labor struggles

I posted this one as part of that last set, but I think it needs to be seen on its own to be truly appreciated. This is probably the most succinct explanation I’ve ever seen of how private property ownership creates an imbalance of power that makes wage labor an inherently non-voluntary transaction. When the means of production necessary for meeting human needs are under the exclusive control of one class of people they are able to use that advantage to exploit others.

If the person on the left perhaps had a means to fish, such as a net or harpoon, then the exchange might be considered voluntary. As it stands, though, the person who is claiming ownership of the tree has control over the sole source of readily obtained food. The threat of starvation (or violence by the tree’s owner) is a coercive factor that so many capitalists deliberately ignore when they claim that wage labor is a voluntary transaction.

3

May 11 2017 - Workers at a car component factory in central France have occupied the plant and are threatening to blow it up in a radical protest against their bosses as the site risks closure.

The workers at the GM&S auto-suppliers plant in the Creuse region, north of Limoges, have told Renault and Peugeot they are ready to blow up the factory if their demands are not met.

Some 280 jobs at the site are under threat after the plant went into receivership back in December, and workers accuse the two car giants of blocking negotiations for a takeover of the factory and of making too few orders.

The protesters have already started destroying machinery at the site. Photos released on social media on Thursday, show them cutting a machine in half with a blowtorch. CGT trade union representatives say the workers will destroy a machine each day unless their demands are met. [video]/[video]

Jus sayin, maybe worshipping rich people for giving back money they structurally stole or passed between each other is bullshit.

“The laws of capitalism, blind and invisible to the majority, act upon the individual without his thinking about it. He sees only the vastness of a seemingly infinite horizon before him. That is how it is painted by capitalist propagandists, who purport to draw a lesson from the example of Rockefeller — whether or not it is true — about the possibilities of success. The amount of poverty and suffering required for the emergence of a Rockefeller, and the amount of depravity that the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude entails, are left out of the picture.”

Ernesto Che Guevara 

mattykinsel  asked:

How do you know the surplus theory of value is real? Like.. you know? And what about situations where you lend a hand for a neighbour and they give you cash for helping idk, clean their garage or something with them. Is that an appropriation of surplus value - how so? Thanks so much!

I’m not sure what you mean by the first part. We live in a class system where the owning class gets to handle the material surplus (generated by the working class) by virtue of their ownership over society’s productive gears; it’s an objective fact that class stratification is real, and class stratification is materially realized in the exploitation of labor and the appropriation of the surplus. 

As for the second part, the communist goal is to make money and market transactions obsolete, not to send some bureaucratic committee around constantly blocking them when they do show up. Like, we don’t concern ourselves with some feudal baron coming into our towns and forcing us into serfdom because we have advanced beyond feudalism, and to suggest that we arrange ourselves in that way is just, well, silly – no one would take you seriously. Modes of production change according to material factors, which in turn influence social factors, which in turn acclimate people to different ways of living, and so on and so forth. Once socialism/communism firmly cements itself, the idea of subjecting everything to hierarchical market transactions and private property rights will seem absolutely ridiculous. Common ownership over the common inheritance will just be taken for granted. 

There’s this persistent argument coming from ancaps and right-wing libertarian types: “If someone wants to sell their labor to me in exchange for a wage, who are you to stop me??” This overlooks the fact that pretty much everyone does not willingly submit to wage labor if they have, ya know, literally any other viable option. If your needs can be more readily provided for through democratic production, in a scenario where you actually get a say in the work you do, why would you “voluntarily” choose to work beneath someone else who takes the bulk of the final product? To reiterate the above point, imagine some feudal landlord asking a bourgeois revolutionary in 1730, “if the peasant prefers to be tied to my land and prefers to pledge loyalty to me, who are you to stop me??” In the end, the bourgeoisie gained power and used enclosures and state violence to drive those peasants into cities to become industrial proletariat, forcing them to adjust to a new system of production. Class stratification isn’t voluntary. 

That tangent aside, it’s about transforming the material realities of society by harnessing power and technology for democratic/grassroots ends, not about dogmatically trying to institute the changes from above. Hopefully I was clear in my explanation, and thanks for the question!

-Daividh

Too Much [m]

Genre: Smut/Fluff ⚠️ (slight dom!Yoongi, unprotected sex) 

Pairing: Yoongi x Reader

Word Count: 2239 

Summary: Laundry sucks. Sex doesn’t suck.

A/N: I discovered my extreme thirst for Yoongi while writing this… 


Keep reading