What is wrong with wage labour?

[Nusocialist]

I despise wage labour, but I'm unable to give too great arguments about it outside the labour theory of value.

What do you think is wrong with it(apart from arguments derived from the LTV.)?

And does anyone have any good links on this?

[Dimentio]

It is simply crazy. With an integrated system, as a supra-national economy, mixed with automated labor, we could produce everything we would like to very cheaply. Then, it is crazy to regulate the economy to keep the price system going. Nowadays, wage labor is utilised so that workers should afford to consume what they are producing, supporting a middle class which is encouraged to consume.

Look at my sig.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:32 am
It is simply crazy. With an integrated system, as a supra-national economy, mixed with automated labor, we could produce everything we would like to very cheaply. Then, it is crazy to regulate the economy to keep the price system going. Nowadays, wage labor is utilised so that workers should afford to consume what they are producing, supporting a middle class which is encouraged to consume.

Look at my sig.
okay.

I'm an anarchist, I was more looking for arguments to use against anarcho-capitalists.

But thanks anyway, I'll take alook at that.

[Dimentio]

Anarcho-capitalists are a waste of time basically. Their proposed society would result in a mafia system with "private security firms" offering "protection". The state is the great cataclyst of modern capitalism, not it's enemy.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:46 am
Anarcho-capitalists are a waste of time basically. Their proposed society would result in a mafia system with "private security firms" offering "protection". The state is the great cataclyst of modern capitalism, not it's enemy.
The problem is not that there proposals would end in these, I doubt they would. It is that most anarcho-capitalists support this stuff.

As you said take the state away and you can't have capitalism.

[Dimentio]

There are a lot more people who are members of Opus Dei. It exists all kinds. We should not tal with anarcho-cappies, but about them, though. They are good debaters, I agree, but their ideology would result in Somalization. And they have nothing against it.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:55 am
There are a lot more people who are members of Opus Dei. It exists all kinds. We should not tal with anarcho-cappies, but about them, though. They are good debaters, I agree, but their ideology would result in Somalization. And they have nothing against it.
I don't think it would end up like Somalia much more than Mutualismor Geoanarchism would. But I think it is strange they seem to want it to.

[apathy maybe]

removed by user request

[Dimentio]

Technically, an ideological proponent of capitalism is not called a "capitalist". A capitalist is a person who owns capital which she are investing in means of production. Engels for example, was a capitalist, yet politically a socialist/communist.

Here in Europe, such people who are supporting capitalism are calling themselves liberals, alternatively "classical liberals". Anarcho-capitalists calls themselves "anarcho-liberals".

[Nusocialist]

removed by user request

[Dimentio]

On my experience from reading history, I could say that most systems where exchange of labor is involved would inevitably cause economic exploitment of laborers. For example, in southern France during the 5th century, there existed village cooperatives which handled their own defense. Their inherent scarcity though, caused feudalism to emerge.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:14 am
On my experience from reading history, I could say that most systems where exchange of labor is involved would inevitably cause economic exploitment of laborers. For example, in southern France during the 5th century, there existed village cooperatives which handled their own defense. Their inherent scarcity though, caused feudalism to emerge.
I think it takes the state and large scale intervention to create capitalism. I'm very influenced by Mutualist/Geoanarchism like that of Proudhon, Tucker, Carson, Oppenhiemer, Nock etc.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+July 06, 2007 10:51 am--> (Nusocialist @ July 06, 2007 10:51 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 10:14 am
On my experience from reading history, I could say that most systems where exchange of labor is involved would inevitably cause economic exploitment of laborers. For example, in southern France during the 5th century, there existed village cooperatives which handled their own defense. Their inherent scarcity though, caused feudalism to emerge.
I think it takes the state and large scale intervention to create capitalism. I'm very influenced by Mutualist/Geoanarchism like that of Proudhon, Tucker, Carson, Oppenhiemer, Nock etc. [/b]
If they still have money...

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by Serpent+July 06, 2007 11:26 am--> (Serpent @ July 06, 2007 11:26 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:51 am

[email protected] 06, 2007 10:14 am
On my experience from reading history, I could say that most systems where exchange of labor is involved would inevitably cause economic exploitment of laborers. For example, in southern France during the 5th century, there existed village cooperatives which handled their own defense. Their inherent scarcity though, caused feudalism to emerge.
I think it takes the state and large scale intervention to create capitalism. I'm very influenced by Mutualist/Geoanarchism like that of Proudhon, Tucker, Carson, Oppenhiemer, Nock etc.
If they still have money... [/b]
I'm supportive of libertarian communism if the local community wants it, but I certainly don't think it is necessary to end wage labour.

I'm a very inclusive anarchist and radical decentralist and I'd hate to rule out the influence of so many strains that way.

[bezdomni]

Wage labor sucks for me and everyone else (the majority of people on earth) who are wage laborers.

It is in my best interest and also the best interest for humanity to abolish wage-slavery and the oppression that comes along with it.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

One class works the machines and doesn't own them, the other owns them and does not work them. The owners also go out of their way to take the majority of the profits and give only a small remnant to the workers. They justify this by waving documents proclaiming "ownership" around.

[Luís Henrique]

What is wrong with wage labour? The fact that those who buy labour force do so because they own all the other factors of production, while those who sell labour force only own their own labour force. In other words, wage labour is just an expression of the classist monopoly of means of production.

But I can't understand why you would like to discard Labour Theory of Value in discussing this. Is it something like riding a bike without using your hands? The more difficult, the best?

Luís Henrique

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 07, 2007 04:59 am
What is wrong with wage labour? The fact that those who buy labour force do so because they own all the other factors of production, while those who sell labour force only own their own labour force. In other words, wage labour is just an expression of the classist monopoly of means of production.




Ah but the say that if this comes about naturally through, voluntary exchange, it is fine.


But I can't understand why you would like to discard Labour Theory of Value in discussing this. Is it something like riding a bike without using your hands? The more difficult, the best?Because I'm discussing with anarcho-capitalists mainly of the Rothbardian/Austrian economics strain. They consider the Labour theory of value the height of crankery and it doesn't convince them at all.

I'm an anarchsit btw so it also isn't the most important thing to me. I'm more worried about wage labour as an example of domination and authority.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Ah but the say that if this comes about naturally through, voluntary exchange, it is fine.
Well what happens under capitalism if you do not work for capitalist masters? You live a hideous life, barely surviving. That's not really voluntary because there's no realistic alternative to wage servitude under this system.


I'm an anarchsit btw so it also isn't the most important thing to me. I'm more worried about wage labour as an example of domination and authority
Cool, I can dig that.

Tell them that it's a scenario where individuals can exert economic authority over others with the backing of an armed institution (be it the state today or the private armies of anarcho-capitalism.)

[JazzRemington]

Not to stray off topic, but nusocialist, are you known as tuckerite on infoshop's forums? I'm "solidex."

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:12 am
Not to stray off topic, but nusocialist, are you known as tuckerite on infoshop's forums? I'm "solidex."
Yep, I'm Tuckerite on Infoshop and Anarchist.net.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by Juan Sin [email protected] 08, 2007 03:00 am

Well what happens under capitalism if you do not work for capitalist masters? You live a hideous life, barely surviving. That's not really voluntary because there's no realistic alternative to wage servitude under this system.



They have a very rigid way of looking at these things. Basically they believe you own yourself and your labour and that if you mix your labour with natural resources you own these absolutely and are free to transfer, use them as you see fit.

They only care about negative liberty, if you are forced by your lack of property to work for someone else on their property and they acquired this property legitimately in the above listed way they think it is fine.

I'm trying to attack this from within not by just dismissing it wholesale. But I'm not sure how.



Tell them that it's a scenario where individuals can exert economic authority over others with the backing of an armed institution (be it the state today or the private armies of anarcho-capitalism.)They don't mind this if it comes through the legitimate transfer of property and voluntary choice.

[apathy maybe]

Ask them how to fix the current illegitimate transfers of property and involuntary transfers.

Point out how the USA and Australia (of just two examples) were founded on an involuntary transfer (the forced appropriation of land from the native people).

Talk about war. See also the essay I pointed out further up the thread :P.


Explain how any situation where there exists an armed force (be it the police of the state, or private armies), that force will be misused. And they should oppose this misuse to stay consistent. It is constantly seen that thugs, either hired by private companies, or part of the state, beat up, harass and so on, those who oppose them, those who simply get in the way and so on.

You can look at the railroad barons in the USA, you could examine China today.

[hekmatista]

I agree with Apathy Maybe. Behind every great fortune lies a crime. In order to have a labor force which is divorced from the means of production, they must first be FORCIBLY ejected from their precapitalist relations (enclosure of the commons in England, etc.), or, in happier circumstances (US frontier) caught up in an escalating competition for higher levels of reinvestment which they cannot, as a group, survive(American farmers, once the vast majority of population are now 2%). Most large blocks of property have their roots in force and fraud.

[Luís Henrique]

Ah but the say that if this comes about naturally through, voluntary exchange, it is fine.

Because I'm discussing with anarcho-capitalists mainly of the Rothbardian/Austrian economics strain. They consider the Labour theory of value the height of crankery and it doesn't convince them at all.

I'm an anarchsit btw so it also isn't the most important thing to me. I'm more worried about wage labour as an example of domination and authority.

See, if value is not created by labour, what is the problem with wage labour? I can see none, because, evidently, then it all (including the creation of value) comes about naturally through voluntary exchange.

They believe utility creates value, not labour. As it is impossible to exploit "utility", they believe exploitation does not exist, or at least it is marginal to the capitalist system. And as long as that premise isn't challenged, they are right.

Luís Henrique

[renegadoe]

Luís Henrique is right - if they are persuaded by bourgeois schools of economy, then the only way you can shatter their illusions are by pushing the utility vs exploitation as the source of value in a capitalist system. It is the keystone of their argument, and the reason why they won't consider the argument is because it is potentially fatal to theirs.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm


What we have to deal with here 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 emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm interested in knowing why they dismiss LTV. I think it's pretty common sense that you can incorporate value theory with labor theory. The only thing that makes a toy replica more expensive than the materials it's built from is labor.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that it's pretty foolhardy to proclaim that labor has nothing to do with value, just as it's foolhardy to proclaim that labor is the sole source of value.