Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!)

[chequita guevara]

It's my fault. One is supposed to check one's inhaler before inhaling. Not that I would have seen it, white plastic against white plastic.

Bunnygrrl corrects me. I was not bright red. I was dark red, as if being choked or squezed to death. Since my face felt like it was gonna pop, I can believe it.

[JohnT]

The name of the song is "Sweet Dreams (Are made of this)"

[The Vagabond]

Sorry that you had to pass through that, Che. Thanks for enlightening me about the song, guys.

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't agree that it can't be defined, but it can't be measured. This is the nature of social science. Take demand for example. It's impossible to measure demand because of people's taste.

OK then. I am inclined to agree with you here. However, the very term 'exploitation' contains certain a priori negativity in it, which can obscure the commie-capitalist debate.

[The Vagabond]

By the way, the fact that one agrees that exploitation exists does not mean that he would agree with the conclusions you draw from the fact of its existence.

[chequita guevara]

I disagree with Kid. Exploitation can be measured.

In a very simple fashion, you could simply take the company's profit plus rent costs and interest payments and divide them over the company's total revenue. The answer would be the rate of exploitation.

American workers are highly productive. According to one statistic I've seen many times, the average American worker generates four times the wealth that he or she is paid, i.e., the boss gets three dollars out of every four the worker creates. Now, given that a considerable portion of that wealth goes to cover raw materials, tools, and pay back the principle of loans, it doesn't mean the rate of exploitation is 300%. When I worked at UPS, back in 1989 (yes, chegitz was a Teamster, does it surprise you?), management told us that they made about an 8% profit (which would only amount to an extra paycheck for us, which I later commented I could use, as did most of my coworkers). If we ignore interest and rent, for the moment, than the rate of exploitation was 8% (in reality, it would be higher).

Actual determinations of that rate of exploitation would be somewhat more complex.

[David Floyd]

So, chegitz, your argument runs like this:

Just because someone took the time to set up a company, or took the effort and had the skill to be promoted from within, doesn't mean that person deserves more. In fact, it means that I deserve more, even though I have done none of those things.

Is that about right? Now, I understand your argument that the goods you produce are in excess of your paycheck, but so what? Let's say you are an auto-worker. If you have the ability and the drive to design a car, go out and get the raw materials, build the car, market the car, ship the car, and sell the car, and you actually DO all this, then you should be paid accordingly. But let's face it. On an assembly line, an autoworker attaches door handles, or whatever, all day. Sure, without a door handle, a car would be largely worthless, but does this mean that the guy who put the door handle on the car actually designed, built, marketed, and sold the car?

Now, granted, no one person does all of that. However, there are people who manage large parts of that, and eventually, at the top, someone who manages all of that. Seeing as how it would be physically impossible for one person to be personally involved in doing the entire "car selling" process, doesn't it make sense that those who manage the tens, hundreds, or thousands of people involved in the process should make more money? The guy who works on the factory floor is easily replaceable - his labor just is not as valuable as the labor of, say, a mid-level manager who has to supervise hundreds of autoworkers, run their payroll, keep everyone on task, take care of hiring/firing, etc.

And this applies to pretty much any industry.

[Velociryx]

Basically, you are a slave with a choice of four different masters, one of whom is yourself.

Socialism and capitalism cannot exist in equalibrium.

Willingness has nothing to do with exploitation.


Exploitation is the difference between what you get paid and the profit you make for your boss.



These are the statements I most strongly disagree with.

The first, because I cannot be a "slave to myself." 'tis impossible, IMO.

The second, because we HAVE seen working examples of it in action. Welfare and government help programs are socialistic in their nature, and they do not cause undue stress to the capitalist system. Nor has universal healthcare in the countries that have and continue to adopt it.

And the third....I think this is the telling difference between us, and our positions.

I proceed from the assumption that "you can't rape the willing" and so would strongly disagree that the peasants and serfs you mention were fundamentally willing participants. That is to say, they had no choice but to serve their masters in Feudal times, and thus, were entirely beholden to them. Unwilling, and with no choice in the matter. Slaves.

This is hardly the same situation in today's advanced capitalist nations. I have held numerous jobs, and never once did I feel as though I was not being treated with fairness, or paid below the market value of my skills.

Could I have made more had I struck out on my own and started my own enterprise?

Almost certainly, and that option has always been (and is now) open to me.

But, as I had nothing to do with the creation of the enterprise which now employs me (it existed long before I ever considered working there), I am, in essence "renting" the company's equipment for an agreed upon portion of my productivity.

I don't own it, I lack the resources to acquire them, but I can use their equipment for an agreed upon portion of my productivity.

Do they get the larger share. Yes, they certainly do. They also have far greater expenses than I do (they must pay interest on the loans that built the building, that bought the equipment, etc), and so they get a larger portion.

I agreed to that when I signed on. If I am unhappy with it at any point, I can start my own company, and keep 100% of my productive outputs. Or, I can hire an employee for an agreed upon wage, and he can "rent" my equipment.

Since I had nothing to do with the creation of the enterprise, I am essentially a hired gun. I work on contract (even if the contract has been formalized into an arrangement called "employment." I borrow their stuff to make an agreed upon wage. What they do with the fruits of my labor is up to them, and frankly, I'm perfectly okay with that. Again, if I wasn't, I'd start my own business.

I suspect, however, this will be our single largest point of disagreement....

-=Vel=-
PS: EGADS! Sorry to hear about the misadventure with the inhaler! No fun....

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So, chegitz, your argument runs like this:

[blah blah blah]

And this applies to pretty much any industry.

As I wrote before, the labor used in the phsycal production of a commodity is not the only socially-necessary labor that goes into a commodity. All socially-necessary labor needs to be considered in the equations, fromthe guy who tracks around in the wilderness looking for new sources of coal to fire the factories to the guy who designs the car to the guy who builds the robots that put car door handles on to the truck driver who drives it to the dealership to the secretary who goes over the paperwork you sign when you buy your car. Even the labor of management is generally socially-necessary, although as many people who have worked with management can tell you, this isn't always the case.

Furthermore, just as a commodity with more socially-necessary labor in it will be more expenesive than one that is not, the same is true with labor-power itself. Labor goes into making people. It's called training and schooling, and labor-power with more training, schooling, and experience is frequently more valuable than labor-power that doesn't have as much.

[Velociryx]

Out of curiosity, how do repairmen fit into this communist schematic.

What I mean is: If exploitation is the difference between what you get, and the value you produce, then repairmen should be considered among the MOST exploited people of all.

If I'm a robot repairman, and I fix a broken mechanical arm for General Motors, and that arm, through the rest of it's service to the company, contributes 2.6 million dollars in profits to the company's bottom line....I should be entitled to a good bit of that, no? The wealth would not have been created had I not fixed the machine (for which I might have recieved a couple thousand bucks, tops).....so....even though I didn't buy the robotic arm....even though I had nothing at all to do with the robotic arm (didn't even know it existed, actually, till I got called in to work on it), because I replaced a cog and two springs, I should get a cut in all of its future productivity under the definition given earlier, yes?

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Out of curiosity, how do repairmen fit into this communist schematic.

What I mean is: If exploitation is the difference between what you get, and the value you produce, then repairmen should be considered among the MOST exploited people of all.

If I'm a robot repairman, and I fix a broken mechanical arm for General Motors, and that arm, . . .

-=Vel=-

The repairperson doesn't operate the tool, they just fix it. They are only responsible for the labor they put into the tool, a very small portion of which is transfered to the object being worked by the tool.

[Velociryx]

But the operation of any particular tool is not a part of the original definition you gave. In short, per the original definition, it should not matter. I extended the life of the tool by infusing it with my labor. Therefore, I am now a part OF the tool (it could not have continued generating wealth for the company, if not for me). So, I am being exploited by an amount equal to whatever the tool makes for them during the rest of its life, minus the pittance they paid me.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Basically, you are a slave with a choice of four different masters, one of whom is yourself.

Socialism and capitalism cannot exist in equalibrium.

Willingness has nothing to do with exploitation.


Exploitation is the difference between what you get paid and the profit you make for your boss.


The first, because I cannot be a "slave to myself." 'tis impossible, IMO.

I was playing a little fast and loose there. I actually intend to go back and deal with that question in detail, but not tonight. I'm too discombobulated and it will be a time consuming bit.

The second, because we HAVE seen working examples of it in action. Welfare and government help programs are socialistic in their nature, and they do not cause undue stress to the capitalist system. Nor has universal healthcare in the countries that have and continue to adopt it.

One, that's not socialism any more than progressive income tax is socialism, however much libertarians protest otherwise. The purpose of such welfare programs are the maintenance of the capitalist system, not the betterment of humanity. Government run health care is less expensive for business (you should see the US Labor Party talking paper on this point) and social programs in general mean that the population is significantly less likely to set up baricades and storm the Bastille. And again, with the collapse of the USSR, many of these social democracies are cutting back on these programs, in the name of market efficiency.

I proceed from the assumption that "you can't rape the willing"

You are proceeding from an incorrect assumption. Exploitation is not rape. Exploitation in the Marxist sense (whih is what you asked about) is the ratio of surplus value to total value contained within a commodity.

That is to say, they had no choice but to serve their masters in Feudal times, and thus, were entirely beholden to them. Unwilling, and with no choice in the matter. Slaves.

While that's true, they also believed it was their lot in life, as ordained by God. They submitted to their rule and thought their rulers their betters. Much like today many of us submit willingly to the whims of the market.

never once did I feel as though I was not being treated with fairness, or paid below the market value of my skills.

Exploitation isn't about what you feel.

PS: EGADS! Sorry to hear about the misadventure with the inhaler! No fun....

Yeah, my face is all mottled now. I burst more than the capilaries about my eyes. I look like I've been strangled. My lung still hurts, but no permanent damage. Thanks.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The guy who works on the factory floor is easily replaceable - his labor just is not as valuable as the labor of, say, a mid-level manager who has to supervise hundreds of autoworkers, run their payroll, keep everyone on task, take care of hiring/firing, etc.

And this applies to pretty much any industry.

Middle management is actually far more replacable than skilled factory labor. A lot less valuable as well.

Probably, the most valuable people at the auto company are the engineers who know how to design the damn things, followed by the people who build them. I'll say it again, our society undervalues the very people most important to it.

[David Floyd]

chegitz,

Then I don't see your point. You are trying to say that an autoworker making exponentially less than a manager is exploitive. What you are really saying is that an autoworker should make more money, and a manager less.

OK, fine. First of all, let's establish that a manager's labor is worth more than an worker's labor (by which I mean, for example, a cashier or a factory worker), assuming, naturally, that both are doing their jobs (if a manager is slacking off, then that is a totally different argument, but it doesn't lend credence to your basic argument). I think everyone can agree with that.

Your argument then seems to run along the lines of this: The difference in salary is grossly disproportionate and extremely unfair, and that the worker is being taken advantage of in order to enrich the manager.

I think there are two arguments here. The first one is to grant you the point - yes, in many cases, it is ridiculous to give a CEO a $100 million bonus while laying off workers. However, I would also say "so what?" It's none of my business, and it's certainly none of the government's business. The only people involved in that are 1)the laid off worker, 2)the CEO, and 3)the people who voted the bonus, that is, the Board of Directors.

Yes, I feel sorry for the laid off worker, and yes, the CEO is a greedy bastard (more than likely). However, I don't think the worker has any right whatsoever to a job. If he has one, great, and if he doesn't have one, too bad, and that's the extent of it. A job implies a salary, and a right to a job implies a right to a salary. So when you make this argument, you are saying that by virtue of being born, a person has a right to the money of another, and this right can never be taken away.

The only thing I can say to this is, "Mwhuh?" While we're being so generous with other people's money, what other rights can we come up with? I have a suggestion - the "Free Beer Right". I have a right to free beer for life, whether or not I can pay "money" for it. I further have a right to a free car, and free gas, because without those, I couldn't get to my job, and if I can't get to my job, that violates my right to a job, right?

Sorry, I think that's just ridiculous.

Now, I have another approach to your basic argument, and that is to say that the difference in wages, in most cases, is not vastly disproportionate at all. Let's say that the wage of the manager equals the combined wages of 10 workers - each worker makes, say, $35,000/year, and the manager makes $350,000/year. Now, obviously I just made those numbers up (which brings up another point, assuming you are willing to grant me that the labor of a manager is worth more than the labor of an individual, where do you draw the line, and what is your definition of worth?), but I don't see how the salaries are disproportionate. A manager getting paid $350,000 is getting paid to do a job that 95% of those under him wouldn't be able to do - if the manager isn't doing his job, again, that's a different case, but is not an argument in favor of your point.

Let me use a personal example. I am a supervisor at my job, which translates to very low level management. I don't get paid that much more than those under me - maybe 25-40% more, depending on the person. However, if I had to name 3 people out of the 30 or so under me who could do my job as effectively as I do it, I wouldn't be able to do it. I can only think of one, and even that person is pretty iffy, in my opinion.

Now, if this is true in my example, on such a small scale, do you think this is also true on a larger scale? If you take the job of the person above me, and ask how many people under me can do that person's job, the number would drop resoundingly to zero. Likewise, in a factory, out of a thousand people, I doubt there are more than a handful who could manage the factory - and that's in theory. If they are working in a factory, they probably don't have any of the training or knowledge necessary, only intelligence/natural ability, so I bet the actual number would be closer to 0.

Now, let's go the other way with this. Every single one of the people under me is extremely replaceable. It wouldn't take more than a few days, tops, to find someone to do a reasonably adequate job of being a cashier. Same story for a factory.

So, the people under me are, by and large, not only unable to do my job or my boss's job, but also have no special quality making them invaluable in even THEIR job.

In what way would it be unfair for me or my boss to make 3 or 4 times as much money as these people?

Now, I touched on a point earlier, and I'd like to bring it up again. Where DO you draw the line in terms of what each person's labor is worth? What is an "acceptable" wage gap? And, most importantly, how do you define worth? Do you think worth is defined by some absolute, mystical measure, or do you think worth is simply defined as whatever the parties involved agree that it is?

[Velociryx]

Quite so, exploitation is not about what you feel, it is about being taken undue advantage of (even in the Marxist sense, that is what it comes down to). Most workers (not all, but most) had nothing at all to do with the creation of the enterprise they are currently working for (the building I work in was built before I was born, the computers and office equipment was all there long before I started, etc). I had nothing to do with any of that. As I said before, essentially, I am a hired gun, even though it has been formalized into a contract called "employment." The deal is, I "rent" their equipment to do stuff in exchange for a portion of the value of my productivity.

My other choice is to go out and buy said equipment for myself (incurring all those costs), and if I am willing to do that, I get to keep 100% of the value of my productivity.

It's rent....in the same way that interest on the loan that put it all in place is rent.

-=Vel=-