In what sense, if any, is the character Lucky actually lucky in Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot?
Often such names are ironic or generic. Here, the one "lucky" feature of Lucky's existence is that he has jobs to do, that is, he has (on the superficial level) a purpose in life. Yes, he is enslaved to Pozzo, but that is not "unlucky," merely a fact (according to Beckett's way of looking at things, as we are enslaved by our own facticity.) Compared to Gogo and Didi, Lucky is fortunate in having found his "Godot," his purpose for being. Also, Lucky can dance and speak, which we can interpret as artistic expression and the ability to give voice to thought ("Think, pig!"), however nonsensical it may seem to others, including the audience). So, what Beckett is saying is that anyone not aware of the meaninglessness of life is relatively lucky, not burdened by the Angst of existentialism. In the second act, Lucky is dumb and Pozzo is blind, so that Lucky’s ties to Pozzo are literally voluntary. He puts the rope in Pozzo’s hand, and it is problematic who is the slave and who is the master. And he is “lucky” in that he does not have to deal with “your accursed time.”