: Right, there are a number of errors in the above:
: 1:Basically it revolves around presenting teh capitalist side of the wage 'contract', and purports to show how workers blackmail employers- and indeed, this would be true, however, only if teh POWER relations were different.Nnnno. I fail to see why, when the minimum wage is $4.75, my employer pays ill-mannered unskilled 17-yo $6.00/hr starting and then gives raises every year. The problem with the power argument always was taht it looked, incorrectly, at absolute power, and not, correctly, at relative power. Marketplace is not like the playfield. One team doesn't win while the other loses. It's unfortunate that the term competition was used for these two activities when they are completely unrelated. A 'prole' has specific concentrated power while a 'capitalist' has overall more power but is less powerful in a particular sense.
In the real, non-apriori, world, capitalists continuously compete with one another for the labor of indviduals. Now, if there was only one capitalist in existance, such as the State, there would be very little bargaining power. However, this is not the case. Hence, the example above.
: i) Could the worker find a means of living in any way other than working for, or in service of A.Capitalist(tm)- without starving?
Which capitalist? A, B, C . . n? By going from one to the other the woker deprives the capitalist of that production. And I personally don't think, here, the worker alienates the capitalist. In droves, the capitalist goes broke.
: ii)Could he access the tools and means of production for working by himself, without funds, from the capitalist?
Could the capitalist gain wealth from his capital unless he out-competed the other capitalists for the workers labor?
: iii)Could other workers do the same job?
Could other capitalists provide the same or similar capital?
: iv)Converely, is tehre any way otehr than through capitalist structures for teh worker to find a means of living...
Given my cumulative answer so far I would say this: outside social interaction with others there is no "working" except for oneself as a lone individual on a distant island (we would agree on this). Basically, without society there is no social production; this is a self-evident truth, and a tautology. There is no pre-social individual; right back atcha. We are social beings and, thus, independent on one another.
: The answer is no- so the worker enters the contract at a power disadvantage- she must accept the terms dictated to her.
This is incorrect as labor consumers (i.e. capitalists) are competitive and not monopsonies (i.e. single consumer in the market). Unless there is a massive conspiracy of capitalists, and I mean every single person who employs another, to rig labor prices such a situation does not exist. But you have already posted that "the capitalists are not in charge, in fact, no one is in charge".
: Further, the worker does not enter the relationship as a human being, but as a tool, as an alienated labour power to be USED by the capitalist for the period of working, a labour power which creates the end product.
The same thing is said for the capitalist. His allocation is merely a tool for the prole to gain his wages far aborve where he otherwise would achieve. The capitalist is a tool of the worker.
: It is precisely through the monopoly
Now you're just plain wrong. Monopoly means only one interest with the means to do one particular activity. As there are a multitude of capitalists there is no such thing as a monopoly on capital. This only occurs when the State has nationalized the means of production.
: on the means of production, and the capacity of the capitalists to withhold it form us, that they extract their surplus value.
Don't get metaphysical on me now. You've beaten the whole value thing to death and have basically said that 'value is based upon the only constant which is the means of labor'. (Let's just say that real estate doesn't exist which, in the real world, is also a constant.) You've said this and it's fine. However . . . that is solely your opinion, and as relevant to the current issue as the Scholatics arguing the metaphysical nature of God.
: : Do I believe the above version? Absolutely not. Implicit in the above is the assumption that value has any relation whatsoever to price. Value in an overall sense relates solely to pure metaphysical conjectures and, while academically interesting, has no basis for any sort of social science. Value is pure metaphysical speculation.
: Have you never bought something for less than it was worth?
How could I ever determine that? Rather, compared to the knowledge of everyone combined I know very little. Society, in it's infinite wisdom determines value. This, which I can know nothing except by faith that 'price fluctuates around value'. I randomly buy what psychologically suits me while hoping I have chosen the right value at the right price. However, to you the thing sells for $5 so its value is very close to $5; I've answered your question by using your earlier post: any price I pay is approximately the right price, sometimes a little more sometimes a little less.
Given that you said "the worker is paid $1 . . . the capitalist sells at the exchange value of $5 . . . the worker has been 'alienated' [my choice] $4. If I paid $5 for it, than the value is $5. If I buy anything at all, even without looking, I must be paying the right price for it given your own above statement.
(That last question you asked, incidentally, is one of the main questions taht sparked the marginal utility revolution, thus, turning economics away from objective price theories.)
: Never had a bargain? SOmewhere in those phrases lurks a value...
Maybe metaphysically. But I cannot translate metaphysics to the real world of social analysis. Any anwer I could make would effectively be meaningless; even if you were to give me an answer to parrot back to you I would just be saying something to say something.
: : The real issue here is the method by which society allocates the means of production. So, let's get off this trippy metaphysical 'value' bullshit and analyze the pros and cons of different methods of such allocation. This point, really, was the whole reason Marx advocated an objective value system based upon the price brought by workers for their labor.
: No, the reason he put this model forwards was to demonstrate that in fact teh workers were getting their market value 9Since many socialists thought they were being simply udnerpaid by teh capoitalists), and to instead show teh mechanism by which teh difference occurs between teh market value of our labour, and teh work we do. SOmething must explain teh utterly unequal relationship of capitalist to workers- as you show, we need their factories as much as they need us- so why isn't wealth more evenly spread?
Good point. Wealth follows from the necessity of the action and the importance it plays in the overall scheme of wealth creation. I'm only wrong if you've solved the "scarcity" issue by discovering the means so that any possible desire can be had by any person at any time. One big issue would be taht we would have to increase the size of the earth through social action as it is finite and, thus, a scarce resource (see my earlier post for more detailed analysis).
: : Any takers on giving me a reason why the means of production should be publicly owned without resorting to some ethereal metaphysical ramblings?
: 1:Ecology- the capitalist pursuit solely of profits makes it utterly unable to account for social/ecological factors of production.
Come on. The tragedy of the commons is the biggest ecological issue there is. And further delineations of property are the solution to these externalities. As for the social, protecting people from the effects of their anti-social behavior, such as irresponsible sex, is a phenomenon of politics, such as democracy, and not the market.
: 2:Moral- sorry to be so english about this, but there is a moral case to be made for social equality- as I laid out previously.
Mmmm. No, good subject. But I must, again, refer to the anti-social behavior protected by "moral" concerns over wealth distribution. Immoral behavior is caused by an apathetic society without the guts to care for its less fortunate (read: orphans and widows, not single mothers or lazy job hoppers).
: 3:Social- poverty is rampant, society is in breakdown, something is going wrong.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because poverty exists doesn't mean that immediate changes in distributive methods are in order. Again, look at all the anti-social behavior protected and rewarded through political action. In America, those below the poverty line are massively less likely to be involved in a long-term marriage, or any at all. And like you I believe trends to be a phenomenon of social wholes. However, the solution is to quite subsidizing ill behavior over socially positive behavior and massively changing our beauracratized, instuitional [mis] education system that teaches the relativity of all personal behvior. Schools are breeding grounds for the anti-social behaviors of the future.
: Three fine reasons for you.
Only in a metaphysically different world than the one we live.
