3 ms·

>If they can't produce enough value to justify minimum wages There are alternative views on this. Marx's theory for example says that workers are not paid acco

by ue_ 9y ago

>If they can't produce enough value to justify minimum wages There are alternative views on this. Marx's theory for example says that workers are not paid according to the value they create, or what their labour creates, rather they are paid at the rate which is required to sustain them. The commodity which the worker produces and sells is termed 'labour power', requiring among other things food, enough to support a family if he has one and some amount in accordance with the moral character of society, varying with supply and demand accordingly. This is the minimum that needs paying. So Marx would say that wage has nothing to do with value created. It only has to do with the value of labour power, which is equal to the value needed for the worker to sustain himself.

EpicEng 9y ago
Yet Puerto Ricans don't live in a Marxist society, so I'm not sure how his ideas apply here.
- ue_ 9y ago
  Marx was describing capitalism in his critique of political economy, Capital. Puerto Ricans definitely live in capitalism. A Marxist society (or, Communist) does not have wage labour at all.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Puerto Ricans definitely live in capitalism. Puerto Ricans definitely live in a mixed economy, not the system that Marx described as capitalism, but it arguably shares the salient features of capitalism that Marx was addressing in the excerpt under discussion.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      What is a mixed economy? The definition of capitalism I use is based on the capitalist mode of production, that is, how goods are made within a capitalist economy, viz. production to maximise exchange value over use value, the primacy of wage labour, private (and yes, this can include the state's) ownership of social means of production, and most social production is for the goal of capital accumulation. In my opinion this is enough to say that a particular society is 'capitalist', though like all words there are variety of nuances and exceptions and additions that can be attached. Capitalism in my view neither necessitates nor excludes government controls on production, social democratic policies, taxes, the state (except for defense of private property) etc. A good example of a capitalist (state capitalist) country is the Soviet Union.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Well maybe they should. I'm not a communist, but the idea that there is only one valid economic model that is true and best for all sizes and stages of society sounds just a little bit convenient for the people promoting said model. You don't feed a baby steak. That doesn't mean steak is bad, it means it's not what a baby needs or can use until its older.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  What was cited was Marx's views on how things work in a capitalist society, not his ideal of how they should work in a Communist one, so the fact that PR isn't Marxist is irrelevant to it applicability.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> There are alternative views on this. Since in the post you were responding to, I was challenging the premise you quoted, I think that I am quite aware that there are alternative views to it.
- ue_ 9y ago
  I apologise, I was more aiming to bring to light a particular alternative for wage labour, rather than trying to bring to attention that there are alternative theories in general. I didn't mean to imply that you are ignorant.
stickfigure 9y ago
Marx is trivially easy to refute. Try this exercise: See how far you're going to get with your startup by offering to pay software engineers "enough to sustain them". This is cartoonish. I can't believe people say stuff like this in the 21st century.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >See how far you're going to get with your startup by offering to pay software engineers "enough to sustain them". This is not a refutation. Just like the raw materials used for production, the means of production, land rent etc. what is purchased is a commodity. Labour-time is that commodity. It makes good business sense to not only buy commodities at their value (and no more) but even to try and buy commodities under their value. Why do you think labour-power is any different? It must be paid in accordance with its value, and how much extra is minimally required to ensure the continuance of the production of this commodity. >The owner of labour-power is mortal. If then his appearance in the market is to be continuous, and the continuous conversion of money into capital assumes this, the seller of labour-power must perpetuate himself, "in the way that every living individual perpetuates himself, by procreation." The labour-power withdrawn from the market by wear and tear and death, must be continually replaced by, at the very least, an equal amount of fresh labour-power. Hence the sum of the means of subsistence necessary for the production of labour-power must include the means necessary for the labourer's substitutes, i.e., his children, in order that this race of peculiar commodity-owners may perpetuate its appearance in the market. >Included in the value of labour power is both a physical component (the minimum physical requirements for a healthy worker) and a moral-historical component (the satisfaction of needs beyond the physical minimum which have become an established part of the lifestyle of the average worker). The value of labour power is thus a historical norm, which is the outcome of a combination of factors: productivity; the supply and demand for labour; the assertion of human needs; the costs of acquiring skills; state laws stipulating minimum or maximum wages, the balance of power between social classes, etc. If the capitalist paid for labour-power at more than its value consistently, in the long run the capitalist will tend to make no profit at all. Profit originates in surplus value being extracted, and although there is leeway (there is a rate of surplus value, for example 0.6, though it could be 0.3 and the capitalist would still make a profit) any sensible capitalist will aim for the largest extraction possible.

by ue_ 9y ago

EpicEng 9y ago

Yet Puerto Ricans don't live in a Marxist society, so I'm not sure how his ideas apply here.

ue_ 9y ago
Marx was describing capitalism in his critique of political economy, Capital. Puerto Ricans definitely live in capitalism. A Marxist society (or, Communist) does not have wage labour at all.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Puerto Ricans definitely live in capitalism. Puerto Ricans definitely live in a mixed economy, not the system that Marx described as capitalism, but it arguably shares the salient features of capitalism that Marx was addressing in the excerpt under discussion.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    What is a mixed economy? The definition of capitalism I use is based on the capitalist mode of production, that is, how goods are made within a capitalist economy, viz. production to maximise exchange value over use value, the primacy of wage labour, private (and yes, this can include the state's) ownership of social means of production, and most social production is for the goal of capital accumulation. In my opinion this is enough to say that a particular society is 'capitalist', though like all words there are variety of nuances and exceptions and additions that can be attached. Capitalism in my view neither necessitates nor excludes government controls on production, social democratic policies, taxes, the state (except for defense of private property) etc. A good example of a capitalist (state capitalist) country is the Soviet Union.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Well maybe they should. I'm not a communist, but the idea that there is only one valid economic model that is true and best for all sizes and stages of society sounds just a little bit convenient for the people promoting said model. You don't feed a baby steak. That doesn't mean steak is bad, it means it's not what a baby needs or can use until its older.
dragonwriter 9y ago
What was cited was Marx's views on how things work in a capitalist society, not his ideal of how they should work in a Communist one, so the fact that PR isn't Marxist is irrelevant to it applicability.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> There are alternative views on this. Since in the post you were responding to, I was challenging the premise you quoted, I think that I am quite aware that there are alternative views to it.

ue_ 9y ago
I apologise, I was more aiming to bring to light a particular alternative for wage labour, rather than trying to bring to attention that there are alternative theories in general. I didn't mean to imply that you are ignorant.

stickfigure 9y ago

Marx is trivially easy to refute. Try this exercise: See how far you're going to get with your startup by offering to pay software engineers "enough to sustain them". This is cartoonish. I can't believe people say stuff like this in the 21st century.

ue_ 9y ago
>See how far you're going to get with your startup by offering to pay software engineers "enough to sustain them". This is not a refutation. Just like the raw materials used for production, the means of production, land rent etc. what is purchased is a commodity. Labour-time is that commodity. It makes good business sense to not only buy commodities at their value (and no more) but even to try and buy commodities under their value. Why do you think labour-power is any different? It must be paid in accordance with its value, and how much extra is minimally required to ensure the continuance of the production of this commodity. >The owner of labour-power is mortal. If then his appearance in the market is to be continuous, and the continuous conversion of money into capital assumes this, the seller of labour-power must perpetuate himself, "in the way that every living individual perpetuates himself, by procreation." The labour-power withdrawn from the market by wear and tear and death, must be continually replaced by, at the very least, an equal amount of fresh labour-power. Hence the sum of the means of subsistence necessary for the production of labour-power must include the means necessary for the labourer's substitutes, i.e., his children, in order that this race of peculiar commodity-owners may perpetuate its appearance in the market. >Included in the value of labour power is both a physical component (the minimum physical requirements for a healthy worker) and a moral-historical component (the satisfaction of needs beyond the physical minimum which have become an established part of the lifestyle of the average worker). The value of labour power is thus a historical norm, which is the outcome of a combination of factors: productivity; the supply and demand for labour; the assertion of human needs; the costs of acquiring skills; state laws stipulating minimum or maximum wages, the balance of power between social classes, etc. If the capitalist paid for labour-power at more than its value consistently, in the long run the capitalist will tend to make no profit at all. Profit originates in surplus value being extracted, and although there is leeway (there is a rate of surplus value, for example 0.6, though it could be 0.3 and the capitalist would still make a profit) any sensible capitalist will aim for the largest extraction possible.