Looking at exploitation from a new angle

[NovelGentry]

It is interesting that many bourgeois thinkers and capitalists, certainly some of our own, uphold and make claim to the law of nature, the natural rights of man, those inherent in his nature. Certainly if we are to confine ourselves to this standard we would agree that any natural condition or limitation of man should equate directly to any condition or limitation of their freedom within our political and economic sphere.

What then does one say about those who amass such great wealth, that even with the modern means of production, they would be incapable of creating it in their lifetime? That is, when the amount of time invested in the accumulated labor (commodities) which they acquire throughout their life exceeds the amount of time in their life.

Does anyone here feel this at least hints at the idea of extracting labor from someone?

If within society someone has achieved such excess wealth, relative to the existing means of production and the rest of society, does it not imply that what wealth he has gained must have been the product of the labor of someone other than himself?

Do you believe that people willingly supply this wealth to these people? Are the conscious of this lost labor or unconscious of it? Are the conscious of where it goes, who gains it?

Thoughts and ideas of everyone welcome.

[Professor Moneybags]

I've always wondered where those stone-age billionaires got their money from.

[NovelGentry]

I've always wondered where those stone-age billionaires got their money from.

And people take my statements about mental capacity as insults....

[Professor Moneybags]

Can't figure it out, huh ?

[NovelGentry]

Well no, since I was not talking about money, which is a rather subjective and abstract form of value, but about commodities. And definitely not since I brought up that we would assume relativity to the means of production.

[Professor Moneybags]

Does anyone here feel this at least hints at the idea of extracting labor from someone?

Yeah, "extracted" voluntarily. Labor is indeed a part of production. Not especially important and certainly not all-important.

Especially when you consider that any idiot can provide it.

[NovelGentry]

Yeah, "extracted" voluntarily.

So you have two people... capitalist and worker.

The capitalist lives 595680 hour.

Now say he's worth 12,000,000,000 when he dies. That's 20,145.04 dollars per hour of his life... no?

You're trying to tell me that the workers for his company/corporation willfully give him $20,145.04 per hour? Or is that what his "skill" is worth?


Labor is indeed a part of production. Not especially important and certainly not all-important.

Especially when you consider that any idiot can provide it.

This is a fairly dodgy statement. Your first statement is about labor as being part of a production, your second is saying it is not all-important since anyone can provide it. You make something of a big jump... you're saying because there is such a vast number of laborers that labor itself is not important?

How would the product ever get made if labor was not available. Labor is extremely important. What you meant to say is that the laborer is not important, the labor itself, however, is. So laborers as a whole must be important... that is, if we were going to assume for a minute that such people were part of a class, something of a division of society... we would assume that that class as a whole is essential to the production of goods, no? Individually they don't mean much, but collectively they are necessary, are they not?

[Professor Moneybags]

So you have two people... capitalist and worker.

The capitalist lives 595680 hour.

Now say he's worth 12,000,000,000 when he dies. That's 20,145.04 dollars per hour of his life... no?

You're trying to tell me that the workers for his company/corporation willfully give him $20,145.04 per hour? Or is that what his "skill" is worth?

Still piddling around with the LTV I see.

How much labor did a blacksmith have to put in to getting a pound of iron ? Loads. How much labor does a foundry worker have to put in to get a ton of iron ? Very little.

It's technology that is the deciding factor here. Hence my mention of the "stone-age billionaire", which you clearly didn't understand the significance of.


This is a fairly dodgy statement. Your first statement is about labor as being part of a production, your second is saying it is not all-important since anyone can provide it. You make something of a big jump... you're saying because there is such a vast number of laborers that labor itself is not important?

There isn't a vast number of laborers, certainly not realtive to previous centuries. Nor does quantity equal importance.


How would the product ever get made if labor was not available.

It wouldn't, as I have already said.


Labor is extremely important.

No more than anything else.


What you meant to say is that the laborer is not important, the labor itself, however, is. So laborers as a whole must be important... that is, if we were going to assume for a minute that such people were part of a class,

Who says the labor needs to be done by people ?

[NovelGentry]

Still piddling around with the LTV I see.

How much labor did a blacksmith have to put in to getting a pound of iron ? Loads. How much labor does a foundry worker have to put in to get a ton of iron ? Very little.

No one denies the advancment of the means of production makes such things easier... in fact, it's fairly key to Marxism.


It's technology that is the deciding factor here. Hence my mention of the "stone-age billionaire", which you clearly didn't understand the significance of.

From my original questions:
relative to the existing means of production and the rest of society


There isn't a vast number of laborers, certainly not realtive to previous centuries. Nor does quantity equal importance.

Of course there is a vast number of laborers. No one said relative to previous centuries, but even then, there was a vast number of laborers. Today there is even more vast numbers... with the increase in population there is always an increase in laborers -- remember, they have to work in order to survive under capitalism.

And no, quantity doesn't equal importance, the fact that they remain necessary for production does.


No more than anything else.

What else? Food for the laborers? Is that not a product of labor? Machines to build it? Is that not a product of labor? Resources to make the product, are they too not acquired and made useful with labor?

Exactly what else is even equal to the value of labor?


Who says the labor needs to be done by people ?

If people are to survive under capitalism the system demands that they labor. The fact that people need to do labor is not so dependent on that they actually need to do it by some natural condition... no, we have machines that we build, the reason to create things that labor for us.

But under some systems, our labor is demanded as a means of our survival -- even if we have created a means that grants us survival outside of our labor.

[Clarksist]

This is a very good argument put up on both sides, but I have a question to add to this one which relates.

Like the steel billionaires during the nineteenth century railroad boom period. The labor was very important, how was the owner of the company more important than the guy working long shifts to produce casts of iron?

And putting that in todays standards, why does an owner of a textile factory get more capital than the people who are actually doing labour? The owner can enjoy a free day, while the labourers actually work on producing a product.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:44 PM




Like the steel billionaires during the nineteenth century railroad boom period. The labor was very important, how was the owner of the company more important than the guy working long shifts to produce casts of iron?

Taking away a CEO would adversly effect the company more than taking out any individual labor.

He is a more valuable asset to the company, due to the skills he possesses.

His labor may be very important, it's all relative to what he actually does.



And putting that in todays standards, why does an owner of a textile factory get more capital than the people who are actually doing labour? The owner can enjoy a free day, while the labourers actually work on producing a product.

Labor, in and of itself, is worthless. I could labor all day on a sowing machine and produce nothing of any real value.

It requires direction and management to put this labor to an effective use.

Without it , there will be a lot of labor (or little labor) and nothing of any value produced, or at least, they would not be producing at or near optimum value.

The owner could enjoy a free day, but if he is lax or idle in his management, he could steer the company into the ground. A single laborer not showing up for a day or two will not run any large into the ground.

It's an issue of importance.

[NovelGentry]

Taking away a CEO would adversly effect the company more than taking out any individual labor.

He is a more valuable asset to the company, due to the skills he possesses.

His labor may be very important, it's all relative to what he actually does.

But if you destroy companies, you destroy the need for people like CEOs.

You can thus maintain labor and production, and destroy companies and CEOs -- this is of course our point. There are other ways to organize and succeed in production.

[Publius]

But if you destroy companies, you destroy the need for people like CEOs.

You can thus maintain labor and production, and destroy companies and CEOs -- this is of course our point. There are other ways to organize and succeed in production.

And it's my point that yes, you could do that, but it would be unwise, as CEOs provide a valuable service to their respective companies.

I've yet to see evidence that these other forms of organizing labor are more effective than the capitalist manner, and I doubt any such evidence exists.

As such, it's a somewhat difficult assertion to make.

Add in the fact that your praxeology is flawed (In my eyes), and we're left with a discussion that isn't likely to go anywhere.

I don't think the 'CEO' arrose out of pure chance, or of managed malfeance, but of necessity.

Any company without CEOs and the like would be a lot cheaper to run, yet, I don't see many of them out there competing.

This alone tells me there is something fundamentally wrong with your assertions.

[NovelGentry]

And it's my point that yes, you could do that, but it would be unwise, as CEOs provide a valuable service to their respective companies.

Like in the examples I already spoke of in Argentina? The only "service" they provided was putting a bunch of people out of work in a perfectly capable, productive, and profitable factory.


I've yet to see evidence that these other forms of organizing labor are more effective than the capitalist manner, and I doubt any such evidence exists.

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/200...er-mugyenyi.cfm (http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-06/11engler-mugyenyi.cfm)


As such, it's a somewhat difficult assertion to make.

It's a very simple assertion to make, it was easy to make when open source came about, it's even easier to make with the other examples I provided above.


Any company without CEOs and the like would be a lot cheaper to run, yet, I don't see many of them out there competing.

This alone tells me there is something fundamentally wrong with your assertions.

I will admit it can be difficult to run a factory/business where workers are not exploited and "compete" in capitalism. I think the reasons why are quite obvious.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 10:30 PM












Like in the examples I already spoke of in Argentina? The only "service" they provided was putting a bunch of people out of work in a perfectly capable, productive, and profitable factory.

Is this from an earlier discussion we had or something, because I don't recall this.



http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/200...er-mugyenyi.cfm (http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-06/11engler-mugyenyi.cfm)

Well if there's a movie about it, it has to be true!


It's a very simple assertion to make, it was easy to make when open source came about, it's even easier to make with the other examples I provided above.


I wasn't aware of the existance of any open source factories. I'm not quite sure how they would work.

Programming and manufacturing are vastly different, primarily due to the fact that one deals with hard resources whereas the other does not.

When you're dealing with tangible materials, waste is a very bad thing, but when you're dealing with time and a compiler, waste isn't an issue at all.

Open source software is very inefficient for the amount of time and effort put in, and the end result.

It works in software form, but when you have scarce resources to deal with, it becomes far less effective.

There can be, literally, hundreds of different copies of an open source program on the interent because there is no investment to make, aside from time and ownership of a computer.

But if we had that many types of product, in mass production, it would be exceedingly wasteful.



I will admit it can be difficult to run a factory/business where workers are not exploited and "compete" in capitalism. I think the reasons why are quite obvious.

Why haven't workers started cooperative factories, then? Cut out the capitalists and their exploitation.

Surely then, with the exploiters, usurers, and capitalists out, it will be better for the workers, and more efficient.

Why hasn't this happend?

[NovelGentry]

Well if there's a movie about it, it has to be true!

It's a documentary... this is how you combat credible evidence?


I wasn't aware of the existance of any open source factories. I'm not quite sure how they would work.

Oh, so only a factory needs a CEO. So it's really not dependent on guiding a product, but guiding a product that is built in a factory. The means of production do change.


Programming and manufacturing are vastly different, primarily due to the fact that one deals with hard resources whereas the other does not.

Agreed, and now we have examples of both where no CEO is necessary... and actually has shown to be harmful.


Open source software is very inefficient for the amount of time and effort put in, and the end result.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


There can be, literally, hundreds of different copies of an open source program on the interent because there is no investment to make, aside from time and ownership of a computer.

Copies of a program? Well yes, there's a copy of every person's system who has it. What I think you meant is hundreds of different pieces of software that do the same thing. This is true for some things, but not most. Generally the numbers are under 10 -- but hey, choice hasn't really been shown to be too bad for open source... wasn't one of your old arguments that if socialized production occured choice would be destroyed and everything would be the same?

Anyway... It really doesn't present any problem. Generally speaking the software itself advances far faster than commercial software, and because the labor is distributed across so many programmers it does not take up so much time for all programmers. Even in the case that it is more centralized to one developer... it doesn't always take that much time to develop. Take SkyOS for example (which isn't open source but has a lot of open source applications for it) -- the development is somewhat shared amongst the people who are trying to make it, but the main developer does the brunt of the work porting various things. Last interview I read it said it only took him 2 hours a day. I would imagine with a project such as Gnome, with hundreds of developers, they would probably spend a fairly short period of time to actually achieve the very rapid results they do.

Also, since I've been developing open source software myself. I can attest that it develops quite rapidly even with only 3 developers working a few hours a day.


But if we had that many types of product, in mass production, it would be exceedingly wasteful.

Well no... we already do for a fair amount of things. For example, cars. Shoes. Clothing. Computers... Software was one of the few industries with a real lack of choice -- Open Source changed that.


Why haven't workers started cooperative factories, then? Cut out the capitalists and their exploitation.

Most workers don't have the money to start factories -- even if they did, it is still exceedingly difficult to compete (as I already agreed with) without exploiting the labor of others. They can't match the prices, and thus they can't really grow -- without any growth it can never be a total solution.


Why hasn't this happend?

Again, primarily money. Few banks will let a few hundred workers all cosign a loan together to start a company up. And with only a few, they will hardly have the type of income or ability to bank such a loan.

[Publius]

It's a documentary... this is how you combat credible evidence?

Since I've yet to see the film and all I know about it was gotten from Z Magazine, I don't think it's credible at all.


Oh, so only a factory needs a CEO. So it's really not dependent on guiding a product, but guiding a product that is built in a factory. The means of production do change.

No, my point was that 'open source' is not a universal solution, or evidence of a universal solution.


Copies of a program? Well yes, there's a copy of every person's system who has it. What I think you meant is hundreds of different pieces of software that do the same thing. This is true for some things, but not most. Generally the numbers are under 10 -- but hey, choice hasn't really been shown to be too bad for open source... wasn't one of your old arguments that if socialized production occured choice would be destroyed and everything would be the same?

Anyway... It really doesn't present any problem. Generally speaking the software itself advances far faster than commercial software, and because the labor is distributed across so many programmers it does not take up so much time for all programmers. Even in the case that it is more centralized to one developer... it doesn't always take that much time to develop. Take SkyOS for example (which isn't open source but has a lot of open source applications for it) -- the development is somewhat shared amongst the people who are trying to make it, but the main developer does the brunt of the work porting various things. Last interview I read it said it only took him 2 hours a day. I would imagine with a project such as Gnome, with hundreds of developers, they would probably spend a fairly short period of time to actually achieve the very rapid results they do.

Also, since I've been developing open source software myself. I can attest that it develops quite rapidly even with only 3 developers working a few hours a day.

Does it develop more rapidly than similar closed source programs? Is it being open source the primary reason?


Well no... we already do for a fair amount of things. For example, cars. Shoes. Clothing. Computers... Software was one of the few industries with a real lack of choice -- Open Source changed that.

Sort of.

I use Open Office and many other open source programs, but most people don't.

It hasn't really changed anything, yet.

It very likely will though.



Most workers don't have the money to start factories -- even if they did, it is still exceedingly difficult to compete (as I already agreed with) without exploiting the labor of others. They can't match the prices, and thus they can't really grow -- without any growth it can never be a total solution.

How would it be difficult to compete? They wouldn't have any CEO's or other bosses 'stealing' their labor?

Why couldn't they match prices?

Why can't they grow?

There is nothing inhibiting these types of factories from occuring, except for the fact they quite simply wouldn't work well without an adept, talented, and likely highly paid management scheme.

If management were that easy, it would have been done away with, as it is a huge cost to any producer.

Why wouldn't the capitalist just have himself and his workers, no middle management, and just let them run the factory cooperatively, with him fincancing the project and taking out a nominal return?


Again, primarily money. Few banks will let a few hundred workers all cosign a loan together to start a company up. And with only a few, they will hardly have the type of income or ability to bank such a loan.

What bank would turn down a loan that is almost assured to be repaid?

Surely, the superiority of the collective ownership would make it a likely occurance.

Or perhaps the banks know such a venture is doomed to fail.

[NovelGentry]

Since I've yet to see the film and all I know about it was gotten from Z Magazine, I don't think it's credible at all.

http://www.nfb.ca/webextension/thetake/ -- you can check out the page too, which has more info about what's going on.


No, my point was that 'open source' is not a universal solution, or evidence of a universal solution.

I guess that all depends what universe you're living in.


Does it develop more rapidly than similar closed source programs? Is it being open source the primary reason?

Yes and Yes. If SkyOS was not founded on Open Source software there is no way it could develop at the speed it does, with that said, compare the advancements of Linux/FreeBSD to what has been made in terms of closed source OS advancements. Windows doesn't compare at all. OS X certainly seems to have made a huge step of the old Mac OS... oh wait, it was based on Open Source software too.


Sort of.

I use Open Office and many other open source programs, but most people don't.

It hasn't really changed anything, yet.

It very likely will though.



Well it changed the lack of choice thing. I never claimed it changed what people used -- but it gave them an option -- or at least most of them.


How would it be difficult to compete? They wouldn't have any CEO's or other bosses 'stealing' their labor?

Why couldn't they match prices?

Why can't they grow?

There is nothing inhibiting these types of factories from occuring, except for the fact they quite simply wouldn't work well without an adept, talented, and likely highly paid management scheme.

Well I don't agree there's nothing inhibiting it, as I said, money is a big issue. Starting a business isn't free you know.

As far as once the business is in tact, do you not think it becomes difficult to cut your prices to the level capitalist business can? Your workers are now all pulling equal share, decisions are all democratic... would you vote to lay yourself off so that you could drive costs down and try and undercut the competition? While you may vote to extract a portion of the pay to grow the company, there's no one automatically extracting it from you, nor are you probably going to vote to pay yourself absolute minimum wage so you can extract the most.

The capitalists on the other hand are quite willing to do this, and in doing so whatever increase surplus they can squeeze out, is yet another bargaining chip on that part of the market. The fact that there is capitalists stealing the labor from the workers for regular businesses is the very fact that allows them to grow as they do, that labor equates to money, and that money equates to growing the productive forces, both static and variable.

People just aren't going to be so cruel to themselves when it's their own livlihood at stake.




If management were that easy, it would have been done away with, as it is a huge cost to any producer.

Why wouldn't the capitalist just have himself and his workers, no middle management, and just let them run the factory cooperatively, with him fincancing the project and taking out a nominal return?

First off, have you ever even had a job? It's difficult to believe you have any experience working with the type of things that come out of your mouth. Have you ever found middle management to be useful in that job? Have they ever really told you something you didn't already know? Did you need them to relay the word of upper management down to you, or do you think you could have just as easily understood if upper management told you directly?

Middle management doesn't really do much at all. Generally speaking they just sorta clap their hands, maybe put in a good word or a bad word on certain employees, let a computer generate a new schedule, sometimes tell you to work a bit faster and get it done. Essentially they are upper managements eyes and mouth where they can not be directly. To consider this essential under capitalism may or may not have truth. It is certainly true that technology would allow upper management to work directly with workers -- it is also certainly true that workers would probably "help themselves" more than they would upper management if they were given the responsibilities upper management are.

There's a reason why even if you work your ass off you still have to kiss someone's ass to land such positions. They want faithful drones.

But, in case you haven't noticed, most people don't like their job... if put into a position to control it to any certain extent, you better believe they're gonna attempt to work it out best for them. But what is good for them is generally bad for the capitalist -- bad for business is a whole other question.



Or perhaps the banks know such a venture is doomed to fail.

I would hope so.

One thing you seem to have mistaken here is assuming that I think socialist production can work side by side with capitalist production.

I don't propose you can mix socialist productive modes with capitalist ones and have it fit nicely. I never have and I never will, so if you're looking for that argument look elsewhere. We have to abolish capitalism completely.

The Take and all of the factory examples in it are examples of worker control and management without any upper management. The size, input/output, and growth of them is going to be extremely dependent, now and in the future, on how much opposition they face from capitalist enterprises competing with them.

I don't suspect that they will "work" in the long run, they will most likely be crushed by the system, one way or another, unless somehow down there this becomes the norm before that point. This doesn't mean such means of managing factories do not work, quite the contrary, even amongst huge political opposition these examples have done quite well. Economic opposition will be a different story however. It is very simply too different of a beast to make sense in a capitalist environment.