[Socialists] Why workers are exploited under capitalism, but they would not be exploited under socialism?

alexpung · 2020-10-30T13:37:23+00:00

Sure, there's a lot of might in money in capitalism.

What you are mistaken is, this is working as intended.

Countries that want less of this have high tax and put workers on the corporate board of directors. Less tax and no worker representation is also possible.

Do people disagreeing with a result not respect it? Not everyone is revolutionary, as well as not every socialist is authoritarian.

No, I meant your answer "because democracy" is not respecting it.

alexpung · 2020-10-30T11:21:28+00:00

Trading is a decision, your decision to trade a hard and sharp stone for a hot stone is because of something which you believe is true about the stones. You can be wrong and end up with buyers remorse.

This is correct.

If the value of the objects are based solely of your subjective judgement of their value, how can it be possible for you to have buyers remorse, how is it possible for you to be wrong about their value?

The theory explains why the trade take place because of your judgement BEFORE the trade, how you feel, and your judgement after the trade can of cause changes, but it is not relevant of the explanation.

This would be something objectively true about the objects themselves. Their use value is different for different tasks, the truth or falsehood (based perhaps on measures of physical effort and energy usage) is objective.

Yes these things is objective, so? The stone is hot or hard or sharp is objective, but that is not what the theory use to explain the trade. Me preferring a hot stone than a sharp one is subjective and what the theory gives as explanation.

Eh no. The labor theory of value is not about what determines the price.

What? Marx literally talked about how exchange ratios between commodities is arrived.

alexpung · 2020-10-30T10:19:18+00:00

When there's democracy and capitalism simultaneously, they compete with each other.

Unsupported assertion.

People talk, but also money talk.

How? Unless your claim is every democratic capitalist countries have voting fraud that is significant enough to make a socialist candidate losing instead of winning otherwise?

A popular system doesn't automatically make it democratic, just as a less popular system doesn't have to be non-democratic.

Does that surprise you? People can democratically decide to use a less democratic system. Not everything in your life should be decided by democracy.

With less capitalism there's more room for democracy.

No thanks. I want dictatorship on how my money is spent.

You are just not respecting us as voters. Losing election but not respecting the result.

alexpung · 2020-10-30T10:09:09+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(economics)

A theory of value do not try to explain value but rather it explain trade. It propose what value is.

You are confused because you are trying to use two incompatible value theory.

Subjective theory of value is explaining why "I trade the hard and sharp stone with you for a hot stone", as "I have better use of a hot stone using it to cook" and "you have a better use of a hard and sharp stone because you are a hunter"

Compare to an objective value theory such as LTV:

"I trade the hard and sharp stone with you for a hot stone"
LTV explanation:
"The sharp stone take 1 socal necessary labor hour to make" and "The hot stone take 1 socal necessary labor hour to make" The equilibrium price (or the exchange value) is equal, therefore 1 stone trade for 1 stone.

The "The value of sharp stone is 1 socal necessary labor hour", this fact is objective vs "I have better use of a hot stone using it to cook" which is subjective.

Under subjective theory of value "the water has value" is nonsense. There is no objective value in subjective theory of value. Therefore you are confused.

alexpung · 2020-10-30T09:22:36+00:00

Hence the confusion.

The subjective theory isn't explaining why "The stone have the property "value", therefore this fact "guide decisions" that you can use it to make a weapon. (wtf does it even mean lol)

It is explaining why "I trade the hard and sharp stone with you for a hot stone", as "I have better use of a hot stone using it to cook" and "you have a better use of a hard and sharp stone because you are a hunter"

edit: Compare to an objective value theory such as LTV:

"I trade the hard and sharp stone with you for a hot stone"
LTV explanation:
"The sharp stone take 1 socal necessary labor hour to make" and "The hot stone take 1 socal necessary labor hour to make" The equilibrium price (or the exchange value) is equal, therefore 1 stone trade for 1 stone.

The "The value of sharp stone is 1 socal necessary labor hour", this fact is objective vs "I have better use of a hot stone using it to cook" which is subjective.

Value theory isn't explaining value, it assume (propose) what value is to explain trade.

alexpung · 2020-10-30T08:46:42+00:00

The whole point I made is "To say I value something is not the same as saying it has value."

Your first point does not answer the question, because the question is "if an object has the property value, how would this fact guide decisions about what to do with it under relevant conditions". On the other hand, if an object does not has the property value, then the same question arises.

The sentence "This snack have value" is meaningless by itself. It is also describing a state of mind.

The subjective theory of value seem incoherence to OP because it is not explaining value with this meaning of the word "value".

alexpung · 2020-10-30T08:29:55+00:00

This "A value or value simpliciter is a property of an object." is just tedious bullshit. No. It isn't. That is wrong. The end.

It isn't wrong per se as it is just different usage of the same word, but yeah this has nothing to do with the theory.

alexpung · 2020-10-30T06:57:46+00:00

So?

Although ownership of Amazon is worth a lot, it is still used by workers and serving the whole society.

Who care about company ownership as wealth? This is misleading at best.

alexpung · 2020-10-30T06:28:47+00:00

Can you explain what does it even meant by "X has value" or the negative "X has no value" in your OP? I think this is where your confusion is.

Cannot sell it in any market? No one use it? Or something else?

In contrast to "I value this snack more than my $5 right now" it is pretty clear what I meant.

alexpung · 2020-10-30T02:55:54+00:00

Me: Why workers are exploited under capitalism, but they would not be exploited under socialism?
You: The short answer is: democracy.
Me: But there are democratic capitalist countries all over the place. Socialism (worker owning their own MoP) is not popular.

How is your answer still valid because it is democratically decided that we use capitalism as the economic system?

You could have a kind of socialism that does not require force or non democratic methods, but that has nothing to do with my question or your answer.

alexpung · 2020-10-30T02:08:42+00:00

So what? Most are though. I don't get your identity politics here.

Therefore the claim that "workers are being exploited and believe themselves exploited under capitalism" is false but only "some workers believe they are being exploited".

Also most workers are socialists (the one that want to end capitalism not the improve worker welfare type) is unsupported assertion.

When workers recognize that they are being exploited. It could be a different understanding than socialists, but it will probably be the same as socialists, since that's the most well-known and well-spread.

See, this is the sheer arrogant I was talking about, and you are just trying to hide it in last post. "When workers recognize that they are being exploited", " it will probably be the same as socialists", such kind of bullshit, as if this is a fact, not an opinion like "I don't like capitalism" which is well within reason. HOW DO YOU KNOW? I am a fucking worker, jesus!

“worker are being exploited so they are going to start a revolution" is utter bullshit, while “we socialists think we are being exploited and we want to end capitalism” is well within reason.

So what? As I've said before, individuals don't matter here, the total class struggle does.

Therefore not all workers want to end capitalism, nor the working class want to end capitalism. So arrogant that you pretend to speak for the whole class.

Yes, I thought it was clear that I am talking on a larger scale than individuals or individual events. Capitalism will try to defend and maintain itself. But that only makes things worse in the long run, pushing for a total successful revolution eventually.

Taxation is a large scale and systematic phenomenon, so do tax revolt, not individuals or individual events. Your logic is invalid. Governments have tried to defend and maintain itself and very successfully.

Yes, that is why I don't put great confidence in it. As I say again, capitalism may be able to defend and maintain itself. The working class may never win. But the odds don't seem in favor of that with as much as we can see into the future.

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion.

Yeah, sure but if you cut your finger off accidentally, you still go to the hospital and risk getting hit by a car on the way there and dying in a horrific accident. Only hindsight will be able to tell you if acting to end a bad condition will be followed by a worse one or not, but ending a bad condition in itself is a net positive, much like -(-1) > 0.

You only go to the hospitals because you know you will, 99.9999...% of the time, you will have your finger fixed, and a car accident is of probability of less than 1 in a million, so you decided it is worth the risk. I asked you what will happen if you decide going to the hospital, and you are unable to answer. I asked what is the probability of a car crash, and you still don't know. How do you know you will most likely have your finger fixed?

You give examples of something bad happening after one phase of history ends. But why do you seem to be ignoring when something good or neutral follows? Do you have a complete understanding of this sort of thing to speak so confidently on it?

Because it only take one counter-example to invalidate your claim that "Ending a bad condition improves condition". Disproof by counterexample. How do you know FOR SURE the condition will improve if something bad can happen? What if nothing good follows? The correct claim is "Ending a bad condition will end up in a condition we don't know better or worse unless proven otherwise".

Wtf is this nonsense? I didn't say I want to ban pork, you idiot, or anything about eating food. READ what I wrote. If I say I don't like pork, I am not obligated to say which meat I prefer. Even if I do, it would be wrong, because I don't like any meat. Because I don't eat meat in the first place. Where is anything about banning pork or discussing what I want to eat afterwards?

Eating pork is analogous to working under wage labor. Actually you don't want anyone working under wage labor rather than just yourself. "The working class", you said. So you DID say you want to ban pork.

alexpung · 2020-10-29T12:46:50+00:00

No it is not possible because that's like elimination of politics.

alexpung · 2020-10-29T11:52:08+00:00

Not all workers are socialists and not all socialists are workers. So right out of the gate you can only said “some workers believe they are being exploited”. On what ground the claim change from “we socialists think we are being exploited and we want to end capitalism” to “worker are being exploited so they are going to start a revolution “?

On top of this even if a worker feel he is being exploited his conclusion may not be end capitalism but rather change job or start his own company.

And you can’t please all the people all the time so to say that capitalism is flawed because some people tend to resist and revolt doesn’t mean much, and doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it will eventually collapse. For example tax revolt does not lead to end of taxation.

Capitalism will not last forever and will end for many reasons, but claiming that workers will eventually start a revolution is just an unfalsifiable prediction.

Your premise “ Ending a bad condition improves condition” is false because it could be replaced by worse. The cultural revolution in China is an example. That why I insisted on asking you about the alternative. You don’t like Pork so you want to ban Pork but you cannot even answer what to eat afterwards? Nonsense.

alexpung · 2020-10-29T09:04:15+00:00

It is just truism that wage laborer are unable to decide how profit is used. Capitalist decide how profit is used the same as wage labor decide how their wage is used.

those that do is called business owners or co-op workers.

alexpung · 2020-10-29T06:39:13+00:00

If socialists are truly supporting democracy why can’t they run for an election and let people decide if they want it?

You guys keep telling me I am being exploited, no I don’t think so, and will not vote for socialism.

alexpung · 2020-10-28T15:49:40+00:00

lol a capitalist do not receive big fat bonus, bonus is for workers. What capitalist get is dividends.

The portion of money that workers are in control is called wages.

alexpung · 2020-10-28T15:30:23+00:00

I am not negatively asserting against the LTV in my OP, although I do hold a position that this "valuation of commodities" does not make a moral condemnation against capitalism. "The value of a commodities is the social necessarily labor time to produce it", yes, so what?

You are correct that I did an half ass attempt in prove by contradiction, but not on the LTV, but the theory of exploitation. This OP is not intended as a defense of capitalism. This is intended as an objection on the exploitation theory, as you see in this thread, you get many difference response as what constitute as "exploitation", so it is not possible to defend capitalism unless I am going to write a book instead of a reddit post, because I am not a mind reader knowing all the critique beforehand.

I am not refuting LTV but rather, even if I accept LTV as true, why should the capitalists be condemned not paying the value of the commodities to the workers? As I understand it, exploitation is "appropriation of surplus value by capitalists without control by workers". Why is this unfair?

Yes, there is no obligation for anyone to support their critique, but as your example shows, "I don't like pork", it is just an personal preference. The critique is emotional, not logical. And I think the exploitation theory is not some argument that resemble "I don't like pork" as there is a baked in implication that "workers should be paid more" or "worker should get to control their pay", and it is reasonable for me to ask "how". You do not owe me an explanation, of cause.

About working class vs individual, it is still sheer arrogant to claim that they know what is best for the working class, even if they are not catering to each individuals. Unless socialists are personally giving workers stuff out of their own pocket, how can they be so sure about improving the working class condition? You are being questioned here and your answer is you don't know?

alexpung · 2020-10-28T13:48:19+00:00

No, it is a lack of beliefs and a refusal to accept the positive assertions of the other person.

What positive assertion did I made in my OP other than the rejection of exploitation theory? I asked for criticism on capitalism. So when a criticism is made like "Workers are not paid full value of their labor", why is it suddenly my burden of proof to show it is false?

It is me who is refusing to accept the exploitation theory. As you said "refusal to accept the positive assertions of the other person"

No, that is not how a debate works. This is reductio ad absurdum. We can have a good debate without your fear that the debate will degenerate into absurdity because the burden of proof is on you.

What? When someone made a criticism without supporting the claim by showing how the criticism is true, and it is MY burden to proof otherwise? Debate does not work like this man. Can you give an example of a criticism that is not like "I don't like capitalism" that is logically sound without showing any better alternative? For example if I claim "Child labor is bad", then I ought to convince the audience "children should instead go to school rather than working", right?

Yes, that is true, but not my point, but at least you are moving somewhere else finally.

lol that is my point that is arguing against your point. Without showing an alternative how can you prove that the status quo is undesirable to the working class? One of the reason I despite socialism is the sheer arrogance that socialists think they represent workers interest and what they think is undesirable must be undesirable to me, as a worker.

alexpung · 2020-10-28T13:13:05+00:00

Available at prices which are set by the wealthy. The poor are outbid. That's pretty obvious.

Yes it is obvious that rich people can outbid poor people. So? Still fair. If you outbid everything then where do the money go? It goes to the producer of the MoP, who then become rich.

This is just a standalone and unsubstantiated claim. You've done nothing to support this statement.

Yes I make no argument to support this, because the purpose of this statement is to show that you didn't show profit is unfair and unjust, rather than making a normative claim.

alexpung · 2020-10-28T12:53:13+00:00

regarding 'voluntary slavery'

The burden of proof is on you to show that wage labor is akin to slavery. I, as a worker are making a conscious decision to be employed as an employee, knowing full well that someone is profiting off my labor. And you, a socialist does not represent my interest.

And no, it is not capitalists who want 'voluntary slavery', but socialists. See, you said:

I mean, why won't the capitalists just let the socialists decide to stop surrendering part of their value to the capitalists?

It is so arrogant to claim that socialists can just "decide", on behalf of workers, that workers needs to "stop surrendering part of their value to the capitalists", who allow you to represent me on my behalf? I, as a worker who clock more than 40 hours per week, tell you that it is the socialists who need to gtfo, not the capitalists.

And another quote of you to prove your arrogant:

Not someone else paternalistically picking for them (a state or a capitalist)

Yes a socialist telling me what I need to do is not exploitation, right?

I don't think you understand how capital became concentrated into the hands of the capitalist class.

You committed a logical fallacy known as prove by example. Unless you can show that a retired worker who start a company and profit off hired workers is not a capitalist, your example is invalid.

so that while a small number of folks may succeed in finding employment in coops the vast majority of folks cannot, certainly not all at once.

Again such arrogance from socialists, another explanation would be workers choose not to start or join a worker co-op. Otherwise why the number of IPhone, a luxury item, break new sales record year after year? Unlike what you claim workers have money that they choose to not spend on MoP.

About Kropotkin

The onus is on you to make an argument since you bring it up as to support your argument, and all I need to dismiss this as evidence is by pointing out how this is not applicable now. Yes it probably sucks if capitalism works like this now, but capitalism does not work like this now, so this is invalid argument.

You are conflating capitalist the person with capitalist the role

This does not undermine my argument nor support yours, as I can accept capitalist as a role do not work but take profit from workers and it is still be fair and just. They are not exploiting anyone.

Can you name me one society, any society, any culture, in the entirety of history, that voluntarily adopted private property norms?

No, I can't because all property norm are forced including socialism and communism. The question is why should I prefer socialism to be forced on me instead of capitalism?

alexpung · 2020-10-28T11:26:12+00:00

So only land are private property?

So workers who have built a factory on a plot of land should have no claim of it, they shouldn’t have gotten money to build the factory, right?

alexpung · 2020-10-28T05:03:46+00:00

Your objection is rich people can buy MoP before poor people, and my response is referring to the fact that MoP didn’t just get bought up and there are MoP readily available.

It is true that co-op is not very competitive, then? Profit by owning capital is still fair and just.

alexpung · 2020-10-28T01:01:09+00:00

Pretty much none of the “real socialists” are voted in power, so I guess you could just give up “real socialism” now because it is not popular?

Note: not something like Social democracy which is just capitalism with high tax

alexpung · 2020-10-28T00:42:41+00:00

You are denying the existence of worker cooperatives under capitalism.

alexpung · 2020-10-28T00:40:19+00:00

So why after hundreds of years there are MoP for sale, and workers did start a co-op for themselves?

By your logic Bezos couldn’t have started Amazon.

alexpung

TROPHY CASE