RE: Taking Stock of Wealth

"I shall therefore confine myself here to the statement that property owners and capitalists, inasmuch as they live not by their own productive labor but by getting land rent, house rent, interest upon their capital, or by speculation on land, buildings, and capital, or by the commercial and industrial exploitation of the manual labor of the proletariat, all live at the expense of the proletariat."

Ok that seems true.

"Under such conditions, are fraternity and equality possible between the exploiter and the exploited, are justice and freedom possible for the exploited?"

If everyone sees the role they play and the cause of those conditions perhaps. A worker given the opportunity to work. A capitalist with an opportunity to create a business and hire labour.

"If I offer my labor at the lowest price, if I consent to have you live off my labor, it is certainly not because of devotion or brotherly love for you. And no bourgeois economist would dare to say that it was, however idyllic and naive their reasoning becomes when they begin to speak about reciprocal affections and mutual relations which should exist between employers and employees."

Ok so there is no love in it,

"Had there been equality between those who offer their labor and those who purchase it, between the necessity of selling one’s labor and the necessity of buying it, the slavery and misery of the proletariat would not exist. But then there would be neither capitalists, nor property owners, nor the proletariat, nor rich, nor poor: there would only be workers. It is precisely because such equality does not exist that we have and are bound to have exploiters."

The misery of the proletariat, fascinating phrase.

"This equality does not exist because in modern society where wealth is produced by the intervention of capital paying wages to labor, the growth of the population outstrips the growth of production, which results in the supply of labor necessarily surpassing the demand and leading to a relative sinking of the level of wages."

Minimum wage sucks, it is true.

"..this growing mass of the proletariat is placed in a condition wherein the workers are forced into disastrous competition against one another."

Yes competition. The workers compete with other workers, but today the poor are getting richer faster than at any time in history. I understand in the past it was not so, and perhaps in many places it is still like this.

"For since they possess no other means of existence but their own manual labor, they are driven, by the fear of seeing themselves replaced by others, to sell it at the lowest price. This tendency of the workers, or rather the necessity to which they are condemned by their own poverty, combined with the tendency of the employers to sell the products of their workers, and consequently buy their labor, at the lowest price, constantly reproduces and consolidates the poverty of the proletariat. Since he finds himself in a state of poverty, the worker is compelled to sell his labor for almost nothing, and because he sells that product for almost nothing, he sinks into ever greater poverty."

I am not sure I understand this part. The worker sells his wages for next to nothing (say minimum wage) but then has to sell the products also for nothing, but presumably something, so they get poorer?

"Yes, greater misery, indeed! For in this galley-slave labor the productive force of the workers, abused, ruthlessly exploited, excessively wasted and underfed, is rapidly used up. And once used up, what can be its value on the market, of what worth is this sole commodity which he possesses and upon the daily sale of which he depends for a livelihood? Nothing! And then? Then nothing is left for the worker but to die."

Bleak, but in the old arm-grinding mills this perhaps was true, when you were forced to work for one employer who wouldn't offer you any compensation for your arm getting broken even if you were trying to save the machine. And colleagues who would not defend you against the corporation, who had a responsibility to pay their shareholders profits that might be lost to accident claims.

"“The simple worker who owns nothing more than his hands, has nothing else to sell than his labor. He sells it more or less expensively; but its price whether high or low, does not depend on him alone: it depends on an agreement with whoever will pay for his labor. The employer pays as little as possible; when given the choice between a great number of workers, the employer prefers the one who works cheap. The workers are, then, forced to lower their price in competition each against the other. In all types of labor, it necessarily follows that the salary of the worker is limited to what is necessary for survival.” (Reflexions sur la formation et la distribution des richesses)"

What if the employer prefers the worker who is most efficient? Rather than cheapest?

"“Wages are much higher when more demand exists for labor and less if offered, and are lowered accordingly when more labor is offered and less demanded. It is the relation between supply and demand which regulates the price of this merchandise called the workers’ labor, as are regulated all other public services. When wages rise a little higher than the price necessary for the workers’ families to maintain themselves, their children multiply and a larger supply soon develops in proportion with the greater demand. When, on the contrary, the demand for workers is less than the quantity of people offering to work, their gains decline back to the price necessary for the class to maintain itself at the same number. The families more burdened with children disappear; from them forward the supply of labor declines, and with less labor being offered, the price rises... In such a way it is difficult for the wages of the laborer to rise above or fall below the price necessary to maintain the class (the workers, the proletariat) in the number required.” (Cours complet d’ economie politique)"

Ok so I get what this is saying. Pay workers too much and they can have families and that creates too much future labour, but pay them too little and they die, decreasing the future labour supply. Makes sense, i've never been able to earn enough to justify having a family. Therefore I am not producing any 'excess forward labour supply'.

"The price.." "..in its variations.." "..has the necessary effect not to give to wages to the worker more than enough to barely prevent death by starvation, and maintain the class in the numbers needed.”"

Interesting, the levers of capital and labour being reasoned here. I don't argue, I am just trying to interpret this work.

"What the economists call equalized supply and demand does not constitute real equality between those who offer their labor for sale and those who purchase it. Suppose that I, a manufacturer, need a hundred workers and that exactly a hundred workers present themselves in the market — only one hundred, for if more came, the supply would exceed demand, resulting in lowered wages. But since only one hundred appear, and since I, the manufacturer, need only that number — neither more nor less — it would seem at first that complete equality was established; that supply and demand being equal in number, they should likewise be equal in other respects. Does it follow that the workers can demand from me a wage and conditions of work assuring them of a truly free, dignified, and human existence? Not at all!"

Ahh the struggle for workers rights, and equitable reward for their labour.

"why should I have to plague myself and become ruined by offering them the profits of my capital?"

Interesting perspective, perhaps modern entrepreneurs have rosy colored glasses on.

"The capitalists are by no means philanthropists; they would be ruined if they practiced philanthropy."

I suppose the Capitalist is not the same character of the Salesman, who works and earns his fortune through dilligent efforts. The capitalist is more like a mean Ebinezer Scrooge, working through Christmas and declining to pay his employees bonuses until the three haunting spirits of christmas past present and future torment his soul.

"Of course I shall work too, but my work will be of an altogether different kind and I will be remunerated at a much higher rate than the workers. It will not be the work of production but that of administration and exploitation. But isn’t administrative work also productive work? No doubt it is, for lacking a good and an intelligent administration, manual labor will not produce anything or it will produce very little and very badly."

So herein lies the motives;

"The co-operative associations already have proven that workers are quite capable of administering industrial enterprises, that it can be done by workers elected from their midst and who receive the same wage. Therefore if I concentrate in my hands the administrative power, it is not because the interests of production demand it, but in order to serve my own ends, the ends of exploitation."

So therefore if the organization is a co-op and the profits are sent as dividends to the shareholding workers, that is not exploitive, but if done as a Capitalist owning business where the Capitalist runs the business for his own profit, then it is inherently exploitation. Because his administration work is exploitation? Sounds like communist propaganda haha 😛 but I follow.

"As the absolute boss of my establishment I get for my labor ten or twenty times more than my workers get for theirs, and this is true despite the fact that my labor is incomparably less painful than theirs."

Ok so being the boss is less painful than being a labourer, perhaps, but there is more responsibility for sure. Especially today with all the labour-won rights and regulations and rules that must be followed to legally run a business. The world in which this was written was certainly more exploitive than the one we are in today, but I do understand the parable of examples describing these conditions.

"But the capitalist, the business owner, runs risks, they say, while the worker risks nothing. This is not true, because when seen from his side, all the disadvantages are on the part of the worker. The business owner can conduct his affairs poorly, he can be wiped out in a bad deal, or be a victim of a commercial crisis, or by an unforeseen catastrophe; in a word he can ruin himself. This is true. But does ruin mean from the bourgeois point of view to be reduced to the same level of misery as those who die of hunger, or to be forced among the ranks of the common laborers?"

There it follows, precisely.

"The risks of the worker are infinitely greater. After all, if the establishment in which he is employed goes bankrupt, he must go several days and sometimes several weeks without work, and for him it is more than ruin, it is death; because he eats everyday what he earns."

There are social supports now for people, in many places it is more profitable to be unemployed today than to risk and toil for wages. In the past there was infinitely more risk, and difficulty starting a small business too. Although I don't deny that losing your job can destroy the life you have built up, I do not protest.

"If it happens sometimes that the worker makes a small savings, it is quickly consumed by the inevitable periods of unemployment which often cruelly interrupt his work, as well as by the unforeseen accidents and illnesses which befall his family."

True true.

" I want to live, to inhabit a beautiful house, to eat and drink well, to ride in a carriage, to maintain a good appearance, in short, to have all the good things in life. I also want to give a good education to my children, to make them into gentlemen.."

Who doesnt?

"How will I achieve this goal? Armed with this capital I propose to exploit you, and I propose that you permit me to exploit you. You will work and I will collect and appropriate and sell for my own behalf the product of your labor, without giving you more than a portion which is absolutely necessary to keep you from dying of hunger today, so that at the end of tomorrow you will still work for me in the same conditions; and when you have been exhausted, I will throw you out, and replace you with others."

Hey man I didn't invent this system. I wanted to build a theatre where people could come and do passionately what skills they wanted to demonstrate, but apparently people don't believe in such idealism, and fewer might pay for the spectacle.

" I will pay you a salary as small, and impose on you a working day as long, working conditions as severe, as despotic, as harsh as possible; not from wickedness — not from a motive of hatred towards you, nor an intent to do you harm — but from the love of wealth and to get rich quick; because the less I pay you and the more you work, the more I will gain.”"

This Capitalist is cruel, I would prefer in my fantasy world to pay high wages to my employees, as much as they wanted to earn. I suppose the laws of the jungle don't work that way.

"This is what is said implicitly by every capitalist, every industrialist, every business owner, every employer who demands the labor power of the workers they hire."

Perhaps, perhaps. Maybe we can do better, or maybe these laws and levers say otherwise.

" What is it that brings the capitalist to the market? It is the urge to get rich, to increase his capital, to gratify his ambitions and social vanities, to be able to indulge in all conceivable pleasures."

Now I feel bad about my blog here, talking about how I am saving money trying to build up wealth. Is it exploitation to invest the wages I earn? Is it inherently wrong to accumulate capital, and earn interest?

"what brings the worker to the market? Hunger, the necessity of eating today and tomorrow. Thus, while being equal from the point of juridical fiction, the capitalist and the worker are anything but equal from the point of view of the economic situation, which is the real situation."

Is it not better to have a little capital than to starve? I am empathetic, as a worker myself, recognizing the absurdity of my ongoing toil and trying to lift myself up to a middle class?

"The capitalist then comes to the market in the capacity, if not of an absolutely free agent, at least that of an infinitely freer agent than the worker. What happens in the market is a meeting between a drive for lucre and starvation, between master and slave. Juridically they are both equal; but economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist,"

I see I see, and I also recognize that I am far from being in a position of the wealthy Capitalist who can sit back and relax, choosing to employ or not employ, to invest and labour instead, but I am attempting the latter. To "buy stocks and annuities; and if the interest and dividends seem insufficient, then he will engage in some occupation, or shall we say, sell his labor for a time,"

"what merchandise has he sold to his employer? It is his labor, his personal services, the productive forces of his body, mind, and spirit that are found in him and are inseparable from his person — it is therefore himself. From then on, the employer will watch over him, either directly or by means of overseers; everyday during working hours and under controlled conditions, the employer will be the owner of his actions and movements. When he is told: “Do this,” the worker is obligated to do it; or he is told: “Go there,” he must go. Is this not what is called a serf?"

Yeah this is how it feels to be an employee.

"Karl Marx, the illustrious leader of German Communism, justly observed in his magnificent work"

I re-listened to Jordan Peterson's refutation of Karl Marx's theories the day before last, while I was travelling. He argues that Marx was wrong, but we can leave that discussion for another day.

"if the contract freely entered into by the vendors of money — in the form of wages — and the vendors of their own labor — that is, between the employer and the workers — were concluded not for a definite and limited term only, but for one’s whole life, it would constitute real slavery."

Today there are often other opportunities for employment one can seek, even if not the preferred type.

"The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? And if he does quit him, is it in order to lead a free existence, in which he will have no master but himself? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same hunger which forced him to sell himself to the first employer."

Maybe hunger is the real enemy. If we could solve world hunger, that might go a long way to relieving the proletariot of the suffering. Is that not the role of 'fast food' in modern times?

" Thus the worker’s liberty, so much exalted by the economists, jurists, and bourgeois republicans, is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realization, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom — voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory in the economic sense — broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery."

Hey man I didn't come up with this system, I came to this planet for the tasty food like everyone else. They didn't say 'you have to be a slave', and isn't the real slavery to our impulses and desires? Isn't that why nobody ever leaves, and we keep reincarnating again and again? Sorry I am straying from the topic into the woowoo realm.

"there is an understanding among all employers, and all of them resemble one another. All are almost equally irritating, unjust, and harsh. Is this calumny? No, it is in the nature of things, and in the logical necessity of the relationship existing between the employers and their workers."

Fascinating read. I understand, although I would argue like a prisoner against the merits of them prison. Thank you for sharing, it does refresh my perspective a bit to read this essay. Hmmm... So the system is all exploitation or starvation. And both the Capitalist and the Worker need one another, but the Capitalist is better off though morally inferior. They can invest instead of employ, and may even in bankruptcy be better off than the worker. Well, the clever worker can invest a percent of their wages and hopefully one day become the capitalist, but will then do the exploiting. Is there no better way?

Thanks for the recommendation, as a philosopher I will ponder and deliberate this for a while, as I sell my time and labour today for the wages I am lucky to earn.

"Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, by Karl Marx; Erster Band. This work will need to be translated into French, because nothing, that I know of, contains an analysis so profound, so luminous, so scientific, so decisive, and if I can express it thus, so merciless an expose of the formation of bourgeois capital and the systematic and cruel exploitation that capital continues exercising over the work of the proletariat. The only defect of this work... positivist in direction, based on a profound study of economic works, without admitting any logic other than the logic of the facts — the only defect, say, is that it has been written, in part, but only in part, in a style excessively metaphysical and abstract... which makes it difficult to explain and nearly unapproachable for the majority of workers, and it is principally the workers who must read it nevertheless. The bourgeois will never read it or, if they read it, they will never want to comprehend it, and if they comprehend it they will never say anything about it; this work being nothing other than a sentence of death, scientifically motivated and irrevocably pronounced, not against them as individuals, but against their class. (Bakunin)"

Am I communist now? LOL what is the nature of this text? I still think it is better to be the capitalist than the poverty stricken labourer. I work too hard to stay in one place, such as ruin.

=======

I asked Claude, while I wait for your reply, ' what is the logical 'solution' to these theories' in not so few words. The reply,

P: 'The logical “solution”
There’s no perfect answer, but the most defensible position is:
Capitalism isn’t inherently evil, but it can exploit without safeguards. The solution is not to destroy it, but to constrain and humanize it through democratic institutions, worker power, and social welfare.
This avoids both the utopianism of full socialism and the cruelty of naked capitalism. It acknowledges that:
-Workers are better off than in the past
-But structural inequalities still exist
-Capitalists aren’t automatically evil, but the system can incentivize exploitation
-Local economies have value but can’t replace global complexity
The “final revolution” may not be global socialism or cottage society, but continuous reform—making capitalism work for more people while preserving innovation and freedom.'*P

Maybe Love is the answer after all, seeing the best in eachother, instead of devolving into exploiter and exploited. If you are an employer, try to meet the needs of your workers. If you are a worker, try to give your best efforts for your boss. Perhaps we can find happiness and fulfillment somewhere in the middle?