719774
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2018
- Messages
- 710
Superb storytelling. 9/10.
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2018
- Messages
- 112
I still dont understand, if to become profitable you need to get labour surplus, then why many non-labour intensive business get more profitable than labor intensive one?
Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2020
- Messages
- 32
@Skepticium Hi, could you give some examples of what you mean by "non labour intensive business"
If you reply please @ me so I get notified.
If you reply please @ me so I get notified.
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2018
- Messages
- 112
@Loghtan , As far as i remember, what i meant back then as "non labour-intensive business" is business that have automated so much, that they only need a dozen specialist instead of a thousand of hand-assembly labourer.
That was when i am still noob with leftist concept. Even though i already learned some of leftist thought, i still don't understand LTV. Is each labour can have different value? If yes, Then administrator (like CEO) that optimize a system (like an institution for distribution purpose) is actually a worker too?
Btw, are you ML, Anarchist, or just a critical theorist?
That was when i am still noob with leftist concept. Even though i already learned some of leftist thought, i still don't understand LTV. Is each labour can have different value? If yes, Then administrator (like CEO) that optimize a system (like an institution for distribution purpose) is actually a worker too?
Btw, are you ML, Anarchist, or just a critical theorist?
Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2020
- Messages
- 32
@Skepticium
In Marxism there is a concept known as intellectual labour, I would personally consider administration intellectual labour and he should receive the value he produces.
However! An administrator in a capitalist system is given this role arbitrarily by higher ups in a corporation, and the job of "optimisation" within a private company tends to mean putting profit over people (This results in layoffs and a reduction in pay for the worker). The administrator is therefore a tool of the shareholding capitalist, used to extract as much surplus value from the worker as possible.
A CEO is like this but to such a level it is absurd. A CEO is usually a shareholder who has the incentive to do whatever is possible to extract value from the workers far far beneath him, he does not generate value himself, he moves around resources within a company so that he can get the most profit he can for the shareholders.
While I personally accept the need for limited administration on a low level, I reject the idea of CEO's being workers, as their "work" is to maximise the profit they can leech off the real workers.
One solution to administration is the idea of "worker Co-Ops". Within a worker Co-Op the workers ELECT BY CONSENSUS someone from amongst themselves to hold an administrative position. This administrator is held accountable by the workers and can be replaced at any time, it is therefore within this administrators best interest to increase productivity without harming the workers who elected them, and to make sure they receive all the value they generate (if they don't they would be replaced by someone who will).
Or the administrative duties could simply be performed by the workers themselves rather than an outside entity.
Either way is certainly preferable to having and administrator forced upon you by unaccountable corporate despots.
And to respond to your final question "are you ML, Anarchist, or just a critical theorist?":
I would probably be considered closer to an Anarchist than an ML, that's for sure!
In Marxism there is a concept known as intellectual labour, I would personally consider administration intellectual labour and he should receive the value he produces.
However! An administrator in a capitalist system is given this role arbitrarily by higher ups in a corporation, and the job of "optimisation" within a private company tends to mean putting profit over people (This results in layoffs and a reduction in pay for the worker). The administrator is therefore a tool of the shareholding capitalist, used to extract as much surplus value from the worker as possible.
A CEO is like this but to such a level it is absurd. A CEO is usually a shareholder who has the incentive to do whatever is possible to extract value from the workers far far beneath him, he does not generate value himself, he moves around resources within a company so that he can get the most profit he can for the shareholders.
While I personally accept the need for limited administration on a low level, I reject the idea of CEO's being workers, as their "work" is to maximise the profit they can leech off the real workers.
One solution to administration is the idea of "worker Co-Ops". Within a worker Co-Op the workers ELECT BY CONSENSUS someone from amongst themselves to hold an administrative position. This administrator is held accountable by the workers and can be replaced at any time, it is therefore within this administrators best interest to increase productivity without harming the workers who elected them, and to make sure they receive all the value they generate (if they don't they would be replaced by someone who will).
Or the administrative duties could simply be performed by the workers themselves rather than an outside entity.
Either way is certainly preferable to having and administrator forced upon you by unaccountable corporate despots.
And to respond to your final question "are you ML, Anarchist, or just a critical theorist?":
I would probably be considered closer to an Anarchist than an ML, that's for sure!
Similar threads
