You treat it as a discrete product. If you work in a factory that makes robots for automation, and those robots are installed in another factory, your surplus labor is still being stolen. It doesn't stop being labor on your part because what you produce produces something else. Your boss is still screwing you over by taking your time/labor value. It sounds like you're focusing on what is made, which isn't the point of contention, it's the labor that goes into making something. I think you're overthinking it.
But if I make a factory that someone else works in and I take a portion of the proceeds from their labor in exchange for having made the factory, then it seems like I'm acting as a capitalist and that the other worker doesn't own the means of production.
I'm going to double-reply to you just to try explaining it in a different way. I can see how my replies aren't making it clear enough.
The labor theory of value works under capitalism or socialism/communism. It's the same stuff. When Marx did Kapital, he cited that idea from Adam Smith. So we don't even have to speak like we're talking about two different systems. It would work like it works now. The difference is who gets the surplus value.
The company you work for makes factories. It takes in raw materials, it adds labor, and produces factories. The value of a factory is higher than the materials and labor, probably. As a factory is more useful than pile of bricks and a bunch of guys standing around. Your labor makes that value possible. So when you produce a factory, you're generating value. It's assumed there is a buyer for your factories. It's true that if there is nobody to buy your factories, then the factories don't have a value. Because things have value to buyers as well as producers. But this assumes someone is buying your factories.
You produce the factory and then someone buys it. They buy it at the value that includes your labor and the raw materials. But since you're in a factory factory, you can produce far more factories. So you produce 100 factories. After 10 factories, your own factory is paid for. The raw materials you used are paid for. Your wages are paid for. There's leftover money that was created by everyone's labor.
Under capitalism, the owner gets it. You do get paid, it's just a small amount of the value you produced. Under the ideal economic system, you and your coworkers would get most if not all of it. The owner would get the small amount.
So all the stuff in your factory, including the factory and the machines are paid for now. Whoever made your machines was already paid. Whoever buys your factories is in the exact same situation you are. Their company will operate like yours. Your money doesn't take from them. Passing on the cost of raw materials and the cost of labor isn't the same kind of wage-theft that the owners of the companies engage in. At the end of the day labor and raw materials are just part of the cost. But the socialist argument isn't about that. It's about the surplus value created by your labor. Not that it costs money to buy raw materials and do labor on them so the worker down the line is actually paying for that out of their wages.
Kapital wasn't just about critiquing capitalism, it was also about economics period. Which is why we can talk about the labor theory of value outside of capitalism and how it works with other economic systems. Now you can have an economic system where raw materials are "free" in the sense that the government pays people to collect and distribute them to companies. Then those companies use the "free" materials to make stuff. And then those goods are given to the public for "free". But really, the labor aspect is still there. And there would still be a discrepancy of surplus value unless the labor was adequately compensated. As in their material needs were completely met.
But you're not taking a portion of their wages. The wages are based on their labor, not yours. Your wages would be based on your labor. Again, you're overthinking it.
The raw materials for the factory have some value. Your labor adds value. You get paid the value your labor adds, after the materials are paid for. The person who makes something in that factory makes the money their labor adds. You don't have to account for the cost of the factory and the materials in the labor value. You can treat them as gratis.
Even in capitalism, what you're talking about isn't correct. When you buy a hamburger at McDonald's, you're not paying for the barn that housed the cows. That cost was subsumed at a different level and by a different entity. You're not literally paying for that. Sure, you could try to track the money/cost like that but it's not very helpful because the business doesn't work like that.
Ok, but what about if I rent out the machines instead of selling them? Eventually, I'll have made enough machines that I can kick back and live off that passive income, right? At that point, aren't I bourgeoisie, by definition?
Same problem. I just replied with a longer form answer on your other post. If that doesn't clear it up, reply to this.
I'm not sure what you're asking here though. Renting doesn't change the relationship to labor. It doesn't change that surplus value was created. And renting doesn't mean you would have produced enough factories to kick back. If the factory factory produces all the factories that are needed, then the company would shut down as there's nobody to buy factories. Under a centrally planned economy, the state would tell the company to make something other than factories.
If you're talking about post-scarcity, that's a very different question. If you're talking about what happens when machines make everything and nobody has to work, that's something else. What I thought we were talking about was strictly about labor existing. If we have complete automation of production, and humans don't have to work or make anything themselves, then there would have to be some other means of meeting basic needs. Like a UBI. Or something post-commerce. It would be really hard to imagine how that works. Though that kind of thing is the goal. People's needs are met and they can spend their time doing what they want.
No, I'm not talking about post-scarcity, and I'm also not talking about the demand for factories running out. I'm saying, me and my 9 coworkers have built 10 factories, and we decide to split it up so that we all get one each. I'm now a factory owner. I find someone who wants to manage a factory and I agree to rent it out to them. They hire a bunch of workers to work in my factory, and I use the rent I'm getting to cover my living expenses, and maybe even get some extra to reinvest. My profit now comes solely from the fact that I own a MoP where other people do all the work, and if that doesn't make me a bourgeoisie then I don't know what would.
Let me take a step back here: under a socialist system, can I still be a factory owner who profits solely from the fact that I own the factory, without working in it? If so, then when we look a system where there are privately owned factories and such, then what can we look at to determine whether that system is socialist or capitalist?
I mean yeah once you're an owner, the we'd take your money. You don't get to keep the surplus value of your workers.
The factory would be owned by the company and the company would be owned by the workers. You could be a factory "owner" in the sense of the highest manager. But you likely wouldn't own the building. You would get a cut for what you help produce, but it wouldn't be a CEO amount of money. Bill Gates probably doesn't own the main Microsoft building, it belongs to Microsoft. MS is a corporate entity that has legal powers to own property like a human. And then MS is owned by Bill Gates and shareholders. Under socialism, all the workers would be the majority shareholders. No one person owns the building. A lot of basic socialism doesn't function differently than capitalism. The only real thing that changes is who's ultimately in charge and who gets the surplus value of labor.
Like all human categories, not everything fits exactly. It may be possible to have some system where private owners retain property but also workers have as much/more say than them about their property. It doesn't seem likely. It seems like you would need to abolish private property (not personal property!) or have the state just own all the factories and still let people own private homes and stuff.
But if the factory owner owns the building, and tries to rent it out, it's in his financial interest to keep capitalism intact. He wouldn't be able to make as much money under socialism. So that's why it's unlikely that owners would just be cool with letting workers take most of the money and do what they want with the buildings. But we are entering an age where new forms of organization is possible through technology. So idk. The likely thing would be that we transition and the relationship between owner/worker is abstracted even more than under capitalism.
You treat it as a discrete product. If you work in a factory that makes robots for automation, and those robots are installed in another factory, your surplus labor is still being stolen. It doesn't stop being labor on your part because what you produce produces something else. Your boss is still screwing you over by taking your time/labor value. It sounds like you're focusing on what is made, which isn't the point of contention, it's the labor that goes into making something. I think you're overthinking it.
But if I make a factory that someone else works in and I take a portion of the proceeds from their labor in exchange for having made the factory, then it seems like I'm acting as a capitalist and that the other worker doesn't own the means of production.
I'm going to double-reply to you just to try explaining it in a different way. I can see how my replies aren't making it clear enough.
The labor theory of value works under capitalism or socialism/communism. It's the same stuff. When Marx did Kapital, he cited that idea from Adam Smith. So we don't even have to speak like we're talking about two different systems. It would work like it works now. The difference is who gets the surplus value.
The company you work for makes factories. It takes in raw materials, it adds labor, and produces factories. The value of a factory is higher than the materials and labor, probably. As a factory is more useful than pile of bricks and a bunch of guys standing around. Your labor makes that value possible. So when you produce a factory, you're generating value. It's assumed there is a buyer for your factories. It's true that if there is nobody to buy your factories, then the factories don't have a value. Because things have value to buyers as well as producers. But this assumes someone is buying your factories.
You produce the factory and then someone buys it. They buy it at the value that includes your labor and the raw materials. But since you're in a factory factory, you can produce far more factories. So you produce 100 factories. After 10 factories, your own factory is paid for. The raw materials you used are paid for. Your wages are paid for. There's leftover money that was created by everyone's labor.
Under capitalism, the owner gets it. You do get paid, it's just a small amount of the value you produced. Under the ideal economic system, you and your coworkers would get most if not all of it. The owner would get the small amount.
So all the stuff in your factory, including the factory and the machines are paid for now. Whoever made your machines was already paid. Whoever buys your factories is in the exact same situation you are. Their company will operate like yours. Your money doesn't take from them. Passing on the cost of raw materials and the cost of labor isn't the same kind of wage-theft that the owners of the companies engage in. At the end of the day labor and raw materials are just part of the cost. But the socialist argument isn't about that. It's about the surplus value created by your labor. Not that it costs money to buy raw materials and do labor on them so the worker down the line is actually paying for that out of their wages.
Kapital wasn't just about critiquing capitalism, it was also about economics period. Which is why we can talk about the labor theory of value outside of capitalism and how it works with other economic systems. Now you can have an economic system where raw materials are "free" in the sense that the government pays people to collect and distribute them to companies. Then those companies use the "free" materials to make stuff. And then those goods are given to the public for "free". But really, the labor aspect is still there. And there would still be a discrepancy of surplus value unless the labor was adequately compensated. As in their material needs were completely met.
But you're not taking a portion of their wages. The wages are based on their labor, not yours. Your wages would be based on your labor. Again, you're overthinking it.
The raw materials for the factory have some value. Your labor adds value. You get paid the value your labor adds, after the materials are paid for. The person who makes something in that factory makes the money their labor adds. You don't have to account for the cost of the factory and the materials in the labor value. You can treat them as gratis.
Even in capitalism, what you're talking about isn't correct. When you buy a hamburger at McDonald's, you're not paying for the barn that housed the cows. That cost was subsumed at a different level and by a different entity. You're not literally paying for that. Sure, you could try to track the money/cost like that but it's not very helpful because the business doesn't work like that.
Ok, but what about if I rent out the machines instead of selling them? Eventually, I'll have made enough machines that I can kick back and live off that passive income, right? At that point, aren't I bourgeoisie, by definition?
Same problem. I just replied with a longer form answer on your other post. If that doesn't clear it up, reply to this.
I'm not sure what you're asking here though. Renting doesn't change the relationship to labor. It doesn't change that surplus value was created. And renting doesn't mean you would have produced enough factories to kick back. If the factory factory produces all the factories that are needed, then the company would shut down as there's nobody to buy factories. Under a centrally planned economy, the state would tell the company to make something other than factories.
If you're talking about post-scarcity, that's a very different question. If you're talking about what happens when machines make everything and nobody has to work, that's something else. What I thought we were talking about was strictly about labor existing. If we have complete automation of production, and humans don't have to work or make anything themselves, then there would have to be some other means of meeting basic needs. Like a UBI. Or something post-commerce. It would be really hard to imagine how that works. Though that kind of thing is the goal. People's needs are met and they can spend their time doing what they want.
No, I'm not talking about post-scarcity, and I'm also not talking about the demand for factories running out. I'm saying, me and my 9 coworkers have built 10 factories, and we decide to split it up so that we all get one each. I'm now a factory owner. I find someone who wants to manage a factory and I agree to rent it out to them. They hire a bunch of workers to work in my factory, and I use the rent I'm getting to cover my living expenses, and maybe even get some extra to reinvest. My profit now comes solely from the fact that I own a MoP where other people do all the work, and if that doesn't make me a bourgeoisie then I don't know what would.
Let me take a step back here: under a socialist system, can I still be a factory owner who profits solely from the fact that I own the factory, without working in it? If so, then when we look a system where there are privately owned factories and such, then what can we look at to determine whether that system is socialist or capitalist?
I mean yeah once you're an owner, the we'd take your money. You don't get to keep the surplus value of your workers.
The factory would be owned by the company and the company would be owned by the workers. You could be a factory "owner" in the sense of the highest manager. But you likely wouldn't own the building. You would get a cut for what you help produce, but it wouldn't be a CEO amount of money. Bill Gates probably doesn't own the main Microsoft building, it belongs to Microsoft. MS is a corporate entity that has legal powers to own property like a human. And then MS is owned by Bill Gates and shareholders. Under socialism, all the workers would be the majority shareholders. No one person owns the building. A lot of basic socialism doesn't function differently than capitalism. The only real thing that changes is who's ultimately in charge and who gets the surplus value of labor.
Like all human categories, not everything fits exactly. It may be possible to have some system where private owners retain property but also workers have as much/more say than them about their property. It doesn't seem likely. It seems like you would need to abolish private property (not personal property!) or have the state just own all the factories and still let people own private homes and stuff.
But if the factory owner owns the building, and tries to rent it out, it's in his financial interest to keep capitalism intact. He wouldn't be able to make as much money under socialism. So that's why it's unlikely that owners would just be cool with letting workers take most of the money and do what they want with the buildings. But we are entering an age where new forms of organization is possible through technology. So idk. The likely thing would be that we transition and the relationship between owner/worker is abstracted even more than under capitalism.