Question?

[Global_Justice]

i've heard alot of people talking about capatilist society and referring to work as "selling yourself". but in a socialist society, surely people still have to work :o

[KC]

i've heard alot of people talking about capatilist society and referring to work as "selling yourself". but in a socialist society, surely people still have to work ohmy.gif

This will probably go into a little more detail than what you're looking for, but here's a quick little introduction to Marxist economics.

Workers make commodities. When a worker makes a commodity, their labour is embodied in that commodity (it takes 1 hour to make 1 table; therefore, there is 1 hour of work embodied in that table). Let's say the worker gets paid X dollars an hour. Since it takes the worker 1 hour to make that table, the worker gets paid X dollars for every table s/he makes. The business owner (the capitalist) takes this table from the worker and sells it. The capitalist must sell the table for a profit, otherwise he wouldn't be in business!!! Let's say profit is Y. So to make money the capitalist must take the table and sell it for X+Y; that is, the amount he pays the worker plus a certain amount of profit. This profit goes into the capitalists pocket to either invest in more capital or to save for his own personal spending.

Let's review. The worker gets paid X, the capitalist sells the table for X+Y, and the capitalist gets Y. This is where the problem lies in a capitalist system. The worker made the table; the capitalist put no work into creating the commodity; the 1 hour that it took to make the table was put into it by the worker and the worker only. This worker created a table that is worth X+Y, yet the worker is only paid X. The amount the worker is paid is less than his product of labour is sold for; the worker is getting paid less than the value of his/her labour.

This is where exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie comes from. Of course, this is a little more complicated than the above example (such as taking the means of production into consideration) but the example above should get the general idea across.

Now, every business is required to make a profit or they wouldn't exist, correct? Every business is required to take this Y and either put it into more capital or to give to the owner(s). Because of this, every business is exploiting its workers.

In a capitalist society, all the proletariat has to sell is their labour. They have nothing else to offer, and therefore they are required to "sell themselves" (or rather, their labour-power). Because of the exploitation issue, and because the proletariat is required to sell their labour, they are forced into selling their labour for less than it is worth (X instead of X+Y).

In a socialist society, the proletariat will receive the full value of their labour (X+Y). They will no longer be exploited.

[Led Zeppelin]

In a socialist society, the proletariat will receive the full value of their labour (X+Y).


Originally posted by Lenin
In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx goes into detail to disprove Lassalle's idea that under socialism the worker will receive the "undiminished" or "full product of his labor". Marx shows that from the whole of the social labor of society there must be deducted a reserve fund, a fund for the expansion of production, a fund for the replacement of the "wear and tear" of machinery, and so on. Then, from the means of consumption must be deducted a fund for administrative expenses, for schools, hospitals, old people's homes, and so on.

Instead of Lassalle's hazy, obscure, general phrase ("the full product of his labor to the worker"), Marx makes a sober estimate of exactly how socialist society will have to manage its affairs. Marx proceeds to make a concrete analysis of the conditions of life of a society in which there will be no capitalism, and says:

"What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes."

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It must also be noted, however, that in a Communist society the workers would operate as a collective. The labour force would be comprised of society as a whole and vice versa, and so any 'fund[s] for administrative expenses' would be pumped back into the well-being of society, aka the labour force.

[KC]

It must also be noted, however, that in a Communist society the workers would operate as a collective. The labour force would be comprised of society as a whole and vice versa, and so any 'fund[s] for administrative expenses' would be pumped back into the well-being of society, aka the labour force.

In communism there is no money.

[pharmer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 01:12 AM
It must also be noted, however, that in a Communist society the workers would operate as a collective. The labour force would be comprised of society as a whole and vice versa, and so any 'fund[s] for administrative expenses' would be pumped back into the well-being of society, aka the labour force.
The funds taken from a worker's labour are actually returned to him via the provision of services, maintenance of machinery... (which are vital to the production of goods upon which the worker requires to live). Therefore value of labour returned to the worker remains X+Y.

This is essentially at 'tax' on the worker, since some amount of his labour value is being subtracted and re-allocated to essential services in this society.
A quick question,
There is no currency so how can X and Y actually be defined in a communist society?

[KC]

There is no currency so how can X and Y actually be defined in a communist society?

They aren't defined in a classless society. The question related to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[pharmer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 03:09 AM


There is no currency so how can X and Y actually be defined in a communist society?

They aren't defined in a classless society. The question related to the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marx was arguing that the worker doesn't get full value for his labour. If value is not defined then how are services provided? I understand that it is a dictatorship but the coordination of production with construction must somehow be balanced... how?
Ability balances need somehow, if it is infact a classless dictatorship then the question is coordination.

[Led Zeppelin]

Lazar, could you please respond to my post, it disproves your conclusion, that is: "In a socialist society, the proletariat will receive the full value of their labour (X+Y)".

Thanks.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 01:45 AM

It must also be noted, however, that in a Communist society the workers would operate as a collective. The labour force would be comprised of society as a whole and vice versa, and so any 'fund[s] for administrative expenses' would be pumped back into the well-being of society, aka the labour force.

In communism there is no money.
I wasn't talking about money, I was talking about resources in general.

Actually no, Marx was talking about resources in general. I was just quoting him.

[KC]

I wasn't talking about money, I was talking about resources in general.

Actually no, Marx was talking about resources in general. I was just quoting him.


My mistake. I mistook funds to mean money and not just resources in general.