com/cap/com debate - laboring under delusions

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
so what will the communist do about those who dont want to join their system?

The who didn't want to join our system no doubt would attempt to stage counter-revolutions, which no doubt will be crushed by the people.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon

2) in theory, the owner of the capital - in the form of land, a factory, whatever - got that capital either as a direct result of his labor (building a machine) or equivalently trading the direct result of his labor for the capital.

Then, according to you, labour is what matters and Kidicious is right.

Hm? Capital is labor, or the product of it.

You certainly have created something of value. Since these are such intangible goods, and it would in most cases be idiotic to protect the rights to property such as a joke, we only have laws protecting certain intellectual material.

OK - so you were wrong before then??

Why?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's not a question of value in my book, but of who does the work. This doesn't change the fact that people who live off of rents are lazy scum. IIRC Marx complained that capital was the sort of property that resulted in exploitation because it (in theory, and substantially in practice) permitted people to profit without working.

But it doesn't. One had to work to produce the capital.

[David Floyd]

Things have value because they serve human needs, that is why people apply labour to creating them.

Actually, things have value because people believe them to be valuable. Without that belief, no amount of labor would be worth anything.

If you dig a ditch, it's worthless - there's no value attached to the ditch just because you dug it, unless someone attaches a value to it. A ditch doesn't have intrinsic value, nor does anything else that can be produced.

That's the way I see it, at least.

[Az]

Ugh, I really want to get into the thread, but I don't know from which side do I begin.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
so what will the communist do about those who dont want to join their system?

What the capitalists do to those who don't want to join the system: work within the system, or have no money. I think this is the kind of choice that is perfectly acceptable to the Libertarians, isn't it?

[Velociryx]

Ag: The one thing I think you fail to grasp is that "living off rents" is not...I repeat, is NOT living without doing any work.

Perhaps this was true in Feudal times, but it certainly ain't true now.

In today's society, if you own rental properties, there are SCADS of laws that REQUIRE landlords to maintain their properties. I have spent FAR more on my two rental properties than I've made back thus far. It'll be a long time before I break even, and even when those properties are paid for completely, there's still lots of work to be done, in the form of regular maintenance, books and records to keep for the government, taxes to pay, cleaning and prepping when folks move out. (granted, there are some--a minority--"slum lords" but a lot of this is by virtue of government mandated "Rent Controls" and the like)

In short, it is NOT a case of lazing around all the day long and just living off the fat.

Those properties were acquired by virtue of my labor.

They were enhanced and and made livable by virtue of my labor.

They will be maintained by virtue of my labor.

And again, I am assuming a certain amount of risk each time I let someone new move into the place. The risk that they'll trash the place and undo all my hard work.

These things (including the assumption of risk, both the marginal risk (with each new tenant) and the overall risk (assumption and responsibility for the mortgage), all deserve compensation.

See....*someone* has to be responsible. In this case, I'm responsible for the properties.

The bank don't care if the property is rented or not. I'm still responsible for making those mortgages. Assumption of that responsiblity is risk. Risk is compenatable.

This is true even if the state is the one doing all the risk taking (by owning all the capital).

You cannot escape that, simply by declaring everything to be the property of the state.

Someone (in that case, the state) still has to take the risk, and that risk MUST be compensated, or it will never be taken in the first.

Oh...and I am curious. You maybe didn't see my question in the previous thread, so I'll re-iterate and slightly change the question here:

I'm assuming that dating is still allowed in the communist utopia, right?

'k...so let's say I'm living in Red Land, and I make slightly more than I need to survive. So I squirrel a little bit away each month, putting it under my mattress, cos there is no banking system (no interest, no need for a bank).

My next door neighbor is dating a cute lil' Comrade, and wants to REALLY impress her, so he comes to me asking if he can borrow $200.00 to help fund the dream date.

If I loan him $200.00, how much do I get paid back?

Do I just get my $200.00, or am I entitled to more than that because:
1) While he's got my money, I can't use it.
2) There's a chance he might not pay me back at all
3) Money has a time-sensitive value, and money paid back down the line is generally worth LESS than money in hand today

So, the question....how much will I get back, and why?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Actually, things have value because people believe them to be valuable. Without that belief, no amount of labor would be worth anything.

If you dig a ditch, it's worthless - there's no value attached to the ditch just because you dug it, unless someone attaches a value to it. A ditch doesn't have intrinsic value, nor does anything else that can be produced.

That's the way I see it, at least.

That's just speculative value DF.

[Velociryx]

No...it isn't, Kid.

If you build a KILLER house, but you build in in the Arctic circle, it's NOT going to be particularly valuable (or useful), no matter how much LABOR you put into it.

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

Vel:

I don't see why there would be no banking system in a communist system Any new investment requires money, and this money has to be somewhere. If everybody kept his money under the bed, it would be extremely difficult to find capital to make new investments.

Now, the banks would certainly belong to the State. But it doesn't mean they won't exist.

[Velociryx]

Spiffor: Since everything is owned by the state,the state can collect what money it needs from taxation (which is in itself, exploitation by the way it is defined here, but :: shrug:: ).

In any case, without interest (Marx: Interest = bad), there's no NEED for a banking system, and certainly no incentive to deposit your money into one.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
You would think that people committed to the Protestant work ethic would find such an existence repugnant.

Protestantism justifies it. Each individual has to know their place and live withing their means.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
No...it isn't, Kid.

If you build a KILLER house, but you build in in the Arctic circle, it's NOT going to be particularly valuable (or useful), no matter how much LABOR you put into it.

-=Vel=-

It could have speculative value.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Agathon
It's not a question of value in my book, but of who does the work. This doesn't change the fact that people who live off of rents are lazy scum. IIRC Marx complained that capital was the sort of property that resulted in exploitation because it (in theory, and substantially in practice) permitted people to profit without working.

But it doesn't. One had to work to produce the capital.

producing something and owning something are two different things.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Spiffor: Since everything is owned by the state,the state can collect what money it needs from taxation (which is in itself, exploitation by the way it is defined here, but :: shrug:: ).

Everything is not owned by the State. Even in a fully-fledged planned economy, the State only owns the means of production. Which means that your bed and your money are really yours. And if you have significant savings under your bed, it is as much capital that is not readily available for investments. The lack of a banking system is a completely unsound policy. Communism doesn't abolish the concept of finance, and as such, it doesn't abolish the idea of banking (it can bring strong changes in the banmking system however)

In any case, without interest (Marx: Interest = bad), there's no NEED for a banking system, and certainly no incentive to deposit your money into one.

False. A society needs banks in order to concentrate all the capital in one place, instead of having it scattered across the land. Interests are what the banks live off, and they are the primary reason why people put their savings at the bank.
However, interests are not the inherent raison d'être of a bank. Making money available for those who need it at a precise time and location is.
Heck, my money is on an interest-less account, and I yet use it because it is safely stores my money, and makes it available at any ATM in the world. If you don't carry change too often, I'm sure even you would bring money to the bank.