Labor Theory of Property - Wage Labor vs Self-employment

[CaliforniaLove]

I've been trying to become familiar with the Labor Theory of Property as it pertains to a critique of wage labor.

A very quick summary of how I understand it: Property arises from expanding labor over nature. Labor is defacto inalienable, thus a wage-labor contract is unfulfillable, rendering it and void. The conclusion is that wage-labor itself is illegitimate and should be replaced with worker owned coops or self-employment. (I realize this is a very succinct and dumbed down summary, and I am prepared to be corrected if I am missing anything).

Specifically, I am inquiring about the difference between wage labor and self employment. As I understand it, self-employment is legitimate as the worker is in control of his work (does not have a boss) and the purchaser of the service is consuming the product (not using it as capital). In contrast, under wage labor, the worker has a boss who he "rents" himself to, who owns the product of his labor and takes from the worker a portion of the fruits of his labor (surplus value). (Again, I am prepared to be correct if I have anything wrong or am missing anything).

Going through a few thought experiments, I ran into a contradiction I have not been able to sort out on my own.

Scenario: You have a self-employed painter. This painter is solicited for his services by a customer. The customer supplies the painter with paint, brushes, canvas and all other necessary means of production. This customer also asks the painter to come in at a certain time, and requests that he is only take one bathroom break during his "shift." The customer also requests that the painter wear a particular outfit while painting. Once the painter is finished with the painting, the customer pays the painter the pre-negotiated fee and the painter leaves. The customer then takes the painting to the market and sells the painting for more money that he paid the painter.

Obvious implications: Although this scenario is labeled as a non-hierarchal relationship between self-employed worker and consumer, the consumer has clearly set a schedule, break times, outfit, and has made income without exerting productive labor.

Questions:

1) Is this scenario depicting a non-hierarchal self-employed model or wage-labor model?

2) Has the consumer extracted a surplus value from the painter?

3) In a socialist society, what would prevent a "closet" capitalist from setting up an operation whereby instead of engaging in a wage-labor contract with his workers, he instead solicits their self-employed "services", such as the operation described above? This would seem to fit the socialist framework on the surface yet appears to be essentially a capitalist enterprise.

Again, the whole point of this thought experiment is to attempt to distinguish wage-labor from self-employment, and how a socialist society would deal with a scenario as the one described above, which seems like a capitalist enterprise disguised as a socialist enterprise.

I would appreciate any helpful thoughts from any of you folks that are more knowledgable than I. Thanks in advance! :)

[Alan OldStudent]

Hello comrade,

I noticed that this is your first post to this forum. So I want to welcome here and hope you find it informative and satisfying.

Let’s think of property this way: Property is a social relationship between individuals regarding the rights individuals have to use an item.

For example, a chair might be my property. If it’s my property, I can use it to sit on, give you permission to use it to sit on, or deny you permission to sit on it, or even destroy it. If you try to use it against my permission, I could call the law, and a policeman would come and arrest you. So the chair is my personal property.

But if all humans were to die, no one would own the chair. The chair would still be a chair. However, it would no longer be property. So property is a social relationship which defines who has jurisdiction over an item, who gets to consume a good or service or dispose of it. Not only that, the owner gets to deny those rights to others.

There are many kinds of property, real property, personal property, productive property, intellectual property, and so on. Moreover, the institution of property has evolved since it first arose about 10,000 years ago.

Now let’s look at labor. Labor is the application of human muscle power or brainpower or both to a “raw material” to create something of greater value than the original raw material had. Let’s look at our chair again. Before it was a chair, it was a collection of cloth, wood, nails, glue, and so on. After the chair maker applied human brainpower and muscle power to the raw materials, they acquired a new value—one could use them to sit down comfortably.

Under capitalism, a wage worker sells his labor power to a capitalist for a wage. The capitalist uses the worker’s labor power to create a new value. If the capitalist can sell the product for more than the cost of the labor, overhead, raw materials, and incidental costs, he makes a “profit.” The relation between the laborer and the employer is a legal one.

The question you ask about the status of the painter is a perceptive one. In the United States where you and I both live, oftentimes there are employers will want to hire workers to be “independent contractors.” That’s because they don’t want to have to abide by labor laws, go to the expense of collecting tax from the paycheck, or paying 6% Social Security tax. This is especially true for piece workers, such as medical transcriptionists who usually get paid by the line. The IRS (Internal Revenue Service, which in the United States collects taxes on wages) constantly tries to catch employers who do this, because quite often, the so-called “independent contractors” do not always pay taxes or all the taxes they are required to pay under the law.

Also, bear in mind that in any class society, there are always a few individuals who do not neatly fit into one or another class. There is always a fuzzy area. However, in our society, the economically significant players are wage-earners and employers, and others play a peripheral role in how wealth is produced and distributed.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to ask more questions, and I’m sure many of the comrades will express their take on this question.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

[Tim Cornelis]

You're conflating the labour theory of property with the labour theory of value. The labour theory of property holds that labour is the basis of property and is used to defend private ownership more often than not. The labour theory of value is descriptive and holds that the value of commodities is derived from the labour content of that commodity.

[CaliforniaLove]

Thank you both for your replies!:)

I think I understand the difference between LTP and LTV. I guess what I'm really inquiring about is the wage-labor contract, and if its actually any different from being self-employed.

Maybe I can approach this another way. I'm trying to see the post-revolutionary world through the eyes of a capitalist. In this world:

1) Wage labor contracts are recognized as illegitimate
2) There are no hierarchal employer-employee relationships (no bosses).
3) Worker's own and control the means of production.

If I am a capitalist, how can I get around this? Well, it seems to me that a capitalist who owns a sweatshop can simply replace the wage-labor contract and solicit worker's "services" with an independent contractor contract (thanks Alan :) ). This arrangement seems to fall in line with a socialist framework yet still be an essentially capitalist enterprise. The conclusion is that, in a socialist world, so long as there are people (both capitalists and workers) willing to engage in a capitalist enterprise, capitalism will still exist. And this seems to render the very concept of a revolution essentially meaningless. :unsure:

Perhaps the root of this problem can be traced to the nature of the worker-customer relationship. As I understand it, under socialism there are no "bosses." Workers control their work, and sell their products or services to paying customers. Yet, in this form of commodity exchange, customers can "act" like bosses, in that self-employed workers must fulfill the demands of the customer in order to gain their business. This seems hierarchal to me, although, as I understand it, is not considered hierarchal under socialism.

In short, what really is the difference between hierarchal wage-labor and non-hierarchal self-employment? :confused:

[Comrade #138672]

Thank you both for your replies!:)

I think I understand the difference between LTP and LTV. I guess what I'm really inquiring about is the wage-labor contract, and if its actually any different from being self-employed.I do not think that self-employment is any different from wage labor, in the sense that self-employment can only exist in the context of wage labor. There is no self-employment in socialism, because there is no wage labor and, therefore, no employment at all.


Maybe I can approach this another way. I'm trying to see the post-revolutionary world through the eyes of a capitalist. In this world:

1) Wage labor contracts are recognized as illegitimate
2) There are no hierarchal employer-employee relationships (no bosses).
3) Worker's own and control the means of production.

If I am a capitalist, how can I get around this? Well, it seems to me that a capitalist who owns a sweatshop can simply replace the wage-labor contract and solicit worker's "services" with an independent contractor contract (thanks Alan :) ). This arrangement seems to fall in line with a socialist framework yet still be an essentially capitalist enterprise. The conclusion is that, in a socialist world, so long as there are people (both capitalists and workers) willing to engage in a capitalist enterprise, capitalism will still exist. And this seems to render the very concept of a revolution essentially meaningless. :unsure:No. Capitalists do not own the means of production in socialism, therefore they cannot exploit any workers. Also, few workers are really willing to work for the capitalists. In capitalism, the workers need to sell their labor power, so that they can buy their means of subsistence, so that they can sustain themselves. In socialism, workers do not have to sell their labor power to capitalists (ignoring the fact that they cannot even do this), so they will not be compelled to do so.


Perhaps the root of this problem can be traced to the nature of the worker-customer relationship. As I understand it, under socialism there are no "bosses." Workers control their work, and sell their products or services to paying customers. Yet, in this form of commodity exchange, customers can "act" like bosses, in that self-employed workers must fulfill the demands of the customer in order to gain their business. This seems hierarchal to me, although, as I understand it, is not considered hierarchal under socialism.

In short, what really is the difference between hierarchal wage-labor and non-hierarchal self-employment? :confused:In socialism, the law of value is abolished, so commodities do not exist anymore in that framework. In order for a product to be a commodity, it needs to have value. When the law of value is abolished, there is no value and, therefore, commodities cease to exist as commodities. Products are then produced and distributed according to their utility / usefulness and the needs of society.