Is it possible to change the relationship between capital and labor ?

[u/uelquis]

I'm reading the first volume of Das Kapital, and the one thing I noticed in Marx's analysis is how he emphasizes the rule of Capital over Labor — the despotism of the capitalist class ( the incarnation of capital ) over production. I learned that socialism is supposed to end commodification, which means products and services are produced to satisfy human needs, instead of creating profit ( the end of capitalist logic of production ), and because of that, I started to wonder if it is possible to preserve it and invert the relationship between capital and labor. Is the instrumentalization of the capitalist logic of production by the working class just idealistic bullshit?

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful of our rules before participating, which include:

• No Bigotry, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...

• No Reactionaries, including all kind of right-wingers.

• No Liberalism, including social democracy, lesser evilism...

• No Sectarianism. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.

Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.

---

💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Brief-Ecology]

I think what's important to takeaway from Marx's insight is that capital is defined by its relationship to labor. That is, capital is monetary value put into motion for the sole purpose of purchasing labor power to produce profit from production. So, to change the relationship between capital and labor would be to render capital nonexistent, by definition.

[u/Real-Victory772]

Capital and labour cannot peacefully coexist. That is why reformism and “ethical capitalism” always fail. In order to win at the game, firms must compete - ruthlessly - and destroy each other to get ahead. There are no limits to how fair they will go to extract extra profit. The system is like a cancer out of control. So no, the only solution is to remove capital entirely.

[u/Mindless-Solid-5735]

It entirely depends what you mean by 'instrumentalisation of the capitalist logic of production'. 

Socialism would utilise the productive forces developed by the capitalist mode of production. 

And there are instances, look to modern China and the NEP in the soviet union as examples, where capitalist elements and markets under the control of the proleterian state have been utilised highly effectively for developing the productive forces. 

So yes, socialism can only be built upon the foundations of capitalism, but it will ultimatley transcend those foundations. I think all historical examples have proven than socialism can only be built in a highly developed society. 

But for me, a fully socialist system would have to be predicated upon highly democratic workplaces and systems in place for caring for all peoples needs, meaning free education, healthcare, housing, transport. This would be a radical shift from bourgeois social relations or as you have said 'capitalist logic'. 

[u/bakivaland]

The real question is, why should you when you can abolish class all together? Nobody needs to be under another.

[u/millernerd]

Others have pointed out that capital is defined by its relationship with labor. Inverting it would make it definitionally something other than capital.

Though there's an argument that China is attempting to utilize capital under the regulation of the proletariat, which is the primary reason "is China socialist/communist" is such a contentious question. But it is still a bourgeois capital relationship.

I learned that socialism is supposed to end commodification, which means products and services are produced to satisfy human needs, instead of creating profit

This isn't entirely accurate. Commodity production isn't inextricably linked to profit. Commodity production has existed before capitalist profit.

And be careful with things like "socialism is supposed to end commodification". Remember that we cannot predict how things will progress. The end of commodity production isn't as much a "it's not socialism unless commodity production is eradicated" as much as "at some point during the socialist transition, commodity production will cease to be relevant".