com/cap/com debate - laboring under delusions

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
if he works in the greater whole, why should he be the only one not compensated?

If he works in the structure, he should be compensated for his work. Overseeing a structure is a useful, and often exhausting, job. If he doesn't work in the structure anymore, however, I do not see why he should be rewarded for the value produced there.

Of course, in a system where people privately own the means of production, such would be unpractical, because there would be no incentive to invest further than in your own family business (i.e. creating your own means of production from which you earn your daily bread).

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

If he works in the structure, he should be compensated for his work. Overseeing a structure is a useful, and often exhausting, job. If he doesn't work in the structure anymore, however, I do not see why he should be rewarded for the value produced there.

But he built the structure! Without him, there is no structure and no one is producing and selling widgets. You said yourself that value is created by a combination of capital and labour. The capital built the structure, the labour fabricates and sells the widgets. If both parts are necessary to create the value, why would only one part be compensated?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
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?

If he only put the money in the factory, and no work (for example, he hired somebody to set the whole thing up on his behalf), indeed, he morally shouldn't be compensated for this.

Again, I readily admit it is unpractical in a capitalist society.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

If he only put the money in the factory, and no work (for example, he hired somebody to set the whole thing up on his behalf), indeed, he morally shouldn't be compensated for this.

Again, I readily admit it is unpractical in a capitalist society.

Let's ignore the practicality issue for now. I just want to flesh out the morality thing here. Here's what we're working with right now as I see it. Please correct me if you see something wrong:

- value is created from a combination of capital and labour
- we have a widget factory where some people make widgets, and some people sell them
- these people are labour, and should rightfully be compensated for their efforts
- none of these jobs would exist if the capital wasn't there to build the factory. That is, no one is making these widgets, and no one is selling the now non-existant widgets
- even though the capital made the production and sale possible in the first place - just as the labour did - it should not be compensated in any way
- this is moral because ???

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki

- this is moral because ???

Because THEY say so.


The conveniently forget that by their own theory capital ( which has value) is a RESULT of prior labor. But somehow accumulating the value of your labor and making use of that labor value is BAD BAD BAD. No its better that the money NOT be invested.

In this conceptual model the ONLY use of money or capital is consumption, sicne there is no way that you could set it aside to provide an income later or invest it in hope of gain

[Kuciwalker]

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?

If there's no capital involved, why is he working for someone else?

[GePap]

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

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. 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?

The 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.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flubber


Because THEY say so.


The conveniently forget that by their own theory capital ( which has value) is a RESULT of prior labor. But somehow accumulating the value of your labor and making use of that labor value is BAD BAD BAD. No its better that the money NOT be invested.

In this conceptual model the ONLY use of money or capital is consumption, sicne there is no way that you could set it aside to provide an income later or invest it in hope of gain

While Capital can be the result of prior labor (the state can create capital at will), it need not be at all your labor.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
- this is moral because ???

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!

It is actually a pretty conservative morals, that considers work as the sole source of money that is really legitimate, more than any form of leeching. It is just that today's conservatives have interiorised capitalism so much that they only mind welfare-leeching (which I also oppose: welfare leechers strip money from those who make it, and from those who actually need welfare - they're a weight on the productive and the welfare system)

[Kuciwalker]

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.

That's what I said. Capital creates value.

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.

1) In principle, you could easily have capital that produces value without someone's work. Or that produces value on its own, but requires someone's work to prevent it from breaking; for instance, a power plant - it isn't really increasing the value of someone's labor, someone's labor is merely keeping it running. Or a robotic assembly line, with people there in case something goes wrong.

And even in the case where it does merely increase the value (or amount, which is the same thing) of the stuff produced by someone's labor, it is still producing value and there's nothing wrong living off of it - you pay the person the value of his or her labor, which is DIFFERENT from the value of the stuff that comes out.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kontiki


But he built the structure! Without him, there is no structure and no one is producing and selling widgets.

Well, building the structure and providing the start up capital are two different things.

You said yourself that value is created by a combination of capital and labour. The capital built the structure, the labour fabricates and sells the widgets. If both parts are necessary to create the value, why would only one part be compensated?

Capital is a tool that allows more capital, and then value throught labor, to be created.

Unlike Spiff, I don;t view there to be a moral problem with compensating the provider of the capital.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
If he only put the money in the factory, and no work (for example, he hired somebody to set the whole thing up on his behalf), indeed, he morally shouldn't be compensated for this.

Money is a very freely exchangeable form of work. He did work, and then TRADED the products of that work for money, which he then TRADED that money for the factory (or for the labor that produced the factory, which is the same thing).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
you pay the person the value of his or her labor, which is DIFFERENT from the value of the stuff that comes out.

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?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, building the structure and providing the start up capital are two different things.

Nope. See above.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by GePap
Well, building the structure and providing the start up capital are two different things.

Nope. See above.

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.