com/cap/com debate - laboring under delusions

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Useless to society,

Motivated people will take the initiative and look at long-term prospects for employment and not go down a dead end. If they find themselves in a job that looks to be on the chopping block, they've probably seen the writing on the wall and made alternative arrangements. They may not always do what they want or live where they want, but they'll suck it up with a long term plan and make things happen for themselves, and not ***** about how the system is screwing them over.

A lazy person will accept their fate, maybe complain about it, and refuse to do any number of things that will improve their financial position.

You didn't answer my question.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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.

You aren't so dense as to not understand that it is possible to live off of rent and not no work what so ever for your entire life, are you?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'd say that we've come a VERY long way towards a stable economy since the 30's. And I doubt that most of it is due to "communist" reforms - it's due to things like the Fed.

Actually the amount of ficticious capital (that which doesn't represent productive value in the economy) is increasing at an exponential rate. The risk of collapse is becoming tremendous, and when it happens you won't have the same Keynesian options to recover.

[Kuciwalker]

Ag: I think I see what you're getting at - that everything comes from labor, etc. My point was that everything ultimately comes from labor, much like all energy ultimately comes from the sun. It doesn't mean we shouldn't use wind power.

[Kidlicious]

Good for you Kuci. I don't really know what you meant about the wind power though.

I was just going to ask if some of you who don't seem to understand the Marxist theory of value have actually bothered to read about it. I've been beating my head against the wall here for months. It might help is some of you, who also spend a lot of time misunderstanding me, actually read about the theory on the internet or something.

[Kuciwalker]

Good for you Kuci. I don't really know what you meant about the wind power though.

Good for me, because I'm demonstrating why you don't even understand your own claims? Everything ultimately comes from labor, but some value comes proximately from capital. Capital can create value, it's just that capital comes from labor. There's nothing wrong with capitalism by that notion - I used my labor to create something that creates value. You seem to have a problem with the whole hiring issue, and a seperate problem with people living off of capital... would you have an issue if I built a machine that, without any labor input at all (beyond constructing it) made everything I needed, and then I lived off of it?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Good for you Kuci. I don't really know what you meant about the wind power though.

Good for me, because I'm demonstrating why you don't even understand your own claims? Everything ultimately comes from labor, but some value comes proximately from capital. Capital can create value, it's just that capital comes from labor. There's nothing wrong with capitalism by that notion - I used my labor to create something that creates value. You seem to have a problem with the whole hiring issue, and a seperate problem with people living off of capital... would you have an issue if I built a machine that, without any labor input at all (beyond constructing it) made everything I needed, and then I lived off of it?

Let's say someone worked for someone else and there was no capital involved. That laborer produced 10 widgets. Should he be compensated money for 10 widgets?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Capital can create value

Not quite.
Value is created by a combination of capital and labour. Even the shovel of a ditch-digger can be considered as "capital". And with such a capital, the ditch-digger produces far more value than what he would produce with his bare hands.

If you live off your capital, your income (value) isn't magically created: it's generated by somebody's work. And we live in a system that justifies the fact that capital owners get a part of the value created by those who work with their capital.

[Kontiki]

And around and around and around we go....

Kid, I'm sorry you didn't like my answer, but from someone who can read "the more training required to to develop a skilled laborer, the more that laborer should be compensated" and then not understand why that means a doctor should be compensated more than a ditch digger, you'll excuse me if I'm not surprised you don't understand it.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Let's say someone worked for someone else and there was no capital involved. That laborer produced 10 widgets. Should he be compensated money for 10 widgets?

Why wouldn't he? What system proposes that he wouldn't?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Not quite.
Value is created by a combination of capital and labour. Even the shovel of a ditch-digger can be considered as "capital". And with such a capital, the ditch-digger produces far more value than what he would produce with his bare hands.

If you live off your capital, your income (value) isn't magically created: it's generated by somebody's work. And we live in a system that justifies the fact that capital owners get a part of the value created by those who work with their capital.

There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between your first paragraph and your second. You admit that value is created by a combination of capital and labour, and give a good example. You then say that if you live off your capital, value isn't magically created and that our system rewards the owner of that capital with part of the value. Why wouldn't it? If you need capital and labour to create value, why would you only compensate one side of the equation?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Why wouldn't he?

Because he works in a greater whole?

Let's say Kid produces the widgets, along with many other widget-producers, and some people working for the same boss are specialized into selling them.

1. The colleagues who work but who don't produce the widgets will need to be rewarded as well (thus the value of the widgets will not be evenly distributed only among Kid and his colleagues in production)

2. The owner of the structure will want a part of the pie, regardless of whether he works in that structure or not.

While I think 1 is a necessity in all societies that know division of labour, 2 is specific to a society where the owner of the means of production (be it even a structure with no tools involved) decides how the resources are allocated. And of course, he'll allocate quite a few resources to himself.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Because he works in a greater whole?

Let's say Kid produces the widgets, along with many other widget-producers, and some people working for the same boss are specialized into selling them.

1. The colleagues who work but who don't produce the widgets will need to be rewarded as well (thus the value of the widgets will not be evenly distributed only among Kid and his colleagues in production)

2. The owner of the structure will want a part of the pie, regardless of whether he works in that structure or not.

While I think 1 is a necessity in all societies that know division of labour, 2 is specific to a society where the owner of the means of production (be it even a structure with no tools involved) decides how the resources are allocated. And of course, he'll allocate quite a few resources to himself.

Whether the owner of the capital is taking his "fair share" is another argument altogether. I still don't see a reason why the owner of the structure shouldn't be compensated at all. Without the structure, no one is producing widgets and none are being sold. As you admitted before, capital, along with the labour, has produced something of value. I could ask why would the owner of the capital would set up the structure if he wasn't going to be compensated for it, but we can keep it even more basic for now - if he works in the greater whole, why should he be the only one not compensated?

Edit: Sorry, I thought you were responding to my second post. The principle still applies, though.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
If you need capital and labour to create value, why would you only compensate one side of the equation?

Morals. Because, just like you, I think hard work should be rewarded.

This is why I support a system where the means of production aren't privately owned, and especially where the power to allocate resources lies in the hands of the labourers (to be more precise, I'm not strictly for a one-voter-one-vote democracy in the workplace, as all branches of the company need representation).

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Morals.

I'm not following you on the morals thing. Are you saying it's immoral to compensate the person who put up the money to build the widget factory, start up a production line and hires people to make widgets?