Talk:Forced labour

message: The article says serfs aren't called 'unfree' labourers in Academic journals. In my experience, they frequently are. CharlieRCD (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of confusion here, I think, is that this section is written primarily  about Medieval Europe. But when scholars use 'unfree labor' to refer to serfdom, they more often mean the harsh, export-oriented 'second serfdom' that emerged in imperial Russia during the 17th-18th centuries. --Brian Z (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Unfree' serfs

message: 24.162, ever read The Grapes of Wrath? Probably wouldn't appeal to a Randite. There is a great illustration there of how minimal (as opposed to minimum) wage systems operate to keep workers tied to one place by means of the company store, etc. Such systems are both difficult to impose and difficlt to conceive for us, in the developed world in the 21st century. Not so for indigenous people in outback Australia during 1851-1947, or in the US during the Great Depression. I'm not sure there is really any point in discussing this with you, since you insist that a minimalist definition of freedom is the only one that applies on this page.Grant65 (Talk) 04:08, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Okay, you can stop calling me a Randite, I'm really not.  Let me just say what my goal is editing this page: distinguishing poorly-paid labor from labor imposed by force.  There's an impression out there that whenever someone is paid poorly (whether by low absolute wages, or in tokens, or in mere accomodation), it's the employer's fault, and he should be made to pay more.  But in many cases, the employer wouldn't find it worthwhile to even make the offer unless he could bid so low.  If he were forced to pay more, he wouldn't offer this alternative, and the worker would be even worse off.  Portraying all employers with low-wage labor as bad guys glosses over a vital distinction: is he able to offer such a low wage because no one else wants to pay them any more, or is he able to offer such a low wage because they literally can't go anywhere else and see what the market will bear? You mentioned somewhere earlier that you were willing to make a distinction something like this, so I'm pretty sure I'm not too far in outer space here. MrVoluntarist 16:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minimal wages as unfree labour

message: The  section above suggests that this notion depends of the political POV. I am pretty sure that there are publications that describe labor in commies states as slave labor, and I am surprized that no one pointed to them yet, thus closing this silly bickering.
On the other hand, Marxism holds that capitalism enslaves labour. In fact, in 19th century there was a Marxist group (in Russia?) called Emancipation of the Labour. 
:Again, sources, please. MrVoluntarist 00:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I finally see the light. Something really happened to my brain two days ago. Certainly, in the talk page things may be discussed with much less formalism. My apologies. mikka (t) 01:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notion of freeness of labour in various political and moral systems 

message: Isn't conscription a form of unfree labor?  The workers do not have the freedom to quit and the wages are less than what would be required to entice people of their own free will. —Dgiest c 01:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this talk page seems pretty infrequently used I just added a short section. —Dgiest c 02:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Conscription]]? 

message: I am aware that there is already a page allocated for Laogai, but I felt it would be benefical for the reader to have a contemporary example; therefore I have added the the following sentence at the end of the "Labor Camps" paragraph, along with a link to the Laogai Research Foundation at the bottom of this page.
"China's labour reform system called the Laogai is a current example running today."
2share 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Laogai-Comtemporary Example

message: The article reduces the problem to camps. In reality both systems used to use many forms of unfree labor. Kolkhos workers didn't have passports, so they weren't able to travel or move, which was classical serfdom. Forced workers in Germany frequently lived outside camps. Xx236 11:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  III Reich and Soviet Union 

message: The articles states "Perhaps the most prominent example of chattel slavery was the enslavement of many millions of black people in Africa, as well as their enforced transplantation to the Americas, Asia or Europe where their status as slaves was usually inherited by their descendants." - this wording is very unlucky as it brings up the idea that the transportation like that of the transantlantic slave trade had parallel occurrences of transport to Europe. However in fact the slavery in medieval Europe had ended in the 15. century already. This had practical reasons and not so much legal status - just note how many European peasants left to oversea colonies in the 15. to 19. century - bringing Black slaves to Europe was simply not needed. Many European emperors did ban slave trade in their mainlands even though they were accepting it in the oversea colonies - again, for practical reasons to exploit the new territories. So, while one can not deny the mere existance, the numbers were extremely low - leaving the wording of "millions of black... transplation to... Europe" to be untrue. Guidod 15:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't mean or say "millions...to Europe". It says "millions ... to the Americas, Asia or Europe". It is a misunderstanding of the text to say that it implies millions were sent to Europe, although it could probably be worded better. Grant | Talk 06:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMO, it does need better wording. "The most prominent example" is the atlantic slave trade anyway - other articles like slavery have more space to sort things out. I don't see a reason to misnomer here however partial that is. Guidod 21:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't forget the slavery in the Ottoman Empire, which was very  in Europe, too. The Muslims even had millions of European (Christian) slaves (not all at once). Lastdingo (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Millions of Black Slaves To Europe - Untrue 

message: Should industrial conscription be included in this article, or a new article? An example of industrial conscription is the British and Australian governments directing civilians to work in specified industries during World War II. The workers were paid the going wage for their labour and were treated like all other employees, but were not free to chose the industry they worked in. --Nick Dowling (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industrial conscription 

message: First.
This section is based on a misrepresentation of both the content and place within economic theory of the Labour theory of value. What this paragraph is replicating is the Marxist view that because wages do not represent the value of what is produced this is an exploitation (i know it's more complicated than that, but that is the gist). Fair enough. Cite Marx. It makes sense. However, it is not the view of anyone whose work would be taught as "Economics" today. Adam Smith, rejected the Labour theory of value in any capitalist economy as does pretty much every recognised economist who has come after. Language like "capitalists" makes it clear to the astute reader that this is a socialist/communist point of view and should very much be labelled as such. This implication is a claim made by some, but certainly does not represent a consensus society view (or even more than a fringe minority view). 
The sentance about Subjective theory of value doesn't make sense where it is. Is it a rebuttle of the first sentance? Then the sentece "supporters of certain theories of distributive justice that any occasion on which a worker is able to turn down employment and look elsewhere is "free labour" marginalises what is the dominant view of economists, western law and probably most people in western society as "supporters of certain theories of distributive justice. Many people would argue that the right to work for whoever will take them for whatever they can get is the most important freedom in Democracy (particularly Americans....they love that stuff....just listen to the US Presidential candidates).
Unfortunately (as you may have guessed from my POV) I'm not very well read in socialist/marxist/communist theory and don't have the citations to really fix this section. If anyone still keeps up on this article's talk page it would be awesome to see if we can reach a more informative (and better cited) consensus for this article.
Jabberwalkee (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Payment for unfree labour.......needs to be upfrount about what it is saying and who is saying it. 

message: This article is missing a section on, or a mention of Corvée.--İnfoCan (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There is an entire article on corvee as well. There should be a clearer relationship between the two articles I think. --Bruce Hall (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corvée 

message: This article is missing a section on, or a mention of Angaria (Roman law). --İnfoCan (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angaria (Roman law) 

message: I'm not so sure this belongs here.  It sounds more like a stereotype or folk myth than a real syndrome.  Supposedly Spanish-speaking grandmothers are dying off because no-one appreciates their work . . . meanwhile all treatments are useless.  Apparently this syndrome only effects you if you speak Spanish, have great virtue, and get all your happiness from serving your family and your beautiful grandchildren.  
Somebody really needs to pay some attention to this article.  Or delete it.  As it stands its pretty unencyclopedic. 76.115.59.36 (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enslaved Grandmother Syndrome? 

message: Isn't workfare a (rather insidious) form of unfree labour? For instance a British woman, Cat Reilley is going to court over being forced to work at a "thrift shop" in return for benefits which are far lower than the UK minimum wage and under threat of destitution. Seems like it fits the bill for unfree labour to me, unless of course you're of the persuasion that oppression isn't oppression when it happens in the West.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/887128-graduate-told-to-work-for-free-or-lose-benefits#ixzz1jGdXau1Z  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.130.14 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workfare 

message: The "Payment for unfree labour" section seems inconsistent with the definitions given in the preceding (introductory) section.
It appears to imply that, somehow, forced labour is not "unfree" if the payment is sufficient.
But the distinction between "free" and "unfree" turns on choice, not payment.
If a person is well-paid, yet forced to perform work on pain of physical punishment, and physically confined such that she is unable to leave or "quit", I don't see how the payment, whatever the amount, turns "unfree" into "free" labor. It is the restriction of choice that makes the labour unfree, regardless of payment.  
Surely a slave paid USD 1000 daily - or USD 1M - is still a slave if he is forced to work against his will.
I think the "payment" section needs revision so as to avoid implying otherwise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.180.174 (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does ample payment change the situation? 

message: Apparently, according to this article in today's New York Times, more than two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union (but with Islam Karimov's autocratic rule unchanged) Uzbeks must still provide "volunteer" labor, picking the cotton the government has a monopoly on (or, rather, in domestic terms, a monopsony since it's grown by private farmers). Stalinism lives! It even has a picture that so looks like the women in it are posing for a Soviet propaganda poster that I half expect to see "CЛABA TPУДУ!" in big red letters near the top.
Anyway, all amazement aside, something about this should be in the article, at least. And in Agriculture in Uzbekistan, perhaps, as well. Or maybe even a separate article? I doubt the Times is the only reliable source to have covered this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it seems, we have a good section here. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times article on continued practice of "volunteer" labor in Uzbekistan 

message: Should compulsory education be considered unfree labour ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compulsory Education 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Unfree labour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071014235036/http://summeroftruth.org:80/enemy/barracks.html to http://summeroftruth.org/enemy/barracks.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Conscript labor redirects here, but it might better redirect to civil mobilization. In any case the article seems to be a kind of smorgasboard of ideas under the banner of unfree labor, but unfree as is required, and unfree as in required and not compensated, are very different things. Being forced to work and being forced to work for no pay, in simpler terms, are different and categorically different as to make it the main distinction to make in this article. -Inowen (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conscript civil mobilization 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 16:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfree labour →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME, since "forced labo[u]r" is orders of magnitude more common  in published sources than "unfree labo[u]r", which appears to be an uncommon and rather recent academic neologism. (Per MOS:ENGVAR, neither the "labor" nor "labour" spelling should be preferred; whatever was established in the first non-stub version of the article should be retained, absent a strong national tie, which of course will not exist for this topic.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 28 February 2021 

message: Given that we've been slowly undoing the thrall of the Stanford Prison experiment as psychologically valuable, since it violated every aspect of scientific experiment, and also given that the students were paid and also had their grades held over their heads as extortion--I don't think it counts as an example of forced labor as the definition has it. If we think that the Stanford experiment counts as a flavor of slavery, that needs a citation. 47.222.125.80 (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stanford Prison experiment 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Slavery which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 10:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress