Exegesis - Cap/Com-ist

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The act of learning medicine requires more time and effort than the act of learning ditch-digging, obviously.

The act of practicing medicine does not necessarily requires more time and effort than practicing ditch-digging. It is often the other way around (depending of the doctor and the ditch-digger).

And this mindset is why communism (at least this variety) is utterly doomed to failure.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
From Wage Labor & Capital

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch04.htm

Now, the same general laws which regulate the price of commodities in general, naturally regulate wages, or the price of labor-power. Wages will now rise, now fall, according to the relation of supply and demand, according as competition shapes itself between the buyers of labor-power, the capitalists, and the sellers of labor-power, the workers. The fluctuations of wages correspond to the fluctuation in the price of commodities in general. But within the limits of these fluctuations the price of labor-power will be determined by the cost of production, by the labor-time necessary for production of this commodity: labor-power.

What, then, is the cost of production of labor-power?

It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer.

Therefore, the shorter the time required for training up to a particular sort of work, the smaller is the cost of production of the worker, the lower is the price of his labor-power, his wages. In those branches of industry in which hardly any period of apprenticeship is necessary and the mere bodily existence of the worker is sufficient, the cost of his production is limited almost exclusively to the commodities necessary for keeping him in working condition. The price of his work will therefore be determined by the price of the necessary means of subsistence.

I'm really just shocked that you make the interpretation that you do. Please explain how you derived at it. That should be interesting.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
How is that different from what we have today? Society today decides what compensation captitalists get, and you oppose that. So you still haven't told me on what basis doctors and whomever else you have chosen should get paid more.

1. What we have today is anarchically determined, not democratically. Each doctor decides for himself what he will charge, based more or less on what the market will bare.

2. Within the capitalist system I do not oppose the compensation capitalists get, per se, though I might object to the obscene particulars. In any event, my objection to capitalism is logical and philosophical and not moral.

3. The bases for the pay differential will be determined by a democratic socialist government which will weigh social needs, the cost of producing and reproducing the laborer, and also supply and demand.

Ah, it is at least as important as anything written by a communist for communist. Any comrade who does not concern himself with the message of that book does not understand communism very well.

As far as understanding the philosophy of Marxism, not it isn't. It is an allagory of what happened in the Soviet Union, and is necessarily simplistic in trying to explain that what was a workers' government has become its opposite.

And yes, I've read it several times, though not in the last decade.

How in the world do you get your interpretation from that passage.

The cost of labor-power is the cost of its production and its reproduction. It costs more to produce a doctor and it costs more to maintain a doctor. Thus, the labor power of a doctor costs more.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm really just shocked that you make the interpretation that you do. Please explain how you derived at it. That should be interesting.

What part of,

It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer.

Therefore, the shorter the time required for training up to a particular sort of work, the smaller is the cost of production of the worker, the lower is the price of his labor-power, his wages.

don't you understand?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
And this mindset is why communism (at least this variety) is utterly doomed to failure.

I am not advocating to pay ditch-diggers and doctors the same amount. It is unpractical, and it will mean many people will have no motivation to learn a highly-skilled job (strictly morally speaking, I would reward a hardworking ditch-digger more than half-time doctor, but I am aware this cannot be applicable)

However, you have to acknowledge that there arehardworking people in low-paying jobs, who get much less of a penny than normal-working people in higher paid jobs. There is a societal justification as to why some jobs are inherently more paid than others, but it is absurd to dimiss every ditch-digger as "lazy" compared to every doctor (which is what you imply)

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I am not advocating to pay ditch-diggers and doctors the same amount. It is unpractical, and it will mean many people will have no motivation to learn a highly-skilled job (strictly morally speaking, I would reward a hardworking ditch-digger more than half-time doctor, but I am aware this cannot be applicable)

However, you have to acknowledge that there arehardworking people in low-paying jobs, who get much less of a penny than normal-working people in higher paid jobs. There is a societal justification as to why some jobs are inherently more paid than others, but it is absurd to dimiss every ditch-digger as "lazy" compared to every doctor (which is what you imply)

I imply nothing of the sort. I'm merely pointing out that a person who has studied to become a doctor has put in far more time and effort in learning a skill than the ditch-digger has. And you acknowledge the issue in your first paragraph. I have no idea where you get the "lazy" thing from.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I imply nothing of the sort. I'm merely pointing out that a person who has studied to become a doctor has put in far more time and effort in learning a skill than the ditch-digger has. And you acknowledge the issue in your first paragraph.

Yup.
But in the act of practicing the skill is no less tiresome for the ditch-digger than for the doctor. And this is what I wanted to remind, seeing the post I firstly replied to. Sometimes, the 'obvious' is worth saying.

I have no idea where you get the "lazy" thing from.

When you said there should be avenues for people who want to get a better condition through hard work. I thought you considered doctoring to be much harder work than ditch-digging, and ergo, that ditch-diggers don't feel like working hard to better their condition.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Kidicious

2. Within the capitalist system I do not oppose the compensation capitalists get, per se, though I might object to the obscene particulars. In any event, my objection to capitalism is logical and philosophical and not moral.

O M G!
I can not support you in any kind of political pursuit that you have. You have no justification for overthrowing the current rulers just so that you can set up your own little rule. You scare me.

3. The bases for the pay differential will be determined by a democratic socialist government which will weigh social needs, the cost of producing and reproducing the laborer, and also supply and demand.

Ah, no. It would be the same as it is today. They would vote with their pocket book. You are setting up conflict in interests and class warfare. You are no communist at all.

Ah, it is at least as important as anything written by a communist for communist. Any comrade who does not concern himself with the message of that book does not understand communism very well.

As far as understanding the philosophy of Marxism, not it isn't. It is an allagory of what happened in the Soviet Union, and is necessarily simplistic in trying to explain that what was a workers' government has become its opposite.

And yes, I've read it several times, though not in the last decade.

As shocked as I am that you can misinterpret Marx, maybe you don't like Orwell because it would be harder to fit your own desires into it, and use it for political propaganda purposes.

How in the world do you get your interpretation from that passage.

The cost of labor-power is the cost of its production and its reproduction. It costs more to produce a doctor and it costs more to maintain a doctor. Thus, the labor power of a doctor costs more.

Yes, we have already agree upon that. You were going to show me where Marx said that doctors should be compensated beyond the cost of their education. You haven't done that. You aren't going to do that, because he never even came close to implying that. He central message is directly opposed to that idea. His argument is a MORAL argument.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I am not advocating to pay ditch-diggers and doctors the same amount. It is unpractical, and it will mean many people will have no motivation to learn a highly-skilled job (strictly morally speaking, I would reward a hardworking ditch-digger more than half-time doctor, but I am aware this cannot be applicable)

However, you have to acknowledge that there arehardworking people in low-paying jobs, who get much less of a penny than normal-working people in higher paid jobs. There is a societal justification as to why some jobs are inherently more paid than others, but it is absurd to dimiss every ditch-digger as "lazy" compared to every doctor (which is what you imply)

Do you actually think that people will rather dig ditches than go to college?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


What part of,

It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer.

Therefore, the shorter the time required for training up to a particular sort of work, the smaller is the cost of production of the worker, the lower is the price of his labor-power, his wages.

don't you understand?

I understand all of it. It is very direct and clear. Very little room for interpretation actually. The question is how do you understand it.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Spiffor



When you said there should be avenues for people who want to get a better condition through hard work. I thought you considered doctoring to be much harder work than ditch-digging, and ergo, that ditch-diggers don't feel like working hard to better their condition.

Nope but the hard-working ditch-digger should be compensated more than the average ditch digger since he digs more ditches.


More generally, it is necessary to compensate some people more than others or there is no incentive to do certain jobs. I am a lawyer and get paid reasonably well to be one. But if all jobs paid the same, I would not be one . . . I think I would enjoy teaching chess to young children or being a cruise ship activities coordinator, or park ranger.

Obviously some people would choose their current vocation but for me, the hours are too long and the stress level is too high. I look fondly back to when I was actually a ditch digger and to the times now when I do projects like building a fence. I enjoy the stress free element of pure labor. Its actually cathartic. Perhaps I would seek a mental challenge later I don't know.

I can imagine a whole bunch of jobs which are currently not all that well paid but which have other attractive features which a lot of people would gravitate towards. Hpw many people WANT to be a coal miner if they can be a tour guide in a beautiful park.

Who needs the stress of university if you make the same being a bartender ( and get to see the bands and see the local good looking girls at the same time)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I understand all of it. It is very direct and clear. Very little room for interpretation actually. The question is how do you understand it.

I am relieved to see that not even the other apolyton commies agree with kid.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Do you actually think that people will rather dig ditches than go to college?

If you pay students as much as you pay ditch-diggers, pretty much everybody will be a student (and not that many will stop their studies, because being a student is far more interesting than having a job)

If, however, the years of study are a financial hassle as much as they are now, many people will prefer the immediate rewards of holding an unskilled job, over several years of financial trouble just to get as much money. True, those people will overwhelmingly come from a social background that doesn't value education much. But the problem will still be here.

Some skilled jobs will be less affected than others, depending if they are positively seen by teenagers (a teenager may feel more like becoming a doctor than a weapon-system engineer), but overall, the motivation to study will shrink considerably.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Do you actually think that people will rather dig ditches than go to college?

If college leads to no advantage YES-- perhaps its not ditch-digging that will attract them but something else. Why have the stress of exams and passing and failing when you can pick something right now that you enjoy and earn an income as good as you would ever get in a more stressful job.

Lots of smart people will logic it out as not worth the effort.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Flubber
Who needs the stress of university if you make the same being a bartender ( and get to see the bands and see the local good looking girls at the same time)

We must have not had the same experience of college.

The objectively lazy person you are talking to (i.e. myself) is a student . A colleague of mine, who studies the very same thing and is even more lazy than I, worked once as a bartender, and clearly told me "never again"