undefined | Better HN

0 pointsue_8y ago0 comments

>Take that away and there is no good reason for taking the risk

I'm not arguing for businesses, I'm arguing for the destruction of capitalism. I hope that businesses currently around fail.

>This is already allowed in a capitalist society

Any organisation which attempts to do so will fail very quickly, due to the fact that (i) workers must be kept employed, not disposed of when machinery that does a better job becomes available (ii) workers would have to be paid much higher than in those firms that do not operate as co-operatives. These two facts mean that such an organisation cannot compete. A good analysis is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAxajtiRatg

It is not a viable option within capitalism to provide for the labour force in the interests of the labour force. Also, most people cannot be employed in a co-operative, so the problem still exists. As long as the problem exists for even one person, I view that as reason to fix the system.

>The labourers own their labour and the owners own the product

Wrong. Labourers sell their labour-time to the capitalist, and that commodity has the use value of creating labour, which is transferred to the products. The labour is crystallised inside the products which are made, and those are appropriated by the capitalist at the end of production. If the worker owned his labour, the products at the end of production which the capitalist re-possesses in order to sell would have no more value than when they entered the factory as raw materials and machinery. Therefore the capitalist could not make any profit.

>What does this even mean ?

Capitalism requires land and property owners; if those land and property owners cease to exist, capitalism must also cease to exist. As such, the system which creates the force for people to choose between starving and wage labour is perpetuated by the whole class of property owners, i.e the capitalists.

>Without property ( which ultimately boils down to the right to enjoy the fruits of one's labour ) there is no good reason to perform the unenviable job we call "work"

Why is work unenviable? And within a Socialist society, the workers own what they produce by the end of the production process. They can then decide democratically how to distribute the products that they make among themselves, or choose to not distribute them at all. If you are trying to say that humans just sit around all day and do nothing, this is incorrect; in any system, one must work to survive. In a Socialist system, you are rewarded according to your labour, because you own what you make in a joint production process.

There are various motivations for wanting to work, too; the desire for credit, wanting to provide for your family and children, wanting to improve the conditions of the society you live in, the desire to help other people in your community, out of necessity for something you want to see finished, for mastery, as a hobby, etc.

It will be up to an individual to decide why he wishes to work, but in no circumstance will he forced to sell his labour-power for someone to make money from his labour without doing an hour of labour themselves.

0 comments

supremesaboteur8y ago

> Any organisation which attempts to do so will fail very quickly, due to the fact that (i) workers must be kept employed, not disposed of when machinery that does a better job becomes available (ii) workers would have to be paid much higher than in those firms that do not operate as co-operatives. These two facts mean that such an organisation cannot compete. A good analysis is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAxajtiRatg

If it is true that communist societies are superior they should not be bombable by capitalist societies. But if you are claiming that capitalist societies are inherently more unjust to favor people with capital, communist socieities as inherently more unjust in a way that favor people with political power

> Labourers sell their labour-time to the capitalist, and that commodity has the use value of creating labour, which is transferred to the products. The labour is crystallised inside the products which are made, and those are appropriated by the capitalist at the end of production. If the worker owned his labour, the products at the end of production which the capitalist re-possesses in order to sell would have no more value than when they entered the factory as raw materials and machinery. Therefore the capitalist could not make any profit.

This is pure nonsense on many levels.

What about the value derived from the risk taken by the enterpreneur ? What about the value derived from the work done by the enterpreneur ?

Also value is subjective. A hungry person will pay more for a piece of bread than a satiatated human being. This again is a source of profit ( and no, its not oppressive if there is competition to establish a fair price )

> Capitalism requires land and property owners; if those land and property owners cease to exist, capitalism must also cease to exist. As such, the system which creates the force for people to choose between starving and wage labour is perpetuated by the whole class of property owners, i.e the capitalists.

The difference, again, is that the wages paid can be used to climb out of this position. This option is not available in slavery. Employee-Employer relationship is mutually beneficial, not oppressive

> Why is work unenviable?

Do you work for Google ?

> There are various motivations for wanting to work, too; the desire for credit,

> wanting to improve the conditions of the society you live in

> the desire to help other people in your community, out of necessity for something you want to see finished, for mastery, as a hobby, etc

This does not ensure that the important and necessary work will get done. Also it does not ensure that the work which contributes maximum to the society is preferred over other useless work. I prefer to live in a world where important work gets priority even if it means I have to perform unenviable tasks for limited periods of time

loup-vaillant8y ago

> What about the value derived from the risk taken by the enterpreneur ?

The fact the entrepreneur was able to take a risk at all is remarkable by itself: without starting capital (often inherited), you simply cannot take any risk to begin with.

Want to reward risk-taking? Think how this very thinking perpetuates (perhaps even increases) inequality.

> What about the value derived from the work done by the enterpreneur ?

That work has value and should be factored in the final value of the products, then rewarded.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse