Can someone please provide examples of exploitation of workers in Europe? How are they treated unfairly...

Can someone please provide examples of exploitation of workers in Europe? How are they treated unfairly? Who is benefiting from the exploitation?

How are workers treated unfairly?

Other urls found in this thread:

mangafox.me/manga/das_kapital/
youtube.com/watch?v=Vz3eOb6Yl1s
megafileupload.com/jfeD/kapital.rar
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

Das Kapital is outdated as hell.

I have the book, but I was merely curious as to what Holla Forums's answer would be, too. Das Kapital isn't light reading, so it takes time to get through.

...

I work everynight. I could have days off, but that would mean less profits for the boss.

Unless I accept this, there is always the option of being unemployed and starve.

Then again, define fair.

Exploitation basically means renting out material property for profit. Exploitation happens through work employment, through banking, and through land ownership. It means that you're taking money from someone else's labor because you own property. The working class is forced to choose between accepting having value leeched from their work through this process, or starvation because the vast majority of the productive property is owned by the ruling bourgeoisie and this ownership is enforced by violence through the state.

As a note, there is nothing to worker exploitation about things being unfair or people being treated badly. Even happy, well-treated workers are being exploited so long as the company they work for is making a profit off their work.

are you compelled to sell your labor on the open market for wages as a means of survival?
congratulations, you're being exploited.
the cartoon pig wearing a top hat.

Before I begin this reply, I would like to note that I am not a troll etc. but I am only looking upon the ideology in a critical light because I am devil's advocate, in order to strengthen my own knowledge.


what's the alternative? to do nothing and then people will provide for you?

Please explain.


Doesn't the state usually prevent this from happening?

Doesn't the capitalist need to pay for the property and capital that you apply labour to in order to produce the finished products? Like the machinery and materials required to make a bag.

Why not save up, buy your own land and capital, then employ people and treat them fairly?

Is there anything in the way of a company treating its workers fairly, compensating them for their labour? Also, don't most if not everyone in the company apply some labour? Like management makes sure that the product is actually made and done in a timely way for example.

Nowadays almost everyone has a computer, and with some effort and support from living off others for a while, one can learn how to program it and sell the product. You don't even need a computer, you could cook and sell food.

The computer and kitchen is a means of production, no?


but the profit pays the wages, and without the founder of the company (a capitalist probably) they wouldn't be getting any wages; the person/people at the top usually manage things, don't they?


Are you sure it's exploitation? What's unfair about this? (Please be patient with me) I mean, if people did not work in return for wages, where would products which require economies of scale come from? People band together to work for the fun of it, with no immediate benefit?

Don't people still work in Communism? If you don't work, do you still get to reap the benefits of those who do? In that case, is it not the people who are compelled to produce products for others to survive? The problem has only shifted from your own survival to the survival of other people.

How do disabled (or others unfit to work) live in a moneyless society? Vouchers for products, or do they only get food? Aside from computer programming (I'm thinking the severely disabled), what of them?


Can someone help explain why this is necessarily bad, if at all? I get that workers should be paid enough, or more than they currently are, but how do you decide? how can you decide who applied what amount of labour to a finished product and then portion out the profit?

You still have a lot of money going to a capitalist at the top who has had to purchase or maintain or had the fortune of inheriting the means of production and land. Materials aren't free, so not all the money can go to the worker.

the point is that if you're paid a wage you aren't being given the full value of what you produced.
full automation+post-scarcity economy means that post people won't need to work. There is an insane number of jobs that exist today that produce nothing of real value other than keeping poor people occupied and rich people even wealthier.

… Really?
You ask leftypol "the alternative"?

… REALY???


SOCIALISM

Hahah nigga are you serious. Do you know what a division of labour is. Do you know what specialisation is. Do you know what economies of scale are.

What is the full value? How are the workers supposed to be compensated, and how is it decided who gets what amount of compensation?


How does socialism work, though?


Then what?

How do they get hold of the materials which they will work to produce the final product? Who does the product go to? Who gets the finished products? What goes to those incapable of work? Can people get too many items for themselves? How much is too much of a particular item?

Sorry, many things are not clear to me.


There are groups of people who sell products and divide the profits, and self-employed people. I'm not saying this method is good for every situation, but it applies for the cookery and programming examples I mentioned.

How would it be done under Communism?

A socialist alternative : creating a worker's owned enterprise (coops).

In this scenario you are alone, and you own the kitchen/computer. Capitalism is when the person owning it don't use it, and the person using it don't own it.

Yes because that's how it works now, but we could think of another system when the means of production are commonly owned.

Want a mango? Have a mango
mangafox.me/manga/das_kapital/
Want a video? Have a video
youtube.com/watch?v=Vz3eOb6Yl1s

Want more?

Workers in Europe have to produce more value at their workplace than they are compensated for in a wage.

The beneficiary is the capitalist, who keeps for himself everything produced by the worker.

Mango link doesn't work

From the workers who produce those materials, who now are not exploited by the capitalists.

Those who produce it the workers.

The people who make everything, workers.

They are provided according to their need, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, and produce to their ability. We have long since moved past the point where everyone needs to work.

Why would you get more than you can use? What use would that have in a non-capitalist society?

You're the one who brought that up, why don't you tell us.

sage because this is literally babby tier

I guess Capitalism is so FREE that it doesn't let everyone have access to the same stuff on the internets!

Wait while I upload it and share it … … AGAIN!

Dialectics is a spook. Capital is outdated. Both are useful, but they're not the be-all end-all of leftism.

Some basic questions that anyone can answer if they can; please be patient with me:

I admit that some of these questions presume a degree of selfishness in people, so maybe I'm being cynical. I can accept that capitalist society has shaped people into a way that might be called selfish. So,


Is there anything stopping someone from doing this inside capitalism? Why require that socialism be everywhere?

I mean, there's nothing stopping you really. A capitalist can still pay you back with wages though.

I don't understand what's wrong with this.


How do you determine the value, though? Don't the workers owe it to the capitalist for paying the wage?

The capitalist saves the workers from having to provide capital and machinery which the workers apply labour to. Isn't that a big investment?


Thank you for the reply.

Does that count for stuff like the materials needed to produce artwork? I mean, this might be a stupid question, but what about the people who need a *lot* of something. Say there's not enough to go around because there aren't any natural resources for it.

Would it go to who most "needs" it?


Wouldn't the capitalists rather move to automation so they can save on wages?

Thank you.

Yes, now, that goes into how you apply socialism.
There are ways, going from market socialism to full Pol Pot.

In general, one needs to "convince" the farmer… someway…


If they do not WANT to, they don't get.
If there is not work to be done, that means noone works. If there is work to be done, more than one person will be doing it, thus everyone gets more free time. (also, don't forget colectivization).


I for one, only see it done though algorithms and so on.

An anarchist though..


Same as everyone else. Plus, the point is for there not to be managers. (Cause otherwise they become a class of theirown, see soviet union).

If you build one computer, for yourself, it is personal property. Like your toothbrush.
If you build 5 computers, and start selling or exchanging them, then you are a capitalist with private property and go to gulag


The problem is the contradictions of capitalism.
Unless you are a ruthless capitalist and exploit your workers to the maximum, you will be swallowed by bigger fish. Like EA eating every small company and small companies only being able to make "indy games" nowadays.

Surplus value. He never pays you more than you need to be productive and keeps the rest for himself.

(cont.)


No. Workers make the machinery. The capital was first created by imperialism, and nowadays it's not even real! (Debt).

If there is scarcity, we ration.
Socialism is the progress to post-scarcity.
"But I need to build a huge concrete block, cause it's art!"
Sorry! We have more important things to do with the limited concrete we have.
"But how do you judge the importance?
Well… that's why we have created this council.. (for other ways ask an anarchist. Am Leninist).
Hint: There is no one answer. Dialectics.


Wouldn't the capitalists rather move to automation so they can save on wages?
Wait for the mango to upload, and you'll see how automation is the final nail in the coffin of capitalism. Not saying that the next step in economics will be socialism, just because capitalism doesn't work without workers' surplus value, even if that's our solution.

megafileupload.com/jfeD/kapital.rar

AND IT'S UP!

… until some other "free" person cannot read it, cause CAPITALISM IS FREEDOM!

I'm seeing an unusual number of bait/shitpost threads and responses, Is this board getting raided?

But that's wrong you fucking idiot.

Even if this one is part of a raid, it's still ok to try and have a disscusion, as long as it's not fullpol.

I don't think automation into post-scarcity is any problem for capitalism.

Look at the whole "Intelectual Property" bullshit.
We have reached very close to post-scarcity in digital information due tot he very very low cost of copying and transmitting it.
Despite having "ownership" of devices and infrastructure capable of copying/distibuting the information in a widespread manner, there is
still profit in "authorized" copies.Hell, capitalists have gone to great extents in inneficiency to put obstacles in copying and distribution.

And even after all the "copy protection"/DRM/Traffic filtering and the, rather innefective legal measures that they cannot afford to apply…
there is still plenty of profit in the LICENSING of easy-to-copy media.Becasue people are willing to pay for LICENSING.

I think the bigger problem is not the accumulation of resources/means of production/capital , but the influence porky has gained over the
minds of humans with the mediums of communication of today.
Porky controls culture .

TL:DR Slime

Sorry, I'm still learning.
That wasn't me. I haven't rejected anything.
I'm not gone yet.

You're probably referring to:


These are all me. I'm learning about Socialism, having only ever known about capitalism. It's an interest that I want to cultivate, and for the purposes of being a devil's advocate I'm asking questions that may be obvious to you but not me.

It's not bait, and I'm sorry you feel that way. Holla Forums is the only 8ch board (about anything intellectual anyway) that I've visited. I only browse /g/ on 4chan.


Thank you so much! I'll start having a look.

Thank you for the answers.

That's why I say, I'm not sure it will become socialism.

It might as well (most probably) end up full cyberpunk dystopia.

However, capitalism as we know it, depeneds on surplus value.
So, if everything full auto, no surplus value.

1) The composition of capital is: C (constant capital; machinery, raw materials, fixed capital, etc.) + V (variable capital; wages) + S (surplus value; which is divided into revenues of various kinds depending on the capitalist–profit-interest-rent).

From here, we see that with the total sale of a firm's commodity stock, the firm has realized a value sum, a sum of money that is enough to reproduce the material conditions of production (C + V), and to ensure the social reproduction of capitalists and the accumulation of a fund for expanded production (S).

So workers actually produce a value that amounts to their own wages–or else they would simply be fired for being unprofitable expenditures to production. They not only produce a value sum corresponding to V, their wages, they produce a commodity whose sale realizes a value sum S, which is in part given to the firm owner as profit.

When we consider the total capitalist system as a system of two classes, capitalists and wage-labourers, we find that the latter produce all things with a given value expression whose sale reproduces that value sums necessary for reproduction and expansion of production.

2) As regards to the capitalist insuring wages–you're right. But that's actually a structural constraint upon all individuals under capital. They must enter into waged relations to survive. The mass of society is completely separated from the material conditions of its survival and must enter into an exploitative waged-relation which allows them partial access to the goods which they and their class produce. Communists would abolish the wage-form.

3) As to managing the firms themselves–with given development of a firm and its expansion and specialization and intensive division of labor, the tasks of management fall unto a subset of waged-laborers. Capitalists as a class don't receive their revenue because they worked, but because they simply owned.

The capitalist doesn't just take a part of what you produce, but also controls what you produce. You would still be exploited if you got back exactly the whole thing you are forced to produce.
t.Anarchist