Results 1 to 20 of 77
The Famous Capitalist Rebuttal
Whenever I bring up the topic of Socialism to a Capitalist, I always hear the same thing "If I have a job that requires a lot of skill and education, why should I get the same pay as a lowly janitor?", etc.
How can I respond to this when it is said?
You could, for one, suggest they take a guess at how high survival rates would be in a hospital with no janitors or housekeeping services (hint: low).
Sorry, I'll try to give a better answer when I have a bit more time.
The life we have conferred upon these objects confronts us as something hostile and alien.
Formerly Virgin Molotov Cocktail (11/10/2004 - 21/08/2013)
I would ask if monetary reward was all that people seek in life. Why then would everyone say that they want a job that they enjoy? If shoveling horse shit off of woods trails paid like a doctor's job would they want to do it? Which would they prefer: shoveling shit in the mud and rain or treating patients and saving lives? If they only do things for the money then they're probably just reactionary assholes but if they do things for fulfillment then they're contradicting themselves.
Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand. ~ Karl Marx
formerly Triceramarx
Socialism doesn't mean equal pay. The first phase of socialism is "to each according to their contribution." This doesn't mean that you work x hours you receive x amount of labor notes therefore x amount of labor power you're allowed to receive. Rather the total amount of labor is taken, and necessary things (some form of welfare, the ability to keep the means of production in usable conditions etc) is subtracted from that. Then this is then divided up and the proportion of contribution is found - so you can work 6 hours and receive a 6 hour labor note but you may only be able to "4 hours worth " of stuff, or you could get "7 hours worth" of stuff. It all really depends on the circumstances - this isn't direct but proportional.
Higher phase communist society, on the other hand, is "to each their need." In this phase, the development of the productive forces and rational management has allowed a sort of "post-scarcity" and thus labor notes do not need to be used. In this phase, one works because it is now a joy - all this allows a major surplus of goods and now it is fully possible to supply everyone with their needs and wants. It would be foolish to retain the labor notes as it's use is moot.
Equality has nothing to do with this. To those who want their full contribution and undiminished labor we can't help but laugh. To do so would be to deprive both society of its productive possibility and the fellow human their productive possibility - which results in their own labor being increased and the products quality drastically reduced. All this can be found in the critique of the Gotha program.
Last edited by Remus Bleys; 14th April 2014 at 12:49.
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
First, I don't think that this would be a viable response to a supporter of Capitalism. The goal is to sway and not overwhelm the subject. That's why I responded the way that I did. Break down their reasoning and then introduce your own as a practical alternative.
Second, I ask you to clarify something: are you suggesting that labor should be calculated out into simple common labor, into hours worked, or some combination? If it is either one then they could be accumulated and used to lend, purchase, ect so long as they are a maintainer of value across time and persons. Capital would still be alive, just in a different form. It must be crushed.
formerly Triceramarx
Well of course capital must be crushed, but the labor notes isn't a way of keeping capital about. I refer to camatte's capital and community, specifically the section entitled "the transistion of capitalism to communism." I don't really know how exactly it'll be calculated, perhaps a measure of the two. The labor note however cannot be exchanged nor can it be accumulated. It has a limited amount of time and as soon as this time is up, the labor note becomes invalid. In addition, it cannot be transferred it can only be used at whatever is distributing the notes and goods. The labor note unlike money cannot be saved lent or transferred.
Of course there is a certain problem with its value of course but I'm only advocating it as a "necessary and temporary measure."
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
I wonder how much was borrowed from Keynes because IIRC he suggested that money left in banks should have a negative interest rate such that spending be encouraged.
I get what you're saying though.
formerly Triceramarx
Working as one of the manual labor people in an hospital I can attest to this. If I got lazy and didn't clean the stretchers people would end up dying.
formerly Triceramarx
They think so because that is what was told to them. Not many have even read a thing by a socialist save possibly the manifesto, which imo can be a source of confusion due to it being simplified.
formerly Triceramarx
Why is "equal pay" touted by anti-socialists as a principle of socialism? Respond with "Equal pay is not what socialists advocate for," plain and simply. If that brings you to a point where you must explain socialism, then do so in a simple manner as well.
Edit: accidentally deleted so this is reposted
Ask them why a factory worker who actually produces stuff should be paid minimum wage, while an investment banker, who doesn't really produce anything should be paid tens of thousands?
They will most probably say something vague about supply and demand. Then ask them why our entire lives ought to be structured around some arbitrary capitalist laws (of supply and demand).
Communists believe in the Labor Theory of Value. Why would we turn around and then reject it by paying everyone the same? We aren't Levelers and Marx himself argued against such idiocy several times.
No communists don't. Communists don't believe in the labor theory of value they recognize that the law of value is a cornerstone of capital. Even stalin mantained that communism doesn't retain this and said that in socialism its suppressed.
It's not a morality statement just a truth. It's a basic law of capital and to say communists argue for the retention of this law is to say that communists fight for capitalism and just call it capitalism - or you know typical stalinism. You are making this too easy for me.
Last edited by Remus Bleys; 14th April 2014 at 21:07.
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
All Marxists accept the LTV. Marx took it from Smith and thanked him for it. What value system do you think communists use?
Also source on Stalin being against LTV.
Communists are for the abolition of capitalist commodity production and the law of value. What do you think communism is?
Or what do you think LTV is?
I'm not endorsing stalin nor do I agree with this text but
But does this mean that the operation of the law of value has as much scope with us as it has under capitalism, and that it is the regulator of production in our country too? No, it does not. Actually, the sphere of operation of the law of value under our economic system is strictly limited and placed within definite bounds.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...blems/ch04.htm
all marxists accept that the law of value functions within capitalism. To say it functions in socialism is to call capitalism socialism - the worst of all the revisions.
Of course as the leader of a capitalist state stalin was not against the law of value - nor does it really matter in the real world. But you aren't even stalinism correctly.
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
First of all, if you’re arguing with someone who claims to be a capitalist, you can probably tell them that they’re not a capitalist but rather a supporter of capitalism. A capitalist is a member of the economic class that owns and controls the major means of production and distribution. Having a few shares of Microsoft stock doesn’t qualify. A capitalist has to be able to exercise control and be more than a minor investor. Tell him/her that, and this may help them to see things from a bit different perspective.
To your would-be capitalist, you can make the following explanation:
Under capitalism, labor power itself is a commodity. A commodity has both use value and exchange value and is the product of labor. The capitalist purchases labor power on the market. S/he pays a wage, which is the purchase price of the labor power. A worker has to survive, reproduce, and be replaced when no longer able to work.
A highly-skilled worker needs some education above and beyond the relatively unskilled worker. That is an investment. The labor power of a highly-skilled worker, such as a surgeon, requires much more labor to produce than the labor power of a relatively unskilled worker because the surgeon has to spend years and money acquiring the education. All work is skilled to one degree or another. A janitor or a fast-food worker requires less work to produce his/her labor power than a software engineer or an auto mechanic.
Under capitalism and the early stages of socialism, the labor power of highly-skilled workers cost more. Under modern capitalism, however, this disparity is highly distorted. For example, collecting garbage may be far harder and more grueling than sitting in an air-conditioned office doing secretarial work, and the difference in pay may be distorted because the bean counters cannot put discomfort into a spreadsheet.
Regards,
Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra
Communists are for the abolition of wage labor. Any thing else is just superfluous. The sort of counter argument that you provided is really just a misconception of what socialism is. I doubt that a capitalist is really going to change their minds. It also doesn't help that Stalinists always say how great it is for wage differentials to be small, as it this is a cornerstone of socialism.
“All that a well-organized secret society can do is, first, to assist in the birth of the revolution by spreading among the masses ideas corresponding to their instincts, and to organize, not the army of the revolution—the army must always be the people [—] but a revolutionary General Staff composed of devoted, energetic, intelligent and above all sincere friends of the people, who are not ambitious or vain, and who are capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instincts.” - Bakunin the Leninist
The paramount point we should stress is that a collectivized society would have a collective interest in *eliminating* all gruntwork -- fully cooperative social planning and fully automated mechanics / logistics would be at the heart of this new social political consciousness.
Here's from a past thread on the topic:
The doctor argument against communism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/doctor-arg...12/index4.html
That said, though, I'm of the position that per-project work roles *would* continue to exist, indefinitely, and not everyone would have the personal inclination to do just *anything* -- I'm critical and dismissive of the world-of-happy-campers-for-ever-after conception of communism.
So if individuality is to be respected in an enlightened way, individual sentiments will vary, and not all work efforts will be embraced as equivalent.
Nice guilt-tripping.... (heh)
Good point.
This is a fair argument, but it also happens to sidestep the point about the gruntwork itself -- what would a post-capitalist society do about the care of horses (as this example seems to be about) -- ?
Again, it'd be better to address how all demeaning labor could be obviated, which is the point of a revolution, anyway, imo.
