Question about capitalism

[Gonzo Man]

I have a rather noobish question. I have probably missed something really obvious, but I'm going to ask anyway. This is based on allot of ifs so bare with me.

I have heard people say that one of the reasons for the production moving towards third-world countries, is because the proletariat in the west have become more class conscious, hence making the production more expensive. What would then happen if the proletariat in the 3rd-world become more conscious and start pressing their salaries up. When there are no more people to exploit, it would eventually lead to a society where there would be no surplus gained because it would all go back to the workers salary. That would eventually lead to every worker being paid the same salary. So my question is what is the problem with this? How come we won't stay in that society and not transcend into communism where there is no capital? I mean if the workers are happy why would they want to move forward, why would they then want/need to abolish private property? This is all based upon if the bourgeois would allow this to happen and not counting any population growth etc. so my question is purely theoretical. Anyways thank you in advance.

[Comrade Thomas]

"Noob ish question"

No question is noob here. The general gist of my response to your statement is this: capitalism has moved towards the third world because capitalism co stately seeks to decrease it's production unit costs, I.e what it costs to make one pair of shoes, cars, etc, etc. Hence the development of machines, foremen etc. The third world has an abundance of labour; this means that wages can be pushed down right away, simply because their supply of money is low relative to the first world anyway. And the competition for unskilled labour allows for the capitalists to decrease wages even more, and this their production costs.

I would weary about saying the movement was due to class consciousness, as that varies a lot depending on where you go. Also, despite this being a theoretical analysis there is AlWAYS people to be took advantage of, if it is e worker, the child labourer or badly disabled people no are forced to work.

Hopefully this has answered your question.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I have a rather noobish question. I have probably missed something really obvious, but I'm going to ask anyway. This is based on allot of ifs so bare with me.

I have heard people say that one of the reasons for the production moving towards third-world countries, is because the proletariat in the west have become more class conscious, hence making the production more expensive. What would then happen if the proletariat in the 3rd-world become more conscious and start pressing their salaries up. When there are no more people to exploit, it would eventually lead to a society where there would be no surplus gained because it would all go back to the workers salary. That would eventually lead to every worker being paid the same salary. So my question is what is the problem with this? How come we won't stay in that society and not transcend into communism where there is no capital? I mean if the workers are happy why would they want to move forward, why would they then want/need to abolish private property? This is all based upon if the bourgeois would allow this to happen and not counting any population growth etc. so my question is purely theoretical. Anyways thank you in advance.

Significant portions of capitalist production have moved to regions of belated capitalist development in order to keep the rate of profit high. The rate of profit in the metropole is lower than in the colonies and dependent regions partly because of reforms, but a lot of those reforms were only enacted after production moved, in order to buy off sections of the proletariat with a portion of the super-profits.

The rate of profit is higher in the neo-colonies because of a scarcity of capital, the prevalence of pre-capitalist economic formations (resulting in cheap, semi-free labour) and so on.

Nonetheless, workers in the metropole are still exploited. And even if everyone were to stop being exploited - which is impossible if wage-labour, commodity production and private property still exist - the declining rate of profit (indeed, the profit would, on your assumption, be zero!) would still lead to instabilities, overproduction and so on.

[ckaihatsu]

I have a rather noobish question. I have probably missed something really obvious, but I'm going to ask anyway. This is based on allot of ifs so bare with me.

I have heard people say that one of the reasons for the production moving towards third-world countries, is because the proletariat in the west have become more class conscious, hence making the production more expensive. What would then happen if the proletariat in the 3rd-world become more conscious and start pressing their salaries up. When there are no more people to exploit, it would eventually lead to a society where there would be no surplus gained because it would all go back to the workers salary. That would eventually lead to every worker being paid the same salary. So my question is what is the problem with this? How come we won't stay in that society and not transcend into communism where there is no capital? I mean if the workers are happy why would they want to move forward, why would they then want/need to abolish private property? This is all based upon if the bourgeois would allow this to happen and not counting any population growth etc. so my question is purely theoretical. Anyways thank you in advance.


I think you're overlooking that being class conscious and taking it seriously is equivalent to being a revolutionary -- and what revolutionary would be content to put up with continued bourgeois rule and labor exploitation, albeit lessened (in your scenario) -- ?

In other words you're being entirely economistic here and you're ignoring the *political* side of things, like the implications of a broad-based, international class conscious proletariat.

[RA89]

What would then happen if the proletariat in the 3rd-world become more conscious and start pressing their salaries up.

I don't think they have anywhere near as much bargaining power as that. For them it's either starve and have someone else take that job and be exploited, or be exploited themselves yet eat.
Same applies everywhere imo or nearly all jobs would have close to identical salaries.

They'll always be someone willing to work for low pay when someone else isn't, whether due to poverty, desperation or other issues.

[exeexe]

That would eventually lead to every worker being paid the same salary. So my question is what is the problem with this? How come we won't stay in that society and not transcend into communism where there is no capital?

Yes every worker would then be equal. Equally exploited. A class divided society designed so that the class of proprietors can fully exploit the class of producers in the most efficient way. The "equality" part is not the problem here, exploitation is. We will go beyond capitalism because we want to abolish exploitation and end all privileged hierarchies.