Exegesis - Cap/Com-ist

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Flubber



No leave aside the labor element for the moment. Assume I buy a house for 300K and without any repairs at all it is now worth 350K. Assume that rent adequately compensated for the labor for maintaining the property. Inflation generally was only 2% in those two years.

Is the property owner "entitled" to this compensation on the sale of the property?

Sorry, missed this in the flurry of other posts.

I'd say that goes in the "risk" category. After all, market fluctations could result in the value of the house dropping from 300k to 250k. Is the property owner able to complain that he got hosed for 50 grand? No.

edit: well, yes, he can complain all he likes, but he ain't gettin' his 50 g's back!

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

Political? In a way that has nothing to do with exploitation?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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

I appreciate you being forth right with me. I won't hold your feet to the fire. We have come to an understanding that capitalist are paid something, you call incentive, that is not compensation for their labor, but which comes from labor. You went down a road that Vel was not willing to got down.

You rock!

[Kontiki]

And here we come round to a point I made in passing in a thread a little while back, but unfortunately didn't have time to follow up on. That is, unlike under a feudal or communist society, your lot isn't predetermined and impossible to change. In this very thread, we have seen how Vel has gone from a worker to a "capitalist", and Kid could do the same thing. The only difference is, Kid doesn't want to.

I believe Che responded to this comment before by pointing out that capitalism relies on having people who do not become capitalists and he's quite right. But that takes care of itself naturally - simply put, not everyone will reach for the stars for whatever reason. Kid is a perfect example. By his own admission, he refuses to try. He, and people just like him, could be just like Vel and scrimp and save, make sacrifices, look for optimal markets and become the dreaded "capitalist". Many people have done it - and granted there's no absolute guarantee of success - but you have to try. You aren't a slave or a servant, but you have to make things happen for yourself. Society will never progress in any direction if we reward the "I don't want to do anything more than the bare minimum, and everyone else should be dragged down to my level" attitude.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Communism is about freedom from exploitation.

I think this is a big stumbling block here. Instead of harping on capitalism being exploitive, perhaps you should explain how communism keeps one free from exploitation.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I appreciate you being forth right with me. I won't hold your feet to the fire. We have come to an understanding that capitalist are paid something, you call incentive, that is not compensation for their labor, but which comes from labor. You went down a road that Vel was not willing to got down.

You rock!

Why thank you, Kid. I'll take that in the spirit in which it was intended.

We continue to disagree, of course, about whether or not capital helps create value (IMO, it doesn't create value all by itself, but certainly can increase the value of labor).

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Arrian

We continue to disagree, of course, about whether or not capital helps create value (IMO, it doesn't create value all by itself, but certainly can increase the value of labor).

-Arrian

You can even ACCEPT kid's vision that "labor crates all value' if he would accept that capital is merely the accumulation of labor value . I work hard and save money-- All the value is from labor but somehow magically if we now call it "capital" its bad.

[Arrian]

That too.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Why thank you, Kid. I'll take that in the spirit in which it was intended.

We continue to disagree, of course, about whether or not capital helps create value (IMO, it doesn't create value all by itself, but certainly can increase the value of labor).

-Arrian

I don't think we do, because I don't disagree that that capitalist should be compensated for his labor. I only disagree that he should be given an incentive.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



You can even ACCEPT kid's vision that "labor crates all value' if he would accept that capital is merely the accumulation of labor value . I work hard and save money-- All the value is from labor but somehow magically if we now call it "capital" its bad.

I agree that capital is accumulated labor. The question is who's labor.

[Flubber]

A few things bug me about kid's views on capitalism


1. The self-defeatist attitude-- it seems like he is saying that a worker cannot ever get ahead and that all transactions are imposed from some ruling class-- I cannot accept that.

2. he seems to reject that any capitalsit would have anything other than a financial interest.

3. How a wage that is otherwise fair suddenly becomes "exploitive" if someone else gains from the exchange. THis was the whole "tractor" example where you could pay a worker two to three times what other wage earners are getting yet the higher paid guy is the one getting exploited. I really have a hard time with that one.



I actuually think point one is the biggest stumbling block in the discussion. Fundanmentally I accept the idea of free choice and do not see the MAJORITY of society being forced into anything

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't think we do, because I don't disagree that that capitalist should be compensated for his labor. I only disagree that he should be given an incentive.

If he isn't given an incentive, why would he labor in the first place?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki
And here we come round to a point I made in passing in a thread a little while back, but unfortunately didn't have time to follow up on. That is, unlike under a feudal or communist society, your lot isn't predetermined and impossible to change. In this very thread, we have seen how Vel has gone from a worker to a "capitalist", and Kid could do the same thing. The only difference is, Kid doesn't want to.

I believe Che responded to this comment before by pointing out that capitalism relies on having people who do not become capitalists and he's quite right. But that takes care of itself naturally - simply put, not everyone will reach for the stars for whatever reason. Kid is a perfect example. By his own admission, he refuses to try. He, and people just like him, could be just like Vel and scrimp and save, make sacrifices, look for optimal markets and become the dreaded "capitalist". Many people have done it - and granted there's no absolute guarantee of success - but you have to try. You aren't a slave or a servant, but you have to make things happen for yourself. Society will never progress in any direction if we reward the "I don't want to do anything more than the bare minimum, and everyone else should be dragged down to my level" attitude.

Why should I have to be a capitalist? Why do I have to pay not to be?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki


I think this is a big stumbling block here. Instead of harping on capitalism being exploitive, perhaps you should explain how communism keeps one free from exploitation.

We don't have to pay an 'incentive'

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki


If he isn't given an incentive, why would he labor in the first place?

He won't. That's why the 'incentive' must be paid. We don't have a choice in capitalism. We must pay the 'incentive'