this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
533 points (80.5% liked)

Leftism

2115 readers
1 users here now

Our goal is to be the one stop shop for leftism here at lemmy.world! We welcome anyone with beliefs ranging from SocDemocracy to Anarchism to post, discuss, and interact with our community. We are a democratic community, and as such, welcome metaposts that seek to amend the rules through consensus. Post articles, videos, questions, analysis and more. As long as it's leftist, it's welcome here!

Rules:

Posting Expectations:

Sister Communities:

!abolition@slrpnk.net !antiwork@lemmy.world !antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world !breadtube@lemmy.world !climate@slrpnk.net !fuckcars@lemmy.world !iwwunion@lemmy.ml !leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com !leftymusic@lemmy.world !privacy@lemmy.world !socialistra@midwest.social !solarpunk@slrpnk.net Solarpunk memes !therightcantmeme@midwest.social !thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world !vuvuzelaiphone@lemmy.world !workingclasscalendar@lemmy.world !workreform@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theUnlikely@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 year ago (23 children)

Am I having a stroke or does the first sentence make no sense? Shouldn't it be more instead of less? If a company always sells for less than the cost to produce, it'll go out of business rather quickly I'd think. Obviously there are temporary strategies like this that are used to beat competitors, but that's not what this is talking about.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (20 children)

I think you just have it misunderstood. The comic assumes that you are the laborer, not the capitalist. As the image at this part of the infographic shows, from the perspective of the laborer, you are paid $5 for an item that is sold on the market for $50

[–] Robert7301201 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, the image is correct, but I think theUnlikely was refering to the text "Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs."

It's backwards, it should be the value you (the laborer) produce is sold for more than than your labor costs.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ok, yea now I can understand how that sentence could be confusing. It's technically correct, but written kinda backwards as people would normally understand it

[–] jarfil@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No, it's not correct in any way:

"Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs."

  • you produce the value
  • capitalism pays your labor costs for the value
  • capitalism sells the value for... more, never less
[–] theUnlikely@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago

Thanks, I thought I was losing my mind. I spent way too long rereading that sentence and wondering why no one had commented on it yet.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs ==> Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs [the capitalist/employer].

It’s technically correct, but unclear.

[–] theUnlikely@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can you give an example with some numbers? I'm still not seeing it.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Say you produce a $thousand fmv worth of x. Your capitalist employer sells x for $2000. They sold x for less than what they pay you, $500 worth of x.

[–] theUnlikely@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm trying really hard to understand since you seem so sure. But $2000 is more than both $1000 and $500. I'm unable to see how it could be considered less.

[–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not OP but I think what they are saying is: Your labor is effectively worth the end-price of the product, e.g. the $2000 but you are selling your labor for less than that e.g. $500.

It's a very weird phrasing, most people do not look at labor as something being sold (even if it is a good way of thinking about it imo). It could just be that they are trying to wiggle out of a misunderstanding.

[–] fkn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

People don't think of labor as being sold? What are wages then? It's literally the price of your labor?

I've never even considered that people don't think of labor as something being sold.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

ok, can you explain the contradiction? I don't see it, at all.

[–] hikaru755@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If the sentence were correct, your employer would sell whatever you produce for less than what they are paying you for it. E.g. they pay you 20 for one hour of work, in which you produce one product, which they then sell for 15. Obviously they would be making a loss in that situation on every single product sold, so no business would ever do that (except in special cases like loss leaders or limited promotions, of course, but we're talking about the general case here)

[–] jarfil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Just explained it, step by step.

If you still don't see it, then no offense, but we're coming into "what weights more, a pound of rocks or a pound of feathers" territory, which I don't think I can explain through here.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)