3 ms·

Of course, the worker can choose to put a portion of their income into assets that generate income, and build wealth.

ue_ 10y ago
It's good if some workers are fortunate enough to be able to do this while working for wages, though many do not have such an option either by the need to support a family, paying off debt or the wage is not great enough to be able to invest any of it. One's wealth has little relevance to the theory of worker exploitation, alienation and commodity fetishism. You can be a rich worker but still be exploited in the Marxian sense. You can be poor but still be an exploiter. One's wealth has little to do with the relationship to the means of production, unless that wealth comes in the form of private property upon which wage labour can be employed. The fact is that "pulling up by the boostraps" is not an option for many people, and if it were it does little to stop systemic poverty, destitution and the need to sell labour-time very cheaply.
- HappyTypist 10y ago
  What do you propose to fix this system?
  - nagvx 10y ago
    This is a comment that seems to pop up quite a lot in discussions of the capitalist status-quo. (Often in a more confrontational manner, unfortunately.) I want to point out that having a solution is not a prerequisite to talking about the problem - if that is what you were implying - that is getting things backwards.
    - baddox 10y ago
      That's certainly true, although it would be helpful to offer some suggestions or somehow try to convince the audience that there might be political alternatives. If a reader believes that the current system is the best system possible, than these politically-charged complaints sound as futile as politically-charged complaints about being unable to exceed the speed of light.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    Abolishing wage labour, which I believe can only be done via putting the means of production and land capital (i.e in totality private property) in control of and ownership of the workers (i.e all the workers) collectively. The creation of direct democracy councils (with delegates subject to instant recall) each with completely voluntary participation. No council rules over any other council. The workers use the collectively owned machinery and resources, and take home the product. Those who do not work get nothing, unless having prior entered into agreement with a council for charity. Workers may form groups in which each person's products are 'pooled'; the distribution of these is decided democratically, for example workers may agree to give 10% of their product, or the whole surplus product to the elderly or infirm. Though this is just an example. Managerial positions are of course kept (as managers are wage labourers too), the only difference is that there isn't someone at the top to collect surplus labour. This is otherwise known as anarcho-Communism, or some variant of social anarchism. I am reading into communalism too (Bookchin) and the question of how those in service jobs can own their labour is an interesting one, I'm not aware of the current research on that.

ue_ 10y ago

It's good if some workers are fortunate enough to be able to do this while working for wages, though many do not have such an option either by the need to support a family, paying off debt or the wage is not great enough to be able to invest any of it. One's wealth has little relevance to the theory of worker exploitation, alienation and commodity fetishism. You can be a rich worker but still be exploited in the Marxian sense. You can be poor but still be an exploiter. One's wealth has little to do with the relationship to the means of production, unless that wealth comes in the form of private property upon which wage labour can be employed. The fact is that "pulling up by the boostraps" is not an option for many people, and if it were it does little to stop systemic poverty, destitution and the need to sell labour-time very cheaply.

HappyTypist 10y ago
What do you propose to fix this system?
- nagvx 10y ago
  This is a comment that seems to pop up quite a lot in discussions of the capitalist status-quo. (Often in a more confrontational manner, unfortunately.) I want to point out that having a solution is not a prerequisite to talking about the problem - if that is what you were implying - that is getting things backwards.
  - baddox 10y ago
    That's certainly true, although it would be helpful to offer some suggestions or somehow try to convince the audience that there might be political alternatives. If a reader believes that the current system is the best system possible, than these politically-charged complaints sound as futile as politically-charged complaints about being unable to exceed the speed of light.
- ue_ 10y ago
  Abolishing wage labour, which I believe can only be done via putting the means of production and land capital (i.e in totality private property) in control of and ownership of the workers (i.e all the workers) collectively. The creation of direct democracy councils (with delegates subject to instant recall) each with completely voluntary participation. No council rules over any other council. The workers use the collectively owned machinery and resources, and take home the product. Those who do not work get nothing, unless having prior entered into agreement with a council for charity. Workers may form groups in which each person's products are 'pooled'; the distribution of these is decided democratically, for example workers may agree to give 10% of their product, or the whole surplus product to the elderly or infirm. Though this is just an example. Managerial positions are of course kept (as managers are wage labourers too), the only difference is that there isn't someone at the top to collect surplus labour. This is otherwise known as anarcho-Communism, or some variant of social anarchism. I am reading into communalism too (Bookchin) and the question of how those in service jobs can own their labour is an interesting one, I'm not aware of the current research on that.