I have two questions about Noam Chomsky
1. Is he right that wage slavery is no different than chattel slavery (plantations, etc.)
2. Is he right that socialist beliefs such as the belief that mill workers should own the mills were mainstream in America post civil war?
>>326777
but why would a Jew, who are stereotypically viewed as avaricious and power-loving, want socialism? that doesn't make sense.
>>326750
you're wrong.
1. he doesn't claim it's the same, but he says it's not much better.
2. notice that he uses actual evidence in support of this.
No and No
>>326959
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUzquEya6Lw&feature=player_detailpage#t=117
right here he says the idea makes sense and says its not much different
>>326750
>1. Is he right that wage slavery is no different than chattel slavery (plantations, etc.)
That's not his claim. All sorts of people made that criticism from Aristotle to Marx. Are they right? In principle, yeah: because the fruits of your labour are owned by your employer; that is, you make it but you don't own it, because your employer owned you while you made it.
>2. Is he right that socialist beliefs such as the belief that mill workers should own the mills were mainstream in America post civil war?
Maybe not "mainstream", but common.
>>327101
Next time read my post before you reply to it.
>>326840
did you read your own post
does power like some how not exist in a socialist economy
>>327137
probably less power, if in an anarchist/socialist economy like Chomsky describes since private ownership of corporations wouldn't exist money would be more widely distributed
>>327174
socialism is literal intellectual worship
the same basic human tendencies that make jews support capitalism make them step up on their pedestal to preach anything basically, so long as they get all the attention and fulfill their ego
>>327208
This isn't /pol/ you fucking fag.
>>327253
nah i hate /pol/ i just dont want to live in a world were the people who use the biggest words are considered le good guys
>>327264
>I hate /pol/
>but I still think jews are the problem
just leave
>>327283
they used "jews" earlier in the argument
i dont care if its fucking Illuminati lizard man
>>326750
>Is he right that wage slavery is no different than chattel slavery (plantations, etc.)
No. The worker consents to work and has the ability to work for someone else or not work at all.
>Is he right that socialist beliefs such as the belief that mill workers should own the mills were mainstream in America post civil war?
Nope.
>>327380
>The worker consents to work and has the ability to work for someone else or not work at all.
i.e, or you work at a meaningless job or you starve to death
The choice is yours
>>327648
There's no escape. Even if there were no civilization you would still have to work to get food.
>>327667
>Even if there were no civilization you would still have to work to get food.
Yes, people worked to get food and survive, but only in capitalism this work is alienated. The individual don't see himself in his work anymore. He is just an instrument for profit. His job can't be an individual manifestation anymore. If he wants to survive, the only way is to give himself to the capital. Because the capital logic is so infiltrated in all social relations that his choices became small, besides work for someone who treat he horribly or starve to death
The possibility to a true individuality is killed by capitalism
>>327791
>I grow my own food and live at a subsistence level, but at least I see myself in my work... or something!
>>327380
>The worker consents to work
>>327844
>no counter argument
>>327823
It's not that complicated. Before private property and capitalist modes of production people owned their labor. People didn't labor for a paycheck, they labored to produce something they'd use, and maybe trade anything made in excess. With private property, the only thing the vast majority of laborers and their descendant have is their labor to sell. They have to sell their labor or they die because no rent money, no food money, no money.
>>327854
>no counter argument
The counterargument is that work is an activity in which consent is irrelevant because if you don't do it, you will likely either die, be homeless, etc.
>>327854
Someone else already posted a counterargument, why would he need to post the same counterargument when he could just laugh?
>>327854
>no counter argument
>>327858
And we are all the more prosperous for it.
>>327854
So if I put a gun to your head and tell you to give me your money, if you obey it's not armed robbery right? I mean you did consent to give me your money.
>>327883
Why in japan people are literally refusing to have sex because they "don't have time" for it? Why suicide rates are so high in the most developed capitalist countries?
C'mon, alienation and the "wage slavery" is more complex than that.
>>327860
How does that make consent irrelevant? A slave is forced to do work by his master. A worker chooses to work for his boss. Does it make no difference whether someone is a slave or free?
>>327893
That is called coercion.
>>327895
That's your point?
If you knew anything about the cultural climate of Japan or the climate itself of countries with high rates of suicide it would be obvious why they have these particular problems.
>>327910
Yes, all. The rich are richer than ever and so are the poor.
>>327896
Does it make a difference whether one is forced by violence or by economic pressure? The obvious outcome of homelessness, starvation, etc. is a pressure that can be just as bad for the health of the person as being physically beaten.
>>327910
Yes, all of us. Lrn 2 Marx & Engels, LibSoc newfag
>>327934
The debate is about consent. This is a term that can only be applied to social situations. You may say a man is forced by nature to feed himself, but he is not coerced or unfree. These terms only apply to humans and their relations with other humans.
>>327949
It is a social situation because one individual or group owns the means by which other individuals can sustain themselves, and therefore possess greater social power.
>>327960
A worker's freedom is maintained by healthy competition between employers. The employer and the employee have a reciprocal relationship.
>>327920
>Social mobility decreasing
>Worker compensation decreasing
>Wages not keeping up with cost of living
>Wage gap increasing
>Unemployment increasing among youth, even college educated (including STEM fields)
>Retirement age increasing
>Average age of workforce increasing
>Over 50% of Americans qualify as Poor or Low Income
Yea great time for capitalism m8.
chomsky is good for one thing, his work in the field of linguistics
everything else he spews has been discredited
see Intellectuals and Society
>>327994
It's not. Interventionism is fucking us in the ass.
>>327986
There is some truth to that, but that argument is only completely true in the event that employers all have the means to employ a maximum number of employees, whereas there are limitations, and there will always be a large number who can't get employed by a certain employer.
>>328009
Employers is an economy are by definition always short on employees. Like all resources in an economy there is not enough to go around and fill every need. Hence, why there is competition for anything in the first place.
>>328022
You have it backwards, there is a shortage of employers. Employers cannot afford to employ everyone because if they did, then the demand for employees would be great enough that the salaries which need to be paid to hire them would be massive and would cause the company to go under. Likewise, the shortage would be a de-facto punishment for firing workers for lack of discipline.
>>328048
>Employers cannot afford to employ everyone
I assume you mean everyone they need.
If the salaries needed to hire everyone they need were enough to make the company go under then they would not employ all those people in the first place.
>>328048
Full employment was achieved in the 1950s and 1960s.
>>327883
We're all very much worse off, we just have shit tons of distractions that make it seem better.
>>328087
IIRC, Full employment in the US means an unemployment rate of about 4-6%.
>>328082
No, I mean that, if there was no unemployment, the costs of labor would rise to the point that the average salary would be too great.
>>328091
I love how all socialists can say today is that the world is terrible because the world isn't the way they exactly want it.
>>328148
I love how all you can do is spout muh socialist shit without actually making an argument.
An conversation can't be had on a single issue without simply disregarding the opposition and flinging shit.
>>328148
They say it's terrible because they have the mental fortitude to not realize that some people being able to buy a cheeseburger at 3 o'clock in the morning while the majority of people live in artificial poverty conditions isn't actually "better off". Unlike you they're able to think beyond their own dicks.
>>328209
You didn't make an argument either. You're just disregarding all of the good things we have these days due to capitalism as terrible just because they didn't come out of socialism.
>>328267
I'll try to address these quickly:
>Social mobility decreasing
Dunno if this is true, where did you get this information from?
Even so, social mobility by far is better in a market system. You can get promotions from multiple organisations, not just one.
>Worker compensation decreasing
Again, information?
>Wages not keeping up with cost of living
Yet again, information?
>>Wage gap increasing
Between men and women? In an increasingly liberal society, men and women can choose to do the jobs that they would like best and women happen to do less strenuous work and take on less hours.
>Unemployment increasing among youth, even college educated (including STEM fields)
Due to minimum wage laws and a recently poor management of the GFC under Obama, jobs are hard to find, yes.
>Retirement age increasing
We do have an aging population, and hell if we can afford paying for everyone's social security if it starts being payed at an early age.
>Average age of workforce increasing
Again, aging population.
>Over 50% of Americans qualify as Poor or Low Income
The welfare state and poor public schooling has destroyed the US's lower classes and has resigned them into poverty. How is this capitalism's fault?
>>328087
...when competition was slowly recovering from WWII while the US was untouched.
>>328243
Except that's not the complaint.
Capitalism is fantastic when it works. Unfortunately it's not eternal. The system will break. It's inherent to its very nature.
Eventually it will self predatorize (as its doing now and has been for the past 35~ years) and it will eventually lead to economic collapse.
But saying anything other than sucking capitalist cock makes you cry.
Who knew that bad things happen when people begin to believe that greed is good?
>>327949
Except this is all bullshit, your pic included. Yes we are coerced into being wageslave.
>try to live off the land by hunting and gathering
>literally get stopped by force of arms because I'm "poaching" and "trespassing"
Fuck you owners, you didn't make that land, why should it belong to you.
>>327208
>intellectual worship
>it's not scientism and technophiles burgeoning with new acolytes/fedoras on a daily basis hoping that the next 20 years will finally abolish human suffering
>instead it's an unpopular doctrine that some members of the humanities like, itself a field held in scorn by the aforementioned
>>328739
How am I crying?
Capitalism hasn't been ruining itself for the past 35 years. It actually got a lot better in the 1980s, but since then government has been strangling it.
You're saying capitalism's demise is inevitable, but by constitutionally limiting the powers of various government instituitions we will keep it alive and may even reverse the burden now placed upon it.
Also,
>greed
What society doesn't have greed?
>>329289
>Because every society, to some extent (NOT the same extent) actually permits greed in some ways, we should make no effort whatsoever to curb greed or to discourage it.
This is your fucking argument. I'm not the person you're replying to, but this point alone exposes you as asshole, and more importantly, an idiot.
>>329338
Perhaps, you're the idiot for trying to manipulate human nature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
Oh, and perhaps you're the asshole for calling me an asshole and an idiot.
>>329448
>Yes, this two minute YouTube will justify ALL of the greed endemic in modern society!
>Any attempt to control, or even REGULATE men's desire for paper money is doomed to failure!
Once again, this is your argument.
And yes, you are most certainly the idiot in this conversation.
>C-calling me a bad word make you a big meanie!
>But having absolutely no controls on human greed, essentially allowing terrible people to do what they want, is immoral!
Please kill yourself, sociopath.
We have enough of your kind in this world.
>>329500
Oh come on, I'm not saying greed is good, I'm just saying it's inevitable. No need to be so nasty.
What's your solution then, shoot all the greedy people?
There is no need to be so upset.
>>328756
Because we aren't animals you lefty scum
>>328756
>Fuck you owners, you didn't make that land, why should it belong to you.
They earned the right.
>>329699
>No need to be nasty.
Thankfully, I'll never be as nasty as you, because I'm actually a complete human.
>>329831
>implying
>>326750
>1. Is he right that wage slavery is no different than chattel slavery (plantations, etc.)
Well it's hard to call something "Slavery" if its done on a voluntary bases. Serfdom would be a better term but minus the generational impacts of it.
> Is he right that socialist beliefs such as the belief that mill workers should own the mills were mainstream in America post civil war?
Absolutely not. The collective ownership of anything is a retarted idea. See Collectivism vs Individualism. Then apply it to Economic Theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-8g5S0z5Y4
Milton Friedman destroys Chomsky's collective ideal here.
>>328756
>why should it belong to you.
Because I said so, my property.
>>329831
By doing what?
>>330947
>opposition to absentee ownership is part of a societal death wish
This is why I can't fucking stand this lunatic. He could be honest and just admit that he defends capitalism and greed because it's in his best interests and in the best interests of the status quo to do so. But instead he tries to make these ridiculous pseudo-intellectual arguments in defence of capitalism.
>Well it's hard to call something "Slavery" if its done on a voluntary bases
This is a perfect example. "Slavery" is a perfectly workable term that everyone understands, and you could just admit that you're okay with humans being exploited by other humans. But now we have fucknuts like you trying to redefine "slavery" and make it seem not so bad, as though selling myself into bondage is a perfectly reasonable human choice.
Classkeks are insufferable.
>>327994
>implying none of these were true before capitalism
>>331150
>pseudo-intellectual
So, a 100% recognized source and having a huge reputation for being a striving mind in understanding how economics works and because of such understanding received The John Bates Clark Medal for Economics, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, Presidential Medal of Freedom for his work in Economics, and National Medal of Science in Economics.
But more importantly, your argument is "I disagree with him because I believe he is lying."
Notice also that your picture is a strawman. Milton Friedman never said that "Billionaires where 'job creators.'" He questioned "what produces" and "what creates results." From your response, you didn't watch the clip.
Definition of Slavey you idiot. According to the Oxford English Dictionary
>1: (Historical) A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. (vassal, thrall)
>2: A person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation (Synonyms: Drudge, Lackey, Minion)
>3: A person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something (devotee, worshiper, adherent, fan, lover, aficionado)
You are a fucking idiot because when you are hired at a company you have the choice to say "Yes, I'll work for this company" or "No fuck that I am worth more" or "I'll start my own business."
Serfdom, was an agreed upon contract between the serf and (back in olden days) Lord to harvest the land for compensation whether is money or usage of a small portion to grow crops of your own.
You
Are
A
Moron
>>331392
You're arguing semantics rather than the actual issue which is in reality "fuck that I'm worth more" or "I'll just start my own business" aren't actually feasible choices for the every day man. Which is even stupider when considering minimum wage jobs HAVE to be done regardless.
So all you're really saying is its okay for an employer to say either you work for these shitty conditions or ill find somebody who will. IE slave wage.
Secondly the definitions of Slavery provided perfectly work within the context of the argument as >(2) A Person who works hard without proper remuneration or appreciation...
Is easily seen across the board. If minimum wage was directly tied to workplace productivity it would be at about $17 an hour yet that certainly isn't the case.
So according to the definition you posted Capitalism as it stands is slavery.
>>331738
Oxford Dictionary again
>An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
You are abusing the definiton of slavery because slavery requires that the parties in question have no control. You utter mong. Secondly as per definiton 2, compensation is not flat. A person living in California has a vastly different set of needs than a person in Florida. Again you are a moron.
>workplace productivity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHm7P4TA97U
I will cut this off here because this is detracting from the topic at hand. Which is OP's discussion points. Nothing about minimum wage. Nothing about what this will delve into (which you will lose) and let the discussion of Noam Chomsky continue.
>>331392
>So, a 100% recognized source and having a huge reputation for being a striving mind in understanding how economics works and because of such understanding received The John Bates Clark Medal for Economics, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, Presidential Medal of Freedom for his work in Economics, and National Medal of Science in Economics.
Fucking yes. >muh appeals to authority
>But more importantly, your argument is "I disagree with him because I believe he is lying."
No it isn't you fucking manchild.
>Notice also that your picture is a strawman
You don't know what that word means. My picture is mocking your shit-eating asslickery.
>Milton Friedman never said that "Billionaires where 'job creators.
I know that. You moron.
>Definition of Slavey you idiot. According to the Oxford English Dictionary
FUCKING EXACTLY. And here you are trying to tell me that someone who is legal property and forced to obey someone can somehow be NOT a slave, as long as they consent to it. Jesus Christ you're thick.
>You are a fucking idiot because when you are hired at a company you have the choice to say "Yes, I'll work for this company" or "No fuck that I am worth more" or "I'll start my own business."
This is a separate, almost as retarded argument which makes it apparent that you don't read much.
>Serfdom, was an agreed upon contract between the serf and (back in olden days) Lord to harvest the land for compensation whether is money or usage of a small portion to grow crops of your own.
And now, as if to prove my point, you're literally defending serfdom. Serfdom is a perfectly moral system as far as you're concerned.
You are a sphincter of a human being.
>>328756
>>329755
>>327949
We can't live off nature's bounty this way because there's far too many people on this planet. The very structure of civilization requires work, most likely as an employee. I don't endorse the concept of wage slavery, but I don't think you're really engaging him or getting the point.
>>330778
>time to act superior and not argue anymore
Yeah, you sound like a very nice human being.
>>330960
Private Property is a spook tho
>>327986
There's always a surplus of desperate people to compete against as an employee, which gets larger the less specialized the work is. This is why organizations such as unions exist to pool collective bargaining power.
>The employer and employee have a reciprocal arrangement.
Yes, but one in which the employer is inherently advantaged.
>>335566
Only if you regard it as sacred. Each egoist can use their might to defend what is theirs, and determine whether it shall remain theirs.
>>330947
>Well it's hard to call something "Slavery" if its done on a voluntary bases.
Not really, there's contractual slavery and indentured servitude. The main thing that distinguishes wage labor from slavery is that you aren't the legal property of your boss; you can walk off the job at any time.
>The collective ownership of anything is a retarted idea.
Cooperative enterprises have done well in the past. There's a mill in Nanaimo, British Columbia that managed to become profitable after its workers bought it.
>>327999
>chomsky is good for one thing, his work in the field of linguistics
everything else he spews has been discredited
see Intellectuals and Society
Lol. "Discredited". I'm sure.
>>334137
>>328756
>>329755
>>327949
>We can't live off nature's bounty this way because there's far too many people on this planet.
What are you talking about? Since when does population size justify wage labor? Can you actually substantiate your claim that there's too little to go around or are you just emptily passing off talking points?
>The very structure of civilization requires work, most likely as an employee.
That's like saying the "Very structure" of society requires manual labor from slaves. The fact that labor is required to procure the necessities of human life is in no way shape or form a justification for the system of wage labor.
t's a post Hoc rationalization. And not one that survives any kind of basic intellectual examination.
> I don't endorse the concept of wage slavery, but I don't think you're really engaging him or getting the point.
And what point would that be? That because human beings need food in order to survive, they necessarily HAVE to be wage slaves?
That's makes no sense whatsoever. He's passing off a false dilemma as if it were some kind of deep philosophical insight.
It's not. It's stupid. There's absolutely no reason to think that human labor hierarchies should have to exist as wage labor.
>>326750
>1. Is he right that wage slavery is no different than chattel slavery (plantations, etc.)
Nope, one is consensual the other is coercive.
>2. Is he right that socialist beliefs such as the belief that mill workers should own the mills were mainstream in America post civil war?
kek is this what he really thinks?
>chimpsky
>intellectual
>>326750
>1. Is he right that wage slavery is no different than chattel slavery (plantations, etc.)
No, obviously
>2. Is he right that socialist beliefs such as the belief that mill workers should own the mills were mainstream in America post civil war?
While they existed, they were not mainstream by any means
Remember - Chomsky is, in effect, a persona, an act, that earns the man a great deal of money from the gullibility of college students and Leftists
>>333250
Not anon, but yes - Feudalism was a perfectly acceptable, moral system the vast majority of its existence.
Hell, people had more freedom, more leisure, better diet, and lower taxes than any modern Democracy!
>>326750
Wait
There are people who take Chomsky seriously outside of linguistics?
Kek that's beautiful
>>336526
I agree.
The best part?
He *publicly admits* he doesn't believe the stuff he spouts and STILL has people lined up to pay him thousands to tell it to them in person!
>>327893
It's funny that you just described the USSR and Maoist China.
>>335549
Compared to you, I am.
>>327949
We are coerced by nature. You owe nothing to nature and nature never did anything good for you on propose.
You really are oppressed. You can change that to a degree.
Take control of nature or grovel in the mud like a beast.
>>326750
1. yes of course.
2. I dont really know.
>>336489
>consensual
Who would fucking clean toilets if he is not pushed by needs?
>>336625
So what's the alternative, just give him money?
Welfare has done wonders for the poor, hasn't it?
>>336643
we are not talking about alternatives. We are talking wheter is coersive or consensual.
>>336658
I would say it's consensual because a toilet cleaner and a toilet owner are voluntarily doing business together. If you must say it's coercive because that person most likely has no alternatives, it is not the toilet owner that is coercing him, but the will to live.
>>327083
>your employer owned you
It would be more correct to say your employer rents you than that he owns you. It's easy to make the argument that this is still pretty shitty, but they aren't precisely the same thing.
>>327380
>The worker consents to work and has the ability to work for someone else or not work at all.
>Not working at all is an option.
>The recognition that not working is not an option doesn't cause a race to the bottom in all employee-side benefits.
>inb4 luxurious welfare lifestyle
>>327083
>owned
Oh jesus christ, he paid for your time. Hr paid for a service, he paid for your labour.
He isn't buying your life, he isn't stealing the fruita of your labour (you are being compensated for your SHARE in the endeavour, just like his SHARE is the profit, and the marketers get their SHARE, anf the fucking product designers and engineers get their SHARES)
>>336740
to make the labour the worker spends time. Life is the time we have left. Therefore he is buying life.
Also the "share" of the worker is not from the profits.
>>327791
>>327858
>only in capitalism is work alienated
Early states disagree with you, unless you'd characterize taxes and corvee labor as products of the market rather than the state. Capitalism as it exists today is relatively new, but sedentary agriculture was prone to exploitation by a militarized elite from the start.
>Before private property and capitalist modes of production people owned their labor
>Before property
>people owned
>>327823
>>327883
>subsistence level
Pre-state societies could and did (and still do) produce surpluses, usually as a hedge against sporadic droughts and famines. Not with the intensity of states, but it's not a bad life. You're likely to have more free time, more sex, a wider skill base, usually there's less hierarchy even in the small scale that you actually interact with.
>And we are all the more prosperous for it.
Legitimately debatable. The pre-state to state transition was shitty across the board, but late states with markets have achieved some gains. How you assess them depends heavily on what you value.
Reminder that Chomsky denies the Khmer Rouge and Sbrenica Genocide.
Also lol, Universal Grammar has been totally discredited.
How can one man be so [spoiler]FUCKING STUPID[/spoiler]
>>328739
>Eventually it will self predatorize (as its doing now and has been for the past 35~ years) and it will eventually lead to economic collapse.
Technological progress results in major shifts in labor markets. Population curves in first-world countries (not counting immigration) are mostly low positive, flat, or negative. This would create a sustainable labor market with increasing automation.
And as we would see in the future, there's going to be a home market for manufacturing, like with 3D printers today. Eventually it will result in some things being essentially free (i.e. stuff made by robots), and the economy will shift back to mostly trading raw materials (as it was in the pre-industrial era).
All of this would naturally happen if we weren't so focused on maintaining our current way (which is becoming increasingly difficult each year).
>>336532
>He *publicly admits* he doesn't believe the stuff he spouts and STILL has people lined up to pay him thousands to tell it to them in person!
Really?
>>336526
Yes, mainly butthurt hippies.
Cambodian genocide denial tends to ruin any credibility that you might have.
>>327949
I like the butthurt this post is causing, very delicious
>>336961
>Reminder that Chomsky denies the Khmer Rouge and Sbrenica Genocide.
I don't know about the Sbrenica one, but he doesn't deny the Khmer Rouge genocide. He did when it was first coming to light, dismissing it as anti-communist propaganda, and he still believes that conclusion was logical given the available information (and so, unlike many intellectuals of the time, has not apologized for his denial), but he doesn't deny it.
>there are people ITT so entitled that they believe they deserve everything handed to them simply because they exist and don't want to put the required work in to earn those necessities
>there are people ITT that genuinely believe their rights should exist for no reason
>there are people ITT that believe the world is fair
>there are people ITT that believe the world SHOULD be fair
I'm not sure who's spooking who anymore.
>>338969
You forgot:
>there are people ITT that believe the world CAN be fair
>>338779
>Millions of people dying in the USSR
>Millions of people dying in China
>some people die in Cambodia
Must be imperialist propaganda!
Can't stomp the chomp.
>>341096
The world is only "fair" if you force it to be, and defend whatever it is that's keeping your rights intact. Many people have not experienced this security falling apart around them because there are others there providing it for them, and therefore assume it exists for no reason.
>>333250
>appeals to authority fallacy
A person who claims to be an expert.
Not appeals to a person who IS an expert.
You need to read up on that to get it correct. Cannot remember the name of the shock test but it applies because the person LOOKED like a Dr and a person of Authority.
Rest of your argument is terribad because you resort to ad homn tactics and do not provide evidence to support which boils down to sophistry. Nice rage quit champ.
Finally on Serfdom, no I was not "defending serfdom," you have a terrible habit of putting words in my mouth.
>>335598
I should have clarified about when I used "Collective Ownership." I was in reference to ownership via the state as "collective." To which I will say my bad. Now collective ownership via where you point out is a fine. Union (by union I mean the group of workers and managers working apart of said business) ownership of companies and business' are fine as long as they maintain within the confines of their business. The downsides to this though is that the individual maybe ignored. The problems of individuals may not be addressed as well as it could be because unions are more worried about the collective than the parts. That's more of moral issues rather than anything else.
Am I against unionization of workers?
No, that's absurd to deny people to form a collective committee to express their concerns but it's needed to be understand that not everyone's issue within the collective be addressed.
>>336504
Holy shit someone else whose read up on serfdom!
Moreover thanks for pointing that out. Took what I was going to say.
>>326750
the belief that workers should own the plants they work in was popular among most working class back in 19. and early 20. century
thats why fascism happened, as a preemtive action
Why the fuck does everyone here seem to hate work? It really is not that bad.
1. No. If your money goes into mortgage its not slavery, its only slavery if you are paying rent
