Exegesis - Cap/Com-ist

[Agathon]

Take a widget worth $10. I have one and then they stop making the particular widget. It is now worth
$20 as it is scarce. No labor whatsoever was applied to increase the value. In fact it was the LACK of labor building new widgets that led to the creation of value.

I think the point is that people want to assign some responsibility for the creation of value. This seems to underlie the famous capitalist "hard-work" ethic.

In your example, the increase in value happened by accident due to what other people did or didn't do. When we talk about creating value, we usually mean that somebody did something. I don't claim that things cannot increase in value in the absence of labour, just that this is not created, rather it just happens.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Agathon

The same as yours, only you can't or won't see it. Labor in and of itself creates nothing of value, just like land or money. It has to be applied to something meaningful to create value.

Why can't I think up a new song, or a new joke. Those have value, yet I have not applied my labour to anything, since these are immaterial goods.

Is it standard commie pablum that labor is only rolling up your sleeves and digging a ditch?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Is it standard commie pablum that labor is only rolling up your sleeves and digging a ditch?

No, now go away.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
Take a widget worth $10. I have one and then they stop making the particular widget. It is now worth
$20 as it is scarce.

price != value

[Flubber]

I really see this labor/ value thing as a smokescreen anyway. Lets bore down to the core goals of each system. I see the goal of communism to be equality of condition . . . correct me if this is wrong.


My form of capitalism ( first of all its a regulated capitalism) is all about opportunity. I hesitate to say EQUALITY of opportunity since I acknowledge that the rich kid will have a better chance at better schools and higher advancement than the poor kid. But I'll accept that if the poor kid has a real and realistic chance at the higher schooling and the opportunities that it brings, along with the necessary income supports along the way.

We are not yet where we need to be to accomplish this although my perception is that Canada is further along this road than the US. At a minimum what is needed is good schools in all neighborhoods, a strong and effective social safety net, and good scholarships/bursaries to ensure that not only the exceptional student but also the average college-eligible student can get to a college. This would be a start.

Thats my goal for capitalism .. . a system where the poorest may become rich through effort and intelligence but where the poorest have a guaranteed minimum standard of living.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Of course. I'm not arguing otherwise. We are really talking about capitalists though. In the capitalist system they are paid this thing which is called many things. Arrian calls it incentive. I call it exploitation, and you seem to just identify it with some right to money for the simple fact of legal ownership of something. Now say all of us decided that we would not pay the capitalist that? How would that be wrong?

But you are arguing otherwise. You claim you only have to pay for one input - the labor.

I can't answer your last part, because it is rediculously hypothetical. The reality is that most people think it's fair that you compensate the owner of something for it's use. There may be a disagreement over the price, but there's almost no dispute that there should be some compensation. So would it be wrong be wrong if everyone decided not to pay the capitalist for use of his land/tools/money/whatever? I dunno, would murder be wrong if every single person on the planet thought it was fine?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, now go away.

Maybe you should tell Agathon to go away. He's the one that brought it up.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


price != value

Okie-dokie--- Are you talking intrinsic value to society or something since that has probably increased as well. But generally in these discussions, we have been talking about appropriating dollars as between labor and other inputs. If you want to take it in another direction, be my guest.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


price != value

And value is not a fixed, universal figure.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Now say all of us decided that we would not pay the capitalist that? How would that be wrong?

In the current system, no one decides or doesn't decide to pay a capitalist their profit. They invest in something, hire people that want to work at the wage offered and produce a product. If it sells and they make money, good for them. If they lose all their money, nobody compensates them anything.


Its not a conscious decision by you and me. But if an investor looks at an investment and sees no profit, THEY DO NOT INVEST and the project does not happen.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
I really see this labor/ value thing as a smokescreen anyway. Lets bore down to the core goals of each system. I see the goal of communism to be equality of condition . . . correct me if this is wrong.

Yes and no. It's more about equality of opportunity and limiting the differences in condition. It has more to do, however, with abolishing the periodic economic crises cased by capitalism, as well as doing away with the economic causes for war, etc.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki
But you are arguing otherwise. You claim you only have to pay for one input - the labor.

That's not arguing otherwise. I'm agreeing that you need someone to organize labor, and that that is work. I'm saying that it's not necessary to compensate the owners of business for nothing but owning the business.

I can't answer your last part, because it is rediculously hypothetical.

Actually, it's not hypothetical. What do you think happened in Cuba, China, Russia etc...

The reality is that most people think it's fair that you compensate the owner of something for it's use.

That's not the question. The question is how much they should be compensated. Should they be compensated out of what labor produces or should they simply be compensated for the labor that they perform, and the risk and depreciation of their capital?

There may be a disagreement over the price, but there's almost no dispute that there should be some compensation. So would it be wrong be wrong if everyone decided not to pay the capitalist for use of his land/tools/money/whatever? I dunno, would murder be wrong if every single person on the planet thought it was fine?

That's ridiculous. We are discussing the amount of fair compensation. Not whether he should be compensated or not.

So again I ask you. What is wrong with all of deciding that the capitalists will no longer be compensated for this thing that isn't their work and losses to their capital?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kontiki
And value is not a fixed, universal figure.

Correct.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes and no. It's more about equality of opportunity and limiting the differences in condition. It has more to do, however, with abolishing the periodic economic crises cased by capitalism, as well as doing away with the economic causes for war, etc.

See I can get on board with most of what you just said.

Equality of opportunity-- I see this as a noble goal but have always questioned how far you take it. Right now it is possible but not very likely for the poorest black kid with a drug addicted mother to get to Harvard but it highly unlikely. Even if you reduced the differences between rich and poor, there is never true equality of opportunity. Heck I could argue that in many ways, the rich kid with parents that don't care about him has less opportunity than the middle class kid given a supportive upbringing and instilled with good work ethic.

Limiting the differences in condition-- here again, I am partially with you. A strong social safety net that can bring as many people as possible to an acceptable level. Continuation of progressive taxation so the rich pay more. Personally I would also hope for the end of the silliness where Pedro Martinez gets offered 52 million to play baseball etc but in principle I support a person's right to pay far too much for something as long as it is a free choice to do so.-- Where communists lose me on this issue is where some say that this means that the lawyer and the ditchdigger earn the same money. I reject any system where a person is unable to better their condition through application of their skills and their effort.

Abolishing periodic economic crisis-- I would be most interested in how this is accomplished. I am also curious as to what level of economic issue is classified as a crisis. Past communist economies have not been viewed as major successes so I am interested in what would be done differently

End economic causes for war-- I seriously don't see this one as a big issue for capitalism. I am not sure if you are looking at "global implementation" here to end nation-states ( a pipe-dream IMHO) or if you really anticipate a capitalist war for economic resources. I just don't see it as most major corps are multinationals that will go in and buy rights to resources regardless of where they happen to be. In fact I would argue that most major trouble spots for likely war have very little to do with capitalism.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

That's not arguing otherwise. I'm agreeing that you need someone to organize labor, and that that is work. I'm saying that it's not necessary to compensate the owners of business for nothing but owning the business.

Then they get paid as managers and don't contribute their capital.

Originally posted by Kidicious

...

That's not the question. The question is how much they should be compensated. Should they be compensated out of what labor produces or should they simply be compensated for the labor that they perform, and the risk and depreciation of their capital?

If a capitalist has a good chance of being compensated on a risky investment, thats all they ask. So they take a chance and everything works out and they make a 35% return .. . fabulous. Next time on a similar investment they lose 6%. In neither case is any readjustment necessary

Originally posted by Kidicious



So again I ask you. What is wrong with all of deciding that the capitalists will no longer be compensated for this thing that isn't their work and losses to their capital?

Lets make it simple and set aside the capitalist work. If the system does not provide any return on investment then people will not invest, period.

My bigger question is how do you "decide" not to allow capitalists a chance for profit. Nobody pays it to them directly and profit on a given venture may not be ascertainable for years and years. Can I assume that the answer is state ownership of all productive assets? If it is , why talk about how capitalists should be compensated when your goal is to eliminate them from the system