Capitalism Exploits Us

What "item" did the janitor produce? The janitor doesn't know how to produce an auto. They can't procure the materials, create the design, or even produce all the labor required to assemble the auto. The janitor, minus the auto company will never result in a billion dollars worth of auto production. If that could happen, why does the janitor volunteer to sell his labor to the auto company? Why not just produce the autos by himself?

Once again, the only thing the janitor produces is labor. He agrees to sell this labor for a wage. How the person who purchases that labor then turns into value is and should be outside of the control of the janitor. Just in the same way as the decisions surrounding the car you sold are outside of your control.

If he sells his labor, why should he have such a say? If he can create more value with his own labor, shouldn't he keep that labor for himself and use it to create that value?

Or he can choose to not labor. Or he can choose to keep his labor and use it to produce in a way he believes is most profitable.

No, he doesn't share in the production. Do the people who mine the ore to make the vehicle share in the production of everything made with that ore? Do they share in the consequences if that ore is wasted in a project that doesn't produce a profit?

It's not taken from him. He sold the labor. The product belongs to the person who bought the labor. If you pay a pool company to dig a pool in your backyard, do they then own the pool? Do they get to tell you who you can invite over for pool parties and when you're allowed to open it in the spring?

If you hire a painter to paint your house, does he have a say in who you sell the home to? Do you feel obligated to pay him something of your profit from the sale of your home? How do you calculate how much extra to pay him?

 

You can take anything that belongs to you.

The "capitalist rules" are simple. Private ownership must be respected. No coercion exists.

 

I rather like the painter analogy.

I'd like you to point out where exploitation takes place in this series of events.

Let's say you decide to risk your life savings on the purchase of a home. You buy a fixer upper, and you hire a painter to paint that fixer upper. The painter quotes you a fee, and you pay him as a contractor. Through lots of your own hard work, and the hard work of the painter you turn a profit on the home. How much of the profit do you give the painter?

Invigorated by your success, and armed with the knowledge of experience, you use that profit to purchase two more homes. These homes are in nicer neighborhoods, and have more potential than the first home. This time you hire the same painter to paint both homes at the same rate. You also hire an electrician at a higher rate to upgrade the wiring. Once the sale is made, you turn a higher profit on both homes than the margin on the first home. Do you split the profit with the painter and the electrician? How do you determine if one produced more value than the other?

You learn that your investment strategy is very wise, and quickly you grow this business into a home remodeling company. Both the electrician and painter agree to work for you for a salaried wage. Halfway through the year you also hire a carpenter, a mason, an hvac guy. The business is going great and you clear a million dollars a year. At this point how much of your success was stolen from your labor? How do you distribute it to them?

The following year the housing bubble explodes. You're now upside down on all of your properties. You owe the bank a million dollars. At this point how much of your loss was stolen from your labor? How do you recoup it from them?

 

Explain flat average middle class real income since the 1970s then.

No, that's not how socialism works. But it is how state capitalism works in Russia and China.

 

How is that Obamacare doing? It is proof that socialism does not provide more or lower costs of anything. In fact, it's costs rose higher after becoming a punishable offense to refuse, while it's coverage decreased. That folks, is socialism at it's finest.

 

I believe stagnant middle class incomes over the last 45 years can be mostly explained by:

1) Women entering the workforce ... any time you massively increase the supply of something (labor), it lowers the value of that item.

2) International competition ... Michigan is no longer competing with Pennsylvania for business and jobs; it's competing with Brazil and South Korea.

I have never read where an economist has argued these points. They're simply my opinion.

 

Maintenance. But now you're getting into different forms of labor. There is labor that produces goods, and there is labor that makes the production of goods possible and keeps the process going, like janitors, accountants, personnel management, business management, etc. They are part of the overhead, like electric rates and material costs of maintenance. We need to start with understanding work that produces good to be sold to seee how it all can work.

Your question is one presented in the context of a capitalist economy operating under laws protecting and regulating capitalism. I'm asking you to see that other alternatives are possible that don't follow the capitalist rules/laws of selling labor power. In this other context he would justifiably have a say.

Same under a socialist economy. No one will be forced to work. If a person has legitimate needs requiring help, I don't think you would tell that person to go die quietly. I think you would agree there are some people who really have needs for assistance and you would approve of helping them, right? Well, most people would too. So under a socialist economy society in general would help those people, and do a better job of it than is done now in a capitalist economy looking for profits.

Wait wait wait... a person who works to produce something doesn't share in its production? Do you want to debate that or do you see immediately that he does?

They mine the ore. An equivalently ridiculous question would be "does the owner/CEO of a mining company today share in the production of everything made with that ore?" Now do you see the silliness of such a question?

That perspective is presented in the context of a capitalist economy operating under laws protecting and regulating capitalism. I'm asking you to see that other alternatives are possible that don't follow the capitalist rules/laws of selling labor power. In this other context he would justifiably have a say.

How does that work today under capitalism? Does the excavation business owner own the pool and can he invite people to use it?
Again, do you immediately see how ridiculous the question is?

No.

You don't. The question is another ridiculous one. The problem you're having here is one springing from your horrible misunderstanding of socialism, backed up by your very partisan desperation to make it wrong even without understanding it. It's so intense and all-consuming for you that you have been unable to formulate good question, or even sensible ones in many cases.

 

-according to capitalist laws. Suppose we had laws that said differently?

See, you too are arguing point in the context of capitalist laws that protect capitalist private ownership and profit. I'm asking you to consider a different context.

Not true. Try working in a factory making anything... -glassware for example, and try taking home some of what you made. No force? HAHAHAHAHA.

 

How does it have anything at all to do with socialism when you have private insurance covering private health providers all for private profits?

 

That might be somewhat valid if we had unusually low unemployment during that period. Try again.

Same response here.

 

So you prefer to judge and criticize Marxists and socialism without being informed on them? How typical of your ilk.

 

There is no capitalist law. There's only common sense son.

What a worker produces in a factory does not belong to them, unless they own the raw material and machinery. Not difficult.

 

Great example, prepare for it to be ignored because a capitalist is just a rich factory owner apparently. A middle class home owner making improvements can't be a capitalist.

 

When we were all required to join and pay with fines for disobeying the government.

 

Well my boy, we have laws protecting private ownership in business. If you think otherwise you're too young and uneducated to think about it clearly.

Right. That is one of the capitalist laws you said don't exist, sonny. duh
Such a law would not exist in a socialist economy. duh

 

When we were all required to be licensed and insured to own and drive a car.
When we were all required to be licensed to buy TNT.
When we were all required to be licensed for anything.

Get a clue. You don't know what socialism is yet you pretend to judge and criticize it.

 

It's control of the population by the government. Yes, those other things are as well. Thanks for bringing that up. Pure socialism is the control of all of the population in all things, and you have shown how that is true.

 

Note how willing they are to be controlled. All in the extraordinarily naive hope that those in power will want the best for them.

 

With each new law and restriction imposed by the government we move closer and closer to complete socialism which can them slowly progress to communism. Yes, that is true, as you have shown. Good job sir.

 

You know what is worse? They use their concepts to prove that those in charge in their world will be different than those greedy business owners today. It's ludicrous. It's derp.

 

See? You make my point. That isn't socialism and you don't know it. That was a result of efforts to create socialism, and it failed. Socialist economy didn't happen. So you don't know socialism and you don't know you don't.

No I haven't because it isn't true. That is not the definition of socialism given by any credible source.

 

Then quote me where you think I showed that, and present your argument, but you can't because you are entirely wrong, "sir".

 

We have laws protecting the private ownership in everything. Such a legal system is present in every first world nation.

Of course it would. The only difference would be who owned the capital. This just isn't that hard.

 

Any credible socialist?

 

If you didn't see it, I can't make you. I won't bother trying.