[civeng]

The battle between the modern 'Left' and 'Right' is pure theater. It’s a false choice designed to keep us arguing over who holds the leash while we remain wage slaves. It would be interesting if some of those individuals could have been more convincing 150 years ago

[poly2it]

Yes, it is a false dichotomy, and politics are in fact much more complicated than that.

[rc_kas]

Yep. The real battle is wealthies vs poors.

Everything else is just propaganda.

[thrance]

So, the left is right?

[nec4b]

Not true, the battle between wealthy and poor is the propaganda. In reality where revolution did occur, poor were used to battle the rich, so the communist party could enrich it self. By destroying the rich, they also destroyed the economy and made poor even poorer.

[nyc_data_geek1]

No war but class war

[was8309]

maybe i'm doing a No True Scotsman, but i can't see where the Left has ever been against the poors. I thought the the origin of the terms Left and Right was For Democracy (the poors have a voice), and For the King (the wealthies) from the French Revolution. How is 'wealthies vs poors' different from left vs right'?

[civeng]

I appreciate the acknowledgement ofthe 'No True Scotsman' trap. It is easy to define a side by its ideals (e.g., 'The Left is for the poor'), but the reality is that both sides muck it up the moment they take control.

Neither side actually supports the poor because both are funded by and literally are the wealthy masters. The evidence is in the trends/facts that for almost 50 years the wealth gap has only widened, regardless of who is in charge. At some point, we have to accept that the 'which side is right' argument is false.

[defrost]

Neither of the two major parties in US politics supports the poor.

Elsewhere there are broader choices in national politics.

eg: the current Prime Minister of Australia grew up with a single mother on a disability pension in council housing. His actions and politics are at least informed by real life experience as one of "the poor".

[cassianoleal]

Brazil’s President faced famine as a child, lost a pinky in a factory accident and is a life-long union leader.

[slibhb]

The term "wage slave" is a cop-out. People -- all of us -- are stomach-slaves, not wage-slaves.

[solatic]

Having needs is not the same as slavery. Wage slavery is described as such because of the power imbalance between employer and worker, who has limited agency to find another employer, with whom he would also have a relationship with a power imbalance.

A wealthy man who receives a check for dividends and interest most months is not subject to such power imbalances. Wealth makes him free.

It's not an argument that socialism would enable people to just live off a public dividend, so to speak. Somebody has to work, and workplaces require discipline. Rather it's an argument for better labor safety controls, and a personal appeal to people to save as much money as they can.

[WalterBright]

I've been an employer. I didn't have any power over my employees. If there was anything they didn't like, they simply stopped coming to work. How was I supposed to make them show up?

One embezzled a large amount of money and spent it on drugs. What was I supposed to do about that? He was broke, he couldn't pay the money back. All I could do was tell him to not come back.

I've also been employed at minimum wage jobs, and salaried jobs. I never felt the employer had power over me. At my salaried jobs, my coworkers complained about all the power the company had over them. The company had no power over me, so I would ask them what the power was. After some long conversations, the problem was the coworkers spent every dime of their income. So not having a paycheck for a week was a catastrophe. The company, however, was unaware of these issues.

I recommend saving up to 6 months of living expenses, and then the employer will have no leverage over you.

[freefaler]

A lot of people forget that going hungry is the default state of not doing a thing. The super rich and socially progressive societies redistribute the taxes they levy on the productive people to help the people who can not (elderly, ill) or won't (lazy bastards) work. It might be a better deal for the society as a whole, to offset the cirme that would ensue if there isn't any social net.

A lion in the plains of Africa is not entitled to a dinner, the farmer in not entitled to a crop yield. It is super rare that people can't do anything to better themselves and get more for their own skills or execution. Any buisness owner will gladly share a percentage of profit you generate for them if you can show them you're indeed generating such profit.

If you're in DPRK or Cuba then you'd need to check your free-market priviledge of having a market for your skills.

[WalterBright]

> to offset the cirme that would ensue if there isn't any social net.

The recent news from Minnesota suggests that the social safety net is a magnet for astonishing levels of theft.

[freefaler]

It's not the social safety, but the bad enforcement of the law. When bad acts are not punished, this is the problem that occurs.

Some social systems like in Israel if you're ablebodied you are given a public service job, like cleaning the park and etc... so you aren't entitled to a check for doing nothing.

South Africa hasn't any meaningful social net and the wealthy people live in special "high security" enclaves with additional guards and fenced perimeters. If you have a lot of hungry people on the street they will be forced to survive somehow and you'd get more crime.

[civeng]

This is part of the false dichotomy you are not understanding. It's not actually a valid choice if there are no options. And that is what this is actually about, understanding how we have no good options, and what to do about it. I recommend start digging in and we all question or own understanding and acceptance of the system. Is it actually working with even a simple majority in the best position we can be?

Currently employing 130 wage slaves and unduly profiting from their margins, and not satisfied with the overall system at all.

[WalterBright]

If you are a US citizen in the US, you have options. There's absolutely nothing an employer can do to force them to stay.

[civeng]

I understand your point that a typical US citizen has options where they work.

My point is when all options include wage slavery it's not an actual option. That's it, a false dichotomy.

And that is what the OP is about. It's exploring a fundamentally different system which I understand is scary.

[Aloha]

that may be so, but a stack of bills or small bag of coins is sure easier to cart around than things I can eat are.

[IAmBroom]

It's 30F outside right now, and I can live a lot longer without food than without shelter.

You are just playing at word games. The system is trapping the have-nots into unpleasant, lifelong conditions, and that's what "wage slave" means. As you know.