Exploitation

What is a post-capitalist society? This is a subject many have not dare to approach. It has been postulated that it is a post-modern society built on flux and values is nothing more than a positivist concept. This means that context is the main praxis for action and whatever essential is nothing more than a socially constructed reality which is perfectly malleable through the environment.

Assuming that this capitalist/proletariat divide has been settled where society is moving toward a society built on materialist back rather than a shared ideals of "every man and to it's every need". This means that the surplus labour built upon over the years by workers have to redistributed, insofar then in this case, surplus labour accumulated over the yesteryears has to be reinvested or kept under lock and key, future surplus labour will NOT be distributed inequitably to capital owners. This means it is no longer a 80/20 rule but rather a form of equitable distribution built upon more 20/80 rule, this means the bulk of majority surplus labour continued to be redistributed to the capital owners and the 20% of the surplus labour is "equitably redistributed" to the "have-nots". Does this count as a socially equitable solution?

How then does this 80% disappear into thin air without causing so much as form of alienation in which the work we do is nothing more than a function of "being for-itself". This means that the lack of creation and meaning in the work we do is really just a sliver part of giant operation as a cog in the wheel. How does anyone feel being outside of itself all the time?

It is obvious that capital has won and labour has lost but how can we convinced labour has lost without pissing them off. Hegemony is often the answer, where the state has infiltrated everyday life and impose itself to provide an ideological answer to the obvious inequitable situation.

The types of hegemony is manifold. But let us revisit then how do we produce something which doesn't belong to us and yet get a tiny part of profit and yet felt that the world has been fair to us. Is this a "post-capitalist" society where capital is NOT the currency but rather another "form" is the currency.

Let us revisit what is a capitalist society. A capitalist society is one where the mode of production is the material background. This means that the means of production is capital and in which labour is part of equation. This is opposed as labour as a means of production. This means that moving money around is the key in this mode of production. Moving "effort" around is then the key to labour as a means of production. Essentially what this means is that the structure of society is built on capital as the main currency, and it's accumulation is the end of it. Ultimately, the state, religion, society, class is built on this capital foundation and all forms of society is the nothing onto this particular end.

The capital then is assuming then that is nothing more than an accumulation of surplus labour insofar then that it does not matter how much "effort" is generated but rather how much capital is accumulated. This means that what is "capital"?

Is capital equals to just money? Capital is not just equal money, money is nothing more than an exchange value for the use value of labour. I can use cows or beans for exchange of labour for that matter but insofar then that if I get money, does that means I am receiving surplus labour built upon the bedrock of the use value of those that are workers. The answer is NO.

If I received money for doing nothing, does it mean that I am actually a capitalist? The simple answer is productivity. If for example, I am capital owner, I invest 100 million and 80 million goes to the construction of the plant and capital goods and 20 million goes to the workers. It then produces 20 million of revenue of which 10 million goes to me the capital owner and the rest is shared among 1,000 workers, does that mean that I am accumulating surplus built upon 1,000 workers "effort" generating labour- where my work is mainly to provide the "intellectual expertise", which is freely available through certain form of open market education. The answer is Yes.

But if for example, I am a worker which builds on bluffing my way through and using other worker's labour to do my job while collecting my pay monthly, that is a "managerial" position. By bluffing, I mean to provide and cede to prevailing order without so much of an "effort"- a managerial perspective is always primed towards the maximizing the accumulation of "surplus labour" for the benefit of capital owners. This is NOT a capitalist.

If "work" is defined as nothing more than labour by which it is means to producing something, of course, this is "labour". But if the labour is dedicated towards producing something other than an exchange for a use value, this is not labour. This means that labour is dedicated towards producing anything other than without an exchange value is not labour.

This means that the use value without a exchange value is not your wife doing housework without incurring GDP growth- there is use value, it is just not available for quotation on the open market. It is like doodling on a paper pad with no inkling that it would amount to anything. You know that it leads to nowhere, because your chance of being the next Picasso is next to nothing.

Let us then re-visit how does this 20/80 rule works. It is telling to these 80% people that I am taking your money away but you have to find a way to redistribute the 20% among yourself equitably. I will find all ways and means to ensure that this 20% is redistributed equitably among the 80% with minimal disruption- that is where the "small state", big economy comes into play.

Is this then the "post-capitalist" society where context is king and materiality is ultimately "immaterial"? Does this means that moving 20% of the money effortlessly without an inkling towards an ultimate end is a "post-capitalist" society in flux?

Is this the final bastion in human society- this is obviously NOT. There is no final analysis, a society in a state of flux is a final analysis however it is put across. Materiality is abandoned in a state of flux and this means that meaning is superfluous and capital is nothing, by which all forms of labour is nothing more than moving expedition of human energy nothing more and nothing less. Meaning is lost insofar that that things are always moving.

Capital has won, no doubt about it. Human energy remains- but it's expedition is built not at accumulation of capital but rather always on the move. The move towards what: "moving"??

This form of socially constructed reality built around a capitalist background and which context is superfluous means that human endeavor, adventure and action is really nothing more a product of an environment by which the veil is never lifted but always predicated towards not finding out the "true" meaning in life but rather upon as an end itself.

Action for action sake while not acknowledging the materiality by which it is built upon is NOT the final analysis and is not a "post-capitalist" society. But rather societal trajectory built upon which is not at an particular end is an alienation and by which nothing has changed for last hundred years. We are exploited- once you accept that, you move on with your life.