How Capitalism Exploits Us (And What We Can Do About It)



كيف تستغلنا الرأسمالية
(وما يمكننا فعله حيال ذلك) يميل بعض الناس للاعتقاد بأن الرأسمالية تقوم على شراء وبيع الأشياء واستخدام السوق كوسيط لتوزيع السلع من المنتجين إلى المستهلكين لا شك بأن الأسواق تعتبر ظاهرة هامّة ولكن ليست لها أية علاقة خاصة بالرأسمالية على سبيل المثال كان الجنوب الأمريكي في الماضي قائماً على منظومة العبودية حيث كان يتم بيع السلع التي ينتجها العبيد مثل القطن كانت هناك سوق للقطن بل حتّى كانت هناك سوق للعبيد أيضاً أي أنّه كان يتم بيع وشراء الكثير من الأشياء وكانت الأسواق موجودة لكن دون رأسمالية لم يكن هناك مفهوم "صاحب عمل" و"موظف" والذي يعتبر جوهر الرأسمالية العبودية نظام مختلف تقوم على "السيّد" و"العبد" فالـ"سيّد" لا يوظّف "العبد" إذ لا حاجة لذلك بل يمتلك العبد بينما في الرأسمالية لا يمتلكك رب العمل ربما نشعر وكأن الأمر كذلك ولكنه لا يملكك قانونياً وكان للنظام الإقطاعي أيضاً طريقته الخاصة حيث كان قائماً على العلاقة بين صاحب الأرض والفلّاح وكانت يتوجب على الفلّاح العمل في الأرض غير أن الإقطاعي لا يوظّف الفلّاح ولا يدفع له أجراً ولكن كانت هناك أسواق إذاً لا تكمن ميزة الرأسمالية في الأسواق وإنما تكمن سمتها الأبرز في علاقتها الإنتاجية كيفية إنتاج السلع والخدمات ولا تقوم هذه العلاقة على "سيد" و"عبد" أو "إقطاعي" و"فلّاح" وإنما تستند على هيكلية خاصّة جداً تتمحور حول مفهوم "رب العمل" و"الموظّف" وهذه العلاقة مشوبة بالكثير من الصراعات والتوتّر والغضب والامتعاض لماذا؟ لأن بعض الناس يقومون بكل شيء وينتجون أكثر مما يحصلون عليه ويدعى هذا الإنتاج الإضافي بـ"الفائض" وعندما يكون المرء رب عمل رأسمالي فإنّ همّه الرئيسي هو إعطاء أقل ما يمكن للعمّال مع استغلالهم بأكبر قدر ممكن بهدف الحصول على أكبر فائض ممكن فكلما ازداد الفائض، كلما أحس صاحب العمل بالأمان أكثر وبالتالي فإن الرأسمالية تتبع المنهجية ذاتها التي كانت سائدة في منظومتي العبودية والإقطاع لماذا؟ لأن العامل عليه إنتاج أكثر بكثير مما يناله تماماً كما كان العبد ينتج فائضاً لسيّده وكما كان الفلاح ينتج فائضاً للإقطاعي وليس هناك من شخص مذنب بعينه وإنما يكمن الخلل في هيكلية هذه المنظومة ما هو البديل؟ أن يكون منتجو الفائض أي العمال هم من يحصلون عليه إذا تمكّن جميع الموظفين من إنشاء تعاونية لن يعود هناك "موظفون" و"أرباب عمل" وإنما يلعب كل شخص الدورين معاً فلا فرق بينهما كيف يمكن تطبيق ذلك؟ لنأخذ أي مصنع أو مكتب أو متجر ونجري عليه التعديلات التالية: إلغاء مجلس الإدارة من يحتاجه؟ وإليكم ما سنفعله نأتي إلى العمل ونتولى مهمة اتخاذ القرارات كل القرارات التي كان يتخذها الرأسماليون حيث يصبح العمال هم المدراء أو بعبارة أخرى يتلاشى الفرق بين الموظف والرأسمالي إن كان العمّال هم أصحاب القرار كيف ستسير الأمور؟ كيف يمكنهم أن يوزعوا الثروة على كل من ساهم في صناعتها؟ إذا تعاون جميع العمّال سوية بأسلوب ديمقراطي وقرروا كيفية توزيع الثروة التي ساهموا جميعاً في بنائها فإنهم لن يعطوا قلّة قليلة من الناس أموال تفوق بكثير ما يحتاجون بينما يفتقر الآخرون للمال الكافي كي يسددوا تكاليف دراسة أبنائهم وبناتهم إن كان الموظفون هم أصحاب القرار… هل كانوا ليلوّثوا بيئتهم؟ مثلاً عند الحديث عن التقنيات المتطورة التي قد تلوّث الماء أو الهواء فإن القرارات يتخذها المساهمون ومجالس الإدارة وهم قلة قليلة تعيش منعزلة في مجتمعات وبيوت فارهة بعيداً عن المصانع أو المكاتب أو المتاجر التي تتسبب بالتلوّث لذا بإمكانهم الاستثمار في التكنولوجيا الحديثة وجني الأرباح ولكن لو أن الموظفين والعمّال كانوا أصحاب القرار فإنّهم لن يقدموا على شيء كهذا لأنهم يتنفسون هذا الهواء ويشربون هذه المياه لذا سيكونون أكثر حرصاً على هذا الصعيد إن كان العمال هم أصحاب القرار…. ما الذي قد يفعلونه لمواجهة خطر الاستغناء عنهم مع تطور التكنولوجيا؟ عندما يظهر ابتكار تكنولوجي جديد فإنّه يعزز القدرة على إنتاج المزيد بجهد أقل ولكن عندما يتم توظيف هذه الابتكارات في المنظومة الرأسمالية فإن الرأسماليين يهدفون عادةً إلى جني أكبر قدر ممكن من الأرباح مثلاً، إذا كان هناك آلة تسمح للعمال بمضاعفة القدرة الإنتاجية فإن الرأسماليين يطردون نصف القوة العاملة ويواصل النصف الباقي العمل مع الآلة الحديثة ليحقق نفس القدر من الإنتاجية وتجني الشركات الكثير من الأرباح لأن مخصصات أجور الموظفين هبطت بمعدل النصف وبالتالي بإمكانها الاحتفاظ بالنصف الثاني لنفسها إليكم خياراً بديلاً فلنخفّض التزامات كل موظف بمقدار النصف بحيث تصبح مدّة يوم العمل 4 ساعات بدلاً من 8 ساعات وسيحظى الموظفون بهامش كافٍ من الوقت كي يمارسوا هواياتهم ويطوّروا أنفسهم ويعتنوا بعائلاتهم ومجتمعاتهم إن استخدمنا التكنولوجيا بهذا الشكل فإنّها ستكون مسخّرة لمساعدة الناس على عيش حياة أكثر سعادة بدلاً من أن تتمتّع فئة قليلة بكل الأرباح المشكلة ليست التكنولوجيا المشكلة تكمن في المنظومة التي تقرّر كيفية استخدام هذه التكنولوجيا إن كان العمال هم أصحاب القرار… علينا التخلّص من المنظومة الرأسمالية في كل مكان في المصانع والمتاجر والمكاتب إذا كنتم أنتم أصحاب القرار… ما القرارات التي قد تتخذونها؟ لمزيد من المعلومات: democracyatwork.info تم إنتاج هذا الفيديو كهدية للبشرية من قبل كريس ودون أغنوس فريق الترجمة العربية في حركة زايتجايست تُرجم من قبل فريق Amara.org




Comments
  1. Okay, I have a few issues with this video.
    Up until the 1:45 mark, I agree with him. But after that, he says, "…and in that relationship lies a fundamental conflict. Tension. Anger. Resentment. Why?"

    Only to a bad boss would someone think that. But otherwise, that doesn't sound realistic, first off, most people get a job they want, or if they're just not happy, ask the employer to change that certain thing, or leave. I worked in retail for a while now, and all my co-workers (at least a majority of them) love my bosses. Let's continue.

    "Because some people are doing all the work and producing more than they get. A more that we nowadays call the surplus, the extra. And if you're a capitalist, an employer, what of coarse is your interest? To give the worker the least possible, while giving the most out of them because that's the biggest surplus they can get and the more surplus they'll have, the more secure they'll be."

    This is more or less true, but it's common fact that if an employee loves his/her job, they'll do better. And if you want to show that you are a great company to work for, it's basic business, and you need people to work for you instead of your opponents. So I could argue that it would make economic sense to give them the most money/conditions possible, to have a good reputation among consumers.

    "In capitalism it turns out we've got the same exact kind of system as we had in slavery and feudalism. Why? Because the worker has to produce more of a surplus than he gets. Just as the Master got the surplus. The slave produced or the Feudal Lords got the surplus that the Serf produced."

    Except that it's not for a number of reasons.
    1. The employees don't get whipped or chained like the slaves, nor are they forced to work at their job. Maybe only a small minority of people are "forced" to work under the most extreme conditions, but even then I highly doubt that.
    2. The employees have the right to minim pay, safe work spaces, and many others, links here.
    https://www.usa.gov/labor-laws

    https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3021.pdf

    3. The only thing similar is the surplus, but pretty much, nothing else.

    "It's nobody's fault it's the way the system is set up. What's the alternative? When the people who produce the surplus. The workers are themselves the people who get the surplus. If all the workers together make a cooperative, then they aren't split between the employers, and the employees. But both positions are occupied by every person in the office. There is no split. How would that work?"

    These already exist. I don't know if anyone knew that or not, just saying. https://www.thenews.coop/122959/sector/usas-top-100-co-operatives-year-named-national-cooperative-bank/

    "Take any factory. Take any office. Take any store. Change it as follows. No more board of Directors. Don't need it. Here's how we're going to do. You come to work, you sit around making the decisions. All the decisions that used to be made by the capitalists. Workers become their own board of directors or to say the same thing another way the Worker Capitalist Division resolves."

    Few things, YES! You need a board of directors, or some body, or group of persons overseeing everything. That's like saying you don't need a captain, the crew will be their own captain. The Group in charge needs to set standards, decide how much to make of it and when, and hundreds of other things to keep the company afloat. You need a captain.
    And then the question is asked, If workers were in charge… how might things change? How might they decide to distribute the wealth that they all helped create?

    "If you made all the workers democratically get together and decide how to distribute the wealth they've all together created they would never give a handful of people more money than they know what to do with while everybody else is worrying about their kids to collage because they can't afford it."

    In order for the "democracy" to work, the workers must buy the company, or start a new one in the first place. Second, people (at least smart ones) always know what to do with more money. Invest it wisely into the company, or other companies. Easy. You know, on advertising, R&D, wages, and so many other things.
    And what if everybody else isn't in a financial crisis about collage? What if a majority of the people are living normal happy lives? Which we can see is becoming a more common thing in the US, with GDP per capita rising, and poverty down.
    https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/
    As for the collage bit being so expansive, you can thank Uncle Sam for that.

    And the question is asked, If workers were in charge, would they choose to pollute their own environment?

    "When you're discussing the new technology that might pollute or the water. The decision is made by the major shareholders and of the board of directors, a tiny group of people why typically live in gated communities in a lovely leafy residents living far away from the factory or the office or the store that pollutes, so they can make the investment in the new technology and reap the profits if the workers who live and work and depend on the enterprise made the decision. They wouldn't do it that often because they're the ones who breath the air, drink the water and they'd be much more sensitive to the real coarse."

    Yeah, renewable energy companies exist. You know, clean energy, and they're also recycling companies too, that also have a board of directors, and major share holders. And this is the amazing thing about capitalism. You can shop at those clean energy companies, the other companies will see they're losing money, and become more clean too. You vote with your dollar who provides what. And the clean energy industry is huge, almost at $1 trillion!
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2018/10/05/clean-energy-market-continues-strong-growth-as-costs-continue-to-fall/#88a0f3fc7f88
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/07/11/top-renewable-energy-financiers-reveal-pathway-to-1-trillion-in-u-s-investment/#41c906d934b0

    Even ordinary companies care about the environment, because they know if they use up all their resources, they won't have any left, or people won't shop there, and they'll go out of business somehow. I personally invest in Tesla, and will by investing in Brookfield Renewable Energy soon.

    If workers were to change what would they do when technology threatens to replace their job?
    "Every technological invention justified on on the grounds by this new machine, we could get more done with less effort but when those innovations are put in a capitalist economic system, the people who put the technology in want to make a profit out of it."

    I mean, yeah. That's why you innovate. And the more people buy it, the more it's improved, so you, the workers, the owners, everyone benefits.

    "For example, if a machine allows the workers to do twice as much as before, they fire half the work force. The remaining half works with the new machine produces as much as before. The company realizes a fantastic profit because it doesn't have to pay half the workers wages which they can keep for themselves."

    That's not how it works, and anyone who has done this doesn't know the basic fundamentals of capitalism. First, they don't fire half the work force that's stupid. Instead, they keep all the work force, and produce twice as much as before. So the company grows. This is how a company grows. And with the new profits they'll get not by firing, but by the more products they'll sell, hire even more people, which means more stuff gets made which means more profit which means more jobs created and so on.

    "Here's an alternative: Let every worker do half as much work as he or she did before. Let's run the working day four hours instead of eight. The workers will have engaged an enormous amount of leisure to pay to their own development, to their families, to their communities if we use technology that way. We would use it to help the mass of people a better life rather than a small percentage of the people enjoy a greater profit. The problem was not with technology. The problem was the system that decided how to use that technology."

    The leisure part will come automatically with the new tech. Same thing with the development of themselves, family community etc. Believe it or not, we live, even the most impoverished people you'll ever find, live better than cavemen. Why? TECHNOLOGY! If you're homeless, you don't have to worry about being killed by a warring tribe, you can get food at a soup kitchen. Or seak help from a charity, or church. And poverty is declining, and gdp per capita rising as I already stated. 0% of that would be possible without our current "system."

    And he asks, If the workers were in charge…
    "You're going to have to get rid of this capitalistic system where it lives. In the stores, factories, and the offices."
    What decision would you make?

    I would say this capitalists system is wonderful except the taxes are too high, and too much govt. regulation. Tone those down a bunch, and I'm good THX!

  2. if corporations experience gain in profits, then employees should gain an increase in wage and if corporations experience a net loss, then employees should get a net loss in wage or have to pay up, then it is truly fair. the maker of this has zero clue how businesses work. Bet they have never heard of retained earning or dividends. if all profits are shared among employees, businesses don't expand.

  3. I knew this in the 70's,, it starts in the abusive "family". I KNEW I was being ROBBED right in my own "home",, Called it out,, my body had a Healthy response to it, and what did everyone around me do?? PROTECTED THE ABUSER!! The "family",, "community" Was just a SCALED DOWN VERSION OF THIS. It was the PEOPLE WHO KNEW THEIR PLACE and trained the Children to Inherit the Bill and LIKE IT. Those not treated as badly as I was STILL got it too,, they thought they ha it so good, That's the Problem! I was Criminalized for being Healthy and rebellious! The people didn't have the Spine to resist! Fitness,, is Real wealth,, $$ IS DEBT. THe Work Environment should function like a Healthy Family system and Nature,, Balanced. Parents are supposed to RAISE Children, NOT the other way around! That goes against how Health and Nature function. People should be Raised to Be who they authentically are,, NOT to be a cog in the wheel to make some Large Corp even Larger and MORE Sociopath. Why don't people live according to Health? I've been studying that All my life since being traumatized at age 7 at "home". NOTHING came before health. Too many people go for the Debt $.

  4. Capitalism certainly isn't perfect, but it's the best system we've got. This sounds just like Communism. Awesome in theory, horrible in practice. Humans as a species need a leader. There will always be someone that takes charge, and people that follow. Just like in nature, all pack animals have a social structure and hierarchy. Wolves, lions, etc. In my opinion, the best thing we could do right now is try and be more self sufficient. Grow a lot of your own food, and produce your own energy with solar and wind. Each individual should take on more responsibility for themselves and for their families, rather than relying on the government and corporations. With more independence comes more freedom.

  5. Unsubscribed, give channels password to someone who understands economics and sociology. Not even going to argue with people from here. These arguments are so vague and 19th century already solved ones. No branch of a socialistic-communistic collective monetary system would be able to change these statements, even if they did, they would’ve create bigger problems

  6. Lol they literally got the definition of feudalism wrong… and made it purely rhetorical.

    Nothing in this video would actually work, and we would know this with a basic understanding of capitalism and economics.

    The only part that was actually agreeable was the response to industrialization. But I would need more of a counterpoint to see if it actually made sense. Though as far as my knowledge goes it seems like a good idea.

  7. This is fanciful. If this structure were so obviously workable why is there NOT at least a small % of businesses that run this way. Also, are you kidding me?…this relies on assumptions of virtue that simply does not exist.

  8. Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk smashed the marxist theory of surplus value a long time ago, but that's none of my business…

    We could just reduce our IQ to 50 and say its "bourgeoisie logic", as the communists of the past did. I really don't mean to sound rude, but when I try to reason with marxists, and use polylogism to explain failed logic, I feel like I'm physically turning into a chimpanzee.

  9. 5:28 I think this is a dishonest representation of innovation in a capitalist economy. First off, if a business can double the production of it workers, it will not necessarily fire half its workers, rather double its production to increase profits (i.e. take advantage of economy of scale, decrease fixed costs per unit). Although this is limited by demand in the market (that is what advertising is for), the end result of gradual innovation is more leisure time and a greater standard of living, as we've seen in our capitalist societies in the past century. This is not unique to socialist economies. In fact, I would argue the drive for innovation given increased profits in a capitalist economy makes socialism irrelevant to the betterment of workers.

    "Here's an alternative: Let every worker do half as much work as he or she did before".

    You do not have to think about this much to understand why this makes no sense. If you were to extrapolate this way of thinking to 19th century economy, we would still have a 19th century standard of living, albeit with much more leisure time. The reason most people in a modern capitalist society own a car, a house, or a smartphone, is because capitalist societies tend to produce to a ridiculous extent.

  10. Terrible argument, doesn't debunk capitalism…reverts instead to the past and other forms of societal function. Don't tell me what you don't believe in, tell me what you do. This is nothing but a commercial for socialism….divide and destroy, turn everyone into victims and create the war of the classes. That's communism my friends. I'm calling BS

  11. Well slavery is essential for capitalism. "Periodically but systematically, whenever the capitalist system is threatened by a major economic crisis, the capitalist class has to launch a process of 'primitive accumulation,' that is, a process of large-scale colonization and enslavement." -Silvia Federici

  12. You are so full of shit! I can not believe anybody listens to this BS. socialism communism has never worked anywhere, it always ends up in tens of millions of people killed. grow up and give up the utopian fantasy.

  13. For as long as I can remember, I've been unemployed. Everything I produce I get to keep.
    However, I don't benefit from mass production and economies of scale; everything I make is hand produced which is slow and laborious and time consuming. I do though get to keep it all. Oddly, as incredibly laborious, inefficient, and slow going as it is to hand create everything from scratch or fix things, I've grown richer and richer than those around me with jobs, because I have no bills to pay.

    I'd love to have a job, and make the kind of money the rest of you do, I'd grow rich so fast because I do not squander it on rubbish like the rest of you… but jobs do not exist in this country for people like me. So I live between the cracks like a weed, dodging and adapting, while society like a weird game of whack a mole keeps trying to crush me out of existence along with all the other poor.

  14. Excellent video that summarizes the system and the best way forward very well. Democratization of the economic sphere is the best way forward and always has been. Enough with the toxic personality cults.

  15. Slave labour was used to build the modern infrastructure in the Soviet Union. The black slaves in America had a value, whereas the slaves in the Soviet union did not and found themselves completely expendable. The millions who died of exposure and malnutrition were just tossed aside and replaced by another political prisoner / slave. Even when the narrators crudely used slavery to discredit capitalism, socialism murderous history bites him in the ass.

  16. If the workers were in charge the black market and crime would skyrocket just like it did in Russia! If the workers were in charge Russian sayings like "you cannot pay me less than I can work" will crush productivity! Idiots who have never seen communism first hand should keep there ignorance to themselves.

  17. Whats a better system?some people confuse capitalist of for corporatism, blame corrupt rotten governments,try this idea in South Africa monday will be babalaas thats hang over day no work monday.We have forgotten that half loaf is better than nothing.This world can never be perfect,lets try to work hard and help with charity forcing things on people makes them cold,if that doesnt work what next,let poor families move in your home?

  18. +Sustainable Human Fantastic video but I do not see Richard Wolff's name anywhere… I know you linked democracyatwork.info at the end of the video but it'd be great for people to know the name of the speaker. It'd be quick and simple to add it somewhere in the video description section. Regardless, thanks for sharing this brilliant creation, as well as the other video with Peter Joseph. Cheers!

  19. Slavery is not capitalism because the slaves are forced to labor. When some states outlawed slavery the economy boomed which would then lead to the civil war that frees the rest of the slaves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *