Talk:Wage labour: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
This is...really bad. No it can't be 'persuasively argued' and the phrase 'Marx's stigmatization of the wage system of private capitalism' sounds odd. Wage labour is OBVIOUSLY a step up from slavery, serfdom and you can find several references that can support that claim (even in Marx's writings he makes this point clear -- criticisms of capitalism aside, it is a mode that is more free and advanced than feudalism, slavery, etc. |
This is...really bad. No it can't be 'persuasively argued' and the phrase 'Marx's stigmatization of the wage system of private capitalism' sounds odd. Wage labour is OBVIOUSLY a step up from slavery, serfdom and you can find several references that can support that claim (even in Marx's writings he makes this point clear -- criticisms of capitalism aside, it is a mode that is more free and advanced than feudalism, slavery, etc. |
||
== types == |
|||
the section types doesn't make sense unless you're assuming a particular (all encompassing) definition of wage labour which I would caution against. Is there a reference to justify this approach? Because a Marxist definition of wage labour would preclude some of the things under type (forced, indentured labour, prison labour, etc would not apply). |
|||
So first you have to make clear what framework you're using and then types which correspond to the framework. As it stands now, some of the points under 'types' contradict some of the frameworks mentioned in the article (Marxist for sure, don't know about others) |
|||
Revision as of 00:05, 19 May 2015
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Facts of US Patent Law
I am not sure what changes may have taken place in recent decades, and I've no doubt there are cases where a patent can only be logically assigned to a group and therefore is directly assigned to a corporation or one of its' officers. However ... . Will research it and post here on a slow queue. Lycurgus (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
wage labour from Marxist pov
"It can be persuasively argued," noted one concerned philosopher, "that the conception of the worker's labour as a commodity confirms Marx's stigmatization of the wage system of private capitalism as 'wage-slavery;' that is, as an instrument of the capitalist's for reducing the worker's condition to that of a slave, if not below it."
This is...really bad. No it can't be 'persuasively argued' and the phrase 'Marx's stigmatization of the wage system of private capitalism' sounds odd. Wage labour is OBVIOUSLY a step up from slavery, serfdom and you can find several references that can support that claim (even in Marx's writings he makes this point clear -- criticisms of capitalism aside, it is a mode that is more free and advanced than feudalism, slavery, etc.
types
the section types doesn't make sense unless you're assuming a particular (all encompassing) definition of wage labour which I would caution against. Is there a reference to justify this approach? Because a Marxist definition of wage labour would preclude some of the things under type (forced, indentured labour, prison labour, etc would not apply).
So first you have to make clear what framework you're using and then types which correspond to the framework. As it stands now, some of the points under 'types' contradict some of the frameworks mentioned in the article (Marxist for sure, don't know about others)