com/cap/com debate - laboring under delusions

[Arrian]

Originally posted by GePap

It is terrible, ins't it?

Oh, yes! Horrible!



-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flubber


Then elaborate.

All people need to eat and need shelter to survive. That is obvious. NOw, its not like there is much land left open for someone to claim as their own, then go chop down some trees for their home and so forth. To live they need money, to make money they need to sell their labor to another individual to earn the cash to buy their goods from somoene else (or the very folks they work for). The communist critique then is that we have a system in whcih people end up toiling for life not becuase they love to toil, but because they have to toil in order to have what they need to live. Now, back in the times of subsistance farming, that is just the reality of life. But we have moved on, and the means of production today are far beyond that- we are at a level where society could provide the basics of life to everyone period, and then free everyone to do whatever they love, to stop the alienation of worker and labor. But we don't do so, becuase we value more a system in which private owners of capital can maximixe their wealth. We have placed as a higher moral the maximazation of wealth over allowing everyone to do what they love.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That's just speculative value DF.

No it's not. This is why we speak of socially-necessary labor. Labor only produces value if it's socially-necessary, i.e., if it produces something people want. Otherwise it has neither use-value nor exchange-value.

[Arrian]

Like me playing Civ all day. If I'm playing a hard level, like Deity, it could be hard work. But it produces nothing anyone else wants. Thus, it's useless.

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GePap

In the condition you mention, if you and I don't agree on the set of rules, then there is no morality. In a siutation with one perosn morality does not exist. With two, it only exists if both people agree. I could kill you or you me and the only problem would be ones conscience. If you start getting a lot of people, then maybe you need a social convention.

So, no, saying private ownership is moral is simply saying social convention says privcate ownership is good. But what is the basis of said convention?

WOW

So if you met me on a deserted island you would have no moral compunction about killing me.

You see certain moral principles go with me wherever I am and not interfering with the well being of another (unless necessary) would be one of them.

THat would involve

not harming you unless necessary (self defense)
not taking or destroying things you have created ( I could justify taking some things if I were starving butb then again if I were in the situation of plenty I could not morally allow you to starve).


I do find it interesting that you would see nothing of prior society or any of your training and upbringing-- surviving.

No morality unless we agree hmmm---So if a big dude joins our island and immediately begins beating you, I guess I have no moral responsibility and in fact the new dude is doing nothing wrong since we had not agreed that beating each other was "wrong".

-------

Sorry but to me morality always exists. If I were ALONE on that island my morality doesn't disappear. The things I considered wrong would still be wrong to me. My beliefs in right and wrong are not THAT fluid

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No it's not. This is why we speak of socially-necessary labor. Labor only produces value if it's socially-necessary, i.e., if it produces something people want. Otherwise it has neither use-value nor exchange-value.

I think he said that value was what people think it is. That's speculative value. True that a good must be socially necessary to be valuable, but sometimes people think goods are necessary when in fact they are not.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flubber


WOW

So if you met me on a deserted island you would have no moral compunction about killing me.

You see certain moral principles go with me wherever I am and not interfering with the well being of another (unless necessary) would be one of them.

Your moral values are based on the social convetions you were born in, so don't imagine that is somehow naturally built. I mentioned conscience.

not harming you unless necessary (self defense)
not taking or destroying things you have created ( I could justify taking some things if I were starving butb then again if I were in the situation of plenty I could not morally allow you to starve).

OK.

I do find it interesting that you would see nothing of prior society or any of your training and upbringing-- surviving.

its irrelevant to the hypothetical.

No morality unless we agree hmmm---So if a big dude joins our island and immediately begins beating you, I guess I have no moral responsibility and in fact the new dude is doing nothing wrong since we had not agreed that beating each other was "wrong".

Correct-you have no moral responsibility to help me. IN fact, you could always join in beating me and using that as the foundation of the new society.

Sorry but to me morality always exists. If I were ALONE on that island my morality doesn't disappear. The things I considered wrong would still be wrong to me. My beliefs in right and wrong are not THAT fluid

Well, that's an interesting faith based arguement. any arguements to back it up?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GePap


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

NO-- do whatever you want -- just don't expect me or society to compensate you for it. If everybody did exactly what they desired, many of the needs of the society ( even food and shelter) would be unmet. Yet you wish to play chess or fish, or play civ3 all day and then have food and shelter. Where does this come from? If you answer is Star Trek we are back to a far off fantasy in which case, I say FINE-- once all needs are met and labour is not required to meet needs, we can all do as we please

Originally posted by GePap


If capital= wealth, then all capitalists are wealthy. .

Not in the sense that most people would use the term wealthy. A rather poor person might scrape together $500 to buy a piece of equipment that he can rent out for $80 bucks a month. He is a capitalist but no one would call him wealthy.

Originally posted by GePap

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

If this situation is FINE, ie no moal problem then you have just accepted a situation where PROFIT is moral.

Originally posted by GePap

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.

So you are asserting a right for anyone to be "employed" at anything they choose? Does this hold if there is no value to anyone in their chose field?

Again-- in star trek maybe this could happen but in the current and forseeable world I simply do not see how this is possible regardless of the economic or governmental system.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GePap


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

NO-- do whatever you want -- just don't expect me or society to compensate you for it. If everybody did exactly what they desired, many of the needs of the society ( even food and shelter) would be unmet. Yet you wish to play chess or fish, or play civ3 all day and then have food and shelter. Where does this come from? If you answer is Star Trek we are back to a far off fantasy in which case, I say FINE-- once all needs are met and labour is not required to meet needs, we can all do as we please

Originally posted by GePap


If capital= wealth, then all capitalists are wealthy. .

Not in the sense that most people would use the term wealthy. A rather poor person might scrape together $500 to buy a piece of equipment that he can rent out for $80 bucks a month. He is a capitalist but no one would call him wealthy.

Originally posted by GePap

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

If this situation is FINE, ie no moral problem then you have just accepted a situation where PROFIT is moral.

Originally posted by GePap

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.

So you are asserting a right for anyone to be "employed" at anything they choose? Does this hold if there is no value to anyone in their chose field?

Again-- in star trek maybe this could happen but in the current and forseeable world I simply do not see how this is possible regardless of the economic or governmental system.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GePap



Well, that's an interesting faith based arguement. any arguements to back it up?

Nope-- I just can't see how any person that has acquired or adopted a moral code (yes through training and social convention) could abandon it so easily.


You mentioned conscience... How is that relevant if NOTHING you could do could possibly be WRONG.?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flubber


NO-- do whatever you want -- just don't expect me or society to compensate you for it. If everybody did exactly what they desired, many of the needs of the society ( even food and shelter) would be unmet. Yet you wish to play chess or fish, or play civ3 all day and then have food and shelter. Where does this come from? If you answer is Star Trek we are back to a far off fantasy in which case, I say FINE-- once all needs are met and labour is not required to meet needs, we can all do as we please

Society does not compensate it- a private individual does. See, only in communism does SOCIETY actually compensate you. This is where Che's value arguement vs. Kid comes up.

Not in the sense that most people would use the term wealthy. A rather poor person might scrape together $500 to buy a piece of equipment that he can rent out for $80 bucks a month. He is a capitalist but no one would call him wealthy.

I don't tow the line that anyone owning capital=capitalst. I own a hammer. I am not a capitalist.

If this situation is FINE, ie no moral problem then you have just accepted a situation where PROFIT is moral.

Profit in an of itself is not evil. The question is, is profit your sole motivation?

So you are asserting a right for anyone to be "employed" at anything they choose? Does this hold if there is no value to anyone in their chose field?

No, you would not be "employed" anymore than a subsitance famer is employed. Thats the point, the ability o live and love what you do not necessarily as an employee. (for there must be an employer)

Again-- in star trek maybe this could happen but in the current and forseeable world I simply do not see how this is possible regardless of the economic or governmental system.

You assume of course perhaps that everyone would like to lounge and do nothing at all all day long-which is really nonsense. I do know there is more than enough wealth to feed, cloth, and educate every single child on the planet. We don't, but we have far more than is necessary to do that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flubber



Nope-- I just can't see how any person that has acquired or adopted a moral code (yes through training and social convention) could abandon it so easily.

Your hypothetical did not assume that you and I on that Island had come to it already having a moral system.

You mentioned conscience... How is that relevant if NOTHING you could do could possibly be WRONG.?

Because as social beings, we have evolved with a few basic feelings, which the conscience might play on.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Flubber
And I want to see a communist logically tell me how there is anything offensive in the tractor example.

There is nothing offensive in that example, since you removed all actual problems that arise from capitalism: the owner of capital worked as hell to get his capital, and he doesn't exploit the worker.

The problem is that, for one of those win-win situations, you have plenty of win-lose situation. Heck, the very example you use could be quickly twisted in a win-lose situation if we make the story progress a little bit:

The trqctor owner becomes too old to manage it, and he sells his productive capital to some ditch-digging company in town. The ditch-digging company must satisfy its shareholders / moneylenders, and thus it requires a much higher return on investment from the guy who works the tractor. As such, he sees a strong decline of his income (but not enough to make him go back to the shovel).
Progressively, the balance shifts. The workers gain eventually 10$ an hour, while the shareholders get 15$ (the company's functioning fees remain pretty much the same as what they were previously).
Sure, the worker still has better working conditions than with their shovels. But he is stripped of most of the value of their work. He'd be far better off with a tractor of his own, but he doesn't necessarily have the money for that. Hence, he has to continue working for that company.

The reason why I gave your bright example a dark future is not because I wanted the emotional aspect back in. I wanted to show that even your example of a really nice and deserving owner had the potential to turn into capitalist exploitation - and a fair potential at that.

This is why I endorse a socialist system over a social-democratic one: because the private ownership of capital is the very reason why many people gain far less money than they could if they actually earned the value of their work.
Even if capitalism permits the existence of "kind" owners (and they do exist), it also has all the mechanisms to permit the existence of impersonal, despotic entities that care only for the financial return. And this is the grave problem of capitalism IMHO, which I think Market Socialism would solve. The kind of Market Socialism I envision would have nearly no impact on family or small-scale businesses, which are personalized entities where "kind" bosses can indeed exist.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

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

You honestly don't see the problem here? You just finished arguing that if the capital shouldn't be rewarded because it's the work that's creating the value. Now you're happy to reward the same thing for nothing, only because it's you that owns the capital instead of someone else.

In other words, someone who is not responsible for the change in financial position is reaping the rewards of it. You didn't increase your productivity, and you're being compensated for work that is not yours. You're no different than the capitalist today.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
You honestly don't see the problem here? You just finished arguing that if the capital shouldn't be rewarded because it's the work that's creating the value.

This is not what I argued. Value is fundamentally produced by the combination of work * capital. I think that those who only provide capital shouldn't be rewarded, for moral reasons (with all the reservations about practicability).
If the value rises, damn right I want the worker to reap the rewards of it. The raise of productivity means that his work is worth more, so it's entirely normal he gets more money.

Now you're happy to reward the same thing for nothing, only because it's you that owns the capital instead of someone else.

Th painter (that would be me?) continues to work, doesn't he? So how exactly does it oppose my idea that work should be rewarded?

In other words, someone who is not responsible for the change in financial position is reaping the rewards of it. You didn't increase your productivity, and you're being compensated for work that is not yours. You're no different than the capitalist today.

Err, how exactly didn't I increase my productivity (I'm not sure I understand the vocabulary)? Do you mean that I am not responsible in doing so, or do you think that my work isn't more productive as before?

Again, it is pretty straightforward. Value is a combination of work*capital. I think only those who work in a company should get the financial rewards of that company, and that impersonal owners not working in should not. How exactly does it contradict my morals to say that the workers of the company get a pay rise if the company has produced significantly more value?