4 ms·

You raise a very interesting point. Engels said (I can't find the quote at the moment) that the time when the employee is away from work, i.e not selling his la

by ue_ 9y ago

You raise a very interesting point. Engels said (I can't find the quote at the moment) that the time when the employee is away from work, i.e not selling his labour-power, he is useful to the employer, as the worker repairs himself and maintains himself with the wage given to him, and recharges his faculties by rest and sleep. In this way, the employee is never off the clock, he is always working for that employer in some form, readying himself for more work. This is evident; the employer pays for the upkeep and maintenance of a machine, and in the same way he pays for the upkeep and maintenance of the worker in the form of a wage. The worker is a self-fixing machine which sells a commodity which is able to not only transfer but create value.

phkahler 9y ago
And while he's working another shift at another company he's getting additional training which is good for the first employer. This is all bullshit trying to argue the validity of modern day slavery.
- kobeya 9y ago
  Be reasonable. It's not slavery, nor even indentured servitude when you can quit at any time.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    Some would compare it to a form of slavery, and I think such comparisons are reasonable. "The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class." (Engels) "The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general." The idea that you can "quit at any time" is a farce; you must then find employment under someone else in order to survive, or manage to amass sufficient capital, something which is not an option for most people, especially with family. An extreme example of this logic utterly failing is in those developing nations with sweatshops.
    - supremesaboteur 9y ago
      Disagree. Slavery requires lack of consent. If you were taken by force and sold to a master who is entitled to your labour by law, that is an oppressive situation to be in and it must be abolished. This is not the same thing as someone voluntarily exchanging their brains or brawns for a limited period of time for money. > An extreme example of this logic utterly failing is in those developing nations with sweatshops Poverty means making hard choices. If your choices are : 1. Starve to death 2. Work in a sweatshop Most people would pick 'Work in a sweatshop'. Nobody who has the choice to work in a sweatshop or be a doctor is working in a sweatshop
      - ajnin 9y ago
        > If your choices are : 1. Starve to death 2. Work in a sweatshop Then it's not a choice. Therefore there can be no consent, you are not made to work by force but by threat of starvation or homelessness, it is an oppressive situation even if these people don't have literal chains at their feet.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        supremesaboteur 9y ago
        If the employer created a famine to help recruit cheap labour, I agree, there is no consent
        ue_ 9y ago
        Why is whether the employer created it or not relevant? What matters is the fact that the employee is forced to work, or to starve. In the times of widespread slavery, a slave owner didn't create the system of slavery, yet nobody would disagree that the slave owner is exploiting the slave, for the slave has no choice but to be a slave, either to this particular owner or to any other owner. It is not a consensual relationship, and at the very least it is exploitative, just as a prostitute who must sell herself on the street to make ends meet is being exploited - not by any particular person, but by the system perpetuated by the individuals who force her to sell herself in this way. When the only alternative is starving, I'm afraid to say that it's not consent when someone agrees not to starve.
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    > It's not slavery, nor even indentured servitude when you can quit at any time. Many people can't. I mean, they can, but they can't afford it, unless they're willing to risk homelessness.
- Trundle 9y ago
  Every discussion on productivity on here is basically dominated by people talking about how 40 hours is even too much for high quality creative work and that much of the heavy lifting for ideas is done when not in front of a keyboard and that solutions often come to people during their downtime. Funny how that sentiment disappears completely when the topic of employers wanting your total productive output comes up.

by ue_ 9y ago

phkahler 9y ago

And while he's working another shift at another company he's getting additional training which is good for the first employer. This is all bullshit trying to argue the validity of modern day slavery.

kobeya 9y ago
Be reasonable. It's not slavery, nor even indentured servitude when you can quit at any time.
- ue_ 9y ago
  Some would compare it to a form of slavery, and I think such comparisons are reasonable. "The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class." (Engels) "The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general." The idea that you can "quit at any time" is a farce; you must then find employment under someone else in order to survive, or manage to amass sufficient capital, something which is not an option for most people, especially with family. An extreme example of this logic utterly failing is in those developing nations with sweatshops.
  - supremesaboteur 9y ago
    Disagree. Slavery requires lack of consent. If you were taken by force and sold to a master who is entitled to your labour by law, that is an oppressive situation to be in and it must be abolished. This is not the same thing as someone voluntarily exchanging their brains or brawns for a limited period of time for money. > An extreme example of this logic utterly failing is in those developing nations with sweatshops Poverty means making hard choices. If your choices are : 1. Starve to death 2. Work in a sweatshop Most people would pick 'Work in a sweatshop'. Nobody who has the choice to work in a sweatshop or be a doctor is working in a sweatshop
    - ajnin 9y ago
      > If your choices are : 1. Starve to death 2. Work in a sweatshop Then it's not a choice. Therefore there can be no consent, you are not made to work by force but by threat of starvation or homelessness, it is an oppressive situation even if these people don't have literal chains at their feet.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - supremesaboteur 9y ago
        If the employer created a famine to help recruit cheap labour, I agree, there is no consent
        ue_ 9y ago
        Why is whether the employer created it or not relevant? What matters is the fact that the employee is forced to work, or to starve. In the times of widespread slavery, a slave owner didn't create the system of slavery, yet nobody would disagree that the slave owner is exploiting the slave, for the slave has no choice but to be a slave, either to this particular owner or to any other owner. It is not a consensual relationship, and at the very least it is exploitative, just as a prostitute who must sell herself on the street to make ends meet is being exploited - not by any particular person, but by the system perpetuated by the individuals who force her to sell herself in this way. When the only alternative is starving, I'm afraid to say that it's not consent when someone agrees not to starve.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  > It's not slavery, nor even indentured servitude when you can quit at any time. Many people can't. I mean, they can, but they can't afford it, unless they're willing to risk homelessness.
Trundle 9y ago
Every discussion on productivity on here is basically dominated by people talking about how 40 hours is even too much for high quality creative work and that much of the heavy lifting for ideas is done when not in front of a keyboard and that solutions often come to people during their downtime. Funny how that sentiment disappears completely when the topic of employers wanting your total productive output comes up.