this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
544 points (80.8% liked)

Leftism

2072 readers
1 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 -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.