3 ms·

> The point is that this is a rather strange exchange. Instead of the laborer's product of creation being bought as a commodity, the capitalist pays the laborer

by least 4y ago

> The point is that this is a rather strange exchange. Instead of the laborer's product of creation being bought as a commodity, the capitalist pays the laborer for their time. The capitalist makes a profit (in their subsequent transactions[2]) because the the money gained by reselling what the laborer produces nets a profit[3]. Were that this was a fair trade, there would be no profit to make.[4] > 3. Yes, even when accounting for raw materials and the investment in the instruments of production. Even if you just presume this to be true, which is ridiculous, it fails to acknowledge that 1) resources are a finite and scarce, 2) supply and demand are variable, and as such, so is the value of labor and goods (money is a representation of labor), and 3) that the "capitalists" in this situation are performing labor by performing transactions (but also probably many other things as well). Your argument basically hinges on the notion that the value of goods is static and that certain types of labor have zero value.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
I regret to inform you that this argument is not mine; it's Marx's. You're more than welcome to direct your complaints to him, but he may take a while to respond. Be assured though, if you take the time to read Capital, your criticisms are addressed. I'd encourage you to read it. It's a much better way to understand the argument than a HN comment section. Good luck!
- least 4y ago
  If it were simply about Marx's argument, then you wouldn't suggest that we (you and I, not Marx) could be in agreement, which you mentioned in your previous comment. This is like me telling you to go read a textbook on economics. Obviously it's a better way to learn about economics than from me, but that's not really the point, is it?
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    I'm sorry, but did I do something to offend you?
    - least 4y ago
      You made a clear rebuttal to my original comment, supported by what Marx wrote. I'd ask that you take ownership of your own argument rather than shifting it over to Marx. Your assertion was this: > Extending this to all labor is evidently disingenuous as the argument is contingent on the exchange of money and I hope at this point, given the above, you can see why. In order for me to agree with your assertion, I'd have to agree with the basis for it, which was Marx's writing. I made a point as to why I think it's wrong because I think Marx is fundamentally wrong. Asking me to read Das Kapital or talk to Marx is non sequitur.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Take a step back for a moment. The point your making is that wage slavery shouldn't exist as an interesting or separate category because all organisms have to work to live. This is like saying that sex trafficking isn't conceptually important because species must reproduce to survive. It's so wildly beyond the pale that it's difficult to categorize it as a particular breech of logic other than simply and fundamentally confused.
        Natsu 4y ago
        I think you'd have better luck by explaining your ideas further, rather than simply trying to associate ideas with emotionally charged words like 'slavery' or 'sex trafficking' by writing them next to things you dislike.
        funnymony 4y ago
        This analogy got me thinking, but only for a little bit. Similarity: people are forced to do things which they would not choose to do. (Different form would be preferable or for some none). Difference: level of freedom. Wage slave can choose a lot (whom to slave, what to do with the wage, if to change occupation or if to invest). Sex trafficked person has far fewer options.
        least 4y ago
        > Take a step back for a moment. The point your making is that wage slavery shouldn't exist as an interesting or separate category because all organisms have to work to live. I am saying that extending the definition of slavery to simply include any process that is being thrust upon a living being is idiotic. All living beings are required to perform labor to live. Performing labor for wages is an extension of that that fits within a human framework. Rather than individually performing all the requirements to live by creating your own shelter, making sure that you stay warm, hunting other animals or gathering edible berries, nuts, and the like, we've figured out a way to more efficiently divide the labor and abstracted away the notion of labor into something called money (or wages). It enables human beings to use their time more efficiently and is why we are such a successful species. No, you're not enslaved because you feel like you have to work for a wage. Unless you are being coerced by another person into performing labor for them (with or without compensation), you are not being enslaved. External natural forces like going hungry or going cold are not acts of coercion. That is simply life. > This is like saying that sex trafficking isn't conceptually important because species must reproduce to survive. I'm not sure how you extrapolated this, either. To quote you, "It's so wildly beyond the pale that it's difficult to categorize it as a particular breech of logic other than simply and fundamentally confused."

by least 4y ago

kelseyfrog 4y ago

I regret to inform you that this argument is not mine; it's Marx's. You're more than welcome to direct your complaints to him, but he may take a while to respond. Be assured though, if you take the time to read Capital, your criticisms are addressed. I'd encourage you to read it. It's a much better way to understand the argument than a HN comment section. Good luck!

least 4y ago
If it were simply about Marx's argument, then you wouldn't suggest that we (you and I, not Marx) could be in agreement, which you mentioned in your previous comment. This is like me telling you to go read a textbook on economics. Obviously it's a better way to learn about economics than from me, but that's not really the point, is it?
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  I'm sorry, but did I do something to offend you?
  - least 4y ago
    You made a clear rebuttal to my original comment, supported by what Marx wrote. I'd ask that you take ownership of your own argument rather than shifting it over to Marx. Your assertion was this: > Extending this to all labor is evidently disingenuous as the argument is contingent on the exchange of money and I hope at this point, given the above, you can see why. In order for me to agree with your assertion, I'd have to agree with the basis for it, which was Marx's writing. I made a point as to why I think it's wrong because I think Marx is fundamentally wrong. Asking me to read Das Kapital or talk to Marx is non sequitur.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Take a step back for a moment. The point your making is that wage slavery shouldn't exist as an interesting or separate category because all organisms have to work to live. This is like saying that sex trafficking isn't conceptually important because species must reproduce to survive. It's so wildly beyond the pale that it's difficult to categorize it as a particular breech of logic other than simply and fundamentally confused.
      - Natsu 4y ago
        I think you'd have better luck by explaining your ideas further, rather than simply trying to associate ideas with emotionally charged words like 'slavery' or 'sex trafficking' by writing them next to things you dislike.
      - funnymony 4y ago
        This analogy got me thinking, but only for a little bit. Similarity: people are forced to do things which they would not choose to do. (Different form would be preferable or for some none). Difference: level of freedom. Wage slave can choose a lot (whom to slave, what to do with the wage, if to change occupation or if to invest). Sex trafficked person has far fewer options.
      - least 4y ago
        > Take a step back for a moment. The point your making is that wage slavery shouldn't exist as an interesting or separate category because all organisms have to work to live. I am saying that extending the definition of slavery to simply include any process that is being thrust upon a living being is idiotic. All living beings are required to perform labor to live. Performing labor for wages is an extension of that that fits within a human framework. Rather than individually performing all the requirements to live by creating your own shelter, making sure that you stay warm, hunting other animals or gathering edible berries, nuts, and the like, we've figured out a way to more efficiently divide the labor and abstracted away the notion of labor into something called money (or wages). It enables human beings to use their time more efficiently and is why we are such a successful species. No, you're not enslaved because you feel like you have to work for a wage. Unless you are being coerced by another person into performing labor for them (with or without compensation), you are not being enslaved. External natural forces like going hungry or going cold are not acts of coercion. That is simply life. > This is like saying that sex trafficking isn't conceptually important because species must reproduce to survive. I'm not sure how you extrapolated this, either. To quote you, "It's so wildly beyond the pale that it's difficult to categorize it as a particular breech of logic other than simply and fundamentally confused."