Sure wish I could downvote an article. All employment is inherently slavery? That's just male cow droppings.
Don't you understand that we all inherently have blind spots based on where we come from? The idea that work has to be alright because everyone does it is exactly what people used to say about slavery and overt subjugation of women. People still say it's bullshit that we should concern ourselves with the environmental impacts of what we do.
It's easy to call something bullshit, but philosophers for centuries have suggested that wage labor is better described as wage slavery. It is a legitimate idea and one worth considering. You're quick to dismiss the idea but slow to provide alternative suggestions for how we might be able to end the forced misery of the working class.
I sure do. You might have them, too.
> philosophers for centuries have suggested that wage labor is better described as wage slavery.
I'm sure they have. That doesn't make it "a legitimate idea and one worth considering". Philosophers have said lots of other things over the years, too, many of them patently absurd. You need a better proof than "(some) philosophers have said it".
Can we make work better than it is? Probably yes. Does over-the-top rhetoric make it more likely to happen? No, it makes it less likely. It just gets you classified as a Marxist shill, and regarded as already discredited. If you want anything to actually change, screaming out absurd overheated rhetoric isn't a path likely to succeed. Instead, it gets you ignored.
I don't know that the term "legitimate" has any real meaning, but when it comes to making a useful contribution, I suspect that Marxist theory will make about the same contribution to employment that it has made to agriculture, industrial production, journalism, civil liberties....
Marxism has influenced so many fields wherever it has gone, and if you like what it has done to these fields, it's reasonable to assume that it could have a similar impact on paid employment arrangements.
For me, though, that's not an encouraging thought. I've seen enough of the destruction that results when Marxist theory is applied to real people to conclude that whatever the problems with paid employment, good answers will not come from Marxism.
1) The argument that an employee is a 'slave' and 'dominated' by the employer would work the other way, as well. The author says "A worker must obey the boss, or ultimately lose the job." You could say this about the reverse, too: "A boss must obey his worker, or ultimately the worker will quit" If the boss fires the worker, the worker has to find a new job. If the worker quits, the boss has to find a new worker. Now, there are a lot of good arguments as to why the power dynamic is not equal between a worker and a boss, but it isn't an a priori fact like this author makes it seem.
2) The ideas about value are non-sensical. No one argues that things have a universal agreed upon value, nor does economics rely on that idea. Yes, the value of something varies from person to person, but that very fact is what allows an economy to function at all! If everything had equal value to everyone, then no one would ever make any transaction. The value of something TO A PARTICULAR PERSON is exactly equal to what they would be willing to trade for it. The idea that "In a barter system, for an exchange to be fair, the value of the exchanged goods and services must be equal. However, value is unknowable, therefore barter falls apart on practical grounds" is totally not true. Each person knows exactly what they are willing to trade for some good r service. In fact, this idea is non-sensical just from observation; obviously barter does not fall apart on practical grounds, because every single society on earth practices it. Put a group of people together with some goods, and a barter economy will develop. See any prison for an example.
These are just two examples of the ridiculousness of the author's argument. There are countless more.
I mean, look, one could perhaps make such a claim, and make a reasoned case for it. The article doesn't do that. It doesn't even try. It merely defines work to be slavery, and quotes some people who agree. That's not proof, not evidence, and not very convincing. It's just rhetoric.
So the author dogmatically makes an assertion. That and a buck will get you a Coke at McDonald's. If you want me to listen, though, you're going to have to do a lot better than that.
[Edit: The article did give some reasons. They're dogmatic generalizations that are so far removed from my experience of work that I completely dismissed them as mere rhetoric.]
The article lays out a perspective. You dont have to agree with that perspective but you sure need to do better than keep saying its not true.
To SOME. available to SOME.