Cosplay
6th December 2007, 09:16
I've been studying socialism in general for a while now, but mostly broad facts. A discussion on another forum came up on the nature of capitalist exploitatoin. I argued agaist the supposed worker's "self-ownership" of their labor and that the capitalist grew rich by virtue of property ownership.
Then my opponent answered:
The question of whether someone is being fairly compensated for their labor largely presumes there is an objective rule of measure for a commodity beyond what people are willing to sell or buy it. The worth of a commodity thus is a subjective value judgment, that means what something is worth to you may not be be worth anything or as much to me, which is why it is rational to enter into trade agreements with one another. What does it mean for someone to be paid their worth? If you can understand that, you understand this Marxist notion that an employee is entitled to the profits of the company they work for is absurd, as a company makes its profits based on the willingness of buyers to pay the going price of the product. (Also odd they would abolish private property but now they want workers to be paid? My question is paid in what? Money is a medium to attaining private property so I suppose they would just be paid in more Marxist propaganda?)
Someone's labor is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it and what someone else is willing to sell it for. It is an agreement between two parties (employer and employee) that decide the worth of that labor. The employer takes the fruit of that labor that they purchased, and combined with other factors of production (capital investment, insurance, marketing) sell that product to a willing buyer. The employer is a factor in that production and likewise is entitled to the fruits of their own labor (profit). Employees in turn though do get a share of that profits (a weekly paycheck) and without the help of an employer to set up the capital investment, neither party can flourish together in a mutually beneficial relationship. In essence really what the Marxist doesn't like is that some people make more money than others. The only way they could solve this is force some to work at a wage they would not agree to, or forcibly take their wealth and give it to someone else.
I would reject the notion of egalitarianism that every worker puts in an equal level of production with every other worker. It largely depends on skill level, desire, ambition, and talent.
A lot of what he says seems to betray a fundamental understanding of socialism/Marxism, but I'm uncertain of how to approach his idea of the worker and the capitalist being on equal footing. My understanding on socialist economics is not perfect, so it'd be great to hear what you guys think :)
Then my opponent answered:
The question of whether someone is being fairly compensated for their labor largely presumes there is an objective rule of measure for a commodity beyond what people are willing to sell or buy it. The worth of a commodity thus is a subjective value judgment, that means what something is worth to you may not be be worth anything or as much to me, which is why it is rational to enter into trade agreements with one another. What does it mean for someone to be paid their worth? If you can understand that, you understand this Marxist notion that an employee is entitled to the profits of the company they work for is absurd, as a company makes its profits based on the willingness of buyers to pay the going price of the product. (Also odd they would abolish private property but now they want workers to be paid? My question is paid in what? Money is a medium to attaining private property so I suppose they would just be paid in more Marxist propaganda?)
Someone's labor is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it and what someone else is willing to sell it for. It is an agreement between two parties (employer and employee) that decide the worth of that labor. The employer takes the fruit of that labor that they purchased, and combined with other factors of production (capital investment, insurance, marketing) sell that product to a willing buyer. The employer is a factor in that production and likewise is entitled to the fruits of their own labor (profit). Employees in turn though do get a share of that profits (a weekly paycheck) and without the help of an employer to set up the capital investment, neither party can flourish together in a mutually beneficial relationship. In essence really what the Marxist doesn't like is that some people make more money than others. The only way they could solve this is force some to work at a wage they would not agree to, or forcibly take their wealth and give it to someone else.
I would reject the notion of egalitarianism that every worker puts in an equal level of production with every other worker. It largely depends on skill level, desire, ambition, and talent.
A lot of what he says seems to betray a fundamental understanding of socialism/Marxism, but I'm uncertain of how to approach his idea of the worker and the capitalist being on equal footing. My understanding on socialist economics is not perfect, so it'd be great to hear what you guys think :)