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"
It's wrong to say "the worker gives the capitalist control of his
labor power." Rather, selling one's labor-power to a capitalist means
being willing to submit to the _authority_ of the boss for a specific
time-period.
Whether or not one actually "perform[s] the specific acts of labor
that the capitalist desires" depends on the technical and political
processes involved in production. As the planning literature says, the
planner (here, the capitalist boss) must have enough information about
what the worker does (and doesn't do) and the results of those
actions, while worker motivation must be provided. As in politics,
authority must be legitimated.
Further, sections of the work-force often find that they have
collective goods that conflict with those of the boss. For example,
under piece rates, the actual amount paid per piece is not set exactly
by the contract. The workers have a collective good of raising that
rate, while the boss wants to lower the amount paid per piece. This is
why bosses encourage "rate-breakers" (free-riders on the workers'
collective good) while employees sneer at them.
Next, supervisors, managers, and staff employees, who have some power
in the hierarchy, often try to carve little empires for themselves,
insulating themselves from top management by hogging secret info, etc.
They have to be dealt with in some way.
--
Jim Devine / "Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?"
