What "capitalist exploitation" means

[danielsh]

well the fact that many labor jobs can be automated by robotics, etc, means that the workers are becoming less and less important and management is becoming more and more important.. so i would still stand by my statement that management's work is more important and thus more valuable.

How does management become more important, in this situation? It seems to me as though this scenario, in which robotic labor replaced other types of labor, reduces the need for both labor and management. I think it's important to distinguish between a "manager" and a "thinker"---the purpose of a "manager" would be, by definition, to manage labor. Robotic labor needs precious little management. If you're arguing that thought-based jobs, such as in education or science, would become more common, that's a bit more valid.

Your other arguments regarding how an inventor should be compensated for his work are puzzling. If a man invents---for example---cold fusion, and that technology can benefit all of society, should that not be enough for him? He is guaranteed a certain standard of living, and probably a little bit of extra profit, and from there should the community not be allowed to benefit? If a farmer can use cold fusion to grow more crops, why should he have to pay millions for the technology? It seems entirely unreasonable to say that the man who invents something deserves complete control over his invention, especially when that invention could do good for humanity.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Robotic labor needs precious little management.

not true ...

[Edric O]

Because an inventor is a  plausible job too...  an inventor deserves to make a living....

what if an inventor only knows how to creates things and ideas?... and is no good at physical labor or management?

Then he keeps creating things, and/or improving his old creations, and he gets paid for it. Of course being an inventor is a plausible job. In fact, inventors should be well rewarded for all their useful inventions.

But they should not be given an infinite reward, because that is ridiculously unjust to everyone else (remember, the money for that reward has to come from somewhere).

By your logic we should pay him a small fee and then steal his idea from him and "give it to the people".

No, we should pay him a very LARGE fee and then put his idea to use wherever it is needed. What if human lives are at stake? What if he invents a cure for cancer, for example? It should be "given to the people" and used for the benefit of cancer patients as soon as possible. It should NOT be subject to copyright and only made available to the rich.

Basically you are the same as the big corporations who  actually steal inventor's ideas everyday by paying the poor man 50,000 dollars and then going off and making millions with his idea...

First of all, I want to pay the poor man a whole lot more than 50,000 dollars. Second of all, while corporations use his idea for profit, I want to use his idea for the benefit of all Mankind. There's a difference.

give me a logical reason why someone cant make a living as an inventor/innovator? .... you are blatantly disrespecting an entire profession with your standpoint.

He CAN live as an inventor/innovator. That's my point! But he CAN'T expect to keep receiving money for the rest of his life after coming up with just ONE invention.

If someone comes up with the formula for cold fusion ... he deserves infinite wealth...

Does cold fusion have infinite value? I don't think so. It has a great value (so the inventor should receive a great reward), but not infinite.

In my lab that i work in .... many jobs that would have been there in the 1960's, 70's, and 80's  are all gone because we have machines that perform one or more of the tasks (quite effortlessly and cheaply) that would have been done by a human being.  So the pure "labor" jobs are starting to vanish while the "thinking" jobs are becoming the only ones available to find.

Thinking is also a form of labour. We are not working any less than before. The only thing that is changing is the nature of our work (becoming less physical and more intellectual). If manual workers are replaced by computer programmers who write software for robots, that doesn't involve any actual change in the social and economic relationships of labour.

As for the value of various types of labour, keep in mind that what will happen in the future has nothing to do with the value of labour today. Should blacksmiths have been paid less in the year 1200 because their profession would be gone 800 years later? Of course not.

[Edric O]

And by the way, Gunwounds, you forgot a very important thing: The vast majority of capitalist company owners are NOT inventors or innovators. They start their business not with a new idea, but with a certain sum of money that they use as the initial capital.

Today, most inventors are EMPLOYED by large companies - they are the employees, not the employers.

[emprworm]

Example... in my lab we have a DNA sequencing machine...

invented by Europeans....in the USA.

[nemafakei]

"scientists come to the US to invent things.  There's a reason for that"

Yes, investors.

""Whats yours is mine!"  - a motto of the common, everyday thief.  The motto of communists."

That's one half of what you could call a communist motto... but while a communist will just as often say "what's mine is yours", the thief won't.

"than have no choice but to work for a government gestapo"

Tell me, have you ever read anything about communism written by a communist? On the other hand, do you know what the gestapo was?

Now, let's get something straight about inventions, and indeed all such "intellectual property".

They are completely different to physical property, in that they can effectively be reproduced endlessly with negligible expense, and without loss to the original. Therefore, the notion of 'keeping' intellectual property is completely different to that of physical property. You can keep your invention, but everyone else can have it AS WELL.

Regarding lost expense:

If I write a book and publish it on the internet, I lose nothing.

Under caplitalism, to gain a living as an author, I would write a book, and get an agent (whom I must likely pay in advance), and thereby find a publisher willing to pay me for my book. It may be a brilliant book, but that doesn't guarantee success in this. Likewise, sales are more likely to do well for a good book, but it isn't guaranteed. enjoyment of the books would be limited to who buys the physical things.

Under communism (as I see it, at least), an author (who has demonstrated talent) would be paid to write books, and once written, anyone can enjoy them, and you can use any medium (inernet included) to do it freely, without harming the author, because he's already been and is being paid by the community to write.

[emprworm]

to negate that intellectual property is significant to the inventor (who may spend his entire life researching it) simply because it doesn't manifest itself as a tangible, measurable good, is a slippery slope.  To have the supposition that an individuals intellectual life's work is cumpulsorally the common public property of all society is robbery just as if someone held up a convienience store.

what I create, what I theorize, what I write is MINE.  Not for free distribution unless by my consent or implied consent.  Forcibly taking the life's work of someone and making it available to anyone (against their will) is oppression, no matter what kind of marxist spin you put on it.

i use the literary device "gestapo" to refer to communism because the effect on individuals is similar.

[nemafakei]

"simply because it doesn't manifest itself as a tangible, measurable good, is a slippery slope"

Whither?

"To have the supposition that an individuals intellectual life's work is cumpulsorally the common public property of all society is robbery just as if someone held up a convienience store."

But to have the supposition that you have the right to prevent, say, a cure for cancer or AIDS being used to save millions upon millions of lives simply because it happened to come into your head, or you prompted it (presumably having been by this stage educated and so on by the same community whom you're denying this) is murder just as if you had given them the cancer in the first place. Clearly, not all 'intellectual property'will be on that scale - but nor will every stroke of inspiration be someone's "intellectual life's work".

"what I create, what I theorize, what I write is MINE.  Not for free distribution unless by my consent or implied consent. Forcibly taking the life's work of someone and making it available to anyone (against their will) is oppression, no matter what kind of marxist spin you put on it"

Well, it's unlikely that someone will come round to your house and wrest it from your fingers. And if it's of little significance, and yo owe the state nothing dor it's development (scientific research, etc.) you could class it as personal information (like a diary), so no-one would be able to read it if you felt so strongly about it. But if you expect to charge people to use it, that's inconsiderate, because it's subject to immense corruption. And there's also the problem of parallel invention - if someone independantly comes up with the same idea later, do you have the right to stop them? And if it's not completely independant, what then? And if you tell people about it who might have come up with it themselves, are they prohibited from ever using it?

"i use the literary device "gestapo" to refer to communism because the effect on individuals is similar"

I have never come across gestapo as a literary term. I don't understand how on earth it has anything to do with anything regrding effects on individuals.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"simply because it doesn't manifest itself as a tangible, measurable good, is a slippery slope"

Whither?

"To have the supposition that an individuals intellectual life's work is cumpulsorally the common public property of all society is robbery just as if someone held up a convienience store."

But to have the supposition that you have the right to prevent, say, a cure for cancer or AIDS being used to save millions upon millions of lives simply because it happened to come into your head, or you prompted it (presumably having been by this stage educated and so on by the same community whom you're denying this) is murder just as if you had given them the cancer in the first place. Clearly, not all 'intellectual property'will be on that scale - but nor will every stroke of inspiration be someone's "intellectual life's work".

"what I create, what I theorize, what I write is MINE.

[emprworm]

"is murder just as if you had given them the cancer in the first place. Clearly, not all 'intellectual property'will be on that scale - but nor will every stroke of inspiration be someone's "intellectual life's work".

wow, i'd never think such bad logic from this person.

murder is a crime.

[Edric O]

invented by Europeans....in the USA.  (scientists come to the US to invent things.  There's a reason for that)

Yes. American capitalist exploiters pay them more money than European capitalist exploiters.

there wouldn't be workers in Edric's system anyway.  Who in their right mind would go to school for 8 years devoted to studying  when they could be livin it up with the rest of the worlds derranged mob-youth, going to frat parties and collegiate hemp-smoking orgies and have no worries because the government pays them the same the moment they subsequently decide to work "hard" in their 30's?  The most inventions in the history of humanity occured in the capitalist system.

Caught in the act, Emprworm. This is proof that you reply to a topic without reading through it. In a previous post, I said:

For the same amount of work, two people should be paid the same amount of money.

There are, however, 2 exceptions to this rule:

1. A person should be paid more if he's doing a job that could be hazardous to his health.

2. A person should be paid more if he's doing a job that required a longer period of training/education than another person's job.

So yes, the technician should be paid more than the janitor, but only because he went through a longer period of education than the janitor - not because his work is supposedly "worth" more.

As for the miner and CEO, notice that while the CEO has more education, the miner is risking his health (and maybe even his life). So, in fact, they should be paid about the same.

Also, keep in mind that the justifiable differences in pay (due to education and/or health hazards) are much, MUCH smaller than the immense and unjust differences between rich and poor that we see today.

So please try not to pull so many strawmen in the future.

The most inventions in the history of humanity occured in the capitalist system.

Yes, and Karl Marx explains the reason for that in the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto. But you haven't read it, have you?

making you a thief.  Those of us who invent, from our own minds and own creative processes and want to KEEP our inventions only to have your marxist regime steal it by force and replicate it with your government workers, make you no different than the common, everyday thief.  If I invent, I want to keep it.  It should be mine, not yours.

See, the thing about inventions is that you can KEEP them and give them to others at the same time. You don't LOSE anything when other people use your invention. No one can "steal" your idea, because the idea remains intact in your mind, just as it was before.

"Theft" is when you deprive someone of something. No one can deprive you of your ideas. You still have them and you can still use them, even if other people use them as well. They can be yours and mine at the same time.

So what you are saying, in fact, is not that you want to "keep" your ideas - since you would still keep them no matter if other people also use them - but that you want to prevent others from using your ideas. Even though it would cost you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to allow those other people to use them. You are showing the ultimate form of selfishness: refusing to help others even when it wouldn't cost you anything to do so.

"Whats yours is mine!" - a motto of the common, everyday thief.  The motto of communists.

Our motto is: "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need". If what's yours is mine, then what's mine is yours.

Theft depends on the existence of private property. In order to take something from you and make it MINE, I need private property (otherwise nothing is "mine"). Communists wish to abolish private property, thereby sharing all goods and commodities.

Besides, the everyday thief doesn't use his stolen goods to feed starving children and help all Mankind.

so what?  I never heard of a person here where I live working for a company that didn't freely apply to that position (meaning the person chose to work their).  Many people work for companies.  And get paid well. And are HAPPY!

Have you read anything at all of what I posted in this topic? Like, for example, my first post?

Of course people who work for companies freely apply for their position. They are free to choose their own master. But since all possible masters exploit them (to varying degrees), this "free choice" is nothing more than a cruel joke. It's like giving a slave the choice of which master to serve.

Many workers are happy, of course. Many slaves were also happy. But that doesn't justify slavery, and it doesn't justify capitalist exploitation either.

Better to choose which company to work for, than have no choice but to work for a government gestapo.

People don't work for the government in socialism and communism. They work for themselves. The means of production are their common property.

The government's role in socialism is to be the tool of the people, and to act as a co-ordinator. In communism, the government is no longer necessary.

You see, unlike a communist, I am not bothered by the thought that someone else has more than I do.

Just goes to show your idiocy and ignorance about communists and what we want.

Do you think we care about people who have more than others, or more than us? Is that really what your bigoted and twisted mind wishes to think, despite all I've tried to explain to you? Communists care about the people who have less than others - the people who have less than us. We see poverty and misery, we see how capitalism creates it, and we choose to do something about it. We see injustice and oppression, and we wow to fight it with all our dedication and all our strength.

We look beyond your simplistic concepts of "haves" and "have-nots" and see how people got to be in those positions. The problem with capitalism is not that some people have too much; the problem is that most people have too little, and the rich accumulated their wealth by exploiting the work of others.

[Edric O]

Also, Emprworm, I must draw your attention to the extremely flawed logic you use against Nema. He was talking about an idea, an immaterial "posession" that can be shared with others AT NO COST TO YOURSELF. He said that if your invent a cure for cancer and refuse to make your idea freely available in order to save millions of lives, then you can be called a murderer.

That is very different from making your material posessions (such as money) available to others. So your "similar logic" is not actually similar at all.

What is the difference between ideas and money? When you give money, you lose that money. But when you share your ideas, you don't lose anything.

[nemafakei]

"So are you calling modern day pharmaceutical companies murderers?"

Well, the expense of developing such medicines should be funded by the state or preferably by everyone through contributions to the WHO. Withholding the releavant formulae or demanding exorbitant amounts for it would indeed be effectively criminal - existing intellectual property can be reproduced without cost. Hence, to withhold that information when it could be distributed without expense is avaricious and indirectly kills.

BUT...

"as a matter of fact any drug that we have nowadays that fights any serious disease is extremly expensive... "

The expense of production is another matter, because that involves physical things with a physical cost required every time the drug is used. So if a company is charging for the production costs, that's not wrong (though it isn't to say there shouldn't be some kind of Health Service to guarantee such treatment, but that's another matter).

Emprworm, in response to alomst all of your post, Edric's explanation pretty much covers it, as might my previous illustrations in a previous post "You can keep your invention, but everyone else can have it AS WELL" and following.

I now see what you're using the word gestapo for (the word isn't a device, it's use is, though that's sidenote), but it seems obscurely crass to say that everyone must work for a gestapo: "Better to choose which company to work for, than have no choice but to work for a government gestapo". I don't see how or why any society, no matter how dystopic, would choose not to employ anyone to make food or produce anything, and only employ people to spy on each other.

[Edric O]

As I pointed out, people don't "work for the government" in socialism and communism. They work for themselves. The means of production are their common property.

The government's role in socialism is to be the tool of the people, and to act as a co-ordinator. In communism, the government is no longer necessary.

Of course, there will be government officials in socialism, just like there are government officials today. And these people will indeed be "working for the government", obviously. But they will be the ONLY ones who will be "working for the government", and there won't be any more of them than there are today.