With regards to the literal definition of slavery I would argue it is not only restricted to chattel slavery, since that would deny most cases of forced and unfree labour. That someone can control a person, effectively owning them, without a mandate from any government or law is precisely the point. It shows the need for a more democratic approach to work and makes evident a discrepancy within self proclaimed free and democratic societies. That is what I think is the point being made by OP, not to belittle those who live under oppressive dictatorships (which is horrible and often an order of magnitude worse), but to remind those that don’t that for big parts of their lives they are not truly free themselves either.
I understand what’s being said, I just don’t find it valid or useful. People’s choices being limited is not to be equated with slavery. Someone having influence over someone is not to be equated with slavery. Living in a dictatorship is not to be equated with slavery. Slavery is slavery and working at a job is neither slavery nor living in a dictatorship.
Further, democracy is not some absolute freedom void of all controlling influence from others. Choices are limited under democracy too. I think the word you’re looking for is anarchy.
It is more than fair to disagree, after all there is somewhat an hyperbole hidden behind wordings like “a form of slavery”. However, I do think the sentiment is an important one: that freedom and democracy are usually exempt from our work lives, even if we are living in democratic countries, and that it does not need to be as such.
I have more chance of rising to a position of influence at my job than in our democracy.
I can leave or join these “dictatorships” easily.
My dictator takes my questions in public weekly and make a good faith effort to answer them. My democratic leader spams me texts asking for money.
My dictatorship works very hard to make sure that everyone is treated with respect regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. and they fire people for sexual harassment. My “democracy” is full of gerrymandering and many other forms of institutional racism. Sexual predators walk the halls of power.
My dictatorship reviews everyone’s pay annually to ensure that we do t have pay inequities along those lines. They also lift any wages that are below living wage. My dictatorship pays my healthcare where my “democracy” steadfastly refuses to take care of fundamental basics.
Anyway…. The idea that a corporation is nothing but nonstop rain down of executive decisions is also wrong. Small teams and groups are absolutely leaders as well. They know their area best and propose things to do in that area. They are accountable to the executives, who need to balance all needs and keep people from building little empires off in the corner. But the executives never tell us what to do in our area. We tell them what we’re going to do and what more they should fund. We don’t have dictator power, but the point is neither so they.
So really, just no. I know this “work is a dictatorship” meme is appealing to a teenager working in retail but it’s a childish metaphor. I do happen to have an extraordinarily good job and I have risen to a mid level of authority there so I don’t feel like a powerless drone. That’s not true for everyone. But neither is the teenage angst.
You could also say families are dictatorships since parents make the important decisions and can’t be overridden by kids. But you’d be stupid to look at it that way and ignore the nonstop care and consideration and support that the parents shower on their kids, while they blunder about selfishly and oblivious.
I am sorry, but your take seems to be highly influenced by your own privileges and willful ignorance. You talk about your job opportunities and benefits within your organization, ignoring that I wrote
This is true for most people, but not all.
meaning you are obviously in the fortunate group, and your anecdotal stories are consequently irrelevant to the points being made about the less fortunate one.
The idea that only edgy teenagers who hate hard and honest work can get behind this sentiment is plain reductionist and false. Furthermore, if I understand you correctly from
My “democracy” is full of gerrymandering and many other forms of institutional racism. Sexual predators walk the halls of power.
I would guess you are an American, and if so I hope you are aware that your institutions are deeply flawed and in a lot of cases really undemocratic, which makes the particular comparisons you make to your job even less apt.
You also get a little into the issue of the often strong hierarchical structures of family and other form of tribes, which is actually of some relevance in the question of freedom, but totally besides the point with respect to democracy in the workplace. I am not telling you that your job sucks, I am just stating that there are jobs that suck and that they are mostly filled with underprivileged people, many of whom are there precisely due to lack of options. That is really one of the main issues that socialism tries to answer: equal opportunity for all. Because, although you may not like it, your success and others lack of it is not purely meritocratic and just.
There are socioeconomic factors that far exceed the impact of skills and socialism, workplace democracy and the likes is more just, more moral and gives greater opportunity for all than a capitalist society such as the US. Thinking otherwise is laughable and you being a reactionary content with status quo is unsurprising given your self-proclaimed privilege.
With regards to the literal definition of slavery I would argue it is not only restricted to chattel slavery, since that would deny most cases of forced and unfree labour. That someone can control a person, effectively owning them, without a mandate from any government or law is precisely the point. It shows the need for a more democratic approach to work and makes evident a discrepancy within self proclaimed free and democratic societies. That is what I think is the point being made by OP, not to belittle those who live under oppressive dictatorships (which is horrible and often an order of magnitude worse), but to remind those that don’t that for big parts of their lives they are not truly free themselves either.
I understand what’s being said, I just don’t find it valid or useful. People’s choices being limited is not to be equated with slavery. Someone having influence over someone is not to be equated with slavery. Living in a dictatorship is not to be equated with slavery. Slavery is slavery and working at a job is neither slavery nor living in a dictatorship.
Further, democracy is not some absolute freedom void of all controlling influence from others. Choices are limited under democracy too. I think the word you’re looking for is anarchy.
It is more than fair to disagree, after all there is somewhat an hyperbole hidden behind wordings like “a form of slavery”. However, I do think the sentiment is an important one: that freedom and democracy are usually exempt from our work lives, even if we are living in democratic countries, and that it does not need to be as such.
I have more chance of rising to a position of influence at my job than in our democracy.
I can leave or join these “dictatorships” easily.
My dictator takes my questions in public weekly and make a good faith effort to answer them. My democratic leader spams me texts asking for money.
My dictatorship works very hard to make sure that everyone is treated with respect regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. and they fire people for sexual harassment. My “democracy” is full of gerrymandering and many other forms of institutional racism. Sexual predators walk the halls of power.
My dictatorship reviews everyone’s pay annually to ensure that we do t have pay inequities along those lines. They also lift any wages that are below living wage. My dictatorship pays my healthcare where my “democracy” steadfastly refuses to take care of fundamental basics.
Anyway…. The idea that a corporation is nothing but nonstop rain down of executive decisions is also wrong. Small teams and groups are absolutely leaders as well. They know their area best and propose things to do in that area. They are accountable to the executives, who need to balance all needs and keep people from building little empires off in the corner. But the executives never tell us what to do in our area. We tell them what we’re going to do and what more they should fund. We don’t have dictator power, but the point is neither so they.
So really, just no. I know this “work is a dictatorship” meme is appealing to a teenager working in retail but it’s a childish metaphor. I do happen to have an extraordinarily good job and I have risen to a mid level of authority there so I don’t feel like a powerless drone. That’s not true for everyone. But neither is the teenage angst.
You could also say families are dictatorships since parents make the important decisions and can’t be overridden by kids. But you’d be stupid to look at it that way and ignore the nonstop care and consideration and support that the parents shower on their kids, while they blunder about selfishly and oblivious.
Dictatorship! To arms! Just… laughable!
I am sorry, but your take seems to be highly influenced by your own privileges and willful ignorance. You talk about your job opportunities and benefits within your organization, ignoring that I wrote
meaning you are obviously in the fortunate group, and your anecdotal stories are consequently irrelevant to the points being made about the less fortunate one.
The idea that only edgy teenagers who hate hard and honest work can get behind this sentiment is plain reductionist and false. Furthermore, if I understand you correctly from
I would guess you are an American, and if so I hope you are aware that your institutions are deeply flawed and in a lot of cases really undemocratic, which makes the particular comparisons you make to your job even less apt.
You also get a little into the issue of the often strong hierarchical structures of family and other form of tribes, which is actually of some relevance in the question of freedom, but totally besides the point with respect to democracy in the workplace. I am not telling you that your job sucks, I am just stating that there are jobs that suck and that they are mostly filled with underprivileged people, many of whom are there precisely due to lack of options. That is really one of the main issues that socialism tries to answer: equal opportunity for all. Because, although you may not like it, your success and others lack of it is not purely meritocratic and just.
There are socioeconomic factors that far exceed the impact of skills and socialism, workplace democracy and the likes is more just, more moral and gives greater opportunity for all than a capitalist society such as the US. Thinking otherwise is laughable and you being a reactionary content with status quo is unsurprising given your self-proclaimed privilege.
Well I’m very sorry for not meeting your expectation that exceptional cases should sit quietly instead of making themselves heard.