[cwinsor8187]

The common justification for a worker's exploitation is as follows:

The Capitalist Either has a personal savings or has taken a business loan out to startup his or her new business. They use this money to then buy
the machines and tools they will need to operate a business. They also factor in running costs. Obviously included is the amount they will spend on
hiring labor to actually run the operation. All this taken into account, if the equation does not result in a profit, what is the benefit of them even pursuing this endeavor? So, taking the labor theory of value into account, the worker's surplus value is the stepping stone a capitalist needs, to make his scheme profitable. Without this exploitation, the money borrowed by the capitalist to start the business would never be paid back; or the business would just break even not fulfilling the capitalists desire for gain. The point being, the capitalist is not really taking a risk if exploitation is a key factor in the equation.

My question is: Is the Capitalist justified in his thoughts and actions? Is there really a risk if exploitation is essential for profit making?

Since Capitalism is just feudalism with a sheep's clothing. As said by Professor Richard Wolff.

Finally, what are some solutions to this form of society? Please if anyone can bring to my attention a variety of solutions from a Marxist/Anarchist/Alternative perspective. Please point out any flaws to my logic as well.

Regards,

anonymous

[quetzalcoatl]

Costs of labor provide the major incentives for capitalists' outsourcing and automation. We are approaching the limit of outsourcing. Once you have pubescent Bangladeshis making your soccer balls, you literally have nowhere else to go. There is no cheaper labor outside of actual chattel slavery.

Automation simply suppresses the input of labor into the overall cost of production. The labor theory of value becomes obsolete once machines begin designing and building other machines; this is the state to which the West is currently transitioning.

The end result is that you have no workers, merely consumers. And powerless consumers at that...they are literally a superfluous cog in the machine.

[Saeko]

You don't need to resort to the labor theory of value to prove that capitalists don't actually take any risks in any real sense. There are these things called "business plans", things which no business can do without, whose function it is to guarantee investors a profit.

[cwinsor8187]

yes I see that automation will make labor theory of value meaningless, but the majority of jobs however mindless are still run by human beings. I can attest to these kind of jobs. Been in the labor force for almost a decade. If anyone could comment more on my questions in a more point by point manner. I just want to know if my thinking is clear. Thanks for the comments thus far.

Regards,
Anonymous

[quetzalcoatl]

Is there really a risk if exploitation is essential for profit making?

The legal infrastructure is designed to limit risk for capitalists. Actual criminal and civil liability is virtually non-existent for the capitalist as an individual. The financial risk is assumed by shareholders.

It can be summed up as follows: 'risk is socialized, profits are privatized.' This is the modus operandi of capitalism in the real world.

As for alternatives, we are firmly in the grip of Thatcher's TINA doctrine. "There is no alternative." This doctrine is the central tenet of modern western political, economic, and social theory. The only marginally feasible alternative would be a long-term campaign of subversion. This is not, in principle, an impossible task; in the four decades from 1974 to 2014 an organized campaign was able to reverse much of the New Deal/Great Society legislation in the US.

But, as it stands, there is no existing group with the ability to mount such a campaign. Nor is there any existing group with the discipline to exploit potentially revolutionary unrest, should it ever arise. This leaves the field wide open for institutional corporate plutocracy, or neo-feudalism.

[Paul Sanderson]

Automation simply suppresses the input of labor into the overall cost of production.

What do you mean by this? How does automation “suppress it into” the overall cost of production? I think it’s the “suppress it into” bit that’s confusing me here.

The point being, the capitalist is not really taking a risk if exploitation is a key factor in the equation.

Why do you say he is not taking a risk because exploitation is involved? What about the risk of bankruptcy and having your assets seized because of this failed enterprise? In many countries, if you go bankrupt, you’re seriously unlikely to be able to get a loan, even a mobile phone contract might be out of the question. Bankruptcy means you’re pretty much finished in the business world unless you can grow a new company completely organically (using no debt).

My question is: Is the Capitalist justified in his thoughts and actions? Is there really a risk if exploitation is essential for profit making?

To me it looks obvious that there is, not least because of the things I’ve written above. Maybe someone can tell me differently.

The legal infrastructure is designed to limit risk for capitalists. Actual criminal and civil liability is virtually non-existent for the capitalist as an individual. The financial risk is assumed by shareholders.

Does the shareholder risk not apply mainly to PLC’s? I can’t say I know much about this but if you set up your own company, its likely you’re going to be a major shareholder, and in a lot or cases, in the early days of the business, the only shareholder.

It can be summed up as follows: 'risk is socialized, profits are privatized.' This is the modus operandi of capitalism in the real world

It does seem like that with big banks and their bankers. Banks are a vital part of the system and catastrophe would ensue if they were to collapse and/or have a run on the savings. But when someone talks of “capitalists exploiting workers” I think of business owners who, if their companies folded, no one would give a shit and they’d have to deal with it themselves.

The only marginally feasible alternative would be a long-term campaign of subversion. This is not, in principle, an impossible task; in the four decades from 1974 to 2014 an organized campaign was able to reverse much of the New Deal/Great Society legislation in the US.

True, this wouldn’t be too bad a time for it to occur in Europe either. But so long as people are comfortable and reasonably happy with their lives, there isn’t much chance of it happening.

But, as it stands, there is no existing group with the ability to mount such a campaign. Nor is there any existing group with the discipline to exploit potentially revolutionary unrest, should it ever arise.

Again, this isn’t far off the mark. The main thing that would give some hope to an idea like this is the increasing use of the internet and forums like this one. Before, it would be extremely difficult to find likeminded people around you if you’re very politically inclined. You could go to your local councillors meetings and get involved with the Conservatives or Labour etc, but this isn’t exactly revolutionary behaviour and most of those people are just interested in having a comfortable career in politics and would snitch on you the second you started talking about revolution or right wing activism. Now however, it takes a matter of seconds to find a good number of people who are like minded and you don’t have to worry too much about keeping your mouth shut about your more extremist ideas because no one knows who you are. Eventually you will get to know who’s on your wavelength and you can start planning. The Arab Spring started by using social media and I have some hope that there will be a similar right-wing uprising in Europe through the same means.

[quetzalcoatl]

What do you mean by this? How does automation “suppress it into” the overall cost of production? I think it’s the “suppress it into” bit that’s confusing me here.

It could have been more clearly worded. Does "Automation reduces the cost of labor as a percentage of the overall cost of production" make more sense?

Why do you say he is not taking a risk because exploitation is involved? What about the risk of bankruptcy and having your assets seized because of this failed enterprise? In many countries, if you go bankrupt, you’re seriously unlikely to be able to get a loan, even a mobile phone contract might be out of the question. Bankruptcy means you’re pretty much finished in the business world unless you can grow a new company completely organically (using no debt).

Does the shareholder risk not apply mainly to PLC’s? I can’t say I know much about this but if you set up your own company, its likely you’re going to be a major shareholder, and in a lot or cases, in the early days of the business, the only shareholder.

Although the OP does not do so, I would distinguish between the owners of vast wealth (the relative handful of individuals that control 50%+ of the planets wealth) and the ordinary small business startup. My analysis is directed to the first group, who are arguably co-equals (or perhaps superiors) with the political class.

It does seem like that with big banks and their bankers. Banks are a vital part of the system and catastrophe would ensue if they were to collapse and/or have a run on the savings. But when someone talks of “capitalists exploiting workers” I think of business owners who, if their companies folded, no one would give a shit and they’d have to deal with it themselves.

Again I would distinguish between necessary actions taken to protect liquidity, and the actual subsidization of individual banks. These could have been safely separated, had there been the political will to do so.

[SolarCross]

Okay with the caveat that everything in this thread so far is totally insane lefty gibberish, what do you people want really? Do you really want investing to be made illegal? Do you really want to close businesses down unless they make a loss? What is the point of all this shit really? Who is going to fund your welfare cheque if there are no productive enterprises to shakedown?

Nevermind capitalist logic, where is the socialist logic?

[quetzalcoatl]

Okay with the caveat that everything in this thread so far is totally insane lefty gibberish, what do you people want really? Do you really want investing to be made illegal? Do you really want to close businesses down unless they make a loss? What is the point of all this shit really? Who is going to fund your welfare cheque if there are no productive enterprises to shakedown?

Nevermind capitalist logic, where is the socialist logic?

I can't answer for anyone else, but here's what I want:

1) A return to the system of corporate governance in effect at the founding of the American republic. This includes a time-limited charter, and a prohibition on all activities not directly related to that charter. No lobbying, no political donations, no charitable donations, no political advertising, no contributions to educational 'foundations.' The immortal corporation must die.
2) A constitutional amendment that establishes that corporations have no inherent rights, only the contingent rights granted by Congress and the respective state legislatures.
3) A Draconian confiscatory death tax on large estates. By large, I mean large. The purpose is strategic (to break up any incipient aristocracy), not raising tax revenue. Mom and pop stores, and family farms would be exempt.
4) No corporate tax, but a genuinely progressive income tax on individuals' income over $100,000, with no loopholes.
5) Income tax is zero for all incomes under $100,000.
6) Lift some of the onerous burdens on business: companies would have zero responsibility for health insurance and pension funding. These responsibilities should be assumed by the state, as is the case in any civilized society. In the case of the US, this would be accomplished through the Social Security and Medicare programs.
7) Elimination of all welfare programs (other than pension and health insurance), to be replaced by a BIG (Basic Income Guarantee). The BIG shall be structured so as to prevent privation only; a job will still be required for a comfortable lifestyle.
8 ) Any healthy citizen who is willing and able to work will be guaranteed a job at minimum wage (this will supplement BIG, not replace it). There are many socially useful tasks for even the most unskilled. Cleaning up our cities, erasing graffiti, delivering meals to the elderly, the list is endless.

I don't care if you call that socialist, that shite matter nothing to me. All of these, except for the first three, are consistent with liberal capitalism's trend towards a neo-feudal state...so they are at least do-able in principle. Completely unlike radicals (including Taxizen), whose proposals cannot be implemented short of revolution.

[Crantag]

I think the key missing ingredient in the opening description is class conflict. The conventional mainstream analysis erroneously assumes the capitalist and the laborer start out on an even plain. This is of course an utter absurdity. Except in extraordinary cases (which do of course occur, but are statistical aberrations), one born into the working class does not become a capitalist. Likewise, a born capitalist occasionally fails and loses everything; although, there are considerable safeguards against this eventuality in this day and age. Businesses may fail, but the wealthy typically do not become paupers in this day and age.

So, you have a situation in which capitalist exploitation is a means for an enterprising rich person to expand their wealth (that's a simplification of course, as most inherit their businesses as well as their accounts). There is still risk in the sense of that sort of risk which is typical to business operations in a general sense, but nothing like the narrative you cited in the OP attains. It does attain with respect to the small businessmen, but these are typically themselves members of the working class, and are not engaged in systematic exploitation of workers.

[quetzalcoatl]

I think the key missing ingredient in the opening description is class conflict. The conventional mainstream analysis erroneously assumes the capitalist and the laborer start out on an even plain. This is of course an utter absurdity. Except in extraordinary cases (which do of course occur, but are statistical aberrations), one born into the working class does not become a capitalist. Likewise, a born capitalist occasionally fails and loses everything; although, there are considerable safeguards against this eventuality in this day and age. Businesses may fail, but the wealthy typically do not become paupers in this day and age.

So, you have a situation in which capitalist exploitation is a means for an enterprising rich person to expand their wealth (that's a simplification of course, as most inherit their businesses as well as their accounts). There is still risk in the sense of that sort of risk which is typical to business operations in a general sense, but nothing like the narrative you cited in the OP attains. It does attain with respect to the small businessmen, but these are typically themselves members of the working class, and are not engaged in systematic exploitation of workers.

I take your point about class conflict; it is indeed a salient feature of capitalism. It is a fatal mistake, however, to make class conflict the central organizing principle of your political philosophy. It makes as much sense as the Republican Guard fighting tank battles with the US army; that is, it makes no sense at all. The elites own the board and all the pieces. By fighting a traditional class war struggle you are confronting them on their own ground...and conceding at the very start an overwhelming superiority.

This is senseless and suicidal.

[Saeko]

Okay with the caveat that everything in this thread so far is totally insane lefty gibberish, what do you people want really? Do you really want investing to be made illegal? Do you really want to close businesses down unless they make a loss? What is the point of all this shit really? Who is going to fund your welfare cheque if there are no productive enterprises to shakedown?

Nevermind capitalist logic, where is the socialist logic?

What I want:

1. An organized working class with labor parties.

2. A democratized, yet very powerful and centralized national government.

3. State capitalism with economic autarky, a high degree of social spending, high taxes on the top income brackets, protectionist tariffs, full employment, increased minimum wage, subsidization of scientific and technological research as well as key industries, among other things.

4. A high degree of military spending and an imperialist foreign policy.

There's a lot more but I can't be bothered to list everything.

[Rancid]

The point being, the capitalist is not really taking a risk if exploitation is a key factor in the equation.

Honestly, can you really make this statement with a straight face?
Forget capitalism, there is no such thing as a no risk decision.

Hypothetically, I risk $100,000 which is my life's savings (keep in mind I have a family to support as well). I also borrow $50,000 from friends and family. I go ahead and take a business loan for say another $50,000. Two years and $200,000 dollars later, I've failed. Me and my family are broke as shit, my friends and family hate me because I can never pay them back the $50,000, and my credit is fucked in the ass because I can't pay off that $50,000. How is there no risk in that for me personally?

I know plenty of people that have experienced similar to the above.

I get it, this is the communism section, it's all about class struggle. Much of the burden on the planet is rested on the lower classes, but there is plenty of burden on many of those above. Especially on those that participate in the system.

[quetzalcoatl]

What?

Let's see, I risk $100,000 which is my life's savings. I also borrow $50,000 from friends and family. I go ahead and take a business loan for say another $50,000. Two yeas and $200,000 dollars later, I've failed. I'm broke as shit, my friends and family hate me because I can never pay them back the $50,000, and my credit is fucked in the ass because I can't pay off that $50,000.

How is there no risk? What are you smoking?

But you are not a capitalist...not even a capitalist wannabe. This discussion is not about start-from-scratch entrepreneurs or the tight margin small business. The real capitalists are quite content to let you risk your life savings...but they never do so.

[Rancid]

Ah, well, if you're talking about all the fat cats, then sure.

[Crantag]

I take your point about class conflict; it is indeed a salient feature of capitalism. It is a fatal mistake, however, to make class conflict the central organizing principle of your political philosophy. It makes as much sense as the Republican Guard fighting tank battles with the US army; that is, it makes no sense at all. The elites own the board and all the pieces. By fighting a traditional class war struggle you are confronting them on their own ground...and conceding at the very start an overwhelming superiority.

This is senseless and suicidal.

Yes, well with that post I was simply wearing my analyst cap. Essentially, class conflict is an essential feature of contemporary political economy, which is nevertheless entirely ignored by the mainstream.

Political tactics and political struggle are quite separate matters.

[Crantag]

Honestly, can you really make this statement with a straight face?
Forget capitalism, there is no such thing as a no risk decision.

Hypothetically, I risk $100,000 which is my life's savings (keep in mind I have a family to support as well). I also borrow $50,000 from friends and family. I go ahead and take a business loan for say another $50,000. Two years and $200,000 dollars later, I've failed. Me and my family are broke as shit, my friends and family hate me because I can never pay them back the $50,000, and my credit is fucked in the ass because I can't pay off that $50,000. How is there no risk in that for me personally?

I know plenty of people that have experienced similar to the above.

I get it, this is the communism section, it's all about class struggle. Much of the burden on the planet is rested on the lower classes, but there is plenty of burden on many of those above. Especially on those that participate in the system.

As I myself alluded to, this is all true when it comes to the individual business person. However, in mature capitalist society the joint-stock company is the dominant economic unit. The logic of the individual business person has nothing to do with the large corporation.

[lucky]

My question is: Is the Capitalist justified in his thoughts and actions?

What does that even mean? Who am I trying to justify my thoughts to? I think I am somewhat rational, so my thoughts and actions are thus justified to myself.

Is there really a risk?

Depends on the investment. More-less risk-less returns exist (well, there is always the risk of, say, a gamma ray burst striking the Earth and destroying all investments), but I am willing to take risk in exchange for higher returns.

exploitation is essential for profit making

It appears to me that you're using "profit" and "exploitation" as synonyms, and if so, this is merely a tautology.

[Nunt]

You don't need to resort to the labor theory of value to prove that capitalists don't actually take any risks in any real sense. There are these things called "business plans", things which no business can do without, whose function it is to guarantee investors a profit.

A business plan is not a guarantee for a profit. Many businessess with a business plan fail.

The legal infrastructure is designed to limit risk for capitalists. Actual criminal and civil liability is virtually non-existent for the capitalist as an individual. The financial risk is assumed by shareholders.

The shareholders are the capitalists right? So the financial risk is assumed by shareholders/capitalists.

[Rich]

Anyone that owns their own home is a Capitalist. That doesn't mean that all Capitalists are equal or have identical interests or life is fair on any nonsense like that. But it does mean that the large majority are stake holders. Socio economic differences are very real. but Marxist class classification is largely fantasy. Like modern Christian Theologians Marxists perform endless theological acrobatics to protect their central dogmas,

We have an unusual social structure but we don't have a Marxist one.