undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdrekipus2y ago0 comments

> Worker exploitation is a core principle of capitalism

you can choose not to work. you just have to figure out how to get food and shelter on your own though.

you can go into the woods, hunt and fish, and build your own shelter. as long as you're not breaking laws, you'll be fine.

If work was owed to the state (or syndicate), then you have no choice (by being part of the state) - so which one is slavery and exploitation?

0 comments

9 comments · 3 top-level

deadfoxygrandpa2y ago· 4 in thread

when marxists say "exploitation" it's just a mathematical fact, not a value judgement. it just means that workers, systemically (that is, it doesn't make a claim about any individual worker), don't get ownership over the full value that they produce. this must be true if you really think about it, otherwise there would be no reason to own a company that you aren't also a normal worker in

drekipusOP2y ago

> don't get ownership over the full value that they produce.

But the value is subjective. A few lines of code is not valuable to me, no matter what context, so I am happy to trade it for a salary.

If I dig a hole for someone, someone agrees to pay me $50 for it. I value the $50 more than the cost of labour to do the hole. Me making holes is no value to me, and infact it's a good workout, so if they didn't pay me to do it I'd just go to the gym and do the same movement for free.

To them, it's probably the start of a fence or a clothesline or something that solves a real problem for them. Much more valuable than $50

deadfoxygrandpa2y ago

on an individual level maybe it's (partially) subjective, but marx is concerned with the systemic level. he's talking about the industries which really drive the economy

i don't think there's ever been a successful attempt to reduce macroeconomics down to the microeconomics level. basically, the system as a whole cannot be calculated by summing up a model of all the individual behaviors, it doesnt work that way. there have been several broadly successful macroeconomic models

steve keen talks a lot about this same type of stuff and he's very much not a marxist, if you want a different perspective on it

1 more reply

MichaelZuo2y ago

No, it's not zero sum, it's possible to destroy value, i.e. 1+1 could equal less than 2. And it's also possible to create value, i.e. 1+1 could equal more than 2.

In the extreme case even literal bars of gold can become worthless after a few seconds of 'work', e.g. if someone throws them into an active volcano. After which no human individual or group would derive anything from it.

deadfoxygrandpa2y ago

that's not "socially necessary labor", so the labor theory of value doesn't have anything to say about something like that

1 more reply

jamilton2y ago· 2 in thread

>as long as you're not breaking laws, you'll be fine.

My expectation is that this would most likely be nearly impossible without money and therefore work, because you can't live on land you don't have the rights to. From a quick search, you can legally camp in national parks in the same spot for up to 2 weeks before you have to move at least 25 miles. And of course, there are legal restrictions on hunting and fishing that (I expect) would be make feeding yourself impractical.

But that's besides the point. It's still exploitation even if other options are merely much more difficult/annoying/painful and not impossible.

drekipusOP2y ago

> It's still exploitation even if other options are merely much more difficult

what wouldn't be exploitation, in your estimation? what is the meaning of the word?

is me, telling my kids to take out the trash, exploitation? am I being exploited when i feed my kids and put them to bed?

esarbe2y ago

What a very good question. One that Marx already examined. I'm not a Marxist, but I find his analysis and conclusion to be spot-on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour

1 more reply

esarbe2y ago

> you can go into the woods, hunt and fish, and build your own shelter. as long as you're not breaking laws, you'll be fine.

That's a big no-go in almost all European nations. Fishing and hunting is always regulated, requiring permit and all the bureaucracy leading up to that.

Not an option for most - if any - nation on earth.

> If work was owed to the state (or syndicate),

That's neither what syndicalism proposes nor what I talked about.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

9 comments · 3 top-level

deadfoxygrandpa2y ago· 4 in thread

drekipusOP2y ago

> don't get ownership over the full value that they produce.

But the value is subjective. A few lines of code is not valuable to me, no matter what context, so I am happy to trade it for a salary.

To them, it's probably the start of a fence or a clothesline or something that solves a real problem for them. Much more valuable than $50

deadfoxygrandpa2y ago

on an individual level maybe it's (partially) subjective, but marx is concerned with the systemic level. he's talking about the industries which really drive the economy

steve keen talks a lot about this same type of stuff and he's very much not a marxist, if you want a different perspective on it

1 more reply

MichaelZuo2y ago

No, it's not zero sum, it's possible to destroy value, i.e. 1+1 could equal less than 2. And it's also possible to create value, i.e. 1+1 could equal more than 2.

deadfoxygrandpa2y ago

that's not "socially necessary labor", so the labor theory of value doesn't have anything to say about something like that

1 more reply

jamilton2y ago· 2 in thread

>as long as you're not breaking laws, you'll be fine.

But that's besides the point. It's still exploitation even if other options are merely much more difficult/annoying/painful and not impossible.

drekipusOP2y ago

> It's still exploitation even if other options are merely much more difficult

what wouldn't be exploitation, in your estimation? what is the meaning of the word?

is me, telling my kids to take out the trash, exploitation? am I being exploited when i feed my kids and put them to bed?

esarbe2y ago

What a very good question. One that Marx already examined. I'm not a Marxist, but I find his analysis and conclusion to be spot-on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour

1 more reply

esarbe2y ago

> you can go into the woods, hunt and fish, and build your own shelter. as long as you're not breaking laws, you'll be fine.

That's a big no-go in almost all European nations. Fishing and hunting is always regulated, requiring permit and all the bureaucracy leading up to that.

Not an option for most - if any - nation on earth.

> If work was owed to the state (or syndicate),

That's neither what syndicalism proposes nor what I talked about.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse