com/cap/com debate - laboring under delusions

[Flubber]

Its obvious to me that people that go down this model do not believe in private ownership at all. How far that goes seems to vary from communist to communist. The term "means of production" is bandied about but some seem to interpret that term so broadly as to include most household tools.


The bottom line is that the idea is a theoretical model where you can say the owner creates no value and therefore you can morally eliminate private ownership.


However on a claim that the the communist system would give the laborer the full value of their work I would say bullcrap. The Hibernia oil platform generates $8 million in revenue every day and lets say 200 people work on it every day. Lets even attribute another 800 people to the other shifts and planners, managers and hangers on to the production of that value. So 8 million a day multiplied by say 300 days of production a year divided by 1000 people involved in that year . .. That comes to $2.4 million each per worker per year.

But does the worker collect $2.4 million? Not on any discussion of communism I have seen. In fact, since these are high paying jobs in capitalism, the wage equalization communists would end up reducing the pay of these folks ( unless you plan to tell me that the state mandated fair-for-all wage is going to exceed 100K). So where does the extra money go? Good golly it goes to the state, the owner of the oil production platform which in your own theory has created NO VALUE.

I suppose thats ok since its the state . Kidicious has on several occasions indictaed that their are things that are offensive and wrong if done by the private sector but which are acceptable if done by the state. I wondered do other communists subscribe to that notion.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
He did work, and then TRADED the products of that work for money

Not necessarily. He could have very well herited from that capital. He could have been put in the tracks toward high-paying jobs from his childhood on, meaning he'd need far, far less work than a McJobber to get the same capital.

There is no reason that you deserve the amount of capital you own at any point in time, because there are so many external factors that explain this amount, and on which you have little to no control. True, with hard work, one can get more money than without. But work is far, very far from the being the only explaining factor of your wealth.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
So you agree with Kid's understanding of value? That labour has an inherent value in itself, regardless of how much money the outcome of the labour brings? You'd be giving more pay to a ditch-digger with a showel than to a ditch-digger with modern machinery?

Where'd I say that? All value is relative, and extrinsic. For instance, 1000 years ago plutonium wouldn't just not be valuable, it would be dangerous. Now, plutonium is VERY valuable. I'm saying value is a function of both the object (not necessarily tangible) and the person buying it. A transaction occurs when the value of X to Y (who owns it) is less than the value of X to Z (who doesn't) and so Z pays some price val(X,Y) < price < val(X,Z) to X in return for X.

Oh, I think I understand the misuderstanding now - I pay the laborer for the value of the labor (well, for the price as above, actually), and then I put the labor into the capital (the widget machine) and out comes something of greater value. Obviously this isn't a literal, physical description. If the laborer owns any capital, say a shovel or a modern machine, then I pay for the value of the stuff that comes out of the capital, which is greater for the machine than for the shovel.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
No, if the provider of the capital got it on a loan, or from inheritance. Then the individual did either no work or very minimal work.

Hence they are NOT the same.

1) in the case of inheritence, it's a matter of basically giving a gift to someone else that's so large that it can actually support them. In any case, it's not stealing stuff from anyone and it isn't really relevent at this point.

2) in the case of a loan, some person (like the bank) gave the capital to the individual in return for the promise that it would be paid back with interest. The individual then gets back only however much more money the capital returns than interest, which means it's really the bank paying the individual to manage its capital, and there's nothing wrong with that. If the individual actually makes enough money to buy the capital from the bank (pay off the loan) then I also don't see the problem.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Not necessarily. He could have very well herited from that capital. He could have been put in the tracks toward high-paying jobs from his childhood on, meaning he'd need far, far less work than a McJobber to get the same capital.

What's wrong with gifts? If I got a certain amount of stuff for my labor, why can't I give it to someone else, even if it means that person doesn't have to support himself? Isn't that what happens with a spouse who doesn't have a job?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flubber
Its obvious to me that people that go down this model do not believe in private ownership at all. How far that goes seems to vary from communist to communist. The term "means of production" is bandied about but some seem to interpret that term so broadly as to include most household tools.

Most only care about factories and companies and the land. Of course, legal private ownership is different from guardianship and use.

The bottom line is that the idea is a theoretical model where you can say the owner creates no value and therefore you can morally eliminate private ownership.

Given there is no moral basis for private ownership at all (so what if you took the apple? Who gave you permission to do so?) why do we need to undo it?

However on a claim that the the communist system would give the laborer the full value of their work I would say bullcrap. The Hibernia oil platform generates $8 million in revenue every day and lets say 200 people work on it every day. Lets even attribute another 800 people to the other shifts and planners, managers and hangers on to the production of that value. So 8 million a day multiplied by say 300 days of production a year divided by 1000 people involved in that year . .. That comes to $2.4 million each per worker per year.

But does the worker collect $2.4 million? Not on any discussion of communism I have seen. In fact, since these are high paying jobs in capitalism, the wage equalization communists would end up reducing the pay of these folks ( unless you plan to tell me that the state mandated fair-for-all wage is going to exceed 100K). So where does the extra money go? Good golly it goes to the state, the owner of the oil production platform which in your own theory has created NO VALUE.

I suppose thats ok since its the state . Kidicious has on several occasions indictaed that their are things that are offensive and wrong if done by the private sector but which are acceptable if done by the state. I wondered do other communists subscribe to that notion.

The notion of private vs public changes, which is what you fail to consider in this post.

In a system of private ownership, then the workers might not be fully compensated for the value they have created. But that is only because the laborer needs the money earned to live because they need to buy all their basic needs to live. Hence they can be kept down and exploited by limiting their wages to such an extent they can only sustain subsistance and never have enough to become independent.

In a system sans private property, the worker is not only worker, but owner, of the rig. He is also part owner of everything. Hence in theory he is already independent. In practice the worker will be provided with everything they need and also more than enough to do whatever they please (including in theory the ability to work elsewhere). Since they are part owner, it's in their interest to have part of the capital they set aside for re-investment to increase the general pool and hence their own wealth.

You can't think of a system without private ownership in the terms of one with private ownership.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


1) in the case of inheritence, it's a matter of basically giving a gift to someone else that's so large that it can actually support them. In any case, it's not stealing stuff from anyone and it isn't really relevent at this point.

Who brought in "theft"?? It is relevant because the invidiual who will profit for the use of the capital in fact did no labor to acquire it-hence your point is wrong.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Because hard work should be the source of financial rewards.

It is a pretty common streak of thought in the west: hard work should be rewarded. Doing nothing shouldn't. If the owner of the capital does nothing, this lazy bum shouldn't strip the workers of their hard-earned money!

But he hasn't done nothing, he's invested his money in a structure which allows the labour to create something of value. If he didn't do that, the labour would create nothing. And similarly, if the owner of capital didn't invest in the structure but instead kept his capital under his mattress, he wouldn't be rewarded for anything because he truly hasn't done anything.

[Kuciwalker]

Who brought in "theft"?? It is relevant because the invidiual who will profit for the use of the capital in fact did no labor to acquire it-hence your point is wrong.

My point is correct. The individual who profits from the capital did labor to acquire it, but he GIVES the profits to someone else. In fact, he's so nice that he gives the whole thing to someone else.

Are lottery winners immoral?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Flubber
But does the worker collect $2.4 million? Not on any discussion of communism I have seen. In fact, since these are high paying jobs in capitalism, the wage equalization communists would end up reducing the pay of these folks ( unless you plan to tell me that the state mandated fair-for-all wage is going to exceed 100K). So where does the extra money go? Good golly it goes to the state, the owner of the oil production platform which in your own theory has created NO VALUE.

I suppose thats ok since its the state . Kidicious has on several occasions indictaed that their are things that are offensive and wrong if done by the private sector but which are acceptable if done by the state. I wondered do other communists subscribe to that notion.

I support a form of market socialism, where most companies are basically autonmomous communes, and the State ownly owns public utilities (one might argue that oil producing is a public utility, but let's consider this oil drill to be private under my system)

Since a market economy, socialist or capitalist alike, implies a difference in wealth, there will obviously be a differential taxation based on income. In my system, the extremely high incomes (like the 2.4 mil you're mentioning) would likely get more strongly taxed than what they are today. However, I never supported a "maximal wage" under such a system.

My priority is indeed to create a system that will autonomously lead to a greater equalization of income within the workplace, while differences of income between workplaces will continue to exist (and will be evened out to some extent via State-wide wealth redistribution, as is already occuring in the social-democracies).

In short, the people who work on this oil drill will probably earn humongous gobs of money indeed.

---------------------------------------
As to the question of whether some things are OK if the State does it, while it isn't if the private sector does it:
I'm not talking about the particulars, but of the general idea: this is a principle YOU agree with. Unless you think a common thug should have the same rights as an exercizing policeman.
In pretty much all modern societies, there are many things it is OK for the State to do, while it isn't for the private individual (edit ). Violence is the most common of these things. Taxation too.
Is it normal that the State can use violence against those who defy the laws? Is it normal that a common thug uses violence against those who defy his laws?
Is it normal that the State takes a significant amount of your money in form of taxes? Is it normal that a common thug takes a significant amount of your money in form of theft?

If you answered Yes-NO Yes-No to these questions, you adhere to the idea that "their are things that are offensive and wrong if done by the private sector but which are acceptable if done by the state."

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What's wrong with gifts? If I got a certain amount of stuff for my labor, why can't I give it to someone else, even if it means that person doesn't have to support himself? Isn't that what happens with a spouse who doesn't have a job?

There is nothing wrong with gifts.
There is somnething wrong in the belief that somebody's wealth (capital) is immediately related to his past labor.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Who brought in "theft"?? It is relevant because the invidiual who will profit for the use of the capital in fact did no labor to acquire it-hence your point is wrong.

My point is correct. The individual who profits from the capital did labor to acquire it, but he GIVES the profits to someone else. In fact, he's so nice that he gives the whole thing to someone else.

Are lottery winners immoral?

You just go off in weird ways, don't you?

If you inherit money, the person whon created it through labor is DEAD. How on earth would they profit in any way form the factory built by the inheritor!?

Oh, and to win a lottery, you needed to invest your own capital. And I am not the one bringing in morality.

So:
1. Have straigh whom you are arguing to
2. Stop working in fantasy land- DEAD people don't profit

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GePap
I don't think communism says that the owner of capital should not be compensated.

Good .

Originally posted by GePap

I think the issue Marx points out is that a system is created under the private ownership of capital in which large sections of the population, being unable to have their own means of production, can only live by using someone elses capital to create value. Under that situation, the capital owners set the terms of the relationship, and since they are driven by a desire to acquire wealth, will short change the laborers.

I'm with you so far ( in some cases) and thats why I believe in minimum wage laws, laws on working conditions and have no problem with unionization if thats what the workers want. I even support many of the laws that make many of the standard union-breaking tactics illegal.

I would say though that the capitalists do not soley set the terms of the relationship in many cases. That situation is one most relevant to their being an overabundance of labour-- For an example here in Alberta most trades and professions have relatively tight labour markets. Even the temp jobs for students seem to pay a couple of bucks in excess of minimum wage.

Originally posted by GePap
The simple idea being why the workers in a facotry producing luxuries should be unable to afford themselves the very goods they produce. If they were being favorably compensated for the value they create, should they not be able to afford the goods they create?

This doesn't make sense. If I work in a factory producing small private luxury jets or 50 foot luxury yatchs, I must be paid enough to purchase those items?? Thats silly. Are you saying the person building the compact car can be paid less than the one building the luxury car? OR are you saying that EVERYONE must be paid enough to purchase the most luxurious item produced by that society

Originally posted by GePap
IThe notion of communal ownership is that the aim of the capital owners is not profit, but providing enough for the community so that each member is free of the exploitative relationship caused by having to toil using someone elses labor.

The idea being that there are really no capital owners since the owners are the state which will provide for all. Sorry but thats not my idea of fair. perhaps I am too individualist but I want the benefit of my own labors and I am comfortable negotiating with the "capitalist" to get my share. I don't wnat my labors pooled with everyone else and then have the state provide me with some standard of living based on average societal output. I LIKE the striving and the trying to succeed

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
There is nothing wrong with gifts.
There is somnething wrong in the belief that somebody's wealth (capital) is immediately related to his past labor.

Past labor + gifts given to him, then. If there's nothing wrong with gifts, then this shouldn't be an issue.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
If you inherit money, the person whon created it through labor is DEAD. How on earth would they profit in any way form the factory built by the inheritor!?

It's a gift. It was owned by the person who created it through labor, and he's giving all rights to it to someone else.

So:
1. Have straigh whom you are arguing to
2. Stop working in fantasy land- DEAD people don't profit

It's an analogy