pregnant or you are not" kinda thing... either you are free or you are not.As for the second part, no that is not what i am talkkng about. In the world as it is your intellectual property nonsense can render any business venture illegal.

[cynicist]

Of course, there's no reason to think that the employer/employee model will be the dominant one in a free society. I personally believe the dominant model is likely to be one wherein everybody is a contractor and people hire a bunch of contractors to complete their projects. 

 

What's the difference? I mean besides the fact that contract work is more temporary. If you are talking about the downtrodden mentality of most people (worker drones), that has more to do with fucked up families than it does with the government. I agree that I would like to see labor in general be more fluid. I've never understood working for the same company for 5+ years, sounds like a prison sentence... only more boring.

[dsayers]

So the premise is as long as there is compensation, no matter how small, it is not slavery?

 

No, to not be slavery, you need consent. Wage is voluntary compensation. It's the meaning of the term. Hence the moment it's a wage, it's not slavery and the moment it's slavery, it's not a wage. The terms are incompatible.

[justice seeker]

No, to not be slavery, you need consent. Wage is voluntary compensation. It's the meaning of the term. Hence the moment it's a wage, it's not slavery and the moment it's slavery, it's not a wage. The terms are incompatible.

See the above quotes about blocking free associations... this is literally people knowing you need a job, blocking tons of jobs from coming into being, and then pointing out what you jave chosen... what itwere a regular farm everyone had to work on and the only job available was "digger" lets say... yea, people will "choose" it, but only because other jobs are not materializing. In the case of our overall economy this is true for artificial reasons, i.e. the state... who knows what people would be doing if they didnt have our society all screwed up...

[dsayers]

yea, people will "choose" it, but only because other jobs are not materializing.

 

And if those other jobs were "materializing," then your position would be that there aren't other other jobs. You have no null hypothesis that I can see. This is like saying that I do not choose to eat because I'm a slave to my stomach in the context of wanting to live.

 

Also, in keeping with the infinite regression, your position would label everybody in the world as slaves. Because the people the "wage slaves" work for work for other people, who work for other people... all the way up to the top. And that person works for their customers.

[justice seeker]

incorrect... its true that man has to deal with reality, we have to eat and produce, etc. To me it becomes slavery to other men when jobs and production do not materialize because other men keep them from happening and use force to push materials where they want them instead of where demand satisfaction would take them.

[cobra2411]

When I hear the term wage slave I think of someone who is trapped by the choices they've made and are now too fearful to leave their job to seek out something better. So it's a form of self slavery if that's even such a thing. 

 

It's the trap of the rat race where you are compelled to measure your success in visible, measurable terms such as fancy cars and big houses. I've met people who live in shame that they drive a 5 year old car - "oh what does it say about me that I drive an old piece of junk..." So instead they buy a new car every 2-3 years and roll the loss into the next car. At the height of the credit stupidity there were people driving 20k cars with 2,3 and in some cases 4 times their cost in financing on them. Add to this the growth of 60-72 month financing and it's easy to see how it happens. So a person collects all theses "measures of success" and then feels compelled to stay at a job for the security of a pay check when without such burdens they may choose to leave for a more rewarding job.

 

Now, what changes when the giant gun leaves the room? Well for one, I figure that 80% of a persons productivity is stolen by the state at minimum. That includes taxes directly paid and taxes indirectly paid through inflated prices to cover said taxes. Without income taxes I could pay my employees 40% less and thus lower my costs and the final cost of my products. Now, that 80% that's stolen isn't going to go into a workers savings account because ultimately there are things the state does that are desirable. After all, someone needs to build the roads. So you will likely spend some of that 80% on road associations, etc, but since it will all be voluntary there will be no sense of dread about not being able to pay. So if you don't dig yourself into debt, then there is nothing stopping you from switching jobs.

 

Another change will be health insurance. A close friend of mine hates her job but won't leave due to the insurance coverage. It's a choice to a degree, but the state has helped manipulate the insurance / healthcare monopoly to the point that it's at least 5 times more expensive than it should be. In all other businesses it's illegal to collude to fix prices and/or restrain trade yet those rules are specifically exempted from the medical industry.  Non emergency heart surgery can be done in India for under $2k but it cost over $100k here. Same procedure, same supplies, same standards - at least where it counts. Don't expect a resort like atmosphere in India. High class hotel rooms are $2-300 a night, why is a hospital room $2-3k a night. I'm not talking about telemetry rooms or ICU either, those are $5k+. I could go on, but my point is that people are forced to make a financial decision based on the market distortions of the state. Remove the state and health care costs will be 20% of what they are today or less and insurance will be true insurance in that it covers unforeseen events and will be inexpensive. Elective procedures will be reasonable as well. Inflation adjusted from known costs in the 60's and 70's before all the changes were made to the industry; a standard birth, with hospital stay, doctor, nurses, etc, should cost between $500 and $1,000. Would you really need insurance to cover that? If you couldn't save $1,000 in 9 months then I would say you probably shouldn't have children.

 

Now as other's have said I believe there will still be employees as well as contractors. They both have their benefits. I suspect that without income taxes the lines between them will blur however and it will simply be the term of the employment, i.e. open ended for employees or pre-defined for contractors. 

[cynicist]

incorrect... its true that man has to deal with reality, we have to eat and produce, etc. To me it becomes slavery to other men when jobs and production do not materialize because other men keep them from happening and use force to push materials where they want them instead of where demand satisfaction would take them.

 

Isn't it a matter of degree? Losing choice in jobs is terrible but slavery is about having zero choice because someone is claiming to own you. Trying to call those situations comparable is ludicrous. I can understand and even agree with the sentiment of the people who talk about it, but using the phrase "wage slavery" instantly turns me off to their arguments because it's manipulative.

[justice seeker]

Isn't it a matter of degree? Losing choice in jobs is terrible but slavery is about having zero choice because someone is claiming to own you. Trying to call those situations comparable is ludicrous. I can understand and even agree with the sentiment of the people who talk about it, but using the phrase "wage slavery" instantly turns me off to their arguments because they clearly don't understand what they are saying.

[LibertyDefender]

Well, what is meant by the phrase free association if not free to choose other alternatives? And a restricted economy means not so many alternatives, and therefore no free association. This is a "either you are pregnant or you are not" kinda thing... either you are free or you are not.

 

That is precisely my point. If there is a gun to your head compelling your action, it is slavery regardless fo compensation. Can you define "restricted economy" for me so I may better follow your line of thought?

 

 

 

As for the second part, no that is not what i am talkkng about. In the world as it is your intellectual property nonsense can render any business venture illegal.

 

Please define this as well. What is: "my intellectual property nonsense"?

[justice seeker]

I can agree with some of that, but did slaves in some times not have it harder than slaves of the 1800s? The scale of how harsh a form of slavery is is indeed a sliding one... now, i can say that this taxation/regulation stuff is not even in the same league as being whipped on the back and bought and sold, etc. But I also have to admit that freedom includes freedom of association and if you are not free to associate with who you want in whatever fashion you want so long as you are not doing anyone harm, you do not have complete freedom... if you are not free then what are you? This is kinda like saying we are not slaves because we dont give 100% of the product of our labor to others under threat... well, if we can ask "what percentage of taxation makes you free?" Then we ought to ask "what percentage of peaceful associations can be outlawed in any society that labels itself free?" And follow up with"if we are not free, what are we?"

That is precisely my point. If there is a gun to your head compelling your action, it is slavery regardless fo compensation. Can you define "restricted economy" for me so I may better follow your line of thought?Please define this as well. What is: "my intellectual property nonsense"?

I can agree with some of that, but did slaves in some times not have it harder than slaves of the 1800s? The scale of how harsh a form of slavery is is indeed a sliding one... now, i can say that this taxation/regulation stuff is not even in the same league as being whipped on the back and bought and sold, etc. But I also have to admit that freedom includes freedom of association and if you are not free to associate with who you want in whatever fashion you want so long as you are not doing anyone harm, you do not have complete freedom... if you are not free then what are you? This is kinda like saying we are not slaves because we dont give 100% of the product of our labor to others under threat... well, if we can ask "what percentage of taxation makes you free?" Then we ought to ask "what percentage of peaceful associations can be outlawed in any society that labels itself free?" And follow up with"if we are not free, what are we?"

That is precisely my point. If there is a gun to your head compelling your action, it is slavery regardless fo compensation. Can you define "restricted economy" for me so I may better follow your line of thought?Please define this as well. What is: "my intellectual property nonsense"?

I dont mean your ip nonsense like it is yours... forget the word "your" lol sorry, that is confusing. Restricted economy, well, what do you have to do to start a business in a world where kids are gettin popped for operating a lemonade stand with no license? Lol. What do you have to do exactly to really open a business? For the IP part, well, intellectual property is nonsense and it blocks the free flow of goods and services, which is just another way of saying it stifles would-be producers...

[cynicist]

This is kinda like saying we are not slaves because we dont give 100% of the product of our labor to others under threat... well, if we can ask "what percentage of taxation makes you free?" Then we ought to ask "what percentage of peaceful associations can be outlawed in any society that labels itself free?" And follow up with"if we are not free, what are we?"

 

No it's not kind of like saying, that's exactly what I'm saying. We're not free, sure, but we aren't slaves either. Maybe another word should be made up for what exists at the moment, but 'wage slavery' is clearly an attempt at manipulation through language. It riles people up because the word 'slavery' is so emotion-laden in American culture. I actually had to correct my post above because I said they don't understand what they are saying, but obviously on reflection, I recognize that it's done on purpose.

[cobra2411]

I'm starting to rethink this, I mean, how much rape is ok? If it's only a little rape then is it ok? No, rape is rape. Employment under duress to me is starting to sound like slavery; even if not complete slavery. 

 

Student loan debt is inescapable and thus needs to be paid in the current system. Given the amount of over-promising in the area it's likely it's a financial burden for many which makes having a job a necessity. Sure there are hardship forbearance but due to the amount of the debt and the pay some students are working for it leaves little else for saving. 

 

Then there is the whole fractional reserve banking system which creates debt out of thin air as nothing more than a ledger entry on a balance sheet. Your signature on one side as the asset and the debt on the other. Since only the debt is created and not debt + interest there is scarcity right from the start and by design some people will loose. We're back to employment under duress in an attempt to satisfy debt. 

 

Typing it out I'm concluding that debt is slavery. So I guess I'm back to square one on whether or not you can be a wage slave. 

 

Sorry for rambling on but I decided to leave the post so you can see my thought process as I think it out. 

[justice seeker]

No it's not kind of like saying, that's exactly what I'm saying. We're not free, sure, but we aren't slaves either. Maybe another word should be made up for what exists at the moment, but 'wage slavery' is clearly an attempt at manipulation through language. It riles people up because the word 'slavery' is so emotion-laden in American culture. I actually had to correct my post above because I said they don't understand what they are saying, but obviously on reflection, I recognize that it's done on purpose.

Ok so why wage slavery? Well, this kind of slavery is possible for two reasons... we all know the state regulates the economy, but there is another side that is harder to see... the vast majority of people grow up thinking the best they can hope for is to go out there and "get a job!" Now, if this were natural at all i wouldnt bring it up... but the problem is we are forced to go to school and loaded with propaganda about life that, after 12 or more years and during the ages of at latest 5 or 6 to 17-19, it is bard to break free of. So we are propagandized not only to worship the state, but to think our best aim in life should be to work for someone else... why slavery? It js slavery that uses brainwashing as its tool... and look at what adults do to make their lives liveable... alcohol, drugs, let the anger of an unsatisfying life come out through sports and living vicariously through others... i live in the same city as crystal bowersox, american idol contestent, and she did a show here recently and ppl here go nuts, like it is them on stage... like they accomplished something because a neighbor is well known... and then the propaganda we are give is sold as education... so people go around believeing they are educated because they have a piece of paper, though they were never even taught how to think. So, economic and mental barriers put up by people to block everyone from competing and making everyone think the best they can do is get a job... a job of course in an economy that suits connected people... so ya, i went out and got me a job... in an environment where i honestly thought entrepreneurs were peolle who lived in the 1800s and the idea of it is completely foreign and if it werent im controlled by others anyways... i earn a wage, i think most jobs pay wages, not sure though... am i also a slave? Well, my energy is directed towards serving the interests of others... i ckukd be more free than what i am but it is not easy

[LovePrevails]

Liberal Logic -

 

Agreeing with someone for them to pay you a portion of what you are worth to them = Slavery

Being forced to pay a percentage of your income at gun point to the government = Freedom

[dsayers]

Typing it out I'm concluding that debt is slavery.

 

Except that debt is voluntary. If you sign for a loan, YOU are VOLUNTARILY creating a positive obligation. Slavery is called slavery explicitly because of the lack of consent.

[LibertyDefender]

I dont mean your ip nonsense like it is yours... forget the word "your" lol sorry, that is confusing. Restricted economy, well, what do you have to do to start a business in a world where kids are gettin popped for operating a lemonade stand with no license? Lol. What do you have to do exactly to really open a business? For the IP part, well, intellectual property is nonsense and it blocks the free flow of goods and services, which is just another way of saying it stifles would-be producers...

 

I think perhaps we are closer in thought than I originally thought. I agree with the above, the economy is not free, but I don't think that condition indicates that all contracts entered into in that environment equate to slavery. If you are trying to argue that the brutality of slavery varies from circumstance to circumstance, that is fine. But I also agree with many of the posters on here that "wage slavery" is a loaded and deceptive term. If the English language had a less politicized and more accurate term, I think you and I might be in agreement. Sure, many people worldwide have limited options due to obscene economic pyramids; but these are creations of the state, not the free market.

[justice seeker]

I think perhaps we are closer in thought than I originally thought. I agree with the above, the economy is not free, but I don't think that condition indicates that all contracts entered into in that environment equate to slavery. If you are trying to argue that the brutality of slavery varies from circumstance to circumstance, that is fine. But I also agree with many of the posters on here that "wage slavery" is a loaded and deceptive term. If the English language had a less politicized and more accurate term, I think you and I might be in agreement. Sure, many people worldwide have limited options due to obscene economic pyramids; but these are creations of the state, not the free market.

I dont think there is a liberty lover around who wouldnt agree that many use terms like wage slave toas an argument for state controls lol. Its usually accompanied with complaints about prices and health care and so on and blaming of free aspects of the economy lol. Like many of the statists beliefs, the observation is half unseen... wage slave yes, because choices are limited and indoctrinated to serve corporate interests, not because the boss just likes to be a jerk lol... you are prob right about where we stand... funny how that ends up being the case when i talk with people who are willing to think and talk rather than just talk lol

[Xtort]

A lot of people seem to have a (perhaps intuitively based) sense of repulsion at the thought of being a "wage slave." This repulsion seems to be part of the reason for the popularity of The Zeitgeist Movement and collectivist ideas. Of course, there's no reason to think that the employer/employee model will be the dominant one in a free society. I personally believe the dominant model is likely to be one wherein everybody is a contractor and people hire a bunch of contractors to complete their projects. The person hiring on one project might be a contractor on the next project they work on--it would be a question of expertise and vision. Anyhow, the point I'm trying to make is maybe libertarians can do a better job of taking advantage of this discontent with the current system.

 

For the record, I don't actually believe that "structural violence" and "wage slave" are helpful terms--I was just being provocative in my post title.

 

It's a double edged sword.  Employees are slaves in the same sense the capitalists that own the company are slaves.  If I spend my time building and developing a factory and then no one works there, I've just wasted a lot of time and effort for nothing. Their demand that I pay them a wage is just another kind of slavery, or at the very least extortion.  Honestly anyone that whines about wage slavery while refusing to work for free is a hypocrite.

[cobra2411]

Except that debt is voluntary. If you sign for a loan, YOU are VOLUNTARILY creating a positive obligation. Slavery is called slavery explicitly because of the lack of consent.

 

Damn complexities with real life...

 

If the concept of debt is misrepresented then it's in fact fraud. Most people are ignorant of the fact that the banks simply create the money they loan to you out of thin air and then charge interest on something that never existed. Additionally the interest can never be paid back as it doesn't exist. 

 

Simplified: If you and I are the only two on the planet and I create $100 that you want to borrow. I set the terms at 10% interest and say you can borrow the $100 and make low payments of $10 and pay it off over time. If you fail to pay it all back I take your stuff. Now, if you lack the understanding of the contract you are entering into then I have defrauded you and stolen your efforts as you try and pay back what can never be paid back.  Wouldn't that be slavery after the fact? 

[Phuein]

Refer to "wage slavery" as the term was intended.

 

"At a time when self-sale contracts were one of the most direct ways to become a citizen in ancient Rome, Cicero wrote in his De Officiis that: 'whoever gives his labor for money sells himself and puts himself in the rank of slaves.' " - Wiki

 

The term is only not relevant when there is the option of living without wages. When owning land does not imply mandatory taxes. When nothing bars people from selling their produce.

 

When land is not available, and it is not possible to freely sell your produce, then all there is left is getting a wage from somebody else. All that is left is dependence.

 

This is only possible through state fascism, not allowing people to live free on the land, and trade freely.

 

There is hardly a person who is not a wage slave, these days. Even an independent person like Stefan, could not afford to not sell himself to others, because the state does not allow him to be independent of it.