Wolves of Paris said: “I realize that but it is of lower value than the service or product performed or created by the worker.”
What is your (coherent and consistent) theory of value which tells you exactly how much every service or product in the modern economy is worth in relation to the labor put into it, and allows you to conclude that wages are always and everywhere exploitative?
I am saying that if the product is worthy to the consumer than naturally, the labor (process in which product is made) is. Are you going to say that in modern day, the consumers don’t care about the quality in which their product is made? Moreover, what evidence are you basing your statement that, “consumers don’t care about labor” on?
“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.”
So a family going out to a restaurant will wait eight hours for the same food they could get across the street in twenty minutes? Besides simple situations like that, the hours of input to a product don’t necessarily equate to labor.
I have no theory, I have evidence though. If there was no fiscal exploitation, there would not be a wealth gap between the owners of the means of production and the laborers.
you have a failure to compute. food now and food in 8 hours are two different products.
food now that took 10minutes to make and the same tasting food now that took 8hours to make, is the relevant comparison.
labourers do exploit capitalists. if they did not exploit capitalists there would be no wealth gap between labourers that are employed and labourers that are unemployed. the fact that employed labourers get more wealth than unemployed ones demonstartes that they are exploiting capitalists by that amount.
your quality of logic.
They are materially the same, so by your logic the consumer does not mind the wait.
The eight hour food would be more expensive, the worker is payed a wage, that is periodic payment, usually hourly. The capitalist would charge the consumer more, to maintain his profit while still giving the worker a share. So the consumer would end up not purchasing said food, directly in response to the price which is in direct response to the labor.
Laborers exploit capitalists because there is a gap between those who earn a wage and those who don’t?
That doesn’t make any sense. Instead of just trying to spew a rendition of rhetoric, actually argue the points.
And yet you say that capitalism [ which is based on private property ] is done under coercion or death. So the creation of your tooth brush is based on exploitation.
Oh hooray. A mutualist.
no they are not materially the same. food that isnt here now is materially differnt from food that is here now.
unless perhaps you believe that transportation of a product is not a material change, perhaps you think it a spiritual change?
And the fact that some basketball teams win and others lose is evidence of cheating in the sport, right?
Unequal outcomes do not imply anything of the sort.
look an unemployed labourer earns, nothing. whilst one employed earns something.
the something must come from the capitalist. it is extorted from him. how else can you explain the wage gap? the exploitative wage gap.
Yes, of course labor inputs have an effect on the cost of the food to the producer, and this cost would force him to raise prices. But the very fact that at this point the consumer would walk away proves that, in fact, value is NOT determined by labor. The value of the food to the consumer is unaffected by the amount of labor that went in to making the product, and this is why he would walk away from materially the same food when it rises in price. He doesn’t care if it rose in price because more labor went into it or if it rose in price cause a blizzard hit somewhere in the country and lowered supply. The value to him entirely depends on his subjective conception of the end product, not the labor that went into it. If value to the consumer rose and fell with labor inputs, the consumer would value the food eight labor-hours more and correspondingly be willing to pay more. The fact that they aren’t willing to pay more and therefore don’t buy it is evidence against your claims, not for it.
The consumer weights value against price. If the price rises and they make a different decision, that doesn’t mean at all that value changed. In fact, it didn’t, because it only depends on the end product, not the labor inputs.
When the purchase is made, the labor hasn’t been performed yet. So neither the eight hour food is here nor the ten minute food is here, they are both immaterial but the purchase (order) has still been made and consumers generally don’t like waiting for their orders, be it food, wood, clothing, whatever. If they didn’t have an urge to presently own a product they wouldn’t purchase it for future use, they want to fulfill that present urge.
Now if a consumer is looking at two shirts with the same design at a store, if one shirt is poorly sewn and another is not, the consumer will most likely choose the better made shirt. In that instance and similar instances, the labor effects the consumer.
Wrong.
There is an overabundance of workers and a small amount of capitalists. The capitalists as a social class have an unfair advantage of the workers.
There are alternative methods of business management that have succeeded throughout history. The machines purchased by the capitalist come from expropriated wealth from the worker’s labor, the wages payed to the workers come from the labor of the worker’s themselves.
I assumed we were talking about a communist society, because that is what you addressed.
I’m not a mutualist but I have no problems with mutualism as a theory.
A Communist society demands the abolition of private property, so to talk about private property in a Communist society is a useless task.
You quoted Proudhon so I figured you for a mutualist.
I never said that value was determined by labor. Value is determined by the consumer. A market cannot survive without laborers, consumers cannot survive without a market. Laborers can survive without consumers (not ideally), laborers can survive without capitalists (ideally). Labor directly affects the quality of the product, why wouldn’t the consumer care about the labor? This is really a non-issue, I have said that I realize the consumer most likely does not care about the labor when their product is fine but when their product encounters difficulties then they care about the labor.
Then why the nonsense about coercion or death of the labor under a contract?
The two shirts are not the same product, obviously, because the consumer can discern a difference in the quality of the end product, and this subjective conception of the end product affects their value. Of course I’m willing to pay more for a higher quality shirt; I don’t judge shirts solely on the design on the front, but the overall quality.
If the user thought the shirts were identical, he would not value one over the other just because one took more labor to make. The only thing that affects value is perception of the end product.
And what is that advantage, exactly?
A communist society does not demand the abolition of private property. If that was the case than why did Marx oppose the quote “Property is theft”? You are simply strawmanning communism, you think that everyone is going to share clothes, toothbrushes, houses, everything. I am not a barracks communist and I don’t know of anyone that is one.
Isn’t that Proudhon in your avatar?
I misworded that I suppose since you misinterpreted it. Socialism and autogestion is laborers surviving without capitalists.
ha, this hurts your case not helps it.
if a customer ponders over two shirts, shirts that are both produced to high standard, lets say even by the same labourer , exerting as much effort in making the one as the other. he should value them equally according to you. …Apart from when one of them is damaged…despite the labour that went into it not having dissipated a jot!.. this introduces a paradox of value. which is only to be expected from someone with an adhoc theory of value that doesnt know the first thing about economics. and apparently doesnt claim to know any such thing, but is simply ad-hoc-ing their way through what seems plausable to them at the time they say it. how about some due diligence mister?