• 2 Posts
  • 588 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle















  • In this case that the cost of replacement of labor power factors in to the wage a company has to pay in order to maintain production.

    The manufacturer who calculates his cost of production and, in accordance with it, the price of the product, takes into account the wear and tear of the instruments of labour. If a machine costs him, for example, 1,000 shillings, and this machine is used up in 10 years, he adds 100 shillings annually to the price of the commodities, in order to be able after 10 years to replace the worn-out machine with a new one. In the same manner, the cost of production of simple labour-power must include the cost of propagation, by means of which the race of workers is enabled to multiply itself, and to replace worn-out workers with new ones. The wear and tear of the worker, therefore, is calculated in the same manner as the wear and tear of the machine.

    https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Wage_labour_and_capital

    edit: replaced quote with an imo more fitting quote from the same book.


  • Although the Israeli army’s Conscience Committee can decide to allow exemption from military service, this is usually granted only to those conscientious objectors who refuse to serve on religious grounds. However, according to the UN Human Rights Committee, no discrimination is permitted “among conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs” - i.e. whether they are religious or otherwise. Even though Israeli law does allow for exemption on grounds of pacifism, the army’s Conscience Committee frequently rejects pacifists’ cases. The authorities deny objectors the possibility of performing alternative civilian service. Conscientious objectors in Israel can be convicted of and imprisoned for the same “offence” repeatedly. In 2003, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said that this practice flouts the rights of conscientious objectors under international human rights standards which prohibit “double jeopardy”.

    Your point was already refuted in the article from amnesty I linked.