4 ms·

>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 pro

by 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.

cjlars 9y ago
>Yet nobody would disagree that labour varies in quality, so should it not follow that labour is compensated according to its quality? Yes, labor should be compensated according to it's quality. You appear to be saying that, by and large, it is not. Yet if management and labor are one in the same, then who is setting the compensation rates for labor except labor itself? By that same logic, capital is only deferred consumption derived from labor -- meaning everything is labor. Meaning labor is extracting surplus from itself... At which point the attempt to moralize labor as deserving and capital as non-deserving collapses upon itself. The system is a process. It goes round and round. People who are talented get bigger shares because they produce more. Anyone who saves to create capital gets compensated for that as well. Where is the surplus? >it is not the combination that creates value, the inputs to the process give a value I'm not sure this is a meaningful distinction. Where is a surplus created in this process? >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. I was trying to speak to you on your terms. Remember I lead by saying the 'surplus', as you're defining it, doesn't exist. What is 'good labor' and what is 'not rewarded'? You're resting your entire argument on normative, non-falsifiable judgments.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >Yet if management and labor are one in the same, then who is setting the compensation rates for labor except labor itself? I can't see the problem with that; however please do not mistake me as a proponent of co-operative business models. Although I regard these as better than the traditional capitalist profit making model, they are imperfect, as they work within the system of private property and capital accumulation, and cannot hope to compete with the companies owned by capitalists, at least on a large scale. It is possible to extract surplus from yourself, the best option in such a situation in my opinion would be all the workers collectiely deciding what to do with that surplus, though I will repeat that I am not a proponent for this, I am a proponent for the total removal of capitalism, and indeed abolishing the law of value (from which surplus value is derived), as would happen in a Communist society. >I'm not sure this is a meaningful distinction. Where is a surplus created in this process? The owner pays the worker x wage for a certain amount of labour time, this labour time being equal to the amount required to "sustain" the worker[0], however the worker's commodity which he provides can actually produce more than what is required to sustain him, because the worker is a living being, this commodity of labour can actually create value. Remember that the worker is being given enough to sustain him, i.e replicate the labour power commodity, not the value he actually creates. That value he actually creates can't be estimated in advance, as value only becomes apparent in exchange. The surplus is the disparity between the value of labour power and the value of the product, which is realised in the sale of the product. Part of that surplus goes toward paying taxes, future development etc. however it is wholly originating from this act of buying and selling, everything at its value. There is no cheating or trickery or force involved, this explains profit. [0] From Classical Econophysics by Cockshott et al.: Marx’s distinction was a useful clarification of previous classical usage, which in effect amounted to a play on the word ‘labour’. At the same time it opened the door for his concept of exploitation. Marx asked, where does profit come from? The answer, Marx said, lies in the special commodity labour-power. The worker sells to the capitalist labour-power which embodies (let’s say) 5 hours; that is, the value of the worker’s means of subsistence amounts to 5 hours per day. But once he gets through the factory gates or the office door, he finds that the working day is 8 hours. The worker therefore performs 3 hours of ‘surplus labour’ per day and this is manifest in 3 hours’ worth of surplus value accruing to the capitalist. Marx calls the labour time workers spend in reproducing the value of their wages the ‘necessary labour time’, and he calls the ratio of surplus labour time to necessary labour time the 'rate of surplus value'. In the example just given the rate of surplus value is 3/5 = 0.6. What do I mean by "sustain"? It is not merely how much the worker requires to live. The Wikipedia article on labour power puts it as: 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.

by ue_ 9y ago

cjlars 9y ago

>Yet nobody would disagree that labour varies in quality, so should it not follow that labour is compensated according to its quality? Yes, labor should be compensated according to it's quality. You appear to be saying that, by and large, it is not. Yet if management and labor are one in the same, then who is setting the compensation rates for labor except labor itself? By that same logic, capital is only deferred consumption derived from labor -- meaning everything is labor. Meaning labor is extracting surplus from itself... At which point the attempt to moralize labor as deserving and capital as non-deserving collapses upon itself. The system is a process. It goes round and round. People who are talented get bigger shares because they produce more. Anyone who saves to create capital gets compensated for that as well. Where is the surplus? >it is not the combination that creates value, the inputs to the process give a value I'm not sure this is a meaningful distinction. Where is a surplus created in this process? >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. I was trying to speak to you on your terms. Remember I lead by saying the 'surplus', as you're defining it, doesn't exist. What is 'good labor' and what is 'not rewarded'? You're resting your entire argument on normative, non-falsifiable judgments.

ue_ 9y ago
>Yet if management and labor are one in the same, then who is setting the compensation rates for labor except labor itself? I can't see the problem with that; however please do not mistake me as a proponent of co-operative business models. Although I regard these as better than the traditional capitalist profit making model, they are imperfect, as they work within the system of private property and capital accumulation, and cannot hope to compete with the companies owned by capitalists, at least on a large scale. It is possible to extract surplus from yourself, the best option in such a situation in my opinion would be all the workers collectiely deciding what to do with that surplus, though I will repeat that I am not a proponent for this, I am a proponent for the total removal of capitalism, and indeed abolishing the law of value (from which surplus value is derived), as would happen in a Communist society. >I'm not sure this is a meaningful distinction. Where is a surplus created in this process? The owner pays the worker x wage for a certain amount of labour time, this labour time being equal to the amount required to "sustain" the worker[0], however the worker's commodity which he provides can actually produce more than what is required to sustain him, because the worker is a living being, this commodity of labour can actually create value. Remember that the worker is being given enough to sustain him, i.e replicate the labour power commodity, not the value he actually creates. That value he actually creates can't be estimated in advance, as value only becomes apparent in exchange. The surplus is the disparity between the value of labour power and the value of the product, which is realised in the sale of the product. Part of that surplus goes toward paying taxes, future development etc. however it is wholly originating from this act of buying and selling, everything at its value. There is no cheating or trickery or force involved, this explains profit. [0] From Classical Econophysics by Cockshott et al.: Marx’s distinction was a useful clarification of previous classical usage, which in effect amounted to a play on the word ‘labour’. At the same time it opened the door for his concept of exploitation. Marx asked, where does profit come from? The answer, Marx said, lies in the special commodity labour-power. The worker sells to the capitalist labour-power which embodies (let’s say) 5 hours; that is, the value of the worker’s means of subsistence amounts to 5 hours per day. But once he gets through the factory gates or the office door, he finds that the working day is 8 hours. The worker therefore performs 3 hours of ‘surplus labour’ per day and this is manifest in 3 hours’ worth of surplus value accruing to the capitalist. Marx calls the labour time workers spend in reproducing the value of their wages the ‘necessary labour time’, and he calls the ratio of surplus labour time to necessary labour time the 'rate of surplus value'. In the example just given the rate of surplus value is 3/5 = 0.6. What do I mean by "sustain"? It is not merely how much the worker requires to live. The Wikipedia article on labour power puts it as: 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.