"We have started out from the premises of political economy. We have accepted its language and its laws. We presupposed private property; the separation of labour, capital, and land, and likewise of wages, profit, and capital; the division of labour; competition; the conception of exchange value, etc. From political economy itself, using its own words, we have shown that the worker sinks to the level of a commodity, and moreover the most wretched commodity of all; that the misery of the worker is in inverse proportion to the power and volume of his production; that the necessary consequence of competition is the accumulation of capital in a few hands and hence the restoration of monopoly in a more terrible form; and that, finally, the distinction between capitalist and landlord, between agricultural worker and industrial worker, disappears and the whole of society must split into the two classes of property owners and propertyless workers."
Karl Marx,
from his Economic an Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.
The reality that Marx described in the above quote is a reality in China. Think about it. The property owners and Western corporations own all the property and take most of the profit, which makes the Chinese workers propertyless and impoverished, even though they create the capitalist's profits through the sweat and toil of their work.
LOL, I had to fish my copy of The Marx-Engels Reader out from under my LCD monitor to write this post. Been a long time.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Propertyless Chinese Workers
Labels:
Realpolitik
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
I assume you wanted me to comment on this. So...
I really don't have much to say here. If the Chinese government is allowing corporations to trample all over the rights of individuals in China than they need a revolution. Of course, only the people will decide when to revolt.
No, I was wondering why you hadn't hit the page in awhile. I didn't see your ip.
Anyway, the point is that your beloved corporations are paying subsistence wages. If they can do it, they will do it. In the future, what will stop them from doing it everywhere? Remember, they will not gain power over the corporations if they overthrow the government. The corporations could just move to India or another impoverished nation. You know! The FREE market!
Ah yes. But if people are able to unionize and organize their labour, they can force wage increases. There`s only so many places corporations can go for cheap labour until there are unions everywhere.
True.
However, we encounter the same problem as with currency management. The big corporations make laws that severely or completely obstructed the way to unionization. For example, it is perfectly legal for a corporation to donate to political candidates, but it is against the law for unions to do so.
Deregulation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100600547.html?hpid=sec-world
"it is perfectly legal for a corporation to donate to political candidates"
Where? In the US it is no longer legal. Only individuals can donate up to a certain amount.
In regards to that article..
People need to be free to do bad things if they are also going to do good things.
You punish the bad though, as China has for imprisoning the people manufacturing the bad milk. That lowers the incentive for doing bad.
You do not punish everyone because a few people do bad.
Imagine a business that was based on contracting out labour all over the world. You'd be employed by this business, but the work you'd do would be for another company in need of labour. This business would succeed because of its ability to properly match labour to the labour needs. This would benefit the employee as he would be doing a job he's fit for, and the employer as they would get skilled workers. These businesses, in an open market would be able to set a market wage for employment. If they paid their employees too low, than people could search for higher paying employment on their own. The incentive would ensure their employees are being paid a competitive rate.
If the market was truly free world wide, these businesses could succeed everywhere.
"Where? In the US it is no longer legal. Only individuals can donate up to a certain amount."
My bad. I wasn't aware that corporations were banned earlier than labour unions from donating.
However, such laws are easily circumvented.
"In regards to that article..
People need to be free to do bad things if they are also going to do good things.
You punish the bad though, as China has for imprisoning the people manufacturing the bad milk. That lowers the incentive for doing bad.
You do not punish everyone because a few people do bad."
Then you are pro-regulation, pro-government and for a mixed-economy.
"Imagine a business that was based on contracting out labour all over the world. You'd be employed by this business, but the work you'd do would be for another company in need of labour. This business would succeed because of its ability to properly match labour to the labour needs. This would benefit the employee as he would be doing a job he's fit for, and the employer as they would get skilled workers. These businesses, in an open market would be able to set a market wage for employment. If they paid their employees too low, than people could search for higher paying employment on their own. The incentive would ensure their employees are being paid a competitive rate."
You didn't answer my question. How many people in the world, Josh?
How many people what?
In the world.
over 6 billion
How many live in the developed world?
Could you just make your point?
No, I want you to tell me. How many people in the world, Josh? How far are wages going to drop in the "Free Market"?
What free market? Wages are dropping and the world is ripe with big government in some form or another.
No, the "market" you are fighting to free.
Huh?
You are writing in favor of "the free market". Since the market is not currently free, you are therefore "fighting for a free market".
yes, yes i am.
How many people in the world, Josh?
Hmm invariably your commentaries progressively grind down to mutual stone throwing.
Why does man have to work at all? if he has to work why can he not choose what he wants to do? I am not against corporations or government.
If the three of us form a union to work together to make something we three love to make we have in effect made a "corporation of value". When someone is forced through need to join us for wages but has no love for the work that is a form of "corporate slavery".
The same can be said for the government.
Not really. If the person is paid a fair wage that covers all the basics and then some more, then it is a just relationship. On the other hand, when corporations move to China to expressively pay slave-wages, that is morally imcomprehensible.
"When someone is forced through need to join us for wages but has no love for the work that is a form of "corporate slavery"."
That individual should take more ownership over what he wants to do. I'm a corporate slave to RIM. I work this company not out of love, but out of need. However, if I had made better choices, I could be doing something I enjoy.
And sometimes this takes sacrifice. Artists can live long periods of time in poverty just to do what they love. The benefit for these individuals obviously outweighs the cost. Each of us needs to judge our own cost/benefit relationship for our choices.
The problem arises when government makes it even harder. I assume for you to be able to sell your produce commercially, you would need to spend money on jumping through government hoops that could make it almost impossible for you to do this and still make enough to live off of. Correct me if I'm wrong.
"That individual should take more ownership over what he wants to do. I'm a corporate slave to RIM. I work this company not out of love, but out of need. However, if I had made better choices, I could be doing something I enjoy."
This is the second pillar of your move to libertarianism. 1. Your paycheck. 2. Your regret over decisions you made as a teenager and young university student.
If you had made better choices? So, if people don't make better choices they should be relegated to a life of poverty? I think not.
"And sometimes this takes sacrifice. Artists can live long periods of time in poverty just to do what they love. The benefit for these individuals obviously outweighs the cost. Each of us needs to judge our own cost/benefit relationship for our choices."
Crap. Labour creates the value created in the factory just as much as capital.
"The problem arises when government makes it even harder. I assume for you to be able to sell your produce commercially, you would need to spend money on jumping through government hoops that could make it almost impossible for you to do this and still make enough to live off of. Correct me if I'm wrong."
Examples.
Post a Comment