5 ms·

>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

>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.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >As far as I know, it is not usually stipulated the products which the employee produces Commission based contracts pay per product/service outputted, while hourly contracts pay per hour worked. Working on commission is arguably less consistent with the conventional definition of "labour", as the worker has more of a private contractor role. Contracts based on hourly pay are trading labour for money. What Marx calls labour-power is conventionally called labour. The employer buys labour, or work, from the worker. >Why can't workers do this? Because they don't have capital.. >And why do you say that Marx ignores this work? Because he does. >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. No, this is the economic quackery I'm referring to. The proprietor of the business (the "capitalist" as Marx would categorize him) uses the labour they bought from the worker, in conjunction with their own capital, to produce products/services. The worker trades away their labour (and any value it generates) for money, so what that labour produced is fully owned by the employer. >neither can anyone deny that the capitalist takes these products, The employer BOUGHT the labour and thus owns the product. The employer is not taking anything. The only things the employer receives are things he/she obtains through trade. >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, This is ridiculous quackery. I've already explained that the employer is providing use of their capital, and direction of the capital, which is contributing value, and which they are compensated for in the way of profit. This is basic economics and Marxism completely lies about and/or ignores it to push its childish and demagogic story about exploitation.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    >What Marx calls labour-power is conventionally called labour. The employer buys labour, or work, from the worker. Marx was very careful to dismiss this, though, in fact it was one of his main critiques of classical political economy. >Because they don't have capital.. Although not ideal, within capitalism the workers can band together and buy capital. >The worker trades away their labour (and any value it generates) for money, so what that labour produced is fully owned by the employer. This is actually out of necessity, for if the worker did not do this, he would likely starve, especially if he had a family. So yes, while the worker does trade it away, he doesn't usually have much choice in the matter. It is in the interests of the workers themselves to stop having to do this. > I've already explained that the employer is providing use of their capital, and direction of the capital, which is contributing value, and which they are compensated for in the way of profit. No you haven't, you have thus far failed to explain why the capitalist deserves all of the product of labour of the worker, other than by being stronger to take it from the worker by force. The capitalist should be entitled to the labour power he purchases (which is actually a lot less than the labour the worker applies), the labour he himself provides and the raw materials. That's all. And if this was all the capitalist could get out of the process, I'd tell you now, there would be far fewer capitalists!

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.

Jabanga 9y ago
>As far as I know, it is not usually stipulated the products which the employee produces Commission based contracts pay per product/service outputted, while hourly contracts pay per hour worked. Working on commission is arguably less consistent with the conventional definition of "labour", as the worker has more of a private contractor role. Contracts based on hourly pay are trading labour for money. What Marx calls labour-power is conventionally called labour. The employer buys labour, or work, from the worker. >Why can't workers do this? Because they don't have capital.. >And why do you say that Marx ignores this work? Because he does. >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. No, this is the economic quackery I'm referring to. The proprietor of the business (the "capitalist" as Marx would categorize him) uses the labour they bought from the worker, in conjunction with their own capital, to produce products/services. The worker trades away their labour (and any value it generates) for money, so what that labour produced is fully owned by the employer. >neither can anyone deny that the capitalist takes these products, The employer BOUGHT the labour and thus owns the product. The employer is not taking anything. The only things the employer receives are things he/she obtains through trade. >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, This is ridiculous quackery. I've already explained that the employer is providing use of their capital, and direction of the capital, which is contributing value, and which they are compensated for in the way of profit. This is basic economics and Marxism completely lies about and/or ignores it to push its childish and demagogic story about exploitation.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >What Marx calls labour-power is conventionally called labour. The employer buys labour, or work, from the worker. Marx was very careful to dismiss this, though, in fact it was one of his main critiques of classical political economy. >Because they don't have capital.. Although not ideal, within capitalism the workers can band together and buy capital. >The worker trades away their labour (and any value it generates) for money, so what that labour produced is fully owned by the employer. This is actually out of necessity, for if the worker did not do this, he would likely starve, especially if he had a family. So yes, while the worker does trade it away, he doesn't usually have much choice in the matter. It is in the interests of the workers themselves to stop having to do this. > I've already explained that the employer is providing use of their capital, and direction of the capital, which is contributing value, and which they are compensated for in the way of profit. No you haven't, you have thus far failed to explain why the capitalist deserves all of the product of labour of the worker, other than by being stronger to take it from the worker by force. The capitalist should be entitled to the labour power he purchases (which is actually a lot less than the labour the worker applies), the labour he himself provides and the raw materials. That's all. And if this was all the capitalist could get out of the process, I'd tell you now, there would be far fewer capitalists!