of course, without even going to the economic reasons behind why your notions of worker exploitation are misguided at best.
simple analysis of liberty and consent illuminates that workers consent to get paid the wage that they get paid, if they are foregoing things in favour of the capitalist, whatever it might be, they have consented to it, since the employer is not keeping them enslaved by force of arms. they are free to seek employment form you , at the higher wages you wish to offer them.
now if you told the workers they werent getting paid their fair share and they were not allowed to work for that employer anymore ‘for their own good’ you would find you would have the need to keep them away from their workstations with force.
I realize that but it is of lower value than the service or product performed or created by the worker. I vehemently oppose the wage system because the working class (social class that has to sell their labor to survive) of a given area creates machinery, tools, goods, in return they get a wage. The capitalist class (social class that accumulates wealth from the labor of the working class) keeps all the machinery, tools, and goods for themselves to employ more workers and therefore collect more capital. These capitalists are most likely born into a capitalist family, while social mobility is possible, it is no justification for worker hardship and toil, not to mention it isn’t common. I see this profit for the capitalist class as undeserved.
Well here is a base problem with Communism and Communists in general. Communists propose that workers receive the full profit of their work [ labor power ] and yet all property is communalized…so how does one deal with the contradiction of supposedly receiving the full fruits of labor and yet having to be forced to give up their fruits for the masses?
You perceive it as a lower value to you, but it is not a lower value to the man that trades his labor for the wage. Again, value is not objective as not everyone trades with the same ends in mind.
My problem with this voluntary contract is that the worker is essentially forced to abide by the capitalist’s terms under the threat of starvation while there are no practical, non-exploitative alternatives to the fiscally exploitative, privately owned, capitalist firm. The workers have to abide to the capitalist’s terms because there is an over abundance of workers in relation to capitalists. I simply think that once the state is obsolete, socialism and autogestion will be victors over capitalism and one man management. If socialism were to fail and stateless capitalism were to succeed, I wouldn’t have a problem.
Oh please. Your refuted-to-death nonsense, Wolves, is laughable. Please actually learn about econ, rather than regurgitating what someone else told you on RevLeft.
It is lower value in relation to the market. A worker does not produce numerous products in hopes of using them personally, he is selling his labor and in turn the products he creates. Any worker who participates in a market where profit and starvation are the only motives to work would want the most profit.
most labourers dont even produce products, just parts of products.and they do nothing to market or sell the products.
besides which. demand for goods is not demand for labour. in other words. consumers dont want peoples labour. you labour isnt worth anything to a consumer
That part of a product, is in itself a product as well, why wouldn’t it be? Aren’t screws and nails products? They do nothing to sell the products in a capitalist market but what socialism is, is that the workers manage the firm democratically to compensate the communal demand.
The labor is worthy to the consumer, without labor there is no product. Without labor there is no market.
Private property is non inherently exploitative, many early philosophers view private property as inherently exploitative because they were examining pre-Industrial society. Is my personal tooth brush exploiting the masses?
Communism is a stateless, classless society. Karl Marx even opposed the common phrase “(Private) Property is theft”.
No one cares about the personal toil that comes from a worker’s labor. They care about the product that the labor creates. Without labor there is no product, without a product there is no consumer.
workers mercillessly extort capitalists. how could a capitalist be a capitalist without workers? since he would surely starve if he could not make profits from employing workers…; therefore the workers can demand an unnaturally high price from the capitalist, through wages, benefits and conditions, so desperate is he to win their favour. He must capitulate and employ them despite his true desires to be independant of their parasatic evil. if only he could hope to be at liberty, free from the curse of workers wraught upon him by necessity in the capitalist-enslaving economy. …oh cursed chains…
no, your argument is that you think labour should be worthy to a consumer, for the given reason that it had a part to play in bringing the product to market. but consumers neednt take your advice. put simply. consumers want product. not labour. they wouldnt like the product more or less if it was materially the same, but you had worked for more or less hours on it.