com/cap/com debate - laboring under delusions

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

If you really want to be a subsistance farmer, you can.

You are dense.

The moral question is, why should someone have to sell their labor in order to have what they want in life? It implies a huge inequality, since the capitalist need not sell thier labor to survive either.

understood?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GePap


Its very simple: why should a human being, to survive and feed himself, have to work in a relationship where they are only partly compensated for their own labor? Is it not more moral for people to be able to use all their labor on themselves, or whatever they chose to work in that they decide they love?

First -- that wasn't the statement-- The statement was that people should essentially be paid enough to purchase that which they produce. If a person builds luxury yatchs, he may be one of 100 people involved in the construction stage. Hundreds more built the various parts and thousands cut and milled the wood and mined, transported and smelted the copper, iron, aluminum, silver, and lead. The owner of the yatchmaking place has already paid for that labor by buying the parts. Lets say all those parts cost 10 million dollars and the yatch will sell for 11 million-- At most the workers can EACH get in construction is $10,000 per yatch and thats not enough to buy what he labored on even if he built 10 a year.

Second- your question begs several more.

1. How do you determine what is full and what is partial compensation? remember my real world example where average revenue per oil worker is 2.4 million yearly. What is full compensation for the yatch builder? Do you price the item at each construction step to see what value a partucilar worker brought?

2. If a worker works on a product that ends up having no value, what is full compensation for that? Nothing ? Or a "fair wage" determined by somebody? Who determines it?

Originally posted by GePap

Is it not more moral for people to be able to use all their labor on themselves, or whatever they chose to work in that they decide they love?

A person can use all their labor on themselves. Nothing stops anybody from laboring on their own behalf. In fact a good chunk of trades folks here choose to set up their own shop. The guy that painted our house was a 22 year old doing just that-- you might aplaud him but then it would turn to boos since he dared hire some other folks.

As for the love part, I don't think ANY system will guarantee you a living in something you love. If it does, sign me up to that system and I will be a professional hockey player or a professional chess player. I'm assuming the fact that I suck at both is irrelevant.

[Kuciwalker]

If a capitalist buys a machine he intends to get a return on his investment. Why don't you think that the capitalist intends to get a return on his investment when he hires a worker? Do you think that he intends to give the worker exactly what he worked for?

The worker produces some stuff with his labor. The capitalist buys the stuff for some price that is greater than the value the laborer holds on it and less than the value the capitalist holds on it. The stuff is not the capitalists, not the laborer's. The capitalist then usually applies capital to the stuff and gets stuff of higher value, which he sells. Since it is of higher value, he usually gets a higher price for it than he paid for the stuff to which he applied the capital.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Duh

Read on, sweetie. Specifically two posts before your "duh" comment.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
You are dense.

The moral question is, why should someone have to sell their labor in order to have what they want in life? It implies a huge inequality, since the capitalist need not sell thier labor to survive either.

understood?

Only those capitalists which were given a gift by someone else. Why shouldn't people be able to support others so much that they don't have to sell their labor to survive?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The capitalist buys the stuff for some price that is greater than the value the laborer holds on it and less than the value the capitalist holds on it.

Why do you think it's more valuable to the capitalist?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flubber
First -- that wasn't the statement-- The statement was that people should essentially be paid enough to purchase that which they produce. If a person builds luxury yatchs, he may be one of 100 people involved in the construction stage. Hundreds more built the various parts and thousands cut and milled the wood and mined, transported and smelted the copper, iron, aluminum, silver, and lead. The owner of the yatchmaking place has already paid for that labor by buying the parts. Lets say all those parts cost 10 million dollars and the yatch will sell for 11 million-- At most the workers can EACH get in construction is $10,000 per yatch and thats not enough to buy what he labored on even if he built 10 a year.

Second- your question begs several more.

1. How do you determine what is full and what is partial compensation? remember my real world example where average revenue per oil worker is 2.4 million yearly. What is full compensation for the yatch builder? Do you price the item at each construction step to see what value a partucilar worker brought?[/q]

2. If a worker works on a product that ends up having no value, what is full compensation for that? Nothing ? Or a "fair wage" determined by somebody? Who determines it?

Your initial question missed the point of the idea.

A person can use all their labor on themselves. Nothing stops anybody from laboring on their own behalf. In fact a good chunk of trades folks here choose to set up their own shop. The guy that painted our house was a 22 year old doing just that-- you might aplaud him but then it would turn to boos since he dared hire some other folks.

This guy was able to do that because there is a market for house painting which he was able to use by selling his labor. Imagine if he wanted to do something for which there was no profitable market? The hiring part is a red herring.

As for the love part, I don't think ANY system will guarantee you a living in something you love. If it does, sign me up to that system and I will be a professional hockey player or a professional chess player. I'm assuming the fact that I suck at both is irrelevant.

Well, first problem is that the 'professional' statement again presuposes selling your labor.

but lets assume you decide playing hockey is what you want to do all the time. You mgiht find out this is true. You might find out after several years thought that this is not true, and that fishing is your true passion. Marx fantasized a system in which you could try it all until you found out what you trully loved to do, and could then do that and not starve to death.

In all these debates I always bring up Star Trek, and I do becuase there is a situation in which such a system is obviously possible, built on having reached a level of wealth and production where it is sustainable (a precondition Marx always set).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Then you've opened up a huge flaw in your reasoning. Say you work in a labour-owned widget factory and make 400 unpainted widgets a year. Someone else in the same factory paints the widgets, and you make X number of dollars through your hard work. But now, the people in the paint factory have drastically improved their productivity, so paint becomes cheaper. Your factory buys the cheaper paint, and your factory makes more money without you increasing the amount or changing the type of work you do. You have now profitted from doing nothing. How does this jive with your morality?

Simple. The work I do is now worth much more thanks to a better productivity. The money I earn still comes from the fact I actually work in the complany.

This is BTW why productivity is such a good news: it increases the value of work considerably, even meaning that one could get more money with fewer work. The gains of productivity tilt the equaltion "Labour*Capital=Value", and the increased value goes to those who work. Nothing immoral here, only good news

[Kidlicious]

The thing that you are missing Kuci, is that Mr. Moneybags has to buy things for less than they are worth and sell them more more than they are worth. That's the only way that he can compete with the other capitalists. If he doesn't he won't be a capitalist much longer. Labor is just another commondity to him. Just like buying a machine, he has to hire the worker for less than his work is worth.

The worker on the other hand is only trying to survive. He takes a wage that he can get. He's willing to trade his labor for less than it's worth so that he can survive.

You see the capitalist will only take the trade at a price below value, and the worker will accept the trade at a price below value. That's the exploitation of the system.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GePap

The moral question is, why should someone have to sell their labor in order to have what they want in life? It implies a huge inequality, since the capitalist need not sell thier labor to survive either.

understood?

You don't. All you have to do is something that someone finds of value so you can trade the value they gove you for the things you want in life. If you decide to sell your labor so be it. If you decide to start a business then so be that.

Oh and don't equate capitalist/investor with wealthy . One is not necessarily the other. I think generally that communists find the wealthy to be more offensive than the capitalists. I see a lot of scorn for inherited wealth and attempts to ignore examples where a person accumulates capital through their own labor.


Lets go to the famous tractor example. A ditchdigger makes 10 bucks an hour. Another ditchdigger saves his money for years and buys a tractor. He offers to hire a ditchdigger to drive the tractor for 20 bucks an hour. The tractor is hired at 40 bucks an hour of which 15 dollars goes to expenses, maintenance and depreciation. The ditchdigger makes twice his previous wage ( and assume the previous wage was considered fair) for doing easier work. The old tractor owner gets $5 an hour in profit when he himself is not driving the tractor and this will allow him to retire earlier.

What is wrong in morality and common sense with that. Everyone is better off. Yet I keep getting told that the tractor driver is being exploited . . . when making half the money doing harder work, he is not exploited.

This is the hard work gang. Where theory collides with common sense

[Arrian]

Imagine if he wanted to do something for which there was no profitable market?

I want to play Civ all day. Instead, I must sell my labor for 40hrs a week to earn my pay. How terrible that I cannot fulfill my dream.

I apologize for the hit 'n run post, btw. I really need to catch up on the discussion, since I've missed several pages of what appears to be good debate.

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GePap


Your initial question missed the point of the idea.

Then elaborate.

Originally posted by GePap

In all these debates I always bring up Star Trek, and I do becuase there is a situation in which such a system is obviously possible, built on having reached a level of wealth and production where it is sustainable (a precondition Marx always set).

Fine . Can you all let kid know this since I think he would impose the system now.

If we are talking some far distant time when there is ample for all, thats ok but then wouldn't most of the drivers leading to the revolution be absent. If everyone has good food and amenities, who will be striving for the changes?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flubber


You don't. All you have to do is something that someone finds of value so you can trade the value they gove you for the things you want in life. If you decide to sell your labor so be it. If you decide to start a business then so be that.

So you are saying your ability to do what you want is based on whether other people think it worthwhile?

Oh and don't equate capitalist/investor with wealthy . One is not necessarily the other. I think generally that communists find the wealthy to be more offensive than the capitalists. I see a lot of scorn for inherited wealth and attempts to ignore examples where a person accumulates capital through their own labor.

If capital= wealth, then all capitalists are wealthy. Not all the wealthy might be capitalists.

Lets go to the famous tractor example. A ditchdigger makes 10 bucks an hour. Another ditchdigger saves his money for years and buys a tractor. He offers to hire a ditchdigger to drive the tractor for 20 bucks an hour. The tractor is hired at 40 bucks an hour of which 15 dollars goes to expenses, maintenance and depreciation. The ditchdigger makes twice his previous wage ( and assume the previous wage was considered fair) for doing easier work. The old tractor owner gets $5 an hour in profit when he himself is not driving the tractor and this will allow him to retire earlier.

All which is fine, but has 0 to do with the moral question posed.

What is wrong in morality and common sense with that. Everyone is better off. Yet I keep getting told that the tractor driver is being exploited . . . when making half the money doing harder work, he is not exploited.

Everyone is better off fine,

On the moral front, assuming that the ditchdigger was happy digging ditches and is happy driving a tractor then whatever. but what if the ditch digger wants to be a fisherman and is digging ditches because that is the only work left for the likes of him? The fact that he is making double the wage does not solve the issue of his alientation from his labor.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Arrian


I want to play Civ all day. Instead, I must sell my labor for 40hrs a week to earn my pay. How terrible that I cannot fulfill my dream.


-Arrian

It is terrible, ins't it?

[Flubber]

And I want to see a communist logically tell me how there is anything offensive in the tractor example. I have removed all your emotional buttons such as idle rich and opressed worker. I want to see how your theoretical model works in the hard case where it is clear where everybody benefits AND where our "capitalist" is just a hardworking guy that scraped together a bit of cash to try to do something to make his life just a little better. He remains a worker that still toils every day