Slavery

[t_wolves_fan]

Capitalism = slavery because people have to work for a living.

This being the case, apparently communism would not require others to work for a living, because that requirement equates to slavery?

Just curious.

[Comrade Phil]

Capitalism = slavery because people have to work for a living.
Capitalism = exploitation because the capitalists take profit from the labour of the workers. This profit is rightfully the worker's because it is the workers who actually use capital to create products. The only way that capitalists can create profit is by forcing the workers to sell their labour for a wage not equal to the value of this labour. Of course workers can quit working for a particular capitalist, but in order to survive, they will end up having to work for another capitalist. Labour theory of value/ Theory of surplus value, you must be familiar with them.


This being the case, apparently communism would not require others to work for a living, because that requirement equates to slavery?

Who said in communism you wouldn't have to work for a living? In capitalism, people must work to maintain a wage in order to live. In communism, people must work to mainain the commune in order to live. In communism, people must cooperatively work to maintain not only their own living but everyone else's. This may seem unfair, but keep in mind that everyone else would be doing the same to your benefit. People would work out of self interest primarily, but in this process they are working in everyone else's interest. This is how I see it anyways..

[The Bitter Hippy]

t wolves fan, capitalism = class slavery. The proletarian class is slave to the bourgeois class.

Communism entails the ending of the imbalance: Abolition of class slavery through the abolition of classes. Capitalism is slavery because a worker has to allow themselves to be exploited or starve. End exploitation and this slavery is also ended.

Nobody believes that we will have to do absolutely no work post-revolution.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28, 2006 05:54 pm

Capitalism = slavery because people have to work for a living.
Capitalism = exploitation because the capitalists take profit from the labour of the workers.
no they don't, they buy it.


The only way that capitalists can create profit is by forcing the workers to sell their labour for a wage not equal to the value of this labour

tell, how exactly does someone determine the value of one's labor without seeing what other's would pay for it?

[LSD]

This being the case, apparently communism would not require others to work for a living, because that requirement equates to slavery?

That's correct.

Obviously there might be social consequences to refusing to contribute, but no one will be locked up or denied food for failing to work.


no they don't, they buy it.

That's a terminological distinction, not a practical one.

[Connolly]

In communism, people must work to mainain the commune in order to live. In communism, people must cooperatively work to maintain not only their own living but everyone else's.

I wouldnt totally agree with that.

It would be hoped that work would be something desired in a communist society, not enforced or a 'must'.

People may work if they want to, and not work if they dont. No pressure.

[Comrade Phil]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 11:42 pm


The only way that capitalists can create profit is by forcing the workers to sell their labour for a wage not equal to the value of this labour

tell, how exactly does someone determine the value of one's labor without seeing what other's would pay for it?


The value of the labour equals the value of the exchangeable good or service produced. Also, this is somewhat beside the point I was making. Capitalists unjustly gain profit from work that other people do. The product is sold for an amount of profit. The capitalist uses the profit to pay wages to all workers involved in producing the product but ends up keeping most of this profit for himself. This action is unjust because the capitalist did not put any work into producing this product. All of the profit belongs to the workers, not just the wage which is payed.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 05:13 pm




Just curious.
I must give you credit, you don make some rather insightful questions.


Capitalism = slavery because people have to work for a living.

Slavery: a socio-economic condition existing between two parties. One party is the master, which the commands and/or coerces the second party, the slave.

Capitalism is based on old slavery (the bondage and sale of black africans to work for no wages, essentialy treating other people like capital), and is continued by the use of new slavery (wage slavery). In slavery, people must sell themselves once, twice, or a few times. In capitalism, one must sell oneself daily. Although similar, they are diferent. One is more rare, and one is more common. That does not make one any better than the other. Both are bondage, the universal prostitution with which the ruling people dominate the "lesser" people, in this case, the bougoise being the masters and the proletarians being the slaves.


This being the case, apparently communism would not require others to work for a living, because that requirement equates to slavery?

In certain situations, yes. Of course, if the people of the society were given equal rights, then there would be no class. Thusly, becaue there is no dependant or independant class, there is no slavery.

[Krypto-Communist]

For crying out loud Twolves fan, you have a 1000+ posts and you still don't grasp the communist concept regarding work?

From the Youth International Socialism website


Once the workers begin to democraticly all plan the BIG industries - the ones which dominate ourlives - energy, banking, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, etc., then we will be putting the surplus produced by the workers towards improving our lives.

New technology and greater productivity of labor will lead to a decrease inthe working day, to more time for study, travel, exploration, research,music, art, culture, etc. Nowadays the incentive to work harder is "work so you can pay your rent, your mortgage, your interest on credit card and school loans, your over-priced food, healthcare, transportation, and entertainment, and so on or STARVE". THAT is the only incentive capitalism offers us! Why work more efficiently at work if you know you have to be there for 8 hours no matter what?

Under socialism, the incentive to come up with more efficient ways to do things is that we'd have to work less time to do the same amount of work! The amount of NECESSARY labor needed to produce the things we NEED like food, housing, etc. would gradually decrease so that eventually we may only need to "work" for 2 hours a week or less! Of course as humans we would not be lazy and sit around - humans are curious, exploratory, and want to learn, invent, etc.

Our "free" time would be spent creating ever better works of art, scientific research, cures for diseases,etc. After a period of time, the new generations will not even know what it was like under capitalism, and the productivity of labor will be tremendoulsy high. The barrier between "work" and raw human exploration and mastery over its environment (in harmony with the environment!) will disappear also - no more coercive state, police, etc. No more chaos in the markets - the workers will plan what we need and then reinvest a portion to continually make even better things. EVERYONE will be "rich" so to speak - able to travel, to live comfortably, to eat what they wish, to continue their education throughout life.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 06:48 pm

no they don't, they buy it.

That's a terminological distinction, not a practical one.

yeah not really, its the difference between theft and purchase.


The value of the labour equals the value of the exchangeable good or service produced. Also, this is somewhat beside the point I was making. Capitalists unjustly gain profit from work that other people do. The product is sold for an amount of profit. The capitalist uses the profit to pay wages to all workers involved in producing the product but ends up keeping most of this profit for himself. This action is unjust because the capitalist did not put any work into producing this product. All of the profit belongs to the workers, not just the wage which is payed.

you assume that the only contributing factor to production and creating products with increased value is labor, which is simply not true.

[Comrade Phil]

you assume that the only contributing factor to production and creating products with increased value is labor, which is simply not true.

Would you mind elaborating on what factors you believe contribute to these processes?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28, 2006 10:31 pm

you assume that the only contributing factor to production and creating products with increased value is labor, which is simply not true.

Would you mind elaborating on what factors you believe contribute to these processes?
management of labor and recources, marketing, R&D, laying down starting capital, assuming alll the risk of a business venture, etc...

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 05:13 pm
Capitalism = slavery because people have to work for a living.

This being the case, apparently communism would not require others to work for a living, because that requirement equates to slavery?

Just curious.
What do you mean by slavery? If you, as I think you do, mean "slavery" as in having to work, then just about everything would be slavery.

However, if we mean slavery as in being forced against ones will to work for someone else, then on a technical level Capitalism is not slavery. The distinction is in 1) the laborer must be legally free to dispose of his product (his labor capacity) as he or she sees fit, and 2) a slave's labor capacity is sold once and for all whereas a free-laborer's is sold hourly, daily, weekly, etc.

That's the theory, anyway.

[KC]

However, if we mean slavery as in being forced against ones will to work for someone else, then on a technical level Capitalism is not slavery. The distinction is in 1) the laborer must be legally free to dispose of his product (his labor capacity) as he or she sees fit, and 2) a slave's labor capacity is sold once and for all whereas a free-laborer's is sold hourly, daily, weekly, etc.

Of course it's slavery - it's wage slavery. The worker is forced to work for the capitalist class. That's slavery of the proletariat to the bourgeoisie.

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

t wolves fan is a fucking reactionary Nazi dimwit and should be treated as such.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 04:21 am
However, if we mean slavery as in being forced against ones will to work for someone else, then on a technical level Capitalism is not slavery. The distinction is in 1) the laborer must be legally free to dispose of his product (his labor capacity) as he or she sees fit, and 2) a slave's labor capacity is sold once and for all whereas a free-laborer's is sold hourly, daily, weekly, etc.

That's the theory, anyway.
Pretty ridiculous theory to me, and it's obvious that Muigwithania simply chooses to change the definition of a word to suit his/her political ends.

Definition: Slavery: a socio-economic condition existing between two parties. One party is the master, which the commands and/or coerces the second party, the slave.


Well let's see. Is the capitalist the master? He puts out a sign looking for help, the laborer responds and applies voluntarily.

OK, I don't see where the capitalist is the master.

The capitalist says, "I can afford to pay you $X per hour/month/year."

The laborer can take the job or can refuse to take it.

OK, still no signs that the capitalist is the master.

Laborer says, "OK, I will accept your offer."

Laborer works, earns agreed-upon salary.

Capitalist can reduce salary, fire employee, change job, eliminate position, etc. ... but laborer can leave at any time for any reason he or she chooses.

Explain to me where in this relationship even remotely begins to resemble slavery?

Let me guess: the laborer has to work or he'll starve. OK, he has to work. That resembles slavery...but then we have (some) fellow communists saying the laborer would have to work in communism too...so therefore communism is slavery, since it has the same basic, simplistic requirement of work or die.

So is it more complex than that work or die requirement? It must be, right?

Well let's look at capitalism. Pure capitalism - which exists nowhere on earth at present - says no government will help you if you choose not to work, however even it has a caveat for charity. So even in the purest, most cut-throat laissez-faire system, those who cannot work or refuse to work presumably have an option in charity. In non-western countries this charity often takes the form of tribal or clan relationships, where groups take care of their own.

But we don't have pure capitalism, we have state capitalism or corporatism or whatever one chooses to call it. In general we have capitalism, but in many countries there is a significant safety net provided by the government. We can disagree on whether it's enough or whether it works, but at least in the industrialized world it is there in some form.

So, the point is - even if the "work or starve" requirement is the base level of slavery, capitalism as practiced in the modern world does not put people into that position, because charity and government-supported safety nets negate the "work or starve" requirement.

This being the case, capitalism can realistically no longer be called slavery, can it?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 29, 2006 06:01 pm
t wolves fan is a fucking reactionary Nazi dimwit and should be treated as such.
Profound.

:lol:

[Comrade Phil]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 04:07 am

Would you mind elaborating on what factors you believe contribute to these processes?
management of labor and recources, marketing, R&D, laying down starting capital, assuming alll the risk of a business venture, etc...

1. Management of labour and resources - workers can manage labour and resources by themselves through democratic councils. This is demonstrated in co-operatives.

2. Marketing - Capitalists (with exception to petty-bourgeois) do not personally perform this task. They hire highly trained workers to do so. Also, in a planned economy, marketing would not be needed outside of democratic forums.

3. R & D - Again, capitalists who have acquired enough capital, do not need to personally perform this task because highly trained workers are hired.

4. Laying down starting capital - With the exception of small-scale capital, workers are the ones who construct all major means of production. Since it is the workers who have laboured to create the capital, they are the ones who should have the right to its ownership.

5. Assuming all the risk of a business venture - The fact that the capitalist takes the risk of losing their position of exploiter to competition, does not justify the exploitation itself.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by T_Wolves_Fan
Pretty ridiculous theory to me, and it's obvious that Muigwithania simply chooses to change the definition of a word to suit his/her political ends.

How is it ridiculous? It's pretty much the same thing that you explained later in your post.

Also, the capitalist is the master of the labor process: he has the authority, and the backing of the State, to command the process as he or she sees fit, regardless of whether or not the laborer leaves or stays.

Making the claim that the laborer can stay or go is besides the point, because Marx himself said the same thing, that there is nothing keeping the laborer and the capitalist together except byway of a freely consenting contract.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 06:13 pm
Capitalism = slavery because people have to work for a living.

This being the case, apparently communism would not require others to work for a living, because that requirement equates to slavery?

Just curious.
Wage Slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery)

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 10:37 pm
Also, the capitalist is the master of the labor process: he has the authority, and the backing of the State, to command the process as he or she sees fit, regardless of whether or not the laborer leaves or stays.

Making the claim that the laborer can stay or go is besides the point, because Marx himself said the same thing, that there is nothing keeping the laborer and the capitalist together except byway of a freely consenting contract.
I think you must have simply ignored the end of my post?

The capitalist is not the master of the labor process if the laborer can leave at any time, is he?

Me: I am your master!

Laborer: Whatever dude, I'm out of here.

Me: I am your master! Come back! I command you!

...

Me: Put another ad in the paper for a laborer...


:huh:

How? How am I the master?

Freely consenting contract? How many slaves and masters freely consent to a contract?

:huh:

How is the capitalist the master when at any moment he might be competing directly with a former laborer who has become an owner?

Come on, you've got to give me some kind of, I don't know, explanation for how a capitalist is a "master" of anything.

[JazzRemington]

So, you are telling me that there is no direction given to the laborer? That, the capitalist, having purchased the laborer's labor capacity, does not tell the laborer what is expected of him in terms of what needs to be done and how and when?

The fact that he is capable of leaving at any time has nothing to do with the fact that while he is employed by the capitalist he is under the direction of the capitalist. How else do you explain the fact that some places require employees to wear uniforms or establish standard procedures of working?

[Publius]

If all value comes from labor , then no value can come from capital, correct?

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 06:48 pm
If all value comes from labor , then no value can come from capital, correct?
Correct. Capital, meaning the means of production, by itself and in and of itself cannot produce value without someone using them. Imagine a hammer, some wood, and some nails without the carpenter to use them. What value would they be producing? It is the person using them that allows for the creation of labor. All capital allows for is for the increase in the number of products being made and/or allows for more ease of production.

But take note: labor is not the sole means of value creation. Nature is just as much a creater of value as labor is. I guess you can say nature is the mother and labor is the father of value.

Granted, we have automation that can create things without human labor; however, even these things require human labor to create. If one would care to, the automation process can be seen as an extention of the labor used to build it.

[KC]

Definition: Slavery: a socio-economic condition existing between two parties. One party is the master, which the commands and/or coerces the second party, the slave.


Well let's see. Is the capitalist the master? He puts out a sign looking for help, the laborer responds and applies voluntarily.

OK, I don't see where the capitalist is the master.

The capitalist says, "I can afford to pay you $X per hour/month/year."

The laborer can take the job or can refuse to take it.

OK, still no signs that the capitalist is the master.

Laborer says, "OK, I will accept your offer."

Laborer works, earns agreed-upon salary.

Capitalist can reduce salary, fire employee, change job, eliminate position, etc. ... but laborer can leave at any time for any reason he or she chooses.

Explain to me where in this relationship even remotely begins to resemble slavery?

If you look at the definition that you have provided it says that slavery is a condition existing between two parties, not just two individuals. If we put in the bourgeoisie as a whole as the masters and the proletariat as the slaves then the definition holds.



Let me guess: the laborer has to work or he'll starve. OK, he has to work. That resembles slavery...but then we have (some) fellow communists saying the laborer would have to work in communism too...so therefore communism is slavery, since it has the same basic, simplistic requirement of work or die.

So is it more complex than that work or die requirement? It must be, right?

Not so much more complex, just more obvious. Obviously people have to work to have society. Hell, they have to work to live. But that's irrelevant to the topic at hand. We have to look at the conditions of that work, and its relation between individuals in society. The worker has to work for the capitalist. This is the point that you have repeatedly missed and since this is what the rest of your post is based upon, the rest is irrelevant.


If all value comes from labor , then no value can come from capital, correct?

Capital is simply resources invested. These resources, however, already have a value in labour. However, the value of capital (what Marx called constant capital) has no effect on surplus-value or profit. This is because if we're making a table, for example, we have all of our resources (constant capital) sitting on the floor - the wood and the nails (the resources); the saw, the hammer (the means of production). Now, what are these things worth sitting on the floor? Obviously they're worth the price of wood, nails, a saw, and a hammer and not a penny more.

If we're making this table to sell we want to make a profit. This means that we will have to sell the table for more money than what we put into its production. This means that somehow the value of these objects will have to increase in the production of the table from these objects. The only way that this happens, of course, is through labour - through the actual production of the table. They won't create a table sitting on the floor, and they won't increase over their own value sitting there either. In order to create a table and have that selling price higher than the expense price, we need to actually build the table. That's pretty much common sense stuff.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I think the main point that we're all trying to make is that the proletariat is enslaved by the Capitalist class, not any particular Capitalist individual or group. Of course we can choose which Capitalist to work for, but that's like giving a slave a choice as to which master he's going to serve. Ultimately, some are more benevolent than others, but the primary goal of all of them is to exploit for profit. Of course, like you stated, one could always choose to not work at all, but doing such for an extended period of time in a Capitalist society comes with serious ramifications that are not whatsoever realistic for the majority of the population. Personally, I don't think that, in a Communist society, people who refuse to contribute work when they are physically and mentally able should be sustained beyond the very basic necessities within the commune. Being an active recipient of the fruits of labor of the commune means being an active contributor to such in whichever way feasible, at least in my opinion.

But you do bring up an interesting point: is work itself enslavement? I suppose, at least given my opinions, there is a certain aspect to it that is. The fact that work is necessary makes it inherently enslaving, to an extent. However, this is to the same extent that sleep is necessary and therefore "enslaving," because it is robbing me of 6-8 hours of my day that could be spent doing more worthwhile things than lying down in a near unconscious state. What minimizes work to a near absence of this quality of enslavement, however, is the control over this work, much the same way I have control over my sleep patterns. Just as I can decide what I want to produce, when I want to produce it, I can decide when I choose to sleep and where I plan to do so, and to a lesser extent in both circumstances how long I choose to do so, depending on the communal/physical need. Working for a Capitalist is like being a narcoleptic, telling you when, where, and how long one works/sleeps for, absent of interest for the well-being of the individual. Of course, these conditions are "agreed upon" in Capitalism, but there have been thousands of documents throughout world history that were "agreed upon" that were very apparently biased in favor of the more powerful side, any post-war treaty will tell you that. And that is essentially the point: this "agreement" is not an accord basd on mutual benefit, but a submission based on proletarian necessity.

[t_wolves_fan]

If you look at the definition that you have provided it says that slavery is a condition existing between two parties, not just two individuals.

The hiring firm may be a party, but the worker is by definition an individual. Classes or groups or theoretical bodies do not apply for jobs.


If we put in the bourgeoisie as a whole as the masters and the proletariat as the slaves then the definition holds.

Well duh! If you define capitalist as master and worker as slave, then of course you have slavery. But so far the only reason to define them as such is your opinion that that's what they are, which is not a very good reason at all.


Not so much more complex, just more obvious. Obviously people have to work to have society. Hell, they have to work to live. But that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

OK, then the requirement to work does not define slavery. Check.


We have to look at the conditions of that work, and its relation between individuals in society. The worker has to work for the capitalist.

Untrue.

First, not all firms are for-profit. There are non-profit firms and there is the government. A worker has options, and options are usually absent in slavery.

Second, a worker may start his own firm and be his own boss. Again an option, and again options are generally not found in slavery.

Third, if a worker has to work in communism as well as in capitalism, then he presumably also has to work for someone. It appears by switching to communism the master becomes the commune or the workers' union, correct?


This is the point that you have repeatedly missed and since this is what the rest of your post is based upon, the rest is irrelevant.

The rest of the post was based on the worker having options. Since options are inherently absent from slavery, I can see why you wish to ignore it.


If all value comes from labor , then no value can come from capital, correct?


If we're making this table to sell we want to make a profit. This means that we will have to sell the table for more money than what we put into its production. This means that somehow the value of these objects will have to increase in the production of the table from these objects. The only way that this happens, of course, is through labour - through the actual production of the table. They won't create a table sitting on the floor, and they won't increase over their own value sitting there either. In order to create a table and have that selling price higher than the expense price, we need to actually build the table. That's pretty much common sense stuff.

Again, how is the "value" of the labor or the resources measured?

The problem with your analysis is this: presumably, someone has to realize that wood + nails + labor = table that someone wants, correct? Someone has to organize the production, distribution and sale of the table.

If the laborers do this work, and they wish to do so, nothing is stopping them from forming an employee-owned company in capitalism. Several exist today.

However, what if the labor doesn't quite grasp what style or function of table is demanded by the public? What if they know how to do carpentry but they don't know jack about design? Are they going to come up with a product that people want?

What if one person comes up with a design that people want? What if he builds a couple of tables and they sell like hotcakes. That design is his. He took the time to build the original, took the risk to market them, and so on. Now he wants to expand his operation so that he can sell more tables to meet demand. Exactly what is wrong with him putting together a business plan where he informs labor that he can afford to pay them $X per hour if they'll build his style and design of table, which he then sells for a profit? What has the capitalist "stolen" in this scenario? He came up with the idea, he put together the plan that met market demand, he took the risk. How is just to then turn over his table-making concern to the workers?

Capitalism puts the consumer in charge...regardless of the capitalists' power, if the consumer doesn't want it he's not going to sell it. Shouldn't the consumer be in charge? If not, why not? And wouldn't communism put the worker in charge over the consumer?

[t_wolves_fan]

So, you are telling me that there is no direction given to the laborer?

Of course not. Is direction now evidence of slavery?

Wouldn't a communist commune give direction to laborers, or do the laborers all just get to work as they please?


That, the capitalist, having purchased the laborer's labor capacity, does not tell the laborer what is expected of him in terms of what needs to be done and how and when?

Of course. This is usually done beforehand. If the capitalist decides to change anything about the job and the laborer does not agree, the laborer is free to leave.

Again, where is the coercion?

Again, won't this still happen in communism? Won't changing conditions result in changing job descriptions and expectations regardless? If these decisions are not made unanimously, then some workers are still compelled to work under directions with which they do not agree, correct? Or are you assuming every decision will be made unanimously? (in which case, :lol: )


The fact that he is capable of leaving at any time has nothing to do with the fact that while he is employed by the capitalist he is under the direction of the capitalist. How else do you explain the fact that some places require employees to wear uniforms or establish standard procedures of working?

:blink:

Are you serious?

He can leave anytime...but he's still a slave if he agrees to the job requirements...oh and also he can leave anytime...but he's still a slave.

You're also assuming that all decisions made by capitalists are done so unilaterally, without worker input. This is simply not the case.

But what I'm really having a hard time with is your belief that slavery includes the ability to leave at any time. That's kind of a contradiction of the highest order.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by T_Wolves_Fan

Of course not. Is direction now evidence of slavery?

Did I say capitalism was slavery? And don't pull that bull where you claim I implied it either. Wherein did I ever say capitalism was slavery?


wouldn't a communist commune give direction to laborers, or do the laborers all just get to work as they please

For the most part, there is no external mastery of the labor process by another individual. If and when it is necessary, then there would probably be a democratic process in which everyone involved gets a say in the process.


Of course. This is usually done beforehand. If the capitalist decides to change anything about the job and the laborer does not agree, the laborer is free to leave.

But this is undemocratic becasue the laborer either can just do what his boss says or he can leave. The labor has no say in the process.


Again, where is the coercion?

Again, you keep assuming I said capitalism was slaver, which I explained was not because of the free-labor.


Again, won't this still happen in communism? Won't changing conditions result in changing job descriptions and expectations regardless? If these decisions are not made unanimously, then some workers are still compelled to work under directions with which they do not agree, correct? Or are you assuming every decision will be made unanimously? (in which case, )

The difference is that they would have at least a meaningful input in the process and not just have it dictated to them.


He can leave anytime...but he's still a slave if he agrees to the job requirements...oh and also he can leave anytime...but he's still a slave.

I never said he was a slave. Again, you keep assuming things. Especially after I pointed out that the laborer is not a slave. Period.


You're also assuming that all decisions made by capitalists are done so unilaterally, without worker input. This is simply not the case.

So, if a business is going to close down the worker can simply tell the boss not to close down and he won't? If it's true that capitalists don't make decessions without worker input, then how do you explain things like compulsary uniforms, standards of work procedures, etc.? All of these are made without input from the laborer.


But what I'm really having a hard time with is your belief that slavery includes the ability to leave at any time. That's kind of a contradiction of the highest order.

I never said capitalism was slavery. Learn to read. You keep making these little pearls of wisdom from nothing. The arguement calls back on the old and elitist belief that "if you don't like it, you can leave." Invariably, the laborer must at some point accept some form of employment because he cannot always be unemployed or changing jobs.

I, as well as Marx, said that capitalism is not slavery. Slavery implies a legal requirement, the unlawful breaking of which being punishable by law, that a slave must work for his master. Capitalism implies that there is no legal requirement for the laborer to work for any capitalist.

But couriously, would it be alright for government to impose a strict minimum wage and taxes on businesses because there is no force keeping the business in the country? I don't think there are laws saying that stores like Walmart must be owned and operated in the US.

[t_wolves_fan]

Did I say capitalism was slavery? And don't pull that bull where you claim I implied it either. Wherein did I ever say capitalism was slavery?

Not that I know of, but aren't wage slavery and capitalism kind of the same thing?


For the most part, there is no external mastery of the labor process by another individual. If and when it is necessary, then there would probably be a democratic process in which everyone involved gets a say in the process.

Meaning what specifically?

If I feel like it, I can drop by the commune and put in a few hours of work, working exactly as I please with no set standards, rules or procedures? How efficient and productive is that going to be?

Or will all of the above be set democratically so long as decisions are unanimous? Do you really envision that you are going to be able to achieve unanimous decisions in large or complex production processes? If so you're dreaming. If not, that means the losers are subject to work rules with which they do not agree in which case, what's the difference?


But this is undemocratic becasue the laborer either can just do what his boss says or he can leave. The labor has no say in the process.

One, workers often do get a say in the rules or procedures of the workplace. If you're proclaiming that they never do you are incorrect.

Two, the worker leaving is his him expressing his say in the process.



Again, won't this still happen in communism? Won't changing conditions result in changing job descriptions and expectations regardless? If these decisions are not made unanimously, then some workers are still compelled to work under directions with which they do not agree, correct? Or are you assuming every decision will be made unanimously? (in which case, )

The difference is that they would have at least a meaningful input in the process and not just have it dictated to them.

This is hypothetical but leads to all sorts of other questions. Being that production of a lot of things, especially any robots that will one day be serving us (assuming you're one of those) requires a lot of interdependence among different producers. Is it difficult to imagine the chaos that might arupt if one firm has a good idea for a new product but cannot get another firm on which it relies for parts to agree to change its production methods?

There is also bureaucratic intertia to consider. People don't like change a whole lot, and that isn't guaranteed to change in your system. Instead of granting the boss the authority to change on a dime when necessary, you're now putting every decision (presumably) up to a vote, which takes a lot of time. If you're seeking consensus that usually takes even more time.

If you've ever studied org theory, communism is full of possible cans of worms.


So, if a business is going to close down the worker can simply tell the boss not to close down and he won't? If it's true that capitalists don't make decessions without worker input, then how do you explain things like compulsary uniforms, standards of work procedures, etc.? All of these are made without input from the laborer.

You're using a couple of logical fallacies here. One is that because you know of some instances where rules were changed unilaterally, then all changes must be made unilaterally. Not true at all.

The second is that it has to be either/or (false binary). Either the worker has say in all choices or he has none. Not true either. Some choices like closing a factory may not be up to the worker, some choices like what uniforms to wear might. It is going to vary widely between industries and firms. For the record I'd advocate as much worker feedback as reasonably possible.


I never said capitalism was slavery. Learn to read.

Please understand that I'm having this discussion simultaneously with many people. If I make some incorrect assumptions or simply lose track then I apologize.


The arguement calls back on the old and elitist belief that "if you don't like it, you can leave." Invariably, the laborer must at some point accept some form of employment because he cannot always be unemployed or changing jobs.

Yet communism says the exact same thing, unless those who refuse to work are granted societal benefits anyway. That begs the question, what is your point?


But couriously, would it be alright for government to impose a strict minimum wage and taxes on businesses because there is no force keeping the business in the country? I don't think there are laws saying that stores like Walmart must be owned and operated in the US.

I don't understand your question. I don't believe minimum wage laws have anything to do with where the company is based, it only matters where the employees in question are working which naturally is whatever country we're talking about.

I support a minimum wage and a relatively high one at that, though it need not be a "living wage" because not everyone who works for it is living off of it.

[KC]

The hiring firm may be a party, but the worker is by definition an individual. Classes or groups or theoretical bodies do not apply for jobs.

A party can be either one person or many people. That was my point. The individual worker is enslaved by the capitalist class, so the definition holds.



Well duh! If you define capitalist as master and worker as slave, then of course you have slavery. But so far the only reason to define them as such is your opinion that that's what they are, which is not a very good reason at all.


You're right; I got ahead of myself. I meant to say that if we put the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as the parties in the definition of slavery, then it holds. Of course, I thought that you would easily be able to figure out what I meant, since it's pretty obvious. And it's not true just because I say it is. It's true because it is supported by an analysis of capitalist society.


OK, then the requirement to work does not define slavery. Check.

Of course not.



First, not all firms are for-profit. There are non-profit firms and there is the government. A worker has options, and options are usually absent in slavery.


First, we are not talking about every instance. Just as how the labour theory of value isn't used to determine a market price of a commodity, so the same method holds here. These laws are general and dominant in capitalist society and, while some workers may have the option to work for a non-profit firm, the rest are required to work for the bourgeoisie. After all, everyone can't work for a non-profit organization. Hell, not even a significant percentage of the global population could. That's only an extreme minority. Also, working for the government is working for the bourgeoisie, since it is a bourgeois institution used to maintain the conditions of bourgeois rule it is just not in the same form as that of other forms of subordination to the bourgeoisie.


Second, a worker may start his own firm and be his own boss. Again an option, and again options are generally not found in slavery.

Again, only an extreme minority of the population has access to the finances and resources to do this. Yes, there have been people that have been successful in "jumping class" or starting out poor to owning a successful business, but the number of these people is so low that it's basically irrelevant. This is what I refer to as the Samuel Smiles argument, and is a really poor one to present because it's rather obvious that it's completely flawed.



Third, if a worker has to work in communism as well as in capitalism, then he presumably also has to work for someone. It appears by switching to communism the master becomes the commune or the workers' union, correct?


No. The worker in communist society works for nobody. In order to work for somebody you have to sell your labour-power, be it through the sale of your self (slavery), the sale of a portion of the goods you produce (serfdom) or the sale of your labour-power by the hour (or piece) (proletarian), you have to sell your labour-power to be working for somebody. This obviously won't be the case in communist society because money will no longer exist, and therefore it will be impossible to sell your labour-power.

We could take this even further to say that since private property won't exist in communist society, that even if there is no money nobody can own your labour-power, because nobody owns anything.


The rest of the post was based on the worker having options. Since options are inherently absent from slavery, I can see why you wish to ignore it.

And when we talking of the proletariat, we are talking about the vast majority of the working class and not insignificant exceptions.


Again, how is the "value" of the labor or the resources measured?

That question's completely irrelevant to what I wrote. However, if you want me to answer it then I can. The table must sell for a market price greater than what the wood, nails, hammer and saw sell for (the sum of their market prices). That's obvious. This increase comes from the production of the table itself because if the table isn't produced then those products are only worth what they are worth. There, I put it in simple terms for you. What I wrote had absolutely nothing to do with the labour theory of value and is perfectly compatible with bourgeois economics, so I don't see why you're complaining.

[t_wolves_fan]

A party can be either one person or many people. That was my point. The individual worker is enslaved by the capitalist class, so the definition holds.

So "many people" have a mind-meld and simultaneously apply for a job, without the individual having any say in the matter?

Where does this happen, out of curiosity?


You're right; I got ahead of myself. I meant to say that if we put the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as the parties in the definition of slavery, then it holds.

Despite any evidence supporting that proclamation.


Of course, I thought that you would easily be able to figure out what I meant, since it's pretty obvious. And it's not true just because I say it is. It's true because it is supported by an analysis of capitalist society.

What serious brand of analysis looks at a situation where people voluntarily work jobs, voluntarily leave, sometimes have a say in work rules and processes to varying degrees, and voluntarily start their own businesses and determines that those people are "slaves"?

I mean, if I analyzed a piece of land that was dry as a bone and came to the conclusion that it was a lake, I'd be laughed out of the room wouldn't I?


These laws are general

Then they're faulty.

I'll skip ahead for brevity...


No. The worker in communist society works for nobody.

Then how do we plan to meet market needs?


In order to work for somebody you have to sell your labour-power, be it through the sale of your self (slavery),

You're not selling yourself, you're selling your time.

Where do you get this stuff?


the sale of a portion of the goods you produce (serfdom)

Uh, it's only serfdom if you're required to sell to a certain lord. Farmers can sell to whomever they choose.

Do you just kind of make this stuff up so it sounds good? You're really not making any sense here.


That question's (on value) completely irrelevant to what I wrote. However, if you want me to answer it then I can. The table must sell for a market price greater than what the wood, nails, hammer and saw sell for (the sum of their market prices). That's obvious. This increase comes from the production of the table itself because if the table isn't produced then those products are only worth what they are worth. There, I put it in simple terms for you.

No, I mean how is the value determined specifically? If I come into your table-making commune looking to have a table, I ask what you want for it, and you tell me "the value of the labor and materials that went into it", well I'm not quite sure exactly what or how much that is...

I am afraid that, given the inaccuracies contained in your post, it made little if any sense.

[KC]

So "many people" have a mind-meld and simultaneously apply for a job, without the individual having any say in the matter?

Where does this happen, out of curiosity?

It's pretty obvious that employees have to work for employers. I don't know why you can't grasp something so obvious and simple.



What serious brand of analysis looks at a situation where people voluntarily work jobs


So what you're saying is that since workers can choose which member of the capitalist class to work for (and they have to choose) then that means that they're free? If a slave gets to choose who his master is he's free? That doesn't make much sense at all, because regardless of who his master is, he is still a slave.


voluntarily leave

And go work for another employer. Leaving one and going to another doesn't make them free. As I said above, the ability to choose who your master is doesn't make you free.


sometimes have a say in work rules and processes to varying degrees

Many slaves had that as well. So did many serfs. So did many kapos.


voluntarily start their own businesses

I've already explained to you that the section of the working class that has the ability to do this is irrelevant.


Then they're faulty.

Then you would have to reject every single analysis of social sciences, because they're all based on general laws and all have exceptions.


Then how do we plan to meet market needs?

Markets won't exist.


You're not selling yourself, you're selling your time.

Where do you get this stuff?

I was discussing slavery itself. You know, where people didn't own themselves anymore? It was a big issue in the US. Maybe you heard of it.


Uh, it's only serfdom if you're required to sell to a certain lord. Farmers can sell to whomever they choose.

Do you just kind of make this stuff up so it sounds good? You're really not making any sense here.


And here I was talking about serfdom, not contemporary society.


No, I mean how is the value determined specifically? If I come into your table-making commune looking to have a table, I ask what you want for it, and you tell me "the value of the labor and materials that went into it", well I'm not quite sure exactly what or how much that is...

Are you really this stupid? This has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote at all! I was talking about the price of a table in contemporary society; hell, I even put it in 'bourgeois' terms for you so you could understand it. Listen, it's this simple:

1. Amount table sells for must be greater than the amount of money spent to produce it. (Otherwise no profit would be made, and if no profit was to be made then the table wouldn't be produced)
2. Money to produce it was spent on tools, resources and labour.
3. Therefore, amount table sells for must be greater than the amount spent on tools, resources and labour.
4. The table will not be created and the price that it sells for will not become greater until it is produced, because if it isn't produced then it's just worth the price that the tools, resources and labour sell for.
5. Because of this, increasing the price from what the resources, tools and labour sell for to the price that the table will sell for is dependent on production, or the actual creation of the table.
6. The labour raised the price from the amount of money spent on the table to the amount of money it sold for on the market.
7. The labour created this increase in price, because it didn't exist anywhere else and was only realized through production (i.e. through labour).

I don't know if I could break it down any easier for you. Any knucklehead could understand that, so I'm hoping that you could. You're at least a knucklehead, right?



I am afraid that, given the inaccuracies contained in your post, it made little if any sense.


There weren't any. You're just too dense to accurately comprehend what was wrote.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

People have the choice to refuse work in a capitalist society. In that sense, it is different from slavery. However, capitalism does not allow those who do not work under an exploitative system to recieve the highest quality of life. In other words, they do choose voluntarily, but they are choosing not to starve.

[FuckWar]

i'd say its pretty obvious that t_wolves_fan has no idea the variety of pressures and consequences individual employers as well as the entire capitalist class have imposed on the proletariate.

i promise, there is literature. many books have been written on the subject.

this freedom to go from job to job and trust that an employer will honor the opinion of a given worker is a farce. anyone who has ever worked for a wage knows this.

furthermore, structures of capitalism, i.e. the police, the government, the educational system, popular culture, etc., add to economic pressures to create a system where the penalty for deviations from the wage-slavery paradigm do not simply include poverty or hunger or homelessness, and cannot be alleviated by simply going to the next business that will pay you a living wage (a hard thing to come by).

Consequences for not tolerating an opressive work environment include social stigma- can't afford that fancy car? nice clothing? consumer culture frowns upon an inability to attain material goods. They also include physical harrassment by the police. Union-busting, brutality against protesters, and the singleing-out of working class people, specifically minorities and women, are built into capitalism as a necessity to keep the proletariate producing, even as they lack social mobility, as a means to enrich the capitalist class. Accessibility to education (or rather, a lack thereof) is another consequence of not selling your labor (and this is a unique aspect of american society, as most other industrialized nations have affordable or free higher education).

t_wolves_fan, get a grip. if capitalism really works the way you say then we would all be rich right now. we could just switch jobs until we feel happy and are making a living. unfortunately, that is not how it works.

[KC]

People have the choice to refuse work in a capitalist society. In that sense, it is different from slavery. However, capitalism does not allow those who do not work under an exploitative system to recieve the highest quality of life. In other words, they do choose voluntarily, but they are choosing not to starve.

Actually, it's no different from slavery. Either you work in the terms provided by your master(s), or you die.

[t_wolves_fan]

i'd say its pretty obvious that t_wolves_fan has no idea the variety of pressures and consequences individual employers as well as the entire capitalist class have imposed on the proletariate.

Not true.


this freedom to go from job to job and trust that an employer will honor the opinion of a given worker is a farce. anyone who has ever worked for a wage knows this.

Right: no minimum wage worker in history has ever been given a voice in their job.



t_wolves_fan, get a grip. if capitalism really works the way you say then we would all be rich right now. we could just switch jobs until we feel happy and are making a living. unfortunately, that is not how it works.

Don't recall saying everyone gets rich. Everyone won't get rich.

[KC]

Are you going to reply to my post?

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 10:13 pm
Capitalism = slavery because people have to work for a living.

This being the case, apparently communism would not require others to work for a living, because that requirement equates to slavery?

Just curious.
people have to work for their survival. that is economy. the difference is whether they are working to survive at a minimal state (and in the process, making some other person's survival exceeding luxurious), or whether they are working to support their family (and in the process, making their own lives more luxurious).

in capitalism, one person benefits from everyone struggling to survive.

in communism, every person benefits from everyone working together to ensure the survival of the community as a whole.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 11:48 pm

This being the case, apparently communism would not require others to work for a living, because that requirement equates to slavery?

That's correct.

Obviously there might be social consequences to refusing to contribute, but no one will be locked up or denied food for failing to work.

this is a point where i have to agree with LSD. we may have different beliefs about how a socialist society would operate on an economic level, but this is a social question.

no person should have to go without a home or food.

i think that all people should be entitled to a comfortable living (especially concerning shelter, food, and other necessities) whether they work or not. all people who are able to work should work (i imagine a commune might exile a person who can work but refuses to). but not all people are able to work, nor are all people able to work as effectively as others. this should in no way restrict that person from a comfortable life (especially concerning the elderly and disabled. allow the elderly to live comfortably - a comfortable retirement should be one of the rewards for serving one's community, and allow the disabled to participate in any way that they can)

this is where we disagree: i feel we should reward the hardest working (to encourage everyone to contribute to their fullest potential).

from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. it's still pretty much the same today as it was over a hundred years ago, but i feel that certain ammendments should be made (like i said, especially to reward the highly productive). one of the many problems with capitalism is this: the highly productive are slightly rewarded, the underproductive are punished, and the minority benefits (not minority as in ethnicity, but minority as in slave vs. master).

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 01, 2006 01:35 am

People have the choice to refuse work in a capitalist society. In that sense, it is different from slavery. However, capitalism does not allow those who do not work under an exploitative system to recieve the highest quality of life. In other words, they do choose voluntarily, but they are choosing not to starve.

Actually, it's no different from slavery. Either you work in the terms provided by your master(s), or you die.
the difference between working for someoneand slavery is that the slave master would actually harm/kill you, where as you would just die form natural causes the other way.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 10:03 pm
the difference between working for someoneand slavery is that the slave master would actually harm/kill you, where as you would just die form natural causes the other way.
... and a capitalist wouldn't hurt their workers?

bullshit.

if they didn't have to, they'd never have old, unsafe equipment replaced.

when there's a strike.... if the capitalist who owns the company could, i guarantee he'd just stand on top of the building with a machine gun or a bazooka and start blowing strikers away.

and what about overwork and underpay. i bet alot of people die younger than they should from working hard all their lives and having nothing to show for it - this creates stress and depression....

[KC]

the difference between working for someoneand slavery is that the slave master would actually harm/kill you, where as you would just die form natural causes the other way.

Not necessarily. They could just starve you.

[Tungsten]

Aeturnal Narcosis

when there's a strike.... if the capitalist who owns the company could, i guarantee he'd just stand on top of the building with a machine gun or a bazooka and start blowing strikers away.
Is this an evaluation or a confession? This would only apply if the capitalist shared your mindset. Wouldn't it be more convenient to just hire new workers (scabs) and tell the strikers to fuck off?

Or does this homicidal fantasy reflect what you'd like to do to the scabs or the capitalist, given the chance?

[KC]

Or does this homicidal fantasy reflect what you'd like to do to the scabs or the capitalist, given the chance?


Given his posts in other threads, I would say it's what he'd like to do to workers.

[colonelguppy]

... and a capitalist wouldn't hurt their workers?

bullshit.

they really have no reason to just start randomly maiming their workers, infact that seems very counterproductive.



if they didn't have to, they'd never have old, unsafe equipment replaced.

but they do, so what's your point?


when there's a strike.... if the capitalist who owns the company could, i guarantee he'd just stand on top of the building with a machine gun or a bazooka and start blowing strikers away.

i've seen some stupid things on this forum, but that was literally the dumbest thing i've ever heard.


and what about overwork and underpay. i bet alot of people die younger than they should from working hard all their lives and having nothing to show for it - this creates stress and depression....

and so what if they do? that still doens't have anyhting to do with capitalists physically harming or killing their employees.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 02, 2006 06:58 pm


the difference between working for someoneand slavery is that the slave master would actually harm/kill you, where as you would just die form natural causes the other way.

Not necessarily. They could just starve you.
maybe if the forcibely deny form obtaining food... which i don't really see how thats possible short of breaking the law.

[KC]

maybe if the forcibely deny form obtaining food... which i don't really see how thats possible short of breaking the law.


I don't know what you mean here. If you're talking about slave masters denying food to their slaves, that happened all the time. If you're talking about the bourgeoisie denying food to working people, that happens all the time too. If you can't buy the food, you can't have it. If you don't work, you can't afford to buy the food. The bourgeoisie therefore has your life in their hands, and therefore they can force you to work for conditions they decide. That's the whole point of this; either you work for the conditions supplied by the bourgeoisie as a whole, or you starve. This, of course, throws out the idea that it's possible to just start a business, since that option isn't open to nearly all workers.

Now, before you come back with some lameass excuse like "But you can negotiate and decide wages and benefits and stuff!" you have to realize that a larger cage is still a cage. There's certain fundamental conditions that the capitalist requires you to work under in order for them to employ you (the cage). The most important one (because without it capitalist society would crumble) is that they can extract surplus labour and therefore surplus value from you. If you don't accept that then you don't get a job, you can't afford food, and you starve. If you don't accept the terms provided to you by the bourgeoisie, you starve. Simple.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 06:51 pm

Is this an evaluation or a confession? This would only apply if the capitalist shared your mindset. Wouldn't it be more convenient to just hire new workers (scabs) and tell the strikers to fuck off?

Or does this homicidal fantasy reflect what you'd like to do to the scabs or the capitalist, given the chance?
evaluation.

capitalists hate losing out on money.

i bet every time workers strike, the greedy schmuck who owns the company goes home and beats his wife.

as far as what i'd like to do to capitalists: educate them.

but to the bourgeois: make them live a week in the life of a worker... and no ordinary, every day worker.... a worker with a hardcore physical manual labour job... like a roughneck or a lumper or a coal miner. i bet they'd either collapse from pure physical exhaustion after less than a few hours, or if they did manage to survive the whole week... they'd sleep for a month and maybe actually respect the working person.

but then again... homicide does seem just. after all, i'm sure it's called capital punishment for a reason...