Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Capital is nothing but excercized labor accumulated in a few hands. No labor, no capital. Labor can exist without capital, but not the other way around.

No kidding. And this means that you don't need capital to produce furbies how?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Still means that value is a function of supply and demand of course.

Only when there is a shortage or surplus of something. When resources are allocated efficiently value will be determined by the amount of labor use for creation of the product.

[Kontiki]

So the value of a surgeon working on you for an hour in a life-saving procedure will be equal to the value of a person working for an hour assembling a washing machine?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki
So the value of a surgeon working on you for an hour in a life-saving procedure will be equal to the value of a person working for an hour assembling a washing machine?

You have to take into account the cost of education too, of course, but so long as there is an efficient supply of both trades, then yes. Only when there is too little or too much of a certain trade will the price (wage) vary. But it's wrong to say that the value varies.

[Kidlicious]

It's like this. We know how valuable our labor is. It's as valuable as the goods we produce. But our wages are not equal to the goods we produce, because there aren't enough jobs. So our wage is lower than the value of our labor.

[Ned]

How do commies set the price of land?

Is all land equal in value?

[Xin Yu]

This thread still alive? And seems the topic has been changed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
How do commies set the price of land?

Is all land equal in value?

The way that I think prices should be set - for land or whatever - is based on the cost of building it or making it ready, along with an amount either more or less that will keep goods on the shelves, but eliminate a surplus. Prices can be ajusted in the long run to changes in demand.

[Berzerker]

Labor has existed as long as there have been human beings.

So has violence and war, but you said capitalism is inherently violent and the cause of war.

[Kidlicious]

Violence is mostly caused by competition for resources which has existed since before capitalism.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kontiki
And this means that you don't need capital to produce furbies how?

Depends on what furbies are. Lots of things can be produced without capital. For example, pottery can be made by having suitable clay and a place to put the kiln.

[Whaleboy]

Labor has existed as long as there have been human beings. Capital is a relatively recent creation, going back maybe ten thousand years.

Not so, there is anthropological evidence of trading networks across many (if not all) indigenous societies, indeed, how else would it occur that objects would end up in large quantities, huge distances from their origin? Capitalism has been around, and is an inevitable consequence of the human capacity for symbolic thinking. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/human-04h.html

The notion of the free market, of capitalism, evolves naturally from that; put simply, it is in our very nature.

Only when there is a shortage or surplus of something. When resources are allocated efficiently value will be determined by the amount of labor use for creation of the product.

Firstly, a nominal balance of supply and demand will never occur for the above reasons (we would always strive for more, any equilibrium is broken by increasing demand) and secondly where value is a coefficient of supply and demand it doesn't simply cease to exist. As long as there is finite supply, there will always be value (since demand is relevant). If a star trek-like situation develops with replicators making anything and everything at whim, then capitalism will not be relevant to our nature. But I, and Werner Heisenberg, can't see that happening any time soon.

You have to take into account the cost of education too, of course, but so long as there is an efficient supply of both trades, then yes. Only when there is too little or too much of a certain trade will the price (wage) vary. But it's wrong to say that the value varies.

I'd be very amused to see you attempt to base an economy on that. Do you think a society will be healthy where there is equal numbers (and equal pay (motivation)) of builders and labourers to surgeons?

Communistic elements are a contextual consequence of capitalism, in other words in certain situations it is prudent to the individual to work with others, either for survival or toward economic ends, for example, factory labour utilises communist principles but capitalism is the end and (through the self-interest of the workers and their salary) the means.

It's like this. We know how valuable our labor is. It's as valuable as the goods we produce. But our wages are not equal to the goods we produce, because there aren't enough jobs. So our wage is lower than the value of our labor.

So wages are proportional to demand, and inversely proportional to supply in the labour market? Thanks!

Violence is mostly caused by competition for resources which has existed since before capitalism.

If there is competition for resources, hence a current of supply to demand, then capitalism has existed. You people have a very institutionalised feudal view of capitalism. You know the definition need not be solely applicable to men labouring in a factory in the 19th century being inexorably put out of work by the application of steam . You (Che and Kid) are capable of thinking far more cogently than that, enough to work with definitions and not familials.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kidicious

No I don't agree, and if you don't know what negotiating power is do a google search or read a book.

You still didn't define what it is , or how it is some sort of right ( as you seem to imply ) . Irrespective of whether it is uneven or not ( assuming thay your definition is the same as mine ) , that still does not provide justification for anything . If you have money , and I do not , that does not entitle me to some of your money . The same way , negotiating power is meaningless . The deal will still not happen if either party thinks he is better off without it . Did you understand at least that ?

I'm not going to bother to define society, and we all value things by comparing our needs.

Maybe you are not defining society because it is indefinable ?

It seems you are unable/unwilling to define the terms you bandy about so much . And again , I'm not asking how "we all" value things , I'm asking how you undefined society values things .

[DinoDoc]

Where the hell are the real mods! UR has obviously resigned.

[Whaleboy]

Maybe they're going to let threads run over 500?