3 ms·

> If the value of labour on its own was really equal to the value of money paid to the worker Nobody, not even Marx, is claiming this. The employer does not ac

by ue_ 9y ago

> If the value of labour on its own was really equal to the value of money paid to the worker Nobody, not even Marx, is claiming this. The employer does not actually buy labour, this is a popular misconception. He purchases the capacity to perform labour, which is measured usually in hours (though it can be measured by other metrics too). This capacity is a separate commodity, which is the only thing most workers have available to sell. This commodity is a special kind, for its use value (not exchange value) is the ability to create value, that value is transferred to the products themselves and is crystallised in them, as abstract labour. >and intelligently directing it Nobody denies that the direction itself is applying labour to the products; for if it wasn't, engineers or project managers wouldn't be applying labour. The question is why the capitalist not only receives the fruits of his own labour, but also the fruits of others' labour. Do you not think that a capitalis' labour, when applied in conjuction with the labour of the workers, equals a product which is exactly equal in value to the product if the capitalist was also extracting surplus? The fact is that surplus does not need to be extracted for the products to be made, which is the entire argument behind socialism - you don't need the capitalist for production.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> The question is why the capitalist not only receives the fruits of his own labour, but also the fruits of others' labour. The capitalist receives some of the fruit of other's labor because the capitalist is not only supplying labor, but also supplying capital. And if the capitalist doesn't get paid, then he/she has no incentive to risk the capital in order to buy tools so the workers can be more productive. And then we're in a world where all that really counts is the labor invested in a product, but it's not a better world. We're all out in the fields, harvesting them with sickles, because nobody is willing to buy tractors. Or put it this way: Here's a tool that makes workers more productive. Workers using that tool create more value than would be created by the same workers without that tool. That surplus value goes a few directions. Some of it goes to the workers. (Those workers are now worth more due to knowing how to use the tool, because their labor is more productive.) Some goes to the workers who made the tool. And some goes to the capitalist who puts up the money to buy the tool. You may consider this to be unjust, because the capitalist is getting paid for the labors of others. But the capitalist is also enabling the labors of others. And even if you still consider the situation to be unjust, in the real world the capitalist needs to be rewarded, or nobody buys the tools. (Note well: I am saying that it is just that the capitalist gets some of the surplus value created by the use of the tools - not all of it.)
- ue_ 9y ago
  >The capitalist receives some of the fruit of other's labor No, the capitalist actually receives all of it; the products of labour are re-appropriated at the end of production. The capitalist then pays wage, which is equal to the amount required to sustain the worker, i.e what is required to reproduce his labour-power commodity. > And if the capitalist doesn't get paid, then he/she has no incentive to risk the capital in order to buy tools so the workers can be more productive. I agree, though I can't see why the workers cannot band together and buy tools and capital themselves. Also, tools aren't purchased so that the workers can be more productive, they are purchased in order to increase profit, which may come at the expense of workers. > And then we're in a world where all that really counts is the labor invested in a product, but it's not a better world. Marx was not arguing that the world should be like this, though. It's important to note that according to his law of value, it's only socially necessary labour which counts, a manufacturer can thus increase the value of one hour taken to make his product relative to others by purchasing machinery that gets the job done faster. > Workers using that tool create more value than would be created by the same workers without that tool. No, the value is merely transferred from the tool to the product, no extra value is created simply by employing the tool. The products may end up with more value, or the same value. > And some goes to the capitalist who puts up the money to buy the tool. The surplus doesn't go to the capitalist to buy the tool; in fact, the tool is purchased prior to the good being sold. The capitalist may re-invest surplus into buying more tools, though. > But the capitalist is also enabling the labors of others. No, the others could labour and even purchase the tools themselves, without the capitalist. In a Communist society, this is how it would function. A property owner is not required for the process of producing useful things. Surplus value, according to Marx, does not come out of using tools, it only comes out of the disparity between the value created by the use-value of labour power and the exchange value of labour power. The capitalist in the long run would in fact extract less surplus value with the more automation he employs, because variable capital produces the value whereas constant capital (tools etc.) can only be purchased, and they are worn down according to the value they add. Their maintenance however requires more labour, and that labour the capitalist can profit from.
  - cjlars 9y ago
cjlars 9y ago
> Do you not think that a capitalis' labour, when applied in conjuction with the labour of the workers, equals a product which is exactly equal in value to the product if the capitalist was also extracting surplus? The fact is that surplus does not need to be extracted for the products to be made, which is the entire argument behind socialism - you don't need the capitalist for production. Everyone needs to get paid for what they put in -- by and large, there is no surplus. Contrasting Marx, there are really three, not two groups here. Labor, Capital, and 'Strategic Management' or 'Direction'. Capital is profit that has been saved for the purpose of investment instead of immediate consumption. You can't lease the factory if you've spent everything already, so you need to have some return on investment going to capital in order to compensate them for abstaining from consumption. Labor obviously needs to be compensated in order to work. Direction (who is often also capital, but may be a CEO, Entrepreneur or Inventor without capital), then combines labor and capital in a way that creates value. The problem, if there is one, is that good Direction can create a LOT of value vs bad Direction (e.g. Steve Jobs, Michael Jackson, or Ron Popeil) -- if 'surplus' exists, it's by and large going to the creators of Direction, or Managers, and not capital. However, most would call this 'compensation' for creating value. Put it this way: Labor stays poor, Capital stays rich, and Direction gets rich. So I do not agree with your first quoted question, because the 'product', is inferior if no 'surplus' goes to compensate good Direction.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >Everyone needs to get paid for what they put in -- by and large, there is no surplus. I very much disagree; this would be an ideal situation, which I am a proponent of, however it is not what currently happens, at least from how I see it. Labourers are paid for their labour-power, the capacity to perform labour, rather than labour itself, this is Marx's explanation of the arising of profit. In this system, everything is exchanged at its value, which of course isn't much like the real world, but in the long run Marx's theory attempts to explain the trade of exchange values. >The problem, if there is one, is that good Direction can create a LOT of value vs bad Direction Direction is labour. I'm not sure exactly why there is a distinction being drawn here; if engineering is labour, so is project management, so is direction, accountancy etc. these are all labour, and they add value to the commodities being produced in a capitalist economy. You haven't really provided a reason why direction, even if considered separate from labour, should be compensated as you describe it should be. I believe it should be treated as all other labour is treated. If you claim that the direction synthesises labour and capital to create value, then why can't I say the janitor or low level manager or engineer does the same? Yet nobody would disagree that labour varies in quality, so should it not follow that labour is compensated according to its quality? I don't know where this idea that direction "combines labour and capital in a way that creates" comes from; it is clear that the labourers in fact do this very job, though it is not the combination that creates value, the inputs to the process give a value; if C is the constant capital and V is the value created by the use-value of labour power, the output will be C+V. The synthesis doesn't create any special value, at least according to Marx, if I am reading him correctly. The labourer combines his labour with the wood to make a wooden toy. This labour may be from multiple people - sculptors, the designer of the toy, the person who cut down the tree, the person whe drills the holes in the toy etc. My point is that your argument for good direction requiring, for whatever reason, the surplus extracted from workers, would also seem to apply to good labour requiring surplus, which it clearly does not, as there is good labour while the workers are not rewarded with the surplus extracted from them.
Jabanga 9y ago
>Nobody, not even Marx, is claiming this. You're quoting me out of context. Marx claimed: lv = lw + p With lv being labour value, lw being labour wage, and p being profit. He alleged that the capitalist is expropriating the p from the worker. What you quoted is out of context because it leaves out the "+ the profit earned by the employer" part of the equation. >The employer does not actually buy labour, this is a popular misconception. He purchases the capacity to perform labour, which is measured usually in hours (though it can be measured by other metrics too). No, the employer is buying labour. Labour means work done. That's what an employment contract stipulates the employer is buying. This is why I call Marxism quack economics. It misdefines and mischaracterizes basic terms and concepts to validate its story of exploitation. It's pure intellectually dishonest demagoguery. >Nobody denies that the direction itself is applying labour to the products; for if it wasn't, engineers or project managers wouldn't be applying labour. I'm not talking about workers directing other workers. I'm talking about directing the financial capital that hires the workers. Investments require analysis, and that is work. The actual process of saving and safekeeping capital is also work. This is all ignored in the Marxist analysis, so that you can arrive at the verdict of exploitation, where the "capitalist not only receives the fruits of his own labour, but also the fruits of others' labour". Which is absolute nonsense on so many levels that it's clear that the intelligent advocates of the theory, like Marx, are being disingenuous.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >That's what an employment contract stipulates the employer is buying. That doesn't mean that's what the employer is buying, though. As far as I know, it is not usually stipulated the products which the employee produces, and in fact employers frequently talk of "on company time", and working for the working day, rather than going home when the work is done. In Wage Labour and Capital, Marx writes: Consequently, it appears that the capitalist buys their labour with money, and that for money they sell him their labour. But this is merely an illusion. What they actually sell to the capitalist for money is their labour-power. This labour-power the capitalist buys for a day, a week, a month, etc. And after he has bought it, he uses it up by letting the worker labour during the stipulated time. With the same amount of money with which the capitalist has bought their labour-power (for example, with two shillings) he could have bought a certain amount of sugar or of any other commodity. The two shillings with which he bought 20 pounds of sugar is the price of the 20 pounds of sugar. The two shillings with which he bought 12 hours' use of labour-power, is the price of 12 hours' labour. Labour-power, then, is a commodity, no more, no less so than is the sugar. The first is measured by the clock, the other by the scales. I see no reason why this shouldn't be the case. > I'm talking about directing the financial capital that hires the workers. Why can't workers do this? Workers are able to direct other workers, as project managers, accountants etc. are all workers. So why exactly is the capitalist required? And why do you say that Marx ignores this work? And the fact that the capitalist receives the fruits of the workers' labour is clear: the capitalist appropriates the products at the end of production. He literally takes them and decides what to do with them, for what price to sell them etc. Nobody can deny that labourers add value to the raw materials coming into the factory floor, neither can anyone deny that the capitalist takes these products, including their crystallised labour applied by the workers, for himself, nor can anyone deny that the capitalist must make a profit, this profit only arises out of the disparity between the selling price and the buying price; the only explanation is that what is being sold is what the capitalist didn't pay for, which is done rather slyly by purchasing labour-power rather than labour.

by ue_ 9y ago

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

> The question is why the capitalist not only receives the fruits of his own labour, but also the fruits of others' labour. The capitalist receives some of the fruit of other's labor because the capitalist is not only supplying labor, but also supplying capital. And if the capitalist doesn't get paid, then he/she has no incentive to risk the capital in order to buy tools so the workers can be more productive. And then we're in a world where all that really counts is the labor invested in a product, but it's not a better world. We're all out in the fields, harvesting them with sickles, because nobody is willing to buy tractors. Or put it this way: Here's a tool that makes workers more productive. Workers using that tool create more value than would be created by the same workers without that tool. That surplus value goes a few directions. Some of it goes to the workers. (Those workers are now worth more due to knowing how to use the tool, because their labor is more productive.) Some goes to the workers who made the tool. And some goes to the capitalist who puts up the money to buy the tool. You may consider this to be unjust, because the capitalist is getting paid for the labors of others. But the capitalist is also enabling the labors of others. And even if you still consider the situation to be unjust, in the real world the capitalist needs to be rewarded, or nobody buys the tools. (Note well: I am saying that it is just that the capitalist gets some of the surplus value created by the use of the tools - not all of it.)

ue_ 9y ago
>The capitalist receives some of the fruit of other's labor No, the capitalist actually receives all of it; the products of labour are re-appropriated at the end of production. The capitalist then pays wage, which is equal to the amount required to sustain the worker, i.e what is required to reproduce his labour-power commodity. > And if the capitalist doesn't get paid, then he/she has no incentive to risk the capital in order to buy tools so the workers can be more productive. I agree, though I can't see why the workers cannot band together and buy tools and capital themselves. Also, tools aren't purchased so that the workers can be more productive, they are purchased in order to increase profit, which may come at the expense of workers. > And then we're in a world where all that really counts is the labor invested in a product, but it's not a better world. Marx was not arguing that the world should be like this, though. It's important to note that according to his law of value, it's only socially necessary labour which counts, a manufacturer can thus increase the value of one hour taken to make his product relative to others by purchasing machinery that gets the job done faster. > Workers using that tool create more value than would be created by the same workers without that tool. No, the value is merely transferred from the tool to the product, no extra value is created simply by employing the tool. The products may end up with more value, or the same value. > And some goes to the capitalist who puts up the money to buy the tool. The surplus doesn't go to the capitalist to buy the tool; in fact, the tool is purchased prior to the good being sold. The capitalist may re-invest surplus into buying more tools, though. > But the capitalist is also enabling the labors of others. No, the others could labour and even purchase the tools themselves, without the capitalist. In a Communist society, this is how it would function. A property owner is not required for the process of producing useful things. Surplus value, according to Marx, does not come out of using tools, it only comes out of the disparity between the value created by the use-value of labour power and the exchange value of labour power. The capitalist in the long run would in fact extract less surplus value with the more automation he employs, because variable capital produces the value whereas constant capital (tools etc.) can only be purchased, and they are worn down according to the value they add. Their maintenance however requires more labour, and that labour the capitalist can profit from.
- cjlars 9y ago

cjlars 9y ago

> Do you not think that a capitalis' labour, when applied in conjuction with the labour of the workers, equals a product which is exactly equal in value to the product if the capitalist was also extracting surplus? The fact is that surplus does not need to be extracted for the products to be made, which is the entire argument behind socialism - you don't need the capitalist for production. Everyone needs to get paid for what they put in -- by and large, there is no surplus. Contrasting Marx, there are really three, not two groups here. Labor, Capital, and 'Strategic Management' or 'Direction'. Capital is profit that has been saved for the purpose of investment instead of immediate consumption. You can't lease the factory if you've spent everything already, so you need to have some return on investment going to capital in order to compensate them for abstaining from consumption. Labor obviously needs to be compensated in order to work. Direction (who is often also capital, but may be a CEO, Entrepreneur or Inventor without capital), then combines labor and capital in a way that creates value. The problem, if there is one, is that good Direction can create a LOT of value vs bad Direction (e.g. Steve Jobs, Michael Jackson, or Ron Popeil) -- if 'surplus' exists, it's by and large going to the creators of Direction, or Managers, and not capital. However, most would call this 'compensation' for creating value. Put it this way: Labor stays poor, Capital stays rich, and Direction gets rich. So I do not agree with your first quoted question, because the 'product', is inferior if no 'surplus' goes to compensate good Direction.

ue_ 9y ago
>Everyone needs to get paid for what they put in -- by and large, there is no surplus. I very much disagree; this would be an ideal situation, which I am a proponent of, however it is not what currently happens, at least from how I see it. Labourers are paid for their labour-power, the capacity to perform labour, rather than labour itself, this is Marx's explanation of the arising of profit. In this system, everything is exchanged at its value, which of course isn't much like the real world, but in the long run Marx's theory attempts to explain the trade of exchange values. >The problem, if there is one, is that good Direction can create a LOT of value vs bad Direction Direction is labour. I'm not sure exactly why there is a distinction being drawn here; if engineering is labour, so is project management, so is direction, accountancy etc. these are all labour, and they add value to the commodities being produced in a capitalist economy. You haven't really provided a reason why direction, even if considered separate from labour, should be compensated as you describe it should be. I believe it should be treated as all other labour is treated. If you claim that the direction synthesises labour and capital to create value, then why can't I say the janitor or low level manager or engineer does the same? Yet nobody would disagree that labour varies in quality, so should it not follow that labour is compensated according to its quality? I don't know where this idea that direction "combines labour and capital in a way that creates" comes from; it is clear that the labourers in fact do this very job, though it is not the combination that creates value, the inputs to the process give a value; if C is the constant capital and V is the value created by the use-value of labour power, the output will be C+V. The synthesis doesn't create any special value, at least according to Marx, if I am reading him correctly. The labourer combines his labour with the wood to make a wooden toy. This labour may be from multiple people - sculptors, the designer of the toy, the person who cut down the tree, the person whe drills the holes in the toy etc. My point is that your argument for good direction requiring, for whatever reason, the surplus extracted from workers, would also seem to apply to good labour requiring surplus, which it clearly does not, as there is good labour while the workers are not rewarded with the surplus extracted from them.

Jabanga 9y ago

>Nobody, not even Marx, is claiming this. You're quoting me out of context. Marx claimed: lv = lw + p With lv being labour value, lw being labour wage, and p being profit. He alleged that the capitalist is expropriating the p from the worker. What you quoted is out of context because it leaves out the "+ the profit earned by the employer" part of the equation. >The employer does not actually buy labour, this is a popular misconception. He purchases the capacity to perform labour, which is measured usually in hours (though it can be measured by other metrics too). No, the employer is buying labour. Labour means work done. That's what an employment contract stipulates the employer is buying. This is why I call Marxism quack economics. It misdefines and mischaracterizes basic terms and concepts to validate its story of exploitation. It's pure intellectually dishonest demagoguery. >Nobody denies that the direction itself is applying labour to the products; for if it wasn't, engineers or project managers wouldn't be applying labour. I'm not talking about workers directing other workers. I'm talking about directing the financial capital that hires the workers. Investments require analysis, and that is work. The actual process of saving and safekeeping capital is also work. This is all ignored in the Marxist analysis, so that you can arrive at the verdict of exploitation, where the "capitalist not only receives the fruits of his own labour, but also the fruits of others' labour". Which is absolute nonsense on so many levels that it's clear that the intelligent advocates of the theory, like Marx, are being disingenuous.

ue_ 9y ago
>That's what an employment contract stipulates the employer is buying. That doesn't mean that's what the employer is buying, though. As far as I know, it is not usually stipulated the products which the employee produces, and in fact employers frequently talk of "on company time", and working for the working day, rather than going home when the work is done. In Wage Labour and Capital, Marx writes: Consequently, it appears that the capitalist buys their labour with money, and that for money they sell him their labour. But this is merely an illusion. What they actually sell to the capitalist for money is their labour-power. This labour-power the capitalist buys for a day, a week, a month, etc. And after he has bought it, he uses it up by letting the worker labour during the stipulated time. With the same amount of money with which the capitalist has bought their labour-power (for example, with two shillings) he could have bought a certain amount of sugar or of any other commodity. The two shillings with which he bought 20 pounds of sugar is the price of the 20 pounds of sugar. The two shillings with which he bought 12 hours' use of labour-power, is the price of 12 hours' labour. Labour-power, then, is a commodity, no more, no less so than is the sugar. The first is measured by the clock, the other by the scales. I see no reason why this shouldn't be the case. > I'm talking about directing the financial capital that hires the workers. Why can't workers do this? Workers are able to direct other workers, as project managers, accountants etc. are all workers. So why exactly is the capitalist required? And why do you say that Marx ignores this work? And the fact that the capitalist receives the fruits of the workers' labour is clear: the capitalist appropriates the products at the end of production. He literally takes them and decides what to do with them, for what price to sell them etc. Nobody can deny that labourers add value to the raw materials coming into the factory floor, neither can anyone deny that the capitalist takes these products, including their crystallised labour applied by the workers, for himself, nor can anyone deny that the capitalist must make a profit, this profit only arises out of the disparity between the selling price and the buying price; the only explanation is that what is being sold is what the capitalist didn't pay for, which is done rather slyly by purchasing labour-power rather than labour.