Exploitation

[opie]

Im doing a research paper on the exploitation of the worker and i want your thoughts on this passage from a capitalist site


Don't laborers have a right to a share of the capitalist's profits, in addition to their wages?
Why are the laborers who demand a share in the capitalist's profits, silent in demanding their "share" when he incurs losses? Why don't they cry out and demand that they get to receive a share in those losses? If labor is the sole cause of all profit, then is it not also the sole cause of all losses? A moments reflection will point out that laborers are only responsible for their job description -- they are not directly responsible for the losses of a business -- and that the cause of an enterprise's losses lies essentially with the owner, as do the profits.

That a businessmen pays a worker less wages than the worker feels he deserves is not exploitation, as the worker is free to leave his job and look elsewhere for a higher paying one, if he thinks that someone can give him a better job for a better wage.

Let any worker in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Communist China try to attempt such a feat as leaving his job without permission of the state, and he will soon find what exploitation really means.


from, http://www.capitalism.org/faq/exploitation.htm

[Pete]

An error in the theory presented: Workers are paid based on their production. It is, for the most part, not true, although some places work on the basis of commisson, yet that commision is usually in the retail sector and is usually very very low.

-Pete

[monkeydust]

That quotes a pile of shod.

1/ You can't always just leave and find another job, let alone a better paid one because all employers actively seek to drive wages as low as they possibly can get away with.

2)Workers don't seek for 'losses' because their wages get cut when losses incur, yet don't get up when profits are made.

3)Labour isn't the sole casue of profit anyway.

4)He doesn't seem to mention working hard for little gain.

5)Why ask a Nazi for his opinion, just ask the author.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 01:28 AM
That quotes a pile of shod.

1/ You can't always just leave and find another job, let alone a better paid one because all employers actively seek to drive wages as low as they possibly can get away with.

2)Workers don't seek for 'losses' because their wages get cut when losses incur, yet don't get up when profits are made.

3)Labour isn't the sole casue of profit anyway.

4)He doesn't seem to mention working hard for little gain.

5)Why ask a Nazi for his opinion, just ask the author.
1. yes you can leave, if you cant find a higher paying job then that is different.

2. When profits go up the average wages of the workers goes up.

3. Then what is?

4. ???

5. ?? he is a nazi??, lets not forget the nazi= national socialism.

Nazis(fascism) and communism the two (different) sides of the same coin.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:51 PM

1. yes you can leave, if you cant find a higher paying job then that is different.

2. When profits go up the average wages of the workers goes up.

1- You can leave to work for another employer who will ultimately pay you less than you deserve. You do have the choice of where you work, but I see it as a choice of where you get exploited. Plus you get to choose the degree of your explotation if you are able to find a better paying job.

2- Thats not always true. In NYC the Mass Transit Authority has increased the fare. They are now gaining more profits than before but rather than increase the workers salary the people in charge decided to give each other a pay raise. So although this does hapen often it is not a given.

[synthesis]

Don't laborers have a right to a share of the capitalist's profits, in addition to their wages?
Why are the laborers who demand a share in the capitalist's profits, silent in demanding their "share" when he incurs losses?

Because the profits are impossible to create without the labor of the workers, while losses are rarely, if ever, the fault of the workers.

[RedCeltic]

That quote was a garbled pile of misconceptions. First off, if workers controlled me means of production, that means they would get the whole of their profit. Rather than the owners collecting all the profits minus the overhead (which includes whatever wage he can get the workers for) This also means that they will share in the losses, but what happens when the industry takes losses? LAY OFFS. Shared losses, like shared profits are distributed among the workers, so they all feel the pinch, but it doesn’t “break the bank” and they are all a whole lot better off than under the wholly undemocratic capitalist system.

As far as being able to just get another job in the capitalist system, it’s usually not as easy as it may sound. Many times there is only one company, or one industry where a person lives, and getting another job requires one to relocate, which isn’t always an option… if someone has a family and the other spouse doesn’t want to give up a steady job.

In today’s economy, many people just can’t afford to raise a family on a single income, so advancement through education is also not an option. If the other spouse has a job that pays well enough to support the family than in most cases they will not qualify for any kinds of aid or grants.

Also, as someone had mentioned, wages in the same area are typicly the same. A sheet rock hanger may get more if he is lucky enough to get into the union, but other than that he can expect that most companies that will hire him to hang rock in his area will pay aproximatly the same.

As for the average wage going up as profits go up, this is also not true and I suspect it comes from someone inexperienced in the workplace. There is a Naval shipyard in Newport News Virginia that builds U.S. Naval ships. Some years ago, the shipyard went to the workers and told them that they were hurting in profits and unless the workers took a pay cut the shipyard would have to let a lot of the workers go. Knowing that at least some job was better than no job, the workers agreed to take a cut in pay, with the promise that their pay would be returned when profits went back to normal. …. Some years later the workers saw that they had been screwed over by the shipyard. Profits had been up, they were churning out several new aircraft carriers and yet their pay had remained exactly the same as left by the company after the reduction. They had become the lowest paid steal-workers in the United States… they went on strike, but the strike was weak from jump street first of all because Virginia is a right to work state, and second because it lasted so long without the company wanting to give in that many workers ended up going back to work.

So, if steal workers welding together aircraft carriers for one of the largest ship manufacturers in the United States aren’t seeing a raise in pay when the company has high profit margins… well who is? You wouldn’t see that working at the largest employer in the United States WALL-MART…

[dancingoutlaw]

There is a Naval shipyard in Newport News Virginia that builds U.S. Naval ships. Some years ago, the shipyard went to the workers and told them that they were hurting in profits and unless the workers took a pay cut the shipyard would have to let a lot of the workers go. Knowing that at least some job was better than no job, the workers agreed to take a cut in pay, with the promise that their pay would be returned when profits went back to normal. …. Some years later the workers saw that they had been screwed over by the shipyard. Profits had been up, they were churning out several new aircraft carriers and yet their pay had remained exactly the same as left by the company after the reduction. They had become the lowest paid steal-workers in the United States… they went on strike, but the strike was weak from jump street first of all because Virginia is a right to work state, and second because it lasted so long without the company wanting to give in that many workers ended up going back to work.

That was the same shipyard whose unions gave large sums of money to Clinton who was supposedly pro-union and actively anti military. Is it responsible for a union whose workers benefit from government contracts to give to a political party who promises to cut out these contracts? The workers will get screwed by the union because they are an outdated cure for any problem that confronts labor these days. Of the union locals I have worked for most of the leaders were on the take or at least I hope they were because the contracts that were worked out with the client were so bad that a 4 year old could have done better.

Unions, (at least the modern ones) are not the answer for todays problems. I live in NYC and I proudly work as a non- union freelancer because I take home more, I make my own decisions, I hire who I want to hire( skilled people which is more than the union can guarantee) I benefit off of my own labor. If I am exploited or any of my workers I walk out of the door. I will let the job burn because life is too short to let myself or my freinds be abused. I beleived that if everyone in the labor pool took this attitude the world would be a better place.

Peace

[hazard]

on a side note, I just had an amazing TAROT DECK pull that involved the EXPLOITATION card

it began with a page of something or other card that was a weasel, which looked remarkably like my little sisters cat

which was fascinating since I just got back from the bathroom because I had to wash my face and hands since I am allergic to cats and I was beggining to get all itchy

then I pulled exploitation, which was fascinating because I turned on the Tv and the channel was set to sexTV and it was all this degrading porno shit that I tend to have a problem with since it is, you guessed it, exploitive

then I pulled the usual bunch of cards regarding the same thing I always turn to the deck for, right on the money

thought I'd throw this up because I could fit it into the topic

[RedCeltic]

Unions, (at least the modern ones) are not the answer for todays problems.

Well, make no mistake about it... the AFL-CIO today is most closely assosiated with the founder of the AFL ... Samual Gompers, who's conservitive ideals for the labor unions was to apease the working class with whatever small gains they could achieve.

I could mention countless examples of where labor unions have backed political candidates only to be burned by them. The Air Traffic Controlers union (PATCO) for example, overwelmingly backed Ronald Reagan for president in 1980. See, in labor history, we have never really had a U.S. President solidly for or against labor unions prior to Ronald Reagan... and many unions (including PATCO) believed that Reagan was "on their side" and went so far as thinking that his short term as head of the screen actor's guild, ment that if elected Ronald Reagan would be the first president that was a former labor union leader. (fact is the screen actors guild really isn't anything like a labor union.)

Anyway, I'm sure you know the rest... the air traffic controlers felt that more of them were needed, that they were working shifts that were too long and dangerously affecting their job performance. Now, I'm sure if they were working for someone like you Mr. dancingoutlaw... you would have seen their delt with it properly.. but it wasn't... and they went on strike. Not only did Ronald Reagan have them all fired, but barred them all from civil service, and smashed their union.

Point is... that backing political candidates is a dangerous thing, and often is more about money than the worker's best interests... as I'm sure was what happened with the Steal worker's union and Clintion.

There are other problems with the AFL-CIO also... their unions believe in working with contracts... meaning that companies can plan their production sceduals to when production is at it's lowest, and minimize the affectiveness the strike has.

They also take out the personability out of the arangement by taking union dues right out of a person's paycheck, rather than collected by the shop steward.

Well, these are just a few of the things that some people had realized long ago about the AFL... when they decided to form the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)back in 1905... Ofcourse they were an overnight sucsess, achieving the 8 hour workday in places like the great north west where the AFL and the knights of labor had failed... They grew quite large, rather quickly... and what frightened the government and the corperations... was that they actually had a chance of making a difference...

...which is why we had the red scare... and they were smashed.

We (the IWW) are still around... but it's going to take alot more work just to get back to where we were in the early part of the 20'th centery. Working people today aren't used to real unions (Industrial unions) run by the rank and file, not these corupt union leaders that are no different than the bosses.

As far as Freelance.. hey nothing wrong with that. I do that myself when I have a chance. I'm a plumber by trade. Although I'm going to college at the moment, I've worked as a plumber for a number of years, and make extra money now and then doing whatever jobs that may come up.

[Misodoctakleidist]

it's absurd to say that a worker can just change jos if he isn't happy with his pay because all jobs he is likely to get wil be equay poorly paid and he has the "choice" to either work or starve. To say that he gives his 'consent' to work for those wages is ridiculous, it's like asking a straight guy whether he would rather die or suck a cock and then calling him gay if he chooses the cock.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by el_profe+Jan 4 2004, 09:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (el_profe @ Jan 4 2004, 09:51 PM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 01:28 AM

3)Labour isn&#39;t the sole casue of profit anyway.


3. Then what is?
[/b]
Labor alone does not generate profit. You need a market in which to sell them on, you need consumers to buy these products. Without the consumer there can be no profit for company/corporation/factory.