Having the knowledge to exploit...

[Entrails Konfetti]

We see that the worker is paid on the basis of how many commodities are produced under the amount of labour time socially necessesary.

The capitalist advances previously made capital and gives a sum to the workers, spends some on utilities, and pockets the rest of it; all for just acting as a medium of exchange, having the knowledge and the circumstances to exploit others.
The capitalist no doubt gets more of the pie than everyone else.

Though their profit depends on if their customers will buy the products,
still we see a double standard; there isn't a set amount placed upon the capitalists' ability to exploit.

The incomes of owners of corporations vary, though the incomes of the workers of the corporations gravitate towards a minimum wage.

There isn't a reason why having such knowledge, and the capabilities to exploit others are more valued than doing the actual labour. Theres no reason why the owners take more than minium.

[LoneRed]

We see that the worker is paid on the basis of how many commodities are produced under the amount of labour time socially necessesary.


I would also like to include, that he is payed the lowest possible price, in terms of, that he is viewed as a commodity, or more specifically his labor, the capitalists like all commodities and means of production, tries to cut their costs. his is paid just enough to live



The capitalist advances previously made capital and gives a sum to the workers, spends some on utilities, and pockets the rest of it; all for just acting as a medium of exchange, having the knowledge and the circumstances to exploit others.
The capitalist no doubt gets more of the pie than everyone else.

he gets more of the pie, in fact the proletariat gets none of his pie, because he is payed with already existing capital. none of the money he gets comes from his individual acts of production. the capitalist just takes that surplus value and puts it towards doing the same thing over and over again, but for cheaper and more efficient.


Though their profit depends on if their customers will buy the products,
still we see a double standard; there isn't a set amount placed upon the capitalists' ability to exploit.



this point is confusing me a bit. could you explain on what you mean by this set amount?



The incomes of owners of corporations vary, though the incomes of the workers of the corporations gravitate towards a minimum wage.


true, although we must differentiate between the capitalists minimum wage, and the states. Marx talked about the capitalists minimum wage, one that is the lowest cost of labor, which could either be higher or lower than the federal minimum wage. yes it is true, that the workers get paid more in a specific range than the capitalists.


There isn't a reason why having such knowledge, and the capabilities to exploit others are more valued than doing the actual labour. Theres no reason why the owners take more than minium.

well i totally agree, although on semantics here, theres reasons why the owners take the surplus value, and turn it into capital, by the laws of the system, but there are no justifiable reasons why he should be able to do this.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 12:46 AM
he gets more of the pie, in fact the proletariat gets none of his pie, because he is payed with already existing capital. none of the money he gets comes from his individual acts of production. the capitalist just takes that surplus value and puts it towards doing the same thing over and over again, but for cheaper and more efficient.

Oh, so when the capital to start a factory and hire workers is spent, it comes back with the next wave of accumlation--as it were, correct?

Ex: A=advanced capital, W=workers and factory, N= next wave of accumlation, NC=new capital.
(these figures ofcourse aren't precise; they just serve to get the point across. The variables don't have a value, only a direction)

12A - 10W + 18N= 20NC

As we can see from the 20 that was made, the 12A never dissapeared.

Though the capitaliat may have to pay back the bank with interest is a different matter etirely, and will not be covered.


this point is confusing me a bit. could you explain on what you mean by this set amount?

The capitalist doesn't get paid by a set amount. We get paid in wages, they don't; they get paid by what ever they happen to make. There isn't a reason why their labour is more valuable than ours, so by that logic they should be paid in wages as well.



yes it is true, that the workers get paid more in a specific range than the capitalists.


The bourgeoisie doesn't get paid in wages, they get profit. The pette-bourgeois gets paid in wages, but usualy in high wages, or salary.


well i totally agree, although on semantics here, theres reasons why the owners take the surplus value, and turn it into capital, by the laws of the system, but there are no justifiable reasons why he should be able to do this.

It isn't considered surplus value if its spent to pay workers, and run the utilities: These expenses are added in the exchange value of the commodity.

Its unjustifiable when the owner takes more than what a wage-labourer earns, because theres no reason why their labour is more valued. Thus the creation of surplus value: Pocketing more than what is paid.

Lets use a fast food resturant for example:
25% for 30 crew members, 25% for 6 owners, and 50% for the utilities.

25 divided by 30 is 0.83%
25 divided by 6 is 4.16%

There's no reason why each of the 6 owners got 4.16%, and the 30 crew members got 0.83% a piece. By that logic the crew should have gotten more each, or the owners should have gotten less. I know I excluded middle-management, but you get the idea.

The bourgeoisie is above the wage system. What they do for aliving doesn't have "socially neccessary" attached to their earnings. Nothing in the world determines what the bougeoisie should do, when to do it, and how fast to do it.
However should, when, and how apply to us.

If we take more than what we're supposed to it's stealing, when they do it it's called profit.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by E K
The pette-bourgeois gets paid in wages, but usualy in high wages, or salary.
Just a quick question here...

I was wondering, and what occupations, exactly, fit under the label of 'petty-bourgeois'? You mention that they get paid in salary sometimes. Well, teachers get paid in salary. But it's not much (I think opening salary for a teacher is around $30,000/yr...lower than the median yearly earnings in the US). So, as an example, can a teacher really be considered as 'petty-bourgeois'?

And what about a white-collar paper-pusher who sits at a desk all day? They don't own any capital, and I don't think the money's excellent.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Pette-Bourgeois, as in middle-management. I'd consider a manager of a shift at McDonalds Pette-Bourgeois.

What you make doesn't fully matter, it's more of your relations to the means of production.

A fully tenured proffessor who has others working under them is pette-bourgoeis; a highschool teacher, a community college instuctor, grade and middle school teachers fall under proletarian: They are skilled workers.

[anomaly]

Alright. So basically, petty-bourgeois is 'pretty high up', but not 'elite'. (?)

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:51 AM
Alright. So basically, petty-bourgeois is 'pretty high up', but not 'elite'. (?)
Yeah.

Policemen, small-shopkeepers, and middle management.

What interesting is the stability of the middle classes these days. Say for example Wal-Mart moves into to town,and a Mom and Pop stores goes out of business. But, the family running that store are able to get management jobs at Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart doesn't give them management positions, then they have well known enemies for that town. Which is bad business.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by E K
What interesting is the stability of the middle classes these days.
I disagree. It seems to me that the middle class is fast disappearing in the old capitalist nations. In fact, I think I heard today that an airline is cutting hundreds or thousands of managerial positions. The middle class is being funneled into either the proletariat (where most of them go) or the bourgeoisie as wealth is more and more concentrated into a few hands.