Thread: What is wrong with wage labour?

Results 21 to 29 of 29

  1. #21
    Join Date Aug 2006
    Posts 344
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    Originally posted by JazzRemington@July 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.
    It seems unbelievable that even today, after everything that has happened & is happening in Russia, there are people who still imagine that the difference between socialists(ie Leninists.) & anarchists is only that of wanting revolution gradually or quickly.

    ERRICO MALATESTA
  2. #22
    Join Date Aug 2006
    Posts 344
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    Originally posted by Juan Sin Tierra@July 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.
    It seems unbelievable that even today, after everything that has happened & is happening in Russia, there are people who still imagine that the difference between socialists(ie Leninists.) & anarchists is only that of wanting revolution gradually or quickly.

    ERRICO MALATESTA
  3. #23
    Join Date Nov 2002
    Location somewhere else
    Posts 6,139
    Organisation
    Angry Anarchists Anonymous
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    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.
  4. #24
    Join Date Apr 2008
    Location Reno, NV, USA
    Posts 143
    Rep Power 11

    Default Primitive Accumulation

    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.
    hekmatista
  5. #25
    Join Date Aug 2005
    Posts 9,222
    Rep Power 93

    Default

    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
  6. #26
    Join Date Jan 2008
    Posts 50
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    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.
    [FONT=Garamond]"The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature....Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life." - k. marx
    [/FONT]
  7. #27
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Location Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
    Posts 14,082
    Organisation
    Sympathizer re.: Communistisch Platform, WPA, and CPGB (PCC)
    Rep Power 81

    Default

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...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!
    "A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)

    "A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
  8. #28
    Join Date Jul 2007
    Location Earth
    Posts 2,371
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    [FONT=Arial]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. [/FONT]
  9. #29
    Join Date Oct 2007
    Posts 7,588
    Organisation
    IWW
    Rep Power 184

    Default

    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.
    "Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."

Similar Threads

  1. question abotu chapter 5 of wage labour and capita
    By Nathan_Morrison in forum Learning
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 3rd April 2007, 12:37
  2. Wage Labour & Capital
    By KC in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 8th November 2006, 21:44
  3. Wage Slavery
    By RevMARKSman in forum Learning
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 6th June 2006, 02:39
  4. New Labour – Conservative Experiment Gone Wrong
    By RedAnarchist in forum RevLeft Articles
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2nd March 2004, 18:33
  5. Labour Party: blood on their hands! - Labour always a racist
    By Conghaileach in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 21st May 2003, 20:10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread