/edu/ - Education

Education, Literature, History, Science

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


Capitalist here Comrade 07/01/2020 (Wed) 18:04:31 No. 2146
By marxist standards, I do not provide labor, I own capital. From what I understand, the commie concept of wage labor is "exploitation" in the sense that we take the surplus value you produce. Since this board allows non-leftists to ask questions, mine is, why do you think you have the right to the full product/end result of your labor and not just a small compensation? If I were to pay my wagecucks the full amount, or give them control over my company instead of paying them a pittance, I won't be able to stay competitive and maximize profits. In capitalist philosophy on the other hand, exploitation requires the use of force. A worker is not forced to work for me for example, they are 100% free to go find a different job or start their own company. I just wanna know your point of view, and why you think you are entitled to your surplus labor.
>why do you think you have the right to the full product Read this: >>648507 >>648557 >>649246
>>2146 First, in order to possess private capital, you must protect by force. Second, the worker must work not to you, but to whole capitalist class, they have no other choice because they don't possess capital (factory and machinery). Third, there is no point to start their own company in these days, when the rate of profit is too low or even negative. Why bother with borrowing from the bank, when you cannot ensure you could pay them back? Finally, if everyone starts his own company, we will return to the era of feudalism. Capitalists must have wage labour in order to extract surplus labour. In the end, Marxists don't say that surplus labour should be entitle to anyone particular. A true Marxist should recognise that surplus labour must be put into service of whole society. We criticise capitalism not because of the fact they are extracting surplus labour, but the fact that they are using those surplus labour for wrong purposes or even harming the society and nature. Therefore, the control of surplus labour should be put in the hands of a public committee, with transparent information, instead of being put into the hands of a private group of investors and investment organisations, who have no obligation to the society and mankind.
>>2146 >If I were to pay my wagecucks the full amount, or give them control over my company instead of paying them a pittance, I won't be able to stay competitive and maximize profits. Yes, precisely. The reproduction of capital *requires* that the full product of labor not go to the laborer. Exploitation is a system feature not a personal rights violation by capitalists.
>>2148 >>2147 Hi, unfortunately these links do not work, unless you intended for "not found" to be your argument. >>2148 I agree with the first premise, and see nothing wrong with force. Your implied argument here seems to be that private property is exploitation, as it requires force. However, this is a false equivalence. While all exploitation requires force of some kind, not all force entails exploitation. Maintaining private property through force, to me, is as simple act of self preservation in the face of opportunistic theives, not exploitation. I don't get your second point and third point. While plenty of comanies fail (mine came close many times) it is entirely possible for poor nobodies to build a company, tap into an untapped market and dominate in their field, then retire as billionaires. Only a few actually have the gumption to do this, so why shouldn't they deserve all their wealth and power? Addressing your fourth point, if everyone starts their own company, those that fail might decide to pick to take the higher pay and lesser financial vulnerability to work for another instead. The few employees that could potentially exist would be extremely valuable. Even successful businesses can be sold, or even merged to better cover the market. Eventually we would be right back to where we are now. That's the power of capitalism. You also talk about surplus labor being put to use for the rest of society. Assuming this happens, how will this be organized? What if the socialist committee sabotages this transparency, mismanages the surplus and ends up pocketing it for themselves?
>>2149 Exploitation requires force though, and there's nothing stopping you from starting a company and competing with me in the market
>>2152 >Exploitation requires force though, and there's nothing stopping you from starting a company and competing with me in the market I'm not particularly invested in what terms we use for what - if by "exploitation" you mean "morally wrong" and you take morally wrong to require force, whatever - but it is just not the case that there is nothing stopping someone from starting a business and competing in the market. The market *itself* shows this - if business assets could be acquired trivially or did not allow for passive income (if all profit was simply the result, as is sometimes breezily suggested, of the genius or hard work of entrepreneurs) then the market would not value these assets.
>>2153 Why can't someone start a business though and go from rags to riches? Look at elon musk, who lived on a dollar a day in his teens. I can draw up more examples. The market values assets because of demand, and if you are able to fulfill this demand, you get rewarded
>>2155 It is very unlikely. The Elon Musk story seems to be absolute bullshit though. His parents owned goldmines. He's built a cult of personality for himself, but it seems it's all based on mischaracterizations and half truths.
>>2156 Yeah I just learnt that now. It's still possible though. Those who succeed deserve their wealth.
>>2151 If you agree with first premise then it is easily to see how capitalism is exploitation by force. In fact every economic system require force, whether capitalism, socialism, or etc. At the most basic level, you need force over nature. Let talk about an example. In your company, if many workers only want to work 8 hours a day, but you want them to work 12 hours a day. Do you accept their demand? Of course not, you will force them into submission by firing all workers who refuse to work 12 hours a day. Or for example, the workers voice their opinions that you should allow them more times in order to polish the end products, but you don't want to do that because it will cut into the profit. What to do? Of course forcing them to work faster by cutting corners either by profit bonus or other ways. Anyway, it is force, because you can control other people to do what they don't want to do, by which means, it's not important. You should discard the notion that force is something inherently bad. No, there is nothing bad with force, but only wasteful or harmful way of using force. 2. and 3. You should read my points carefully again. I don't talk about whether capitalists deserve their riches or not. We are not Gods who have right to judge other people. I just want to talk that it is nearly impossible for normal people nowadays to live their independent lives from the capitalists, because either they don't possess capital, or cannot risk borrowing from the bank, as the average rate of profit of our days is near zero already, if not negative. There is very high chance to lose everything rather than succeed. Anyway, are you really a capitalist? If you are a true porkie, I think you should quickly understand what I said. 4. In the main ideas, you're right, the system will return to capitalism. But you should focus more on the lower nature of economic system. You only see business as the smallest division of the system, and economy is nothing but rearrangement of those businesses (atom). However, it's necessary to see that in reality, a single business is not a self isolated thing, but a mobilisation of many labour force from everywhere in the world. Without seeing that fact, the picture is very mystified. 5. In socialist society, the profit indicator should be abolished. The economy should be control by a public plan, which everyone could check and voice their opinions. In fact this is what happened in Soviet Union during Five Years Plan. The GOSPLAN only decide the input and output of each company, but don't care about its profit. The mission of every company is to fulfil its plan, nothing more, nothing less. The downside of this system is that it's very hard to optimise the quantity of output products, as there is no powerful tools to force the workers to work hard. The profit indicator of capitalist is actually more powerful the force of the state. Therefore, by switching to this economic model, we must sacrifice the ideal of maximising total GDP growth. So how could a system like Soviet Union possible? It's only possible when GDP don't correlate to actual power in reality anymore, in other words, when a high GDP country, such as the USA, cannot defeat a small country with much lower GDP, such as Iran or North Korea. The condition during early 20th century was exactly as such. As the capitalist nations were busy fighting each other, the USSR could develop in a rather stress-less environment. But in the latter half of 20th century, when all capitalist countries united to fight against USSR, the planned economy wasn't viable anymore, so they switched into a hybrid between socialism and state capitalism (Kosygin reform), where the state controlled the economy by profit indicators. However during 80s, when the crisis hit, the profit of USSR was too low compare to the rest of the world (due to their socialist policies), so there were only two ways out for USSR. Either return to planned economy (as the environment then was quite peaceful, and they just won the war in Vietnam), or restructuring by discard the low profitable parts of the economy. Sadly, they chosen the second choice due to inactivity of workers and state managers (they're too lazy to do planned economy, control the economy by profit indicators were much easier) and other capitalist roaders elements in USSR. The rest of story is history.
>>2147 >>2151 https://bunkerchan.xyz/leftypol/res/638070.html ctrl-f for 648507 648557 649246 vol edit: fix the post links above: >>>/leftypol/648507 >>>/leftypol/648557 >>>/leftypol/649246 >>2153 >if business assets could be acquired trivially or did not allow for passive income (if all profit was simply the result, as is sometimes breezily suggested, of the genius or hard work of entrepreneurs) then the market would not value these assets. THIS. >>2156 Yes, Musk's parents were rich. Also true of Bill Gates. But let's say for the sake of argument that we do find a genuine rags-to-riches story. Would that really work as proof that success in capitalism is based mainly on talent and hard work? That statement has a strong generality to it so that an anecdote won't do here. Surely a defender of that statement wouldn't accept as a counter-argument the (true) anecdote of some idiot winning the lottery.
Edited last time by antious666 on 07/01/2020 (Wed) 20:41:43.
>>2158 (cont.) I want to say an additional observation, which I think you wouldn't find frequently in Marxist literature. I call this the Golden Law of Socialist Economy: ~ In the condition of good environment, the lower GDP of a socialist country is, the better efficiency it will achieve ~
>>2155 >Why can't someone start a business though and go from rags to riches? Such examples are rare, but in any event even if they were more common that would not be the relevant point. An enterprising peasant in the Mughal empire could become a zamindar - whether people change the positions they occupy doesn't change whether those positions are exploitative. >The market values assets because of demand, and if you are able to fulfill this demand, you get rewarded This might be a plausible account of CEO pay - that investors pay CEOs much because they know they're so good at their jobs. (There are of course other explanations, but we're not worried about that issue right now.) However, when you buy a company's assets, you're not buying the CEO's time - you're buying the assets. This can be seen most clearly in the purchase, valuation, and payoffs of securities which don't have to be actively managed at all. (If you're a Nazi this is proof that bankers don't do "real" work but factory owners do, but if you think through the logic of the market at all you'll see that people who own shares of each sector are collecting rent on it in similar ways.)
(60.59 KB 664x627 1587972799704.jpg)
>>2146 >In capitalist philosophy on the other hand, exploitation requires the use of force. A worker is not forced to work for me for example, they are 100% free to go find a different job or start their own company. Man, you have got to read Marx.
>>2146 >A worker is not forced to work for me for example, they are 100% free to go find a different job or start their own company. Good job outing yourself as a high schooler. Literally no adult with a mature brain believes in that myth.

Delete
Report

no cookies?