No.59217
You know i had an interesting dialogue with a couple of communist on /leftpol/. I was fully aware of the exploitation theory behind the communist mindset, but i didn't know why I disagreed with it ( to a detailed extent)
And if you don't know what that is its pretty much when the Employer (bousigues) pays his employee less then the value of his labour that he produced.
Example:
Bob works for Frank
Bob makes phones
Frank pays Bob $3 dollars for the phones
Frank sells the phones for 5 dollar.
Conclusion: Frank has exploited Bob because Bob didn't get the full value of his labour. That being $2 dollar which is workers surplus.
I had the biggest problem with this conclusion and I didn't know why?
Until I struck me.
There was never a surplus to begin with. Only when the product is stold does the worker claim there is a surplus. And if the product didn't sell that product, then Bob didn't get cheated out, he actually gain something.
Surplus is created by the Seller not the Producer. And since the Seller creates the surplus, he rightfully owns it (that being the profit). Bob actually got paid for what he did, and was not exploited.
No.59218
There are many problems with the whole "exploitation" theory.
First of all, value is subjective, the fact that Frank sold the phone for 5$ means that this is what he and the buyer agreed upon. Maybe the buyer thought that the phone valued only 4$ and Frank had to sell it at that, if the buyer thought that the phone was worth only 2$ then Frank would either have to restructure his business or invest/invent a cheaper/better way of making phones. Of course there is no single buyer, and just because some buyers think that a 5$ phone is too much, it doesn't mean that all of them do. As long as enough people buy phones from Frank, he and Bob will stay in business.
Secondly, no matter how many phones Frank manages to sell that month, whether i'd be 10, 100 or 1000 phones, he still has to pay Frank 3$ for every phone he produces, or a fixed wage depending on the contract. Basically, Bob prefers to have a stable wage, than to risk not earning any money in some months, because people didn't buy phones from him that month. Yes it's true that Frank could earn a lot of money in some months, but even in the months where he has no profits he still has to pay Bob, otherwise he might get sued by Bob.
Thirdly, the contract between Bob and Frank was done voluntarily, and Bob decided that being payed 3$ for every phone was the best option available. He might have chosen a different phone factory(maybe another one payed him 4$ for every phone, but didn't provide healthcare unlike Frank's, or maybe another one payed him just 2$ for every phone, but it had air-conditioning, one free cup of coffee per day, healthcare, cafeteria and 20% discount at the movies). He wasn't even forced to choose between phone factories, he might have chosen a different factory or field, or he could have become self-employed, that is if there aren't too many regulations or taxes imposed by the government(webm related). You should never take the small list of choices people have, and cut out the ones that they find most agreeable.
Lastly, it also presumes that Frank doesn't do anything, he probably borrowed the money to build the factory, buy the necessary equipment, he has to manage the workers to make sure they do a good job, he has to advertise, he has to convince people to buy his phones, he has to constantly compete with other phone factories. If he goes bankrupt he might go to debtors' prison as they existed in the 19th century, whereas Bob would probably still be working at the factory that just got bought by another phone factory, or another entrepreneur. Even if the factory closes, and there are no more opening for phone workers, it just means that society signals to Bob and everyone else, that they don't need any more phone factories, and that Bob should find a more lucrative job.
No.59236
Yes, but Marx's entire argument begins with the premise that the labor is already social labor.
No.59239
>>59217
did you convince the commie?
No.59244
>>59217
Email this to Richard Wolff.
No.59245
>[…] from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.
No.59246
>>59217
>>59218
>>59244
All of this, basically.
No.59318
>>59245
Those owners of material do not possess the labor power themselves and thus are slaves to those who can supply the labor to the material.
No.59319
If profit is the representation of surplus value, then how can exploitation exist if profit on average is approximately zero?
No.59322
>>59318
They can't work because they own land? Don't be retarded. Everyone possesses labour power.
No.59324
>>59322
People in a wheelchair?
No.59325
>>59319
>If profit is the representation of surplus value
It's not
read a book
No.59326
>>59324
Capital and labor are co-dependent even as they are antagonistic, but a cursory look around reveals capital to be in the superior position.
No.59327
>>59325
You mean "read a book on my particular special snowflake ideology", don't you?
No.59332
Any surplus value that is generated, if any at all, has already been an equivalent exchange between the worker and the employer. Exploitation of labor only exists within Marx's criticism of capitalism along with his view of class structure being only an imaginary static role.
No.59349
No.59351
>>59326
The Capital needs the labour in order to keep itself alive? Capital is dependent on labor, how is capital in a superior position?
No.59352
>>59325
What is up with this commies and saying "read this [book]"
Like we're going to read a whole fucking just to look for one argument. Having to go through a mass of ideas that are already known.
You're pretty asking me to look for sources to prove you right.
If you're going to make a claim at least provide a DIRECT source to the page or provide the quote.
Do you really expect people to take care of your- OOOOOOOH WAIT.
No.59353
>>59351
Labor is capital. It is bought and sold like any other market commodity.
No.59354
>>59349
Go circle jerk back over on /leftypol/ if that is all you're going to bring to a discussion.
No.59355
>>59353
They are not one and the same, but they can be substituted for one another. For example from another thread, rising labor costs reduce the incentives to hire labor so a factory uses capital as a replacement in the form of robotic assembly lines.
No.59356
>>59355
One is a capital good in most cases, the other, usually not clearly stated and abstract, is physical goods that can be consumed sooner or later to satisfy a want. Menger's classification of commodities suits it as a much better description than having to call a bunch of different commodities "capital".
Labor is most often employed as a "capital good", but that doesn't account for medical treatment or prostitution. In all of these the most consistent determining factor is time preference.
The one thing that is sure is that if it's in demand, scarce, is in possession, and can be bought and sold, it's capital.
No.59357
>>59354
You have no right to tell me what to do.
No.59358
>>59351
Because the factory owner lives in a mansion and his workers live in a trailer park.
No.59359
>>59358
You are reverting to your emotions. Stay with the argument or get out of the game.
No.59360
>>59359
Please read the post I'm responding to. I am not appealing to emotion.
No.59364
>>59358
>le every filthy capitalist lives in a mansion while the proles live in trailor parks maymay
this argument is litterally undefendable because it can be proven with little effort that there are both people who own a means a production that struggle to make ends meet (owners of small businesses like auto body shops), as well as people who don't that are relatively well off (Correctional Officers make around 5k a month plus benifits in my state)
No.59365
>>59358
But the Owner couldn't keep that mansion without the workers labour though.
No.59366
>>59365
>>59364
The owners are of a higher social class than the workers because they wield power over the workers as individuals, whereas the workers can only threaten the interest of the owners if they act in aggregate. Your boss can fire you, and you are unable to do anything to get back at him for it unless you can get the union (if there is one) to strike, and then you just have to hope that the local police or a private security agency doesn't beat you senseless.
No.59367
>>59365
>>59364
The owners are of a higher social class than the workers because they wield power over the workers as individuals, whereas the workers can only threaten the interest of the owners if they act in aggregate. Your boss can fire you, and you are unable to do anything to get back at him for it unless you can get the union (if there is one) to strike, and then you just have to hope that the local police or a private security agency doesn't beat you senseless.
No.59368
>>59366
>they wield power over the workers as individuals
If this was true, then how can workers individually negotiate higher incomes?
No.59369
>>59366
if you think the only way you can hurt a capitalist is to get a union to strike, then not only are you lacking in imagination but you also seem to be obsessed with not regarding capitalists as people who could be reasoned with. If a boss fires you then you could always
-negotiate for a better job with a different employer
-use your surplus capital and experience in the field to establish a competitor to your former boss
-literally stop giving a fuck and become one with nature
-go "my boss was a capitalist piggy and is literally the mustache-twirling hand-in-everybody's pocket caricature that /leftypol/ memes about" and hang him up on a light-pole
-take up an occupation that doesn't require the use of someone elses memes of production like jew-tubing or creating furry porn for autists to throw their money at.
literally the only thing stopping you from controlling the memes of production is your own obsession with people who have more than you and your lack of imagination. you don't have to own a factory to be a producer in today's society, you just have to have the initiative.
I dont understand why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp.
No.59370
>>59367
>you are unable to do anything to get back at him
1.You can go to the media and spread bad press
2. Release company details unknown to the public.
3. Getting a companies market value to drop if you fuck up one of their products. And a consumer goes viral about it.
No.59371
>>59368
Were medieval nobility also of equal status as the peasantry, because with no peasants the nobles would starve? When things upon which everyone relies are concentrated in very few hands, those people have more social power.
No.59372
>>59371
Social power is not static.
No.59373
>>59371
>because with no peasants the nobles would starve
Who do you think the food comes from?
>When things upon which everyone relies are concentrated in very few hands, those people have more social power.
As this guy stated ~> >>59372
Social power is not static. People who can take power, will do so. You can't force individuals to be equal.
No.59388
>>59217
You're missing another key argument, which is that the employer plays a part in managing the labor in order to be productive. Even when ownership is non-proprietary, such as share ownership, the owners are important in allocating capital in the correct way, and as a share holder board of directors indirectly control the management of labor by choosing a good CEO to head the company, and select further managers and so on. The moralistic interpretation of the Marxist law of value implies that coordination is free, and that the workers can spontaneously manage themselves to perform tasks such as assembling a product where everything has to be done just so in the correct order with the optimum use of resources.
Polite sage.
No.59497
>>59322
They own the capital (usually not the land they produce one), but they do not own the labor power required to make the large-scale production.
>>59325
>It's not
Then surplus value does not exist. So why worry?
No.59498
>>59371
Peasants held significant influence not just for food but also for levies. There is a reason why taxes were lower than today.
No.59567
Exploitation theory sounds true at first glance which is why I suspect that (in my own experience) that's the argument that introduces most people to communism, but it falls apart upon further inspection.
First we have to examine the premise. According to communists, workers create a product and then the bosses sell that product at a profit, thus "stealing" from the workers. There are issues with this. To begin, if the bosses are adding nothing themselves and it is the labourers who do everything, why do the workers not work for themselves? The answer is, of course, that the bosses often provide something integral to the creation of value (such as the tools necessary for a job). Thus the value of the product produced cannot entirely be attributed to the workers, contrary to what communists believe.
Furthermore, the theory becomes harder to support when you examine a more complicated situation. What about a car being created on a factory line, where multiple workers contributed to the end product? How much is being stolen from each worker? The same? What if some jobs were more important or labor intensive than others? Communists probably couldn't give you an answer, but they'd still allege that the workers were being stolen from.
No.61079
>>59245
>[…] from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power
he can sell his lung
No.61083
>>61079
Poland, for fucks sake! This is why we call you controlled opposition. Get the fuck out and stay out!
No.61092
>>59352
You forgot to add that "read a book" isn't an argument.
No.61117
>>59217
>Surplus is created by the Seller not the Producer. And since the Seller creates the surplus, he rightfully owns it (that being the profit). Bob actually got paid for what he did, and was not exploited.
That's absolutely ridiculous. The seller (by which you mean the capitalist, not the actual workers who sell things) didn't create anything, whether the product sold or didn't sell is entirely up to the market, and unless he pours millions into advertising (which is also a job that workers do) then he cannot affect the market. The only way a worker cannot be exploited in a wage-labor relationship is if the employer is a retard and hires him to do a job that won't produce anything value, or something that the employer won't make a profit on. But even this arrangement is a problem, because the worker still doesn't have control over their livelihood and now they're wasting their time producing something not wanted or needed.
>>59218
>First of all, value is subjective
It is absolutely not. It's incomprehensible that this myth can be repeated when if it was true, it'd make the market an unreadable mess where price tags would be widely off at each store. The price of an item fluctuates around its exchange value, which is ultimately the total sum of the socially necessary labor time that went into that commodity, which is to include the dead labor of capital and the living labor of the worker who produced the final product. The price fluctuates around the exchange value based upon demand, supply, and competition.
> Basically, Bob prefers to have a stable wage, than to risk not earning any money in some months, because people didn't buy phones from him that month
Bob prefers nothing except to stay alive. He wasn't giving the option of taking Franks place, and possibly will never have that option. There's a reason rich people don't work as cashiers when they could own the store.
>Yes it's true that Frank could earn a lot of money in some months, but even in the months where he has no profits he still has to pay Bob, otherwise he might get sued by Bob.
That is true, but again, Bob did not make the choice of working for Frank because he weighed the options. Additionally, the Bobs of the world will always produce more they they're paid.
>Thirdly, the contract between Bob and Frank was done voluntarily
It is not voluntary if there's no other viable option, in this case it's work or starve.
>Bob decided that being payed 3$ for every phone was the best option available
Yes, because the other option available was starvation and homelessness.
> he probably borrowed the money to build the factory, buy the necessary equipment, he has to manage the workers to make sure they do a good job, he has to advertise, he has to convince people to buy his phones
All of those are jobs that a worker does, not necessarily the employer. He might do them if he's not big enough, but unless he is paid exactly what those jobs pay normally, then he is making money from the profits of the company, profits resulting from exploitation.
>>59318
>>59497
That's like saying masters are slaves to their slaves because they depend on them.
>>59388
As part of the bourgeoisie, you literally have to do nothing to receive profits from your property. You get someone to manage your assets for you and that's it. Just because many do interact more with their property and might do meaningful jobs to help it grow, does not mean they have to to actually receive profits.
>>59567
> if the bosses are adding nothing themselves and it is the labourers who do everything, why do the workers not work for themselves? The answer is, of course, that the bosses often provide something integral to the creation of value (such as the tools necessary for a job)
The thing is, they do not actually provide anything, they simply allow the use of pre-existing property. The fact that societies have collectivized and employers made obsolete shows that they are not actually useful participants.
>Thus the value of the product produced cannot entirely be attributed to the workers, contrary to what communists believe.
Only labor produces value. An employer might also labor to an extent, producing value, but he does not have to if his business is successful enough, nor does his work have to equal to what he pays himself.
>What about a car being created on a factory line, where multiple workers contributed to the end product? How much is being stolen from each worker? The same? What if some jobs were more important or labor intensive than others?
Collective labor is hard to divide individually, but still, in this case it is the workers as a whole being stolen from.
No.61126
>>61117
>That's absolutely ridiculous. The seller (by which you mean the capitalist, not the actual workers who sell things) didn't create anything, whether the product sold or didn't sell is entirely up to the market, and unless he pours millions into advertising (which is also a job that workers do) then he cannot affect the market.
How is this a problem? When you say its up to the market to decide whether or not the product got sold or not, doesn't effect the worker at all, it effects the "capitalist". The worker has traded the product of his labour is the exchange of capital (money). He faces no repercussions on how the market is going to react to the product. Plus there is no grantee the "capitalist" would even put the product on market. It's the Capitalist that puts the product on the market, and is given what the market returns.
>The only way a worker cannot be exploited in a wage-labor relationship is if the employer is a retard and hires him to do a job that won't produce anything value, or something that the employer won't make a profit on.
The worker isn't being exploited only when a business is doing bad? The worker isn't the one suffering, he's still getting paid. Its the "Capitalist" that has to deal with this lost of money.
> But even this arrangement is a problem, because the worker still doesn't have control over their livelihood and now they're wasting their time producing something not wanted or needed.
WHAT IN TARNATION?!?!? Workers don't care about what they produce, they only care about how much they're going to get paid.
No.61131
>>61117
>That's absolutely ridiculous. The seller (by which you mean the capitalist, not the actual workers who sell things) didn't create anything, whether the product sold or didn't sell is entirely up to the market, and unless he pours millions into advertising (which is also a job that workers do) then he cannot affect the market. The only way a worker cannot be exploited in a wage-labor relationship is if the employer is a retard and hires him to do a job that won't produce anything value, or something that the employer won't make a profit on. But even this arrangement is a problem, because the worker still doesn't have control over their livelihood and now they're wasting their time producing something not wanted or needed.
The "capitalist" created the opportunity for the common worker to get a job/accumulate wealth in exchange for their labor. Without the worker/without the employer (or "capitalist") neither would survive. They both depend on each other and to say otherwise is simply stupid.
>The price of an item fluctuates around its exchange value, which is ultimately the total sum of the socially necessary labor time that went into that commodity, which is to include the dead labor of capital and the living labor of the worker who produced the final product. The price fluctuates around the exchange value based upon demand, supply, and competition.
>less people value that product/won't buy it because they don't think it's worth the price they're asking for so the company sells cheaper
You see??? That's subjectivity at work and the fact you can't see it must mean you're a brainlet.
The rest of your post non substantive and isn't worth trying to argue against.
No.61163
>>61126
>He faces no repercussions on how the market is going to react to the product.
That's completely untrue. If the business does poorly, then he could get his pay cut, his hours cut, or just be laid of. A sizable number of people live paycheck to paycheck, and any of those things can really fuck them over. Whereas if you're a wealthy entrepreneur, a business failing sucks, but you're likely not going to descend to the socio-economic class of your employers.
>Plus there is no grantee the "capitalist" would even put the product on market.
There's no reason why they wouldn't. Producers aren't speculators, they can't afford to hold onto their products for long enough to speculate on them.
>It's the Capitalist that puts the product on the market
Physically, it's the sellspeople who do that.
>The worker isn't being exploited only when a business is doing bad?
Yes, since he is not being paid less than he produces, by definition he is not being exploited.
>The worker isn't the one suffering, he's still getting paid. Its the "Capitalist" that has to deal with this lost of money.
I'm not disagreeing.
>Workers don't care about what they produce, they only care about how much they're going to get paid.
People very much do care about doing meaningful and purposeful work. That's not an option for most so they just find a decent job. The alienation of doing pointless work still gets to them regardless, specifically in the sense of them seeing their very livelihood, the thing they spend the most amount of time on than anything else, as simply a job that they don't like but do so they can survive.
>>61131
>The "capitalist" created the opportunity for the common worker to get a job/accumulate wealth in exchange for their labor. Without the worker/without the employer (or "capitalist") neither would survive. They both depend on each other and to say otherwise is simply stupid.
Yes, labor does depend on capital and vice versa to survive in a Capitalist system, likewise when property is private an individual has to offer to for others to work on. The point is it is not necessary in general, only in Capitalism.
>>less people value that product/won't buy it because they don't think it's worth the price they're asking for so the company sells cheaper
>You see??? That's subjectivity at work and the fact you can't see it must mean you're a brainlet.
Saying that subjectivity is an aspect among many in demand is not the same as saying prices are subjective. Even with subjectivity playing a part, demand is static when market forces are taken into account; if it was truly subjective then prices would vary widely as would demand in general.
No.61220
>>59245
he can sell his lung
No.61243
>>61163
>That's completely untrue. If the business does poorly, then he could get his pay cut, his hours cut, or just be laid of. A sizable number of people live paycheck to paycheck, and any of those things can really fuck them over. Whereas if you're a wealthy entrepreneur, a business failing sucks, but you're likely not going to descend to the socio-economic class of your employers.
This is why contracts are important. If your pay gets cut because of market failure, that's not your fault. And if you don't get paid the promised amount. Then the "capitalist" has broken the contract. When the business is failing and the market can't produce your paycheck, the rest of the money comes out of the "capitalist's" wallet because is was part of the agreement.
>There's no reason why they wouldn't. Producers aren't speculators, they can't afford to hold onto their products for long enough to speculate on them.
You do know charity is a thing right?
>Physically, it's the sellspeople who do that.
And it's the Capitalist that permits it.
>People very much do care about doing meaningful and purposeful work. That's not an option for most so they just find a decent job. The alienation of doing pointless work still gets to them regardless, specifically in the sense of them seeing their very livelihood, the thing they spend the most amount of time on than anything else, as simply a job that they don't like but do so they can survive.
That's a non-sequitur, just because people produce worthless/meaningless stuff doesn't mean they're unhappy with their job. If I got paid to dig a hole in the ground, and soon see it be filled back up later. I still got a reward out of the whole thing. People don't hate their jobs because of what it produces, they hate there job because of a lack of autonomy. They have to get up certain hours, do come to work to do certain things, be around certain people, have to deal with certain issues. Never once to complain about what they produced. Like no hated Government public school because of the grades they made.
No.61291
>>61117
Poor analogy. Proprietors of plantations do not rely on slaves since machinery and tenants are far more efficient. Factories, on the other hand, require skilled labor.
No.61313
>>61243
>This is why contracts are important. If your pay gets cut because of market failure, that's not your fault. And if you don't get paid the promised amount. Then the "capitalist" has broken the contract. When the business is failing and the market can't produce your paycheck, the rest of the money comes out of the "capitalist's" wallet because is was part of the agreement.
There's a reason it's at-will employment and not contracted, precisely because the worker is easily replaceable, and the market can change so quickly it'd make the terms of the contract unfavorable. Only particularly special employees whose skills are in high demand are contracted, and they're given a salary for it, not a wage.
>You do know charity is a thing right?
And unless it's a not-for-profit or an NGO, the charity would be a small part of what it does.
>And it's the Capitalist that permits it
And that's ultimately all they have to do, is permit the use of their property and take the fruits of it. Why exactly is that a necessary role outside of Capitalism?
>f I got paid to dig a hole in the ground, and soon see it be filled back up later. I still got a reward out of the whole thing
And you'd rather be paid to dig and fill holes instead of useful, meaningful work that makes you feel good about yourself?
>People don't hate their jobs because of what it produces, they hate there job because of a lack of autonomy. They have to get up certain hours, do come to work to do certain things, be around certain people, have to deal with certain issues.
And they'll always have to deal with those things as long as they're part of the proletariat, and the majority always will be.
>Never once to complain about what they produced
Because that's not something they think about because a good job is thought of as something that pays well and isn't too shitty. No one stops and thinks "wow, this is really fucking pointless", but even though they don't think that, it still affects them because they're still spending an incredibly sizable amount of their entire life on something they don't care about and just want to get over with.
>>61291
>slave owners didn't rely on slaves
???
No.61324
>>61313
>Only particularly special employees whose skills are in high demand are contracted, and they're given a salary for it, not a wage.
I'm employed on a contract, and I get paid a weekly wage, not a salary. My employer can't change my pay or my hours without my consent. If you're in some pleb-tier "don't let the door hit you on the way out" kind of job then you need to ＧＩＴ ＧＵＤ.
t. minimum-wage supermarket shelf-stacker
>>61163
>A sizable number of people live paycheck to paycheck
>webm related
Learn to save. You should have enough of a buffer to comfortably last for a couple of months at the very least.
No.61325
>>61313
>There's a reason it's at-will employment and not contracted, precisely because the worker is easily replaceable, and the market can change so quickly it'd make the terms of the contract unfavorable. Only particularly special employees whose skills are in high demand are contracted, and they're given a salary for it, not a wage.
So low-skilled (at-will) workers have to compete and upgrade there skill sets in order to stay with in the market? You're complaining that the employer is trying to find the best of the best in order the provide top leading services so he can compete in the market place. Why would somebody hire someone that's not worth it?
Self-interest goes both ways, if you want somebody to give you something, you're going to have to give something in return.
>And unless it's a not-for-profit or an NGO, the charity would be a small part of what it does.
What does that even matter? The capitalist gave the product away at $0. Which means you weren't "exploited".
>And that's ultimately all they have to do, is permit the use of their property and take the fruits of it. Why exactly is that a necessary role outside of Capitalism?
Because he could have done something else with that product if he wanted to. He did pay for it.
>And you'd rather be paid to dig and fill holes instead of useful, meaningful work that makes you feel good about yourself?
This is like asking would you rather be a janitor or a youtuber? Its up to you to decide what kind of life you want, and how much you are willing to pay for it.
>And they'll always have to deal with those things as long as they're part of the proletariat, and the majority always will be.
Well that's an argument for workplace environment, and you can consult that with your employer.
>Because that's not something they think about because a good job is thought of as something that pays well and isn't too shitty.
B-B-B-B Bullshit, just because a job is easy going and exciting doesn't make it good. look at garbage men
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+does+a+garbage+man+make+an+hour&oq=garbage+man+salary&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0i71k1l4.0.0.0.6188.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..0.0.0.AY1F_-vmAXI
> but even though they don't think that, it still affects them because they're still spending an incredibly sizable amount of their entire life on something they don't care about and just want to get over with.
What is this psychology now?
No.61609
>>61324
>I'm employed on a contract, and I get paid a weekly wage, not a salary. My employer can't change my pay or my hours without my consent
I'm pretty sure that's entirely the definition of a salary.
> If you're in some pleb-tier "don't let the door hit you on the way out" kind of job then you need to ＧＩＴ ＧＵＤ.
Someone always has to do those jobs, and many people have no hope for anything better.
>t. minimum-wage supermarket shelf-stacker
Sounds nice. Union job?
>Learn to save. You should have enough of a buffer to comfortably last for a couple of months at the very least.
There's a difference between should and can.
>>61325
>So low-skilled (at-will) workers have to compete and upgrade there skill sets in order to stay with in the market? You're complaining that the employer is trying to find the best of the best in order the provide top leading services so he can compete in the market place. Why would somebody hire someone that's not worth it?
You're moving the goal posts. You were talking about why workers should have contracts, and I'm saying that's not an option for many jobs. Ironically, union security agreements are such contracts yet ancaps hate those and want the state to outlaw them through right-to-work laws.
>The capitalist gave the product away at $0. Which means you weren't "exploited".
And the Capitalist paid me a wage NOT to come to work. I can create imaginary, unrealistic scenarios too.
>Because he could have done something else with that product if he wanted to. He did pay for it.
He could have if he had that legal/moral right. Why should he have that right?
>This is like asking would you rather be a janitor or a youtuber? Its up to you to decide what kind of life you want, and how much you are willing to pay for it.
Almost no one has that choice, they have to worry about not being homeless.
>Well that's an argument for workplace environment, and you can consult that with your employer.
That workplace environment is like that because it is more profitable than otherwise. The employer won't agree to anything else because he can't, he must stay profitable to be competitive.
>Well that's an argument for workplace environment, and you can consult that with your employer.
Hanging onto the back of a truck to toss shit into it or driving around isn't what I'd call easy going or exciting.
>What is this psychology now?
Leftism is more than just being paid more, it's also improving life in general, and work tends to be the majority of it.
No.61617
>>61609
>ancaps hate those and want the state to outlaw them through right-to-work laws
>Ancaps want the State to do anything but disappear
Don't make shit up about what others think.
>Almost no one has that choice, they have to worry about not being homeless.
As always you're confusing choice and ability.
>t. minimum-wage supermarket shelf-stacker
t.no longer work that and have moved up after a year of it
No.61619
>>61609
Just going to bud in here for a second and make a few points.
>I'm pretty sure that's entirely the definition of a salary.
Uh no, you're confusing salary with wage.
>Someone always has to do those jobs, and many people have no hope for anything better.
Right, and it's with those type of jobs that people eventually enter the market and gain more training to further provide people products or services they value in a more efficient manner.
>Ironically, union security agreements are such contracts yet ancaps hate those and want the state to outlaw them through right-to-work laws.
You've never actually read any articles on Libertarian opinions on "right to work laws" have you?
No.61622
>>61609
There'd be a hell of a lot more people with the capability to save if it weren't for inflationist fiat money that couldn't survive in an open market.
No.61658
What role is there for the masses in the vision of the left?
"One role is to provide a moral basis for the left to claim power, as defenders of the downtrodden. No secular doctrine has so swept across the world so swiftly, and with such widespread political impact as Marxism in the 20th century. Its central premise is that the workers are poor because their employers have exploited them.
That was not a hypothesis to be tested but an axiom to be accepted as sacred dogma. Nowhere in the three volumes of Marx's classic "Capital" was there the slightest attempt to test that belief empirically.
It would not be difficult to put the Marxian exploitation thesis to a test. If capitalists' exploitation of the workers is what makes them poor, then in countries run by Marxists, the workers should have a higher standard of living than in countries with a capitalist economic system." - Thomas Sowell
https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/10/16/the-left-and-the-masses-part-iii
No.61688
>>61609
>I'm saying that's not an option for many jobs
THIS IS WHERE COMPETITION COMES IN. Its more preferable to have a job with a contracts. It attracts workers. Even if the job doesn't have contracts. Jobs with no contracts would hardly exist. that's my point. Even if there where, the only people who would take them is low-skilled workers.
>And the Capitalist paid me a wage NOT to come to work. I can create imaginary, unrealistic scenarios too.
You're telling you pay a fee to give to charity? I got news for you buddy, and it ain't good.
>He could have if he had that legal/moral right. Why should he have that right?
? He paid for it. That's why he has that right. Do you know what trading is?
>Almost no one has that choice, they have to worry about not being homeless.
HOLY SHIT, this is next level retardation. When you make choices you have to worry about consequences. Being homeless is a fucking consequence. I.e its up to you to decide what you want to be. This is like saying people don't have to choice to swim because they worry about drowning.
>That workplace environment is like that because it is more profitable than otherwise. The employer won't agree to anything else because he can't, he must stay profitable to be competitive.
You can't be serious…………….If you're environment is shit, you're not going to attract a lot of workers. If you don't have a lot of workers, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE A LOT PROFIT. Its business suicide.
>Hanging onto the back of a truck to toss shit into it or driving around isn't what I'd call easy going or exciting.
Its not, what i'm saying is usually people define "good" jobs by how much it pays. Unless that job is their interest like teaching or something. But on a case by case bases, I don't people have shitty jobs because they see "meaning" in them.
>Leftism is more than just being paid more, it's also improving life in general, and work tends to be the majority of it.
Sorry to tell you, but an economy doesn't care about your feelings.
No.61694
>>59217
Communism would literally go away if either capitalists weren't such dicks or the whole "companies exist to gib money to shareholders" mandate were retired.
If someone's working for minimum wage and sees "their" employer raking in billions, they're rightfully assuming they're getting fucked. What's worse, it's in their employers "interest" to keep their employees as docile and uninformed as possible. That's probably why our education system teaches students jack shit about finances and then throws them to the student loan and credit card sharks.
It's seems quaint that Henry Ford paid his workers high wages so they could buy his cars, but that's exactly the kind of mentality capitalism needs to sustain itself and prevent revolution.
No.61701
>>61694
>It's seems quaint that Henry Ford paid his workers high wages so they could buy his cars, but that's exactly the kind of mentality capitalism needs to sustain itself and prevent revolution.
Sounds more like quaint 'Progressive' fake history
No.61706
No.61714
>>61313
>slave owners didn't rely on slaves
Slavery relied on state enforcement. Once again, machinery and wage-tenants were far more efficient, which was why slavery was collapsing.
No.61734
>>61714
>Slavery relied on state enforcement.
yes but not fully
No.61853
>>59217
Really it's more like this
Cheng makes 100s of iphones a day in a Chinese sweatshop makes 2 dollars for the whole days work and hates his life.
No.61854
>>61694
Based Mutualist comrade is based as usual. When will you Ancaps learn that we can replace the Capitalist class with a different system and have laborers freely exchanging with other laborers.
INB4 "Durrr voluntary"
We don't want to force anyone but can you fucktards for once just acknowledge that just because something is voluntary in a literal sense of the word doesn't mean it's a good thing for society.
If I'm driving down the street and a young girl stops me and says "mister I'm allergic to bees and I just got stung I need to go to the hospital"
and I say "get in my car but you have to blow me for a ride to the hospital"
Am I a nice guy for doing that? Or am I a degenerate scumbag who took advantage of a situation? When leftists talk about "wage slavery" and working for a boss "isn't voluntary" we're not retards we understand that it's literally voluntary I mean obviously you're making a choice but that doesn't mean it's going to build a good society.
No.61859
>>61857
>corporation won't mistreat employees
Yeah because workers in the third world are treated so nicely
No.61861
>>61857
Why do workers at co-ops love it so much?
No.61886
>>61859
>Third world
>Hardly no economic freedom.
>Lack of alternative options for jobs
>Sweet Shops are bad because feelings
No.61887
>>61863
>Sounds like the third world's problem, not mine.
I was enough to be born in the heart of an exploitative empire so I shouldn't care about the horrible living conditions in other places. Wow.....just wow.
>Why don't more workers go make more co-ops?
Do you own your own business? If not, why?
No.61889
>>61854
>When will you Ancaps learn that we can replace the Capitalist class with a different system and have laborers freely exchanging with other laborers.
You assume people would want to replace the capitalist class.
That kinda kills incentive, plus their is no grantee you would even make more money in a industrial-economy than you would in a capitalist-economy.
No.61893
>>61887
>I was enough to be born in the heart of an exploitative empire so I shouldn't care about the horrible living conditions in other places.
Well in all fairness most of these places tend to be socialist or communist countries which don't tend to allow much meaningful outsider intereference, and if he's living rather fairly well in the heart of an "exploitative empire", then it's fairly apparent that it's not actually that exploitative.
> Wow…..just wow.
> ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
I'm sorry, but people from the third world or otherwise don't have an inherent right to our concern. I personally don't give a shit about people from Zimbabwe, it doesn't concern me in the slightest. That's just sort of the way things are, are you going to imply that I am somehow evil or immoral for not caring?
>Do you own your own business? If not, why?
I can't say I personally do, primarily because of the state's taxes on business meant to keep competition out and also because I don't really have an interest in running my own enterprise, the risk involved, along with actually having to come up with something that consumers will value is a bit tough. Even then I'm not speaking for him, I'm just saying why I personally wouldn't want to run my own business
No.61894
>>61889
Than why do workers in co-ops make significantly more than their counterparts in other companies in the same industry?
>>61892
>They clearly don't care enough to change their conditions
Are you serious? You are aware that people working in practical slavery in the third world don't have the resources to change their conditions right?
No.61898
>>61894
>Than why do workers in co-ops make significantly more than their counterparts in other companies in the same industry?
[citation needed]
No.61901
>>61896
>They clearly don't care enough to change their conditions
Barriers of entry via capital and the state and a lack of financial literacy among the population most people don't realize that's an option our society has some serious hegemony.
>Even if this were true, it's my job to help them WHY exactly?
It's not. The reason workers in the third world were brought up in the first place was in response to the claim that corporations don't mistreat their employees. I pointed to working conditions in the third world as an example of businesses exploiting the hell out of their employees and the response was "not my problem lol". Which it isn't, you're correct but that's not the point of the argument.
No.61902
>>61901
fuck I meant to respond to
>Why aren't more workers forming co-ops, if co-ops are just so damn great?
No.61903
>>61853
So I take it you do not understand why the price for labor varies from country to country, state to state, and even city to city?
No.61905
>>61898
The average bread line worker at Alvarado Street Bakery earns 65,000 per year at 40 hours a week as opposed to minimum wage.
>>61903
No, I understand why, and that's not what I'm referring to in my argument. I'm talking about the brutal repression of workers in other countries
No.61906
>>61904
>What the fuck is it with you lefties and assuming that capitalists are always going to be gigantic assholes in any given situation?
That's the claim I was responding to.
No.61908
>>61907
I'm sorry please point to where I said ALL CORPORATIONS WILL ACT THIS WAY
No.61909
>>61907
lol dis nigga wanna talk bout reading comprehension skills hahahaha A+ work comrade
No.61911
No.61912
>>61910
I don't mean to be so rude but please re-read through the thread it's been answered before.
No.61914
>>61913
It's not my fault you're an idiot. Your last "argument" was complete word salad. I honestly have no idea what you were implying. Get some help.
No.61921
>>61905
>Alvarado Street Bakery
That's actually pretty interesting.
No.61946
>>61905
I was responding to commie flag post >>61853. Were you posting under that flag as well?
No.62047
>>61914
Is it tough being a mutualist? You don't fit in on /liberty/ or /leftypol/. No place to call home.
No.62052
>>61901
>working conditions in the third world as an example of businesses exploiting the hell out of their employees
This idea is utterly divorced from reality. Working conditions in third world countries are shit because the economy of that country is only so productive, and workers are prioritizing what profits they can earn above the improvements in working conditions that those wages would earn. It has been shown that once workers are able to afford a certain number of calories per day per family member to eat, they begin to prioritize working conditions over increases in wages, and the market responds by improving those working conditions, independently of any external intervention. The bottom line is that they started off starving, and they found jobs that help them fix that problem. Once they are no longer worried about that, they naturally fix other problems. The businesses operating in these regions simply cannot afford to offer them much better conditions, because it would have to come out of their wages, which those workers need to survive. The businesses don't have unlimited money faucets, and even if they did, the local economy still wouldn't be able to produce enough actual goods to provide for those workers' comfort. Their economy has to grow, which requires it to improve its productivity through the gradual, profit-driven improvement of the capital structure.
No.62062
>>61905
>65,000 per year
that is not much considering the cost of living in southern Sonoma
No.64199
>>62047
Eh, a lot of central planning advocates attack me with straw man arguments but I identify squarely in the camp of the libertarian left
>>61946
No, I was confused.
>>62062
That's not the point the point is that they earn almost 5 times more than their counterparts at other companies and they retain equal rights to decision making so they don't have to worry about their health insurance being cut, getting fired for no reason, losing their pension etc.
Capitalists exploit a lot more surplus value than you realize and this leads to price distortions which mutualists understand causes loads of volatility and problems in a free market.
No.64201
>>64199
>Capitalists exploit a lot more surplus value
This is a concept I don't understand. How can you exploit something that hasn't even been created yet. I.e how can you have your surplus value extracted from you if your products don't get sold? Wouldn't you be making money off the capitalist? Would he not be in return your customer?
No.64237
But the owner doesn't sell the surplus, the workers do.
No.64239
>>64237
Who puts the product on the market? Allowing the workers to sell it.
No.64240
No.64241
>>64240
>The capitalist extracts value from the worker
>The workers places what they make on the market.
Pick one
No.64243
>>64241
Well they do. The capitalist pays them to do it.
No.64245
>>64243
>The capitalist pays them to do it.
Getting closer.
Now, why would the capitalist pay the worker to put the product on the market if the capitalist doesn't own it?
No.64247
>>64245
Well that's the thing. The capitalist does own it. That's all they do. They don't actually contribute labor to it, but they own it, which is why they are able to extract surplus value from it. We just think that the workers should own the full product of their labor; i.e. workplace democracy.
Btw is the communist flag on this board intentionally bad? It looks like it was hand drawn by someone in paint with a touchpad pointer.
No.64248
>>64247
>The capitalist does own it
So you're telling me that the capitalist have full control over the product, and its up to him rather or not he puts in on the market place.
>They don't actually contribute labor to it, but they own it, which is why they are able to extract surplus value from it
And what if they don't put the product on the market are you still exploited then?
>We just think that the workers should own the full product of their labor; i.e. workplace democracy.
We don't care how a factory is runned, all we say is that people have a right to their property. If you don't want to work for someone then go work at a worker co-op.
>Btw is the communist flag on this board intentionally bad? It looks like it was hand drawn by someone in paint with a touchpad pointer.
Yeah the flag is complete shit and it needs to get changed.
No.64249
>>64247
The capitalist owns it because he, unlike the workers, paid for it. He continues to pay for maintenance and raw material and if his business fails, he carries the risk for that, too.
>Btw is the communist flag on this board intentionally bad?
No.
No.64250
>>64247
I wish it was that bad on purpose, that would be funny
No.64251
>>64248
>Yeah the flag is complete shit and it needs to get changed.
>giving even more concessions to statists who want to see you killed
Hey buddy you dropped your flag
No.64254
>So you're telling me that the capitalist have full control over the product, and its up to him rather or not he puts in on the market place.
That is a description of the way capitalism functions, yes.
>And what if they don't put the product on the market are you still exploited then?
Yes, because the product rightfully belongs to me, because I made it.
>If you don't want to work for someone then go work at a worker co-op.
That's not feasible for everyone because co-ops aren't that common. This is for a variety of reasons including corporate welfare, as well as the tax loopholes that established capitalist businesses can take, as they can afford to hire people who know how to do that. A startup co-op has none of these advantages. Also, many banks refuse to even give loans to co-ops.
>The capitalist owns it because he, unlike the workers, paid for it.
With money he got from exploiting other workers.
>He continues to pay for maintenance and raw material
Why do we need a capitalist to do that? Why can't the workers do that themselves?
>if his business fails, he carries the risk for that, too.
And there will be no need for that to happen under socialism. There's no reason that the workers themselves can't carry the risk. And you might argue that the workers don't want to carry the risk, but I advocate a planned economy so that wouldn't be a factor anyway.
No.64255
>>64254
Was a bit high when I made this post so I forgot to quote people. This post is addressed at you guys:
>>64248
>>64249
>>64250
Me too kek
No.64256
>>64254
>With money he got from exploiting other workers.
Suppose he got it by working himself, what then?
>Why do we need a capitalist to do that? Why can't the workers do that themselves?
Sure they can, disregarding legal issues that wouldn't be present in the kind of economy we want. But then they have to pay to get a job, or at the very least work more. If they're fine with that, no problem, I'll be the last to complain, but I doubt this tradeoff will be worth it to most workers.
>And there will be no need for that to happen under socialism. There's no reason that the workers themselves can't carry the risk. And you might argue that the workers don't want to carry the risk, but I advocate a planned economy so that wouldn't be a factor anyway.
How would that not be a factor? All it would do, supposing that a planned economy would actually work, would be to shift the burden of failure to someone else, like the public at large.
No.64257
>>64256
>Suppose he got it by working himself, what then?
It doesn't really change the fact that under socialism it wouldn't be necessary to take the risk to start a company. If it was though, they should be paid for the labor that they put in to the business, but no more.
>But then they have to pay to get a job, or at the very least work more.
Why should one have to do extra just to be paid the full value of their labor? The workers created the machinery that makes the products, and do the labor to create the products. It all rightfully belongs to them.
>All it would do, supposing that a planned economy would actually work, would be to shift the burden of failure to someone else, like the public at large.
There's not that much risk with a planned economy. The Soviet economy doubled during the great depression. This is because planned economies aren't subject to market forces and so aren't subject to boom and bust.
Also, planned economies work fabulously. The Soviets are known to have had the fastest industrialization in history.
No.64259
>>64257
I agree that assuming someone has not sold his labor he owns it, thats why he can sell it if he so chooses, either to some sort of organizer as we see today or to the customers directly, or even not sell it and use all of his labor on himself (aka, living innawoods and self sustaining)
since its his labor he can do whatever he wants with it, but selling it to an organizer is usually the best way to go (right now at least) because the organizer usually gets to split the work up into different specializations, making more value with less effort because of it, assumes all the risk, uses his own funds to make certain things possible that might not be for you alone ect
if the worker is worse off under an employer then he would be self employed, it would only make sense for him to self employ
No.64262
>>64257
>There's not that much risk with a planned economy. The Soviet economy doubled during the great depression. This is because planned economies aren't subject to market forces and so aren't subject to boom and bust.
I find this exact selection interesting because it's almost lying by omission. It is true that there was no "Boom and Bust" within the Soviet Union, however just because there isn't a boom and a bust doesn't mean that there isn't a lot more risk involved with planned economies, this was most notable with the famines of the time that came as a result of collectivization polices whereas there was no such phenomenon during the Great Depression in the US or mostly elsewhere. The closest thing I could really think of remotely resembling a famine in the United States during the great depression a breakout of Pellagra in the Southern half of the United States in the late 1930s but it was promptly fixed once doctors found out that Pellagra was not an infection, but rather a depletion of vitamin B3, which was promptly fixed with Niacin supplements. Whereas in the Soviet Union up to around 5 million people died of starvation just from 1932-1933. Mind you, this doesn't even account for Ukraine, Belaruss, or even Kazakhstan all of which were under Soviet control and also suffered massive losses.
So you're right in so far as the fact that there was no "Boom and Bust", but that's not much to brag about if you're really just in a perpetual state of bust. You can point to the expansion of GDP in that period, but this doesn't mean much, most especially in a command economy since there's no real track record as to whether the goods being produced are actually things that people want or just something that the State wanted to see the production of.
>Also, planned economies work fabulously. The Soviets are known to have had the fastest industrialization in history.
Another half-truth which I find interesting, because you're not necessarily wrong. You're correct, the Soviet Union did indeed have a remarkably fast rate of industrialization at that time but there's a few key details missing.
> Russia pre-tsar
Russia and most of Eastern Europe had already been industrializing at the time, and some would argue it would have been far better off under the tsar, considering that GDP (if we're honestly even going to use that as a measure of success) only really got back to tsar levels at around 1928. It's apparent that Tsarist Russia would have had consistent growth without the heavy costs of the 5 year plan, which were quite disastrous.
> The Soviet Union had shit tier production
Imagine seeing a gun from behind some really thick smoke at a promotional event and it looks really badass. You finally get close to it, and it looks a bit shoddy but not too bad. Then you actually start firing it and it's actually genuine crap, it takes multiple pulls on the trigger to even fire the damned thing and worst comes to worst, the gun overheats to the point where it's not usable after 10 or 13 shots.
That rather drawn out scenario was Soviet production in a nutshell. Soviet industrialization was consistent of complete crap, products that were very low in quality and very low in functioning. This can best be seen in their autom-mobile industry. Although the Soviet Union often tried to play catch-up with market nations at the time by copying their designs, it would come to light that these cars were still utterly dysfunctional in comparison to their original counter-parts. Cars like the Moskvich 400 or the ZIS-100 come to mind. One of which was a copy of a German design, the other one a copy of the 1935 Buick 4-door sedan. All of which generally needed more fuel than their original western counter-parts and often still didn't perform as well. There's also other great tales and legends of this industry such as that of the Lada, which was rather easy to fix. Which is a good thing considering it broke down rather easily and didn't get you very far to begin with.
Mind you, this is just one small sector of the bigger picture. The Soviet Union was just not very good at providing it's citizens good products in general, they often tried to copy their capitalist competitors (rather unsuccessfully I might add) and even their military equipment was something that could be scrutinized for low quality. The planned economy of the Soviet Union simply did not work, it was a dysfunctional mess, one that left a good portion of the population finding solace in the black market. I don't know how you can find the state of affairs within the Soviet Union to be anything resembling the word "fabulous".
No.64264
>>64254
>That is a description of the way capitalism functions, yes.
Well you just contradicted yourself. ~> >>64240
>Yes, because the product rightfully belongs to me, because I made it.
Your labour only played a part in the construction of the finally product. So why would you be owned the full thing?
>That's not feasible for everyone because co-ops aren't that common. This is for a variety of reasons including corporate welfare, as well as the tax loopholes that established capitalist businesses can take, as they can afford to hire people who know how to do that. A startup co-op has none of these advantages. Also, many banks refuse to even give loans to co-ops.
Well that's a argument for government, it would be a lot more easier to start a co-op in ancapistan.
No.64265
>>64251
>The reason you agree him that the flag is terrible is because you're a statist sympathizer.
Nice conclusion, the reason I don't like the flag isn't because I sympathize with. I dislike it because the aesthetics are shit.
No.64414
why not just outsource the laborwork to arduino-powered CNC machines, where some shlubby autists on reddit can work on the open source code with no paycheck?
No.64432
>>64265
But I didn't say you were a statist sympathizer, I just pointed out that you were conceding to someone who wants you killed, which is not a smart move.
No.64457
>>59217
Devil's advocate time.
The problem is that Bob employs several Franks, and skims $2 off of each, earning several times more while serving the least vital, least skilled, least dangerous and most disposable role in the process. He may even employ someone to do his part of the job as well, netting him money for basically existing, which he can reinvest into another enterprise using all the leisure time he has, creating a snowball effect.
More often than not, Bob will be in his position because of dumb luck if not outright malice, rarely because of any sort of merit or accomplishment.
Frank does not have the same options, he has neither the time nor the budget, even if he sacrifices his health, sanity and safety by not sleeping, eating trash, sharing possessions and space with others (how liberating!). Even a turbo-optimized "Frank life" has a snowball's chance in hell of pulling it off. To the Frank that realizes this, Bob's maybe well meaning but nearsighted advice will sound like nauseating tripe, and he will eventually turn to ideologies that at least recognize his position. If he had already tried hard before to succeed and crashed hard due to the system's realities, he may be furious, and out for blood. He will blame Bob, because there's no one else out there to blame. If he happens to find himself in the right time and place, a bloody revolution may happen. Or maybe he'll decide to shoot up a public place by himself, which may be the only dignified and meaningful act left for him.
This would be far less of a problem if the Franks could realize they're getting a shitty deal and renegotiate, leave, or reorganize their business so that Bob is either paid a fitting wage or made obsolete entirely, but that's only a good idea in theory.
In practice, there's countless barriers to this that would take several books to explain in depth, the reasons laying between your average Frank being a dumb fuck, having very limited information, having zero bargaining power, and Bob holding onto his power for dear life, using every dirty trick to keep things the way they are.
Since the only realistic option Frank has is to find another Bob who will screw him over all the same (if he even has that), the Bobs enjoy power not unlike that of a despotic monarch, or at least that of a caste of "betters" chosen basically at random, or worse, handpicked from slimy scum, casting doubt onto the association between unrestricted trade and the pursuit of happiness and liberty.
Time after time we see that people do not handle this kind of power over others well, and they're rarely competent enough for it. They just use it to satisfy their base human desires (in the most abhorrent ways you can imagine) and to accumulate more power. It's very likely that Bob's children will rule over Frank's children in some way. Does this sound like liberty?
Now, one conclusion one might draw is that Franks deserve all this because they're dumb fucks, but the real tragedy is the occasional Frank who isn't, who has no power to change any of this himself, and who also isn't likely to become a Bob due to moral reservations on his part, and the lack of one-in-a-thousand luck that nets you a promotion to the Bob caste. And these days all land on the planet is in the hands of the Bobs one way or another, so the few smart Franks can't even pack up and leave the way they historically used to do, resulting in a civilizational leap every time they did. These days, the smart Frank is very likely to abuse state benefits, live off the grid, or work a low-maintenance job and put as little effort into it as he can get away with.
A modern addendum to this problem is that Frank's job can get automated away any second, and the competition for the remaining positions is more cruel and cutthroat than ever, with Bobs likely to hoard all those nice occupations to themselves and their children. Idealists like to paint a future where everyone is some sort of artist, inventor or other kind of creator, since all the "bad" jobs might be gone, but what I see coming is a worldwide popularity contest where the unliked are left to die, even if they're masters at what they do. At that point, why even live? What fucking farce will humanity have turned into? The age between the invention of computers and the commodization of space travel or the rise of an AI overlord who sees things for what they are, might be the most miserable time people will ever see.
You might argue that this is just the natural order at work, but it's a hair's width from a dystopia, so don't be surprised if people eventually try to solve it with violence. The Commie answer to this problem is as shit as the problem itself, but that's no reason to bury your head in the sand and pretend everything is fine.
No.64463
>>64432
I'll defend myself when he actually aggresses upon me. "Wanting" to kill somebody is not a crime. Seems like you're the one that cares about security more than actual freedom.
No.64481
>>64201
That's irrelevant. Sure, maybe some products won't get sold but that doesn't change anything really. I get where you're coming from but that doesn't address the issue we have with exploitation.
No.64516
>>64481
I'm asking where is the exploitation exactly? My point is once all the work is done and the product has been made and the worker has been paid. And the product is waiting to be put on the market (i.e. hasn't been sold yet). Where is the exploitation? Is it after that product gets sold? Because at that point the worker has already given up ownership of his labour with the exchange of money, and can't really dictated how his traded labour should be used. Plus his labour only played a part in the construction of the final product so why would he have full ownership of the final reward? Did he not give up ownership of his contribution already when sold the rights (labour) over to the capitalist?
No.64522
>>64516
The exploitation occurs due to the worker having no other reasonably viable alternative to selling their labor to the capitalist. If a slave picks cotton and the master doesn't sell the cotton it doesn't change the slaves position.
No.64528
>>64522
But the worker can sell his labor in the market or become self-employed. No leftist complains when they must buy some other commodity from a market or make their own. It seems to always be labor.
No.64531
>>64522
1. Since when did a lack of opposition equate to exploitation? What if the opposition was a good one, would you still be exploited? Also, whats stopping you from creating other oppositions if you're not satisfied with the status quo? Having one opposition doesn't mean you can't create another.
2. That's a false equivalency, unless the "slave" voluntarily or came into an agreement with the master to pick up cotton. Then he did it of his own will. Just because the terms could have been better doesn't mean you where exploited, that's for competition to come fix. It just means you weren't valuable enough.
No.64533
>>64531
The argument of "why don't you just do X if you're not satisfied with Y" is ridiculous. If I don't like my job at the factory why don't I just go build my own factory!
No.64536
>>64533
>I want other people to fix my problems for me.
No.64537
>>64536
The problem isn't caused by the organic consequences of human interaction that's the point you don't grasp, it's a systemic issue where the whole of it is greater than the sum of its parts.
No.64539
>>64537
>Simply working for someone is bad
How about we just let people decide what they're willing to in order to achieve their goal. And the best way to do that is leave people the fuck alone.
No.64540
>>64539
Socialism is leaving people alone to make their own decisions.
No.64541
>>64540
You can have socialism inside ancapistan, we don't care. All we ask is that you leave us the hell alone. Freedom of association is a thing.
No.64542
>>64541
You can have ancapistan in socialism but we can't have our system in your system because of the way your system functions
No.64543
>>64540
That doesn't sound very accurate when you take into account the history of socialism.
No.64544
>>64542
Are you retarded? The whole point of socialism is opposition to capitalism.
No.64546
>>64542
>You can have ancapistan in socialism
>No private property.
No.64566
>>59218
Factory workers on pay per item produced? Where in the world do you find that?
No.64570
>>64457
Shit, I swapped the names around somehow.
No.64575
>>64542
Socialists can found a joint business in ancapistan as long as they don't steal others' things.
But capitalists can't found single-person or joint businesses in ansocistan because every business is owned by society as a whole I guess?
No.68650
@anyone saying 'value is subjective so it doesn't hold' - to Marx, value meant something different to what we mean, namely the amount of socially necessary labour time - time being the keyword.
No.68652
>>68650
Value divorced from utility is empty and meaningless, and mutually beneficial exploitation is a contradiction in terms. If what you say is true, then that's even less of a reason for us to care about Marx' theories.
No.68661
No.68711
>>59352
When a book is just one gigantic essay then it is nessesary to read it. We are not going to go through each and every preposition in one sitting
Example: Free Culture: How the big media uses Copyright to crack down on creativity is a argument against the current copyright law. You would not understand Lawrence argument without reading it. Or you could just strawman him by picking a certain section that the other section perfectly debunks your counter-argument if you just have read a little more.
>lol didn't read, argument btfo in one sentence.
No.68727
>>68711
If you are going to come over here, at least read our books for once.
No.68729
>>68711
>I can't navigate my own sources and refuse to look up yours even when directed to
Don't stop being disingenuous, sneering pretenders. The spirit of Marx lives on in you.