Talk:Wage slavery/Archive 4

I cleaned up the article

I put in order a few footnotes that weren't part of the rest, improved the main definition, and added a few sentences toward the end about social movements associated with wage slavery. I've thus removed the tag. If this is not justified, let me know why and which parts need improvement.

Suggestion for Immoralist: write a "criticisms" section rather than complaining about POV

You say that you "put an NPOV thing on the article because it says that going to work actually is coerced instead of being neutral by saying that the term is based on the perception that it is coerced". It's clear that what you object to is the notion of wage slavery itself (a term of historical importance, given that it was first expressed by people like Marx and Bakunin). The non NPOV qualification is therefore not appropriate. If you want to do a scholarly description of why you (or others) don't agree with the term, I suggest you write a "criticisms of the concept of wage slavery" at the end of the article. If you read what I've written on this page before, you'll see that the reason why I declined to merge this article with wage labor is PRECISELY because there are people who do not agree with the implications of the term. Let me repeat part of what I wrote when the merge was suggested:

"as I've tried to document in the article, the term's extensive, influential and unique historical use merits exclusive treatment....Depending on what your political leanings are, you may find "wage slavery" to be a loaded term. I think it's an accurate descriptive term; just as valid as choosing "chattel slavery" over "chattel labor". Nevertheless, many don't agree that our current relations of production are authoritarian enough to warrant the term "slavery" (for reasons that I attempt to explain in the article) and though this may change in time, I suspect that merging wage labor and wage slavery could lead to vandalism and a poorer description of a term that deserves exclusive treatment due to its historic importance."

I think I added some clarity to the definition

What I was trying to do when I asked for help with the definition is to counter the argument made by a right wing critic that cavemen living in egalitarian societies, facing dangers, harsh weather, with little food, resources or knowledge were also subject to a coerced set of choices and were--by my standards-- therefore also "wage slaves" That's why I added "hierarchical social" to "condition", because that excludes from the "coerced set of choices" of wage slavery cavemen who had to hunt for 14 hours straight to survive or who had to risk their lives to catch an animal. The point is that with these hypothetical cavemen there is no SOCIAL hierarchy and the corresponding psychological effects would seem different from wage slavery--even if one could say that they were "coerced" by the harsh choices they faced or that they were "enslaved" by their cold winters, their supposed ignorance or lack of food. And needless to say, wage slavery is a term associated primarily with capitalism and the industrial revolution, so bringing in cavemen doesn't make any sense. But nevertheless, I think it's a useful addition.

Noam Chomsky

If I'm not greatly mistaken, Noam Chomsky has used the term 'wage slavery' quite a few times -- perhaps that merits mention here? Blockle

Maybe on his page, but it's not his term, or his idea. Just because he explains the history behind it better than this page does, does not mean that he should be mentioned. His ideas however would be worth looking at to see if they merit inclusion because they are less his ideas, and more his vocalization of the ideas of the majority 150 years ago.

Too many 'See also's

There are too many 'see also's at the end of the page. For example, is there any reason for Corporate welfare to be linked to from this page? I don't see the connection at all. If there are no objections, I'll give it a trim in a few days. LK (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No objection. The article seems massed still with unrelated or extremely tangentially stretching connectors. Also, e.l.'s seem pov and ax grinding to political... unrelated overly presented ideas in the article. skip sievert (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this worth adding? Personally, I found it to be a very strong argument: http://onestrawshort.blogspot.com/2009/02/capitalism-consent-and-wage-slavery.html

suppose the victim has multiple kidnappers. They give her a choice; either she can have sex with one of them (she chooses which one) or she can starve to death. The fact that she is allowed to choose her rapist clearly does not amount to consent; it is merely a choice between a number of situations that are all still fundamentally involuntary. Since there is no consent, this is still rape.

131.107.0.73 (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, not worth adding. Sourcing a blogspot is generally not considered a reliable source. skip sievert (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement about Peonage = Original Research

Where is the evidence that "[s]ome uses of the term refer to various forms of unfree labour, such as peonage"???

And, as pointed out in the previous section, why are a few editors censoring the much more historically relevant and SOURCED statement that [t]he two main uses of the term refer to either low wages or a lack of workers' control of the means of production, with the latter use historically preceding the former???

It's been several weeks since this was pointed out, and yet, editors like LK and skip sievert who for the past few months have granted themselves special privileges by pushing to add a ban on unestablished editors have refused to allow anyone to correct their edits.

It's clear among those who have studied the subject that this important historical division between wage slavery as either

1) Low wages

or

2) Lack of workers' control of the means of production

is UNCONTROVERSIAL.

It seems that the gate keepers of this article cannot allow the phrase "workers' control of the means of production". Reality and facts are to be replaced by myth or silence if they sound too "radical". 99.2.224.110 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems like a no-brainer. The contention that gave birth to the term "wage slave" is that workers perceived themselves as not being in control of their working lives, like slaves. Control of the means of production is seen as the remedy to this, because it would eliminate the perceived exploitation of being paid less than the value of what they produced.

I'll hold off from replacing the censored sentence until the censors have a chance to justify their censorship, but if they fail to do so (which seems likely, given that the historical facts are against them), then I will do so. I ain't a-scared of no gatekeepers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about this until now. Better late than never, but I see the self-appointed article owners have protected it and really done a number on it since I last checked. Going through the history it appears that the protection was instigated by suspected sock-puppetry, but the edits of the suspected sock don't seem to comport with those of its assumed owner. If anything, I'd say the new article owners ought to be banned for frivolous accusations. Maybe they'll accuse me next, so I can raise a royal stink and draw unwanted attention to their disgusting policy-gaming and POV-insertion. At any rate, this appears to be yet another WP article irretrievably usurped by amateur economists with a fetish for Austria. It's probably bets to chalk it up as a lost cause and just sit back and watch as it is miraculously twisted to comport with the capitalist worldview. The verbal gymnastics should at least be entertaining. Good luck to what appears to be the lone voice of accuracy here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-Ownership Argument in Criticisms Section

The self-ownership argument in the criticisms section seems to conflate self-ownership—the ability to sell oneself—with the quite different assumptions of wage slavery that workers need to sell themselves under exploitative circumstances in order to survive. One would not argue that those who are independently wealthy and therefore do not need to sell their labor to survive lose the ability to do so. Likewise, a worker is welcome to voluntarily refuse to work for a wage and therefore maintains self-ownership, but may face untenable challenges if he or she does so. It is clear, then, that an individual's need and ability to sell their labor can exist independently. Since this criticism depends on the conflation of these ideas the argument does not seem compelling or relevant in a discussion of wage slavery which only makes statements about needs, not abilities. Can something be done to qualify this argument by highlighting this discrepancy? 66.26.85.186 (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Methods of control'section

The article does not really have any information about the current situation as it might relate to 'wage slavery' as a concept... so I added this bit under the section area...

In the 21st. century Dubai, employers pay shockingly low wages to many workers - often less than £120 ($178.83) a month, for, on average, a 10-hour a day, six-day working week. Often 'employment contracts', if they are given, are not worth the paper they are written on, and collective bargaining and trade unions are illegal in Dubai. It all starts in their home countries - often India or Bangladesh, where local recruitment agents promise them high salaries and generous overtime payments. In these workers home countries they are charged a "visa" or "transit" fee, averaging 200,000 taka, or £2,000 ($2,980), which in these home countries is supposed to be illegal.

The workers pay the fee because they believe the figures they've been promised of future wages. However in most cases, it will take them the entire two-to-three year contract for them just to pay back that fee and break even. http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/low/front_page/newsid_7981000/7981320.stm

If this needs rephrasing or different presentation feel free to edit it further. skip sievert (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Social effects

This recent addition looks dubious to me. The first paragraph claims that Amartya Sen believes that the market system caused famines in India. I know the work of Sen, and one of his main thesis is that democracies prevent widespread famines, and he has used the case of India to illustrate this. I looked at the cited sources, and they don't mention Sen at all. I glanced through the other cited sources as well, and the cited sources don't seem to back up what the paragraphs are saying. Lastly, the captions for the illustrations are uncited POV.

I'm not saying that capitalism and the market economy has not been blamed for many things. It has, and those accusations should be documented. However, they should be documented neutrally, as arguments made by specific people, and they should be appropriately sourced. As it stands now, accusations as bandied as statements of fact in the encyclopedic voice without appropriate sourcing. LK (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree in general with LK here and add that recent additions to the page are trying to focus a tangent of Anarcho Primitism into the article that can only be sourced in... with the very greatest of original research and broad essay like commentary. Using two Utube vids does not help either as those are mostly belief or opinion related. skip sievert (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the core argument from the best study of the subject

As has already been pointed out, the most exhaustive scholarly treatment of "wage slavery" is in the study "From Wage Slaves to Wage Workers: Cultural Opportunity Structures and the Evolution of the Wage Demands of Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor". The study shows that the two main uses of the term refer to either low wages or a lack of workers' control of the means of production, with the latter use historically preceding the former. The study explained this by documenting how the imagery of wage slavery was widely used by labor organizations during the mid-19th century, but the "structural changes associated with the later stages of industrial capitalism, including increased centralization of production... declining wages... [an] expanding... labor pool... intensifying competition, and... [t]he loss of competence and independence experienced by skilled labor" meant that "a critique that referred to all [wage] work as slavery and avoided demands for wage concessions in favor of supporting the creation of the producerist republic (by diverting strike funds towards funding... co-operatives, for example) was far less compelling than one that identified the specific conditions of slavery as low wages..." Thus, "wage slavery" was gradually replaced by the more pragmatic term "wage work" towards the end of the 19th century.

This crucial distinction between the defining concept of wage slavery as either low wages or lack of workers control the means of production is missing in the opening paragraph. Instead, we see the unsourced, comparatively irrelevant and probably incorrect notion that "some uses of the term refer only to various forms of unfree labour, such as bonded labour."

NeutralityForever (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really. You are saying one aspect, that is overtly political, is correct. Mostly all of that construct you are quoting is based on opinion and relative in cultural terms. Seeing the article through the eyes of one thing does no one any favors... pretty obviously now, the article allows people to think when they look at it instead of being led around in circles or hectored with political rhetoric/political ideology. Trying to make the article into a political diatribe is not a good idea. Wage slavery as a term is also just a 'saying' that rich and poor people use in any price system to describe going to 'work'. skip sievert (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policy as regards verifiability and sourcing. Let's suppose it were true that "some uses of the term refer only to various forms of unfree labour, such as bonded labour" or that it "is also just a saying that rich and poor people use in any price system to describe going to work". You would, first of all, still need to find verifiable sources (which you haven't yet done). Secondly, you would have to explain how these marginal uses of the term are more important than the sourced and verifiable historical fact I quoted (that the two main uses of the term refer to either low wages or a lack of workers' control of the means of production, with the latter use historically perceiving the former). Thirdly, you would have to prove that the historical events and countless articles and literature of labor organizations (the ones investigated in the study I quoted) did not reflect these two uses of the term and it's evolution -- that they were indeed just interpretations "based on opinion". Fourthly, you would have to explain how the political implications of reality and verifiable facts disqualifies them from being anything but "overtly political... opinion...rhetoric... ideology... diatribe". It seems to me that the effort to censor such facts (in favor of unverifiable marginal speculations) and the rationalizations involved, themselves constitute "overtly political... opinion... rhetoric... ideology... diatribe". NeutralityForever (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The problems editing the article arose from over weighting material that was of a ideological/opinion nature... such as a Communist/Capitalist outlook in regard... or looking though that lens of mostly 18th. and 19th. and early 20th. century opinion on social ideals. The article is not called Political interpretations of wage slavery... it is general rundown of the term which touches on lots of aspects. Funneling the information through a small lens of thinking does not make for a well rounded presentation or education about it. skip sievert (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please address the concrete charges, including violation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy? Your new accusation that the simple inclusion of the conclusions of the most exhaustive and scholarly treatment of the subject constitute "funneling the information through a small lens of thinking" is simply a regurgitation of your previous accusation, which was already answered in the previous post. I will reiterate some of the criticisms to remind readers and editors that you have not provided any answers to the serious charges of censorship leveled against you:

Let's suppose it were true that "some uses of the term refer only to various forms of unfree labour, such as bonded labour" or that it "is also just a saying that rich and poor people use in any price system to describe going to work". You would, first of all, still need to find verifiable sources (which you haven't yet done). Secondly, you would have to explain how these marginal uses of the term are more important than the sourced and verifiable historical fact I quoted (that the two main uses of the term refer to either low wages or a lack of workers' control of the means of production, with the latter use historically perceiving the former). Thirdly, you would have to prove that the historical events and countless articles and literature of labor organizations (the ones investigated in the study I quoted) did not reflect these two uses of the term and it's evolution -- that they were indeed just interpretations "based on opinion". Fourthly, you would have to explain how the political implications of reality and verifiable facts disqualifies them from being anything but "overtly political... opinion...rhetoric... ideology... diatribe". It seems to me that the effort to censor such facts (in favor of unverifiable marginal speculations) and the rationalizations involved, themselves constitute "overtly political... opinion... rhetoric... ideology... diatribe".

Also, I forgot to mention that the article you criticize as being "based on opinion" is selectively quoted at the end of the opening paragraph in the phrase "The imagery of wage slavery was widely used by labor organizations during the mid-19th century, but was gradually replaced by the more pragmatic term "wage work" towards the end of the 19th century." Why then are you choosing to include it? Do you only accept quotes from "overtly political... opinion... rhetoric... ideology... diatribe" type-studies if they support your ideological preconceptions? And when they don't; is that why you prefer unsourced/unverifiable statements? NeutralityForever (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure what you are talking about. No one is censoring the article. Probably not a good idea to make accusations unless true. There are guidelines for presenting information. There is also no need to bolden your statement here. When you make statements like lack of workers' control of the means of production... are you making an argument for Communism? or saying the article should be directed toward presenting views from one hundred years ago? Communism is a dead letter... as is Capitalism and Socialism in my opinion... and the article should not be an apology for either, or any political philosophy. skip sievert (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, quoting verifiable factual research from the most thorough and scholarly study on the subject in order to explain a core aspect of the term has nothing to do with "making an argument" or "apology" for anything. As you can see for yourself, the study proves with plenty of documentation that the two main uses of the term refer to either low wages or a lack of workers' control of the means of production, with the latter use historically preceding the former. And, as I said, that same study is quoted at the end of the opening paragraph to describe something else.Thanks once again for ignoring the concrete charges leveled against you and for revealing the ideological reasons why you have substituted verifiable factual research with unverified speculation. You simply dislike the uncontroversial FACT that wage slavery at one point meant a lack of workers control of the means of production, and you don't want facts to get in the way of your political biases. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a pretty left field assumption. I don't have any political biases. I don't like any form of politics. But this is not about us... it is about neutral presentation... and it is not about 'truth telling'. Really look at the article now. It is better. Why not do as I did and ad some useful recent information to it. The Dubai stuff is interesting. Communism as an idea is so over. Marx based his stuff on Adam Smith... an eccentric 18th century person that did not seem to understand the Industrial Revolution. Capitalism is the same thing as Communism with a different twist... but based on labor theory of value also. Really it seems pointless to argue over these dead ideas except for history presentation. At least thanks for not hectoring your comments with bolding. skip sievert (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to get anywhere arguing bias. The thing to concentrate on is does the source fully support the statements made, or is there WP:OR or Synthesis going on? As far as I can see, the source talks specifically about the use of the term 'wage slavery' by labor activists, not it's use in general. Also, the source states that labor activists used the term as part of their protests and negotiations in the middle 19th century, when they were also fighting for labor owned cooperatives. However it's use died out sometime near the end of the 19th century, as the labor activists themselves decided to focus on wage concessions, and started to use the term wage work instead. There's no problem adding that to the article, however, drawing any further conclusions about oppression of workers etc. would be unjustified. LK (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

LK, first there is the unanswered question of the unsourced, unverifiable statement now in the article about bonded labor. Secondly, there is the fact that we do have a verifiable source -- a highly respectable study dealing with the subject, that points out that these people you call "labor activists" created the term and shaped its meaning and use more than anyone else. The least we can do is to include the fact that the two main uses of the term described in the study refer to either low wages or a lack of workers' control of the means of production, with the latter use historically preceding the former. I may point out that the notion of wage slavery as lack of control of the means of production is also found in the broad literature on the subject -- from liberal intellectuals like Henry George, to the Lowell mill girls, to Karl Marx and Proudhon. Here is my proposal for adding this into the opening paragraph (I'll put it in bold):

Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person is dependent for a livelihood on the wages earned, especially if the dependency is total and immediate. The term is used to draw an analogy between slavery and some or all forms of wage labor. While modern use might encompass broader meaning, traditionally, the two main uses of the term have referred to either low wages or a lack of workers' control of the means of production, with the latter use historically preceding the former. This controversial latter use points to the similarities between owning and employing a person, and extends the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with a limited set of job-related choices (e.g. working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma). The term is often used by anti-capitalists (socialists, anarchists, and other groups), to express disapproval of a condition where a person feels compelled to work for a wage.

That does not read well... and assumes some truth in the telling. That is making a presentation for a political/cultural idea and original research in this situation. While modern use might encompass broader meaning, traditionally, the two main uses of the term have referred to either low wages or a lack of workers' control of the means of production, with the latter use historically preceding the former -This is not a very succinct or easy to follow way to say something. I do not understand what it means.... except that it seems to be focused on some point... which is not getable unless some premise is believed? Lack of the workers control of the means of production? That is just ax grinding again for Communism or Capitalism. No reason to focus the article through that narrow lens. The lead should be concise and not ambiguous with O.R. synthetic projection of political theory. Right now the article covers Marx and others through out. The article is not Communism theory and wage slavery. Have you thought of branching out and including more info, instead of the same stuff over and over? Maybe another idea may be to start another article like... Socialist theory and wage slavery... or Communist views of wage slavery. I am guessing you probably could do that. For a general term like this though it is probably not appropriate beyond the already referenced aspects to focus your p.o.v. so much into one thing in presentation. skip sievert (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

no one will dispute that the very term "wage slavery" originates from a substantially anti-capitalist environment. You cannot expect the very origin of the term to adhere to your political pov, which regards the very mentioning of confirmed, verifiable and extremely important facts from a respected scholarly study as "communist views" and thus justifiably ignored or substituted with the aforementioned unverifiable and probably inaccurate statement about bonded labor. The fact remains that the meaning of wage slavery as either low wages or lack of control of the means of production is, unlike "bonded labor" traceable to a verifiable, highly respectable source, which regards these meanings as the main traditional definitions of the term. Ignoring them in favor of less important, unverifiable and probably incorrect statements would go against Wikipedia policy and scholarly honesty or objectivity. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"aspects of...choices" seems either redundant or unclear

More controversially, others point to similarities between owning and employing a person, and extend the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with limited aspects of wage job-related choices (e.g. working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma).[3][4][5][6]

if the "wage job related choices" this sentence refers to are "working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma", it is not clear what the words "limited aspects of" add or even refer to. In other words, what "limited aspects" of "working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma" is it referring to? Even if one wanted to define "working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma" with the somewhat apologetic qualifier "limited aspects" (and even if the footnotes at the end supported such a notion), Wikipedia policy strives toward clarity and the elimination of unnecessary wording -- so the sentence would have to clarify why, when talking about clearly spelled out "choices", the inclusion of the word "aspects" adds anything other than confusion or redundancy. Obviously, we need to describe these choices as being limited, but we need a word that 1) will point not to some obscure aspect of these choices, but to these choices themselves; and 2) will not create redundancy. Short of simply saying "limited choices", one could say "limited job-related choices", or "limited set of job-related choices" or even "limited set of wage job related choices", which would also make for a less turgid sentence structure.99.2.224.110 (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Same problem as before. You assume too much... and it is then original research. Obviously you have a truth bearing interest in the presentation. That may be a mistake to keep harping on a pov that tries to 'educate' people to some abstract concept that you are trying to get across. This is the same thing you were doing before. Why not stretch out a little and read some Wikipedia guidelines? With your previous situation in mind... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TIGERS ... you may want to exercise some caution... and try to go neutral. A neutral presentation is actually better. There are people on Wikipedia that mentor people. There is a list somewhere. All sides then come out. Why not do that? Or just consider that the article is pretty good... and that adding a stilted presentation of a political philosophy, is not going to make people think in a funneled way... but annoy people, because of the attempt at leading them. skip sievert (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you that what happened "before" is that, contrary to your wishes, my proposal of substituting the unverifiable comment about bonded labor with the verified one of low wages was incorporated into the article--in accordance with Wiki policy (and yes, this was deemed "original research" "leading" "pov”, against "Wikipedia guidelines" etc by you) -- a rather Orwellian act. Now, why don't you address the substance of this post rather than engaging in the same vacuous, unfounded, knee-jerk (in fact hysterical) reactions, which come across as a projection of your own practices? Let me repeat the specific logic/clarity-related problems with the phrasing:

if the "wage job related choices" this sentence refers to are "working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma", it is not clear what the words "limited aspects of" add or even refer to. In other words, what "limited aspects" of "working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma" is it referring to? Even if one wanted to define "working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma" with the somewhat apologetic qualifier "limited aspects" (and even if the footnotes at the end supported such a notion), Wikipedia policy strives toward clarity and the elimination of unnecessary wording -- so the sentence would have to clarify why, when talking about clearly spelled out "choices", the inclusion of the word "aspects" adds anything other than confusion or redundancy. Obviously, we need to describe these choices as being limited, but we need a word that 1) will point not to some obscure aspect of these choices, but to these choices themselves; and 2) will not create redundancy. Short of simply saying "limited choices", one could say "limited job-related choices", or "limited set of job-related choices" or even "limited set of wage job related choices", which would also make for a less turgid sentence structure. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Less wikidrama please. Please remember that the lives of people will not be much affected, regards of what this page does or does not say.

NF, in general, please try to be more civil. Please understand, even if you 'win the fight' with us (ie. we get fed up and go away). Some other editor will eventually show up and revert content that is not neutral. Such is the design and ethos of wikipedia. So, it is better to understand what is the core of what it is you are trying to say, and then state it in a neutral way with as little preaching as possible. Always be sure to back up with sources, and avoid synthesis and original research. It's the only way to ensure that what you write stays up.

Perhaps the main problem we have with your contributions is that you don't seem to be able to see the difference between summarizing sources, and synthesizing from sources. That, and the fact that your comments are too long, and you don't indent (use ::), and use bold way too much. Tongue in cheek here ;)

--LK (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

LK, I appreciate the smiley wink, but general statements about neutrality and original research can be made by anyone cheaply and easily even to defend flat-earth theories, so can you please address the concrete issues raised in this post regarding "aspects... of choices"? 99.2.224.110 (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think it's worth arguing about. If it's just removing the two words "aspects of", I don't really care one way or another. Simple editorial changes like that don't need so much wikidrama. Can I suggest that to reduce contention, we follow a 1RR rule. That is, we should go ahead and make what we think are uncontroversial edits, but we don't reintroduce a change if it's been reverted. Instead, if anything is reverted bring it to the talk page before reintroducing. I think if we stick to this rule, we can all sleep better. LK (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you have already read this whole section. The problems with the phrasing and the proposed changes have already been brought to the talk page before any editing. Their logic stands on its own, and abstention from any subsequent analysis or counter arguments further points to their validity. I will leave it up to you to propose changes or select from the ones I proposed, such as "limited choices", or "limited job-related choices", or "limited set of job-related choices" or even "limited set of wage job related choices" 99.2.224.110 (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done as you suggested and changed it to 'limited job related choices'. So, how about we go with a 1RR rule? Seems a reasonable way to go forward? LK (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Workers' self-management

Three of the issues that have been raised over and over again in this talk page have been

1) The lack of mention of an important portion of the contents of one of the most important studies on the subject (From Wage Slaves to Wage Workers: Cultural Opportunity Structures and the Evolution of the Wage Demands of Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor) which describes the first main meaning of wage slavery as a lack of workers self-management (just as, by the way, many of the other studies cited in this article)

2) the notion that no such alternative to wage slavery has been offered or exists -- often based on the confusion between the subjection of man to nature (having to work for a living) and the subjection of man to man (having to work for a boss)

3)The fact that the opening paragraph just talks about what the term criticizes, but not about what it implies as an alternative.

Since Wikipedia has a pretty good article on workers' self-management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management I suggest linking to it by mentioning the term "workers self-management"

This could be done as follows:

More controversially, others equate it with a lack of workers' self-management or point to similarities between owning and employing a person, and extend the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with limited job-related choices (e.g. working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma) 99.2.224.110 (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds ok if you were writing a project essay somewhere... but here on Wikipedia it sounds like original research blended into telling a version and making it sound like a fact. Seriously consider writing an essay book if you desire to spread your ideas... and if it were to become notable then it might be able to be used as a source. Short of that it probably does not work. skip sievert (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The notion of wage slavery as lack of workers' self-management is as factual as anything else written so far in the article. I have provided the sources. Anyone following this page knows that the last two times you accused my purely factual/logical corrections of the article to be "synthesis" "pov" and the like you were proven wrong. The facts were incorporated into the article and your baseless hysterical denunciations were exposed as a projection of your own practices. Your attempts to suppress facts are becoming more and more noticeable. The same is true in this case. Not mentioning workers self-management at all after the facts I've presented cannot be considered anything other than unscholarly and dishonest suppression of facts. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the article. Since the article does not have a section of worker's cooperatives or self management rights, adding mention of such in the lead is premature. I suggest first writing a section called something like 'alternative economic systems', outlining what critics of wage labor suggest can replace it. NPV and properly cited of course. LK (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

On another note, why are there so many pictures?

A warning right off the bat: it's 6:00am and I'm at work, so I'm apologizing in advance if parts of what I'm posting aren't very coherent. I've been reading the article and the talk page (a feat in and of itself, you guys really like to type), and while I'm unable to help with the actual content (limited website access), I'd like to know what your opinions would be on trimming down the amount of pictures in this article. Unless I'm remembering the policy on pictures, they're only supposed to be used to help illistrate the topic, nothing else. On that note, what possible purpose does the picture of two women standing next to each other have to do with wage slavery? Please don't tell me it's meant to illustrate the poem/song next to it, that seems a little redundant to me.

-The picture of the men working in the cotton field seems oddly placed, it looks a bit odd. I'm still relatively new to editing Wiki, so I don't want to fiddle with it right now. I think it should be in the article, just not in that exact position. Maybe a couple of lines up?

-The picture of Emma Goldman makes a bit more sense, don't have much problem with it, though I'm not too fond of the way it breaks into the subhead.

-The Pinkerton guards picture doesn't seem to have any direct relation to the text it's beside, although I may just not be reading it properly.

-Adam Smith pic: no issue, directly relates to the quote, helps define it.

-Peter, Karl, and Mikhail: pictures aren't needed. If someone wants to know about them,they can follow the links. The pictures as they stand serve no purpose other then "Look, they're all old! And have beards! How intelligent they must be!"

-Lenin: His name isn't anywhere in the article, beyond his picture (go-go gadget ctrl-F!). Why is his picture in the article? Please tell me it's not just "Here's a picture of a communist!"

-Wilhelm: Eh, I'm iffy on this one. I don't really think it needs to be there, but it's not bad.

-Noam: Same as Adam. Big quote, helps connect it to him.

So yeah, that's my big post for the night. What do you guys ('n girls) think? :D --Tainted Conformity (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and I think you have made some good observations. You can dip your toe in the water and execute some of your ideas... and it is a good idea to do as you have done... discuss on the talk page. skip sievert (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've taken the liberty of implementing some of my obervations per above, but some other things have started bothering me. The fact that the picture of the slaves is the first one you see kind of bugs me. From a pure stylistic point of view, wouldn't it make more sense to have a picture of a discontent 9-5 office worker? No offence, but won't a picture like that help give the reader a firmer idea as to what the article is about, rather then a picture of actual physical slavery? --Tainted Conformity (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Maybe you could find a picture of rush hour Tokyo with people being squeezed on to trams with briefcases... or something like that? It would make more sense as to emphasis. skip sievert (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think farm workers in the 1920's or workers in a NY sweatshop in the 1800s may be better. LK (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Capitalist" section

"a capitalist class (often a minority of the population)"

Since it is mathematically impossible for capitalists to comprise more than half the population, and since even that amount is only hypothetically possible but not at all plausible, "often" needs to be deleted. The capitalist class is always a minority of the population, because it must be. --Trendsouth (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that. I don't see why it's not possible for there to be 2 capitalists and 1 worker. However, so far it has been true that capitalists have been a minority of the population, so instead of 'often', it should probably state 'usually'. LK (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe but it seems like a moot point... Many workers desire to make themselves the boss one day and their neighbors their workers, and the thing was probably worded wrongly to begin with because it assumes too much as to lingo or jingoism. We all live in a capitalist society currently... so it could be said that we are all capitalists as we participate in that system which basically means we are in a money system. What does capitalist class mean? This is probably a hold over from the articles essay like days of pro left communism.. and sounds like o.r. anyway and the whole thing probably could be gotten rid of with its o.r. sentiment. There is no real difference between communism and capitalism these days and Marx was inspired by Adam Smith as much as any capitalist as to his 'labor' theory... which is very much an antique idea anyway. skip sievert (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"So far it has been true" means that it has never been untrue; but "usually" implies that it has been untrue at some point.

Capitalism is much more than simply using money. By that definition, every society since the clamshell has been capitalist.

And being a capitalist is much more than simply living in a society owned and controlled by them. By that reckoning, we're all heterosexual white male Christians who love wars of aggression and hate the environment.

"Capitalist class" is capitalists in the aggregate. Capitalists are the people who privately own the means of production and hire wage laborers to produce by those means products which the capitalists sell for a profit.

If the above comment is any indication of your understanding of Marx or communism, then it's little wonder that you self-appointed owners have run this article into the ground. I'm guessing your understanding is received thirdhand via the LvMI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. You assume wrong. It appears that you are using a little Wikipedia:Drama in making your point also. This may be your opinion "Capitalist class" is capitalists in the aggregate. Capitalists are the people who privately own the means of production and hire wage laborers to produce by those means products which the capitalists sell for a profit. but really are you saying that the communist class is any different or was ever any different? Your argument sounds abstractly ideological and original research based, or some quote from political ideology. skip sievert (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

skipsievert's poses a false dichotomy between capitalist and communist bosses. That itself PROVES skipievert has been subordinated to the bosses' propaganda about the inevitability of their rule. He cannot even understand what it is to have no bosses. That's why he could not even COMPREHEND the phrase "worker's control of the means of production"; that's why he thought it was ideological or abstract; that's why he thought the notion of "worker's self-management" was propaganda. It MUST be if it does not conform to the castrated notion of freedom the bosses indoctrinated him with. As the novel 1984 reveals, power structures destroy the meaning of terms, so that you can't even talk--thus turning reality on its head. That's why his ilk deleted many parts of this article and labeled it "C" and "low importance" on the scale of importance in economics--even though it is the most important economics article as far as the lives of most people is concerned99.2.224.110 (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, can we have a bit of civility here, and please, no more personal attacks. Remember, critique the arguments and the edits, not the editors, and draw NO conclusions about the intelligence or personalities of the editors involved. LK (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... and p.s. - Could you stop capitalizing your points? Its kind of bad form as form goes.. a little like yelling during a discussion. skip sievert (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Diamond, coal, etc mines

Maybe people would admit the wage system is slavery too if we show the history of, say Diamond mines, & coal mines, & things people have been forced to do for so many centuries & millennia, back when anyone would admit it was slavery? Stars4change (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The article should not be about getting people to admit things. That is too leading the reader. The price system obviously is a social control system now mostly. Not a very effective one these days either, because furthering technology destroys its effectiveness by eliminating purchasing power because mechanical energy conversion has taken over the role of human labor, and the old theories of value no longer apply with technology making things available in quantity for pennies. So I guess I agree, but for different reasons that wage slaves are also a type of literal slave... yes. Labor theory of value and the glorification of human labor worked, for better or worse previously. Most likely it will not though in the future... (my opinion). skip sievert (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Step outside the office towers and cubicles of the First World, take a look at the Third World, and you'll find that people still labor and are still being exploited for profit. Wage slavery will continue until somebody invents (and hires wage slaves to create) one of these. (But even that wouldn't free the wage slaves because such a machine would have to be suppressed by the elite in order to maintain their status.) No, I think the agitation (i.e., "glorification") of wage slaves has a secure future, unfortunately. --Trendsouth (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages should be about the article. We are straying. because such a machine would have to be suppressed by the elite in order to maintain their status. There is no elite. There is no conspiracy. Only the Price System... which uses money as the arbiter of judgment, only. Mostly wage slave is a term which is a homily or popular saying. skip sievert (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You've conflated the recognition of an elite with a belief in a conspiracy of the elite. This is a mistake. Your denial that there is a class of elites, who effectively call the shots in the socio-political-economic spheres -- whether in concert or not -- is almost scary. I have to wonder if we live in the same universe. I also have to wonder why I find myself appealing to you, and how you came to occupy a position of authority over this article. --Trendsouth (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In the late 20th and early 21st century, conspiracy theories have become commonplace in mass media, which has contributed to conspiracism emerging as a cultural phenomenon. Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore. Examples like David Icke and people like him, or Alex Jones (radio host) maybe also and many others probably driven by the internet.

Pardon if I got you wrong earlier but you said (But even that wouldn't free the wage slaves because such a machine would have to be suppressed by the elite in order to maintain their status.) end quote Trendsouth. Anyway, there is obviously a class or caste system in the current system as it is based on money. That is not a conspiracy... just the rules of the game in the current system. Effectively call the shots... that is where the fine point is. No one is really calling the shots... they are only being rewarded for bad behavior ... what ever that happens to be, by making dollar business, which is the end all and be all of the present system. The article is already overly politicized... and the previous incarnation of it, which was pretty awful, is what happened when political pov took it over. It is better now in general and more balanced. skip sievert (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Forced to need money

Doesn't this prove we're not free until we eliminate money? From "When Corporations Rule the World": "One of the major challenges faced by colonial administrators was to force those who obtained their livelihoods from their own lands and common areas to give their lands and labor to plantation development, that is, to make them dependent on a money economy so that their resources, labor, and consumption might yield PROFITS to the colonizers..... In many colonized countries, the imposition of taxes payable only in cash was used to force people into the cash economy.....Taxes were imposed on whatever villagers would find it most difficult to do without. In Vietnam, the French imposed taxes on salt, opium, and alcohol. The British in Sudan taxed crops, animals, houses, and households. In their West African colonies, the French punished tax evasion by holding wives and children hostage, whipping men, burning huts, and leaving people tied up without food for several days....."

So we were forced into needing money over all the past centuries, so needing money is still slavery. Stars4change (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web forum. Please post comments that are not germane to the topic at hand elsewhere, like an appropriate forum. Thank you.Fuzbaby (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for content - Left Rothbardian analysis

Brad Spangler (blog at bradspangler.com) is a major name within the alliance of the libertarian left circles (with such names as Kevin Carson and Roderick Long) and has outlined a brief analysis of wage slavery that recognizes the existence of wage slavery as a result of state intervention in the market. his analysis of it utilizes what is typically used as a refutation of wage slavery, an austrian economic method. This is outlined here "Wages versus Wage Slavery"[1] and again here "Austrian Economics and Wage Slavery"[2]. This may be thought of as a rejoinder. Or a different form of criticism, or both, as it still rejects and criticizes the traditional conception of wage slavery while providing a case for it using alternative means. Either way I think it is an important addition to the article about wage slavery and I am more than willing to write up this section. Thorsmitersaw (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea. Number one, blog sourcing is not considered good or appropriate sourcing in general. Also the article is already filled with political rhetoric now and probably more is not needed. Also the arguments sounds mostly rhetorical and politicized. Mostly Communism or Anarchy or Socialism are all price system based in real life... so elaborate rationales of labor may not be pertinent. Also this is mostly a homily term also. In other words... rich people are wage slaves and probably use the term also. Most likely any person receiving a wage is a type of wage slave. skip sievert (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What is an "elaborate rationale of labor"? Are you for real? That's at least the second comment you've made that makes you sound almost overtly hostile to human beings. Are you aware that you are transparent in favoring capitalism in the abstract over the human beings who comprise it? And no, rich wage-earners are not wage-slaves, because they are not compelled by their condition to labor for wages. --Trendsouth (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether they are compelled or not is an open psychological issue most likely. I suppose 18th. century labor theory (Smith etc)... the basis of Marx... and also ironically many pro capitalist thinkers... would qualify for "elaborate rationales of labor" at least in this day and age. As to favoring Capitalism... hardly. Lets not turn the article into endorsing some political nonsense. Capitalism and Communism... etc... are dead letters (my opinion) and should not be focused as a pov in the article beyond the basic. skip sievert (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How can anyone call a chronological use of the term non-neutral?

The verifiable footnotes in the text (particularly From Wage Slaves to Wage Workers) confirm a 2nd main use of the term beggining in the late 19th century. How can adding that chronology be "non-neutral" as user skip sievert maintains? You may argue that it isn't important (to which I wouldn't agree), but non-neutral? This is like saying that the statement "The pyramid of Giza is over 4000 years old" is "non-neutral". It simply doesn't make any sense. It is an entirely sensible factual statement; perfectly fitting for wikipedia.99.2.224.110 (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you are interpreting the source in a biased way. The source only supports the chronology of use by labour organizations, and does not justify your interpretation that it covers all uses of the term. Certainly, the slave owners in the South were referring to the living conditions of workers in the North, not just to that fact that they received wages for work. LK (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed a large section of Communist propaganda like original research, that tries to tie into the article that actual slaves and wage slaves are mostly or nearly the same thing. The article title is not Communist views of wage slavery. The article could be pared down more as to that information. Misconstruing a popular term in the extreme to a political groups pov is not called for in the article. Making the article a mouthpiece that reads like a weblog or blog about Communism is not a good idea. skip sievert (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not what the footnoted, VERIFIABLE section you deleted was: The section quotes relevant sources and the comparisons put forth by the very originators of the term, as well as quotes from people who disagreed with it; such as

The description of wage workers as wage slaves was not without controversy. Many abolitionists in the U.S. including northern capitalists, regarded the analogy to be spurious.[29] They believed that wage workers were "neither wronged nor oppressed".[30] The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass declared "Now I am my own master" when he took a paying job.[31]

The very term "wage slavery" originates from the comparison of wage labor with chattel slavery. Whether or not someone believes that the comparisons put forth to create the term have a political bias (or whether they are indeed biased) is therefore absolutely irrelevant in judging whether they should appear in a section describing the HISTORIC aspects of the term. As I've said many times, the VERY TERM "wage slavery" is one that many consider politically biased. So your beef seems to be with the concept itself. If that's the case, nothing short of complete deletion or negative criticism of the concept will suffice. But that wouldn't be compatible with wikipedia goals. I mean, are you saying that wikipedia should omit a term or a description of the origins of a term if its historical realities don't conform to someone's notions of neutrality? That would probably result in a deletion of 99% of wiki contents. Furthermore, you, LK, and other "POV" critics already took months editing that very section in the past. It's hard not to interpret your sudden reaction in deleting such a huge section as anything other than hostility toward the very concept of wage slavery.99.2.224.110 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. As to the article it is just another article. So it may be a mistake to read to much into the editing process here beyond the surface of what has been said. The article was and probably is still over relying on Communist pov and that seems to be a favorite thing as to your making additions. So... as before loading the article with that is probably not such a good idea. The article was so top heavy with that pov that it probably can be toned down a lot more even and more original research of tying information reffs together to a purpose of lecturing as in a Forum (original research) can probably still be edited down. skip sievert (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Huge Deletion Not Justified

Skipsievert hasn't addressed any of the points I raised, but simply repeats the comments I already refuted. As the very opening paragraph says, wage slavery "point[s] to similarities between owning and employing a person"

In other words, the very term "wage slavery" originates from the comparison of wage labor with chattel slavery. Whether or not someone believes that the comparisons put forth to create the term have a political bias (or whether they are indeed biased) is therefore absolutely irrelevant in judging whether they should appear in a section describing the HISTORIC aspects of the term. As I've said many times, the VERY TERM "wage slavery" is one that many consider politically biased. So his beef seems to be with the concept itself. As I said, the footnoted, VERIFIABLE section he keeps deleting quotes relevant sources and the comparisons put forth by the very originators of the term, as well as quotes from people who disagreed with it; such as

The description of wage workers as wage slaves was not without controversy. Many abolitionists in the U.S. including northern capitalists, regarded the analogy to be spurious.[29] They believed that wage workers were "neither wronged nor oppressed".[30] The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass declared "Now I am my own master" when he took a paying job.[31] (which, by the way, skipsievert wants to keep while deleting explanations of the origins of wage slavery--a further indication of his beef with the term itself)

99.2.224.110 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This whole idea is already in the article in multiple places. It does not need repeated hammering and hammering ala a lecture of strung together citations of dubious connection to what is being written in an original way. L.K. earlier said pretty much the same thing also.

The article was and probably is still over relying on Communist pov and that seems to be a favorite thing as to your making additions. So, as before loading the article with that is probably not a good idea. The article was so top heavy with that pov that it probably can be toned down a lot more still, and more original research of tying information reffs together to a purpose of lecturing as in a Forum (original research) can probably still be edited down. skip sievert (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like the readers of this discussion page to notice how skipsievert has, (apart from a point I'll address in the next paragraph) simply repeated his previous (non)response--thus mocking my post pointing out how he "hasn't addressed any of the points I raised, but simply repeats the comments I already refuted." I've already talked about the direct and crucial relation of wage slavery with the facts mentioned in the aforementioned section. I will therefore only address his new comment:

He says that the comparisons with chattel slavery that originated the term are "already in the article in multiple places" Therefore I assume he at least concedes that it's important to mention them. Now, it is up to him to prove WHERE in the article other than in the current "Historic Aspects" section one finds these detailed comparisons (funny, I've read and contributed to this article for 2 years and haven't seen them). Plus, even if they existed, there would still be a need to organize them together in a coherent, point-by-point, section, rather than leaving them scattered "in the article in multiple places" 99.2.224.110 (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Article information

The article is not actually about slavery or Communism or Marx. Those aspects are already redundantly in the article as to those points being made. Above editor, you have run into trouble here before for insisting on turning the article into a dialectic forum like admonition of lecturing a pov as to communism and actual slavery. By adding pointless information and weaving together original research to construct a political Marxist pov... no favors are done to anyone. It violates neutrality and makes for a not very good presentation, and detracts from the good information in the article.

You may want to seriously think about starting a different article as to your thoughts and editing... like Communism and wage slavery or Wages in context of Communism... or something like that, that might be the way to go. It is pointless to flog this article into a mouthpiece for Marx or Communism... as said this idea is already redundantly in the article in many places. skip sievert (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Skip, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. The section appears relevant, and it's also sourced. I'm not sure I understand your opposition to including it. LK (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Long quotations are pointless

With some more polishing I think it could be a strong candidate for WP:GA or WP:FAC. One thing that did jump out at me is an over-use of direct quotations. A few are good, but in general a direct quote should be paraphrased and cited. end quote from [3]

In other words 99.2.224.110 please do not add back the long quotes, which were shortened, as this only serves to lengthen the article beyond good limits... and also the reason why ref/notes are given is then negated. You yourself may feel it is important to extend this information as your edit report says, but it is not important and actually probably is not really called for in the guidelines to take the approach you are taking. Please revert those edits. skip sievert (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've reverted 2 of your 3 quote deletions. Only one of the 3 quotes you shortened (the one explaining the dynamics of paternalism in slavery) was actually long and not compressing something that could be read in the ref/notes. The deletions in the other 2 were simply essential. I'll explain:

You changed Marx's quote:

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.

for

The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly.

This quote, first of all, is not long. The deletion simply eliminates from the article 3 crucial historic comparisons with chattel slavery giving rise to "wage slavery": introduction of competition, the interest of the master, and its class nature.

You also changed Linguet's quote

The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him… 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… 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… [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. … They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?

for

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… These men… [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. … They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?

Once again, the quotation is not long at all. The problem with the deletion of parts like "to go on their knees to the rich man to get from him permission to enrich him" is that it alters Linguet's context and sows confusion between the subjection of man by man & the subjection of man to nature (which isn't wage slavery). In other words, it doesn't mention the exploitation that was perceived as a corollary of this subjection i.e. this "need" Linguet talks about is connected to the subjection of MAN BY MAN. Only mentioning this "need" would assume that all societies in which people had to work for a living were perceived as "wage slavery". This is clearly not the case. And that's apart from his deleted comment on the difference between the intrinsic worth of a chattel slave and that of a "wage slave"--which alo seems crucial.

Also, I added references to the (obvious) relation between stress and smoking/obesity/suicide. Your deletion of that sentence (rather than a simple placement of a "citation needed" sign) didn't, by the way, seem proper 99.2.224.110 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes... but that is not the point. It has been suggested by others, not to use the quotes as they were used, in the article. A few are good, but in general a direct quote should be paraphrased and cited. end quote from [4]

The citations to the quotes are there. So... the point is that people go to further information. Also making an original research statement and then trying to source it about smoking and stress connected to wage slavery is really not called for. That is original research in this regard. skip sievert (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.224.110 (talk)

There's no original research-- those articles mention workplace stress and its connection to addiction and mental illness. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Problems perceived w/the phrase "working for a boss"

I feel reluctant to change the part describing the "limited job-related choices limited job-related choices (e.g. working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma)" with (e.g. working for a wage under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma).

The reason is simple. In many people's mind, getting paid a wage simply means working for a living. Therefore those who don't want to "work for a wage" are simply people who don't want to work at all and want to live at the expense of others. This would simply turn the historic meaning of "wage slave" upside down to signify "lazy leech" i.e. ignoring the historic origin of the term whereby bosses extract non-labor income by exploiting "wage slaves". Working for a living or living at the expense of others is not the historic definition of a "wage slave". Wage working "for a boss or else" is what's expressed in the footnotes & therefore makes it particularly necessary to not confuse the subjection of man by man with the subjection of man to nature (having to work for a living)-- which I repeat, ISN'T wage slavery. Now, whatever the problems you see with the term "boss", it seems more accurate than any other (e.g. owner) because it encompasses both political and economic meanings (therefore allowing for the possibility of wage slavery in state systems like Bolshevism). A quick look in the Merriam Webster dictionary confirms this:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boss%5B3%5D

Main Entry: 3boss Function: noun Etymology: Dutch baas master Date: 1653

1: a person who exercises control or authority ; specifically : one who directs or supervises workers2: a politician who controls votes in a party organization or dictates appointments or legislative measures

99.2.224.110 (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted that edit. It is not about working for a boss. It is about working for a wage. The consensus edit is not working for a boss it is wage

You said The reason is simple. In many people's mind, getting paid a wage simply means working for a living. Therefore those who don't want to "work for a wage" are simply people who don't want to work at all and want to live at the expense of others. This would simply turn the historic meaning of "wage slave" upside down to signify "lazy leech" i.e. ignoring the historic origin of the term whereby bosses extract non-labor income by exploiting "wage slaves".

This is more original research then. As editors we are documenting what others have done... not what we are thinking about In many people's mind. That may seem like a simple reason to you... but again this is not an original essay it is sourced and reffed information ... not strung together to make it present what you think. skip sievert (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. by your standards it would be OK to use the phrase "communist concentration camp" to describe a communal gathering of people because after all, the differences between the words communist/communal and concentration/gathering are just "in many people's minds". And in fact, you are actually IGNORING the documented historical origins of the term that I mentioned (the footnotes at the end of the sentence) and reporting a DIFFERENT notion based on your own biases--without any referenced information. In other words, your accusations of writing an "original essay" "strung together to make it present what you think" and not using "reffed information" apply precisely to you. As the record shows, you have at one point or another arbitrarily deleted over half of what is currently in the article; and even the relatively conservative LK has often had to revert your huge deletions and distortions. Let's not kid ourselves: You want to undermine the historical understanding of wage slavery as lack of self-management by giving the impression that "wage slavery" is a critique put forth by lazy leeches who want to get paid without working. That is just as dishonest as the aforementioned use of "communist concentration camp" to describe a communal gathering of people. So I REPEAT:

Wage slavery refers to a type of subjection of man by man, NOT to the subjection of man to nature. Otherwise you could call hunter-gatherers "wage slaves", but we know that would be inappropriate. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The article was critiqued recently as the link given you stating that the quotes were too long and could be compressed or summarized :[5]

You have been politely asked not to capitalize your words before, to make points, as there is no real need for that, this is not a blog or forum. You are also personalizing the editing here to a degree that is not civil, and not really consensus building but assuming ownership of the article. You have been blocked from editing this article previously for doing things like that. skip sievert (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, my bad

I changed it from "boss" back to "wage". After looking at the US tax code, I realized that the earnings of self-employed people are not called "wages", so I guess the distinction is clear enough.99.2.224.110 (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

More Irrationality

I recently changed the sentence

Similarly, various strategies and struggles adopted by wage slaves created unions, welfare institutions, etc. that can constrain the inherent inequity of wage slavery.

For

Similarly, various strategies and struggles adopted by wage laborers contributed to the creation of labor unions and welfare institutions, etc. that can constrain the perceived inequity of wage slavery.

This was for 2 reasons:

1) the second sentence uses more uncontroversial, moderate, neutral language.

2) The first sentence is incorrect in that people who were not wage laborers also contributed to the creation of unions and welfare institutions e.g. Roosevelt and other social Democrats.

Now, readers should notice how skipsievert reverted the sentence, proving that he prefers to keep a more inaccurate, controversial sentence in order to find a stronger justification to place and thus discredit the essence of the message. In other words, skipsievert could have still placed the in the second sentence as follows:

Similarly, various strategies and struggles adopted by wage laborers contributed to the creation of labor unions and welfare institutions, etc. that can constrain the perceived inequity of wage slavery

The problem with doing this, is that no one in their right mind can deny that wage laborers have contributed to creating unions and welfare measures or that this has been tied to a perceived inequity of wage slavery (e.g. see the excellent study "from wage slaves to wage workers"), and thus everyone would quickly see the ideological agenda of skipsievert. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I prefer your version to Skip's, I'ld like to remind you to please please remember to address the edits and not the editor. Civility leads to consensus, which is the only way anything 'sticks' on Wikipedia. LK (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky

Moved some material by Chomsky into an area that has his material already. Rewrote this paragraph for neutral presentation and clarity

Start Chomsky has used Bakunin's theories about an "instinct for freedom". He has used the militant history of labor movements, Bakunin's theories about an "instinct for freedom", Kropotkin's mutual aid evolutionary principle of survival and Marc Hauser's theories supporting an innate and universal moral faculty, to explain the incompatibility of some conditions with certain aspects of human nature. End

Formerly it said this...

Start Philosopher and political activist Noam Chomsky believes that such sentiments are "just below the surface".[40] He has used the militant history of labor movements, Bakunin's theories about an "instinct for freedom", Kropotkin's mutual aid evolutionary principle of survival and Marc Hauser's evidence supporting an innate and universal moral faculty,[41] to explain the incompatibility of such oppressive conditions with certain aspects of human nature.[42][43] End

Also an editor said (You again omit you deleted the the Milgram/Standford references which had nothing to do with Marx (who, by the way, is only quoted in one other instance in the article)). Not so... in my edit I said it was o.r. in the context if you look at the edit summary after making some formatting changes [6]

The article should not be a Communism/anarchism and wage slavery presentation. Marx is currently overdone through out the text and the second paragraph was o.r. leading to reff/notes that arguably do not connect to the ideas presented. Too much pov in other words and not enough neutrality of presentation. skip sievert (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

I've added a lead image which I hope everyone finds acceptable, of labour protestors protesting 'child labour', but holding signs that read 'child slavery'. I think it's nice as it explicitly illustrates the conception that worker's movements of that time had of the connection between wage labour and slavery. LK (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Really good picture to have on the top. Good find. skip sievert (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm against using the picture because it is extremely negative. Most people are against child labor and in developed countries it is severely restricted or illegal. Same is not the case with "wage slavery" so this picture does a poor job of representing the concept in a neutral way. -- Vision Thing -- 18:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Humans do do extremely negative things, and the picture was accurate as to time and place and does represent what was going on at that time and place. Mostly this is an historical subject, but also lives into the present in a lot of different ways. China and many other places do use children as workers... Africa it is common also. I thought the picture was good. skip sievert (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the picture represent what was going on at that time and place. However, topic of this article is not child labor. Child labor can be a part of "wage slavery", but it is not its crucial part. You can have "wage slavery" without child labor, so the picture does a poor job of representing a concept of "wage slavery". -- Vision Thing -- 16:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

LK's changes mine, prior ones & Falcon8765's accusations of "inaccurate or inappropriate" edits

LK, I do like all your changes except one. Certainly, the lead shouldn't contain too many historical details, but I don't see why "the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war" should be any less important or lead-worthy than the fact slave owners "invoked the concept of wage slavery". Now perhaps this has to do with Falcon8765's accusation that this is an "inaccurate or inappropriate" edit or the fact that the sentence

The transcendence of wage labor became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war"

had been changed thrice before (while leaving the same footnote) for:

Actual slavery, as in 'owning' humans, became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war"

Now, we all know Lincoln fought against chattel slavery (that's why I've added the words "In addition to the fight against slavery, the transcendence...), but first of all, the word "owning" that was written in quotes, does not at all appear in the footnote text. Secondly, "the rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War" in the text refers (I will quote) not to chattel slavery, but to an "artisan Republican tradition" which considered "wage labor was inconsistent with freedom"(p.184) and defined "free labor" as "labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike", such as "self-employment" and other such "independence" from a "wage-earning status" (p.182)

In Lincoln's own words, those who failed to escape wage labor, where victims of "a dependent nature...improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune," and those who debated "whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without consent," ignore the possibility of "Men,with their families -- wives, sons and daughters -- work[ing] for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other."

Now, as for part 2 of the wage/chattel comparisons in the historic aspects section, I recognize that some people have perceived POV in the first few sentences, and so I've changed the phrasing and terms like 'wage slave" to "wage laborer" "boss" to "employer" and "sometimes" to "oftentimes". Also, instead of "Indirectly, prison, beatings, insults and other punishments, including death, lay in store for those who try to survive without working for a boss (e.g. workers trying to democratically run a capitalist's factory, live freely in buildings or grow and collect food, medicine and other goods freely from the land and factories capitalists own etc)" I've written "attempts to implement workers' control on employers' businesses may be met with violence or other unpleasant consequences." 99.2.224.110 (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the notice was for inaccurate edit summaries, not necessarily information. It is better to discuss removals of cited information beforehand. -Falcon8765 (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got nothing per se against Lincoln's attitudes towards wage labour. I was just trying to make the article consistent with what the manual of style suggests. From the WP manual of style, 'Lead Section' (WP:LEAD): "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", ie. if it's not in body of the article, it shouldn't be in the lead. If you feel the information is important, add it first to the body of the article, only then should you craft a (very) short summary to fit into the lead. We can then argue about relative weights. But remember, if it's not in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead. LK (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not what the source says; it says that those who failed to rise through the free labor system were victims of "a dependent nature"... Also, this is the first time I hear that "the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war" was "the transcendence of wage labor". That seems to be a POV of the author and it shouldn't be presented as a fact (especially in the lead). -- Vision Thing -- 12:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've added Lincoln's words and a few other footnoted comments on the subject to the historic aspects section. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The transcendence of wage labor became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war"... I think what this may mean is that converting slaves to wage laborers was preferable. That sentence is really clunky as to meaning. On the surface of reading it, it does not really make a lot of sense. It could be changed to be either understandable or probably removed. Transcendence is probably the wrong word. I changed the sentence to this...

Preference of wage labor over slavery however became for Lincoln, a rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war. Comments? skip sievert (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

for the fourth time, user skipsievert has changed that sentence, even though it has nothing to do with what the footnote text explains. When I spoke about the wrong meaning assigned to the "rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war" and about putting the word "owning" in quotes (and reverting the correct version 3 times to it) even though it does not appear at all in the footnote text, I was referring to user skipsievert (though CRGreathouse also reverted it once to the incorrect version). Now, for the fourth time,skip has changed the meaning to something not found in the text.

I will repeat what I'd written at the beginning of this post in the hope that those who keep making such incorrect reverts will bother to read the contents of the footnote:

"the rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War" in the text refers (I will quote) not to chattel slavery, but to an "artisan Republican tradition" which considered "wage labor was inconsistent with freedom"(p.184) and defined "free labor" as "labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike", such as "self-employment" and other such "independence" from a "wage-earning status" (p.182)

In Lincoln's own words, those who failed to escape wage labor, where victims of "a dependent nature...improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune," and those who debated "whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without consent," ignore the possibility of "Men,with their families -- wives, sons and daughters -- work[ing] for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other."

99.2.224.110 (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems kind of pointless to argue ideas or finer points with you concerning o.r. and synthesis although that is what I have tried to do .. 99.2.224.110 - Trying to make Lincoln a spokesperson for anarcho-communism... or what ever it is that you are trying to do, is not really using references to reflect any kind of reality as to the subject. This sentence However, preference for wage labor over slavery became for Lincoln, a rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War replaced the one that was there, which did not make a lot of sense. Your sentence did not reflect much of anything that I can tell except some opinion or pov, of which I am not sure what your pov is, but for sure Wikipedia is not a format for blogging or writing essays from a perspective of some political criteria.

Making the article into a mouthpiece for anarcho libertarianism ... or what ever it is you are doing is rather pointless. Actually if you just provide neutral presentation... most of the ideas that you are trying to inject would be there anyway... without leading or telling people a certain perspective. In essence you are not really getting the idea here which is to collaborate with n.p.o.v. this subject. Example [7] - skip sievert (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Where in the footnote text are these things?

The current lead sentence

...the overcoming of wage labor became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war"

had been changed by skipsievert thrice before (while leaving the same footnote) for:

Actual slavery, as in 'owning' humans, became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war"

As I said, we all know Lincoln fought against chattel slavery (that's why I've added the words "In addition to the fight against slavery, the overcoming...), but first of all, the word "owning" that was written in quotes, does not at all appear in the footnote text. Secondly, "the rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War" in the text refers (I will quote) not to chattel slavery, but to an "artisan Republican tradition" which considered "wage labor was inconsistent with freedom"(p.184) and defined "free labor" as "labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike", such as "self-employment" and other such "independence" from a "wage-earning status" (p.182) In Lincoln's own words, those who failed to escape wage labor, where victims of "a dependent nature...improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune," and those who debated "whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without consent," ignore the possibility of "Men,with their families -- wives, sons and daughters -- work[ing] for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other."

According to skipsievert, quoting the "rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war in Lincoln's hands" is "trying to make Lincoln a spokesperson for anarcho-communism." No, it's reality.

skipsievert keeps reverting the aformentioned sentence, accusing me of "original research"-- now writing that the "preference for wage labor over slavery became for Lincoln, a rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War"

This is putting reality on its head. So the dread and inescapable questions skipsievert must answer is:

1-Where in the footnote text is the word "owning" he placed in quotes?

2-Where in the footnote text does it say that "actual slavery, as in 'owning' humans (rather than the overcoming of wage labor) became in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war"?

3-Where in the footnote text does it say that "preference for wage labor over slavery became for Lincoln, a rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War"? 99.2.224.110 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not really understand what you are talking about. There is no ref/note in the sentence... or after the sentence you are referring to. Also please read this Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and specifically please read this [8] - I am pretty sure that this kind of thing has been explained to you a lot of times. [9] skip sievert (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't figure out what he's talking about either. -Falcon8765 (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The footnote (currently references 13 & 25) has always been there:

p.181-184 Democracy's Discontent By Michael J. Sandel

But let's suppose that you really didn't know about the "ref/note after the sentence" 4 almost identical questions arise:

1-Which source did you use to put the word "owning" in quotes?

2-Which source did you use to say that "actual slavery, as in 'owning' humans (rather than the overcoming of wage labor) became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war"?"

3-Which source did you use to say that a "preference for wage labor over slavery became for Lincoln, a rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War"?

4-How could you not know about the footnote and at the same time talk about "original research" in your justification for adding the aforementioned (unsourced) statements right next to ACTUAL QUOTES from the footnote text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.224.110 (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Organizing info.

99.2.224.110 I have returned the previous edits minus your recent editing and further trimmed some o.r. aspects from your past edits also. You have not really cooperated when certain things have been pointed out to you as to neutral or n.p.o.v. editing in general, talk page guidelines, information matching up with ref/notes, etc.

Suggestion,... take some time to read different guidelines and suggestions for general Wikipedia editing. Presentation just can not be things as to that presented as original research of syntheses toward opinions that an editor holds. Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. - skip sievert (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The descriptions about Lincoln and British history you deleted are not only verifiable (and traceable to highly respected sources like Michael J. Sandel & E.P. Thompson) but extremely important to the topic. The original research and lack of verifiability you should worry about are the VERY GRAVE ones pointed out to you in the questions from the last post, which you were either unwilling or unable to respond to (or both). In other words, I have pointed out exactly on this talk page WHERE the sources and the words you used (and actually put in quotes!) are unverifiable or original research. You haven't done anything of the sort--you simply state, by fiat, that I'm doing so--clearly to divert attention from the fact the last post REMAINS unanswered. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but two or three people have reverted your edits multiple times and a couple people have said in the last post, that they could not make sense of what you were talking about.

This was removed from the article. You put it back in again. Abraham Lincoln and his artisan republican tradition saw wage labor as unfree, only better than chattel slavery in that the possibility existed for rising above it and achieving self-management. This tradition considered "wage labor [to be] inconsistent with freedom" and defined "free labor" as "labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike," such as "self-employment" and other such "independence" from a "wage-earning status".

You sourced that to this [10] - There is no connection to what you wrote and the source. What you did was original research. You made Lincoln out to be spokes person that was saying that he saw wage labor as saw wage labor as unfree, only better than chattel slavery, making Lincoln a spokesperson apparently for what ever idea you are trying to get across. This means that what you have done is nonsense in the context of n.p.o.v. - add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. I am being frank with you because it is better to Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade - skip sievert (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you have refused to answer the questions put to you in the last post about your original research and fabrications of quotes that didn't exist. But let's actually deal with your current charges. You say that the sentences:

Abraham Lincoln and his artisan republican tradition saw wage labor as unfree, only better than chattel slavery in that the possibility existed for rising above it and achieving self-management. This tradition considered "wage labor [to be] inconsistent with freedom" and defined "free labor" as "labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike," such as "self-employment" and other such "independence" from a "wage-earning status"

are "nonsense" "unsourced" "npov" "violate wikipedia's verifiability policy" etc and are nowhere expressed in the aforementioned book of Harvard professor Michael Sandel.

OK, first, notice that those quotes describing the artisan Republican tradition are from page 182 of the actual text [11] which also says:

"In Lincoln's hands, the conception of freedom deriving from the artisan Republican tradition became the rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War."

You also say that nowhere in the text does it say that Lincoln

"...saw wage labor as unfree, only better than chattel slavery in that the possibility existed for rising above it and achieving self-management."

Let's quote the text once again (and more at length) to once and for all put an end to these untruths. I'll start with the last paragraph of page 181 and continue without interruption till the first paragraph of page 183:

... unlike the abolitionists, he [Lincoln] did not equate free labor with wage labor. The superiority of free labor to slave labor did not consist in the fact that free laborers consent to exchange their work for a wage, whereas slaves do not consent. The difference was rather that the Northern wage labor could hope one day to escape from his condition, whereas the slave could not. It was not consent that distinguished free labor from slavery, but rather the prospect of independence, the chance to rise to own productive property and to work for oneself. According to Lincoln, it was this feature of the free labor system that the Southern critics of wage labor overlooked: "They insist that their slaves are far better off than Northern freemen. What a mistaken view do these men have of Northern laborers! They think that men are always to remain laborers here -- but there is no such class. The man who labored for another last year, this year labors for himself, and next year he will hire others to labor for him."

Lincoln did not challenge the notion that those who spend their entire lives as wage laborers are comparable to slaves. He held that both forms of work wrongly subordinate labor to capital. Those who debated "whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without consent," considered too narrow a range of possibilities. Free labor is labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike. Lincoln insisted that, at least in the north, most Americans were independent in this sense: "Men, with their families--wives, sons and daughters -- work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other." Wage labor as a temporary condition on the way to independence was compatible with freedom, and wholly unobjectionable. Lincoln offered himself as an example, reminding audiences that he too had once been a hired labor splitting rails. What made free labor free was not the worker's consent to work for wage but his opportunity to rise above wage earning status to self-employment and independence. "The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages of while, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him." This was the true meaning of free labor, "the just and generous and prosperous system, which opens the way to all." So confident was Lincoln in the openness of the free labor system that those who failed to rise could only be victims of "a dependent nature" or of "improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune." Those who succeeded in working their way up from poverty, on the other hand, were as worthy as any man living of trust and political power.

In Lincoln's hands, the conception of freedom deriving from the artisan republican tradition became the rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War. In the 1830s and 1840s, labor leaders had invoked this conception in criticizing northern society; wage labor, they feared, was supplanting free labor. In the late 1850s, Lincoln and the Republicans invoked the same conception in defending northern society; the superiority of the North to the slaveholding South consisted in the independence the free labor system made possible. "The Republicans therefore identified themselves with the aspirations of northern labor in a way abolitionists never did, but at the same time, helped turn those aspirations into a critique of the South, not an attack on the northern social order."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.224.110 (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Arguably"?

To quell criticism, I've reluctantly added the word "arguably" to "the overcoming of wage labor became 'in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war'"; and I say "reluctantly" because wikipedia's policy is one of verifiability and I know of no alternative scholarly explanations of Lincoln's words regarding wage labor and social mobility (and no one here has presented any). In any case, at the very least one can say that the long quote at the end of the last post dispels any doubts about the content of the text i.e. the burden of verifiability has been met with Sandel's important work--which is, furthermore, very relevant and thought provoking as far as this wiki article is concerned. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It is your contention as an interpretation... and really has nothing to do with the source. That makes it o.r. - Thought provoking? Not framed as you have done, because it is not connected to the source but connected to some sort or another of pov. - skip sievert (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The long quote at the end of the last post dispels the notion that the quote "has nothing to do with the source". Your continued attempts to portray it as such, as well as your putting in quotes words such as "owning" not found in the text (right next to quotes from the actual text!) to add your own unsourced, original interpretation e.g.:

Actual slavery, as in 'owning' humans, became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war" (skipsievert's 1st version)

or

A preference for wage labor over slavery became for Lincoln, a "rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War" (skipsievert's 2nd version)

speak loud and clear, which is why I suspect you have refused to even answer the last 2 posts dealing with the subject, and have instead accuse me of actions which you blatantly practice.

Now, going back to the proposal of adding the word "arguably", I think this is reasonable if one can find another scholarly source to compete with the explanation of Lincoln's comments on wage labor put forth by Harvard professor Michael Sandel. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent edits I have made such as saying and attributing to me.. Actual slavery, as in 'owning' humans, became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war" (skipsievert's 1st version) Making a false summary of my edit and misconstruing it, is not a good way to debate points.

Arguably, does not work because o.r. is not arguable, it is just not good for the article.

Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:

• Be precise in quoting others.
• When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed. skip sievert (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert keep evading substantive discussion and making false accusations. Good thing there's actually a record of these things. Readers please follow the links to see evidence of skip's latest falsehoods:

Actual slavery, as in 'owning' humans, became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war" (skipsievert's 1st version)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wage_slavery&diff=300425845&oldid=300267945

A preference for wage labor over slavery, however became for Lincoln, a "rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War" (skipsievert's 2nd version)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wage_slavery&diff=300813400&oldid=300784311

99.2.224.110 (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

POV without competing scholarly source

Those who do not want to include the important notion that "the overcoming of wage labor became 'in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war'" (drawn from the highly respectable published work of Harvard scholar Michael Sandel) bear an extremely heavy burden of proof--and not because I and editors agree with it. If they can find a competing scholarly source, then they MAY be able to relegate it to a different status in the article, but not by simply saying "I don't agree with it" or as LK says "in my, and other editors opinion, the argument is wrong". Mr3003nights (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The book you are referencing does not say that. Therefore apparently you are reading that into it. That means that is original research, as given by that edit saying that in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war was "the overcoming of wage labor". That is how it was that it has been removed by a number of editors. There is no connection to the claim being made in that edit.

Also the area around that has been fact tagged as that area is not connected to the latter reference to the N.Y.T. article source. That area also needs direct sourcing or removal. skip sievert (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

skisievert, that quote from the NYT is on page 183 of the source, and it is directly sourced. IT IS YOU!!!! who is removing the source and placing marks. Your record of deceit is really shocking. Mr3003nights (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Disregard for the facts and wiki rules continues

2 totally unsubstantiated allegations and edits have been made by LK and skip.

LK claims that by writing "the overcoming of wage labor became 'in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war'" that I am interpreting the source in an incorrect way. Skip, in turn, has placed marks after the following sentences:

Even Abraham Lincoln and the republicans of that era saw wage labor as unfree, only better than chattel slavery in that the worker could eventually rise above it and achieving self-employment. Their republican artisan tradition considered "wage labor [to be] inconsistent with freedom" and defined "free labor" as "labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike," such as "self-employment" and other such "independence" from a "wage-earning status".

I'll first point out that LK had seemingly said previously that the published work ITSELF had an incorrect interpretation of Lincoln and wage slavery ("Lincoln quote is I think, a wrong interpretation" July 12, see history section) but now he is saying that I am the one misinterpreting things here. Let's quote the text verbatim once again to put an end to these falsehoods (notice, by the way, the UNANSWERED "organizing info" & "arguably?" posts where I already refuted all this). I'll start with the last paragraph of page 181 and continue without interruption till the first paragraph of page 183. Notice, particularly, the sentences and words in bold:

p.181-184 Democracy's Discontent By Michael J. Sandel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr3003nights (talk • contribs) 09:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

... unlike the abolitionists, he [Lincoln] did not equate free labor with wage labor. The superiority of free labor to slave labor did not consist in the fact that free laborers consent to exchange their work for a wage, whereas slaves do not consent. The difference was rather that the Northern wage labor could hope one day to escape from his condition, whereas the slave could not. It was not consent that distinguished free labor from slavery, but rather the prospect of independence, the chance to rise to own productive property and to work for oneself. According to Lincoln, it was this feature of the free labor system that the Southern critics of wage labor overlooked: "They insist that their slaves are far better off than Northern freemen. What a mistaken view do these men have of Northern laborers! They think that men are always to remain laborers here -- but there is no such class. The man who labored for another last year, this year labors for himself, and next year he will hire others to labor for him." Lincoln did not challenge the notion that those who spend their entire lives as wage laborers are comparable to slaves. He held that both forms of work wrongly subordinate labor to capital. Those who debated "whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without consent," considered too narrow a range of possibilities. Free labor is labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike. Lincoln insisted that, at least in the north, most Americans were independent in this sense: "Men, with their families--wives, sons and daughters -- work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other."Wage labor as a temporary condition on the way to independence was compatible with freedom, and wholly unobjectionable. Lincoln offered himself as an example, reminding audiences that he too had once been a hired labor splitting rails. What made free labor free was not the worker's consent to work for wage but his opportunity to rise above wage earning status to self-employment and independence. "The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages of while, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him." This was the true meaning of free labor, "the just and generous and prosperous system, which opens the way to all." So confident was Lincoln in the openness of the free labor system that those who failed to rise could only be victims of "a dependent nature" or of "improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune." Those who succeeded in working their way up from poverty, on the other hand, were as worthy as any man living of trust and political power.In Lincoln's hands, the conception of freedom deriving from the artisan republican tradition became the rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War. In the 1830s and 1840s, labor leaders had invoked this conception in criticizing northern society; wage labor, they feared, was supplanting free labor. In the late 1850s, Lincoln and the Republicans invoked the same conception in defending northern society; the superiority of the North to the slaveholding South consisted in the independence the free labor system made possible. "The Republicans therefore identified themselves with the aspirations of northern labor in a way abolitionists never did, but at the same time, helped turn those aspirations into a critique of the South, not an attack on the northern social order."

So there it is, the text contains precisely what is in the book. Notice, by the way, the amazingly brazen action by skip. He places marks with actual quotes from the text, even after fabricating quotes that didn't exist and attributing them to the text!

For example:

Actual slavery, as in 'owning' humans, became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war" (skipsievert's 1st version, nowhere found in the text)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wage_slavery&diff=300425845&oldid=300267945

A preference for wage labor over slavery, however became for Lincoln, a "rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War" (skipsievert's 2nd version nowhere found in the text)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wage_slavery&diff=300813400&oldid=300784311

Also, notice that skip later even denied having made these edits and accused me of lying about it! (see "arguably?" post), so that I was forced to post the links. All of this in the context of accusing me of falsifying what the text says!!!. In fact, that's why I typed the text of the source by hand, to put an end once and for all to the falsehoods. Unfortunately, the falsehoods continue.

Nevertheless, as I said in my last post, the situation is clear: It's OK if you don't agree with the Harvard scholar Michael Sandel or if you don't know of any competing published/scholarly explanations, but your POV is not, according to wiki rules a substitute for a respectable published work.

Mr3003nights (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure what you are talking about above. If you look at the contention as to the source there is no connection to what you are saying. I assume the editor above is the previous i.p. and also the previous editor that has been blocked numerous times on this article for violations of multiple things on discussion page and article. Discussion criteria violations and personal attack criteria were reasons you were blocked previously. Usually it is not a good idea to personalize using Wikipedia:DRAMA and better to follow this type of criteria when trying to make points Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you have a problem with the multiple people that are reverting your edits... as not connected to the sourcing, you may want to make a request for comment here on the talk page Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but as has been noted in edit summaries by multiple editors the consensus does not agree with the edits you are doing. You may want to read this suggestion also, Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers. - skip sievert (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you repeat the charges and ignore factual discussion--in an attempt to push your pov, dismiss verifiable sources and erase the record of your truly shocking lies and fabrication of quotes. But I've documented all these facts, as anyone can see by reading the last few posts. If you continue this behavior, you will risk being banned from wikipedia. Mr3003nights (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The facts are these, other editors have also read the source that you cite, and we have all come to the conclusion that the source does not back up what your addition states. We have consensus from multiple editors on this issue. Please stop pushing it. LK (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is no "consensus" disputing the facts, as no one on your side has dared discuss them. And for good reason. These facts involve no interpretation whatsoever. They are DIRECT QUOTES from the aforementioned text. That's the reason why you don't want to articulate your position. That's why you just say "you are wrong" without engaging in discussion. NOTICE THAT NO ONE HAS IN THE PAST FEW POSTS ENGAGED IN ANY DISCUSSION OF THE FACTS AT ALL--while the record of deceit of skip trying to eliminate or misrepresent the scholarly source (e.g. fabrication of quotes) has been amply documented and you have--in shocking contrast-- done NOTHING about it. You know perfectly well that we have a respectable verifiable source on our side, and your side has nothing but POV. Quite apart from the grave ethical implications of everything I mentioned, you are simply disregarding wiki regulations, particularly those involving verifiability. Please stop doing so. Mr3003nights (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa - relax and calm down some. That's a pretty aggressive post, getting close to the NPA line. You've got two people that are on opposite sides - you and LK. I'm not seeing consensus to add your material. LK's mentioned that it's been reviewed earlier - I'm seeing some from early July and multiple editors did not agree with similar changes. Please realize that if the consensus among editors is to go one way, it's not up to the consensus to prove to you that your changes should be in the article. It's up to you to prove to the consensus that your changes should be in the article. And to be blunt, your aggressive posting style does not help that at all.

My suggestion would be to go to a relevant WikiProject (one for the Civil War may be appropriate), or ask for a third opinion which can bring new eyes to this. You may be able to change people's views and change consensus for the article. The continual edit-warring does not help either side, however. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the "change" has to do with

1) removing quotes from verifiable sources (the book by Harvard scholar Michael Sandel), not with keeping them where they are,

2)the tremendous implications to this article of Sandel's description of the overcoming of wage labor as being "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war"

3) falsifying and changing the content of Sandel's work to reflect a POV different from the source (see aforementioned evidence about skip's edits) while simultaneously accusing other edits (eg mine) of not being reflected in the source and, furthermore, avoiding discussion of facts related to the source

4) the fact that skip and LK do not think that Sandel's book tells the truth about Lincoln and wage labor and

5) trying to find, for reason number 4, a scholarly consensus that expresses different facts from those found in Sandel's book.

Let's go through these one by one

1) this is closely related to 4, namely that respectable, verifiable sources should not be dismissed just because one doesn't think they are not true, particularly when one refuses to even discuss the facts or provide any other scholarly sources to challenge the verifiable source's facts.

2)These implications mean that substantial factual discussion must occur before the source is dismissed--discussion that so far has not been pursued by the opponents of Sandel's thesis (just look at the many unanswered discussion entries from these last few weeks)

3)This, I think, has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in the last posts, with plenty of evidence. I went as far as typing, by hand, about 3 pages of the source to prove that the ludicrous accusations against me, were actually practiced by those leveling the accusations.

4)"Verifiability not truth" is a wiki slogan that appears on skip's page, as well as many other pages. Even if they don't agree with the source, they can't dismiss it simply because of their own POV

5)I've been asking those who don't agree with Sandel's work to find an alternative scholarly explanation of Lincoln and wage labor. I would be glad if they could find some other respectable scholar, like Harvard's Sandel, to provide some other account of the facts. I fully respect scholarly sources. But POV is not a substitute for them. Mr3003nights (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing aspects

An editor, made this edit summary.. - Start .. Revision as of 22:34, 30 July 2009 (edit) (undo) Mr3003nights (talk | contribs) (As other editors have pointed out, you must engage in discussion of facts before any further changes on this issue.) Next edit → End -

Making an edit summary such as the one shown above, and referring to the other editing guises they use, is not an accurate editing summary. The same editor has returned to this page in multiple guises over time.

[12] edit in discussion.

3RR complaint about NeutralityForever

3RR complaint about the IP

ANI complaint about the original sockpuppetry

The IP's block log

Block log of NeutralityForever

Block log of Entresasix

Protection log of Wage slavery.

The consensus process is rendered useless on the article because of this and disrupting the page pretty much without stopping for an extended period of time... (my opinion) has occured. This is an example of a diff of this where a fake edit summary is being used ...other editors are other versions of this persons edits making the argument, [13] edit in discussion. Not good. This editor, who has been blocked on this article numerous times, editing the article under numerous names has returned the edit which has been rejected out of hand over and over by multiple editors. skip sievert (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr3003nights, or Neutralityforever or whatever moniker you choose. I suggest that if you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you: i) Stick to one name, always login when you edit this page, and don't even hint that you are more than one person. We have been more than tolerant of you on this issue, but you should know that socking is a serious offence, and can get you banned. ii) Recognize when consensus is agasint you, and stop pushing the same issue over and over again. That is edit warring or tendentious editing, and it will get you blocked; if carried on persistently it will also get you banned. iii) Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, Be Civil!. You have a history of not being civil, if you continue, it will get you banned. LK (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you've got a decently strong case about socking, please put it together and create a request at SPI for them to look into it. In particular, if you can show that a user was using multiple accounts to create the appearance of consensus in a current dispute, that's something WP really doesn't like to see. If the socks haven't done anything in a while, SPI usually won't do much. Users are allowed to switch accounts so long as they completely leave the old account behind. If 3k sticks with just that account, regardless of the past, there's not much that can be done. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Factual discussion

Let's not be diverted here. What should be discussed to reach consensus is this source:

p.181-184 Democracy's Discontent By Michael J. Sandel

Anybody looking at the last several posts knows that skip's side has engaged in exactly ZERO factual discussion while my side has engaged in it, and I have, personally spent hours doing so; trying (unsuccessfully) to engage the opposition.

Now, the last post is simply a ridiculous ad hominem by someone who refuses to discuss the facts of the article. Skip already submitted this deceptive "report" to administrators days ago in order to have me banned and he has thus far failed, because it is so obviously false. Yes, I am currently using the name mr3003 nights, and though I did have other names in the past (which is perfectly OK) 1)sometimes I don't sign on and thus my IP registers as 99.2.224.110. 2) there has been no violation of wiki rules on my part, such as 3 reverts in 24 hours or anything like that 3) I've already payed for whatever mistakes I made in the past. In fact, the only reason why I got banned months ago, was because skip was trying to bypass the 3 revert rule (as I pointed out at the time) by asking other editors to gang up to revert whatever edits were made by me and so get me to overextend so he could report me.

But all of this is smoke and mirrors. The truth is that skip has not only refused to engage in any factual discussion, but that he is trying to hide the fact that he FABRICATED QUOTES in order to push his POV, while accusing me of doing the same thing. The record of deceit is truly shocking.

If you want evidence please check the last few posts of this discussion page. I'm now going to try to summarize the main debate that opponents of the source in question need to engage in order to discuss any changes. I will also mention the deceit I've encountered, as I think is useful in understanding the ideological extremism we are dealing with, and the need to find an alternative source that would justify any changes to Michael Sandel's important quotes in the article:

Skip claims that by quoting the actual text; that by writing "the overcoming of wage labor became 'in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war'" that I am interpreting the source in an incorrect way. Skip, in turn, has deleted perfectly verifiable footnotes and placed marks after sentences like these E.g.

Even Abraham Lincoln and the republicans of that era saw wage labor as unfree, only better than chattel slavery in that the worker could eventually rise above it and achieving self-employment. Their republican artisan tradition considered "wage labor [to be] inconsistent with freedom" and defined "free labor" as "labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike," such as "self-employment" and other such "independence" from a "wage-earning status".

even after fabricating quotes that didn't exist and attributing them to the text

For example:

Actual slavery, as in 'owning' humans, became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war" (skipsievert's 1st version, nowhere found in the text)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wage_slavery&diff=300425845&oldid=300267945

A preference for wage labor over slavery, however became for Lincoln, a "rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War" (skipsievert's 2nd version nowhere found in the text)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wage_slavery&diff=300813400&oldid=300784311

You can verify this, and the legitimacy of placing marks by reading this partial transcript of the source in question:

p.181-184 Democracy's Discontent By Michael J. Sandel

... unlike the abolitionists, he [Lincoln] did not equate free labor with wage labor. The superiority of free labor to slave labor did not consist in the fact that free laborers consent to exchange their work for a wage, whereas slaves do not consent. The difference was rather that the Northern wage labor could hope one day to escape from his condition, whereas the slave could not. It was not consent that distinguished free labor from slavery, but rather the prospect of independence, the chance to rise to own productive property and to work for oneself. According to Lincoln, it was this feature of the free labor system that the Southern critics of wage labor overlooked: "They insist that their slaves are far better off than Northern freemen. What a mistaken view do these men have of Northern laborers! They think that men are always to remain laborers here -- but there is no such class. The man who labored for another last year, this year labors for himself, and next year he will hire others to labor for him." Lincoln did not challenge the notion that those who spend their entire lives as wage laborers are comparable to slaves. He held that both forms of work wrongly subordinate labor to capital. Those who debated "whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without consent," considered too narrow a range of possibilities. Free labor is labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike. Lincoln insisted that, at least in the north, most Americans were independent in this sense: "Men, with their families--wives, sons and daughters -- work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other."Wage labor as a temporary condition on the way to independence was compatible with freedom, and wholly unobjectionable. Lincoln offered himself as an example, reminding audiences that he too had once been a hired labor splitting rails. What made free labor free was not the worker's consent to work for wage but his opportunity to rise above wage earning status to self-employment and independence. "The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages of while, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him." This was the true meaning of free labor, "the just and generous and prosperous system, which opens the way to all." So confident was Lincoln in the openness of the free labor system that those who failed to rise could only be victims of "a dependent nature" or of "improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune." Those who succeeded in working their way up from poverty, on the other hand, were as worthy as any man living of trust and political power.In Lincoln's hands, the conception of freedom deriving from the artisan republican tradition became the rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War. In the 1830s and 1840s, labor leaders had invoked this conception in criticizing northern society; wage labor, they feared, was supplanting free labor. In the late 1850s, Lincoln and the Republicans invoked the same conception in defending northern society; the superiority of the North to the slaveholding South consisted in the independence the free labor system made possible. "The Republicans therefore identified themselves with the aspirations of northern labor in a way abolitionists never did, but at the same time, helped turn those aspirations into a critique of the South, not an attack on the northern social order."

And it doesn't stop there. So for example, a few days ago in the discussion page, skip wrote:

Also the area around that has been fact tagged as that area is not connected to the latter reference to the N.Y.T. article source. That area also needs direct sourcing or removal. skip sievert (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My answer was

skisievert, that quote from the NYT is on page 183 of the source, and it is directly sourced. IT IS YOU!!!! who is removing the source and placing marks. Your record of deceit is really shocking. Mr3003nights (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Now. if you want to check who is lying here, please go to page 183 of the source p.181-184 Democracy's Discontent By Michael J. Sandel and check for yourself. Mr3003nights (talk)

This was the latest sentence where skip had deleted the footnote and placed instead:

In 1869 The New York Times described the system of wage labor as "a system of slavery as absolute if not as degrading as that which lately prevailed at the South".

Mr3003nights (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Its kind of pointless to personalize editing on Wikipedia in a negative way. It is just about information. Also by repeatedly focusing on editors instead of information and also breaking talk page guidelines [14] you are not endearing yourself particularly. I previously have mentioned this. There are 3 or 4 people that revert your edit recently that you return. It may be time for you to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. The mass of confusing information above is pretty not decipherable at least not by myself... but as near as I can tell your point what ever it is was not made, and now would be a good time to chill. skip sievert (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Things will indeed be better when you decide to engage in factual discussion, and stop reflecting your own practices onto others: when you stop your ad hominems and your deleting or falsifying of the sources in the article (as proven above). That should not be difficult to "decipher" by anyone who isn't consciously trying to muddle the issue to prevent discussion of the facts. Mr3003nights (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit has been rejected by the consensus. Please do not add it again. The overwhelming opinion in the talk page is that it is not a good edit to have on the article for a bunch of reasons. While notable minority opinions are welcome when verifiable through reliable sources, and constructive editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view. Please read this page guideline Mr3003nights, and desist in making the same edit that multiple editors are rejecting Wikipedia:Disruptive editing - skip sievert (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a scholarly consensus has been reached, and unless you can

1) engage in factual discussion

2) provide an alternative source to that of Harvard's Michael Sandel, and

3)provide an explanation for actions I reported above such as

A) falsifying quotes or

B) deleting references to verbatim quotes and place instead

you shouldn't change it. All of this quite apart from your shocking record of malicious psychological projections and other false accusations against those who exposed your actions. All of this has been amply documented on these talk pages, for anyone who cares about the facts. Mr3003nights (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you are (again) incorrect about consensus - it directly disagrees with your addition. Until such time as you answer the question raised some time ago (see the previous discussion) to the satisfaction of those asking the questions, it's not going to happen either. This is, and will remain, on my revert-on-sight list until that happens.

I am curious - why haven't you also made these changes to the Civil War pages? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed that just like skip for the past month, you haven't devoted one single word to discussing the facts? Do you realize that, apart from deleting a crucial conclusion from a scholarly work, you are deleting verifiable sources in front of VERBATIM quotes and placing marks instead? Do you realize the level of seriousness this shows? Mr3003nights (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup - apparently you don't want to listen to other people, just yourself. No problem, I can deal with that. To be blunt, I haven't found your arguements persuasive, and frankly don't care to debate it with you. I don't have enough time to continually parse through your posts. I also haven't seen you respond to the questions and concerns raised som time ago. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to every single factual matter and to every single question. I've spent hours doing so, typing pages of the source by hand and trying to engage people who want to delete the source or place in front of verbatim quotes from it, while falsifying others. That's evident to anyone reading these talk pages. Now, your admissions that "you don't have time" and that "you don't care to debate" the facts--or even simply discuss them, add even more weight to the proposition that you shouldn't be trying to do or support things like that.Mr3003nights (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr3003, we have already stated our opinions about the edit you propose and the source cited. I think I speak for the rest of the editors here that we continue to find your arguments unconvincing, and are tired of arguing with you, as we find the conclusion obvious and not worth arguing about anymore. This is why we haven't responded, but this doesn't mean consensus has changed. We will continue reverting you if you try to reinstate the change. In fact, if you continue, we will report you for edit warring against consensus. Give it up. LK (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That is the size of it Mr3003. The consensus is that your edit is one tracking some kind of original research into a kind of essay like blog information giving, ala pushing a single point of view, original research. While notable minority opinions are welcome through verifiable through reliable sources, when a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages without using guidlines of undue weight..., patience in communication loses impetus. Attacking other editors consistently is not a good idea either. Your long history of using various names and i.p's and return of those various editing guises, that sometimes pretend to support each other does not help. skip sievert (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr3003nights

I reported Mr3003nights for edit waring and disruption and now he is blocked for three weeks. If he tries to evade block with new user, please do the same. -- Vision Thing -- 17:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. We all tried to play nice with him and he refused. Pretty much an utter disregard for guidelines and over the top aggression did him in again. skip sievert (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to comment in this way about a user who is currently unable to reply. Mr3003 will be back, it's best if we do what we can to encourage him to change his behavior, and get him to work within guidelines. Otherwise, it will just lead to more wikidrama again. LK (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Its very appropriate as he has been a non stop nuisance. Thats nice if you want to take on the role of wiki nanny L.K. but lets not confuse your opinion with guidelines or confuse the really terrible record of conduct with being kinder and gentler. Editors who consistently engage in disruptive editing are disruptive editors, there is still a requirement for editors to be reasonably civil to each other obviously. But being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, let alone charitable. skip sievert (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Shortening quote and removing unrelated info.

Mujeres Libres (English:Free Women) was an anarchist women's organization with over 20,000 members in Spain that aimed to empower working class women by pushing the idea of a "double struggle" for women's liberation and (anti-capitalist anti-statist) social revolution. That area seemed like extraneous information in the article as no apparent connection to wage slavery or mention thereof of it in that area, [15]... Any thoughts on that? Also shortened a really long Adam Smith quote that did not seem to gain in being so long, as to its point.

And, went through the article more to try to cut back on the blog like or essay like quality which seemed to mostly relate to either anarchism or communism or related things... anti fascism.. etc. - Mostly trying to cut down on unrelated or marginally related remote side issues. Also removed probably unsource-able most likely, material that was fact tagged. Very doubtful that information was other than o.r. or commentary like as to presentation. Probably the article still needs a lot of close scrutiny and more editing as to removing any remaining pov type blog like statements and presentation aspects - skip sievert (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Potentially contentious sentence removal -- 1869 NYT quote

I thought it might be nice to get full citation information for the following sentence:

In 1869 The New York Times described the system of wage labor as "a system of slavery as absolute if not as degrading as that which lately prevailed at the South".

which gives as a reference p.181-184 Democracy's Discontent By Michael J. Sandel.

Looking up the reference in the book, the quote is on p. 183 with a footnote (#43) to page 380, which states

New York Times, February 22, 1869, quoted in David Montgomery, Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans, 1862–1872 […]

So it seems that Michael Sandel didn't have access to the original. But fortunately the New York Times archives up to 1922 are available online for free. I searched for several key phrases in the quote, including 'slavery' and 'degrading', but did not find the article!

I have no qualms with the quote (except for a very minor personal preference to give full citation information where possible), but it seems that this actually did not come from the New York Times as claimed!

I would like very much if someone could track down the true source of this quote (maybe Sandel gives the wrong date, or maybe it's from another newspaper) and restored the quote.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to take it out. The way it was presented is not really the way the written citation made the information out to be. The quote from the wage slavery article as given was kind of out of context to the way it was presented. Maybe someone with good detective skills can find the original. skip sievert (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Some people may not like this, but I'm the guy with the detective skills ;-) CRGreathouse, you didn't look at the NYT archives thoroughly enough. Read this article and you'll find the quote. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9905E2D91E3AEF34BC4A51DFB4668382679FDE&scp=3&sq=OUR+WORKING+CLASSES&st=p Furthermore, that NYT quote was cited in important works other than Sandel's; e.g. The battle for Homestead, 1880-1892 http://books.google.com/books?id=goegG3OUpFUC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=new+york+times+%22system+of+slavery+as+absolute%22+1869&source=bl&ots=k_-5PfARHR&sig=SD4oDTDBUv2ycBc_gPyJ3uUiKRY&hl=en&ei=GyF-SqyvNJCasgOT5K3vCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20times%20%22system%20of%20slavery%20as%20absolute%22%201869&f=false or, as you say, David Montgomery. All of these are top notch scholars, and their books come out of university presses; which tend to have higher than average quality standards. Now, the question you must ask yourself here is, why would you believe that they all falsified the source or made fatal mistakes? And why do you not have the same urge to find the "sources of sources" for other things? You seem to have an ax to grind. In the end, the NYT quote, as well as Sandel's account of the slavery parallels of wage labor during the civil war (especially the notion of the overcoming of wage labor as"a rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war") have all been deleted by skip. This simply confirms a lot of what was written on this talk page. As I suspected, the improper placement of marks were simply a prelude to deleting the entirety of the section in question. But now you know that the quote is real. My suggestion is that if you nevertheless agree with skip that the quotes, as they were placed before, didn't reflect the truth of the works cited, you read the works carefully and write the summaries yourself (or ask LK to help you). These quotes from the NYT and the civil war seem to me extremely important, so even if you don't agree with them and want to place them in a different context, I think not mentioning them at all amounts to censorship. 99.2.224.110 (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Censorship? I don't think so. This is the internet, and the internet rules. I guess you are currently blocked from editing for a reason You have been blocked for a period of three weeks for repetitive disruption at Wage slavery (also under User talk:99.2.224.110). end quote block statement [16]. Sourcing things with some kind of imaginative leap of faith to opinions is not a good course. I see also that you argued with your block. skip sievert (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

IP, you write:

Now, the question you must ask yourself here is, why would you believe that they all falsified the source or made fatal mistakes?

I think that I explained that fairly well above (the author's information was secondhand and didn't seem to be backed up by the facts). I wasn't able to find the quote in my search, which I gave in some detail. I gave several possible explanations.

Now I had no way to know about other sources that may have cited the same article. I needed to doubt not all of the sources, but only one of (a) Sandel, (b) Montgomery, (c) Sandel's transcription of Montgomery. Further, I never claimed that any of the sources falsified the quote or made fatal mistakes -- I left open other possibilities. For example, I explicitly mentioned the possibility that the date was misquoted, which is neither a falsification nor a fatal mistake (though it would be a mistake). And of course there are always the possibilities that the NYT search doesn't work as expected or that I fail in my searching for other reasons, which turn out to be the real reasons. (I even linked to some of my failed searches so others could start from where I left off.)

As I suspected, the improper placement of marks were simply a prelude to deleting the entirety of the section in question.

I don't believe I placed those fact marks, nor would they have they changed my decision to move the sentence to the Talk page. (In fact, I must admit I don't even remember a {{fact}} tag at all.) I wasn't looking to remove it, but to add sourcing: I thought it would be potentially interesting to note what sort of article it was and any relevant context, and wanted to add author information to the citation. I fully expected to find it -- I've seen Wikipedia editors make up sources, but never yet a published scholarly book. And I marked my edits in strong language, gave a good edit summary, and notified one of the two major recent editors of the article. (I went to the second editor's Talk page to leave a similar note, but it looked like (s)he was temporarily blocked and I didn't want to ruffle feathers.) I figured there would be enough of a firestorm that other editors would notice the section and could come to their own conclusions.

But regardless, thanks for finding the source.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, let me respond to this as well:

My suggestion is that if you nevertheless agree with skip that the quotes, as they were placed before, didn't reflect the truth of the works cited

Skip has expressed concerns about the context, but I haven't. My only issue was with the sourcing. I'm not saying the quote is good/bad, appropriate/inappropriate, well/poorly summarized -- I haven't looked closely enough to decide any of these. I just wanted to make sure what we have in the article is cited correctly. If nothing else, this removes two layers of indirection: Wikipedia → Sandel → Montgomery → NYT to Wikipedia → NYT. And now we can satisfy concerns about context. I'd say this is looking pretty good on the whole.

Of course it's possible that the quote will be dropped, or that we'll find a better quote from the same (or a different!) article. But that's just the article progressing. Do you have any suggestions here? Do you think, for example, that there's a better quote in the NYT article than the one quotes by Sandel?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is sourced all-right then it is fine... as to the two previous fact stickers, that info. was sourced to the same ref/citation, and seemed like o.r. to probably 5 or 6 reverters... over a long period of time, and discussed at great... overly great length. I always left this part in when I was editing...> In 1869 The New York Times described the system of wage labor as "a system of slavery as absolute if not as degrading as that which lately prevailed at the South". - As long as it does not have a flowery or made up intro or outro it seems fine. Its the other couple of sentences that were fact tagged that did not seem sourced to the Times citation except remotely, or not well, if at all, that were removed with over whelming consensus from the talk page and active editing on the article. skip sievert (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The original quote "a system of slavery as absolute if not as degrading as that which lately prevailed at the South" does not appear in the article! (Or am I failing again? I read it 2x and didn't see it; an OCR + search didn't yield it either.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, once again, you are not seeing it. It's toward the end of the second paragraph. Go up 8 lines from the 3rd pargraph (the one that starts with "Doubtless the capitalists of the country...) 99.2.224.110 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC).

Ta. CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

NYT 1869 article excerpt

Excerpt from 1869 NYT article

99.2.224.110 (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK NYT thing solved; let's tackle Civil War/Lincoln

I will leave it up to other editors to quote the NYT at their discretion. And I'll do the same with Sandel's work. Here are pages 181-183 of the source. Pick the excerpts that you think are relevant, and place them in the context you deem appropriate:

p.181-183 Democracy's Discontent By Michael J. Sandel

... unlike the abolitionists, he [Lincoln] did not equate free labor with wage labor. The superiority of free labor to slave labor did not consist in the fact that free laborers consent to exchange their work for a wage, whereas slaves do not consent. The difference was rather that the Northern wage labor could hope one day to escape from his condition, whereas the slave could not. It was not consent that distinguished free labor from slavery, but rather the prospect of independence, the chance to rise to own productive property and to work for oneself. According to Lincoln, it was this feature of the free labor system that the Southern critics of wage labor overlooked: "They insist that their slaves are far better off than Northern freemen. What a mistaken view do these men have of Northern laborers! They think that men are always to remain laborers here -- but there is no such class. The man who labored for another last year, this year labors for himself, and next year he will hire others to labor for him."

Lincoln did not challenge the notion that those who spend their entire lives as wage laborers are comparable to slaves. He held that both forms of work wrongly subordinate labor to capital. Those who debated "whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without consent," considered too narrow a range of possibilities. Free labor is labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike. Lincoln insisted that, at least in the north, most Americans were independent in this sense: "Men, with their families--wives, sons and daughters -- work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other." Wage labor as a temporary condition on the way to independence was compatible with freedom, and wholly unobjectionable. Lincoln offered himself as an example, reminding audiences that he too had once been a hired labor splitting rails. What made free labor free was not the worker's consent to work for wage but his opportunity to rise above wage earning status to self-employment and independence. "The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages of while, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him." This was the true meaning of free labor, "the just and generous and prosperous system, which opens the way to all." So confident was Lincoln in the openness of the free labor system that those who failed to rise could only be victims of "a dependent nature" or of "improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune." Those who succeeded in working their way up from poverty, on the other hand, were as worthy as any man living of trust and political power.

In Lincoln's hands, the conception of freedom deriving from the artisan republican tradition became the rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War. In the 1830s and 1840s, labor leaders had invoked this conception in criticizing northern society; wage labor, they feared, was supplanting free labor. In the late 1850s, Lincoln and the Republicans invoked the same conception in defending northern society; the superiority of the North to the slaveholding South consisted in the independence the free labor system made possible. "The Republicans therefore identified themselves with the aspirations of northern labor in a way abolitionists never did, but at the same time, helped turn those aspirations into a critique of the South, not an attack on the northern social order."

99.2.224.110 (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been involved with this quote before, I believe. But as a general observation I think we're following Sandel much too closely. I think we need to branch out and use other sources more. What do other editors think? Any other book suggestions?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate as a source to note Lincoln's (and the Republican's) rejection of the idea that 'wage labor = slave labor'. Specifically, he rejects that idea because wage laborers will likely have the opportunity to work for themselves in the future. LK (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats so, and the Times article does not draw the conclusions that 99.2.224.110 is making. It is noted that 99.2.224.110 is not stopping the debate that has caused problems due to lack of consensus as to their opinion previously [17] Take a look here at what their edit says In 1869 The New York Times described the system of wage labor as "a system of slavery as absolute if not as degrading as that which lately prevailed at the South". p.181-184 Democracy's Discontent By Michael J. Sandel - end... That accurate to the sourcing?

Combining this with the essay like quality of Neutrality Forever's/I.P's, former versions of the article, in presenting too much directed editors opinion on this wage slavery subject, and not enough creative neutral presentation was in play before. Lets keep in mind that the suggested edit was rejected overwhelmingly by multiple editors also. It may be a good idea to drop the Sandel information altogether, or use it in in the way L.K. is now suggesting. The former edit removed by Greathouse probably should be ash canned as too problematic and too leading. Looks like the page needs to have an archive set up now, if someone would care to do that. skip sievert (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I set up archiving a couple of days ago. It should archive soon. The bot code had been deleted sometime in the last few months. LK (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW thanks for fixing the problem with your last edit. LK (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

NYT and Lincoln/Civil War still absent despite significant resoultion & consensus improvement

The source for the 1869 NYT has been confirmed, as CreGreathouse, myself, and hopefully LK and other editors agree. I also agree with LK that:

I think it's appropriate as a source to note Lincoln's (and the Republican's) rejection of the idea that 'wage labor = slave labor'. Specifically, he rejects that idea because wage laborers will likely have the opportunity to work for themselves in the future. (LK, August 10)

So someone should go ahead and introduce the edits.99.2.224.110 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

I think the focus of this book and the insistence of its confusing pov has not been for the betterment of the article in general, and has led to disruptive editing over months of time in the past because of the interpretation of its meaning or content. Why so much reliance on one source that may or may not be all that relevant, and is most likely more a single pov of an author than a broad way of thinking about the concept? skip sievert (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it adds to the history section, providing historical background for the term. I've add in a couple of sentences using those sources. LK (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok... I hope this chapter to this sourcing is over now though, as in enough is enough. I never had a problem with that inclusion of this reformatting of the edit as to information... However, the artisan tradition slowly disappeared in the later part of the 19th century. In 1869 The New York Times described the system of wage labor as "a system of slavery as absolute if not as degrading as that which lately prevailed at the South".p.181-184 Democracy's Discontent By Michael J. Sandel,, it was all the previous speculative or fact tagged stuff that was problematic previously (my opinion). I hope this satisfies all parties now... and more stretching as to meaning in regard to citation is over. skip sievert (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Critical section

Rephrased and added new information to the Criticisms section, mostly for clarity and n.p.o.v. and more focus [18]. Currently I think it would be nice to update the body of the article with more current information as to 2009 and the last few years, as to the concept and usage of wage slavery in popular culture and media. I put the Dubai information in a while ago... and it seems to be the only modern reference to this idea as to popular culture currently in the article. skip sievert (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Artisan tradition" seems unclear

LK, thanks for adding the stuff about Lincoln. 2 things. The orphan sentence following your additions says: "However, the artisan tradition slowly disappeared in the later part of the 19th century", but there is no prior mention or explanation of this "artisan tradition". Is it the REPUBLICAN artisan tradition? Is it some other artisan tradition? I think the clarity may improve if you add the word "republican" eg "However, this Republican artisan tradition disappeared...". Also, I think that right after that, it is appropriate to quote Michael Sandel on the civil war. There is no need to add any interpretation. A direct quote like this should suffice eg:

According to Harvard scholar Michael Sandel "In Lincoln's hands, the conception of freedom deriving from the artisan republican tradition became the rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War." 99.2.224.110 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not bring this up anymore redundantly as you have for the last extended months. L.K. did a good job of putting the Sandel link in. Enough is enough. Linking to a confusing pov excessively is not going to be good for the article. The other points you are mentioning are obscure and part of the overly contentious history of the information in general as it has been force fed into the article as to pov and not neutral pov. As far as artisan tradition that is another word phrase more or less for this Luddite tradition,, and connected with the antique labor theory of value by Marx and other advocates of Classical economics. Also there is no real connection here with the information you want to put in.

Slavery as a concept was outmoded by technology. The cotton gin and steam power was more cost efficient than owning slaves (20 to 30 thousand dollars apiece as private property approx. then), and that fact is more or less the reason slavery in the U.S. broke down as part of society, it was no longer cost efficient. Machine power was cheaper and making actual slaves into more or less official wage slaves kept the system going... not the moralistic and ethical arguments of Lincoln or Marx or other politicians. skip sievert (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate at all. The cotton gin increased the value of slaves dramatically and furthered their use in the US. The monetary value of the cotton gin–using slaves was high enough that the South felt they needed to break away to preserve this (despite rhetoric on both sides discussing 'state sovereignty'). CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly your perogative Greathouse to agree or not, but consider that a human puts out about 33 watts of energy or about 1/20th. of a horsepower as to thermodynamics, while machines can put out large amounts of work for pennies. Machines replaced slaves. You might read this for more info. on this subject [19]. The Industrial revolution put the cabosh on slavery. Human energy as to making society run had been flat-lined previously for all of history. Mechanical energy as to energy conversion took over human energy conversion about 1925 as to work. But, by the civil war time it was already apparent as to direction and the extreme cost of slaves and maintenence of slaves ... with all the attendant baggage also, that the system of actual contract ownership slavery would be ash-canned and up to a certain point 'wage slaves' were the replacement.

Your refrigerator has a 1/4 horsepower motor. It works all day without complaining as an energy slave, and never will run away or threaten to. Your refrig. will do considerably more work than you today as to actual energy conversion. The same is true now as to what makes our culture work. We still use a religion like application based on abstract concepts, called neo classical economics for social control. Hope that is not too much information for the discussion page. skip sievert (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Skip, even if your POV was true, 1) Lincoln's perceptions are important, even if they were inaccurate (and that's a big IF) and 2)remember the wiki slogan: verifiability NOT truth. Please put forth a competing scholarly source and we could write "According to Michael Sandel blah blah...However according to scholar X, this wasn't so". But since the only scholarly work we've been able to find dealing with this is Sandel's, not even mentioning his comments on the civil war (about the "rallying point") seems tantamount to censorship--especially considering the extremely relevant historical event we're discussing. It's like writing an article dealing with the US war with Japan during WW2 and not mentioning Pearl Harbor. Can we afford to not even mention the possibility that "In Lincoln's hands, the conception of freedom deriving from the artisan republican tradition became the rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War."??? This is a published respectable work by a Harvard prof. This ain't no chump!99.2.224.110 (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the current edit which is sourced to Sandel..., done by L.K. and it is fine. Abraham Lincoln and the republicans of that era also rejected the contention that slavery and wage labor were equivalent. Although they despised the condition of wage labor, they argued that the condition was fundamentally different as laborers were likely to have the opportunity to work for themselves in the future, achieving self-employment.

However, the artisan tradition slowly disappeared in the later part of the 19th century. In 1869 The New York Times described the system of wage labor as "a system of slavery as absolute if not as degrading as that which lately prevailed at the South".

So this issue can be put to rest... please stop bringing it up in multiple ways and multiple threads more or less the same way over and over... that is the definition of being a disruptive editor which you have been blocked for over and over and over on this article. Ok?

I have no desire to interact with you seriously now because of your past disruptive editing, and extreme tactics of trying to include the former essay like aspects to the article. You want to include something in a pov o.r. way because it makes a point for you that may not be true. No thanks.

The source in question is now in the article, and as a much blocked person that has redundantly and again now accused Wikipedia of censorship... which is ridiculous... and using that as an excuse to disrupt the talk page repeatedly is annoying and has gotten you blocked over and over as to the same repeated issues. I think you could back off now knowing that a plain and simple link is in the article and people can read the surrounding area if they care to. Anyway no one agreed on your previous phrasing and eventually if you try to reenter the same redundant information that you have been blocked repeatedly... it is disruptive again. Read this... Handicraft which is another reason how it was that the Artisan tradition was snuffed out in conjunction with these Luddites. Read this also Artisan. Your link is in there now... so without further beating this dead horse... please stop beating this dead horse. skip sievert (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The switching to ad hominems (eg calling me "disruptive") and straw men (eg claiming I said "wikipedia" censored me) must mean I'm pursuing a factual approach that cannot be answered--just as in the past, with the dozens of established facts now in the article, which skip fought tooth and nail to suppress with similar tactics. But I'm still waiting for an answer: is there or is there no prior mention or explanation of this "artisan tradition"? Is it the REPUBLICAN artisan tradition? Is it some other artisan tradition? I think the clarity may improve if we add the word "republican" eg "However, this Republican artisan tradition disappeared...". Also, I STILL think that right after that, it is appropriate to quote Michael Sandel on the "rallying point" of the civil war. I'd like to know the opinions of editors other than skip: Can we afford to not even mention the possibility that "In Lincoln's hands, the conception of freedom deriving from the artisan republican tradition became the rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War."??? 99.2.224.110 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sure that our IP (or 3000) is aware of this, I'd like to remind them that posting when you're blocked usually isn't a good idea. It's a good way to get your time reset. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

True. You have to wonder that no real lessons about editing have occurred as to a positive approach. He is currently blocked for one month and now is repeating exactly the same behavior that led to all the other blocks... while being blocked currently.

The recent history of this currently blocked and now again disruptive editor? And this is only a tiny amount of the content,

[20] edit in discussion.

3RR complaint about NeutralityForever

3RR complaint about the IP

ANI complaint about the original sockpuppetry

The IP's block log

Block log of NeutralityForever

Block log of Entresasix

Protection log of Wage slavery. End - skip sievert (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)