Wage Labour

[Giles20]

Alright everyone

I am a new Marxist and have only recently started analysing his theories. However, i still cannot find an answer to this question:- "Do capitalists have the right to pay a worker less than the value he/she creates on the basis that the means of production is privately owned by the capitalists?" For example, a capitalist can argue that the worker is in turn "renting" the means of production, therefore taking a percentage off the value created by the worker.

It would be great if anyone can help me, its been confusing me for weeks.

Cheers

[jesuschristdotcom]

as long as the workers are unorganized, the capitalist class has every right to do what it can get away with.  I know it's not the answer you're looking for, but it's the truth.

[fire_mat99]

Do capitalists have the right to pay a worker less than the value he/she creates on the basis that the means of production is privately owned by the capitalists?"

The capitalists own the means of productions not the workers .The workers are selling labor to put food on the table and roof over them.They work for some one else for % of the wealth he or she makes.

Wage Labour of exploitation is this.

$20 for the running the means of productions
$20 for the workers
$60 to the capitalists .

That is $60 surplus!!

No surplus the capitalists will get the same pay has the worker .Well you sill need surplus for the running the means of productions or investment.That is not where left is talking about but surplus where the capitalists do not get same pay has the worker.

The big exploitation is any thing low pay ,long hours ,no sick days and little to no vacation time and benefits.

[Pie]

"Do capitalists have the right to pay a worker less than the value he/she creates on the basis that the means of production is privately owned by the capitalists?"

Depends- legally a capitalist is allowed to to pay his/her worker almost whatever he/she feels like. However, there is no absolute moral about the capitalist's "right to pay a worker less."

For example, a capitalist can argue that the worker is in turn "renting" the means of production, therefore taking a percentage off the value created by the worker.

A capitalist is not a landlord; this "arguement" is just not applicable which is why one does not hear it. I do not see how a worker has any control over the means of production "renting" or otherwise.

No surplus the capitalists will get the same pay has the worker

No, the capitalist would get nothing. The capitalist must "leech" off the workers i.e. surplus-value. Since the capitalist really plays no role in creating value why sould they receive a worker's wage?

Well you sill need surplus for the running the means of productions or investment

I do not think anything for "running the means of production" is surplus-value.

The big exploitation is any thing low pay ,long hours ,no sick days and little to no vacation time and benefits.

Exploitation is in the surplus-value itself, that is, the worker must not only support his/her life/family/others but also the existence of his/her bosses. Your examples only increase the exploitation i.e. surplus-value relative to value.

I hoped this has at least helped somewhat.

[fire_mat99]

No, the capitalist would get nothing. The capitalist must "leech" off the workers i.e. surplus-value. Since the capitalist really plays no role in creating value why sould they receive a worker's wage?

If any role a capitalist play is paper work but most rich capitalist would have management and administration to do his job for him  of management or administration .

I do not think anything for "running the means of production" is surplus-value

That say GM or Toyota it coast $1,000 a year to operatate and $4,000 go to the workers and $5,000 surplus the capitalist keep to him self !! That is $5,000 surplus not going to the workers.The total of workers pay ,running coast , and surplus  for the capitalist his $10,000.

You cannot pay the workers $10,000 a year has  $1,000  is for running coast and investment.Bu there is a $5,000 surplus the capitalist keep for him self .

You remove the capitalist or he becomes part of the workers getting the same pay to remove the surplus of exploitation.This is why many CEO and capitalist  have millions or billions in their bank but the workers getting $8 a hour!!

Note I use small money has it is easier to understand than using big money of millions or billions .

[InsertNameHere]

I am a new Marxist and have only recently started analysing his theories. However, i still cannot find an answer to this question:- "Do capitalists have the right to pay a worker less than the value he/she creates on the basis that the means of production is privately owned by the capitalists?" For example, a capitalist can argue that the worker is in turn "renting" the means of production, therefore taking a percentage off the value created by the worker.

It would be great if anyone can help me, its been confusing me for weeks.

The Capitalists can do whatever they want. That is why we need to be organized, so we can fight against this. It's the Capitalist way of making profit. They treat us like slaves and then sell the products of our labour for increased prices.

[Fran B.]

"Do capitalists have the right to pay a worker less than the value he/she creates on the basis that the means of production is privately owned by the capitalists?"

According to Marx (see for example chapter 6 in Capital (V1) or Value, price and profit), wages have nothing to do with the value that workers create but with the price of the commodity ´labour power´(capacity to work), or labour in short. Wages are the market price of labour. The price of labour is based on its value (which is not the same as its price). The value of labour in turned is determined by,

"the value of a definite quantity of the means of subsistence. It therefore varies with the value of these means or with the quantity of labour requisite for their production". (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm)

That value would be socially and historically determined, because the minimum living standards socially accepted varies in different countries or in different times.

What capitalists can do then is to pay labour-power (or labour in short) below its market value. Then workers react, as Marx shows in "Value, price and profit" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm).

Regulation (such as minimum wages) can be enacted, but under capitalism it is both the product of class struggle (which can determine minimum living standards) and the market price of labour, as explained above. So, the question of the price and value of labour is more or less the same as the price and value of any other commodity. Labour, however, is a different sort of commodity, not just because it is alive but because it accounts for the production of all value.