Wage slavery

Wage slavery is a term used to refer to a condition in which a person chooses a job but only within a coerced set of choices (e.g. work for a boss or starve) which usually excludes democratic worker's control of the workplace and the economy as a whole and unconditional access to food, shelter and healthcare. It is used to express disapproval of a condition where persons are effectively compelled to work in return for payment of a wage, and are therefore barred from having a say over economic decisions in proportion to the degree they are affected by them--reducing control over their destinies. [1] In terms used by critics of capitalism, statism and various authoritarian systems, wage slavery is the condition where a person must sell his or her labor power, submitting to the authority of an employer merely to subsist.

Wage slavery is deemed to exist in various systems, including communist states, but given the prevalence of modern capitalism, it is often described as a lack of rights in the market system; especially in the absence of extra-capitalist structures (welfare system, social security etc). The concept seeks to point out how the only rights a worker has are the rights he or she gains on the labor market. S/he faces starvation when unable to make enough money to survive. One can't pay for a lawyer, a doctor etc. One's choices consist of the workhouse prison, or the labor market. The capitalists own the means of life (land, industry etc) and make profit simply from granting permission to use them. This they do in exchange for wages. Opponents of capitalism claim that private ownership of the means of life is theft and that since workers are the majority, the elite maintain wage slavery through their influence over the media and educational institutions, harsh laws, corporate propaganda, pressures and incentives to internalize values serviceable to the power structure,state violence (the police will arrest workers who try to democratically run a capitalist's factory), and a historical legacy of exploitation under prior systems:

"Other workers, not capitalists, produced the means of production. The capitalist often obtains them with the money from previous profits. Those profits in turn came from previous profits and so on back to the origins of capitalism. Those original accumulations of money used to start this whole process of capitalist accumulation came from fortunes made as a result of conquest & direct expropriation (such as colonialism, the slaughter of native Americans) as well as fortunes achieved under pre-capitalist class societies such as feudalism or slavery. Thus from a historical perspective capitalism cannot be considered just." [2]

The first articulate description of wage slavery was made by Simon Linguet in 1763:

“The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him... Men’s blood had some price in the days of slavery. They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market...It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat, and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live. It is want that drags them to those markets where they await masters who will do them the kindness of buying them. It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him... what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune... These men, it is said, have no master—they have one, and the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. It is this that reduces them to the most cruel dependence. They live only by hiring out their arms. They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?” [3]

According to this view, then, the fundamental differences between a chattel slave and a wage slave are

1) The chattel slave is property ("capital"). As such, its value to an economically rational owner is in some ways higher than that a wage slave who can be fired, replaced or harmed at no (or less) cost. For this reason, in times of recession, slaves couldn't be fired like wage laborers. American chattel slaves in the 19th century had improved their standard of living from the 18th century [4] and, as historians Fogel and Engerman's reported, slaves' material conditions in the 19th century were "better than what was typically available to free urban laborers at the time" (Without Consent or Contract, New York: Norton, 1989, p. 391). This was partially due to slave psychological strategies under an economic system different from capitalism:

"...the preindustrial nature of these labor systems allowed slaves to establish a distinctive African American culture which eschewed the values embraced by the master class. Although intrusive and oppressive, paternalism, the way masters employed it, and the methods slaves used to manipulate it, rendered slaveholders' attempts to institute capitalistic work regimens on their plantation ineffective and so allowed slaves to carve out a degree of autonomy, manifest in their cultural assumptions and behavior, under slavery. On the one hand, planters wanted to see themselves as beneficent masters, a position which their exploitation of slave labor required them to qualify. On the other, slaves exposed the hypocrisy of the paternalist double standard and by merely obeying buy not necessarily complying with their masters' orders 'acted consciously and unconsciously to transform paternalism into a doctrine of protection of their own rights,' an 'assertion of their humanity,' and, ultimately, the transformation of privileges into customary rights and the attendant affirmation of their African American identity (Genovese, 1976, p.49) The effect of this accommodation-resistance dialectic, so fully described by Eugene Genovese, was to render slave-holders non-capitalist masters and, more importantly for this section, made slaves pre-industrial workers whose insistence on customary rights frustrated planters who were trying to exploit slave labor. (Genovese, 1976) [...] Slaves' partial retention of an African, essentially preindustrial work ethic which, according to Genovese, stressed hard work but within a cultural framework which eschewed freneticism, time discipline, materialism, and acquisitive individualism, was a product of slaves' labor on southern plantations which were run by essentially precapitalist masters. This experience enabled slaves to create autonomous spheres - personal relationships, familial bonds, [and] a distinctive slave religion. [Slaves] developed a variety of subtle techniques such as feigning illness, sabotage, and deliberate go-slows in order to protect themselves and their culture... slave women, by using contraceptives, engaging in sexual abstinence, and occasionally practicing infanticide, not only limited their own exploitation but circumscribed the planters' profits (Hine, 1979)... Once this [slave] system came under increasing political attack in the 1850's by northern proponents of free wage labor, southern masters found themselves fighting for their political independence by defending a slave society and plantation system that while not economically profitable was nonetheless ideologically and socially crucial to their way of life." [Debating Slavery: Economy and Society in the Antebellum American South p.44] [5] Similarly, various strategies and struggles adopted by wage slaves are deemed to have created extra-capitalist structures (unions, welfare institutions etc) that constrain the destructive mechanisms of wage slavery. These institutions, though considered positive in some regards, can also serve to appease the masses; preventing the overthrow of the elites that often take credit for the creation of these institutions.

2) A wage slave's direct choice is "work for a boss or starve". Indirectly, prison, beatings, insults and other punishments lay in store for those who try to survive without working for a boss (workers trying to democratically run a capitalist's factory, live freely in buildings or grow and collect food freely from the land and factories capitalists own etc). If a chattel slave refuses to work, a number of punishments are also available; from beatings to food deprivation- although an economically rational slave owner would likely try positive reinforcements (offering women, gifts etc) before killing an expensive slave and losing his investment.

3) Unlike a chattel slave, a wage slave can sometimes choose his boss, but he can't choose to have no boss unless he wants to face poverty and starvation.

4) "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." (Karl Marx) [6]

Supporters of wage and chattel slavery have both argued that hierarchy and their preferred system's particular relations of production represent human nature. Therefore any attempt to change the status quo will result in more oppressive conditions.[7] [8]Bosses in both of these systems do, in some sense "create jobs" and their investment may entail risk. For example, slave owners might have risked buying expensive slaves who later became or ill or died; or might have used those slaves to manufacture product that didn't sell very well on the market. Marginally, both chattel and wage slaves may become bosses; sometimes by working hard. It may be the "rags to riches" story which occasionally occurs in capitalism, or the "slave to master" story that occurred in places like colonial Brazil, where slaves could buy their own freedom and become slave owners themselves [Family and Frontier in Colonial Brazil Alida C. Metcalf p. 201] [9] Social mobility, or the hard work and risk that it may entail, are thus not considered to be a redeeming factor by critics of capitalism:

"Even if the amount of social mobility in capitalism were as great as supporters of capitalism claim, it would not matter. If it is possible for someone to move from the lowest position of an authoritarian system to the highest position,[even if it's by working hard and taking risks] it is still unethical because it is an authoritarian system. If it were possible to go from homeless person to dictator within a fascist system, fascism would still be wrong. In many Leninist states there were individuals who went from being a worker to being part of the ruling class, in some cases even joining the Politburo, yet that does not make Marxist totalitarianism an acceptable system. In Colonial Brazil, there were slaves who managed to become free and even become slave owners themselves. It was as rare as workers becoming capitalists in contemporary capitalism, but it did happen and was theoretically possible for many slaves. Just as the theoretical possibility of a slave becoming a slave owner does not justify slavery, the theoretical ability of a wage-slave to become a capitalist does not justify capitalism. The existence of social mobility does not justify a social system... Capitalists like to claim that their wealth is the result of them working hard by running their business, managing portfolios, etc. A mafia boss also does lots of work to plan his robberies and keep his illicit enterprise going but his actions are still theft. Many capitalists don’t even run a company, they derive their income solely from stocks, bonds, interest, dividends, rent, etc. This attempt to justify capitalist exploitation completely fails in these cases because they aren’t even running a company or doing any work at all. Manipulating portfolios doesn’t produce anything useful; sticking money in the bank and letting it accumulate interest isn’t hard work.It is true that investing usually entails taking risks (one could lose the investment), but just because someone is taking a risk does not mean that s/he is producing anything. Most human activity involves risks of some sort. If a criminal robs someone at gunpoint s/he is taking a risk as well. S/he could go to jail, the robbery could go wrong, s/he could get hurt, etc. That does not change the fact that it is robbery. The same is true of the risks taken by capitalists. The workers take as much of a risk, if not more, as the capitalist. If the business fails the worker is unemployed. The worker is then usually in a worse situation then the capitalist because the capitalist is wealthy and can weather such a situation much easier then those on lower levels of the hierarchy. In addition, many jobs entail risks to workers' life or limb, whereas investment does not.'" [10]

It is important to note that wage slaves, just like chattel slaves, remain so even if they think of themselves as free due to propaganda, self-deception, or false consciousness. Critics of capitalism point at the fact that chattel slavery was once also perceived as legitimate because of the ideological influences of its power structure, and that, in fact, moral arguments were offered in its favor.[11]

Wage slavery in capitalist societies

Wage slavery as a concept is often a criticism of capitalism, defined as a condition when a capitalist minority of the population controls all of the necessary non-human components of production (capital and land) that other people (workers) use to produce goods. This sort of criticism is generally associated with socialist and anarchist criticisms of capitalism, but has also been expressed by some proponents of liberalism, like Henry George ([12]), Silvio Gesell and Thomas Paine ([13]), as well as the Distributist school of thought within the Roman Catholic Church. Criticism of capitalism on these grounds is connected to the belief that one should have freedom to work without a boss. However, the extreme subordination under wage slavery has been recognized by right wing bosses such as US financier & railroad businessman Jay Gould (1836 - 1892), who famously said "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."[14] The use of the term "wage slavery" is also a rhetorical device to draw parallels between modern work and the historical institution of slavery, specifically to chattel slavery wherein one person owns another person as property. The concept of wage slavery suggests that even where the conditions of chattel slavery do not apply, wage earners may live in conditions which have a lot in common with the conditions of those under chattel slavery.

To Marx and anarchist thinkers like Bakunin, wage slavery was a class condition in place due to the existence of private property and the state. This class situation rested on

the concentration of ownership in few hands,
the lack of direct access by workers to the means of production and consumption goods; and
the existence of the reserve army of unemployed workers.

A disparity in bargaining power compels wage slaves to accept a predicament they wouldn't otherwise consent to. Some critics of capitalism argue that wage slavery is present in all capitalist societies, even the richest ones. This is for two reasons:

1) The higher wages received by some workers in industrialized countries do not obviate the authoritarianism critics perceive in capitalist institutions--just as the improving material conditions of chattel slaves in the American south didn't obviate chattel slavery. Labor is treated as commodity, just like food or healthcare. The lack of democratic control of industry means that workers do not have a say over decisions in proportion to how much they are affected by those decisions. This, in turn prevents workers from directing their destinies and achieving a society where, as Marx said "work is not only a means of life, but the highest want in life." [15] Even high -paid professionals and intellectuals like lawyers and scientists may be considered wage slaves, since many rent and subordinate themselves to capitalists and other elites-- getting ahead in the hierarchy by internalizing values that are serviceable to the powers that be.

2) Even in a rich country like "the United States, the richest 1% of the population (the capitalist class) owns more wealth then the bottom 95% of the population combined. It is physically impossible for that one percent to work harder then the other ninety-five percent. The average American worker works around 50 hours a week; for the capitalists to work ninety-five times more then the average worker he would have to work 4,250 hours a week. There are only 168 hours in a week; it’s not possible for this wealth disparity to be the result of capitalists working harder." [16] [17]

To this argument, Marx added: "You are horrified at our intending to do away with private ownership of the means of production. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society." [18]

Wage slavery in Communist states

Anarchists believe that as long as any elite is in power, oppressive forms of authority such as wage slavery will continue. They describe how in all self-designated "communist" states the working class follows orders and does not do away with wage labor-- at the point of production workers just switch bosses (from capitalists to state bureaucrats)[19]. The state bureaucracy controls the means of production--not the workers. This, they argue, is why Vladimir Lenin's view of socialism was that it "is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people,"[20] who must trust the benevolence of their leaders. Anarchists believe that true socialism (self-management and worker's democratic control of the means of production) will come only with the elimination of both, capitalism and the state, via the creation of a decentralized system of free associations with worker and consumer councils, regional federations, national assemblies and part-time rotative delegates with no power above others i.e. with no professional politicians. As the Infoshop FAQ points out:

"Anarchists consider one of the defining aspects of the state is its hierarchical nature. In other words, the delegation of power into the hands of a few. As such, it violates the core idea of socialism, namely social equality. Those who make up the governing bodies in a state have more power than those who have elected them. Hence these comments by Malatesta and Hamon: 'It could be argued with much more reason that we are the most logical and most complete socialists, since we demand for every person not just his [or her] entire measure of the wealth of society but also his [or her] portion of social power.' " [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 20] [21]

The rejection of the state is also advocated by some libertarian Marxists, such as Anton Pannekoek, who observed talking about revolution that "this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie," but can only be "realized by the workers themselves being master over production."[22]

External links

Wage slavery in capitalist societies

Wage slavery in Communist states

See also

External links