Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

“The three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates, and a monthly salary.”
― Nassim Nicholas Taleb

“Laziness can be a value on its own for those who want to show supremacy through contempt for work and wish to be free individuals by fighting the enslavement to labor. While they don’t want to become dependent on ‘wage slaveryâ€� and their livelihood only hinges on salaries, they feel confined to a social stratification, causing a collective stigma that results in poverty and underfeeding. (The daily job)”
― Erik Pevernagie

“Well, I think that what used to be called, centuries ago, "wage slavery" is intolerable. And I don't think people ought to be forced to rent themselves in order to survive. I think that the economic institutions ought to be run democratically, by their participants, by the communities in which they exist, and so on; and I think basically through various kinds of free association.”
― Noam Chomsky

“Think it over and see if it is not the law itself, the government which really creates crime by compelling people to live in conditions that make them bad. See how law and government uphold and protect the biggest crime of all, the mother of all crimes, the capitalistic wage system, and then proceeds to punish the poor criminal.”
― Alexander Berkman, Now & After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism

“A job often makes it impossible for an employee to enjoy something it makes possible for them to do or have.”
― Mokokoma Mokhonoana

“Here's what I don't get: when you're growing up, you get told that America's all about the individual, built on individualism, you get to be who you want to be, etc. But it only goes so far.
You get out of school and you're supposed to go back to being a good little girl and find your job and fit in and follow the rules and it all makes me want to...”
― Doug Dorst, S.

“...justice cannot live in a society which tolerates economic inequality and exploitation.”
― Isiah Berlin

“you didn't adjust, you simply got more and more tired”
― Charles Bukowski, Post Office

“are you not slaves to the money power as much as were the black slaves to the Southern slaveholders? Then we ask you again: What are you going to do about it? You had the ballot then. Could you have voted away black slavery? You know you could not because the slaveholders would not hear of such a thing for the same reason you can’t vote yourselves out of wage-slavery.”
― Lucy Parsons

“Justice, solidarity, freedom, equal rights—these are all ideas that come straight out of the Enlightenment. In fact, out of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is very anti-capitalist, contrary to what everybody says. And classical liberal and Enlightenment ideals lead in a very direct path, I think, to what was called libertarian socialism, or anarchism, or something like that.

The idea is that people have a fundamental core right and need to be free and creative, not under external constraints. Any form of authority requires legitimation. The burden of proof is always on an authoritarian structure, whatever it may be, whether it's owning people, sex-linked, or even child-parent relationships. Any form of authority has to be challenged. Sometimes they can be justified, and maybe in that case, okay, you live with them. But for the most part, not.

That would then lead quite directly to what were kind of truisms about a century ago. I mean, now they sound really crazy because there's been such a deterioration of values. But if you look at the thinking of just ordinary people, like say the working-class press in the mid-19th century, which grew where the ideas just grew out of the same soil—Enlightenment, classical liberal soil—the ideas are clear. Obviously, people should not be machines. They shouldn't be tools of production. They shouldn't be ordered around. We don't want chattel slavery, you know, like black slaves in the South, but we also don't want what was called, since the 18th century, wage slavery, which is not very different. Namely, where you have to rent yourself to survive.

In a way, it was argued with some plausibility that you're worse off than a slave in that scenario. Actually, slave owners argued that. When slave owners were defending slavery, there was a kind of a moral debate that went on. It had shared moral turf, as a lot of moral debate did. The slave owners made a plausible point. They said, "Look, we own our workers. You just rent your workers. When you own something, you take much better care of it than when you rent it." To put it a little anachronistically, if you rent a car, you're not going to pay as much attention to taking care of it as if you own the car, for obvious reasons. Similarly, if you own people, you're going to take more care of them than if you rent people. If you rent people and you don't want them anymore, you throw them out. If you own people, well, you've got a sort of an investment in them, so you make them healthier and so on. So, the slave owners, in fact, argued, "Look, we're a lot more moral than you guys with your capitalist, wage slave system."

Ordinary working people understood that. After the Civil War, you find in the American working-class press bitter complaints over the fact that, "Look, we fought to end chattel slavery, and now you're driving us into wage slavery, which is the same sort of thing." This is one core institution in society where people are forced to become tools of others, to be cast out if they're not necessary. It's a grotesque arrangement, totally contrary to the ideals of classical liberalism or Enlightenment values or anything else. It's now become sort of standard doctrine, but that's just a victory of absolutism, and we should dismantle all that stuff.

Culturally, it starts with changes. You've got to change your minds and your spirit, and recover what was a common understanding in a more civilized period, let's say a century ago, in the shop floors of Lowell, Massachusetts. Recover that understanding, and then we work to simply democratize all institutions, free them up, and eliminate authoritarian structures. As I say, you find them everywhere. From families up to corporations, there are all kinds of authoritarian structures in the world. They all ought to be challenged. Very few of them can resist that challenge. They survive mainly because they're not challenged.”
― Noam Chomsky

“They imagine that their poverty is transitory, and that they only need a stroke of good luck to transform them into capitalists.
Education, they think, is the lucky number in the social lottery, and it will bring them the grand prize. They do not perceive that this ticket given them by the capitalist class is a fraud, that labor, whether manual or intellectual, has no other chance than to earn its daily pittance, that it has nothing to hope for but to be exploited, and that the more capitalism goes on developing, the more do the chances of an individual raising himself out of his class go on diminishing.”
― Paul Lafargue, The Right to Be Lazy

“What if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years at the end of which they tell you to piss off; ending up in some retirement village hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time?”
― Scott Rosenberg

“Here's what I don't get: when you're growing up, you get told that America's all about the individual, built on individualism, you get to be who you want to be, etc. But it only goes so far.
You get out of school and you're supposed to go back to being a good little girl and find your job and fit in and follow the rules and it all makes me want to...”
― JJ Abrams

“Freedom of enterprise was from the beginning not altogether a blessing. As the liberty to work or to starve, it spelled toil, insecurity, and fear for the vast majority of the population. If the individual were no longer compelled to prove himself on the market, as a free economic subject, the disappearance of this kind of freedom would be one of the greatest achievements of civilization.”
― Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society

“The USA is the modern version of slavery.”
― Steven Magee

“I don't see an enormous difference between a society in which you sell yourself to someone and a society in which you rent yourself to someone. I mean, they seem to me approximately equally inhuman. Well, we agree now, though we didn't 100 years ago, on the first - that slavery is wrong. But there's another thing, which in the old days used to be called wage slavery, which means that you rent yourself to somebody else in order to survive. It means that control over resources, and production, and investment is in the hands of a particular, and rather small group of people, and everyone else has the choice of either dying or renting themselves to them, more or less on their terms. And that seems to me a totally intolerable form of human life, you know. I mean, there's no reason to accept that any more than there was a reason to accept slavery, or feudalism, or whatever. How do you change that? Well, you try to change it through existing institutions. You probably fail. In which case you change the institutions, which are not graven in stone, you know. History hasn't come to an end.”
― Noam Chomsky

“You can make a case that humans have always been striving for freedom and resist constraints on their activity. Now, this can be suppressed, and there are very interesting cases of it. So, take something in our ordinary experience - getting a job. Suppose you're out of work, you don't have anything to eat, you look for a job. It's considered a wonderful thing to get a job. It wasn't always that way. You go back to the origins of the Industrial Revolution, mid-19th century, and take a look at the literature, the working-class literature. There was a very rich working-class literature and political discussions. The idea of having a job was considered a totally intolerable assault on elementary human dignity and human rights. Why should you be subjected to a master? Why should anybody spend most of their waking hours following orders given by a totalitarian ruler? That's what having a job is. It means you're following the orders of a master. And in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, this was regarded as not really different from slavery. In fact, it was called wage slavery. It was different from slavery only in that it was temporary, until you could become a free, independent human being again. That was the slogan of the major working-class organization, the major one in American history, Knights of Labor. It was a slogan of the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party held that to be subordinate to a master and under wage labor is intolerable, it can't be tolerated. Now, that's been beaten out of people's heads over 150 years, but I don't think it's far below the surface, and I think it can be elicited. And there are many other cases like that. It's the kind of thing that Gramsci talked about when he discussed how hegemonic common sense captures people and imprisons them, and gets them to not comprehend their own natural instincts and desires. And this is, for a revolutionary, the first step: to try to unravel these kinds of constraints on thinking that make us automatically obedient and subservient, instead of asking, "Is that right?”
― Noam Chomsky

“In fact, in my opinion, corporations are themselves illegitimate. I take a very conservative position on this. As you may know, the modern corporation was created about a century ago by state intervention, mostly judicial intervention. There wasn't any legislation about it. But when corporate law, in the current sense, was established in the early 20th century by the courts, there were people who bitterly opposed it, namely conservatives. There used to be conservatives in those days; now the term's around, but not the concept.

Conservatives bitterly condemned that as a return to feudalism, which in a way it was, and a form of Communism. That was the reaction to the radical revision of corporate law in the United States and elsewhere to grant corporations—collectivist legal entities—the rights of people of flesh and blood. It was a major attack against classical liberal principles, and conservatives, meaning classical liberals, were bitterly offended by that. And I think they had a good point.

Corporations are private tyrannies. A corporation, if you look at its structure, is about as close to the totalitarian model as anything human beings have created. The control is completely from top to bottom. You can be inserted in the middle somewhere, like a junior manager, take orders from the top, and hand them down below. At the very bottom, people are allowed to rent themselves to it; it's called getting a job.”
― Noam Chomsky

“What really matters is the fact that the major institutions in the society are under totalitarian control. After all, what's a corporation? A corporation is just a tyrannical system, one of the most tyrannical systems that humans have ever devised.”
― Noam Chomsky

“The responsibility of raising the challenge is typically in the hands of those who recognize that they have a subordinate status. It's very hard to recognize that. People lived for millennia without recognizing that they are being subordinated in systems of power. It's true of women for example or slaves. Most slave societies were accepted by the slaves as legitimate and, in fact, necessary. And the same is true of, for example, people who have jobs today in our society. Almost without exception they consider it legitimate for them to be in a position where they have to rent themselves in order to survive. That's certainly not obvious. And in fact, if you go back a century ago, it was not only considered not obvious, it was considered outlandish by ordinary working people. I'm not talking about Marxists or socialists or anybody like that, but say mill hands in Lowell, Massachusetts who never heard of socialism, who regarded it [renting oneself] as a form of slavery and were complaining that they had not fought the civil war to replace chattel slavery by wage slavery, and that therefore those who work in the mills ought to own them, because that's the republican rights that we won in the American revolution and so on and so forth. So, you know, it's not obvious. But, by now, I think enough indoctrination and propaganda and so on has taken place so people do regard that form of subordination to external authority as legitimate. Whether they should is another question, but the fact is they do, just as, for most of history, women have accepted a subordinate role as correct and proper and so on, and slaves did, and people living in feudal societies [did]. In a feudal society, people had a place, some kind of role, and, quite typically, these societies were stable because people regarded those structures as legitimate. The same is true of religious structures. Throughout human life there's a whole variety of systems of authority and oppression and domination and so on, which are usually accepted as legitimate by the people subordinated to them. When they don't, you have the struggles and revolutions and sometimes changes and sometimes brutality and so on.”
― Noam Chomsky

“I would like to see the kind of society that classical liberals wanted, like John Stuart Mill, for example, or Abraham Lincoln, or even Adam Smith among the last of the classical liberals. They wanted to see a society with, to quote Mill, in which the natural form of organization is free association among participants. That’s the way the industrial system should move according to Mill. That’s what they should do in Denmark. Instead of having a master-slave relation, master-serf relation, if you want to call it that. Or it should have a relation of direct participation and control. Now, maybe, the Danish don’t want that. Up to them, I’m not their master. But I would like this option to be brought forth and liberated, discussed, developed. I think they probably would want it, just as free working people in the early days of the Industrial Revolution wanted. It’s just their nature.”
― Noam Chomsky

“Look at the history of the early days of the labor movement, right through the nineteenth century and the early Industrial Revolution. The main theme of the labor movement was that having a job is a terrible attack on your personal rights and dignity. Having a job is not something you look forward to. It’s something you may be forced into, but it’s an attack on your dignity as a human being, your rights as a free human being. Having a job means being forced to live under the orders of a master for most of your waking life. Nothing wonderful about that. Skilled workers in the late nineteenth century had a very lively working-class press. They expressed their hope that over time people wouldn’t succumb to this attack on their rights—that they wouldn’t accept as normal the idea that they have to be subject to a master. If that day comes, they hoped it would be far in the distance. Well, the day has come. People do think having a job is the greatest thing in life.”
― Noam Chomsky

“It's very useful to consider what we take for granted as unquestionable common sense, what we consent to without reflection. Not just what we consent to, but what we often go on to regard as the highest goal of life. So, in today's world, one of the highest goals in life is having a job. The best advice that one can give to a young person is to prepare to find employment. That is, to prepare to spend your waking life in servitude to a master. For many, that means subordination to discipline that is far more extreme than in a totalitarian state.

The whole system of renting oneself for survival, holding a job, well, that may be hegemonic common sense today, but it certainly has not been in the past. From classical antiquity right through the 19th century, the idea of being dependent on the will and the domination of others was considered an intolerable attack on elementary rights and human dignity.

In fact, workers in late 19th-century New York warned that a day might come when wage slaves will so far forget what is due to manhood as to glory in a system forced on them by their necessity and in opposition to their feelings of independence and self-respect. They hoped to be able to block the efforts to instill a new hegemonic common sense in which workers would not only accept but, in fact, glory in a system that turns them into menial and humble servants, wage slaves, under tight control, abandoning their independence for the larger part of their lives.”
― Noam Chomsky

“There is no more reason now than there has ever been to believe that we are constrained by mysterious and unknown social laws, not simply decisions made within institutions that are subject to human will â€� HUMAN institutions, that have to face the test of legitimacy, and if they do not meet it, can be replaced by others that are more free and more just, as often in the past.”
― Noam Chomsky

“Well, where does that leave us with regard to social action and practice? The answer is very far away. There still remains an enormous gap between what we have to grasp in order to ground moral action, to choose a course of action on moral grounds. An enormous gap between that and what we, in fact, understand about human nature and the human needs that derive from it, and the human rights that derive from it. Big gap. So, we are left where we were, with the need to make an intuitive leap and to posit some judgment about what real, intrinsic human nature is. In a sense, you're staking your faith in what you think or hope human beings may be. Now, if you take as your faith that of, say, the classical liberal doctrine, you will conclude that there is no justification, there's no moral justification for the commissar, the central committee, or the cultural or corporate manager, or any of the others who control and coerce us on species grounds. The actual classical liberal view, which is very different from what is known with its deep innatist roots, is very subversive and radical because it challenges the existence of any form of authority and requires that it be justified, which can rarely be done.

It's not too surprising, I think, that the actual ideas of the Enlightenment have been subjected to such a broad-ranging attack. They are radical and subversive because of the faith that they express in human capacity, and human rights, and human needs, and their richness. And that's a deeply upsetting view from the point of view of any institutional structure which is concerned with control and manipulation, or any of the people who operate within those institutional structures.

Well, if one takes this position, the next thing to do is to make the intuitive leap and turn to the concrete substantive questions of acting as a moral agent, choosing a course of action. And here what you do is seek out structures of authority and domination. Often we don't see them, so you have to try to find them even though they're there. Once you notice them, you see them and seek them out. Ask the question as to whether they, in fact, are legitimate for some contingent reason, say, self-defense or whatever argument is put forth. And if they fail that test, as they almost invariably do, to move forward to dismantle them, which means solidarity, organization, and so on. That's a hard task. But there are achievements. There are real achievements.

For most of human history, for example, literal human slavery was considered legitimate. In fact, considered quite praiseworthy. It was for the benefit of these depraved creatures who shouldn't be left on their own. It's only a little tiny period of human history where this is considered a total obscenity. And the fact that it is considered a total obscenity is an achievement. In the 18th century, it was pointed out that wage slavery is fundamentally not very different from slavery. If people are compelled to rent themselves in order to survive, it's not very different than selling yourself in order to survive. That's an insight that has yet to be recovered, but it's a valid one. And, in fact, notice that it grows from these same conceptions of human nature. But, at least, literal human slavery would no longer be justified by, I suppose, almost anyone. That's an achievement. It's a moral achievement. It's a moral advance.

Just in our own lifetimes, the questions of the legitimacy of sexist oppression have come to the fore. It's not like anybody noticed before, but there's been a sustained and committed effort to bring them to consciousness. And it's not long ago, anybody my age will know, that it's not long ago they just didn't see it, notice it. It was just part of the background. Now, at least you see it. The problems are there, but it's a moral advance that the problems are recognized to be there. There's some effort to come to terms with them.”
― Noam Chomsky

“Human rights are rooted in human nature, and we violate fundamental human rights when people are forced to be slaves, wage slaves, servants of external power, subjected to systems of authority and domination, manipulated and controlled "for their own good.”
― Noam Chomsky, The Essential Chomsky

“How many of the wage class, as a class, are there who can avoid obeying the commands of the master (employing) class, as a class? Not many, are there?
Then are you not slaves to the money power as much as were the black slaves to the Southern slaveholders? Then we ask you again: What are you going to do about it? You had the ballot then. Could you have voted away black slavery? You know you could not because the slaveholders would not hear of such a thing for the same reason you can’t vote yourselves out of wage-slavery.”
― Lucy Parsons

“If the slave-owner of our times has no slave, John, whom he can send to the cesspool, he has five shillings, of which hundreds of such Johns are in such need that the slave-owner of our times may choose any one out of hundreds of Johns and be a benefactor to him by giving him the preference, and allowing him, rather than another, to climb down into the cesspool.”
― Leo Tolstoy, Slavery of Our Times

“Slavery exists in full vigor, but we do not perceive it, just as in Europe at the end of the Eighteenth Century the slavery of serfdom was not perceived.

People of that day thought that the position of men obliged to till the land for their lords, and to obey them, was a natural, inevitable, economic condition of life, and they did not call it slavery.

It is the same among us: people of our day consider the position of the laborer to be a natural, inevitable economic condition, and they do not call it slavery. And as, at the end of the Eighteenth Century, the people of Europe began little by little to understand that what formerly seemed a natural and inevitable form of economic life-namely, the position of peasants who were completely in the power of their lords-was wrong, unjust and immoral, and demanded alteration, so now people today are beginning to understand that the position of hired workmen, and of the working classes in general, which formerly seemed quite right and quite normal, is not what it should be, and demands alteration.”
― Leo Tolstoy, Slavery of Our Times

“And therefore the responsibility of raising the challenge is typically in the hands of those who recognize that they have a subordinate status. It's very hard to recognize that. I mean, people lived, you know, for millennia without recognizing that they are being subordinated in systems of power.

I mean, it's true of women, for example, or slaves, you know. I mean, most slave societies were accepted by the slaves as legitimate and, in fact, necessary. And the same is true of, for example, people have jobs today in our society, almost without exception, they consider it legitimate for them to be in a position where they have to rent themselves in order to survive.

That's certainly not obvious, you know. And in fact, if you go back a century ago, it was not only considered not obvious but it was considered outlandish by American working people. I'm not talking about Marxists or socialists, or anybody like that, but say, millhands in Lowell, Massachusetts, who never heard of socialism, who regarded it as a form of slavery, and were complaining that they had not fought the Civil War to replace chattel slavery by wage labor and that therefore, those who work in the mills ought to own them because that's the republican rights that we won in the American Revolution, and so on and so forth.

So, you know, it's not obvious, but by now, I think, enough indoctrination and propaganda have taken place so people do regard that form of subordination to external authority as legitimate. Whether they should is another question, but the fact is they do, just as for most of history, women have accepted a subordinate role as correct and proper and so on. And slaves did, and people living in, say, feudal societies.

In a feudal society, people had a place, you know, some kind of rule, and quite typically the societies were stable because people regarded those structures as legitimate. The same is true of religious structures, and I mean, throughout human life, there's a whole variety of systems of authority, and oppression, and domination, and so on, which are usually accepted as legitimate by the people subordinated to them. When they don't, you have struggles and revolutions, and sometimes changes, and sometimes brutality, and so on.”
― Noam Chomsky