Founders Keepers!

[fa2991]

Anyone have a snappy response to the argument that if person X founds a goods-producing company and, after a bit of being self-employed, decides to hire person Y or Z, person X deserves more money than person Y, despite the exploitation, i.e. the argument of "Founder Keepers"?

I'm discussing this with a friend at the moment, and though I've prepared a response, I want to get other RevLeftists' thoughts on this before sending her my own counterargument.

[ContrarianLemming]

can you elaborate more? the X Y Z thing it sort of confusing to read :(

[Red Commissar]

can you elaborate more? the X Y Z thing it sort of confusing to read :(

He's basically saying what should be the argument against people who say those who create and start a business should be entitled to be paid more than the employees they bring on. This is going off the reasoning that the founder worked hard for what he or she started and is "entitled" to reap the fruits of their hard work so to speak.

[ContrarianLemming]

He's basically saying what should be the argument against people who say those who create and start a business should be entitled to be paid more than the employees they bring on. This is going off the reasoning that the founder worked hard for what he or she started and is "entitled" to reap the fruits of their labor so to speak.

OK, basically "capitalists deserve more because they put there money into starting the work" and such.

First, it ignores the consequances of this arrangment, even if it was justifiable, it leads to a hierarchical relationship and abuse.

second, the capitalist doesn't actually do anything, they live off the ownership, the surplus value. This is one of the things which makes them capitalists: they live on non labour income, they produce nothing. It means that because they own means of production, they are free to use and abuse the employees, which is what your friend is saying.

[Adil3tr]

Person X actually isn't a total capitalist, he seems like he might still be petite bourgeois, Especially if he still actually works making goods or is not far from it. That isn't the real point, capitalism was like that 200 years ago, now almost all bussiness is large, franchised, or heavily influenced by the huge multinational enterprises.

[Raúl Duke]

http://paulitics.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/capitalism.PNG?w=464&h=629

The start-up capital (like the machines, physical plant area, etc) for founding the business came off the back of someone's labor.

[fa2991]

http://paulitics.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/capitalism.PNG?w=464&h=629

The start-up capital (like the machines, physical plant area, etc) for founding the business came off the back of someone's labor.

:lol: Believe it or not, that exact cartoon is how our argument got started.

[M-26-7]

Under capitalism, there is no argument against it. However, we put forward a different system, socialism, under which any machines and buildings, used by many people to produce goods, will be collectively owned and managed by those same people. This will eliminate the source of income disparities at its very root.

That really is the simplest answer.

Otherwise, it will probably come down to a big, hairy discussion about the determination of value, with you saying it is due to labor, and the other guy saying that labor is merely one factor of production, and that capital is an equally important factor (a more important factor, if labor is already abundant, because of the law of diminishing marginal returns (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawofdiminishingmarginalreturn.asp)).

But in the end, there is really no way to argue against capitalism using either capitalist ideas about property rights, or neoclassical economics. Because in the end, both of these two systems of thought were originated specifically in order to justify and explain capitalism. It's best to emphasize that we are putting forward an entirely new kind of economy, and to expound on the relative benefits of that alternative.

[Adil3tr]

http://paulitics.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/capitalism.PNG?w=464&h=629

The start-up capital (like the machines, physical plant area, etc) for founding the business came off the back of someone's labor.

I know! I want to put this poster up around my school!

[ContrarianLemming]

That poster is fantastic, I've seen a better version though, PDF: http://www.zabalaza.net/pdfs/posters/remprob_e.pdf

easier to read, made by south african anarchists, simple explanation of what surplus value and profit are, or "usury"

[Adil3tr]

we need to make more like that, we would do far better.

[Bubbles]

If someone has the "right" to surplus value, or anything else in this world is all about power relations. Right is not something you get by some law of nature, it's something you take. And someone might start to talk about moral, founder keepers or what not, but you don't have to play by the same moral the higher ups want you too.