I don’t know why I didn’t respond to the response to me, in this thread. I must have lost it in time..
Either way; workers are not “entitled to a share in profits” according to Marxist, and general socialist, theory. In fact, profit cannot exist without the capitalist/worker relationship. “Profit” in the socialist sense is not simply a positive income/expense ratio for the business. “Profit” is the income claimed by the capitalist after such ratios have been established.
As long as the capitalist/worker framework exists, workers are entitled only to what they can bargain from their employer; which is why the capitalist system must be wholly abolished according to Marxism, and why mutualims, the USSR, and free market libertarianism are all just seperate forms of capitalism (Capitalism being defined by the rule of capital, or more specifically the holders of capital as a class; or generalized commodity production).
There can be no “proletarian profits” as the concept is wholly absurd… at least defined as it is by Marxists and general socialists. Surplus != profits.
A marketplace full of cooperatives, tho from a prole perspective would probably be far more accomodating than current capitalism, is still just capitalism. The workers are now the capitalists. Production is still based on exchangeability, not need. And whether or not specific workers run their workplace, workers as a class are still under the domination of capital.
So…
Is anyone here familiar with the Marxist argument that workers are entitled to a share of the employers’ profits because they are being exploited, i.e. are not being properly compensated for their contribution?
They’re not being exploited because they recieve an unequal share in income. They are being exploited because they are alienated ; sort-of like how slaves aren’t exploited because the slaver takes their wealth, they are exploited because they have no freedom to decide for themselves. Wage laborers are in a similar, if less extreme, situation, in which their entire livelihood and contribution are tied to their labor; having no “property” with which to claim as their own. (Of course, we are not defining property as possession and control (which a theif has, you wouldn’t consider a thief’s possessions as property tho), but as a specific legal title to monopoly status over the direction of that property).
First, did he not sign a contract, meaning voluntarily? [And I hope we agree the old “What should the poor worker do? Starve?” argument is fallacious. Symbiotic relationship is the way to look at it] Second, do not most people prefer it that way
It depends on how we’re defining voluntarily. Slaves and serfs could often buy their way into free men. Were they, then, voluntary slaves and serfs? I would say it is easily apparent that most people do not want it that way, seeing as how the few that do almost universally stop being wage laborers the moment they are financially able to (and either retire, become salaried, or become capitalists).
The “sic” is about your “risk free” assertion. In reality he is at just as much if not greater risk than his boss. The capitalist loses $250k, and this is bad for him, sure. But he still has $x in his bank account, etc. I mean, some capitalist go belly up when their business fails, but not many. If the business goes under, the worker loses all his money (assuming he lives paycheck to paycheck), or at least his financial stability, and must now begin the long and greuling process of finding a job that provides for him as good or better than his last job.
i. Playing a game of chance with immediate payoff involves risk, but not getting paid earlier than one should. Meaning we have a case of the second concept [bird in the hand] and not the first [gimme now].
So that the worker, if he is in an industry that sells its product the moment it is produced, or not at all, has benefit the second even if he doesn’t have the first. He gets paid win or lose.
He doesnt’ get paid at all if the business goes under.
Regardless, this is more of a symptom than the illness itself. The illness is “capital:” private ownership (as opposed to reasonable and accountable possession and control). Capitalists are merely the beneficiaries of the real exploiter, which is the legal establishment of capital. Entrepreneur with ideas are not necessarily capitalists, and often just as exploited by capital as workers. Your whole reasoning for “why he is not exploited” rests on the assumption of the existence of capital, and therefore assumes its consequence (and is fallacious, but I’m sure I didn’t need to explain that).
But… alas… now that I have read the thread further, I see that Nero and Filc have explained my position for me: that workers and capitalist don’t “share profits,” and that if they did the workers are just capitalists, not workers.
is that labor is a commodity whose price is determined on the market.
Labor cannot be a commodity. It cannot be produced simply for its aiblity to be explained (it can’t really be produced or exchanged at all. It is, in fact, the producer and exchanger). The “price” that is determined on the market is a worker’s labor time, not her labor.
So we can see that:
If labor is a commodity whose price is determined by supply and demand then whatever a laborer chooses to work for is the “just price” and therefore they are duly compensated.
Is not true. But again, exploitation theory is not about who gets paid what. It’s about who controls what.