6 ms·

Why is whether the employer created it or not relevant? What matters is the fact that the employee is forced to work, or to starve. In the times of widespread s

by ue_ 9y ago

Why is whether the employer created it or not relevant? What matters is the fact that the employee is forced to work, or to starve. In the times of widespread slavery, a slave owner didn't create the system of slavery, yet nobody would disagree that the slave owner is exploiting the slave, for the slave has no choice but to be a slave, either to this particular owner or to any other owner. It is not a consensual relationship, and at the very least it is exploitative, just as a prostitute who must sell herself on the street to make ends meet is being exploited - not by any particular person, but by the system perpetuated by the individuals who force her to sell herself in this way. When the only alternative is starving, I'm afraid to say that it's not consent when someone agrees not to starve.

supremesaboteur 9y ago
Someone has to work to produce the goods and services we need In slavery the owner is creating the conditions of oppression. In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty Equating all hardships to slavery is pure folly
- ue_ 9y ago
  > Someone has to work to produce the goods and services we need I agree, but they don't have to work for someone else who extracts surplus. They can organise themselves and work themselves, voluntarily. They then own the products they make and decide how and if to distribute them. >In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty In slavery, the slave owner is providing the housing and food which could potentially lift the slave out of being in a state without food or shelter. The owner and employer both perpetuate the system of oppression, this much is a fact. If there were no capitalists, there would be capitalism. If there were no slave owners, there would be no slavery. If there were no lords, there would be no feudalism. You cannot escape the fact that the capitalist is taking advantage of the lack of choice and lack of capital by virtue of accident of birth and the property system which the capitalist defends and supports.
  - supremesaboteur 9y ago
    > but they don't have to work for someone else who extracts surplus This surplus is profit, which is the motivation for setting up businesses. Take that away and there is no good reason for taking the risk > They can organise themselves and work themselves, voluntarily. This is already allowed in a capitalist society > They then own the products they make and decide how and if to distribute them Disagree. The labourers own their labour and the owners own the product > In slavery, the slave owner is providing the housing and food which could potentially lift the slave out of being in a state without food or shelter Again, in slavery you do not own your labour. So the surplus of your wages ( or time ) cannot be invested, or used to create capital > The owner and employer both perpetuate the system of oppression, this much is a fact. If there were no capitalists, there would be capitalism. If there were no slave owners, there would be no slavery. If there were no lords, there would be no feudalism. What does this even mean ? > You cannot escape the fact that the capitalist is taking advantage of the lack of choice and lack of capital by virtue of accident of birth and the property system which the capitalist defends and supports Without property ( which ultimately boils down to the right to enjoy the fruits of one's labour ) there is no good reason to perform the unenviable job we call "work" To me, it looks like the system you are proposing would be very much like slavery
    - ue_ 9y ago
      >Take that away and there is no good reason for taking the risk I'm not arguing for businesses, I'm arguing for the destruction of capitalism. I hope that businesses currently around fail. >This is already allowed in a capitalist society Any organisation which attempts to do so will fail very quickly, due to the fact that (i) workers must be kept employed, not disposed of when machinery that does a better job becomes available (ii) workers would have to be paid much higher than in those firms that do not operate as co-operatives. These two facts mean that such an organisation cannot compete. A good analysis is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAxajtiRatg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAxajtiRatg It is not a viable option within capitalism to provide for the labour force in the interests of the labour force. Also, most people cannot be employed in a co-operative, so the problem still exists. As long as the problem exists for even one person, I view that as reason to fix the system. >The labourers own their labour and the owners own the product Wrong. Labourers sell their labour-time to the capitalist, and that commodity has the use value of creating labour, which is transferred to the products. The labour is crystallised inside the products which are made, and those are appropriated by the capitalist at the end of production. If the worker owned his labour, the products at the end of production which the capitalist re-possesses in order to sell would have no more value than when they entered the factory as raw materials and machinery. Therefore the capitalist could not make any profit. >What does this even mean ? Capitalism requires land and property owners; if those land and property owners cease to exist, capitalism must also cease to exist. As such, the system which creates the force for people to choose between starving and wage labour is perpetuated by the whole class of property owners, i.e the capitalists. >Without property ( which ultimately boils down to the right to enjoy the fruits of one's labour ) there is no good reason to perform the unenviable job we call "work" Why is work unenviable? And within a Socialist society, the workers own what they produce by the end of the production process. They can then decide democratically how to distribute the products that they make among themselves, or choose to not distribute them at all. If you are trying to say that humans just sit around all day and do nothing, this is incorrect; in any system, one must work to survive. In a Socialist system, you are rewarded according to your labour, because you own what you make in a joint production process. There are various motivations for wanting to work, too; the desire for credit, wanting to provide for your family and children, wanting to improve the conditions of the society you live in, the desire to help other people in your community, out of necessity for something you want to see finished, for mastery, as a hobby, etc. It will be up to an individual to decide why he wishes to work, but in no circumstance will he forced to sell his labour-power for someone to make money from his labour without doing an hour of labour themselves.

by ue_ 9y ago

supremesaboteur 9y ago

Someone has to work to produce the goods and services we need In slavery the owner is creating the conditions of oppression. In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty Equating all hardships to slavery is pure folly

ue_ 9y ago
> Someone has to work to produce the goods and services we need I agree, but they don't have to work for someone else who extracts surplus. They can organise themselves and work themselves, voluntarily. They then own the products they make and decide how and if to distribute them. >In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty In slavery, the slave owner is providing the housing and food which could potentially lift the slave out of being in a state without food or shelter. The owner and employer both perpetuate the system of oppression, this much is a fact. If there were no capitalists, there would be capitalism. If there were no slave owners, there would be no slavery. If there were no lords, there would be no feudalism. You cannot escape the fact that the capitalist is taking advantage of the lack of choice and lack of capital by virtue of accident of birth and the property system which the capitalist defends and supports.
- supremesaboteur 9y ago
  > but they don't have to work for someone else who extracts surplus This surplus is profit, which is the motivation for setting up businesses. Take that away and there is no good reason for taking the risk > They can organise themselves and work themselves, voluntarily. This is already allowed in a capitalist society > They then own the products they make and decide how and if to distribute them Disagree. The labourers own their labour and the owners own the product > In slavery, the slave owner is providing the housing and food which could potentially lift the slave out of being in a state without food or shelter Again, in slavery you do not own your labour. So the surplus of your wages ( or time ) cannot be invested, or used to create capital > The owner and employer both perpetuate the system of oppression, this much is a fact. If there were no capitalists, there would be capitalism. If there were no slave owners, there would be no slavery. If there were no lords, there would be no feudalism. What does this even mean ? > You cannot escape the fact that the capitalist is taking advantage of the lack of choice and lack of capital by virtue of accident of birth and the property system which the capitalist defends and supports Without property ( which ultimately boils down to the right to enjoy the fruits of one's labour ) there is no good reason to perform the unenviable job we call "work" To me, it looks like the system you are proposing would be very much like slavery
  - ue_ 9y ago
    >Take that away and there is no good reason for taking the risk I'm not arguing for businesses, I'm arguing for the destruction of capitalism. I hope that businesses currently around fail. >This is already allowed in a capitalist society Any organisation which attempts to do so will fail very quickly, due to the fact that (i) workers must be kept employed, not disposed of when machinery that does a better job becomes available (ii) workers would have to be paid much higher than in those firms that do not operate as co-operatives. These two facts mean that such an organisation cannot compete. A good analysis is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAxajtiRatg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAxajtiRatg It is not a viable option within capitalism to provide for the labour force in the interests of the labour force. Also, most people cannot be employed in a co-operative, so the problem still exists. As long as the problem exists for even one person, I view that as reason to fix the system. >The labourers own their labour and the owners own the product Wrong. Labourers sell their labour-time to the capitalist, and that commodity has the use value of creating labour, which is transferred to the products. The labour is crystallised inside the products which are made, and those are appropriated by the capitalist at the end of production. If the worker owned his labour, the products at the end of production which the capitalist re-possesses in order to sell would have no more value than when they entered the factory as raw materials and machinery. Therefore the capitalist could not make any profit. >What does this even mean ? Capitalism requires land and property owners; if those land and property owners cease to exist, capitalism must also cease to exist. As such, the system which creates the force for people to choose between starving and wage labour is perpetuated by the whole class of property owners, i.e the capitalists. >Without property ( which ultimately boils down to the right to enjoy the fruits of one's labour ) there is no good reason to perform the unenviable job we call "work" Why is work unenviable? And within a Socialist society, the workers own what they produce by the end of the production process. They can then decide democratically how to distribute the products that they make among themselves, or choose to not distribute them at all. If you are trying to say that humans just sit around all day and do nothing, this is incorrect; in any system, one must work to survive. In a Socialist system, you are rewarded according to your labour, because you own what you make in a joint production process. There are various motivations for wanting to work, too; the desire for credit, wanting to provide for your family and children, wanting to improve the conditions of the society you live in, the desire to help other people in your community, out of necessity for something you want to see finished, for mastery, as a hobby, etc. It will be up to an individual to decide why he wishes to work, but in no circumstance will he forced to sell his labour-power for someone to make money from his labour without doing an hour of labour themselves.