3 ms·
>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, thoug
by 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.