• zedcell@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 days ago

    It’s Marx’s logic actually.

    You fundamentally misunderstand. If a wage worker is paid the exchange value of labour-power I.e the cost to reproduce themselves, at the behest of a capitalist (the work could be in the service sector, like a chef, an artist; it could also be a plumber, and they could ultimately be doing work for consumers like other workers), they produce more value than they are paid for I.e. they produce surplus value.

    A self-employed plumber or a live-in chef working directly for someone with no capitalist middleman, or an artist working for commissions do not produce surplus value. They sell the final product of their labour, not their labour itself, and they charge the going market rate for the product of their labour, not the going market rate for their labour-power by the hour.

    An artist can be proletarian or petit-bourgeois. A chef can also be either, as can a plumber.

    Your time would be better spent reading and studying Capital than professing your shoddy home-baked anti-capitalism online.

    • MLRL_Commie [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Yeah turns out, (pretty much) everyone disagreeing with me doesn’t know how to do a class analysis. I thought the opinion was going to be an argument for collaboration with creative PB, not just a complete incomprehension that artists benefitting from copyright are definitionally benefitting as PB