“Wages are the sum of money paid by the capitalist for a particular labour time of for a particular output of labour.” Marx explains in chapter nine that to the capitalist, labour is considered something that can be bought and sold. The laborer exchanges his product, in this case, his product is work, for money in order for him to live. Marx also explains that without the laborer the capitalist would perish, and without the capitalist, the laborer would perish.
Now, as competition takes place among commodities, it also places competition with the price of labor. If there is less demand for work, the capitalist will hire those who are willing to take a drop in wages. However, they will also expect these people to work more and harder. Supply and demand, the fluctuations in prices of commodities, the cost of production all determine the price of labor. Along with the wage a laborer is paid comes with how much training a person has had. The more the training, the more they will be paid for the work they do; lesser training means lesser pay. The person with the lowest amount of training is only paid what he would need to keep himself alive and “capable” of working. Marx explains “ The price of his labour will, therefore, be determined by the price of the necessary means of subsistence.”
"What takes place in the exchange between capitalist and wage-worker? The worker receives means of subsistence in exchange for his labour, but the capitalist receives in exchange for his means of subsistence labour, the productive activity of the worker, the creative power whereby the worker not only replaces what he consumes but gives to the accumulated labour a greater value than it previously possessed. The worker receives a part of the available means of subsistence from the capitalist. For what purpose do these means of subsistence serve him? For immediate consumption.”
This passage to me seems to be going in circles and is rather long winded to me. What I derived from this however, would be that each party is given something in return. For the capitalist, he receives labor and for the laborer, he receives an income for him and his family to live on, no matter how meager it is. And if the capitalist begins selling more for a higher price, and the capitalist decides to give the laborer a raise, one can guarantee that the laborer will in fact be losing money in the sense that the pay increase is not nearly the increase that the capitalist receives… if that makes any sense at all. An example would be that a capitalist would be making 20% more, but the laborer would only be making 5% more.
Marx loves to explain how capitalists exploit their workers. He also explains that as the division of labor grows, the more application of machinery and division of labor expands. The more the competition for jobs, the more the wages shrink. This is the life of almost every man and woman around the world.
If capital grows rapidly, competition among the workers grows incomparably more rapidly, that is, the means of employment, the means of subsistence, of the working class decrease proportionately so much the more, and, nevertheless, the rapid growth of capital is the most favorable condition for wage labor.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think that for this topic of Wage-Labor and Capital, although slightly confusing and hard to follow, the points that were brought up were well addressed and defined. I think that the first point that was made in that the capitalist and the laborer need each other in order to make a living and survive is basically the model that we, as human beings, follow today.
The idea that, “The price of his labour will, therefore, be determined be the price of the necessary means of substance.” is basically putting your worth as a worker into the hands of the person who is willing to put a price on your time, effort and life. As pointed out already, even though both sides are getting something in return out of it of this relationship, is it really worth what is being exerted by the laborer?
Another thing that was briefly touched on was the fact that there was and still is competition, not just with buyers and sellers, but that fact that the workers themselves are competing with each other in order to get a job in the work place. Moreover with the employers they see this and come to the conclusion that if there is so much want and need for these jobs people will be willing to take a decrease in their wages in order to obtain one.
So basically what I grasped out of this was the relationship that the Capital has with the wage-laborers and the relationship that they need in return. As said in the chapter, “The worker perishes if the capital does not employ them, Capital perishes if it does not exploit labor, and in order to exploit it, they must buy it.” So systematically they need each other for that kind of system to work. This way of life was used and is still being used today, either following the same concepts or having slightly modified ones, pushes capital and wage-labor to new limits. Therefore even though capitalists exploit their workers and that competition is a never ending problem for any part of the wage- labor system from Capitalists, capital, wage laborers, buyers and sellers. There will always be a price for some thing, whether it is a material good or the worker them self.
When reading this chapter, I really thought that I was just reading a regular economics textbook. Now that I can somewhat understand how Marx organizes his arguments, it seems like he is just using a little different language to describe supply and demand. I was quite interested at how Marx contrasted the capitalist and the laborer. He depicted the capitalist and the laborer as in a symbiotic relationship. The laborer provides a service to the capitalist in order to produce a product. In return, the capitalist pays the laborer with wages that were previously earned through the business.
I can really see how Marx is able to explain how the person who is really making the money is the capitalist. He really doesn’t need the worker as a person, but as a necessary part of business. By dictating the workers, the capitalist has all the real power. He can set the wages, hours, and even safety of the work. He has the advantage of always hiring new workers who are desperate and need the work. The harder the laborers work, the more the capitalist can make. Wages can increase for many reasons, but the increase only makes the gap between the two groups wider because that means that the capitalist is making even more money.
I think that Marx’s strongest point in the chapter is that the worker is dependent on the increase of capital made by the business. The more the business makes, he can potentially make more and elevate his status within the company. All the while, the capitalist is making more and more money because his business is expanding and he can afford more of the lower wage workers. This is a vicious cycle.
In my opinion, Marx is just blowing smoke. He complains about how bad capitalism is, and yet, he really does not offer any sound opinions. All he did was argue that it is unfair. It may unfair, but I certainly don’t remember Russia’s or China’s applications of his theory working all that great either. I just think that he can’t accept the fact that what may work for one culture may not work for another.
Post a Comment