Is jobs = wage slavery?

[Ned]

gary, you are indeed fortunate and I am happy for you.

Many, unfortunately, are not as lucky.

Of course, it is always easy to blame the victims -- they must be somehow responsible for their own situation. At least, it is comfortable, for some, to believe it. Less to worry about, less to change.

I am not accusing you of anything, however, I like a balanced approach where both sides of the coin are examined, all the data is gathered, analyzed and projected into a trend.

Your post sounds like a wholehearted approval of the capitalist system. If this is your opinion, then, of course, you are entitle to it.

I, too, can see the benefits of the capitalist system that I am living under. I can also see its millions of victims both at home and abroad.

I hope you will see that I am trying to be reasonable and rational.

PS. I started this thread in order to hear positive job experiences from others (see the question at the end of the OP). You provided us with one and I thank you for the input.

[garygary]

gary, you are indeed fortunate and I am happy for you. Many, unfortunately, are not as lucky.

I could be wrong, but it was much more than luck... I do not claim to be 100% self-made, but hard work, effort, discipline, and responsibility certainly had something to do with it. I was very fortunate to have been born into the system I live in.

And from reading your posts around the forum, you too are very well off. However, I seem to remember in one post that you claimed you were poor? That you barely have enough money to go to a movie once or twice a month? But you live on 50 acres and have your own business? And you have plenty of leisure time to write poetry and discuss philosophy on the internet. You are very very very wealthy indeed.

Please don't take the above as rude. Having read many of the threads on this forum, I respect your knowledge, opinions, and demeanor. So much of the dialogue here quickly turns into shouting and name-calling and anything but philosophy. I haven't noticed you resorting to that too often. I also respect that you put thought into your ideas and opinions, and then you are courageous enough to put them on this forum for inspection and consideration. Thank you.

I, too, can see the benefits of the capitalist system that I am living under. I can also see its millions of victims both at home and abroad.

I would like to see the living conditions of the "millions of victims" at home. I reject the use of the word "victim" in this case.

I agree that there are millions in foreign lands who are living in abject poverty. I would dare say they are victims of the laws of nature and the leadership (or lack thereof) of their societies, not of capitalism.

[Ned]

gary, I am a bit tired to reply to you now.

There are so many things that we would have to cover and I don't think I am up to it at the moment.

Maybe I will do it later -- it's a big job, because your misconception about Capitalism seems to be quite staggering (for me anyway).

I wouldn't even know where to start.

This is not a brush-off but a confession of genuine exhaustion.

Maybe someone else wants to step up to the task?

Bill?

Skip?

Dalek?

[Ned]

And from reading your posts around the forum, you too are very well off. However, I seem to remember in one post that you claimed you were poor? That you barely have enough money to go to a movie once or twice a month? But you live on 50 acres and have your own business? And you have plenty of leisure time to write poetry and discuss philosophy on the internet. You are very very very wealthy indeed.

Just one comment on this:

I am retired, so I have lots of time.

My main income is government pension that barely covers the expenses (mortgage, heating, etc.)

The business we have is a small online book business that brings in about $500 per month, minus expenses. Barely enough for small luxuries.

I can't eat the 50 acres and if I sold the house, I could not afford to pay rent in the city, or even in the country.

But yes, compared to many, I am rich.

[Skip]

I agree that there are millions in foreign lands who are living in abject poverty. I would dare say they are victims of the laws of nature and the leadership (or lack thereof) of their societies, not of capitalism.

The laws of nature? Like - South Africa was just unfortunate in its inhospitable climate, lack of wildlife and shortage of natural resources, so the natives were at a disadvantage? Or: South Africa was unfortunate in its far too inviting climate, wildlife and resources, so the European business interests swarmed in, backed up by their nations' military might, decimated the natives and then each other fighting over it, threw the people off their land and enslaved them, stripped out all the gold and diamonds for HUGE profit elsewhere, killed off most of the fauna, made a smouldering mess.... and walked away scot free ?

Or, there is the simpler example of a child in India, earning barely enough food to survive, making a carpet that his master will sell for thousands of dollars in America. And the American dealer he sells it through produces nothing at all, but collects a commission which is some pre-agreed percent of the price he can get for it - with no regard to original cost and no percentage going to the producers.

[Ned]

Skip, to underline your post I started a new thread: "Did you know that the “Fall of The Roman Empire” is a myth? "

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=15617&p=205491#p205491

I can highly recommend it to gary!

[garygary]

your misconception about Capitalism seems to be quite staggering (for me anyway).

Comments like that work both ways and achieve absolutely nothing in the realm of philosophy. For example:

Ned, your misconception about Capitalism seems to be quite staggering (for me anyway).

Ned, your misconception about socialism seems to be quite staggering (for me anyway).

Ned, your misconception about poverty seems to be quite staggering (for me anyway).

Did you gain anything from that? Me either.

As I sit here on my back porch, I am watching my neighbors go about their daily business. No abject poverty there. I expand my view (mentally) out about 15 miles to the surrounding lands and town to the west. No abject poverty there. I expand the diameter to 50 miles which includes the large metropolitan area to the north... still no abject poverty. Expand to 200 miles... nope, still none. I pretty much have to expand all the way to third world countries before I see abject poverty. Someone will have to convince me of the so-called poverty that exists in the country I live in.

[Ned]

your misconception about Capitalism seems to be quite staggering (for me anyway).

Comments like that work both ways and achieve absolutely nothing in the realm of philosophy.

The only reason I said that was to explain to you why, in my own perception, a dialogue with you about capitalism appeared a bigger task than I was prepared to get involved in.

I did not mean to insult you (I hope you understand that), I only wanted to make sure that you see why I am not up to the task at the moment.

Of course I may be wrong and you may be right, but it is neither here nor there.

I have spent the last 40 years of my life trying to understand what is happening in the world and I am unlikely to change my conclusion to the extent of approving of capitalism.

So I suggest, we leave it at that.

[garygary]

I can understand that debating economic systems via internet is typically pointless. I was disappointed by what I perceived as your proclamation that you possess the truth and that I don't. I had already typed the following before I read your last post, so I am going to send it anyway. It is not meant to be rude or confrontational. Just as you have been making me think, I am trying to return the favor.

But yes, compared to many, I am rich.

Do you consider yourself to be a victim of capitalism? Or a beneficiary?

Do you wish you had more money? Do you want the taxpayers and legislators to give you more money? Do you "deserve" more?

Could you sell off 45 acres and keep just the 5 acres around the house? On that note, there are some who disagree with private property rights in their entirety. Isn't owning 50 acres way too much? Shouldn't that land be shared equally with those less fortunate? Perhaps you could donate the land to a charitable group that would build housing for the poor? Wouldn't that be a much more humane use of the land than its current disposition?

What about all that free time? Instead of writing poetry, wouldn't that time be better spent in helping the poor? Could you join the Peace Corp, travel to Africa, and help the needy?

Compassion without action is not compassion at all. It is lip service and the ultimate hypocrisy.

[Arising_uk]

"Shit rises to the top"

Ironically enough this is what you want as if your shit don't float you're eating badly.

[Arising_uk]

... I can't eat the 50 acres ...

Eh!? Surely 50 football pitches is more than enough to grow and farm enough to eat.

[Ned]

I am not a victim (only indirectly), I don't want more money, no I couldn't sell off 45 acres, it is out in the country, unsuitable for anything else other than be there (covered with rocks and bush), I am too old (72) to travel to Africa and I have done my share of helping the poor all my life. I am still doing it. My compassion is not without action.

Anything else?

[garygary]

Just establishing some things, Ned. You believe in private property rights. Now, beliefs concerning the topic at hand exist as a continuum. Very few people are at either end of the spectrum.

For clarification, Peter Singer at one time made the claim that all of us in prosperous countries should give everything we have to the poor except the absolute minimum needed for our survival. I arbitrarily place someone with that belief at the very lower end of the continuum below.

As for the "utterly selfish and uncaring" end of the continuum, that should be self explanatory. (I am guessing that there are at least as many of those at the bottom of the economic system as at the top.)

Ned, you and I are somewhere in between.

Utterly selfish and uncaring
|
|<-----------Person A is here
|
|
|<-----------Gary is here
|
|<-----------Ned is here
|
|
|<----------Person B is here
|
|
Completely selfless and giving

Now, what proof does anyone have to offer that Ned's place on the continuum is the "correct" place to be? Person B thinks that both Ned and Gary are evil incarnate because we have selfish interests and act on them. Person A thinks that Ned and Gary are completely delusional in wasting our hard-earned resources.

Ned, you and I are more alike than we are different.

[Ned]

Ned, you and I are more alike than we are different.

It's not about you and I, gary.

It is about capitalism.

We would have to discuss books we both read on the subject, before anything else.

Have you read

John Kenneth Gabraith?
Noam Chomsky?
Naomi Klein?
Linda McQuaig?
Gwynne Dyer?
John Ralston Saul?
Richard Hofstadter?
Radley Balko?
Jonathan D. Simon?
Jacque Fresco?
Barbara Kingsolver?
David Korten?
John Casti?
Rebecca Costa?
Michael Moore?
Sally J. Goerner?
.....

I could go on ....

I know it doesn't prove anything but, as I said, I am not up tho the task to try. Please accept it.

You could answer Skip's post or, for that matter, read my new thread about the "Roman Empire".

[Ned]

your misconception about Capitalism seems to be quite staggering (for me anyway).

As I sit here on my back porch, I am watching my neighbors go about their daily business. No abject poverty there. I expand my view (mentally) out about 15 miles to the surrounding lands and town to the west. No abject poverty there. I expand the diameter to 50 miles which includes the large metropolitan area to the north... still no abject poverty. Expand to 200 miles... nope, still none. I pretty much have to expand all the way to third world countries before I see abject poverty. Someone will have to convince me of the so-called poverty that exists in the country I live in.

Here is a hint:

Just Google "poverty in America" to start your research.