However, the point about capitalists getting rich from the labor of others, and collectively coercing the rest of us to spend time we could be doing something else enriching them, is valid no matter how hard capitalists work. Ford, etc., may work hard, but they work no harder that the people on the assembly line or in the oil fields. They may contribute managerial skill and creative vision others lack, but at the same time the system, the profit from inhibits the development of managerial skill and creative vision among many of their employees who might manifest such traits if they didn't have to work on thee line or on a rig.
And most importantly, however hard they work, and indeed, however much of their capital they put at risk in entrepreneurial investments that might go splat, the basic source of their wealth derives from owning stuff that other people use to work with. If they didn't won that stuff, they'd still be creative and visionary managers, and we might might to reward them for that with extra remuneration-- not a lot, but a decent amount. The strange thing is the belief that they are entitled to fabulous wealth merely because they own stuff.
So, it's a confusing and erroneous distraction to imply that capitalist are lazy parasites. Parasites they may be, but they are not necessarily lazy, and often aren't. The best ones aren't. They don't want to be, and it would be foolish of them to be lazy -- if they left everything to managers, the managers would tend to rob the capitalists blind, feathering their own pockets at the capitalist's expense. And if the capitalists have unusual vision or entrepreneurial ability, goofing off would waste it.
--- joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> Well put, except for the idea that the capitalist is
> risking his money.
> That's mostly myth.
>
> Joanna
>
> info at pulpculture.org wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > In comments at my blog, I got on a rant about
> something that had been
> > said elsewhere by someone who is, ostensibly, a
> leftist with a
> > generally good critique of capitalism. But the
> analysis of
> > exploitation under capitalism was left by the
> wayside when the issue
> > of sexual slavery in Thailand was raised. To
> counter, someone pointed
> > to the recent case of enslaved migrant workers.
> The response was to
> > say the following:
> >
> > "My answer would be that with female sexual
> > slavery, it's already about the sex. In order
> > to combat a problem we have to understand it.
> > If we want to work on the problem of migrant
> > farm workers, we need to understand that
> > situation: the agriculture industry, the
> > wage system, the profit margin of the growers,
> > supply and demand for fruit, supply and demand
> > for labor, the situation of the laborers, the
> > illegal immigration issues, the social issues,
> > etc., etc. We could say, let's not make this
> > about the fruit, let's just focus on the general
> > issue of exploitation, but while that sort of
> > high-level thinking has its place, it will
> > probably not help us develop a nuanced
> understanding
> > of the particular issues in farm migrant labor or
> > come up with a specific action plan.
> >
> >
> > Of course, I was irritated and wrote the
> following. I've been asked to
> > publish it in an online zine. How can I improve
> it?
> >
> > Here's a little klew. There's nothing high level
> or abstract about
> > exploitation. Here's how it works. Capitalists are
> in business to pay
> > you as lttle as possible so they don't have to
> work. Their goal is to
> > live off the profits of your labor. Their goal, if
> they're not already
> > doing it (and most are) is to not have to lift a
> finger or burn a
> > brain cell working: they want to kick back and
> earn more than anyone
> > can spend in a lifetime, never being forced to
> labor. And, they are
> > motivated to keep on accumulating: more and more
> and more. They
> > believe they are justified and entitled to your
> labor and you believe
> > that too.
> >
> > You work, say, 1.25 hrs. in a day to reproduce
> yourself to make the
> > wage you need to live. Every single hour you work
> after that, your
> > labor pays the overhead and the rest lines the
> pockets of capital.
> >
> > That's your dead body lining that guy's pockets,
> by the way. Yours and
> > 100s, 1000s, maybe miilions more.
> >
> > That's the body that you could have used to make
> love, make art, read
> > a book, grow a garden, snuggle with your best
> friend, or write poetry.
> > But it's dead now. It is gone forever. One more
> hour, eight more
> > hours, forty more hours, 2000 more hours. Hours of
> your limited life.
> > Vanished.
> >
> > You'll never get it back because you worked to
> line the pockets of
> > some guy who thinks that, because he risks mere
> money which he
> > risked in the first place to make ever more money
> and he did not
> > risk his life or his body, then you owe it to him
> to give up that time
> > of your life.
> >
> > So, yes, let's ignore that "abstract" context.
> >
> > Yessiree jimbob.
> >
> > All the other horsehit is a suggestion that horror
> of what goes on in
> > the fields is somehow _special_ because of
> _special_ conditions.
> > Because of course whatever goes on to exploit the
> labor of a cubicle
> > worker well, that's normal. that's ok. that's
> complicated. that's
> > high-level.
> >
> > that's abstract.
> >
> > my ass.
> >
> > ___________________________________
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com