Exegesis - Cap/Com-ist

[Kidlicious]

I realize that you have to pay capitalists in the capitalist system. You politely call that incentive. I do not. I again ask you why we should pay this if we don't want to. Why shouldn't we look for a way to do things without paying the capitalists? You may like to pay, others do not.

Do you think the capitalists deserve to get paid this 'incentive'? And if you do I want to right to the heart of that.

[Arrian]

I again ask you why we should pay this if we don't want to. Why shouldn't we look for a way to do things without paying the capitalists?

Because it works better than communism. At least that's my belief. I *do* want it this way. Some people would rather pay a guy like Vel (costs plus incentive/profit) than the government. Vel might provide much better service, for instance.

The incentive exists so that people will go above & beyond in search of profit. Without incentive you tend to get a crappy product & service.

I support government subsidized or owned urban low-income housing for the poor, as part of the social safety net. I think that system would be more effective than communism at meeting people's needs & wants.

Just my opinion, of course...

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Ah, but there are dynamics involved. Z affects Y profoundly.

That's irrelevent. When you apply Z to Y, you increase X. When you take a bunch of shoemakers and put them in an assembly line factory thing, you increase the number of shoes produced (and thus the total amount of value produced by the labor of the shoemakers). It's reasonable to say that the capital (the factory) created this extra value. It may be more precise to say the capital magnified the value, but we're not being pedantic here.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Communism is about freedom from exploitation. Rent is an exploitive institution. Marx specifically identified it as so. So it is very relavent to the conversation here.

That is not what I think of as communism. But hey, to each their own.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Flubber
Kuci

we have been down this road before. Its the old ditchdigher-tractor problem. If I recall correctly, it may be "fair" to pay a ditchdigger 30 kulats per hour but if a dirty capitalist provides a tractor to the ditchdigger such that he can work 10 times as quickly, this is exploitation even if the ditchdigger nets 100 kulats an hour. It seemed irrelevent to kid whther the the ditchdigger/tractor driver paid rent for the use of the tractor OR was paid a wage. . . . It was exploitation if te tractor owner profited at all.

I'm not talking about fairness. I'm explaining why we are saying application of capital creates value.

[Kidlicious]

Arrian,

That is fair. You don't believe that communism can work. I can accept that. But the least you can do is admit that capitalism is exploitive. Can you do that?

[GePap]

Also, let me retract my Marx statement about land and capital, since Marx may have had a more Kidian interpretation of land than I thought.

Of course, marx's economic interpretations were always the great achilles heel of his writing, cause I think his economic notions were generally wrong.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap


That is not what I think of as communism. But hey, to each their own.

Do you think it is just planned economics?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That's irrelevent. When you apply Z to Y, you increase X. When you take a bunch of shoemakers and put them in an assembly line factory thing, you increase the number of shoes produced (and thus the total amount of value produced by the labor of the shoemakers). It's reasonable to say that the capital (the factory) created this extra value. It may be more precise to say the capital magnified the value, but we're not being pedantic here.

It's not irrelevent. Human societ is greatly affected by the relationships between the members. You only want to look at things on the mico level because that fits your world view. Capitalists as a group have a conflicting interest with workers. This creates a political and economic dynamic.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Arrian,

That is fair. You don't believe that communism can work. I can accept that. But the least you can do is admit that capitalism is exploitive. Can you do that?

To me, exploitation is a situation where one person or entity takes advantage of another. Since I see mostly mutually advantageous relationships in our society, I don't see systemic exploitation.

There *is* some. There has always been some. I think the general trend is downward, however.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


To me, exploitation is a situation where one person or entity takes advantage of another. Since I see mostly mutually advantageous relationships in our society, I don't see systemic exploitation.

There *is* some. There has always been some. I think the general trend is downward, however.

-Arrian

Ah excuss me but maybe you didn't notice, but everyone doesn't get mutual advantage. Hello!

[Arrian]

I didn't say everyone, Kid. I said mostly, and agreed that there is some exploitation.

It's a very subjective thing, really. After all, the money charged by a landlord in rent covers - in part - his labor. Therefore, in order to determine whether or not the landlord is exploiting his renters one has to determine (among other things - like what recourse the renters may have to move elsewhere) whether he's valuing his labor properly. Who decides what his labor is worth? Who decides what YOUR labor is worth? Under communism, it seems to me that would be the government (and thus, society at large). Under capitalism, it's the market. NEWSFLASH: either way, it's not you!

In many cases, exploitation is prevent or minimized by competition. It's when competition is lacking that the worst problems arise.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Do you think it is just planned economics?

No, since in True communism there is no one to plan (since there is no government period)

To me communism is a socio-political aim, not an economic issue whatsoever. Economics is a tool than can be used for a variety of aims.While perhaps Marx will be proven correct in his dialectic historical vision, generally for me communism is a political aim, not an economic reality. Thus thinking it can come about eocnomically, it is wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Also, let me retract my Marx statement about land and capital, since Marx may have had a more Kidian interpretation of land than I thought.

Of course, marx's economic interpretations were always the great achilles heel of his writing, cause I think his economic notions were generally wrong.

Land certainly seems to be a means of production. I'd call it capital. For one, you can farm it. In that case it's definately a means of production (unlike a mine, a farm actually produces stuff). And a house constantly produces a product, "shelter".

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Land certainly seems to be a means of production. I'd call it capital. For one, you can farm it. In that case it's definately a means of production (unlike a mine, a farm actually produces stuff). And a house constantly produces a product, "shelter".

"Shelter" is not a product, but you are right that land is capable of being productive if farmed, and hence Marx does categorize it as "capital". As I said, I think this is part of Marx's failing.