Wage Slavery

[Bulgislavia]

I believe that once a majority or significant portion of the population can clearly see through this fake, materialistic, crappy set up that leaves so little with so much and so many with barely anything and is able to critically analyse how their society works and the blatant conditioning of the population into mindless unthinking consumers then real challenging questions and alternatives will be raised and from there momentum will only grow until this horrible system is replaced by something NEW and DIFFERENT, no same old same old bullshit and finally an end to entrenched corruption

so I do agree the manifestation of societal alternatives into a reality is possible and its even possible that one of these alternatives could prove popular and efficient enough to actually challenge the current dominator culture and end its dominance over the planet

[Rick Rollin]

I believe that once a majority or significant portion of the population can clearly see through this fake, materialistic, crappy set up that leaves so little with so much and so many with barely anything and is able to critically analyse how their society works and the blatant conditioning of the population into mindless unthinking consumers then real challenging questions and alternatives will be raised and from there momentum will only grow until this horrible system is replaced by something NEW and DIFFERENT, no same old same old bullshit and finally an end to entrenched corruption

so I do agree the manifestation of societal alternatives into a reality is possible and its even possible that one of these alternatives could prove popular and efficient enough to actually challenge the current dominator culture and end its dominance over the planet

What new system are you talking about?

[Bulgislavia]

very funny, although I believe that while food is a necessity that we actually need to survive money food is unnecessary and actually MAKES people think they need money food to live and the current dominator culture is set up so people actually depend on money food to live on. If all of a sudden money food was abolished the world could still function, the industry, resources and people were still there, we just took money out of the equation.

The fact that you compare money food as important as food just goes to show what a great job the parasite has done in making people believe that the existence of money food is essential and that we would die without it

Or it could be a term to describe that there doesn't seem to be any other clear alternative then to submit to this system because our society has such an obsession with money food that everything depends on it and revolves around it

//Punchline: Money's just a stand in.

[Hippostania]

There is no such thing as slavery. Slavery implies that you are forced to do something. Working voluntarily isn't slavery. Tbh, the term ''wage slavery'' is just a term that some losers came up with to find a scapegoat for why they're not as successful as others.

Or it could be a term to describe that there doesn't seem to be any other clear alternative then to submit to this system because our society has such an obsession with money that everything depends on it and revolves around it

You mean ''I'M A SPESHUL SNOWFLAKE I DON'T WANNA WORK''?

There is no such thing as slavery. Slavery implies that you are forced to do something. Working voluntarily isn't slavery. Tbh, the term ''wage slavery'' is just a term that some losers came up with to find a scapegoat for why they're not as successful as others.

because it is these "losers" fault that they were born into a poor family?

Education is still free. Everyone has a fair chance to succeed in life if they work hard to achieve it.

[Paradisiac Weltanschauung]

Where is the term "Category x Food establishment" used in the sentence I provided?

Most of the statements in the enforcement section only applies to food establishments. It is also implied that these only apply to those who distributes food, e.g gives food to another party. Like NFP said, no one is going to bother you unless you're growing it yourself.

I see no definitions for "facility, warehouse, factory", its well known that legal documents are often worded in such a way that effects much more the just the intended groups...

The Defense Authorization Act has such wording as well.

Well, I'll leave that to a lawyer then.

Honestly, I would love if it was that simple, just trusting that their wording wasn't designed to allow company's like Monsanto to crack down on organic/backyard farming etc..

Just like everyone thought the Patriot Act only applied to "terrorists", not thinking that the term "terrorist" was subjective....

Lets hope you are right, but I have my doubts.

[Norstal]

Encyclopedia and scholarly articles. A group political-science professors I studied with.


There are laws in anarchy. Not everyone is forced to follow that law. Which is what you want, right?


In theory. But then, there'd still be a monopoly of force. Which still means that someone is being forced to do something.

Also, this sounds like anarchco-communism. There's no one to force anyone to do anything and everyone are all in consensus. Not that I'm one, mind you.

According to you there is laws in an anarchical society, but its contrary to many's idea of what an anarchical society represents.

Yes, that's why I loathe common sense. Because it's nonsensical and usually not true.

Rest assured however, that this an anarcho-communist (or syndicalist) ideology, as they want absolutely no force or coercion applied to any human persons.

There's also minarchism where only a defense force/courts/police should exist. But, who funds that? Taxes or voluntary donations. Voluntary donations can only fund so much abram tanks.

No, I don't believe laws are needed if everyone is in a consensus, however a form of representation is needed in order to reach that consensus.

Where does the monopoly of force come from if everyone is in agreement? What would need to be forced?

Malcontents, subversives, outside forces (other states), etc. Not everyone is going to obey a state or the society they live in and what one sees as being forced, another sees they're not.

There's still ongoing research on how the modern state comes to be. So, I can't fully answer that.

More like Utopian Humanism, tho I would agree in our current "state" this is unachievable.

Alright then.

[Bulgislavia]

I believe that once a majority or significant portion of the population can clearly see through this fake, materialistic, crappy set up that leaves so little with so much and so many with barely anything and is able to critically analyse how their society works and the blatant conditioning of the population into mindless unthinking consumers then real challenging questions and alternatives will be raised and from there momentum will only grow until this horrible system is replaced by something NEW and DIFFERENT, no same old same old bullshit and finally an end to entrenched corruption

so I do agree the manifestation of societal alternatives into a reality is possible and its even possible that one of these alternatives could prove popular and efficient enough to actually challenge the current dominator culture and end its dominance over the planet

What new system are you talking about?

To be completely, transparently, entirely honest..... I don't have the answer to that question BUT I do know what I don't want a continuation of. And Instead of saying "Well I cant think of an alternative so lets just stick with what we got" we shouldn't have to settle for a system which is clearly leading us to environmental ruin, economic collapse and political crisis and potential self destruction

People are coming up with alternatives.

Already I support the introduction of Binding citizen initiated referendum's and Direct Democracy.
A fair currency backed by actual goods or a resourced based economy
and a society that promotes the values of liberty, critical thinking, compassion, honesty and truth, peace, understanding etc and the other virtues and high values instead of shadow organizations and governments that lie to the population, start wars on false pretenses..... actually there's just so much wrong with the current state of things I'm not going to get into it but there ARE better alternatives, I may not know what they are but I know they exist simply because I refuse to believe this is as good as its going to get for humanity, we can do better! (Maybe I just have unrealistically high standards for humans and society??? BUT SO SHOULD EVERYONE! WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SETTLE FOR ENTRENCHED CORRUPTION!)

Anyway I'm feeling ranty so..... I'm going to leave it at that BUT

WHOS GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN GLOBAL ACTION DAY 12MAY2012 (12M12) mass global demonstrations against the horrible system that treats us like commodities and cares more about money then the welfare of the people!

[Mr Bananagrabber]

I believe that once a majority or significant portion of the population can clearly see through this fake, materialistic, crappy set up that leaves so little with so much and so many with barely anything and is able to critically analyse how their society works and the blatant conditioning of the population into mindless unthinking consumers then real challenging questions and alternatives will be raised and from there momentum will only grow until this horrible system is replaced by something NEW and DIFFERENT, no same old same old bullshit and finally an end to entrenched corruption

so I do agree the manifestation of societal alternatives into a reality is possible and its even possible that one of these alternatives could prove popular and efficient enough to actually challenge the current dominator culture and end its dominance over the planet

Hang on, I'm confused. So you don't like materialism/consumerism. People should be happy with being alive and not care about a whole bunch of extra garbage. And you say it's unfortunate with the fact that we have a system where a few get so much and most get so little, and that's where I get confused. Most poor people in developed countries have food and housing and a car and some form of entertainment (television/computer). They're only poor relative to richer people. They're not living in absolute poverty. So isn't that what you're aiming for with your anti-materialism stuff? If so, why would you care that there are people who are materialistic and rich?

[Paradisiac Weltanschauung]

According to you there is laws in an anarchical society, but its contrary to many's idea of what an anarchical society represents.

Yes, that's why I loathe common sense. Because it's nonsensical and usually not true.

Rest assured however, that this an anarcho-communist (or syndicalist) ideology, as they want absolutely no force or coercion applied to any human persons.

There's also minarchism where only a defense force/courts/police should exist. But, who funds that? Taxes or voluntary donations.

No, I don't believe laws are needed if everyone is in a consensus, however a form of representation is needed in order to reach that consensus.

Where does the monopoly of force come from if everyone is in agreement? What would need to be forced?

Malcontents, subversives, outside forces (other states), etc. Not everyone is going to obey a state or the society they live in and what one sees as being forced, another sees they're not.

There's still ongoing research on how the modern state comes to be. So, I can't fully answer that.

More like Utopian Humanism, tho I would agree in our current "state" this is unachievable.

Alright then.

Well then if that is the definition that you choose to place on the term "anarcho-communism", then I would have to agree in that context.

Since the community is directly effected by their own actions, and the involvement in the policy making was already voluntary, then the collection of "taxes" would have to be also.

However I believe the term "Utopian Humanism" is much more suiting, since it doesn't bear the same scars that "communism", and "anarchy" seem to have.

[Norstal]

Most of the statements in the enforcement section only applies to food establishments. It is also implied that these only apply to those who distributes food, e.g gives food to another party. Like NFP said, no one is going to bother you unless you're growing it yourself.


Well, I'll leave that to a lawyer then.

Honestly, I would love if it was that simple, just trusting that their wording wasn't designed to allow company's like Monsanto to crack down on organic/backyard farming etc..

Just like everyone thought the Patriot Act only applied to "terrorists", not thinking that the term "terrorist" was subjective....

Lets hope you are right, but I have my doubts.

Yes, I don't like legalese either, but reading and arguing through things like this helps you avoid taxes and ultimately, wage slavery if you want to call it that too.

They'll catch you, but the Tax Courts are very lenient if you're smart enough.

[Bulgislavia]

I believe that once a majority or significant portion of the population can clearly see through this fake, materialistic, crappy set up that leaves so little with so much and so many with barely anything and is able to critically analyse how their society works and the blatant conditioning of the population into mindless unthinking consumers then real challenging questions and alternatives will be raised and from there momentum will only grow until this horrible system is replaced by something NEW and DIFFERENT, no same old same old bullshit and finally an end to entrenched corruption

so I do agree the manifestation of societal alternatives into a reality is possible and its even possible that one of these alternatives could prove popular and efficient enough to actually challenge the current dominator culture and end its dominance over the planet

Hang on, I'm confused. So you don't like materialism/consumerism. People should be happy with being alive and not care about a whole bunch of extra garbage. And you say it's unfortunate with the fact that we have a system where a few get so much and most get so little, and that's where I get confused. Most poor people in developed countries have food and housing and a car and some form of entertainment (television/computer). They're only poor relative to richer people. They're not living in absolute poverty. So isn't that what you're aiming for with your anti-materialism stuff? If so, why would you care that there are people who are materialistic and rich?

No Im talking about some beverly hills house wife who submits to societal pressures and ideas of stereotypical beauty and goes under the knife with plastic surgery and then splurges on new sunglasses and gets into petty fights with friends and then contrast that to those who are forced to sell their children to feed themselves. THIS IS NOT OK and its a Symptom of the current horrible dominator culture and shows just how much is "looks after" the people.

Rich people can be miserable too and the system has left the obscenely wealthy detached and disconnected from nature and their fellow man while leaving the destitute struggling to survive

[Paradisiac Weltanschauung]

Honestly, I would love if it was that simple, just trusting that their wording wasn't designed to allow company's like Monsanto to crack down on organic/backyard farming etc..

Just like everyone thought the Patriot Act only applied to "terrorists", not thinking that the term "terrorist" was subjective....

Lets hope you are right, but I have my doubts.

Yes, I don't like legalese either, but reading and arguing through things like this helps you avoid taxes and ultimately, wage slavery if you want to call it that too.

They'll catch you, but the Tax Courts are very lenient if you're smart enough.

Yes, I have seen examples of this in practice, but for the average citizen its impossible to find time to study these matters.

Thus why we need a better system of civilian representation in the court system. To my knowledge in Louisiana the public defenders are paid via parking tickets.

Which bears the obvious question of where their allegiance is, to their paycheck, or to the citizens.

[Norstal]

Yes, that's why I loathe common sense. Because it's nonsensical and usually not true.

Rest assured however, that this an anarcho-communist (or syndicalist) ideology, as they want absolutely no force or coercion applied to any human persons.

There's also minarchism where only a defense force/courts/police should exist. But, who funds that? Taxes or voluntary donations.

Malcontents, subversives, outside forces (other states), etc. Not everyone is going to obey a state or the society they live in and what one sees as being forced, another sees they're not.

There's still ongoing research on how the modern state comes to be. So, I can't fully answer that.


Alright then.

Well then if that is the definition that you choose to place on the term "anarcho-communism", then I would have to agree in that context.

Since the community is directly effected by their own actions, and the involvement in the policy making was already voluntary, then the collection of "taxes" would have to be also.

Only about 50% of all eligible Americans actually voted for presidency. Much lower for state propositions, representatives, and senatorial elections. There is a high apathy here, which is why we keep having shitty politicians. One can guess what happens when they start voting directly for policies, especially tax policies.

I'd want people to voluntarily contribute. I think that's the entire idea when Athens was created and I think that was the only city-state that was able to implement direct democracy and somewhat voluntary taxation. Well, only men can vote, but all men can vote. They had a golden age and were influential. Course, this attracts opposition from other cities and soon, they become embroiled in wars, in which they mostly lose. Then they were conquered by Macedon.

I'm not good with history, so this is just a brief overview. However, the point is that we tried it and it didn't work, so let's not repeat it again.

However I believe the term "Utopian Humanism" is much more suiting, since it doesn't bear the same scars that "communism", and "anarchy" seem to have.

Eh, that has more to do with philosophy, not politics. But to each his own.

[Jello Biafra]

Wage slavery is not the same thing as traditional slavery, but this doesn't mean that it doesn't have some of the same attributes.

[Bulgislavia]

Or it could be a term to describe that there doesn't seem to be any other clear alternative then to submit to this system because our society has such an obsession with money that everything depends on it and revolves around it

You mean ''I'M A SPESHUL SNOWFLAKE I DON'T WANNA WORK''?

because it is these "losers" fault that they were born into a poor family?

Education is still free. Everyone has a fair chance to succeed in life if they work hard to achieve it.

Oh god the whole "Dont complain, just keep your head down and be a good obedient hard worker, if you work hard you can achieve anything yada yada yada"

Actually education isn't as free as its made out there are still school fees that some families struggle to pay and then send children to school without morning tea and lunch and if the child cant engage in school their grades will slip, they will get into trouble and then it will be another individual the system failed making life an even harder up hill struggle for them

I disagree with your "Everyone has a fair chance" comment, that is totally untrue.

Someone born in the Rockefeller clan is leap years ahead of someone born in a Dhaka slum or are you saying that if that child with inadequate access to water, power, education and food works hard enough he will be able to become as powerful and wealthy as the Rockefeller clan..... Also just look at any statistic on global wealth, education, life expectancy (basically any statistic) and you will see our global structure is inherently racist, rich middle aged white men at the top while leaving black Africans lucky to even see their 50th birthday at the bottom of the heap as the global underclass

Also someone born with handicaps doesn't have a fair chance, in fact in our society there is even an option to terminate them before they have even taken their first breath of air

anyway I don't think its particularly nice or positive to be like "Hey people who have alternative behaviour and ideas to the sociatal norm! they aren't conforming! OMG IT MEANS THERE USELESS HIPPIE TRASH THAT DON'T CONTRIBUTE! GET A JOB YOU LAZY BUM!" that kind of ridiculous mentality doesn't help anybody although I'm all for freedom of speech

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Hang on, I'm confused. So you don't like materialism/consumerism. People should be happy with being alive and not care about a whole bunch of extra garbage. And you say it's unfortunate with the fact that we have a system where a few get so much and most get so little, and that's where I get confused. Most poor people in developed countries have food and housing and a car and some form of entertainment (television/computer). They're only poor relative to richer people. They're not living in absolute poverty. So isn't that what you're aiming for with your anti-materialism stuff? If so, why would you care that there are people who are materialistic and rich?

No Im talking about some beverly hills house wife who submits to societal pressures and ideas of stereotypical beauty and goes under the knife with plastic surgery and then splurges on new sunglasses and gets into petty fights with friends and then contrast that to those who are forced to sell their children to feed themselves. THIS IS NOT OK and its a Symptom of the current horrible dominator culture and shows just how much is "looks after" the people.

Rich people can be miserable too and the system has left the obscenely wealthy detached and disconnected from nature and their fellow man while leaving the destitute struggling to survive

Fine. But all of that has nothing to do with wages. It's individuals free to make choices, although perhaps under pressure to make certain choices, those choices are still voluntarily.

[Bulgislavia]

No Im talking about some beverly hills house wife who submits to societal pressures and ideas of stereotypical beauty and goes under the knife with plastic surgery and then splurges on new sunglasses and gets into petty fights with friends and then contrast that to those who are forced to sell their children to feed themselves. THIS IS NOT OK and its a Symptom of the current horrible dominator culture and shows just how much is "looks after" the people.

Rich people can be miserable too and the system has left the obscenely wealthy detached and disconnected from nature and their fellow man while leaving the destitute struggling to survive

Fine. But all of that has nothing to do with wages. It's individuals free to make choices, although perhaps under pressure to make certain choices, those choices are still voluntarily.

Would Wage slavery make more sense to people if it were applied to Nike sweat shop workers in India rather then applying the term to a uni student working at McDonald's?

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Fine. But all of that has nothing to do with wages. It's individuals free to make choices, although perhaps under pressure to make certain choices, those choices are still voluntarily.

Would Wage slavery make more sense to people if it were applied to Nike sweat shop workers in India rather then applying the term to a uni student working at McDonald's?

No. Not really.

[Jerusalem and Damascus]

Well then if that is the definition that you choose to place on the term "anarcho-communism", then I would have to agree in that context.

Since the community is directly effected by their own actions, and the involvement in the policy making was already voluntary, then the collection of "taxes" would have to be also.

Only about 50% of all eligible Americans actually voted for presidency. Much lower for state propositions, representatives, and senatorial elections. There is a high apathy here, which is why we keep having shitty politicians. One can guess what happens when they start voting directly for policies, especially tax policies.

I'd want people to voluntarily contribute. I think that's the entire idea when Athens was created and I think that was the only city-state that was able to implement direct democracy and somewhat voluntary taxation. Well, only men can vote, but all men can vote. They had a golden age and were influential. Course, this attracts opposition from other cities and soon, they become embroiled in wars, in which they mostly lose. Then they were conquered by Macedon.

I'm not good with history, so this is just a brief overview. However, the point is that we tried it and it didn't work, so let's not repeat it again.

However I believe the term "Utopian Humanism" is much more suiting, since it doesn't bear the same scars that "communism", and "anarchy" seem to have.

Eh, that has more to do with philosophy, not politics. But to each his own.

Actually, what killed the Athenian democracy was people like the Four Hundred being huge dicks and overthrowing the democracy to form an oligarchy to suit the wealthy instead of every man.

[Norstal]

Actually, what killed the Athenian democracy was people like the Four Hundred being huge dicks and overthrowing the democracy to form an oligarchy to suit the wealthy instead of every man.

Didn't the democracy gets restored though? Or was that for a short time?

You might be right though.

[Bulgislavia]

Would Wage slavery make more sense to people if it were applied to Nike sweat shop workers in India rather then applying the term to a uni student working at McDonald's?

No. Not really.

I think people can say those "Children working 12 hour days for pennies in a sweat shop was a voluntary choice on there part therefore its not slavery, they made the choice of their own accord"

but the socio-economic circumstances really pushed the child to make those choices, it was voluntary but at the same time it isnt really, they have to submit to that regime or starve, picking life over death may be a voluntary choice on the part of the individual but to me its cruel, disgusting and wrong on so many levels and just further shows the morality of the people at the top of that horrible system of modern serfdom or whatever you want to call it where money really has overridden their connection to their fellow humans, they are just as much a slave to the money as everyone else

there is that saying

"If you want to know what god thinks of money just look at who he gave it to"

[Jerusalem and Damascus]

Actually, what killed the Athenian democracy was people like the Four Hundred being huge dicks and overthrowing the democracy to form an oligarchy to suit the wealthy instead of every man.

Didn't the democracy gets restored though? Or was that for a short time?

You might be right though.

It did but after that it was all downhill. The glory days of Athens were over by then.

[Paradisiac Weltanschauung]

Well then if that is the definition that you choose to place on the term "anarcho-communism", then I would have to agree in that context.

Since the community is directly effected by their own actions, and the involvement in the policy making was already voluntary, then the collection of "taxes" would have to be also.

Only about 50% of all eligible Americans actually voted for presidency. Much lower for state propositions, representatives, and senatorial elections. There is a high apathy here, which is why we keep having shitty politicians. One can guess what happens when they start voting directly for policies, especially tax policies.

I'd want people to voluntarily contribute. I think that's the entire idea when Athens was created and I think that was the only city-state that was able to implement direct democracy and somewhat voluntary taxation. Well, only men can vote, but all men can vote. They had a golden age and were influential. Course, this attracts opposition from other cities and soon, they become embroiled in wars, in which they mostly lose. Then they were conquered by Macedon.

I'm not good with history, so this is just a brief overview. However, the point is that we tried it and it didn't work, so let's not repeat it again.

However I believe the term "Utopian Humanism" is much more suiting, since it doesn't bear the same scars that "communism", and "anarchy" seem to have.

Eh, that has more to do with philosophy, not politics. But to each his own.

Yes, I would defiantly agree that the lack of involvement by us the people, has gotten us into this predicament. I certainly don't hold the system or the profiteers solely responsible, since we are inherently the one's who designed it to begin with, or at least the one's who let it flourish. One would hope in the future, we will cast aside such trivial matters as national pride, and stop us from warring each-other indefinitely.

Then again, one can always debate that our actions have all been for the betterment of the whole of humanity, since the power structure is creating the resistance that is needed to connect us.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

No. Not really.

I think people can say those "Children working 12 hour days for pennies in a sweat shop was a voluntary choice on there part therefore its not slavery, they made the choice of their own accord"

but the socio-economic circumstances really pushed the child to make those choices, it was voluntary but at the same time it isnt really, they have to submit to that regime or starve, picking life over death may be a voluntary choice on the part of the individual but to me its cruel, disgusting and wrong on so many levels and just further shows the morality of the people at the top of that horrible system of modern serfdom or whatever you want to call it where money really has overridden their connection to their fellow humans, they are just as much a slave to the money as everyone else

there is that saying

"If you want to know what god thinks of money just look at who he gave it to"

Look, I don't disagree that there are some shitty circumstances. Just don't trivialise the concept of slavery. To get to "wage slavery" we need to take two bullshit steps: First, redefine "slavery" to mean any old thing that's not really voluntary. Second, redefine "voluntary" so that even if you have autonomy of choice, if your alternative choices are unpalatable then it's not really voluntary.

[Bulgislavia]

I think people can say those "Children working 12 hour days for pennies in a sweat shop was a voluntary choice on there part therefore its not slavery, they made the choice of their own accord"

but the socio-economic circumstances really pushed the child to make those choices, it was voluntary but at the same time it isnt really, they have to submit to that regime or starve, picking life over death may be a voluntary choice on the part of the individual but to me its cruel, disgusting and wrong on so many levels and just further shows the morality of the people at the top of that horrible system of modern serfdom or whatever you want to call it where money really has overridden their connection to their fellow humans, they are just as much a slave to the money as everyone else

there is that saying

"If you want to know what god thinks of money just look at who he gave it to"

Look, I don't disagree that there are some shitty circumstances. Just don't trivialise the concept of slavery. To get to "wage slavery" we need to take two bullshit steps: First, redefine "slavery" to mean any old thing that's not really voluntary. Second, redefine "voluntary" so that even if you have autonomy of choice, if your alternative choices are unpalatable then it's not really voluntary.

or create another term that isn't called wage slavery but means basically what where talking about like... indentured servitude? I dunno