Suppose someone was born out in the forest, and there were no cities, no societies, no technology. Would you call that person a sustenance slave? Would you say that their foraging was involuntary?
> Suppose someone was born out in the forest, and there were no cities, no societies, no technology. Would you call that person a sustenance slave? Would you say that their foraging was involuntary?
No, they are not a slave because they have no master except nature.
A wage slave has at least one master: his boss and the system that forces him to work for one.
The difference lies in the fundamental difference between natural law and synthetic human systems. Entropy isn't your master, it's a fact of your own existence.
By contrast, the present economic system is a synthetic construct made by other humans to exploit you, designed with largely that purpose, co-opting your biological needs for coercive power, and doesn't necessarily need to happen.
That's what makes one slavery and the other not.
The difference is so obvious, I actually am confused why you think conflating physics with political norms was appropriate.
Most of society (and the wage slave concept) is about human farming.
would you say you are a farmer or livestock?
That's right, and it's a shame it's been downvoted.