this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
544 points (80.7% liked)

Leftism

2134 readers
17 users here now

Our goal is to be the one stop shop for leftism here at lemmy.world! We welcome anyone with beliefs ranging from SocDemocracy to Anarchism to post, discuss, and interact with our community. We are a democratic community, and as such, welcome metaposts that seek to amend the rules through consensus. Post articles, videos, questions, analysis and more. As long as it's leftist, it's welcome here!

Rules:

Posting Expectations:

Sister Communities:

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Solarpunk memes [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rockSlayer 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I think you just have it misunderstood. The comic assumes that you are the laborer, not the capitalist. As the image at this part of the infographic shows, from the perspective of the laborer, you are paid $5 for an item that is sold on the market for $50

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, the image is correct, but I think theUnlikely was refering to the text "Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs."

It's backwards, it should be the value you (the laborer) produce is sold for more than than your labor costs.

[–] rockSlayer -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ok, yea now I can understand how that sentence could be confusing. It's technically correct, but written kinda backwards as people would normally understand it

[–] jarfil 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No, it's not correct in any way:

"Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs."

  • you produce the value
  • capitalism pays your labor costs for the value
  • capitalism sells the value for... more, never less
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Thanks, I thought I was losing my mind. I spent way too long rereading that sentence and wondering why no one had commented on it yet.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs ==> Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs [the capitalist/employer].

It’s technically correct, but unclear.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can you give an example with some numbers? I'm still not seeing it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Say you produce a $thousand fmv worth of x. Your capitalist employer sells x for $2000. They sold x for less than what they pay you, $500 worth of x.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm trying really hard to understand since you seem so sure. But $2000 is more than both $1000 and $500. I'm unable to see how it could be considered less.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not OP but I think what they are saying is: Your labor is effectively worth the end-price of the product, e.g. the $2000 but you are selling your labor for less than that e.g. $500.

It's a very weird phrasing, most people do not look at labor as something being sold (even if it is a good way of thinking about it imo). It could just be that they are trying to wiggle out of a misunderstanding.

[–] fkn 1 points 1 year ago

People don't think of labor as being sold? What are wages then? It's literally the price of your labor?

I've never even considered that people don't think of labor as something being sold.

[–] rockSlayer -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

ok, can you explain the contradiction? I don't see it, at all.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If the sentence were correct, your employer would sell whatever you produce for less than what they are paying you for it. E.g. they pay you 20 for one hour of work, in which you produce one product, which they then sell for 15. Obviously they would be making a loss in that situation on every single product sold, so no business would ever do that (except in special cases like loss leaders or limited promotions, of course, but we're talking about the general case here)

[–] jarfil 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Just explained it, step by step.

If you still don't see it, then no offense, but we're coming into "what weights more, a pound of rocks or a pound of feathers" territory, which I don't think I can explain through here.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

So the labor costs (wages) are $5 and the value produced by the laborer is sold for $50? Yes this makes sense of course, but I can't wrap my head around why it says it's sold for less when $50 is more than $5. GPT4 can't seem to make sense of it either.

[–] yuriy 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The comic assumes that you could ONLY be the laborer. It’s ignoring the fact that no one is stopping you from making/buying something and selling it for a profit.

I’m a bench jeweler and I know plenty of other craftspeople who make a whole-ass living off selling shit they made for more than labor/materials cost. The fact that an employer will take advantage of you isn’t a failing of capitalism, it’s a facet of human greed that will permeate any economic/political system.

[–] rockSlayer 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Making things or selling things is not capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production; things like factories, tools, intellectual property, etc.

On the point of greed, I disagree that it's just simply "human nature". However, even if it was, why should we have an economic system that prioritizes greed?

[–] jarfil 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Capitalism is the ideology that defends capital as the main desirable quality in society.

Greed is a consequence of the desire for ownership, which is part of human nature.

Capitalism is the exaltation of that greed... and no, we should not have any system that blindly defends a single aspect of life.

Life is full of nuance, no single aspect should rule it all; sometimes ownership is good (like my pants), sometimes sharing is good (like riding on a bus), sometimes defending a life is good (like preventing a murder), sometimes ending a life is good (like euthanasia)... and so on.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

sometimes ownership is good (like my pants)

Anticapitalist critique of private ownership isn't about private ownership of pants it's about private/centralized ownership of the means of production. This is a critical distinction, as many models still want a free market which doesn't work without private property.

[–] rockSlayer 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just a bit of pendantry as a treat, I think that greed is a consequence of people seeking to meet their needs. In a system that requires obtaining money to obtain needs that are not simply provided, it causes precarity. This precarious position is a threat to existence. Our instincts fear of this precarity, and this instinctual fear manifests as greed to make sure our needs will always be met. This isn't to say that greed is imaginary or a product of capitalism, it is human nature. But I think that nature is influenced by nurture, and vice versa.

[–] jarfil 1 points 1 year ago

Agreed. I'd only add that until we switch to a full post-scarcity world, a system that does the opposite, that tries to eliminate all private ownership, also causes that same fear of precarity, which also leads to greed.

As long as scarcity exists, a system trying to minimize greed requires a tough balance between providing enough to meet basic needs, but at the same time not stifling people's sense of safety derived from ownership.