Funny, for a load of bullshit the article offered a much more detailed explanation of their thesis than you have of yours.

Don't you understand that we all inherently have blind spots based on where we come from? The idea that work has to be alright because everyone does it is exactly what people used to say about slavery and overt subjugation of women. People still say it's bullshit that we should concern ourselves with the environmental impacts of what we do.

It's easy to call something bullshit, but philosophers for centuries have suggested that wage labor is better described as wage slavery. It is a legitimate idea and one worth considering. You're quick to dismiss the idea but slow to provide alternative suggestions for how we might be able to end the forced misery of the working class.

There are so many ways to argue against this article. The fact that the person you responded to didn't go into as much detail as the author is just because the author spent a lot of time writing all of this nonsense down. Here are a few arguments against the author:

1) The argument that an employee is a 'slave' and 'dominated' by the employer would work the other way, as well. The author says "A worker must obey the boss, or ultimately lose the job." You could say this about the reverse, too: "A boss must obey his worker, or ultimately the worker will quit" If the boss fires the worker, the worker has to find a new job. If the worker quits, the boss has to find a new worker. Now, there are a lot of good arguments as to why the power dynamic is not equal between a worker and a boss, but it isn't an a priori fact like this author makes it seem.

2) The ideas about value are non-sensical. No one argues that things have a universal agreed upon value, nor does economics rely on that idea. Yes, the value of something varies from person to person, but that very fact is what allows an economy to function at all! If everything had equal value to everyone, then no one would ever make any transaction. The value of something TO A PARTICULAR PERSON is exactly equal to what they would be willing to trade for it. The idea that "In a barter system, for an exchange to be fair, the value of the exchanged goods and services must be equal. However, value is unknowable, therefore barter falls apart on practical grounds" is totally not true. Each person knows exactly what they are willing to trade for some good r service. In fact, this idea is non-sensical just from observation; obviously barter does not fall apart on practical grounds, because every single society on earth practices it. Put a group of people together with some goods, and a barter economy will develop. See any prison for an example.

These are just two examples of the ridiculousness of the author's argument. There are countless more.

> Don't you understand that we all inherently have blind spots based on where we come from?

I sure do. You might have them, too.

> philosophers for centuries have suggested that wage labor is better described as wage slavery.

I'm sure they have. That doesn't make it "a legitimate idea and one worth considering". Philosophers have said lots of other things over the years, too, many of them patently absurd. You need a better proof than "(some) philosophers have said it".

Can we make work better than it is? Probably yes. Does over-the-top rhetoric make it more likely to happen? No, it makes it less likely. It just gets you classified as a Marxist shill, and regarded as already discredited. If you want anything to actually change, screaming out absurd overheated rhetoric isn't a path likely to succeed. Instead, it gets you ignored.

Marx and Engels are hugely influential and popular philosophers. The idea of "wage slavery" is a pretty common and legitimate one. Just because you think it is "over the top" doesn't make it not a legitimate view.

Without a doubt, Marx and Engels have been hugely influential in the deaths and enslavement of countless millions over the past century. They have indeed been among the most popular philosophers for several of the most murderous tyrants in human history. A member of my immediate family learned about the evils of "wage slavery" in "classes" taught by Marxists at the Chinese work camp where he was a slave without wages.

I don't know that the term "legitimate" has any real meaning, but when it comes to making a useful contribution, I suspect that Marxist theory will make about the same contribution to employment that it has made to agriculture, industrial production, journalism, civil liberties....

That is guilt by association and not really a meaningful argument though. Marx and Engels are used all the time in literary criticism, gender studies, sociology. You just seem to have a really big bone to pick with Marxists.

Actually yes, I do consider the horrific, mass atrocities committed by Marxists in the name of Marxism to be relevant to the credibility of Marxism in just the same way that I consider similar consequences when Nazis came to power to discredit their political theories. And, you make a good point about additional fields of Marxist influence: Marxist agriculture's contribution to the food supply, Marxist industry's contribution to national productivity, Marxist political officers on staff at State newspapers and their contribution to journalism, AND literary criticism and gender studies' contribution to academics and free speech on campus.

Marxism has influenced so many fields wherever it has gone, and if you like what it has done to these fields, it's reasonable to assume that it could have a similar impact on paid employment arrangements.

For me, though, that's not an encouraging thought. I've seen enough of the destruction that results when Marxist theory is applied to real people to conclude that whatever the problems with paid employment, good answers will not come from Marxism.

would the adjustment of 'most employment is inherently slavery' satisfy your pedanticism? economic enslavement is ubiquitous and not at all how it must be.

No. It's still a claim grounded in rhetoric rather than reason. It's the lack of anything but rhetoric that bugs me, not the specific wording.

I mean, look, one could perhaps make such a claim, and make a reasoned case for it. The article doesn't do that. It doesn't even try. It merely defines work to be slavery, and quotes some people who agree. That's not proof, not evidence, and not very convincing. It's just rhetoric.

So the author dogmatically makes an assertion. That and a buck will get you a Coke at McDonald's. If you want me to listen, though, you're going to have to do a lot better than that.

[Edit: The article did give some reasons. They're dogmatic generalizations that are so far removed from my experience of work that I completely dismissed them as mere rhetoric.]

if you work as a software engineer pretty much by definition you are part of a tiny, tiny minority of workers in the world, so perhaps you should try thinking about the experience of workers in the third world via empathy?

What non-dogmatic evidence have you provided to the contrary?

The article lays out a perspective. You dont have to agree with that perspective but you sure need to do better than keep saying its not true.

True slaves can't quit. While most people do need SOME form of employment to provide income, changing jobs or working for yourself are both options that are available.

> changing jobs or working for yourself are both options that are available.

To SOME. available to SOME.

Most people have to work to survive. That's the "slavery" part of it, and it is currently inherent to employment. Let me choose whether to work or not while retaining the same quality of life as anyone else and I won't think of it that way.