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

[David Floyd]

Probably, the most valuable people at the auto company are the engineers who know how to design the damn things,

And don't engineers get paid more than the guy who drives the car from here to there? And don't senior engineers get paid a lot more than that?

I'll say it again, our society undervalues the very people most important to it.

Not at all. Obviously, the worker is vital to the company. Almost as obvious, though, is the fact that it is fairly easy to attract labor - especially in today's job market.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
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=-

I don't understand the Marxist conception of tools very well. It's one of those theories where I went, huh? when I first heard it, and have gradually come to understand parts of it.

Roughly, what a tool does is allows a person to use less labor-power on a specific commodity. Instead of working on one widget a day, I can now work on five. My labor is no less valuable, but it is now distributed among more commodities.

The person who builds or repairs a tool transfers some of their labor-power into the tool. The tool then transfers a small amount of that labor-power to every widget it is used on. Eventually the labor-power in the tool gets used up and needs more, i.e., it needs to be repaired. The labor that goes into making and repaing the tool is "dead" labor. It can do nothing on its own. It needs an operator, even robots.

If you can't follow this, and I can't blame you if you can't, I will have to try and find a better explanation from a better Marxist than I.

[The Vagabond]

Che: the problem with your equation (I mean, when calculating the rate of exploitation) is that it is impossible to know how much the enterpreneur is entitled to for organizing his enterprise, for the ideas he came up with in the process, etc. But this is an important term to be taken into account in the equation. (It's somewhat easier to put in the terms corresponding to workers and managers, as their salary level is more or less known.) Therefore, it follows that the rate exploitation can't be calculated, and thus exploitation can't be quantified.

[Velociryx]

No, I understand the concept, but I see the beginnings of a double standard in the system (with the use of a new term--new to me at least--"dead labor." It would seem then, that there are now two classes of labor (where previously in this discussion, there was just "labor"), and that "live labor" is more important than "dead labor"--more important in the sense that "live labor" can be exploited (per your formula, what you get, less the total value of what you produce) and dead labor, which is subject to a somewhat different interpretation of exploitation, if it can be exploited at all.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by 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.

Actually, you don't understand me at all. But that's okay. It's 1:30 AM and I've just had a stressful event, and I may not be explaining myself very well.

The word exploitation is probably problematic for many people here, as it conjures up images of slavery, prostitution, being tricked, manipulated, used, etc. When you get hung up on terms, just remember that they're 150 year old terms and that the language has changed somewhat in the meantime.

I'm not saying an autoworker should necessarily make more and a manager should necessarily make less (although a definate argument could be made about the obscene amount that some CEOs make).

What I am saying, however, will require a more lengthy explanation, I fear, and I'm not up to it tonight.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Che: the problem with your equation (I mean, when calculating the rate of exploitation) is that it is impossible to know how much the enterpreneur is entitled to for organizing his enterprise, for the ideas he came up with in the process, etc.

It's not impossible, it's just hard.

[Velociryx]

Given this (and again, I am treading new water here, so forgive me if my understanding is imperfect), could it not be argued that without the enterprise (the car factory, the shoe factory, etc), the workers could not make cars, shoes, or whatever the factory enables them to make (a logical assumption, I would think), and that given this....is not their labor inside the factory in question "dead labor" in the same sense as the repairman who FIXES a thing? - that is to say, they could not be doing what they are doing if not for the set of tools that the factory, assembly line, or whathaveyou represents?

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

I'm gonna have to explain this tomorrow. You're begining to grasp what I'm trying to say, but it's slipping past you because I'm explaining it poorly.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by David Floyd


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.

I disagree, and let me say why. You give a guy a few hours of training in organizational structure and using excel, and with a little natural people talent and math ability, you've got a decent middle manager.

Most workers at most factories I've worked at were highly skilled people. They were also exposed to physical dangers the middle managers were not. The job of the manager is to facilitate the proper working conditions for the factory workers.

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?

You want to talk worth? Steven Weinburg is probably one of the most valuable people in the US today. Nobody else can do his job. He is effectively irreplacable. And I know for a fact he is not the best paid person in the US. What if he decided he prefered money to exploring physics? The world would be a hell of alot worse off. But that's precisely the message we send to people in our consumerist culture.

So what should Dr. Weinburg do? Start his own business and make more? That would deprive the scientific world of his incredible talent. Should he spend more time out of the lab worrying about the profitablity of his research?

Frankly, I think the role of middle management types is essentially logistic. They should exist to free up all of Dr. Weinburg's time for his use in the lab. So that he doesn't have to worry about making a goddamn profit.

A skilled factory worker is the same. Management exists to facilitate the proper working conditions in a factory. That is, the management is there to assure that the resources are available for the workers to exercise their craft.

Our society gets things completely backwards. Organization is towards a higher purpose - running a factory, exploring the mysteries of physics, whatever. The managment are logistics - they assure the smooth running of the infrastructure so that the real work can get done. Yet we pay managers and executives more than workers, engineers and scientists. In our culture which places such emphasis on money, we are encouraging the best and the brightest to do the sort of logistics work that anyone can do. But if the brightest are executives and managers, that means they're not using their brainpower to be scientists, doctors, engineers, etc.

That's why capitalism is completely ****ed up. That's why I don't care that someone can start their own business, Vel. **** that! If someone has a real talent for metal work, they should be doing metal work - not the damn books for their metal working business. Lets put the metal worker in the shop, the scientist in the lab, and encourge people to go with their talents and loves - especially as this benefits society as a whole.

Let's put the CEOs and VPs in their place - as the glorified secretaries they are. We should respect their logistical abilities but not glorify them (via money or status) the way we do.

Venture capitalists? Get rid of them altogether. They don't serve any value whatsoever.

[Berzerker]

chegitz -

Basically, you are a slave with a choice of four different masters, one of whom is yourself. Historically, when workers tried to chose that third option en masse, the capitalists would have them crushed or outlawed.

Umm...for what exactly? Quitting? Or was there more going on? Like the workers went on strike and tried to either take over the business physicly or used coercive tactics like attacking other workers who didn't quit or those looking for work?

No one started out wanting to work in the facotries.

We all can't be astronauts, or none of us will be.

They had to be forced. Parliament took away their land, the Congress closed the fronteer, the generalissimo's sent the troops to clear the villages, etc. Historically, given a choice, people prefered to farm their own piece of land than work for someone else.

When did Congress "close the frontier"? Does that mean you believe Congress should return to the states most of the land within their borders? Btw, those are the actions of politicians. If that is an indictment of capitalism, then Stalin and Mao are indictments of communism, but the commies here won't accept that their ideology is immoral because of them.

We live in a system that did not come about voluntarily or by simple contract. Capitalism came into existence out of fraud, theft, kidnapping, and murder. We are the decendents of those people (except for some of the ones who were murdered). Our inheritence was stolen. So we tried to create unions to get better deals, and we were fired, beaten, massacred, and starved. We try to pass laws to protect us, and the goverment is overthrown by policemen and generals and ex-corprals beholden to the capitalists. That's how it's been for hundreds of years. We're only allowed so much latitude before the stick comes down on our heads. It may be a guilded cage today, but it's still a cage.

When was the government overthrown by those evil capitalists?

Capitalism is a system in which you get to chose between masters. Most don't have the option not to have one at all.

And we have the option in your system to sit on our butts and devour the labor of others? Or will we be required to work - exploited - in exchange for acquiring certain wants and needs? Capitalism didn't create the world, so the master you speak of is called nature.

Exploitation isn't the difference between what you get paid and what you want to get paid. Exploitation is the difference between what you get paid and the profit you make for your boss. If you make no profit, if you are not being exploited, then there is no point in employing you.

Let me see, I'm sitting here twiddling my thumbs and some guy asks me to come onto his property and use his machinery to make something and he gives me the wealth to buy alot of stuff to make my life better, and he's "exploiting" me?

[Velociryx]

I know a great many business owners who do exactly that, Templar.

They hire someone to look after the books, make the occassional "executive decision" and do what they love to do.

Exactly as you describe....

-=Vel=-
PS: Oh, and if Steven Weinburg ever decided to start his own company (hell, a good name for it would be "Exploring the Mysteries of Physics") I don't imagine he would have any shortage of backers, even if what he explored NEVER bore any fruit.

[chequita guevara]

Oh, Berzerker, you're gonna make me crazy.

I'll see y'all tomorrow. I've having some Fig Newtons and going to bed.


and I'll wager it'll be 440 posts when I return.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Let me see, I'm sitting here twiddling my thumbs and some guy asks me to come onto his property and use his machinery to make something and he gives me the wealth to buy alot of stuff to make my life better, and he's "exploiting" me?

You are letting the etymology of the word 'exploitation' interfere with your judgement. Yes, he's exploiting you, merely because he gets a profit from you. This doesn't necessarily imply anything bad about him, you, or the situation as a whole. Most certainly, it is even very good: he helped you, you did something for him, everyone content. However, by definition, it's exploitation. Anyone (and commies too) is free to introduce whatever definitions they are pleased with.

[monkspider]

This is a great discussion comrade, Che.

Don't be sidetracked by the Beserkers, stay focused.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
PS: Oh, and if Steven Weinburg ever decided to start his own company (hell, a good name for it would be "Exploring the Mysteries of Physics") I don't imagine he would have any shortage of backers, even if what he explored NEVER bore any fruit.

I'm sure he would have no shortage of backers. Now. The point is that we face a twofold problem in the US. Our consumerist culture constantly bombards us with the message that we must consume. The whole ad industry is dedicated to making us crave things. Moreover, status in the US is centered on money. Granted, celebrity is also desired and is probably a strong secondary status indicator.

These factors create a value preference in kids to choose monetary careers over more socially valuable careers. I saw a lot of this when I taught philosophy. Clever kids who were in business school whose talents would be better served (along with society) in the sciences or arts. Now if a kid has the choice between being the next Weinburg or the next Warren Buffett, society should not be exerting pressure on the kid to go the Buffett route. If the kid hates science, fine. But the kid should be free from the counterpressure our society exerts for profit.

As for the metal worker, he or she shouldn't have to start a business to do metal work and achieve status via money. He or she should be able to achieve status via skill and craftsmanship. He or she should also be free from the worry of personal finance.

Granted, I'm going deeper that a mere difference between economic systems. I'm talking about the very foundational values of our society.

Look, Marx's ideas are essentially Hegelian. You have masters and you have slaves (to understand these terms, you have to read Aristotle - that's what Hegel and Marx both have in mind). Lets consider that auto factory again. The slaves are the factory workers, engineers, the secretaries, etc. These are the professions that Aristotle would say are slaves because work primarily with matter. The managers and executives work primarily with organizational structures (politically so to speak) so Aristotle would call them masters.

What Hegel tells us is that masters primarily want recognition as masters by the slaves (i.e. they want status). The thing is, the only thing the masters have mastered is their organizational system. It's the slave - the factory worker, the doctor, the engineer, the secretary, the clerk - who literally creates the world which the master inhabits. The master becomes alienated from the very world he controls. The slaves, who made the world, then become masters themselves - and the whole cycle starts again.

What Marx is saying, essentially, is that a venture capitalist will eventually be at the mercy of the computer technician. This is because the venture capitalist is too far removed from the material world which the computer technician (as slave) understands intimately. Marx hypothesizes that the master/slave cycle can be broken by preventing the alienation of the master from the material condition of the world. That is, master and slave become one - producer and consumer become one. Or as I would argue, the current hierarchy reverses and the technical professional/worker/artist/etc. - the people who literally create the world go to the top of the status hierarchy. The business executive and the like drop from the hierarchy and fully embrace their role as logistics people.

In the end though, I think this also frees the former masters to pursue their craft - that is, assuring the proper distribution of scarce resources so that Weinburg can work without interruption (or God forbid, the need to engage in fundraising - the guy has a very abrasive personality).

I hope this makes some sense. It used to take me a week of class time to explain basic Marx, and I'm a bit buzzed right now.