com/cap/com debate - laboring under delusions

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If it wasn't, they couldn't agree on a price.

Would you ever work for someone for what you considered less that what your work was worth so that you could make ends meet, if even just temporarily?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
But what is the worth? Is it variable or is there some intrinsic worth?

If I produce 10 widgets it's worth 10 widgets. But the capitalist only pays me for 8. He knows it's worth 10, and so do I.

Actually kid I am not a capitalist as you have defined it-- I am just a successful worker ( as I myself define success)

You invest your money don't you? If you buy a stock you expect to sell it at a higher price, right?

[Kontiki]

Spiffor:

We're going around in circles here. You think it's fine to reap rewards simply for owning a company as long as you are the owner, but not if someone else is. I'm not sure why you don't see it, but I don't know how to explain it any clearer than I have. All I can say again is that I think you're using profit and value interchangibly and that's causing problems. It's inconsistent to agree with Flubber's tractor proposition and say that someone who only contributes capital should receive no compensation from the output.

[Flubber]

yes and capitalists will temporarily pay far more than market rate when faced with a necessity ( a deadline where they pay double or triple time or even more outrageous rates.

lets make a deal. In all your scenarios this won't be the only available job for a starving worker with eight hungry kids . .. . and in my scenarios the employer won't be one of three bidding on the only available electrician for a thousand miles that can do a repair on any one of the three plants where each costs $100,000 an hour while its off-line.

deal ??

[Arrian]

You can't say that 10 widgets are worth 10 widgets... that's not placing a worth or value on the widgets!

If you make 10 chairs, what is that worth? Dollar value, or failing that, trade value (barter system).

My answer: it depends.

You, however, appear to be saying that things have some sort of objective value that exists outside of the market (and thus is not determined by how much other people want it).

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

If I produce 10 widgets it's worth 10 widgets. But the capitalist only pays me for 8. He knows it's worth 10, and so do I.

Thats not an answer, I gave you all the materials to make the widget.

Also if you get what you produce, the oil workers get that 2.4 million anually each. I assume thats ok with you.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
You can't say that 10 widgets are worth 10 widgets... that's not placing a worth or value on the widgets!

Have you lost your mind?

[Arrian]

Saying ten widgets is worth ten widgets is a meaningless statement, Kid.

I have 10 chairs. You ask me what they're worth. I replay "10 chairs, clearly."

It's a useless way to describe worth.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
yes and capitalists will temporarily pay far more than market rate when faced with a necessity ( a deadline where they pay double or triple time or even more outrageous rates.

lets make a deal. In all your scenarios this won't be the only available job for a starving worker with eight hungry kids . .. . and in my scenarios the employer won't be one of three bidding on the only available electrician for a thousand miles that can do a repair on any one of the three plants where each costs $100,000 an hour while its off-line.

deal ??

The general case has to be that capitalists pay for commodities a price that is less than there labor value. That is the only way that capitalism can function.

The general case is what matters. My scenerios are closer to the general case.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Thats not an answer, I gave you all the materials to make the widget.

Also if you get what you produce, the oil workers get that 2.4 million anually each. I assume thats ok with you.

Don't make me give unnecessary details. I've got some kind of virus right now.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The general case has to be that capitalists pay for commodities a price that is less than there labor value. That is the only way that capitalist can function.

The general case is what matters. My scenerios are closer to the general case.

Except in all your scenarios, the worker has NO CHOICE but to acept the job. That is not the general case

[Arrian]

I'm sorry you are sick, Kid. I hope you feel better.

However, what Flubber and I are after isn't some meaningless detail. I think it's crucial to the discussion.

If, under communism, people are to be properly compensated for their labor, how do you determine the value of that labor? Who decides, and how? That's pretty damned important.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Except in all your scenarios, the worker has NO CHOICE but to acept the job. That is not the general case

He has no choice but to take A job.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
We're going around in circles here. You think it's fine to reap rewards simply for owning a company as long as you are the owner, but not if someone else is. I'm not sure why you don't see it, but I don't know how to explain it any clearer than I have.

In that case, I am not the "owner" of the company, because in my system, "ownership" of a company would have no more meaning as "ownership" of a human being, or of a country, has today.
In that case, along with all the other employees of the company, I decide the fate of that year's profit. Should iwe increase wages with them, should we give an annual bonus, or should we keep it for later investment? That's the question asked in today's general assemblies of shareholders. It's the same questions that are asked in a Spifforist company, where the political weight (and the associated bonus) of an individual doesn't depend on how much capital he invested.

All I can say again is that I think you're using profit and value interchangibly and that's causing problems.

I don't. The only reason why I thought the value increased in your example is because I misread it at first. What increases is the added value (i.e. value of the good - price of the productive process discounting wages), because the price of the productive process decreases. The profit also increases (added value - wages) at least until the wages are re-assessed. What does the company do with that profit? This question is answeed in the general assembly of the employees.

It's inconsistent to agree with Flubber's tractor proposition and say that someone who only contributes capital should receive no compensation from the output.

I agreed with Flubber's proposition because everybody had a better situation out of it. In Cap / Com debates, it is very important to keep in mind both creating and distributing value.
Since Flubber's example resulted in a creation of value that great that it outweighted exploitation, it was acceptable. I don't consider it as great virtuous morals, but the positive outcome outweights the fact that the worker doesn't benefit from the entirety of the value he now produces.
However, when the distribution tilted too much toward the capitalists (in my continuation of the example), it stopped being morally acceptable, because the worker was strongly stripped of his work's worth.

It may be inconsistent, but when you're presented with an extreme case, it's not necessarily a good idea to be 100% consistent. See Floyd, and you'll see what I mean

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'm sorry you are sick, Kid. I hope you feel better.

However, what Flubber and I are after isn't some meaningless detail. I think it's crucial to the discussion.

If, under communism, people are to be properly compensated for their labor, how do you determine the value of that labor? Who decides, and how? That's pretty damned important.

-Arrian

I'm trying to tell you that. At the moment I can't think of a better way, but sometimes when we get into these philosophical debates we forget about reality, and reality is that a widget is worth a widget, no more, no less.