I find this perspective problematic. I understand it feels like a lack of freedom—indeed you are constrained from doing whatever you want.

As an example, imagine you are on your own, completely outside of society, out of contact with others. You’d need to build and maintain shelter. You’d need to forage or grow food. You’re not free to do whatever you want, until you have accumulated enough resources to not need to do the work to provide what you need for everyday survival.

I don’t think we’d call this slavery, yet it has the same shape as what you describe. Slavery implies coercion or violence limiting freedom, which certainly still exists in the world, but isn’t an apt description of what you describe.

>As an example, imagine you are on your own, completely outside of society, out of contact with others. You’d need to build and maintain shelter. You’d need to forage or grow food. You’re not free to do whatever you want, until you have accumulated enough resources to not need to do the work to provide what you need for everyday survival.

This is true, but it's not the only perspective, and it misses out on a lot of normative social theory. J.E. Roemer would argue that because we are part of society, measurements of wellbeing should be taken relative to the wealth generated by society. The question is not if someone would be better off if they withdrew from society with only their own wealth, but if they'd be better off if they withdrew with a per-capita share of society's productive capacity.

>I don’t think we’d call this slavery, yet it has the same shape as what you describe.

Slavery isn't the word for it, but necessity is the word for it. It makes much more sense to talk of the freedom/necessity dichotomy than it does to talk of the freedom/slavery dichotomy.

"The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class."

Certainly. I believe we largely agree.

That's a horrible comparison. If I didn't need to have a job I would be volunteering helping the elderly, doing construction work, helping with animal rehabilitation, inventing things (I'm a mechanical engineer), etc. I can't contribute in any of these ways I would enjoy because they either don't enough or are risky.

I think we may be talking past each other. My intent is to explain why I think phrases like “slaves” and “buy ourselves from our owners” is ill-suited for what you’re trying to convey. Indeed, I’m struggling to find the connection between your comment I first responded to and your response here. I think you’re trying to distinguish between what you have to do to live and what you would choose to do if you didn’t have to worry about making a living. That’s certainly a worthwhile point to make, but again, I don’t think that in and of itself is slavery. (I wasn’t at all implying that what you would choose to do was separate yourself from society, given the opportunity—if that’s how you read the example.)

My example may miss the mark, but it wasn’t intended to. Can you help tie them together for me?