Umpiérrez "unmasks the capitalists and make them invisible visible"
The immediacy and the occult
The Marxist-inspired social scientists go always looking for the hidden causes to explain the immediate world. It is true that the nature of value and the means by which the capitalist appropriates the work of others contain hidden causes. But there are facts that are present there, on the surface of things, which can be seen clearly that there are people who hijack alien labor. What happens is that we are so well suited to these events, so in tune with them and not disturb us, and therefore, do not make us react.
The right to be rich
Consider that the greatest injustice in this world is that there are people who take so much wealth that it is impossible to explain it as the work of their own work. What happens is that it admits as a fact of excessive enrichment. It is thought that this situation can play any luck, we should not envy anyone, because everyone wants to be as rich as possible, but some of us succeed and others do not. At least, we concluded that this is the opportunity it gives us and capitalism and not socialism. This is the ideology dominant in enriching environment.
property law based on the work
listen to Locke in his Essay on Civil Government concerning the right of ownership based on the work: "God has given the world to men in common, but since gave it for his own benefit and to bring forth the same as many benefits for your life, you can not assume that God intended this world always remain as common property and uncultivated. God gave to the working man and uses the same sound (and his job would be his title of possession. "Only I have an impact on the latter he says Locke: the title to wealth must be based on the work. We are not using Marx to defend against conventional economists, the neo-liberal and all sorts of lackeys of capitalism in the twentieth century but one of the earliest and most revolutionary representatives of the bourgeoisie, a man of the last half of the eighteenth century and recognized as the father of liberalism: John Locke. And the only thing we demand of it is the idea that the right of ownership of wealth is based on the work. And this idea is the one to popularize among the broadest masses. No one should be allowed to be enriched beyond what is reasonable, ie beyond that is inexplicable wealth based on the work itself.
Ownership and use of capital
At the beginning of capitalism, the capitalist was the owner of the money invested in the company even owned the place where it operated. So all was his gain. But as the scale of production increased and pushed through the credit system, created a division of labor between the owner of money, the banker, and who used that money as capital, commercial or industrial capitalist. As any amount of money used as capital yields a profit, the owner of the money calls the capitalist in office, who has given him money on loan, to give you a portion of the gain: interest. Thus it is evident that the gain experienced by the owner of the money is not due to his work but to his ownership. However, within capitalist relations of production, everyone finds it normal that the person transferring a sum of money as a loan is entitled to charge interest. Put another way: this statue as a natural right the right to appropriate someone else's work.
Widespread interest in producing capital
seems natural that he used the money as capital and makes a profit, should give you a part of the owner of money in interest. But the fact is that so much money that stays in office the capitalist, profit, as that is the owner of money, interest, are goodwill, that is, the work of others. What happens is that all this remains hidden.
But it does not stop there but goes further still. A person applying for a loan to buy a house or a car, not using the money as capital, however, have to pay interest. So in these cases the money paid as interest is not part of the gain, but a part of wages. Therefore, any money given as a loan, used as capital or not, shows an interest.
Salary and benefit
There is a qualitative difference between wage and profit. The salary is perceived by a person as consideration for their work, while the benefit is perceived by a person as consideration for his ownership of a business. In the field of small business profit is usually always significantly higher than wages. But in large companies the salary of an executive or manager may be substantially higher than the benefit received by a small capitalist. So that quantitative superiority of the benefit wage is broken or misleading in this case. This seems to blur the differences qualitative differences between capital and labor and makes us think that the nineteenth-century capitalism is more than overcome and that the advent of socialism is no longer necessary. But do not get carried away by appearances, but go a little deeper. We should note two things: first, part of the exorbitant salaries paid CEOs of large companies is more than good. Listed as salary and wages is perceived, but is substantially benefit. On the other hand, when a person receives income soaring, the savings capacity is very high. And these savings are then invested as capital. So not only is that the benefits are disguised as salaries, but also that high wages are transformed into capital. Capitalists
invisible visible and capitalists
Think of a capitalist who has opened a business and hire 50 employees. After 25 years the entrepreneur has a personal estate of 6 million euros, while each of the 50 employees has a personal estate of only 60. 000. Not only is that capitalism has a huge wealth for the 50 workers, but also the capitalist receives in its capacity as employer a salary of 12,000 euros and the workers a salary of 1,200 euros. This is a case of capitalism visible, where we can clearly see that workers are exploited, the owner the business has accumulated vast personal wealth and every day enjoy great wealth, while workers have yet to pay their housing and are in a hurry to make ends meet. These are the capitalists on the radical left has focused and sharpened his criticism.
Besides these there are other visible capitalists capitalists who are there before us, but not see or recognize them as capitalists. These capitalists are those who call capitalist invisible. This class players like Beckham, which charges 25 million euros for four seasons at Madrid and annual revenues of EUR 24 million advertising and musicians such as Sting, who has annual revenues of $ 321 million. Why not recognize these people as capitalists? On the peculiar way in which it rich. It is recognized that earn much money, but apparently not win by exploiting the workers. Hence the radical left does not focus his criticism in this kind of capitalist invisible.
the guise of economic forms
saw earlier, in the case of the salaries of senior executives, some of these fees was only disguised wage benefit. The same happens with Beckham receives remuneration for advertising: it is more than good advertising disguised as cost. This fact, an inexpensive way to dress up in another form, I showed Marx in Capital: interest and taxes paid by enterprises, which in the accounts as costs, are just surplus labor. But what interests us here is to highlight what it sees Beckham, Nadal or any other athlete in the form of advertising is that surplus labor.
Where once we saw that a capitalist exploiting the labor force of 50 people appropriated twenty-five years after a surplus of 6 million, now we see that Beckham is appropriated in one year and only in respect of advertising a surplus of $ 24 million. Hence, Beckham is much more exploitative significantly more exploitative, that this capitalist. What happens is that that person is a capitalist visible and invisible Beckham is a capitalist. In this capitalist observe the relationship he has with the people they exploit, while in the case of Beckham relations with the people they exploit are indirect and are mediated by many processes and economic forms.
The ideological role of capitalism invisible
In capitalism, there are many ways to get rich. Become a football star is one of them. The other day I saw a documentary on TV where a very poor place all parents were determined that their children play football. Is one way, they argued that parent out of poverty. And that is the illusion of many poor children of becoming a soccer star out of poverty for his family. The first thing we see, by the predominance of the capitalist mentality, is that the solution to the problem of poverty is seen as an individual matter. Here reigns the principle of bourgeois man, the selfish man who thinks only of saving himself. And the second thing we observe is the unawareness about the source of wealth, as if some extreme wealth had nothing to do with the pitiful poverty of others. That child who wants to become soccer star out of poverty, becoming in a rich, not aware that their future enrichment will be based on the impoverishment of others.
The foreground and the unmasking
The radical left is harshly attacking the forefront of capitalism, formed in part by the big football stars, who by way of salary, bonuses and advertising earn an average of 8 million euros. Ronaldinho, for instance, entered the last year 9 million in salary and 14 million in advertising. Both his salary and what goes in terms of advertising are disguised forms of surplus labor. The capitalist system that makes him think that he wins is because of their own effort, but the truth is that wealth can only be explained as the appropriation of alien labor. We know that we all contribute to creating national wealth, but the capitalist system has a host of mechanisms that allow a few get in their pockets a lot of money, while the vast majority of it comes at the end of the month. The absurd, the irrational, which already cries to heaven, is that Ronaldinho, who is a capitalist invisible, this is a capitalist who appropriates a lot of other people's work under the guise of being their own work, has been appointed Ambassador Hunger World Food Programme. Therefore, the radical left must submit a critique of capitalism in the foreground, consisting by the great stars of football and other sports, who under the guise of neutrality and kindness are hidden allies of the capitalist background, with whom they share the surplus labor and are disproportionately wealthy.
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=33258
social networking
0 comments:
Post a Comment