So, I came across a topic recently in which I was told it was insensitive to compare being forced to get a job in a modern capitalist society the struggles of actual chattel slaves. Given this is a topic I am passionate about, let me explain just how wrong this person is.
First of all, let's get the obvious out of the way. Yes, chattel slavery is WORSE. You have no self ownership as a chattel slave, you are owned by someone else, and that person can physically abuse your person. You have no control over your life as a chattel slave, while as a wage slave, you have SOME. You can choose between masters, or choose to be homeless and starve. In some cases homelessness might be better than literal slavery.
At the same time. Let's put it another way. Black and grey might not be the same colors, but they're related. And if your perspective is "white", you're going to view both black and grey as "not white." Grey might be closer to white than black is, but it would appear that all of these things exist on a spectrum. And wage slavery, while a less severe form of forced labor than chattel slavery, is still a form of forced labor, that should philosophically be considered slavery.
Wage slavery from an indepentarian perspective
Indepentarianism measures freedom from two perspectives: status freedom and scalar freedom. Status freedom is...freedom of status. Ie, whether you're a class in society that is free and possesses self ownership and freedom, or whether you're not. Most people in modern society have status freedom. Someone who is a prisoner does not. Slaves, serfs, etc. don't. Lower classes in a caste society like India don't. Slaves are inherently not free by definition, and are therefore not free.
However, there is another form of freedom, which is scalar freedom, which is the freedom to actually enact your will. One can be free in status, but if they cannot exercise that freedom, then that freedom doesn't exist. Freedom not only requires status freedom, but also the freedom to do what one wants to do. And this is where things get murky. Chattel slavery is a lack of status freedom, but wage slaves still lack tons of scalar freedom. They are not free to quit their jobs, because they cannot bear the brunt of doing so. A less formal system of power keeps them trapped in place, and they can often be not much better off than if they were an actual slave.
Speaking of which...
The history of the term wage slavery
A lot of people today act like people who compare wage slavery to actual slavery are weirdos. I get that look all the time when I discuss my opinions. I also get openly mocked and, quite frankly, gaslit into thinking I'm crazy for daring suggest this. But maybe, just maybe, our modern conception of the issue is what's weird, with most people throughout history understanding that working for a wage was not a way to live.
People have been pointing out the similarities between wage labor and slavery since the Roman days, with Cicero explicitly saying that "the very wage [wage labourers] receive is a pledge of their slavery".
The term picked up usage again at the dawn of modern day capitalism. Conditions workers faced in the 1800s was horrifying, with the modern amenities workers face today like minimum wages and regulations, and 40 hour work weeks not actually existing. As such, workers faced horrid conditions, often working their entire waking hours every day of the week. There's a reason Scrooge didn't let Bob Cratchit off on Christmas, without proper regulations in place, workers could not expect holidays off.
Conditions were so bad that when the abolitionist movement was a thing, and we wanted to get rid of chattel slavery, defenders of it claimed that the alternative was wage slavery and that slaves were better off remaining slaves. Really, the amount of scalar freedom that people faced under early stage capitalism was so horrid that chattel slavery was seen as an attractive alternative by some. Even Fredrick Douglass, a former slave, pointed out that the difference between wage slavery and chattel slavery was very minor in practice. The famous film series "Roots" also showed the plight of former slaves as they were freed from their masters in the last episode. Where did they go after they were freed, you ask? Right back to work on their former owner's plantations. That said, it's possible, under capitalism, to face conditions so bad under wage slavery they might as well be chattel slavery. I would argue in the 19th century, as well as places in the third world today where sweatshops exist, that these conditions were/are as bad as chattel slavery in effect.
So...what changed over the years? Why do we no longer see wage labor as slavery? Well, the labor movement, actually. You see, once labor groups started gaining traction, attitudes toward work shifted away from wage labor being denigrated as slavery toward the idea that work has dignity. Unions allowed workers to gain many things that softened the blow of their condition. Better working hours and conditions, bargaining power, better pay, etc. And as conditions improved, outrage about the conditions workers faced under the wage labor system declined. You see, a lot of people on the left, as I have recently stated elsewhere, aren't really hardcore anti work. They just believed that the conditions under early capitalism were unacceptable, and once they started reforming the system from within and gaining success that way, they shifted away from treating the concept of wage labor in such a way.
To some degree, we can't blame them. Remember what I said about old ideologies having "old book" problems. Within the confines of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the idea of basic income, and post work, and a lot of ideas I champion on my blog, just...weren't there. While many labor advocates dreamed of reaching a post work world "some day" (with predictions being in the first half of the 21st century in a lot of cases), conditions improved enough to satisfy the people of the early 20th century, roughly.
Another factor is simply that by the early 20th century, wage labor had become normalized and was seen as "the way" to do work those days. You see, before wage labor, we had other established systems to do things that were displaced, and those were seen as superior to wage labor by many people at the time. People often had more autonomy, they could work at their own pace, they were treated better, etc. So the industrial revolution replacing that was seen as horrifying, placing people in a system of dependence on employers to survive. And given the conditions...yeah. They saw the notions as degrading. But again, as time went on, things got more normalized, and improved for the better, causing this model of work to be more accepted.
So things were made better by the labor movement right? Why are you still complaining?
I mean, to some extent, yes. There's a reason I hold many on the left, like FDR, or even socialists, in high regard. There's a reason I supported Bernie despite disagreeing with him on this issue. The labor movement introduced significant amounts of scalar freedom that greatly improved working conditions and made work far more tolerable.
...However, I would argue that the fundamental relationship between a worker and their employer has never truly changed. Workers really don't have more autonomy than they did in the past. If anything things have regressed in the past 80 or so years since FDR. Companies have eaten away at regulations, found ways around them, and nothing has really changed in a positive direction. We are still working the same 40 hour weeks we did back then, workers are still underpaid as the minimum wage fails to keep up with inflation, people still have to put up with abusive conditions, and they just don't have the power. Regulations have acted as a band aid to keep the absolute worst of this system in check, but it's been nothing but a dam of duct tape holding back the horror that is a flood of pure industrial era capitalism. Businesses simply follow the law, and nothing more, and do their best to undermine regulation. Take the gig economy, which reclassifies workers as independent contractors to avoid paying them benefits. Take part time workers unable to work more than 25-30 hours a week because then employers have to pay health insurance. Look at the inconsistent schedules workers in low wage jobs put up with. Look at how when people are on salary suddenly it's okay to work them 70 hours a week, often on salaries as low as $23,000 a year. Where there's a loophole, some capitalist is going to exploit it. I can guarantee it.
Workers have no autonomy, and that is harmful to them. Unemployment only gives benefits to those who are let go after doing anything right. If you talk back to the boss, you dont get it. If you quit on your own, you dont get it. I've been in hurricane evacuation zones, where people are trying to flee a coming hurricane, and the people there are still being told to work by their bosses. And as long as the state doesn't step in to make it where they don't have to continue working, they have to continue working.
The same thing happened during COVID. In the initial phases last year before shut downs became mandatory, many low waged workers were working in unsafe conditions, often being forced to do so without proper attire or cleaning supplies. Everyone is talking about "saving gamestop" from hedge funds trying to kill it now, but a year ago it was a different story. Here in Pennsylvania, they were trying to force employees to continue working in unsafe conditions, despite being ordered to shut down. Governor wolf eventually pulled their business license to force a shut down. Businesses will find any way to make money during the pandemic. They will attempt to skirt any law, argue within the margins to push their case, and the second the state eases up, they will try to force everyone back to work. This is the stage we're in now. All of these schools and businesses are trying to open, and now, because people have temporary stimulus money and unemployment, many people refuse to work those kinds of jobs. It's not safe, they don't pay well, they're exploitative, I wonder why. Give people the power to say no and the business dynamic changes. But under normal conditions, people would have no choice but to work in these places. Restaurant wages used to be as low as $2.13 plus tips. More generic retail and food service offered often, $9 an hour. People would be screamed at and abused and forced to constantly look busy at these jobs. And they didn't have a choice. The default of the market is still that workers are forced to work, and as such put up with a lot of crap. We implemented regulations to soften the blow, but that's all those regulations did. They softened the blow. The relationship between workers and employers is functionally the same as it's been since 150-200 years ago. We've just passed laws to require decent treatment, within the law, of people working jobs. But those conditions are only as good as the laws are. And if the laws aren't good, then the conditions aren't good. People still don't have autonomy. They're still forced into situations they would otherwise avoid because they're forced to.
The only justification of this state is if these businesses are absolutely necessary for the functioning of the economy. If society would not be able to function properly without these jobs. But, I would argue many of them aren't necessary. We've done without most of them for the past year, and as far as I'm concerned, we can continue to do without them. If people don't want to work them, why force them?
So are modern liberals wrong?
I would say yes. Admittedly, morality is subjective, and I can see why a centrist liberal or even social democrat would think as they do. We are taught from a very young age that we need to work jobs to survive. We are taught a mindset of scarcity in which if people do not work, we suffer as a society. We are taught economic growth is good, and these assertions aren't challenged. And quite frankly, people are taught from a young age to accept work. We start going to school at age 5 or so (4 if we implement the universal pre-K which some in the Biden administration are eying), and we are taught to "work" from roughly 8 AM to 3 PM every day. And then we have homework. At the age of 16 or so, many people get their first time job after school, and at 18 they start working full time unless they go to college. And most people just go straight into careers without criticizing the system much. Young people are often horrified at the prospect of being forced into the system and that this is all life is, but most people expect that as those people get older that they'll "grow out of it" and accept it for what it is.
It really takes a certain kind of person, say, someone like me, to understand what's really going on. I went to school, but I always hated the idea of work so I avoided it at all costs. My dad always worked, and he seemed miserable doing it. While he was conservative, he did have some pro union views, and the main takeaway from watching him all of my life is that you're forced to do this, and you have no other choice.
As I got older, I became educated, initially seeking to find a job in a field that was a lot more...pleasant to work in, something I was passionate about. But that fell through and it was the middle of the recession, and my assumptions about society were questioned. I started to realize that a lot of the assumptions were taught as Americans about work were just wrong, and we seem to be struggling to employ people rather than dealing with material shortages from too little work. We actually have insane amounts of wealth in the country, it's just distributed poorly, and linked to the wage system, which tends to produce vastly unequal and exploitative outcomes. Faced with dealing with the crap end of the system as someone educated can change a person. And that's where my current politics were born. I realized deep down that I don't *REALLY* want to work, and I know that most employers dont seem to want to hire me, and that the coercion of me being forced to work as a surplus person is what's driving the insane inequalities and lack of bargaining power, so obviously my views eventually drifted toward basic income and anti work philosophy. I believe work is killing us, it's ruining our lives, making us unhappy, and is the source of many problems within our society. But we just continue with this system unquestioningly. Liberalism has an "old book" problem as I stated elsewhere. It's still basing its views off of the conditions set by reality almost a century ago. They still revel in early-mid 20th century accomplishments. And given neoliberalism sending us into a decline, the best most people can think of is just...going back to FDR in the form of Bernie Sanders, if not implementing some form of democratic or market socialism which still has a work problem. These are all improvements, but I want to remind people that the philosophies these ideas are based on often had "old book" problems and that many early thinkers often dreamed of a future without work, which is arguably now attainable. But without the tools and rethinking of society to get us there, we are doomed to repeat the status quo perpetually. We had literal slavery until a civil war forced us to get rid of it. We had horrid excesses of capitalism until the labor movement and FDR tried to make things better. And we will still be living at the same conditions as the 1940s or worse in fundamental ways, until we're willing to once again rethink our social conventions to move society in a positive direction.
Nothing has fundamentally changed in 80 years, because nothing has fundamentally changed in 80 years. I know that sounds tautological, so let me put it another way. We live under the conditions we do, because our social conventions have not been updated in a fundamental way in almost a century. And until we are willing to think of new ideas and update our social conventions, we are doomed to be stuck in our past, which is also our present. Liberals have grown complacent with the status quo, and most of them are too indoctrinated to see past the flaws of the system. They still think in terms of FDR at best, and use convenient excuses for why a future of leisure has never happened. Sadly most of these explanations are consistent with the ideology of capitalism and its fake ideas of freedom. They'll say things like "we never achieved a post work future because we CHOSE to continue working because our human wants and needs are infinite". They don't look at how the market is actually a two way thing, not just between consumers and producers, but also employers and employees. They just assume employees will work. They adopt the mantra of infinite growth and more stuff being produced as a universal good. And they advocate for conspicuous consumption to drive the economy engine to create jobs. Why do you think Biden really gave you money? It's STIMULUS. You're intended to spend it to create demand in the economy, which then creates jobs for people, which leads to what mainstream capitalists call an "economic recovery." But, because working conditions are no better than they were 80 years ago, and those changes were really just massive band aids on a gaping gunshot wound, wage slavery is still around.
I guess as long as most people see work as necessary, they will continue to think that people who call work wage slavery are ridiculous. And our society is good at that. We've long since normalized a system that used to be considered radical in a horrifying way. Most people don't experience the crap side of it, and those who do seem to misdiagnose the problems and are indoctrinated to not think out of the box like I do. So they're going to act like nothing is wrong. But I know something is wrong, and I feel like I need to say something. So I will continue arguing for my ideas, despite the fact that many will argue against my ideas. Hopefully, as time passes, people will start to once again see how hollow this system is and how we can do better. I believe the facts are on my side. People just need to start accepting them.
Conclusion
That said, I'm going to be honest. I don't feel bad about using the term wage slavery to refer to work today. While mainstream liberals are essentially indoctrinated by outdated ideologies to accept the status quo, wage work was not always accepted with such open arms. At a fundamental level, in its raw forms, the conditions of life that this form of work as imposed on people are not much better than actual chattel slavery. While wage slaves maintain their status freedom, their scalar freedom approaches that of a literal slave under the system.
While liberals have caused great gains to happen under this system, they have ultimately, in my estimation, amounted to a band aid. Philosophically we're dealing with the same system we were dealing with in the 19th century. We just happened to make it a bit less oppressive through unionization (which has been on the decline for a while), regulations, and some mild safety nets. But ultimately, the coercion that drives the system is still there, and the improvements in peoples lives are only as good as these narrow reforms allow. And since those are not regularly updated, little progress has been made since then.
People in the past, in designing these first regulations, clearly expected constant improvement on them, and perhaps new social structures being introduced to spread income without work in some cases. But, we continue to live the dream of the 1930s, because we haven't improved society significantly since then.
And now, in the 21st century, we should be getting to the point that we're productive enough to start shifting toward a leisure based society, but we aren't able to as long as our social structures rely so much on work and aren't updated.
Sadly, liberals don't understand this and think I'm nuts for pointing this out. They still live under the assumption that work is inevitable and believe that their reforms have changed the system so much it's insulting to compare work today to wage slavery. While they've improved things, I still feel justified to use the term within the context of greater history. I admit, we can't fully get rid of wage labor as of now, but we can start introducing things to soften the blow further, and introduce mechanisms that can be changed and improved upon in the future to make a shift toward less work more viable. Doing so is just a matter of political will. As long as liberals remain stuck in their present mindset, nothing will fundamentally change. And that's the problem.
There's nothing wrong with admitting that "this is the best we can do" for now if you truly believe that. But, we should be honest about it. Liberals should be willing to admit that work sucks and that it's a merely necessary evil. Even that small step toward work being a social problem to be solved rather than a noble undertaking would likely have a major effect on the nature of how the issue is perceived. Perhaps liberals who see work as a problem, and who believe in the long term it should be abolished would...perhaps...try to find ways to make this possible. That's what separates me from a mainstream liberal. I understand that 20th century liberal capitalism isn't the best we can do, and we should seek to move society forward from there. Whereas liberals are stuck reveling in past accomplishment, refusing to even acknowledge a problem exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment