Scan barcode
A review by lipsandpalms
Wage Labour and Capital by Karl Marx
2.0
While Marx is correct about the expansive nature of capital either he willfully ignores some aspects or the views are now obsolete. The views expressed here are more concrete than the ones in the communist Manifesto but still misguided. Here are my thoughts on them:
In discussing complex machinery replacing mindless labor: this is a good thing. Sure it displaces the low wage earner but it also produces product at a cheaper rate for the customer's purchase thus allowing a larger percentage of their wages to be spent elsewhere.
The value of a product is partially determined by its cost to produce, this is true. But it is also determined by what customers are willing to pay for it.
Profit obtained by selling a product or service higher than what it cost to produce it (including the workers wages to produce the product or service) is not theft of the worker's value. It is the incentive to establish business in the first place.
If capitalists are unnecessary, why don't the work force simply acquire their own permits, workspace, tools, and cut out the middle man? Owning and managing the workers of a factory is work in itself. To assume a factory can produce consistent linen or any other product without the need of leadership and start-up capital is naiive.
If capitalism is supposedly producing the cause of its own downfall (namely, a large and dissatisfied working class) it has not yet been eradicated after over 100 years of this text being published. What would Marx think of East and West Berlin, I wonder.
Another issue I have is that Marx assumes that the laborer is trapped in the same kind of labor and that their wages are at best stagnant and at worst decreasing. Maybe this is due to the time period but today education is plentiful. If someone is willing, it has never been easier to become educated in a particular subject and move on to more skilled work that achieves higher pay.
In discussing complex machinery replacing mindless labor: this is a good thing. Sure it displaces the low wage earner but it also produces product at a cheaper rate for the customer's purchase thus allowing a larger percentage of their wages to be spent elsewhere.
The value of a product is partially determined by its cost to produce, this is true. But it is also determined by what customers are willing to pay for it.
Profit obtained by selling a product or service higher than what it cost to produce it (including the workers wages to produce the product or service) is not theft of the worker's value. It is the incentive to establish business in the first place.
If capitalists are unnecessary, why don't the work force simply acquire their own permits, workspace, tools, and cut out the middle man? Owning and managing the workers of a factory is work in itself. To assume a factory can produce consistent linen or any other product without the need of leadership and start-up capital is naiive.
If capitalism is supposedly producing the cause of its own downfall (namely, a large and dissatisfied working class) it has not yet been eradicated after over 100 years of this text being published. What would Marx think of East and West Berlin, I wonder.
Another issue I have is that Marx assumes that the laborer is trapped in the same kind of labor and that their wages are at best stagnant and at worst decreasing. Maybe this is due to the time period but today education is plentiful. If someone is willing, it has never been easier to become educated in a particular subject and move on to more skilled work that achieves higher pay.