Exegesis - Cap/Com-ist

[Kontiki]

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.

Why do you deny that you're arguing something, and then go and argue that very thing in the next sentence? Without the business, the labor is not providing any value. So you only want to compensate the labor, and nothing else. Why can't you see this?

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

Nothing even remotely close to what you're suggesting, and I find it difficult to believe that you really think otherwise.

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?

Maybe you should re-read what you've typed here and ask yourself if that's what you meant. Because as it stands, you haven't presented dichotomous choices and the obvious answer to both is "duh, yes".

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?

Same problem here. Take a step back and think about it for a minute. First, if you agree that compensation needs to be paid, where do you propose it comes from? And second, think about how risk compensation works.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
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.

Most communists don't understand their own theory and are communists for moral reasons. A reading of Marx should dispell comrades of this notion, since the value labor, like any other commodity, depends on the amount of socially-necessary labor which goes in to making it. In other words, the value of a doctor's labor (at least in his function as a doctor) is more valuable than the labor of a ditch-digger. The labor of faster and or more skilled workers are more valuable, and should be so compensated. The eventual goal of communism is to create a society so productive that economic compensation isn't an issue and that we all live in a world of plenty.

Abolishing periodic economic crisis-- I would be most interested in how this is accomplished.

Presumably with rational economic planning, capital will not be over-invested in "profitable" sectors, which is what leads to economic crises.

I am also curious as to what level of economic issue is classified as a crisis.

I would argue that when the economy contracts, or at least fails to grow enough to keep up with population growth, we have a crisis. In addition, if we can't produce enough to meet demands in basic services an goods like housing, food, health care, etc, we also would have a crisis. I would add, however, that this is my opinion.

Past communist economies have not been viewed as major successes so I am interested in what would be done differently.

Well, past communist economies suffered from several inital problems. The first, of course, is starting from a low level of development. We've taken power, so far, only in countries which were primarily agricultural and/or devestated by war. We started with a handicap. In addition, due to the political situations facing these countries, they were forced to take certain short term measures which were harmful in the long run (such as war-communism in Russia) or invest more in military expenditures than in civilian ones. On top of this, the dictatorial and bureaucratic nature of these countries meant that when decisions were made that weren't rational, those who were in charge of implimenting these decisions were unable to comply, and unable to challenge their responsibilities. And, in fear for their lives, they would falsify their results. So when the bureaucrats made the next set of projections, they did so with inaccurate data, which only compounds the problem. Finally, the dictatorial and bureaucratic nature of these governments alienated people from their society, and even high levels of the bureaucracy saw no incentive to expend extra effort to make things better.

Now, it may very well be that the first two situations are outside our control. Given that revolutions only happen wen governments lose legitimacy, an they only lose legitimacy when they confront a crises with which they cannot cope, even in the U.S., it's possible we'd be starting from a low point. It's also a given that the surrounding capitalist world would be hostile, and we'd need to concentrate on military production. What we do have control over, however, is whether or not we are a dictatorship or a democracy, and whether the bureaucracy rules the people or serves the people. If we take the most strident measures to ensure the democratic process survives and thrives, then we avoid the problems that the previous socialist states encountered. And, we have computers, so we can collect and analyze data much more accurately, and thus make more accurate allocations of resources. And maybe I'm being hopeful.

End economic causes for war-- I seriously don't see this one as a big issue for capitalism.

It has been in the past. The war against Iraq in 1991 was primarly a war of economics, i.e., preventing the majority of the world's oil supply being under the control of one man (assuming he had plans to overrun the Arabian peninsula). Both world wars had economic causes at their base, evevn if the proximate causes took different forms.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

It has been in the past. The war against Iraq in 1991 was primarly a war of economics, i.e., preventing the majority of the world's oil supply being under the control of one man (assuming he had plans to overrun the Arabian peninsula). Both world wars had economic causes at their base, evevn if the proximate causes took different forms.

Thanks che

I agree that many wars in the past have had economic basis-- often about control of colonies etc . .

I just don't see that as the possible cause of future wars and even if economic reasons were a reason for war, its not necessarily capitalism at the cause.

For instance China could make a play for certain offshore resources or , less plausibly, for Russian wealth in Siberia. In either case, the root cause could be economic but that reason could exist if China were pure communist or their existing communist-capitalist mix.

In fact some wars have been about ideology as the capitalist and communist blocs fought through proxies in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan ( and to a lesser extent in some African and South American nations)

As for the rest, thanks for the response. I like that you approach issues with candour and forthrightness and don't just sprout incomprehensible dogma. I will respond again later today but I have to get busy here at work creating value.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Flubber
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.

Most communists don't understand their own theory and are communists for moral reasons. A reading of Marx should dispell comrades of this notion, since the value labor, like any other commodity, depends on the amount of socially-necessary labor which goes in to making it. In other words, the value of a doctor's labor (at least in his function as a doctor) is more valuable than the labor of a ditch-digger. The labor of faster and or more skilled workers are more valuable, and should be so compensated. The eventual goal of communism is to create a society so productive that economic compensation isn't an issue and that we all live in a world of plenty.

Ditch-digging isn't socially necessary?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Ditch-digging isn't socially necessary?

I didn't say it wasn't. It is not, however, as socially necessary as doctoring. Furthermore, almost anyone can dig a ditch. A doctor, however, requires years of intensive training. Thus, like any commodity, the labor-power of a doctor costs more than the labor-power of a ditch digger.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I didn't say it wasn't. It is not, however, as socially necessary as doctoring. Furthermore, almost anyone can dig a ditch. A doctor, however, requires years of intensive training.

So if he gets free training, then what?

[Kontiki]

The amount of effort required learning medicine is independent of the out of pocket cost of training.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki
The amount of effort required learning medicine is independent of the out of pocket cost of training.

Yeah, so he's paid for the opportunity cost and all of that. So then what?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
So if he gets free training, then what?

It's still more valuable to society. I don't believe that doctors should be treated like gods, but they are still more valuable to society. As long as a commodity economy exists, skilled and trained labor-power will continue to be renumerated better than untrained and unskilled labor-power.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It's still more valuable to society. I don't believe that doctors should be treated like gods, but they are still more valuable to society. As long as a commodity economy exists, skilled and trained labor-power will continue to be renumerated better than untrained and unskilled labor-power.

Who determines that, and under what basis? Have you read Animal Farm? No comrades are more equal than other comrades, comrade.

And Marx certainly never said that they were. You are very mistaken. You have a very poor interpretation.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Yeah, so he's paid for the opportunity cost and all of that. So then what?

Move away from the economics of it altogether. It requires more time, effort and skill than knowing how to dig a ditch. Didn't you admit before that someone who works harder should be rewarded?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Who determines that, and under what basis?

Society determines it, democratically.

Have you read Animal Farm? No comrades are more equal than other comrades, comrade.

Animal Farm, was written by Orwell, not Marx nor Lenin.

And Marx certainly never said that they were. You are very mistaken. You have a very poor interpretation.

It's in the first section of Capital. Lenin also alludes to this in The State and Revolution.

The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the production, and consequently also the reproduction, of this special article. So far as it has value, it represents no more than a definite quantity of the average labour of society incorporated in it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Move away from the economics of it altogether. It requires more time, effort and skill than knowing how to dig a ditch. Didn't you admit before that someone who works harder should be rewarded?

The act of learning medicine requires more time and effort than the act of learning ditch-digging, obviously.

The act of practicing medicine does not necessarily requires more time and effort than practicing ditch-digging. It is often the other way around (depending of the doctor and the ditch-digger).

[chequita guevara]

From Wage Labor & Capital

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch04.htm

Now, the same general laws which regulate the price of commodities in general, naturally regulate wages, or the price of labor-power. Wages will now rise, now fall, according to the relation of supply and demand, according as competition shapes itself between the buyers of labor-power, the capitalists, and the sellers of labor-power, the workers. The fluctuations of wages correspond to the fluctuation in the price of commodities in general. But within the limits of these fluctuations the price of labor-power will be determined by the cost of production, by the labor-time necessary for production of this commodity: labor-power.

What, then, is the cost of production of labor-power?

It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer.

Therefore, the shorter the time required for training up to a particular sort of work, the smaller is the cost of production of the worker, the lower is the price of his labor-power, his wages. In those branches of industry in which hardly any period of apprenticeship is necessary and the mere bodily existence of the worker is sufficient, the cost of his production is limited almost exclusively to the commodities necessary for keeping him in working condition. The price of his work will therefore be determined by the price of the necessary means of subsistence.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Kidicious
Who determines that, and under what basis?

Society determines it, democratically.

How is that different from what we have today? Society today decides what compensation captitalists get, and you oppose that. So you still haven't told me on what basis doctors and whomever else you have chosen should get paid more.

Have you read Animal Farm? No comrades are more equal than other comrades, comrade.

Animal Farm, was written by Orwell, not Marx nor Lenin.

Ah, it is at least as important as anything written by a communist for communist. Any comrade who does not concern himself with the message of that book does not understand communism very well.

Have you read it, or should I tell you about the book?

And Marx certainly never said that they were. You are very mistaken. You have a very poor interpretation.

It's in the first section of Capital. Lenin also alludes to this in The State and Revolution.

The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the production, and consequently also the reproduction, of this special article. So far as it has value, it represents no more than a definite quantity of the average labour of society incorporated in it.

How in the world do you get your interpretation from that passage. That passage very clearly states that no one type of labor is superior to any other. It's true that Marx said that only socially necessary labor is valuable, but no where did he say that some labor was more socially necessary than others.