8 ms·

This is probably the dumbest thing I've read today. The difference between a worker and a slave is clearly at the end of the day, the worker has more money than

by jprince 12y ago

This is probably the dumbest thing I've read today. The difference between a worker and a slave is clearly at the end of the day, the worker has more money than at the start, and can exercise buying power over whatever he or she wants to do, including retiring and leaving the company. This is basically just communism re-wrapped as "changing work."

stegosaurus 12y ago
'at the end of the day, the worker has more money than at the start, and can exercise buying power over whatever he or she wants to do' This is only true for the subset of workers that have disposable income, mind. Imagine a graph of 'work-related expenses' against 'hours worked'. Simplified example for a general job. Say a bus driver. At zero hours, it's nil. At one hour, it would rocket (you need to either live close to, or commute to your workplace). Then it remains fairly static for a while. As the hours creep up, your ability to manage your life outside of work decreases and so convenience purchases enter the equation as a work-related expense. Imagine you own a car. Previously you might have been able to learn and work on it yourself. Or just not fix it if it breaks. With a job, you may now need to pay for a mechanic. And so on and so forth. "Whatever you want to do" is fairly limited in the case that you have barely any disposable income. It's true that you might be better off than not working. But not really in the monetary sense. More that your preferences* (i.e. location) and the employers's preferences happen to align and you can gain something.
comrh 12y ago
What if debt means they don't have more money then the start? What if they can't possibly retire or leave due to financial burdens? Surely you can be a slave without the threat of violence, by just not having any other option to survive?
stegosaurus 12y ago
As a tangent to my other post; 'more than the start' can take other forms than money and often does. It might be that your employment requires that you own a car, and that without the employment you wouldn't need one and couldn't afford to run one anyway. So the car can be considered a cost of employment. A business expense (though not tax-deductible). The side benefit is that you now have use of a car on the weekends. That doesn't really help you with retiring, though it perhaps improves your quality of life.
dreamfactory2 12y ago
> This is basically just communism Even the Stoics regarded working for money as a form of slavery
- obstinate 12y ago
  > Even the Stoics You say this like we'd expect the Stoics to be especially unlikely to regard something as a form of slavery. I don't know that to be true. Is it?
  - zenogais 12y ago
    In my experience a lot of entrepreneurs/entrepreneur literature preaches Stoic philosophies: [1]: http://fourhourworkweek.com/2009/04/13/stoicism-101-a-practical-guide-for-entrepreneurs/ http://fourhourworkweek.com/2009/04/13/stoicism-101-a-practi... [2]: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/238146 http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/238146 [3]: http://mfishbein.com/stoicism-entrepreneurship/ http://mfishbein.com/stoicism-entrepreneurship/
  - dreamfactory2 12y ago
    I say it like it's far from an extreme or outlying view in the wider sweep of history. The idea that just about everybody should be an employee is a very recent one
iand 12y ago
>This is basically just communism re-wrapped as "changing work." You say that like it's a bad thing. Anarchism historically has always been libertarian communism. It was Marx who paired authoritarianism and communism into the ideology that drove almost all the worst despots of the 20th century.
- bobwaycott 12y ago
  It appears you are either a big fan of Bakunin, have a poor understanding of Marx in history, or simply suffer a grossly inaccurate understanding of Marx's political theory. Marx most certainly did not pair authoritarianism and communism. Ever. You speak of a mythical version of Marx's conception of the state in particular, and Marxist theory in general. This mythical yarn was spun by Soviets--and other despots and their followers--who were desperate to dress themselves in Marxist garb, as well as Western powers desperate to discredit Marxist theory and drum up national opposition in response to feeling threatened by it.
  - iand 12y ago
    Marx advocated the use of a state to transition society to a stateless condition. This period of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is the authoritarian streak that led to the Marx/Bakunin break.
    - tarentel 12y ago
      Lenin, and probably others, advocated for the use of a state to transition, not Marx. The dictatorship of the proletariate is a transitional period when the proletariates take over the means of production through revolution. There are still classes at this point, hence transition, but the ruling class is the working class. In other words, a "dictatorship" of the many and not the few. As far as the split goes, it was a lot more involved than just one issue. The problem you are referring to, however, had more to do with using politics of the time in order to motivate workers which they both understood in many parts of Europe were not ready for what they wanted. Marxist were ok with participating in politics, Bakunin was not. They both agreed though that real change would come from an uprising of people and not through political action.

by jprince 12y ago

stegosaurus 12y ago

'at the end of the day, the worker has more money than at the start, and can exercise buying power over whatever he or she wants to do' This is only true for the subset of workers that have disposable income, mind. Imagine a graph of 'work-related expenses' against 'hours worked'. Simplified example for a general job. Say a bus driver. At zero hours, it's nil. At one hour, it would rocket (you need to either live close to, or commute to your workplace). Then it remains fairly static for a while. As the hours creep up, your ability to manage your life outside of work decreases and so convenience purchases enter the equation as a work-related expense. Imagine you own a car. Previously you might have been able to learn and work on it yourself. Or just not fix it if it breaks. With a job, you may now need to pay for a mechanic. And so on and so forth. "Whatever you want to do" is fairly limited in the case that you have barely any disposable income. It's true that you might be better off than not working. But not really in the monetary sense. More that your preferences* (i.e. location) and the employers's preferences happen to align and you can gain something.

comrh 12y ago

What if debt means they don't have more money then the start? What if they can't possibly retire or leave due to financial burdens? Surely you can be a slave without the threat of violence, by just not having any other option to survive?

stegosaurus 12y ago

As a tangent to my other post; 'more than the start' can take other forms than money and often does. It might be that your employment requires that you own a car, and that without the employment you wouldn't need one and couldn't afford to run one anyway. So the car can be considered a cost of employment. A business expense (though not tax-deductible). The side benefit is that you now have use of a car on the weekends. That doesn't really help you with retiring, though it perhaps improves your quality of life.

dreamfactory2 12y ago

> This is basically just communism Even the Stoics regarded working for money as a form of slavery

obstinate 12y ago
> Even the Stoics You say this like we'd expect the Stoics to be especially unlikely to regard something as a form of slavery. I don't know that to be true. Is it?
- zenogais 12y ago
  In my experience a lot of entrepreneurs/entrepreneur literature preaches Stoic philosophies: [1]: http://fourhourworkweek.com/2009/04/13/stoicism-101-a-practical-guide-for-entrepreneurs/ http://fourhourworkweek.com/2009/04/13/stoicism-101-a-practi... [2]: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/238146 http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/238146 [3]: http://mfishbein.com/stoicism-entrepreneurship/ http://mfishbein.com/stoicism-entrepreneurship/
- dreamfactory2 12y ago
  I say it like it's far from an extreme or outlying view in the wider sweep of history. The idea that just about everybody should be an employee is a very recent one

iand 12y ago

>This is basically just communism re-wrapped as "changing work." You say that like it's a bad thing. Anarchism historically has always been libertarian communism. It was Marx who paired authoritarianism and communism into the ideology that drove almost all the worst despots of the 20th century.

bobwaycott 12y ago
It appears you are either a big fan of Bakunin, have a poor understanding of Marx in history, or simply suffer a grossly inaccurate understanding of Marx's political theory. Marx most certainly did not pair authoritarianism and communism. Ever. You speak of a mythical version of Marx's conception of the state in particular, and Marxist theory in general. This mythical yarn was spun by Soviets--and other despots and their followers--who were desperate to dress themselves in Marxist garb, as well as Western powers desperate to discredit Marxist theory and drum up national opposition in response to feeling threatened by it.
- iand 12y ago
  Marx advocated the use of a state to transition society to a stateless condition. This period of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is the authoritarian streak that led to the Marx/Bakunin break.
  - tarentel 12y ago
    Lenin, and probably others, advocated for the use of a state to transition, not Marx. The dictatorship of the proletariate is a transitional period when the proletariates take over the means of production through revolution. There are still classes at this point, hence transition, but the ruling class is the working class. In other words, a "dictatorship" of the many and not the few. As far as the split goes, it was a lot more involved than just one issue. The problem you are referring to, however, had more to do with using politics of the time in order to motivate workers which they both understood in many parts of Europe were not ready for what they wanted. Marxist were ok with participating in politics, Bakunin was not. They both agreed though that real change would come from an uprising of people and not through political action.