4 ms·

>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 no

by 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!
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    >Marx was very careful to dismiss this All he did was misdefine the term. Like I said, he promulgated economic quackery, with just enough articulation and elaboration to give the superficial appearance of credibility. The man was a political con-artist and demagogue. >Although not ideal, within capitalism the workers can band together and buy capital. And they sometimes do that. But some people would rather focus their time on working for a wage, than trying to round up hundreds of people to make a tiny personal investment. Fortunately with decentralised electronic currency, coordinating with large numbers of people to invest in projects will become easier, and so we should see investing become more accessible. >So yes, while the worker does trade it away, he doesn't usually have much choice in the matter. Your lament brings to mind Frederic Bastiat's observation: http://bastiat.org/en/government.html http://bastiat.org/en/government.html >Man recoils from trouble - from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils Resources much be produced in order to be consumed. This is not the fault of the "capitalist". The employer offers the worker a trade, and the worker only accepts it if it is in their best interest. >It is in the interests of the workers themselves to stop having to do this. Of course it's in the interest of everyone to be wealthier. >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. I've already explained why your claim that the employer is taking the product of the work of the worker is false. I've also explained what value the non-labouring employer is contributing to an enterprise to justify their profit. When you ignore my arguments, there can be no intelligent or constructive discourse. >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. Like I said, when the employer buys the labour, they acquire full rights to what that labour produces. There is absolutely no injustice or exploitation in employing workers in a for-profit enterprise.

by ue_ 9y ago

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!
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >Marx was very careful to dismiss this All he did was misdefine the term. Like I said, he promulgated economic quackery, with just enough articulation and elaboration to give the superficial appearance of credibility. The man was a political con-artist and demagogue. >Although not ideal, within capitalism the workers can band together and buy capital. And they sometimes do that. But some people would rather focus their time on working for a wage, than trying to round up hundreds of people to make a tiny personal investment. Fortunately with decentralised electronic currency, coordinating with large numbers of people to invest in projects will become easier, and so we should see investing become more accessible. >So yes, while the worker does trade it away, he doesn't usually have much choice in the matter. Your lament brings to mind Frederic Bastiat's observation: http://bastiat.org/en/government.html http://bastiat.org/en/government.html >Man recoils from trouble - from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils Resources much be produced in order to be consumed. This is not the fault of the "capitalist". The employer offers the worker a trade, and the worker only accepts it if it is in their best interest. >It is in the interests of the workers themselves to stop having to do this. Of course it's in the interest of everyone to be wealthier. >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. I've already explained why your claim that the employer is taking the product of the work of the worker is false. I've also explained what value the non-labouring employer is contributing to an enterprise to justify their profit. When you ignore my arguments, there can be no intelligent or constructive discourse. >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. Like I said, when the employer buys the labour, they acquire full rights to what that labour produces. There is absolutely no injustice or exploitation in employing workers in a for-profit enterprise.