The Abolition of Wage Slavery as Our Moral Obligation, Part I

Despite having a site titled Wage Slave Rebel, I’ve yet to really expound on my views of what wage slavery is and what it means to us as lifestyle designers. I think it’s important that I publicize my thoughts sooner rather than later so you, as a reader, can have a better understanding of our narrative as a people and where this movement is really taking us (or at least where it ought to be taking us).

What we are doing — or what we are trying to do — goes much deeper than quitting jobs and starting blogs and writing books and working atop the sands of faraway beaches. These have just been symptoms of our attempts, methods of accomplishing a more subtle, much grander goal. While our individual goals can be worlds apart the one thing that really unifies us is this overwhelming uneasiness, this sense that whatever this situation is we find ourselves in, it’s not what’s best for us.

When we were younger we wanted to write groundbreaking novels, scale the most brutal mountainous landscapes, unearth hidden treasure, travel to the stars and beyond, watch as collectors admired our paintings and quietly assessed their worthiness. We were astronauts or scientists or architects or business owners or athletes. Most importantly, we often wanted these things all at once. We craved the freedom to be whatever we wanted at the moment we wanted. And amazingly, a good part of the time we wanted these things with others. It’s not hard to recall or witness a playtime in which an entire group of children are happily legitimizing each other’s daydreams.

The point isn’t that we ought to be childish and satisfied with pretending we are what we want to be. That we actually work toward becoming what we want to be is a very significant purpose of life. Rather, the point I want to present is that somewhere between there and here, we lost some vital part of ourselves — a philosophy, an attitude, a worldview — that, when absent, impacts our freedom so negatively that we are at once willing slaves to some societal expectation.

If this is the case — and I very passionately believe it is — then it’s only logical to ask, “What has changed?” What about our present situation has limited us and made us forfeit our most worthy aspirations for lives of mediocrity? I would argue that it is the seldom noticed but often felt oppression dealt by wage labor, also known as wage slavery, and the mindset acquired from such a system.

What is Wage Slavery?

The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. – Henry David Thoreau

All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind. – Aristotle

Whatever lifestyle designers and self-described self-help gurus might have you believe, wage slavery isn’t simply a cute term for the job you hate. Wage slavery is a derogatory nickname given to wage labor by opponents of the wage labor system. The phrase is used to draw comparisons between the selling of one’s labor, time and the products of one’s labor for a wage with the system of chattel slavery, in which people are considered the outright property of their owners. There is not, opponents suggest, a significant difference between selling oneself (that is, one’s time, labor and freewill) and renting out oneself. In the same way that you would likely be opposed to a person selling themselves into a system of chattel slavery, you should also be opposed to a person disregarding their freewill and the products of their work for a fixed, regular payment. I happen to agree with this assessment.

Proponents of wage labor would likely object to the idea that wage labor is equivalent to slavery because workers within a wage labor system are given the ability to choose for whom they work, how much they are paid, and what job they would like to take. This, however, isn’t always the case.

In January of 2007, a series of gallbladder attacks, the last of which being nearly unbearable, forced me into an emergency room. Three days, one surgery and $18,000 dollars later, I was cured and buried hopelessly in a massive amount of debt. Luckily a good bit of the bill was able to be deducted, leaving me with approximately $2000 in medical bills. I had dropped out of college two months prior to that and had yet to find a job. I had been holding out for a part-time job at the public library, but, due to the emotional stress brought on by incessant calls and letters from doctors’ offices and collection agencies, my unexperienced 19-year-old self was sent into a panic. I applied to a telemarketing agency, a saw mill and a hospital, none of which paid very well or offered any kind of interesting work, but all of which I knew hired quite frequently. Within one month of my surgery, I was working as a hospital janitor, a job that paid $7 per hour for picking up garbage, discarded body parts, and infectious needles and cleaning up around the corpses of the recently deceased in the emergency room. On top of this, it was considered a “part-time” job in that if I complained about working 40 hours per week but only getting part-time benefits, they would be more than happy to cut me down to 36 hours per week to avoid it entirely.

Proponents might still say that I could have let the debt go until I got the job I wanted. They might also argue that I could have quit at any time. These arguments are both valid, but they ignore the root of the situation, which is my feeling threatened into and threatened to keep the job by the weight of debt and the need for an immediate livelihood. Suppose a single mother can’t afford to pay rent on her apartment or adequately nourish her child. Not many of us would think it good for her to turn to prostitution just because it’s immediately accessible and she feels it is the only option. The point is, should one accept a job out of, at the least, perceived necessity, they have already been coerced into doing the job and coercion contradicts freewill.

I won’t assume that my situation or the situation of the single mother is all that common, but those situations which are common are far worse. They are what lifestyle designers claim to rally against. That is to say, the crippling mental and emotional byproducts of the wage labor system. Working solely for money, status, obligation or material gain are all grotesque denials of our true callings. Thoreau hit the nail on the head when he said, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” This is true in nearly every office or workplace throughout the world. There exists this working class of people, all broken down into unquestioning, unhappy cogs who create excess and wealth for their owners while humbly hoping for their own survival.

If you’re reading this, you’re already aware of these byproducts and you’re sick of the situation in which you find yourself. You’re unhappy with what you are doing and you desire to exert your freedom to choose and do as you please. But where do you go from here?

Four Legs Good, Two Legs Better

In George Orwell’s fairy tale, Animal Farm, the farm animals become resentful of their tyrant, Man, because he “is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself.” All the animals hold a vote and decide that Man is a mortal enemy and all animals must overthrow him. Under the motto of “Four legs good, two legs bad” the animals lead a Rebellion which puts them in control of the farm.

The animals then lay out a set of seven commandments declaring anything that walks upon two legs an enemy and banning animals from sleeping in beds, wearing clothes, and drinking alcohol among other things. Everything was wonderful. The animals finally escaped their oppression…

…at least for a time.

Soon enough the pigs, who were regarded as the most intelligent and who had led the Rebellion, started taking the animals crops for themselves, wearing clothes, and sleeping in beds just as Man had done. They defended these things as being protective of the common good, as actions which benefit the welfare of the entire community. Soon enough, the pigs even took to walking upright, heralding in the new slogan of “Four legs good, two legs better.”

This is a very apt story for lifestyle designers and runs almost parallel to what the movement is currently seeing. It disgusts me to no end to see that the answer most self-proclaimed lifestyle designers put forth for ending their oppression isn’t some wonderfully creative new form of business which might benefit everyone, but for they themselves to become the oppressors. Their goal is, essentially, to assign real work to others and rape the products of their labor for profit. This is exactly the kind of abuse that makes our current labor system intolerable. These lifestyle designers are separating the creators from their creations, paying them as little as necessary, and turning a profit while offering no real value themselves.

The Alternative

If we want to induce any kind of significant change, this cannot be an individualist movement. It has to be a collective shift in thought and action. We have to consider not just what is best for “me,” but what is best for all of us. That is to say, this current movement in lifestyle design depends on some people being ‘haves’ and some being ‘have-nots.’ If everyone was an entrepreneur, the logic goes, then there would be no employees and, thus, no good life of traveling and doing what you love. Much like the pigs in Animal Farm, these lifestyle designers seem to be saying that “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” I think this kind of thinking ought to die the most horrible death. If my success depends on another’s failure or oppression, I’d rather us both to break even.

What we need is to abolish this system of wage labor and replace it with a democratic system that entitles workers to manage themselves and to benefit directly from the products of their labor.

And that’s what I’ll discuss in Part II.



Related posts

  1. Slavery of the Mind
  2. Diary of a Wage Slave Rebel: A Brief Introduction to my Madness
  3. Well-Intentioned Liars
  4. On Fucking Up and Selling Out: What Happened to Wage Slave Rebel
  5. Diary of a Wage Slave Rebel: How to Disregard the Safe and Certain and Almost Go To Jail… (Twice) – Part 1


34 Responses to The Abolition of Wage Slavery as Our Moral Obligation, Part I
  1. Thomas
    October 20, 2009 | 6:46 am

    Awesome site dude. I'm a big fan of what's called tribal business. A standard hierarchical business exists for the purposes of making a profit, hence the employees get treated as economic units that can be dispensed with if necessary. Under the tribal model the motive isn't profit, the motive is creating a means to make a living for the members of the tribe. The business is open for anyone to join as long as their contribution will help extend the amount of money the business makes in order to accommodate their making a living.

    It's something that works for the members rather than the members working for something or someone else.

    Looking forwards to hearing more :)

    • jdbentley
      October 20, 2009 | 2:00 pm

      I'll be contacting you when I start gathering information for the next post. Never heard of tribal businesses. Seems to be exactly what I'm aiming for though.

  2. Gordie Rogers
    October 20, 2009 | 7:48 am

    On the other hand, I still respect people if they are truly happy as a wage slave. I'm a pragmatist and realize that society would struggle to cope if no one was willing to work for a wage. We need toilet cleaners, retail assistants, bank tellers, etc to keep basic essentials running. So, while I love and choose lifestyle design, I also have full respect for those who choose and enjoy the simplicity of being a wage slave. :)

    • jdbentley
      October 20, 2009 | 2:08 pm

      I'm not saying there aren't people who aren't happy as wage slaves. I've heard of experiments in 'radical Christ following' (or whatever you'd call such an experiment) of people who purposely take on the most menial/abusive work in order to "serve the least of these." And of course there are more common examples of people being happy working for someone. But I'd have a hard time believing that these people are a majority or even a significant minority. Those happiest with wage slavery would seem to be those who have greater bargaining power and more say.

      Also, in a democratically run business, tasks that no one would particularly care to do (cleaning toilets, etc.) would be shared tasks. These things wouldn't be overlooked.

  3. NomadicNeil
    October 20, 2009 | 10:42 am

    Yup, not everyone wants to be an entrepeneur or self-employed. Some people just want to go to work from 9 to 5 and then be able to switch off.

    Also if you look at European countries where they have lots of holidays, free health and child care the average person is much happier and more productive. They don’t necessarily view their job as some horrible ordeal that blights their lives.

    Would you say your ideas are anything like Anarcho-Syndicalism?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

    I also recommend reading up on Ricardo Semler. His businesses seem to be run quite democratically.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_semler

    Interested to read your next article.

    • jdbentley
      October 20, 2009 | 2:03 pm

      I'm really excited to read about Ricardo Semler. Hadn't heard of him before but anyone with real-life experiences running companies with a "radical form of industrial democracy" is exactly the sort of person I should be learning more about.

      If I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist, I'm at the very least a sympathizer.

      • NomadicNeil
        October 20, 2009 | 2:13 pm

        I read his book 'Maverick' as a teenager. Looking back I realise it was very influential to me in terms of creating an interest in anarchist ideas as well as emergence and self-organisation.

        • jdbentley
          October 20, 2009 | 2:16 pm

          Would you consider yourself an anarchist?

          • NomadicNeil
            October 20, 2009 | 3:07 pm

            I can't answer that with a straight Yes or No answer. I certainly have anarchist leanings.

  4. Diggy-Upgradereality
    October 20, 2009 | 12:15 pm

    Hey JD, Very interesting post! Ive heard many good reviews about The Animal Farm story! I want to get my hands on a copy. :)

    Sorry to hear about your emergency experience. Hospital bills can be very expensive, which is a big reason to be insured and have medical aid. I was in a motorbike accident, not my fault, and the whole shebang (hostpital bill and damage to bike and car) cost about $7000 of which I only had to pay about $500 in excess.

    Keep well! :)

  5. Rasheed Hooda
    October 20, 2009 | 12:57 pm

    JD

    Great article. I love your gusto and expression of what you think and believe. I agree with the notion that the need is there for massive overhaul of tribal thinking and how it affects us, but I don't agree with everything you say, and I hold my full comments until after I read the second part.

    Keep up- the good work, man

    Rasheed

  6. Colin Wright
    October 20, 2009 | 1:15 pm

    I love Animal Farm…really apt metaphor for the argument you're making, for sure.

    I'm a bit torn on the outsourcing issue (which seems to be what you're rallying against in part of this really well-written post) because I can understand how some people, including folks in India of the Philippines, COULD enjoy just working their 9 to 5 (or whatever the hours may be) and then being able to go about their lives, unconcernedly watching soccer and eating Doritos without the weight of the world on their mind. I also know that in a lot of cases, the money they make for their efforts is vastly more than they could make on their own in their countries because of labor laws, the difficulties in establishing themselves as business owners, etc etc etc.

    That is the current situation, at least. Do I think it's a good one? Not really. Ideally we'd all have the same foundation of education to stand on, and each person would be afforded the basics of living (so food and health care would be a given for everyone, removing that barrier). In this ideal world of mine, people would be able to truly live the life they want to without concern over necessities, so they are able to make the choice of working a 9 to 5 or living off their own creations.

    As it is currently, though, most people are wage slaves as you define it, and we can't know for sure who is doing what and why because of the incredibly burdens most folks carry.

    Can't wait to read the next post in this series!

    • jdbentley
      October 20, 2009 | 2:15 pm

      I think it's another dangerous issue, this working 9-5 then unconcernedly watching soccer and eating Doritos. It really signifies the dominance of consumerism and deters self-examination and hard thought. I don't think it should ever be argued that wage slavery is some kind of enviable method of simple living, as Gordie seems to say in the above comment primarily for this reason. It's too easy to control apathetic, unexamined people.

  7. Jonathan Frei
    October 20, 2009 | 1:47 pm

    great definition. I look forward to the next part.

  8. Nate
    October 20, 2009 | 2:46 pm

    Hey J. D. I like this post a lot. I will say that outsourcing is something that I don't really have a big problem with, in fact I just outsourced my first tasks about two weeks ago. It was just a simple writing assignment. If someone is willing to do the work, I don't see the harm in giving it to them. I'm almost certain this man was from the Philippines, and things are so different there in regards to work/earning a living that I don't think we can even really relate to it at all. Hiring someone to do some writing doesn't really fall into the wage slave category in my mind, because it's optional for the worker. They can choose to do it, or they can just move on.

    When you say we need to find "a democratic system that entitles workers to manage themselves and to benefit directly from the products of their labor," I think you are accurate. For some reason it makes me think of the Results Only Work Environment. Workers can manage themselves, and the benefit to them is not only their compensation, but the fact that they can make their own schedule and work the way they choose. What do you think of this?

    • jdbentley
      October 20, 2009 | 4:15 pm

      The issue with outsourcing is that, if someone is helping you by doing work you don't want to do, they ought to be given the opportunity to enter into a partnership with you and have a say in the direction of the business. That's not to say they would accept such an offer, but that such an offer exists is necessary. If you are outsourcing to freelancers, they generally have a choice to accept or decline work so I think you'd be in a morally preferable situation than, say, hiring someone from an agency. Still, this same offer should be extended to the freelancer, especially if you use their services regularly.

      About the Results Only Work Environment, I think that it would be a good step forward. It's not ideal because it doesn't give the workers a say in how the business is run, what direction it is heading, or to benefit directly from the products of their labor, however it would give the employees more freedom than current management models. In the next post I hope to put forward some better options.

      • Nate
        October 20, 2009 | 6:34 pm

        Very interesting stuff to think about. Thanks for the great response!

        • NomadicNeil
          October 20, 2009 | 7:04 pm

          What if I don't want employees or freelancers to have a say in how I run my business?

          • jdbentley
            October 20, 2009 | 7:29 pm

            Then you should reconsider doing everything yourself.

  9. NomadicNeil
    October 20, 2009 | 3:26 pm

    Just adding to the outsourcing debate.

    Considering the fact that in many developing countries children are routinely sold into prostitution, mutilated by their parents in order to beg more effectively or literally scavenge for food on rubbish dumps, I wouldn't feel too bad about giving some of them work to do where they get to sit in front of a computer all day.

    • jdbentley
      October 20, 2009 | 3:59 pm

      I'm not necessarily opposed to outsourcing, but I can certainly see how some people would get that from this post. My problem is the treatment of 'outsourced' workers. Certainly one might be doing some good in giving a worker in developing countries a desk job, but I have a problem that these workers aren't also given the option of being full-fledged partners in the operation. If they'll do the work you don't want to do, they should be offered a say in the operation and not just be regarded as cheap, disposable labor.

      • NomadicNeil
        October 20, 2009 | 7:06 pm

        Why should I give them the option to have a say in how I run things? Maybe I don't want a partner?

        • jdbentley
          October 20, 2009 | 7:17 pm

          If they are contributing significantly and regularly to your livelihood, they ought to have a say in how things are run regardless of what you want. They might not care how things are run and may not want to be a partner, but without presenting them with the option you're simply perpetuating wage slavery in the purest sense.

          • NomadicNeil
            October 20, 2009 | 7:29 pm

            Should I present them with the option or should they take it / create it for themselves?

  10. Edward Heming
    October 20, 2009 | 3:38 pm

    Wow this is a great topic and one I've certainly thought about a lot. I totally agree that desperation can turn any man into a slave of his needs and thus become what you describe as a wage slave.

    But here's the rub. The freedom and financial potential that you and I feel are quintessential rights just isn't as important to many people who tolerate being told what to do for the security and consistency of a regular paycheck. Obviously no one is perfectly secure in today's economic environment. However, the feeling of security is almost more important than its actuality to many people.

    A lot of this comes down to mindset. Even when I was working menial jobs I never felt like a slave. I chose to come to work and learn and progress even in situations most people would have thought were "dead end". This was because I had a vision for where I wanted to go. Most people don't have that. And that is why they can easily become "wage slaves".

    Edward

    • jdbentley
      October 20, 2009 | 4:05 pm

      As I said in the comment above to James, taking part in the ownership and running of the company will be completely voluntary. If that's not something people are interested in, then they don't have to participate and can continue working as they always have. But given the option to be co-owners and have a say in the running of the company, what these workers do ceases to be wage slavery. I think our moral obligation is to offer the opportunity.

      • NomadicNeil
        October 20, 2009 | 7:05 pm

        Who bestows the moral obligation?

        • jdbentley
          October 20, 2009 | 7:32 pm

          The moral obligation arises from the notion that each person owns him or herself and should be at liberty to do whatever they want to do as long as it does not infringe upon any other person's liberties. Businesses, as they are, exist as owner-worker contracts in which the owners have a greater bargaining advantage (money, land, facilities, etc.) than the workers so the workers are often forced (coerced) into accepting whatever terms the owner puts forth, providing their labor and the products of their labor for whatever wages the owner sees fit without regards to the workers needs.

          What I'm proposing is for democracy to be spread into business. Business as it's most commonly done is a very pervasive and, for some reason, acceptable tyranny.

  11. James NomadRip
    October 20, 2009 | 3:07 pm

    Love the thoughts here, J.D. Looking forward to part II.

    The thing about people is that not everyone wants the same things. Grass is always greener and all that. What you or I may see as someone who is "settling" or even "succumbing" to a 9 to 5 Wage Slave job, someone else is perfectly fine with.

    I try to stay away from telling people what is best for them. Not because I have no opinions or convictions, but because I have no idea what is best for anyone else. If they are happy with whatever they are doing, who am I to tell them they should do things "my way"?

    I know this was already pointed out above, and I don't think you are telling people how to live, you just seem frustrated that others would want to live that way. I agree that model sucks, but there seems to be plenty who are just fine with it. Though if you find yourselves hating your life, people…

    I have not outsourced anything myself yet, but I have had many talks with people in other countries who don't at all feel like they are being taken advantage of by the man. The jobs they have are very respectable in their country, and the alternatives are pretty bleak. They are learning skills in the process of their employment as well.

    There are plenty of things that need doing in the world, and hopefully there will always be enough people around to do them. While you and I have similar ideas of what is best for us, there are those who have different ideas of what is best for them. We're all right :-)

    Looking forward to part II.

    • jdbentley
      October 20, 2009 | 4:02 pm

      Some people are completely happy working a 9-to-5 and not being involved. And that's fine. A democratically run business would be completely voluntary (else it would defeat the purpose). So that if someone didn't want to take part in the decision making process or ownership of the business, they would be able to continue the role they currently play. That is their choice. But it's important for businesses to offer this choice, and that's what I'm arguing for. I don't think many people would reject the opportunity to influence how their workplace is run.

  12. NomadicNeil
    October 20, 2009 | 7:36 pm

    Should the means of production be redistributed? Would this not mean that potentially people with little expertise having just as much say as those with more? Would people lose the incentive to set up businesses if they knew that they would eventually have to give up control? Does that not inringe on the entrepeneurs liberty? What forces the workers to accept the terms set by the workers?

    • jdbentley
      October 20, 2009 | 7:59 pm

      The means of production (natural resources, etc.) should not be privately owned since they are necessary to the survival of the community. Since they are necessary to the survival of the community, those who claim ownership of the means of production already put the workers at a disadvantage and subject them to a system that they might not have otherwise agreed with.

      In a democratically run business, it could very well mean that those with less expertise in a certain area would have equal say as those who have more expertise in a certain area… if that's how the business decides to operate. Even in such a case, it's not likely that the less knowledgeable workers would refuse to listen to the more knowledgeable worker or that his one uninformed vote wouldn't be put in check by other informed votes. In other cases, the business may operate using a Board of Directors who are directly elected by and who directly answer to the worker-owners.

      If people want to start businesses for the purpose of profiting off of other people's work, I think we'd be much better off losing the incentive.

      I wouldn't uphold the entrepreneur's right to lord his resources and capital over the workers as a legitimate liberty. It's not so different than saying 'But what of the slave owners who paid good money for their slaves?'

      And, as I said above, the workers accept the terms because they themselves don't have the money, resources or facilities that the owners hoard. They also lack any leverage for negotiating or bargaining with the owners because they do not have the power to fire or otherwise reprimand the owner.

      • NomadicNeil
        October 20, 2009 | 8:11 pm

        Like communism?

        • jdbentley
          October 20, 2009 | 8:16 pm

          More like libertarian socialism, but I wouldn't be opposed to an anti-statist brand of voluntary communism. This is outside of the scope of this post, though. When directly related to the workplace, it's much less controversial.

About JD
Hey, I'm JD. I'm a writer, web designer and contrarian entrepreneur. Wage Slave Rebel is a place where I (and others) explore alternative and ethical ways to earn a living apart from the corporate hierarchy. The goal of this site is to help people escape wage slavery and start reaping the full rewards of their skills and passions.

Learn more about Wage Slave Rebel

Feel free to contact me or follow me on Twitter.
Fresh Thoughts