BACKBENCHER
Rod P. Kapunan
1/12/2013
It was David Ricardo who first dissected the concept of wage in relation to labor and commodity. He advanced the economic formula that, "If the quantity of labor realized in commodities regulate their exchangeable value, every increase in the quantity of labor must augment the value of that commodity on which it exercised as every diminution must lower it."
The problem with that formula, as rightly observed by Karl Marx, is that commodity, when sold in the market, was wholly left to the discretion of the producers and/or sellers where labor was undoubtedly added to enhance its value. That was made inseparable to the sanctification of property rights led by John Stuart Mills. That "epochal recognition", as Marx called it, marked the beginning of the exploitative wage system that created a wedge between the owners of the commodity, the value of which was enhanced by the workers who could only sell their labor for value.
The excess value for which the commodity was sold, in the words of Marx, was "pocketed by the capitalists." They had no remorse for that practice because they rightly accepted profit as belonging to them by virtue of their property ownership. However, instead of referring to it as profit, Marx opted to call it "surplus value" because the value for which the commodity was sold in relation to the amount of labor spent far exceeded the amount for which the workers were paid. It was on that huge disparity that compelled him to urge for the abolition of the wage system. He made that clear in his immortal work, The Communist Manifesto.
Unfortunately, many ideologues are ignorant about that stand of Marx. On the contrary, present day communists and progressives are the ones defending the mechanism that made possible the exploitation of the workers. As some political and economic analysts would put it, the unity between the progressive Left and the neoliberals on the issue of wage has become repugnant, with the Left committing sacrilege to Marxism.
To begin with, the system of wage is a euphemistic term for the system of regulated wage. It has no other purpose except to peg the cost of labor to a miserable level. Although property ownership legalized the pocketing of the surplus value, it was wage that institutionalized the pegging in the cost of labor bare human existence.
As historically traced by Marx, wage was first observed by the craftsmen and artisans during the feudal era. Being few and valued for their craftsmanship, they formed their own guilds, specific to every type of industry, to maintain the cost of their labor. The advent of the Industrial Revolution saw the capitalists replacing them with their machines for mass production. As plain workers, they were detached from the commodity for which they work, and invariably in valuing the cost of their labor. It was in that relationship that the concept of wage was formalized.
Thus, from pre-capitalism to the early stage of capitalism, the costing of labor was wholly a private affair between the workers and the owners of the industry. It was a lopsided relationship much that it was the owner or the capitalist that dictated the cost of labor. The surplus of unemployed under that system of laissez faire gave life to profit borne out of scarcity. The small amount of fixed wage given to the workers, as observed by Marx, was a substitute to their emancipation from slavery as when the blacks were freed during the American Civil War.
The master was not obligated to pay his slaves the wage they need, but must provide them the most basic needs—in food, clothing and shelter. The wage system as substitute to their freedom did nothing to alleviate them of poverty. Rather, their condition worsened, for it turned out the pillars for human survival given by the slave-owners, at times including medication, were much greater than the pittance wage they received.
The clamor for higher wages plus the specter of communist revolution carried in the name of the workers forced the government to nationalize the system of wage, meaning that the determination of the amount of wage could no longer be left in the hands of the private employers. The State has to intervene by imposing the landmark "minimum wage law", and other labor laws pertaining to overtime, holiday pay, etc. that made significant adjustments on the cost of wage. The State made uniform the increase in the amount of wage by virtue of an edict.
But through the years, as inflation continues to erode the value of their earnings, viz., the reduction in their purchasing power, the system of regulated wage was no longer working in their favor. The nationalization of the wage system thought by many would work for their welfare is now the same instrument used by the capitalists to push back the cost of wage to a bare subsistence level. This is amplified today by the rampant practice of labor-only contracting or "contractualization". Others call it the revival of a new shade of slavery.
It is on this score any attempt to justify the wage system is to openly admit ignorance of what Marx advocated more than 150 years ago. The system of regulated wage only worsened the problem of unemployment. Maybe the transfer of the wage system from a private to a public concern is no different from the clamor to nationalize the industries that made the State the sole employer. That supposition did not solve the problem because the State as the sole employer failed to deliver what the wage earners thought as their liberation from the yoke of capitalist exploitation.
As it turned out, the State was perceived as the exploiter of its own people because it promised many things only heaven could provide. This now explains why many socialist states collapsed, not because they failed, but because they carried on the role of the private employers in pegging the cost of wage.
(rpkapunan@gmail.com)
The problem with that formula, as rightly observed by Karl Marx, is that commodity, when sold in the market, was wholly left to the discretion of the producers and/or sellers where labor was undoubtedly added to enhance its value. That was made inseparable to the sanctification of property rights led by John Stuart Mills. That "epochal recognition", as Marx called it, marked the beginning of the exploitative wage system that created a wedge between the owners of the commodity, the value of which was enhanced by the workers who could only sell their labor for value.
The excess value for which the commodity was sold, in the words of Marx, was "pocketed by the capitalists." They had no remorse for that practice because they rightly accepted profit as belonging to them by virtue of their property ownership. However, instead of referring to it as profit, Marx opted to call it "surplus value" because the value for which the commodity was sold in relation to the amount of labor spent far exceeded the amount for which the workers were paid. It was on that huge disparity that compelled him to urge for the abolition of the wage system. He made that clear in his immortal work, The Communist Manifesto.
Unfortunately, many ideologues are ignorant about that stand of Marx. On the contrary, present day communists and progressives are the ones defending the mechanism that made possible the exploitation of the workers. As some political and economic analysts would put it, the unity between the progressive Left and the neoliberals on the issue of wage has become repugnant, with the Left committing sacrilege to Marxism.
To begin with, the system of wage is a euphemistic term for the system of regulated wage. It has no other purpose except to peg the cost of labor to a miserable level. Although property ownership legalized the pocketing of the surplus value, it was wage that institutionalized the pegging in the cost of labor bare human existence.
As historically traced by Marx, wage was first observed by the craftsmen and artisans during the feudal era. Being few and valued for their craftsmanship, they formed their own guilds, specific to every type of industry, to maintain the cost of their labor. The advent of the Industrial Revolution saw the capitalists replacing them with their machines for mass production. As plain workers, they were detached from the commodity for which they work, and invariably in valuing the cost of their labor. It was in that relationship that the concept of wage was formalized.
Thus, from pre-capitalism to the early stage of capitalism, the costing of labor was wholly a private affair between the workers and the owners of the industry. It was a lopsided relationship much that it was the owner or the capitalist that dictated the cost of labor. The surplus of unemployed under that system of laissez faire gave life to profit borne out of scarcity. The small amount of fixed wage given to the workers, as observed by Marx, was a substitute to their emancipation from slavery as when the blacks were freed during the American Civil War.
The master was not obligated to pay his slaves the wage they need, but must provide them the most basic needs—in food, clothing and shelter. The wage system as substitute to their freedom did nothing to alleviate them of poverty. Rather, their condition worsened, for it turned out the pillars for human survival given by the slave-owners, at times including medication, were much greater than the pittance wage they received.
The clamor for higher wages plus the specter of communist revolution carried in the name of the workers forced the government to nationalize the system of wage, meaning that the determination of the amount of wage could no longer be left in the hands of the private employers. The State has to intervene by imposing the landmark "minimum wage law", and other labor laws pertaining to overtime, holiday pay, etc. that made significant adjustments on the cost of wage. The State made uniform the increase in the amount of wage by virtue of an edict.
But through the years, as inflation continues to erode the value of their earnings, viz., the reduction in their purchasing power, the system of regulated wage was no longer working in their favor. The nationalization of the wage system thought by many would work for their welfare is now the same instrument used by the capitalists to push back the cost of wage to a bare subsistence level. This is amplified today by the rampant practice of labor-only contracting or "contractualization". Others call it the revival of a new shade of slavery.
It is on this score any attempt to justify the wage system is to openly admit ignorance of what Marx advocated more than 150 years ago. The system of regulated wage only worsened the problem of unemployment. Maybe the transfer of the wage system from a private to a public concern is no different from the clamor to nationalize the industries that made the State the sole employer. That supposition did not solve the problem because the State as the sole employer failed to deliver what the wage earners thought as their liberation from the yoke of capitalist exploitation.
As it turned out, the State was perceived as the exploiter of its own people because it promised many things only heaven could provide. This now explains why many socialist states collapsed, not because they failed, but because they carried on the role of the private employers in pegging the cost of wage.
(rpkapunan@gmail.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment
REMINDERS:
- Spamming is STRICTLY PROHIBITED
- Any other concerns other than the related article should be sent to generalkuno@gmail.com. Your privacy is guaranteed 100%.