This seems to me to be simple. If the worker doesn't do what the capitalist instructs him/her to do, the capitalist fires the worker (and directly or indirectly black-lists him/her so the worker has difficulty finding alternative work). If you have had any experience in the workplace industrial relations, you will know that refusing instructions (insubordination) from the boss is one of the most egregious of workplace offenses that results in immediate dismissal without compensation. I have been an arbitration chair of hundreds of cases and insubordination is one offense that even the most sympathetic chair can not overturn or it will be reversed on appeal to the courts.
Paul P Walt Byars wrote:
Okay, I think I am now able to state more clearly the problem which has been bugging me. A contract between capitalist and worker exchanges labor power for money. The worker gives the capitalist control of his labor power, the capitalist gives him money. But isn't saying "the worker gives the capitalist control of his labor power" the same as saying "the worker performs the specific acts of labor the capitalist desires." So, could you say "the capitalist gives the worker money in exchange for the worker performing the specific acts of labor that the capitalist desires" Of course, this seems wrong ecause apparently LP is still sold even when workers resist capital on the shop floor and don't do the specific acts of labor the capitalist desires. So, in light of this could someone please explain precisely how we know that labor power, rather than labor, is what is sold (at least in most situations). This has *really* been bothering me the past couple weeks or so.
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/389 - Release Date: 7/14/06
