5 ms·

The battle between the modern 'Left' and 'Right' is pure theater. It’s a false choice designed to keep us arguing over who holds the leash while we remain wage

by civeng 10mo ago

The battle between the modern 'Left' and 'Right' is pure theater. It’s a false choice designed to keep us arguing over who holds the leash while we remain wage slaves. It would be interesting if some of those individuals could have been more convincing 150 years ago

slibhb 10mo ago
The term "wage slave" is a cop-out. People -- all of us -- are stomach-slaves, not wage-slaves.
- Aloha 10mo ago
  that may be so, but a stack of bills or small bag of coins is sure easier to cart around than things I can eat are.
- solatic 10mo ago
  Having needs is not the same as slavery. Wage slavery is described as such because of the power imbalance between employer and worker, who has limited agency to find another employer, with whom he would also have a relationship with a power imbalance. A wealthy man who receives a check for dividends and interest most months is not subject to such power imbalances. Wealth makes him free. It's not an argument that socialism would enable people to just live off a public dividend, so to speak. Somebody has to work, and workplaces require discipline. Rather it's an argument for better labor safety controls, and a personal appeal to people to save as much money as they can.
  - WalterBright 10mo ago
    I've been an employer. I didn't have any power over my employees. If there was anything they didn't like, they simply stopped coming to work. How was I supposed to make them show up? One embezzled a large amount of money and spent it on drugs. What was I supposed to do about that? He was broke, he couldn't pay the money back. All I could do was tell him to not come back. I've also been employed at minimum wage jobs, and salaried jobs. I never felt the employer had power over me. At my salaried jobs, my coworkers complained about all the power the company had over them. The company had no power over me, so I would ask them what the power was. After some long conversations, the problem was the coworkers spent every dime of their income. So not having a paycheck for a week was a catastrophe. The company, however, was unaware of these issues. I recommend saving up to 6 months of living expenses, and then the employer will have no leverage over you.
    - freefaler 10mo ago
      A lot of people forget that going hungry is the default state of not doing a thing. The super rich and socially progressive societies redistribute the taxes they levy on the productive people to help the people who can not (elderly, ill) or won't (lazy bastards) work. It might be a better deal for the society as a whole, to offset the cirme that would ensue if there isn't any social net. A lion in the plains of Africa is not entitled to a dinner, the farmer in not entitled to a crop yield. It is super rare that people can't do anything to better themselves and get more for their own skills or execution. Any buisness owner will gladly share a percentage of profit you generate for them if you can show them you're indeed generating such profit. If you're in DPRK or Cuba then you'd need to check your free-market priviledge of having a market for your skills.
      - WalterBright 9mo ago
        > to offset the cirme that would ensue if there isn't any social net. The recent news from Minnesota suggests that the social safety net is a magnet for astonishing levels of theft.
        freefaler 9mo ago
        It's not the social safety, but the bad enforcement of the law. When bad acts are not punished, this is the problem that occurs. Some social systems like in Israel if you're ablebodied you are given a public service job, like cleaning the park and etc... so you aren't entitled to a check for doing nothing. South Africa hasn't any meaningful social net and the wealthy people live in special "high security" enclaves with additional guards and fenced perimeters. If you have a lot of hungry people on the street they will be forced to survive somehow and you'd get more crime.
    - civeng 9mo ago
      This is part of the false dichotomy you are not understanding. It's not actually a valid choice if there are no options. And that is what this is actually about, understanding how we have no good options, and what to do about it. I recommend start digging in and we all question or own understanding and acceptance of the system. Is it actually working with even a simple majority in the best position we can be? Currently employing 130 wage slaves and unduly profiting from their margins, and not satisfied with the overall system at all.
- IAmBroom 9mo ago
  It's 30F outside right now, and I can live a lot longer without food than without shelter. You are just playing at word games. The system is trapping the have-nots into unpleasant, lifelong conditions, and that's what "wage slave" means. As you know.
poly2it 10mo ago
Yes, it is a false dichotomy, and politics are in fact much more complicated than that.
rc_kas 10mo ago
Yep. The real battle is wealthies vs poors. Everything else is just propaganda.
- nyc_data_geek1 10mo ago
  No war but class war
- WalterBright 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mperham 10mo ago
    99% of zoning is just class-based segregation.
  - saubeidl 10mo ago
    Here's a recent American example: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/by-the-numbers-harmful-republican-megabill-favors-the-wealthy-and-leaves https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/by-the-numbers-har...
  - tehjoker 10mo ago
    where does profit come from? Simply trading items in a competitive market will not turn profits.
    - freefaler 10mo ago
      No profits == no business. Profits in very competitive markets might be low, but you still need them to survive. Walmart is under 6% of profit, but due to the enormous revenue it is still a lot.
      - tehjoker 9mo ago
        That’s not the question, it’s where do profits come from in the economic equation? What part of the value chain is adding but not subtracting its full cut?

by civeng 10mo ago

slibhb 10mo ago

The term "wage slave" is a cop-out. People -- all of us -- are stomach-slaves, not wage-slaves.

Aloha 10mo ago
that may be so, but a stack of bills or small bag of coins is sure easier to cart around than things I can eat are.
solatic 10mo ago
Having needs is not the same as slavery. Wage slavery is described as such because of the power imbalance between employer and worker, who has limited agency to find another employer, with whom he would also have a relationship with a power imbalance. A wealthy man who receives a check for dividends and interest most months is not subject to such power imbalances. Wealth makes him free. It's not an argument that socialism would enable people to just live off a public dividend, so to speak. Somebody has to work, and workplaces require discipline. Rather it's an argument for better labor safety controls, and a personal appeal to people to save as much money as they can.
- WalterBright 10mo ago
  I've been an employer. I didn't have any power over my employees. If there was anything they didn't like, they simply stopped coming to work. How was I supposed to make them show up? One embezzled a large amount of money and spent it on drugs. What was I supposed to do about that? He was broke, he couldn't pay the money back. All I could do was tell him to not come back. I've also been employed at minimum wage jobs, and salaried jobs. I never felt the employer had power over me. At my salaried jobs, my coworkers complained about all the power the company had over them. The company had no power over me, so I would ask them what the power was. After some long conversations, the problem was the coworkers spent every dime of their income. So not having a paycheck for a week was a catastrophe. The company, however, was unaware of these issues. I recommend saving up to 6 months of living expenses, and then the employer will have no leverage over you.
  - freefaler 10mo ago
    A lot of people forget that going hungry is the default state of not doing a thing. The super rich and socially progressive societies redistribute the taxes they levy on the productive people to help the people who can not (elderly, ill) or won't (lazy bastards) work. It might be a better deal for the society as a whole, to offset the cirme that would ensue if there isn't any social net. A lion in the plains of Africa is not entitled to a dinner, the farmer in not entitled to a crop yield. It is super rare that people can't do anything to better themselves and get more for their own skills or execution. Any buisness owner will gladly share a percentage of profit you generate for them if you can show them you're indeed generating such profit. If you're in DPRK or Cuba then you'd need to check your free-market priviledge of having a market for your skills.
    - WalterBright 9mo ago
      > to offset the cirme that would ensue if there isn't any social net. The recent news from Minnesota suggests that the social safety net is a magnet for astonishing levels of theft.
      - freefaler 9mo ago
        It's not the social safety, but the bad enforcement of the law. When bad acts are not punished, this is the problem that occurs. Some social systems like in Israel if you're ablebodied you are given a public service job, like cleaning the park and etc... so you aren't entitled to a check for doing nothing. South Africa hasn't any meaningful social net and the wealthy people live in special "high security" enclaves with additional guards and fenced perimeters. If you have a lot of hungry people on the street they will be forced to survive somehow and you'd get more crime.
  - civeng 9mo ago
    This is part of the false dichotomy you are not understanding. It's not actually a valid choice if there are no options. And that is what this is actually about, understanding how we have no good options, and what to do about it. I recommend start digging in and we all question or own understanding and acceptance of the system. Is it actually working with even a simple majority in the best position we can be? Currently employing 130 wage slaves and unduly profiting from their margins, and not satisfied with the overall system at all.
IAmBroom 9mo ago
It's 30F outside right now, and I can live a lot longer without food than without shelter. You are just playing at word games. The system is trapping the have-nots into unpleasant, lifelong conditions, and that's what "wage slave" means. As you know.

poly2it 10mo ago

Yes, it is a false dichotomy, and politics are in fact much more complicated than that.

rc_kas 10mo ago

Yep. The real battle is wealthies vs poors. Everything else is just propaganda.

nyc_data_geek1 10mo ago
No war but class war
WalterBright 10mo ago
[flagged]
- mperham 10mo ago
  99% of zoning is just class-based segregation.
- saubeidl 10mo ago
  Here's a recent American example: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/by-the-numbers-harmful-republican-megabill-favors-the-wealthy-and-leaves https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/by-the-numbers-har...
- tehjoker 10mo ago
  where does profit come from? Simply trading items in a competitive market will not turn profits.
  - freefaler 10mo ago
    No profits == no business. Profits in very competitive markets might be low, but you still need them to survive. Walmart is under 6% of profit, but due to the enormous revenue it is still a lot.
    - tehjoker 9mo ago
      That’s not the question, it’s where do profits come from in the economic equation? What part of the value chain is adding but not subtracting its full cut?