This is true for most people, but not all. Of course not being able to do so would constitute a form of slavery, but that is just the reality for a lot of people and I think if we are honest about the world we should admit that. Do agree softly on not downplaying political dictatorships though.
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.
Unless you’re a literal slave (which is a different problem) you’re free to leave those jobs, just you might have to move (leaving family and friends) or you might never make as much money/your lifestyle suffers. That’s vastly different from “if you leave your job we may literally kill you or throw you in a prison cell where you won’t see daylight for days, weeks, months, or years.”
Don’t get me wrong, those people trapped in their jobs by circumstance are not in envious situations (and in many contexts their issues should be taken seriously), but they’re still way better off than many in true dictatorships.
You can argue that both don’t provide “real choices” but one really doesn’t provide choices.
See my other comment with regards to the issue of “literal slave”.
I think we should also take into account that the problem of unfree labour conditions does not exist within a vacuum. There is after all, even in free democratic countries, the threat of violence (from the state) that in general upholds the systems of oppression from businesses and others. Most people born, if not fortunate with inheritance, have initially no property on which they can sustain themselves. If they want to have some they have the option to steal or work, the former most won’t do due to the threat of violence (read ultimately usage of physical force, not to be confused with police violence) from the state.
When also the businesses have tools to shape and influence politics, one may to some degree extend their form of oppression to not only include direct economical exploitation of workers, but also as the designers of the oppressive conditions that allows them and the rest of us to be in the conditions that allows for this to happen in the first place.
That is not to say that I want us to confuse direct dictatorships with capitalism, but that if we want to have a truly free and democratic society we need to look at all aspects of society and not pretend that the huge part of all our lives that comprises of work need to be under democratic control. Also, the imperialistic tendencies of capitalism on the global stage is also a huge reason for political instability and empowers dictatorships around the world.
As a person with family living under an actual dictatorship, I’d like to point out some differences.
You can leave a job. You’re generally not killed for poor performance at a job.
I’ll stop there. I think that’s enough to shatter this very poor comparison.
This is true for most people, but not all. Of course not being able to do so would constitute a form of slavery, but that is just the reality for a lot of people and I think if we are honest about the world we should admit that. Do agree softly on not downplaying political dictatorships though.
Oh people can absolutely leave jobs. It’s eating they can’t stop doing. I mean they can stop that too, I guess.
If we’re going to invoke literal slavery then I don’t think self immolation is off the table to mention either.
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.
Unless you’re a literal slave (which is a different problem) you’re free to leave those jobs, just you might have to move (leaving family and friends) or you might never make as much money/your lifestyle suffers. That’s vastly different from “if you leave your job we may literally kill you or throw you in a prison cell where you won’t see daylight for days, weeks, months, or years.”
Don’t get me wrong, those people trapped in their jobs by circumstance are not in envious situations (and in many contexts their issues should be taken seriously), but they’re still way better off than many in true dictatorships.
You can argue that both don’t provide “real choices” but one really doesn’t provide choices.
See my other comment with regards to the issue of “literal slave”.
I think we should also take into account that the problem of unfree labour conditions does not exist within a vacuum. There is after all, even in free democratic countries, the threat of violence (from the state) that in general upholds the systems of oppression from businesses and others. Most people born, if not fortunate with inheritance, have initially no property on which they can sustain themselves. If they want to have some they have the option to steal or work, the former most won’t do due to the threat of violence (read ultimately usage of physical force, not to be confused with police violence) from the state.
When also the businesses have tools to shape and influence politics, one may to some degree extend their form of oppression to not only include direct economical exploitation of workers, but also as the designers of the oppressive conditions that allows them and the rest of us to be in the conditions that allows for this to happen in the first place.
That is not to say that I want us to confuse direct dictatorships with capitalism, but that if we want to have a truly free and democratic society we need to look at all aspects of society and not pretend that the huge part of all our lives that comprises of work need to be under democratic control. Also, the imperialistic tendencies of capitalism on the global stage is also a huge reason for political instability and empowers dictatorships around the world.