this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
434 points (96.2% liked)
Communism
1467 readers
117 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They agree to trade the surplus value they create in order to have a job, and receive a ratio of that surplus value instead. This is because they know they haven't the capital, nor the preparation to do otherwise.
If they owned the means of production, they probably wouldn't work so hard as they'd have a relatively larger slice of the pie.
This means the "efficiency of Capitalism" comes from the exploitation of workers. It it only because the full surplus value is kept from them, and they have a knowledge that they can be fired, or have their lives made difficult by "superiors" that they can be worked so hard (aka "efficiently").
Finding a better balance or third way structure, would require finding a way to motivate people, whilst also rewarding them AND not exploiting them.
Perhaps workers could be arranged to keep each other in check. Perhaps there's some other structures that facilitate freedom, a lack of alienation or exploration, whilst retaining motivation... That's what's needed... Comfortable, unalienated labor, that is desirable, and efficiently structured.
IDK why you got downvoted. Is it coz you are not actively promoting communism as silver bullet? But rather pointing out fact that all known approaches have issues
Pretty strong classist vibes. Those fucking poor are too damn lazy, am I right?
It's not a question of class, it's a question of labour vs motivation/reward.
This still has a behaviouralist slant though, and perhaps that's because I find the concept of unalienated labour hard to envision the practicalities/pragmatics of. Perhaps due to having never seen such a thing (having always lived under Capitalism).