Is wage work slavery? Why am I content with waking up everyday and going to work just to survive...

is wage work slavery? Why am I content with waking up everyday and going to work just to survive? I'm starting to sympathize with socialist beliefs more and more each day. Tell me why I shouldn't.

>inb4 it doesn't work, it's not natural

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gugler
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No, you can quit your job.

move to Venezuela if you like commies so much

Socialism works fine so long as you don't get go too far and you have a democratic form of government.

After working a year in the fields farming I am 100% certain you would trade lives back in an instant.

You can do what ever you want with the modern security you enjoy on a daily basis. Can you imagine literally not being able to leave your house for fear of someone else just coming in and taking your farm and killing you when you return? Or not being able to leave your farm because if you do your crops might fail and you won't have any food?

People simply want what they cannot have.

Redistribution is state sponsored stealing.

and then what? try to find another job? I'm a fucking dishwasher right now bro, it took me 3 weeks to find a job as a dishwasher, because nowhere else called me back.

>1 year of college
>have held 3 jobs total in life
>19

In 2016, the market for this worker is nonexistent and means without work I will die

a fully self-sufficient agrarian economy can never exist in the 21st century unless you live in Mongolia or something

socialism requires wage work to function, and without work the individual loses his thin will to live

Wagework is more like some form of (neo-)Manorialism

I'd really like to hear your reasoning rather than a statement that takes itself as fact

because the reality ofhte matter is that half of humanity is still agrarian, and the other half lives in shanty towns and recieves government welfare to live int those areas, off the labor of people who still toil in the field, and then some few hundred million actually live in the first world 10% maybe.

because what you're essentially arguing is that most people growing their own food is impossible, but it's possible for half the world to grow the food of the other half, while the other half sits around doing nothing

today it is borderline sharecropping except in most cases a place to live is not guaranteed

not all farming communities were the same.

if you weren't aware, size, types of plots, distance to city, average income, etc, varied radically among different farming communities because of yields, technology, centralization, etc.

the fact of the matter is that in late feudal history farmers in europe and east asia lived pretty peaceful lives. in china farmers could even buy life or harvest insurance.

I'm speaking mostly on the first world here. and even places that do survive on agrarian economies are still touched by corporatism. in the 21st century it is completely impossible to have an isolated self-sustaining agrarian economy because some things you will still need to obtain from city centers. Rural Indians still have to make hour long drives to metropolitan areas to get the things they need. Also, it's fucking expensive to buy equipment to make enough money to survive on the land with a family. I could go on.

>the fact of the matter is that in late feudal history farmers in europe and east asia lived pretty peaceful lives.

Europe? Hell nah. If you weren't trying to find money to buy an ox, you were busy retilling the land after it got torched by mercenaries that also raped and killed your wife in the process. I don't know much about East asia in this period so I can't really comment on that, but farmers in China still lived horrible lives with no chance of mobility.

no, not really. there are unjust working arrangements out there, and in some parts of the world there is slavery, but working in and of itself isn't slavery.

>in the 21st century it is completely impossible to have an isolated self-sustaining agrarian economy
>who are the Amish

No

are you really going to act the amish are isolated or self-sustaining?

the amish do it well. the japanese pension system is partially structured around old people who still farm by hand (the soil is tilled by small machines, though.)

I think we're just unwilling and obese. which is a valid argument, I just prefer when it's honestly and directly stated

places like india are probably necessarily rural, forever. because the fact of the matter is, everyone living in a city survives purely off the fact that the governments can only REALLY levy taxes on farmers, because farmers are the only real productive work any of them do. which essentially means that agricultural work is SO viable, that farmers in india essentially are so productivet hey not only feed their own 7 child families, but for every farmer, he's supporting a 7 child family in the slums via his taxes.

your usage of sensatory and descriptive language conveys an emotion that what you think is true. but the fact of the matter is that the raw situation is that agriculture is so viable that it runs the entire indian economy so well that each worker supports two families, essentially.

Wage work is only slavery if you think it is. The only constraints on a situation you are in is how you look at the situation.

Ask yourself, am I satisfied with my job. If not, work hard enough to gain the money needed to be educated for a job you would enjoy.

To enjoy a job is not to have fun, but to take pleasure from the work of your own hands. That is why I am a apprentice stone-mason. It pays descent and I can know that my works will remain for some 300 years at a time without wear.

did michelagnelo thing "why am I working for the pope to make this david sculture?" no, he sat down, put effort tin and made something to be proud of.

Lazy people who are more focused on being wealthy that having worthwhile works look to communism to level the playing field, but that just leads to the death of effort and then no one does anything worthwhile with their life.

pardon my sensory language I guess. just posting on an image board.]

I know nothing about india so I can't rebuke you. i agree that people are unwilling to do agrarian work, but part of my argument is that it isn't possible and you gave evidence against that, which I will take your word for. That being said, since people are obese and unwilling, I'm not sure what freedom means for the 21st century wage earner. Should we give up freedom for comfort or comfort for freedom?

I really liked your post and felt it was very motivational until
>Lazy people who are more focused on being wealthy that having worthwhile works look to communism to level the playing field, but that just leads to the death of effort and then no one does anything worthwhile with their life
Do you think individualism is a valid philosophy when the cost of living is as high as it is? Sure, I'm not working at a meat-packing plant in the 1890s, but it still feels like I'm an indentured servant for personal advancement at a morbidly unreasonable pace.

you're making overarching, grand statements, with very little basis in any facts you also don't care to try to establish

the murder rate was incredibly low within communities. to give you a good idea of how low violence was, fertility was barely above replacement rate, it was some 2.4 per couple for centuries, and the majority of the deaths were from disease, as a brief overview. and inter-communal raiding had more or less ceased by the 1500s.

when you have such a low birthrate, and you gain very little by torching your neighbor's fields, but you're very likely to lose one of your 1.2 sons in a raid, you tend not to raid.

>chinese farmers lived horrible lives
they lived better lives than any other farmer, in any other country, in any other point before then in history.

horrible" reveals your skewed perspective. the chinese were prescient enough to progressively make attempts to make things better, little by little, as time went by.

which is, coincidentally, how things get better.

you need to read more history. calling everything before internet porn and piratebay was invented "fucking awful bro" isn't a very broad perspectivet o take

Muh assumptions

>is wage work slavery?
only for the bottomfeeders that didn't study MBA
>make charts/reports in SQL
>spread the message of Ottoman sunnism the rest of the time
>still get paid 15 times more than your average mcflipper

not necessarily.

I get by just fine shitposting all day.

>since people are obese and unwilling, what does that mean?
I think it means the obese and unwilling will continue to demand that the government provide for them, via taxation upon the capable and willing (and coercing the unwilling via imprisonment for tax evasion)

that's more or less the situation I see shaping up today. whatever "freedom" means, this surely means less of it as time marches on. unless the people in america become less fat and stupid, or slum dwellers learn to read and count. neither of which seems incredibly likely.


if this is a topic you're interested in, I shill a lot for nick land. you might like his work, though he can be frustratingly abstract about very concrete topics. I liked him a lot more after reading a summary of his work, and then going back into him.

robin hanson is pretty cool too, but he deliberately avoids controversial topics

post-renaissance is not medieval. The late medieval period was 14th and 15th century. The infighting in Europe was so bad that the pope told French nobles to go fight in other parts Europe so that mercenary bands would stop ravaging the French countryside.
see
>Gugler War en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gugler
Farmland in much of Europe was kaput from so much looting, and peasant populations in many places suffered as a result. If you want more info I suggest you read A Distant Mirror, very interesting.

Why didn't you get straight A's throughout school and reduced priced college with tons of scholarships.

Your situation is your fault.

Fair point. However, 40 years go, I could go to any school that I was accepted to with my grades, and be able to pay for it or have non-debilitating student loans

In retrospect you wouldn't have half the luxuries you have today

are we talking about medieval period, or the feudal period?

te OP was about farming. as long as farming is taking place under sovereign, it's still feudal

further, one doesn't have to deny the existence of war to prove that levels of violence declined consistently every century more or less since the beginning of the dark ages.

further, feudal europe was LESS violent than any other place on earth at the same time, except for china.

war happened. it was awful. the grimdark memes are unwarranted though. europe was stll the least violent place on earth after china, and it got less so every year

sorry I worded that last part terribly. That was an off-point statement that was invalid in the argument. UYou can ignore it if you want, in hindsight it was not the best statement I have made.

>tfw just want to live the farm life
>carving the soil, watching seedlings grow and raising animals for my sustenance only
>marry a waifu from the nearby village

I would if I had land.

>tfw no land

not that I defend college babbies that can't even do math or write a proper sentence, but the luxuries available today were not made available by the fact that our education system is screwed up

it's not like he, or any other person, got a benefit and traded it for some of the bad things.

we literally just got more bad things piled on top of the nice technological things we would have had anyway.

>muh wageslavery

The only thing ''''''''''enslaving'''''''''''' you is constraints faced by every single other human being such as hunger, thirst, need for shelter, etc. It's not their fault you need these things and they aren't obliged to provide them for you either. To force them to do so would be to make slaves of them for your lazy ass to benefit. Thank god you live in the modern world where you can get a McJob where you do shit all and can survive off it as opposed to living in a rural village doing backbreaking labor just to eke out a living like 90% of humanity just a century ago.

Muh wageslavery is the cry of someone who doesn't know how easy life is and therefore thinks that entitles them to an even easier life.

>is wage work slavery?

No, and you are stupid for equating the two.

First off, you're not held by your employer to a particular set of activities, prevented from leaving, nor is force employed against you to keep you there.

The pressures that keep you shackled to your job (well, a job) are not the creation of your employer. No matter what the economic system, if you don't have food you'll starve, if you don't have shelter you'll likely die of exposure, if you don't have clothes you'll chafe against the environment. Even in a socialist utopia, you'd have those needs. Capitalism simply refuses to give you said essentials without a trade of something for them.

That is completely distinct from slavery where your "employer" is also the author of your inability to leave the situation.

>constraints faced by every single other human being such as hunger, thirst, need for shelter, etc. It's not their fault you need these things and they aren't obliged to provide them for you either

>The pressures that keep you shackled to your job (well, a job) are not the creation of your employer. No matter what the economic system, if you don't have food you'll starve, if you don't have shelter you'll likely die of exposure, if you don't have clothes you'll chafe against the environment

Correct. It is the fault of your parents.

It was wrong of your parents to create you. It is wrong for you to create any children, for you would be creating in them needs for food, warmth, and shelter. You would be condemning them to death.

Don't have children. It is the most immoral, unethical thing you can do.

it is the duty of smart people to fill the world with smart and kind children so that barbarians and low iq idiots don't succeed humanity and drag sentient life back into the stone age

this is the telos of sentient life

>it is the duty of smart people to fill the world with smart and kind children so that barbarians and low iq idiots don't succeed humanity and drag sentient life back into the stone age
No. There is no such duty.

The idiots want to inherit the earth? Let 'em. I won't be around to see it, and nor will any of my kin.

>not wanting to see the world burn

the majority of the world can burn. I'd be happy with that.

but a corner of it needs to be carved out as a safe haven for people who aren't drug using murder-apologists who vote for open borders

Nah. Let everything burn
Let's start from scratch
Every man for himself and Nature against all

naw. someone's gonna end up making sure you, specifically, don't survive, if you don't actually advocate for some sort of criteria for who should survive and who shouldn't.

are you just edgy, or what?

>life itself is wrong

Unironically, sincerely, kill yourself.

Shan't.