Talk:Wage slavery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

POV problem: Wage labor/Wage slavery[edit]

This article consistently, but not explicitly equates wage labor with wage slavery. That is highly POV, and will need to be fixed. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The entire concept of the article is an equation between wage labor and slavery. Putting up a POV tag for the articles definition is not warranted. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
That's not how the NPOV policy works. You can't make an article whose "entire concept" is to be POV as an excuse for making a POV article. That wage labor is slavery is an opinion, not fact. The intro of the the article is good, and talks about "situations" that some people call "wage slavery", but the major part of the rest of the article simply equate wage labor and slavery as if this was a fact. Even if you think this is the purpose of the article (which the intro disagrees with) that still makes the article POV. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
No, the article is written neutrally but is about what you consider "POV", namely its definition. By that standard, Flat Earth is POV because its about the flat earth theory even though its written neutrally. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
No and no. Both sentences above are flatly and obviously incorrect. The Flat Earth is not POV because the article does not assume that the theories are correct. This article does, and therefore it is POV. This is now the third time I state this. Am I being unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it assume its correct, it simply cites people that have opinions on it which includes those that are critical of it.CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I disagree, but I don't have time to fix it now, and now *you* are edit warring according to your own definitions of that term. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Its not exactly a matter of agreement, you're alleging a POV dispute which requires at least citing some evidence instead of just asserting it. I'll keep it the way it is now and if you can cite some things that could be cleaned up I think its a good place to work from. CartoonDiablo (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It is either POV or just really badly written. For example, look at "Treatment under various economic systems." "Wage slavery" is conflated with class division, but the connection is never explained. Of the provided citations, two never mention wage slavery and the third is a dead link. Most of the article doesn't even agree with the original definition! It's just a bunch of peripherally related topics (e.g. having to earn a wage, or the impact on the environment) rather than what the article is actually supposed to be about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.152.36 (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section?[edit]

I think some parts can be copied and put into a new criticism section. Note that I generally agree with the premise that wage slavery is a real issue and I know criticism is addressed elsewhere but I think the article can be improved with one. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A criticism section would be an improvement. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A copyright problem.[edit]

I removed a link to the thirdworldtraveler site. Not because it's unreliable (although that site does cherrypick some pretty fringey stuff) but for copyright reasons. There's a discussion over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.... bobrayner (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Book to use as source[edit]

http://books.google.com.hk/books/about/From_Bondage_to_Contract.html?id=XoMhJoxRkY0C&redir_esc=y

From Bondage to Contract: Wage Labor, Marriage, and the Market in the Age of Slave Emancipation:

This book explores the centrality of contract to debates over freedom and slavery in nineteenth-century America. It focuses on the contracts of wage labor and marriage, investigating the connections between abolition in the South and industrial capitalism in the North and linking labor relations to home life. Integrating the fields of gender and legal, intellectual and social history, it reveals how abolitionists, former slaves, feminists, laborers, lawmakers and others drew on contract to condemn chattel slavery and to measure the virtues of free society.

LK (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Y O Y[edit]

did you bolix the arkiv ? 76.180.168.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


gender neutral pronoun change[edit]

The contributor must have traveled to the future and forgotten that in the 21st century we don't use male pronouns anymore.

'Defenses of wage labor and chattel slavery in the literature have linked the subjection of man to man with the subjection of man to nature'

Hopefully it was changed; unless quoting someone, it's best to use gender- and sex-neutral pronouns.

Engels quote[edit]

The article has quoted the following --

The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence.


The quote is taken from the Principles of Communism where Engels differentiates slaves from proletarians. This is loosely related to what the quote is being used for (as impinging on the individual liberty of the worker but really, this is not what Engels is trying to at it) i.e. the quote is not about the contradiction between the illusion of liberty, freedom, etc in capitalist society and the reality of bondage. Engels is clearly making a distinction between slaves and workers and that is all. So to use the quote for any other purpose (infringe on individual liberty and thus contradict capitalist ethos) counts as ORIGINAL RESEARCH unless the contributor can find a secondary source supporting this interpretation.

Pasted below is the section in full --

(Section title=) In what way do proletarians differ from slaves?

The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly.

The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.

The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.

The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, while the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.

The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.

Coatrack, and synthesis[edit]

I am perplexed. Why was this reverted into the article, when it's not about wage slavery? bobrayner (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it's meaningful, helpful, on-point for the surrounding section's context, and verifiable from a reliable source. Why do you imply that discussion of the lowest wages are irrelevant to the concept of wage slavery? EllenCT (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Because it's not actually about wage slavery. bobrayner (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That implies that the lowest wages are living wages, in a liquid employment market. Where is that true? EllenCT (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK the word "employment" in its modern sense was a capitalist invention. I don't recall it being used in Chaucer, Shakespeare or the King James Bible. And wage slavery was used by writers other than Marx - AFAIK he never used the term. Marx of course saw free labor as different from slave labor and saw its triumph in 1865 as a positive development, unlike the Southern slaveowners. However, I think the section should be reduced. TFD (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, our article on capitalism says that the word is a capitalist invention, but it's not actually true; just synthesis, based on some editor looking up the word in an etymological dictionary and finding that it appeared during what they thought was the capitalist era. In reality, the same concept has been expressed long before that era. It's not difficult to find employment in latin texts - they just don't use that exact word, being latin rather than English. Even within one language, word usage shifts over time, so the King James' rather scanty coverage of labour relations doesn't need to use that specific word. Shakepeare didn't invent the eyeball. bobrayner (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Section 1.2: "Communism" NPOV[edit]

I added the POV-Section template to Section 1.2, "Communism", because, although correct in its information, the way it's worded doesn't sound to me as being very neutral.

You're right; there was a serious neutrality problem. I removed it. bobrayner (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. I appreciate it. Thanks. SarahTehCat (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


property as relation and as thing[edit]

"To Marx and anarchist thinkers like Bakunin and Kropotkin, wage slavery was a class condition in place due to the existence of private property and the state. This class situation rested primarily on: -the existence of property not intended for active use,"


The way you have defined property above ('for active use') implies property is a thing. But property has another very different meaning (not as a thing owned or possessed) but as a social relation between and among members of a social unit in reference to the use and disposal of things. For example, private property refers to exclusive rights to possess, use and dispose goods and services and is essentially a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived i.e., denial of the private property of others. This is the way Marx used the term property when he wrote "capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons, established by the instrumentality of things” (Fowkes translation, p.932).

See also:

"Property denotes not material things but certain rights...A property right is a relation not between an owner and a thing, but between the owner and other individuals in reference to things" (Morris Cohen, American jurist)

Property designates "relations between people and understandings about the rights of individuals to the use or benefit of things" ()Wallace Clement, 1983, p.219)

POV Problem?[edit]

Making a new section as even though this was discussed earlier, it fizzled out years ago. To me, it really seems like large segments of the prose (though not all of it) are written from inside the point of the "wage-labor-as-slavery" mindset, rather than simply describing that mindset. this section in particular seems like a particularly striking example of this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B11C:53FA:D63D:7EFF:FEE4:39A6 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wage slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)