Take a step back for a moment. The point your making is that wage slavery shouldn't exist as an interesting or separate category because all organisms have to work to live. This is like saying that sex trafficking isn't conceptually important because species must reproduce to survive. It's so wildly beyond the pale that it's difficult to categorize it as a particular breech of logic other than simply and fundamentally confused.
> Take a step back for a moment. The point your making is that wage slavery shouldn't exist as an interesting or separate category because all organisms have to work to live.
I am saying that extending the definition of slavery to simply include any process that is being thrust upon a living being is idiotic. All living beings are required to perform labor to live. Performing labor for wages is an extension of that that fits within a human framework. Rather than individually performing all the requirements to live by creating your own shelter, making sure that you stay warm, hunting other animals or gathering edible berries, nuts, and the like, we've figured out a way to more efficiently divide the labor and abstracted away the notion of labor into something called money (or wages). It enables human beings to use their time more efficiently and is why we are such a successful species.
No, you're not enslaved because you feel like you have to work for a wage. Unless you are being coerced by another person into performing labor for them (with or without compensation), you are not being enslaved. External natural forces like going hungry or going cold are not acts of coercion. That is simply life.
> This is like saying that sex trafficking isn't conceptually important because species must reproduce to survive.
I'm not sure how you extrapolated this, either. To quote you, "It's so wildly beyond the pale that it's difficult to categorize it as a particular breech of logic other than simply and fundamentally confused."
2) in a way that instead of simply rebutting, attempts get more curious instead.
The response simply isn't very hacker newsy and it's coming across that you simply don't like Marxism so I must be wrong. Please take the emotional reaction out of it. Thanks.
I don't like Marxism but it shouldn't come across as me simply disliking Marxism. I've provided plenty of ideas supporting why I disagree with both Marx and you that you are more than welcome to respond to (so far, you've chosen not to).
Your original comment was worthwhile responding to, but the rest have largely been performative rhetoric. If you don't have any actual refutations to my ideas, then please refrain from responding at all.
Likewise, but please refute things you're actually familiar with. You've been arguing against what you think Marx has said rather than what he actually said. I think you could make some really compelling arguments against Marxism, but it would require you to read something you disagree with. You come across as a rational and intelligent person. I think you're fully capable of reading something you dislike in order to craft better arguments against it.
I think you'd have better luck by explaining your ideas further, rather than simply trying to associate ideas with emotionally charged words like 'slavery' or 'sex trafficking' by writing them next to things you dislike.
This analogy got me thinking, but only for a little bit.
Similarity: people are forced to do things which they would not choose to do. (Different form would be preferable or for some none).
Difference: level of freedom. Wage slave can choose a lot (whom to slave, what to do with the wage, if to change occupation or if to invest).
Sex trafficked person has far fewer options.
