Erosion of Support for Free Market System

[JohannGE]

I found this while looking up a poll for another thread. From April 08 so it would be interesting to see an update since the crash.


Erosion of Support for Free Market System: Global Poll

Majorities in most countries continue to support the free market system, but over the last two years support has eroded in 10 of 18 countries regularly polled by GlobeScan. In several countries this drop in support has been quite sharp.
The latest polling was completed before the current stock market volatility that began earlier this year.


http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/apr08/Free_Markets_April08_graph1.jpg

Source :- http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btglobalizationtradera/471.php?lb=btgl&pnt=471&nid=&id=

Full Report:- http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr0/Free_Markets_April08_pr.pdf (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr08/Free_Markets_April08_pr.pdf)

[Skooma Addict]

I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that people just don't understand what a free market really is. Regardless, is there a reason why Turkey specifically has so few people who agree with free market principals? Just wondering out of curiosity.

[JohannGE]

Regardless, is there a reason why Turkey specifically has so few people who agree with free market principals? Just wondering out of curiosity.

Me too, it does seem strange.

It would be interesting, and perhaps useful to understand the reasons for this.

[JohannGE]

I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that people just don't understand what a free market really is.

Surely this would be eaqualy true for any alternative economic system?

[danyboy27]

i guess the only option left is to revive stalin and bring back the state capitalism

[JohannGE]

i guess the only option left is to revive stalin and bring back the state capitalism

Why do you say (even in jest) "the only option"?

[Skooma Addict]

Surely this would be eaqualy true for any alternative economic system?

Probably. Some more so than others. But really, this Turkey thing must have some explanation.

[IcarusAngel]

The free-market is essentially slavery. In the third world they know a lot more about free-market policies and 'reforms' which have absolutely devastated their countries. See Greg Grandin's book on Latin Empire: Empire's Little Workshop. See also Chomsky, Zinn, et al. The free-market policies have kept them perpetually in poverty while enriching the West. Some free-market policies are brutally sadistic, like it comes to life-saving drugs that corporations charge hundreds of dollars for and the people have no strong governments combat market tyranny. This is about on par morally with that of a Nazi doctor. This is why there are more likely to be people who question the free-market and who want reform.

If there is any problem about deregulation being wrongly attributed to the free-market it is the fault of the right-wing think tanks and politicians who claim we cannot have government interference because it 'interferes with the free-market' - even though free-markets themselves are a regulation and create all kinds of new regulations.

The bottom line is if you give people these failed capitalist systems, and tell them it's a free-market, they'll eventually start to oppose it. As shown, the support of the 'free-market' is still far higher than it should be in the Western world, the people of which benefit from free-market reforms that devastate the third world.

[Havet]

The free-market is essentially slavery. In the third world they know a lot more about free-market policies and 'reforms' which have absolutely devastated their countries. See Greg Grandin's book on Latin Empire: Empire's Little Workshop. See also Chomsky, Zinn, et al. The free-market policies have kept them perpetually in poverty while enriching the West. Some free-market policies are brutally sadistic, like it comes to life-saving drugs that corporations charge hundreds of dollars for and the people have no strong governments combat market tyranny. This is about on par morally with that of a Nazi doctor. This is why there are more likely to be people who question the free-market and who want reform.

If there is any problem about deregulation being wrongly attributed to the free-market it is the fault of the right-wing think tanks and politicians who claim we cannot have government interference because it 'interferes with the free-market' - even though free-markets themselves are a regulation and create all kinds of new regulations.

The bottom line is if you give people these failed capitalist systems, and tell them it's a free-market, they'll eventually start to oppose it. As shown, the support of the 'free-market' is still far higher than it should be in the Western world, the people of which benefit from free-market reforms that devastate the third world.

Overall good post, though I might add something.


...the people have no strong governments combat market tyranny...

I would say that in most cases (except Somalia), they have TOO strong centralized governments, either because of religious reasons (some casts being inherently superior than others) or opportunist reasons (the people who start a revolution get to keep the power).

[IcarusAngel]

Well, their governments haven't been able to combat the WTO, the World Bank, the loan sharks and vulture funds, and so on that sets up a system where the rich borrows the money, privatizes resources, runs everything into the ground and leaves the poor with the debt. They can't combat capital flight or anything else and become susceptible to US dollar hegonomy or Western hegonomy.

The US from time to time is able to tame its corporate beasts or tame them. Even the Reagan administration took over the banks, cleaned them out and got rid of their bad assessts etc. Now the US government just keeps handing more and more money to the corporations to 'stimulate' the economy.

As you can see these are very different things.

I think what's preferable is social democracy over the market tyranny that exists in some places in the world (and including the US now to a large degree) but of course I want to see a system where everybody participates, and at least has some resources, not just the 'super rich.'

[ckaihatsu]

Even the Reagan administration took over the banks, cleaned them out and got rid of their bad assessts etc.


Hey, to what are you referring to here, exactly? Are you talking about the Volcker "shock treatment" of the late '70s?

[JimmyJazz]

I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that people just don't understand what a free market really is.

You're right, that makes perfect sense, since free market ideas are only hundreds of years old.

[Skooma Addict]

You're right, that makes perfect sense, since free market ideas are only hundreds of years old.

Still, most people just don't actually understand the concept of the free market. For example, many people actually think America currently has a free market in place. But it is considered "cool" to reject the free market these days, so I am not really surprised.

[ckaihatsu]

Regardless, is there a reason why Turkey specifically has so few people who agree with free market principals? Just wondering out of curiosity.


Offhand I would guess that it might be because Turkey has had something of a privileged, protected status in regards to the West.

"Free market" shit is only peddled to those who are already in a subjugated, colonial status -- (including the population of the U.S. in the post-Vietnam War era...!) It's a polite mindfuck way of saying "fuck you" to those who are deeply in debt, as if to suggest that someone living in a deep hole in the ground can invent a shovel right then and there and dig their way out to then compete with those who own militaries.


Chris



--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Better than all the rest in humility --

[IcarusAngel]

Hey, to what are you referring to here, exactly? Are you talking about the Volcker "shock treatment" of the late '70s?


Right now, our economy is being dragged down by our dysfunctional financial system, which has been crippled by huge losses on mortgage-backed securities and other assets.



As economic historians can tell you, this is an old story, not that different from dozens of similar crises over the centuries. And there’s a time-honored procedure for dealing with the aftermath of widespread financial failure. It goes like this: the government secures confidence in the system by guaranteeing many (though not necessarily all) bank debts. At the same time, it takes temporary control of truly insolvent banks, in order to clean up their books.


That’s what Sweden did in the early 1990s. It’s also what we ourselves did after the savings and loan debacle of the Reagan years. And there’s no reason we can’t do the same thing now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23krugman.html

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23krugman.html




But the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, apparently wants an easier way out. The common element to the Paulson and Geithner plans is the insistence that the bad assets on banks’ books are really worth much, much more than anyone is currently willing to pay for them. In fact, their true value is so high that if they were properly priced, banks wouldn’t be in trouble.


Krugman, like *all* establishment types, will save his very last breath to still utter the name of the president.

We need to just simply and finally say, "Game over, man," as evidenced from the already established track record of just *giving* over public funds to Wall Street:





[T]he panel would publish a to-the-point, easy-to-comprehend assessment of a different slice of TARP each month. One of the reports revealed that the Treasury Department had paid $78 billion more than market value for the assets it purchased from banks. Another said that despite the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the bailouts, the financial system is still polluted by toxic assets that could trigger another meltdown.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/08-11

[FSL]

But it is considered "cool" to reject the free market these days, so I am not really surprised.


Yeah, it's what all the kids do at the parties.

[Skooma Addict]

Yeah, it's what all the kids do at the parties.

Well, I do love the people who party all day and then claim capitalism is oppressing them. Most of them are basically pampered brats who shouldn't be taken seriously.

(I'm not saying people on this site fall into that category)

[JohannGE]

In the third world they know a lot more about free-market policies and 'reforms' which have absolutely devastated their countries....
The free-market policies have kept them perpetually in poverty while enriching the West....
This is why there are more likely to be people who question the free-market and who want reform.

Broadly speaking,correct.

However it does not address the graph which shows a noticeable dip over the last two years in support for free market policies in 8 out of 9 countries which would not generally be included in most definitions of the "third world".

I have never liked the arbitrary application of the term "third world" though. Especially when applied by self appointed "first world" nations, usually on countries which may require aid or are not politically aligned with them.

Furthermore the most dramatic drop in support for free markets is in Turkey. Turkey is a member of the G20, pushing for full membership of the EEC, a member of NATO and even acknowledged by the CIA as a "developed country". Hardly "third world" by any definition.

[Jazzratt]

I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that people just don't understand what a free market really is.

I suspect, actually, it's a case that people who support free markets say batshit insane things like this:


Businesses shouldn't have to give women any maternity leave if they don't want to. They should be able to fire the woman whenever they want, for whatever reason they want to. Same goes with men.
The UK minimum wage is already one of the most unreasonably high minimum wages in the world (that i know of). Also the whole "no public services or welfare" thing tends to alienate people who don't live their lives like this:

http://queserasara.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/scrooge-mcduck.jpg.

Or to put it another way, saying to people "I believe businesses should be able to pay you fuck all and fire you whenever the hell they want, oh yeah and you can forget about welfare for when you're unemployed because that would mean some guy with more money then you will ever lay eyes on has actually become your slave" is not going to endear your belief system to them. I think it's a greater understanding of the free market, therefore, which is turning people off.

[Skooma Addict]

I suspect, actually, it's a case that people who support free markets say batshit insane things like this:

I think it has more to do with the fact that people don't understand what a free market is. There are plenty of public figures who claim to support a free market when in fact they do not. So there will obviously be a lot of confusion.


Or to put it another way, saying to people "I believe businesses should be able to pay you fuck all and fire you whenever the hell they want, oh yeah and you can forget about welfare for when you're unemployed because that would mean some guy with more money then you will ever lay eyes on has actually become your slave" is not going to endear your belief system to them. I think it's a greater understanding of the free market, therefore, which is turning people off.

So you think it should be illegal for a business to pay an employee a low wage? Even though both parties agreed to the wage, and so they both benefited from the exchange? I assume you get to decide what constitutes a low wage. Would you prefer a minimum wage where some people are forced to live in a permanent state of unemployment?

[Jazzratt]

I think it has more to do with the fact that people don't understand what a free market is. There are plenty of public figures who claim to support a free market when in fact they do not. So there will obviously be a lot of confusion.

The thing is that this "confusion" seems to be much more to the advantage of the free market because some people might confuse it for a slightly reasonable system rather than a dystopia couched in jarringly positive language.


So you think it should be illegal for a business to pay an employee a low wage? Even though both parties agreed to the wage, and so they both benefited from the exchange?

I think employment as it stands now is completely unethical and I would rather see business owners shot. However as it exists now I am happy to demand it be illegal for companies to pay starvation wages simply because they find someone desperate enough to work for them.


I assume you get to decide what constitutes a low wage.

I imagine that can be decided upon by looking at living costs and so on. Needless to say wages currently paid are beyond a joke in their miniscule scale.


Would you prefer a minimum wage where some people are forced to live in a permanent state of unemployment?

Shorter working days, higher unemployment benefits and training-for-work schemes would minimise the impact this has on living standards for people (and would of course require further taxation on rich bastards, which I'm always for). Either that or the adandonment of this bloody primitive market malarky and a move to something more sensible and civilised like a distributive economy.

[Skooma Addict]

I think employment as it stands now is completely unethical and I would rather see business owners shot. However as it exists now I am happy to demand it be illegal for companies to pay starvation wages simply because they find someone desperate enough to work for them.

So you want to prevent people from entering into voluntary mutually beneficial transactions. Real wages will rise in a free market, and the only people who would be earning wages below the current minimum wage are the people who are currently forced out of the job market. Of coarse, as people work more and become more productive they can earn a higher wage.



I imagine that can be decided upon by looking at living costs and so on. Needless to say wages currently paid are beyond a joke in their miniscule scale.


But who decides what the appropriate wage is?


Shorter working days, higher unemployment benefits and training-for-work schemes would minimise the impact this has on living standards for people (and would of course require further taxation on rich bastards, which I'm always for). Either that or the adandonment of this bloody primitive market malarky and a move to something more sensible and civilised like a distributive economy.

How nice of you. So you first force people to remain in a permanent state of unemployment, and then you steal from other people in order to help your victims live more comfortably.

[Jazzratt]

So you want to prevent people from entering into voluntary mutually beneficial transactions.

Being given a pittance for working your fingers to the bone is not what most people bring up when asked to bring up an example of a mutually beneficial transaction.


Real wages will rise in a free market,

You need to get your head checked. Bussiness owners are a shower of complete bastards, the level of naievty required to believe they will willingly pay people more when you give them the option to have them pay them far less is staggering. Do you imagine that people will be less likely to be savagely mauled by bears if we placed them in densely populated areas?


and the only people who would be earning wages below the current minimum wage are the people who are currently forced out of the job market. Of coarse, as people work more and become more productive they can earn a higher wage.


Also there will be no cancer and gumdrops will rain down from the sky. What the fuck are you basing this all on?



But who decides what the appropriate wage is?

Currently, the government and I imagine that will continue to be the case until we grow beyond the need for wages.


How nice of you. So you first force people to remain in a permanent state of unemployment, and then you steal from other people in order to help your victims live more comfortably.

Yes. Just as I would be happy to pinch a loaf of bread for a hungry man. You're not going to get me to feel guilty about advocating "stealing" from people that can afford helicopters, so I'd let go of that particular rhetorical trick of the free-marketeer.

Seriously though, until we are in a position to overthrow capitalism I would like to see it as regulated and controlled as humanly possible.

[Skooma Addict]

Being given a pittance for working your fingers to the bone is not what most people bring up when asked to bring up an example of a mutually beneficial transaction.

The two parties that voluntarily entered into the particular transaction did so because they thought the would benefit. Whether or not you agree with their decision is a different story.



You need to get your head checked. Bussiness owners are a shower of complete bastards, the level of naievty required to believe they will willingly pay people more when you give them the option to have them pay them far less is staggering.

If businessmen are underpaying their workers, other businessmen stand to profit by offering the workers a higher wage.


Also there will be no cancer and gumdrops will rain down from the sky. What the fuck are you basing this all on?

The fact that the minimum wage only forces people whose marginal value productivity is less than that of the minimum wage out of the job market.



Currently, the government and I imagine that will continue to be the case until we grow beyond the need for wages.

Do you think it is fair that a third party can stop peaceful individuals from engaging in voluntary mutually beneficial transactions?



Yes. Just as I would be happy to pinch a loaf of bread for a hungry man. You're not going to get me to feel guilty about advocating "stealing" from people that can afford helicopters, so I'd let go of that particular rhetorical trick of the free-marketeer.


But it isn't only taking money from people who can afford helicopters. It is taking money from all taxpayers. That includes the poor.

[Ovi]

The two parties that voluntarily entered into the particular transaction did so because they thought the would benefit. Whether or not you agree with their decision is a different story.

There's nothing voluntary in 'You work for me or you starve to death'. So cut the crap.

[Skooma Addict]

There's nothing voluntary in 'You work for me or you starve to death'. So cut the crap.

Well, there is no coercion involved, so their exchange would qualify as voluntary. But it is never that black and white anyways.

[Ovi]

Well, there is no coercion involved, so their exchange would qualify as voluntary. But it is never that black and white anyways.
In "traditional" slavery failure to work for your master would mean getting shot. In modern wage slavery it means starving to death. How is this not coercion? How is it voluntary if failure to work for your master results in your death?

[Bud Struggle]

Noooo uzz can wworrrkk for another maastr!!! Orrr staarttxzz ur own biznessss!!

Yea I know--but if you actually do it--starting you own business is a fabulous option to have available to you.

[Skooma Addict]

In "traditional" slavery failure to work for your master would mean getting shot. In modern wage slavery it means starving to death. How is this not coercion? How is it voluntary if failure to work for your master results in your death?

It is not coercion because you are not being forced against your will to work as the slave is. Also, just because you choose not to work for an employer, that does not necessarily mean you will starve to death.

[Ovi]

It is not coercion because you are not being forced against your will to work as the slave is.

Of course you are. Just like any other slave, not working for your masters means dying.


Also, just because you choose not to work for an employer, that does not necessarily mean you will starve to death.
What's the alternative to not working for an employer?

[Skooma Addict]

Of course you are. Just like any other slave, not working for your masters means dying.


Unlike the slave, you voluntarily choose to work for an employer. I don't see how this is difficult for you to grasp. You are free to work for someone else or not to work at all if you would like. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Again, just because you choose not to work for an employer, that does not mean your going to starve.


What's the alternative to not working for an employer?

For starters there are many employers. So "work for me" or die doesn't make much sense. There are also families, charities, churches, friends, etc. who could support you.

[ckaihatsu]

Unlike the slave, you voluntarily choose to work for an employer. I don't see how this is difficult for you to grasp. You are free to work for someone else or not to work at all if you would like. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Again, just because you choose not to work for an employer, that does not mean your going to starve.


Since you're coming at this from a different ideological stance and are obviously *unsympathetic* to the plight of the working class, we're going to have to spell it out for you:

*Some* people have been *born* into a situation of *some ownership* (of a claim to the proceeds that come from owning a part of the means of mass production). For *these* people their choice is either to work, or... just let the money roll in.

For *most* people the choice is either *work* or else be in a less-than-comfortable situation that includes debt, being dependent on others, and being at greater personal risk. Granted, *starvation* is a bit of an exaggeration, especially these days, and especially in the economically developed parts of the world, but, by modern standards, it is *social* and *personal* "starvation" by having undue limitations placed on one's aspirations.

So the "choice" to either work for an employer or else face a future of constricted personal life development -- amidst a *very* (technologically) enabling type of world civilization -- is not really a "choice* at all, as much as it is a *coercion*.

For someone, say an immigrant, to see storefuls of plentiful merchandise -- for example -- and then be denied the access to partake of what they'd like of it, from what the world has produced, on *racist* and underpaid grounds, is simply the height of adding insult to injury. Ditto for real estate, a nicer place to live, access to the means to *enjoy* one's time off from work in leisure, etc.

*No one* can say that *ownership* is being deprived of recompense if more goods and services are distributed than are paid for, because *ownership* didn't have to *work* to *produce* any of it in the first place. And even *labor* can't really be said to be shortchanged from a model of broader distribution since labor is interested in *being employed* as long as possible and in *getting paid* for the work that they do. The end *products* of their labor are taken from them anyway, so they have no ownership interests there.





There are also families, charities, churches, friends, etc. who could support you.


This is a *tacit admission* that there are differing *class interests* at work in the economy.

You'd *never* give *business advice* that sounds like this, because it would be *bad business* -- you're essentially advising someone to *undervalue* their market worth, *incur debt* on operating expenses, *and* become beholden to others. At the same time you're expecting *others* -- the families, charities, churches, and friends -- to *take on debt* that has no (apparent) productive purpose.

This *proves* that the system is *coercive* if one's only choices -- in lieu of being born into an ownership position -- are to work like a robot and be exploited or else to engage in unsound business practices using *oneself* as collateral.

[Jazzratt]

The two parties that voluntarily entered into the particular transaction did so because they thought the would benefit. Whether or not you agree with their decision is a different story.

Ah sorry, I was confused. I thought by "mutually beneficial" there was some kind of equivelence in benefit. Rather than the difference between "better than starving to death" (the employee's benefit) and "only slightly more expensive than slave labour" (the employer's benefit). Frankly I don't think it is enough that the employee "benefits" in the loosest possible sense.



If businessmen are underpaying their workers, other businessmen stand to profit by offering the workers a higher wage.

:lol:Yep, increased overheads = mad profit. It's not like the job market is a buyer's market or anything.



The fact that the minimum wage only forces people whose marginal value productivity is less than that of the minimum wage out of the job market.

Wouldn't a black-hearted bastard like yourself think it a good thing that ineffecient workers are not on the job market. Regardless you are talking bollocks since there is no such worker.


Do you think it is fair that a third party can stop peaceful individuals from engaging in voluntary mutually beneficial transactions?

Going by your, frankly insane, defenition of "mutually beneficial" I think that they should feel duty bound to in order to prevent the party of the first part getting screwed by the party of the second part.



But it isn't only taking money from people who can afford helicopters. It is taking money from all taxpayers. That includes the poor.

In countries with progressive income taxes there is often a minimal taxable income - increasing that threshold and making taxes at the top end more punitive makes for a slightly more fair society. Personally I'd rather see markets and price-system trappings abolished in favour of something even more just and sensible, but until then this is the fairer system.

[Ovi]

For starters there are many employers. So "work for me" or die doesn't make much sense.
You didn't get me. There is no alternative to working for an employer. If you're not working for one then you're certainly going to have to work for someone else. In the end, you either work for them or you die.

[Jazzratt]

You didn't get me. There is no alternative to working for an employer. If you're not working for one then you're certainly going to have to work for someone else. In the end, you either work for them or you die.

Let's be fair, thinking in those terms requires you to have needed to work for a living. Olaf does not seem to fit into that category.

[Skooma Addict]

This is a *tacit admission* that there are differing *class interests* at work in the economy.

You'd *never* give *business advice* that sounds like this, because it would be *bad business* -- you're essentially advising someone to *undervalue* their market worth, *incur debt* on operating expenses, *and* become beholden to others. At the same time you're expecting *others* -- the families, charities, churches, and friends -- to *take on debt* that has no (apparent) productive purpose.

This *proves* that the system is *coercive* if one's only choices -- in lieu of being born into an ownership position -- are to work like a robot and be exploited or else to engage in unsound business practices using *oneself* as collateral.

I'm not advising anyone to do anything. We are lucky we live in a time with relatively high capital accumulation. In older times when there was little accumulated capital, you were far more likely to starve if you didn't work. But yea, I expect families, charities, and churches to "take on the debt." However without minimum wage laws, finding a job would be easy.

You did not prove that the free market is coercive. I first don't know what you mean when you say we are born into an ownership position. The free market is simply the end result of individuals voluntary exchanges. If I offer you money to perform task X, and you accept my offer, we both benefit.


Ah sorry, I was confused. I thought by "mutually beneficial" there was some kind of equivelence in benefit. Rather than the difference between "better than starving to death" (the employee's benefit) and "only slightly more expensive than slave labour" (the employer's benefit). Frankly I don't think it is enough that the employee "benefits" in the loosest possible sense.

So you get to decide whats right for other people even though they themselves think they are benefiting from the transaction. You personally don't think it is enough that the two parties think they are benefiting. Luckily workers wages will naturally approach their discounted marginal value productivity.


Wouldn't a black-hearted bastard like yourself think it a good thing that ineffecient workers are not on the job market. Regardless you are talking bollocks since there is no such worker.

Why would I think it is a good thing that "inefficient" workers aren't on the job market? Also, yea, workers are pushed out of the job market due to the minimum wage. That's why it is unethical. I am not black-hearted, I just won't believe lies even if I wish they were true.



Going by your, frankly insane, defenition of "mutually beneficial" I think that they should feel duty bound to in order to prevent the party of the first part getting screwed by the party of the second part.

My definition isn't insane at all. Both parties benefit...how is that insane? Right, so a third party will stop two people from entering into a transaction where they both benefit, and then more likely than not prevent any transaction from taking place.

Also, your weak appeals to emotion don't convince me. If workers were really going to starve and suffer like you claim they would, I would obviously have problems. But really, I see no reason to believe this would be the case.


You didn't get me. There is no alternative to working for an employer. If you're not working for one then you're certainly going to have to work for someone else. In the end, you either work for them or you die.

You say this as though there is something wrong with working for an employer. Also, your claim is still false because it is not necessarily true that you will die if you aren't working for an employer. This simply is not true.

[Orange Juche]

You say this as though there is something wrong with working for an employer.

I didn't vote for 'em.

[Skooma Addict]

I didn't vote for 'em.

I don't get it.

[Orange Juche]

I don't get it.

My comment alludes to the following questions - Why should the economy not also be democratic? Why should I not have a say, along with my fellow workers, on how the institution is organized and run?

Why should we be subjugated to an economic system in which we have no control over the most influential system in our lives - the economy?

What's wrong with "working for an employer" (as you said), is that I didn't vote for 'em. I had no say. We are "wage slaves" because we are condemned to an undemocratic, totalitarian economic system.

[Skooma Addict]

My comment alludes to the following questions - Why should the economy not also be democratic? Why should I not have a say, along with my fellow workers, on how the institution is organized and run?

There are reasons why the economy itself should not be run democratically. First and foremost, a democratically run economy would end in disaster. In the free market, you do have a say in how things are run. If people stopped buying products which were made from child labor, then companies would stop using children to make their products. If you want to make a firm that is democratically run, go ahead. But most people don't want democratically run firms, so to force others to accept this standard is wrong.

If you guys are correct, and democratically run firms are more efficient than firms run by capitalists and entrepreneurs, then worker run firms will become very common.


What's wrong with "working for an employer" (as you said), is that I didn't vote for 'em. I had no say. We are "wage slaves" because we are condemned to an undemocratic, totalitarian economic system.

I would say that forcing all firms to become democratic firms is coercive. In a free market, the most productive firms will stay in business. If worker run firms are the most productive, capitalist run firms will go out of business.

[Ovi]

There are reasons why the economy itself should not be run democratically. First and foremost, a democratically run economy would end in disaster.

Indeed, it would be as disastrous as abolishing slavery. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs128.html)


In the free market, you do have a say in how things are run. If people stopped buying products which were made from child labor, then companies would stop using children to make their products.

And now grandma is supposed to know your product was made by child labor? How about abolishing child labor in the first place?


If you want to make a firm that is democratically run, go ahead. But most people don't want democratically run firms, so to force others to accept this standard is wrong.

:lol: Do you ever get sick of yourself?

[Havet]

And now grandma is supposed to know your product was made by child labor?


Through propaganda?


How about abolishing child labor in the first place?

Listen, I don't like the idea as much as you do, and I hope such situation betters over those wartorn countries, but in many cases, despise the theft, despise the slavery, despise all the bad things, child labor is the only thing those people have to survive.

Now, one can do two things. Either abolish child labor and "hope" their governments will do something about it, or engage actively in the creation of voluntary institutions and services which provide a better alternative to kids, such as schools, charities, humanitarian aid, promotion of entrepreneurship (whether individual or collective), which will lead to worker-run companies, collectives, communes, cooperatives, etc.

[Ovi]

Through propaganda?

Why would a private company tell it's clients that they make use for child labor? Not them? Then who? Anyone who has millions to spend on such advertising has little reason to speak against such actions (and tell the truth). And don't make me get started on this whole advertising thing.



Listen, I don't like the idea as much as you do, and I hope such situation betters over those wartorn countries, but in many cases, despise the theft, despise the slavery, despise all the bad things, child labor is the only thing those people have to survive.

Saying that this is all they have to survive doesn't justify slavery!


Now, one can do two things. Either abolish child labor and "hope" their governments will do something about it, or engage actively in the creation of voluntary institutions and services which provide a better alternative to kids, such as schools, charities, humanitarian aid, promotion of entrepreneurship (whether individual or collective), which will lead to worker-run companies, collectives, communes, cooperatives, etc.
The whole idea was that there is nothing voluntary in working for a boss. Those kids that work all day long aren't volunteering for the job. It's take it or face starvation (though that doesn't mean their wage is going to end it).

[Orange Juche]

First and foremost, a democratically run economy would end in disaster.

Unless you can provide meaningful evidence, this is conjecture. "It sure seems that way to me" doesn't prove anything. I fail to see how it is condemned to disaster.

People made that same argument against modern republican and parliamentary "democracies." How is this any different?



In the free market, you do have a say in how things are run. If people stopped buying products which were made from child labor, then companies would stop using children to make their products.

That isn't a "say in how things are run." Influence by mass action and a forum for debate, discussion, and finally a vote are not the same thing.

If a fascist government used an oppressed minority to, say, build roads, and people boycotted roads (stopping that minority from having to build roads), and did that with every new product or used item the slaves were forced to create, that wasn't democracy.

And what you say doesn't respond to my proposition of workplace democracy. What does boycotting sweatshops have to do with how democratic factory x is (being that our economy is democratic, according to you)?




If you want to make a firm that is democratically run, go ahead. But most people don't want democratically run firms, so to force others to accept this standard is wrong.

Is forcing fascists to accept a non-fascist system wrong? By this logic, every system is "wrong" because it "forces" it's opponents into that system.




would say that forcing all firms to become democratic firms is coercive.

Forcing anyone to do anything is coercive. But if you are forcing someone to stop participating in something immoral, is that coercion wrong? Are there not situations where coercive actions are not only not wrong, but necessary?

[ckaihatsu]

Overall, this is the *main* difference between the right and the left in economics -- people on the right focus too much on the ground-level, individualistic interactions that are possible (through the markets), while the left is more comprehensive in addressing the *overall* situation, including the class division.

By blithely ignoring the *systematic* exploitation of the working class the right has less *political overhead* and can appear to be more "on-the-ground" and everyday in their treatment of economic matters -- almost populist, even.





I'm not advising anyone to do anything.




But yea, I expect families, charities, and churches to "take on the debt."


Okay, so you're not *advising*, but, in societal terms, you *politically support* the arrangement of society into stratas where some groups of people -- families, charities, and churches -- should forego the benefits of leveraging their funds and instead *give away* their resources to those who have unmet living needs. Isn't this, then, *slavery* of a sort for those who are expected to take on the load?





However without minimum wage laws, finding a job would be easy.


Without labor law regulations like minimum wage laws people could be convinced (or tricked) into doing pack-mule work while barely being kept alive.





You did not prove that the free market is coercive.


Yes, I did. I showed that there is *no legal labor alternative* to being exploited of one's work by ownership. Workers *cannot* (legally) reorganize industrial manufacturing in their own best interests because they will be opposed, with physical force, by the bourgeoisie.





I first don't know what you mean when you say we are born into an ownership position.


What I *mean* is that there are *enormous* private family fortunes that *stay* within the confines of the family's descendants. Instead of the Divine Right of Kings we now have the Divine Right of the Gentry. Any argument for familial inheritance of wealth is just that -- an argument based on biological arbitrariness.





The free market is simply the end result of individuals voluntary exchanges. If I offer you money to perform task X, and you accept my offer, we both benefit.


Trade and "voluntary exchanges" is only *one* option for distributing the proceeds of industrial production -- others, like myself, would rather see the *workers* who *make* the stuff in the first place be the main deciders in the matter of how people get stuff.

[Skooma Addict]

Why would a private company tell it's clients that they make use for child labor? Not them? Then who? Anyone who has millions to spend on such advertising has little reason to speak against such actions (and tell the truth). And don't make me get started on this whole advertising thing.

It all depends on what consumers are demanding. Maybe certain people will only buy products that have a some kind of seal which promises that the product was not made by children. Stuff like this currently goes on in the diamond market.


That isn't a "say in how things are run." Influence by mass action and a forum for debate, discussion, and finally a vote are not the same thing.

If a fascist government used an oppressed minority to, say, build roads, and people boycotted roads (stopping that minority from having to build roads), and did that with every new product or used item the slaves were forced to create, that wasn't democracy.

And what you say doesn't respond to my proposition of workplace democracy. What does boycotting sweatshops have to do with how democratic factory x is (being that our economy is democratic, according to you)?

What if I oppose the idea of majority rule by voting itself? Do I have a say in how things would be done if we voted on everything? Surely, you couldn't expect me to vote against the idea of voting. So I don't have a say in how things are run in such a scenario.

If workers owned a factory, and there really was no capitalist, workers would have to wait until their product is finished and sold before they could make a profit. So it could literally take months or even years before a worker could finally profit from their product. Maybe you could have workers as semi-capitalists however. But if this strategy is the most productive, then it should become common in the free market.


Is forcing fascists to accept a non-fascist system wrong? By this logic, every system is "wrong" because it "forces" it's opponents into that system.

Depends what you subjectively view as wrong. I do not think it is wrong to force murders not to kill. I do think it is wrong to forcibly prevent people from entering into voluntary mutually beneficial transactions.


Forcing anyone to do anything is coercive. But if you are forcing someone to stop participating in something immoral, is that coercion wrong? Are there not situations where coercive actions are not only not wrong, but necessary?

I guess you could say it is coercive to force someone to stop committing immoral acts. So no, not all coercion is wrong. But I believe that forcing democracy on innocent people who do not want it is wrong.


Okay, so you're not *advising*, but, in societal terms, you *politically support* the arrangement of society into stratas where some groups of people -- families, charities, and churches -- should forego the benefits of leveraging their funds and instead *give away* their resources to those who have unmet living needs. Isn't this, then, *slavery* of a sort for those who are expected to take on the load?

Families, charities, and churches wouldn't be forced to do anything. But historically families, charities, and churches have always helped the less well off. I mean, that is practically the purpose of a charity.


Without labor law regulations like minimum wage laws people could be convinced (or tricked) into doing pack-mule work while barely being kept alive.


Well, I guess it is not impossible. But again, if one business is underpaying its workers, another business can offer the workers a higher wage, and profit.


Yes, I did. I showed that there is *no legal labor alternative* to being exploited of one's work by ownership. Workers *cannot* (legally) reorganize industrial manufacturing in their own best interests because they will be opposed, with physical force, by the bourgeoisie.

I don't know if they can currently. But in a free market, they can open a factory and run it themselves if they would like. If they voluntarily choose to work for a capitalist, they aren't being coerced. This is all the capitalist/worker relationship is....

...Man A offers man B commodity X for every hour of Man B's labor. Man B agrees voluntarily. Are you opposed to trade? It is no different than trading two commodities. The only difference is that one man is offering a service.


What I *mean* is that there are *enormous* private family fortunes that *stay* within the confines of the family's descendants. Instead of the Divine Right of Kings we now have the Divine Right of the Gentry. Any argument for familial inheritance of wealth is just that -- an argument based on biological arbitrariness.

If a man wants to give away his money to a person for free, he should be allowed to do so.


Trade and "voluntary exchanges" is only *one* option for distributing the proceeds of industrial production -- others, like myself, would rather see the *workers* who *make* the stuff in the first place be the main deciders in the matter of how people get stuff.

In a free market, you could do this. Do you think this would be more productive than a firm run by a capitalist? You must because you claim capitalists are simply parasites, in which case a worker run firm would have the advantage. So it follows that in a free market, the vast majority of firms would be worker run.

[Havet]

Why would a private company tell it's clients that they make use for child labor? Not them? Then who? Anyone who has millions to spend on such advertising has little reason to speak against such actions (and tell the truth). And don't make me get started on this whole advertising thing.

This kind of propaganda (http://www.endchildlabor.org/).


Saying that this is all they have to survive doesn't justify slavery!

Of course it doesn't justify it. But until the conditions are met (industrially), certainly a better option than starving to death, or child prostitution?


The whole idea was that there is nothing voluntary in working for a boss. Those kids that work all day long aren't volunteering for the job. It's take it or face starvation (though that doesn't mean their wage is going to end it).

Of course they are not volunteering. But taking away that (little) source of income will only make it worse, if there are no better alternatives around. This is why direct action, which I said above, is the best way to promote their well-being rather than just forbidding the existence of sweatshops and child labor by the State, and "hoping" they do something in the meantime.

[ckaihatsu]

It all depends on what consumers are demanding. Maybe certain people will only buy products that have a some kind of seal which promises that the product was not made by children. Stuff like this currently goes on in the diamond market.


( This shows the massive, myopic blind spot that market ideologues always exhibit -- they want to promote the idea that an overarching authoritarian (capitalist) state is not needed, but as soon as *policy alternatives*, like this "[no child labor] seal", are discussed, the *objective need* for a regulating authority creeps back into the situation. In this example there would be no way for consumers to differentiate between a business cartel-like collusion over a "seal of authenticity" or a genuine, independently verified "seal of authenticity". As things are now government pretty much rubber-stamps the business practices of major corporations anyway, but in some cases consumers (and even workers) can benefit from having a governmental third party in the mix, enforcing (mild) regulations. )





What if I oppose the idea of majority rule by voting itself? Do I have a say in how things would be done if we voted on everything? Surely, you couldn't expect me to vote against the idea of voting. So I don't have a say in how things are run in such a scenario.


MPIE isn't putting up the issue of *representational voting* for consideration here -- what's being raised is the degree of *collective workers' control* over the *production process* that their labor is crucial to. Without their work effort the production process could not even happen at all. Therefore the workers should not *have* to be made default bystanders of a political racket of bourgeois parliamentarism. Since they're synonymous with the production process itself workers should have commensurate *direct control* over their own labor and the resulting work products.





If they voluntarily choose to work for a capitalist, they aren't being coerced. This is all the capitalist/worker relationship is....

...Man A offers man B commodity X for every hour of Man B's labor. Man B agrees voluntarily. Are you opposed to trade? It is no different than trading two commodities. The only difference is that one man is offering a service.




If workers owned a factory, and there really was no capitalist, workers would have to wait until their product is finished and sold before they could make a profit. So it could literally take months or even years before a worker could finally profit from their product. Maybe you could have workers as semi-capitalists however. But if this strategy is the most productive, then it should become common in the free market.


You're making the mistake of *assuming* that workers in factories, and people in the outlying communities, would *decide* to continue using a market-based economic system. Markets are only the economic counterpart to a *bourgeois* (class-based) political system. Markets favor ownership by enabling the use of laborers as commodities, bought and sold like any common object. In this way labor value can be expropriated (stolen) through the wages system, since workers are *never* paid the full value of what their labor is worth to the employer -- not even *proportionately* to its relative input into the finished product.

You're *overstepping* your own political orientation by *presuming* to speak for what workers would do *if* they controlled their own labor input. It would actually be in the workers' *best interests* to *eliminate* *all* elitism so that they could retain *full control* over the labor process and the products of their labor. This would mean *doing away* with capitalism, ownership, markets, middlemen, and profits, in favor of a direct-decision and direct-distribution model for politics and economics, respectively.





Okay, so you're not *advising*, but, in societal terms, you *politically support* the arrangement of society into stratas where some groups of people -- families, charities, and churches -- should forego the benefits of leveraging their funds and instead *give away* their resources to those who have unmet living needs. Isn't this, then, *slavery* of a sort for those who are expected to take on the load?





Families, charities, and churches wouldn't be forced to do anything. But historically families, charities, and churches have always helped the less well off. I mean, that is practically the purpose of a charity.


Since this is a *political* forum what matters is what you -- or anyone else -- politically *support*. My point stands that you politically support a society in which some groups -- families, charities, churches, and others -- are *expected* to carry a greater economic cost in providing for the unmet living needs of those displaced from the market system, for whatever reason.





Without labor law regulations like minimum wage laws people could be convinced (or tricked) into doing pack-mule work while barely being kept alive.





Well, I guess it is not impossible. But again, if one business is underpaying its workers, another business can offer the workers a higher wage, and profit.


*Or* -- since business collusions and price-fixing agreements are an everyday thing -- several businesses might collaborate on a more *political* basis to "keep the peace", in employment terms. Instead of engaging in outright competition and pricing wars over labor they can simply collude to maintain industry-wide agreements, even if it costs some businesses some competitive advantage over labor sourcing. By "playing ball" with the larger players the smaller businesses can build business *political capital* over the long run instead of trying to make it on their own in the wilderness.





I showed that there is *no legal labor alternative* to being exploited of one's work by ownership. Workers *cannot* (legally) reorganize industrial manufacturing in their own best interests because they will be opposed, with physical force, by the bourgeoisie.





I don't know if they can currently.


No, they can't, because to do so would threaten the private property basis of capitalism altogether. Capital ownership would not have control over labor's finished products, and would not be able to sell them for a profit if workers reorganized industrial manufacturing in their own best interests. Please note that you're on a *revolutionary leftist* political forum here.





Do you think [worker-controlled factories] would be more productive than a firm run by a capitalist? You must because you claim capitalists are simply parasites, in which case a worker run firm would have the advantage. So it follows that in a free market, the vast majority of firms would be worker run.




But in a free market, they can open a factory and run it themselves if they would like.


But in a market-based system those people who *control* the functioning of the factory *must* be *competitive* in the market or else they won't even be able to cover the cost of their supplies, much less make a profit, and will then risk going out of business -- this means that they, *whoever* they are, *must* function in the role of being motivated by profit, even if that means exploiting the workers of that factory. *Whoever* is managing the factory in a capitalist economy, even if they were workers yesterday, are, by function, *capitalist managers* today.





If a man wants to give away his money to a person for free, he should be allowed to do so.


It's *easy* for a backer of the capitalist system to defend the practice of familial inheritance because the *entire system* is based on *private property* -- even if that wealth was inherited over the generations from exploiting past slave labor or underpaid immigrant labor today.

Just because someone *has* money to give away, for whatever reason, doesn't mean that the money came from the person's own efforts. Under capitalism money can be made anonymous, especially by those who are major political power brokers, or are in those circles. This means that money doesn't necessarily tell its own story -- cash, and even more large-scale, complicated transactions, can be passed off from party to party fairly silently.

What matters to a *leftist* is where the *labor effort* came from -- since *wage-paid labor* is a *must* for *any* productive process -- even for services -- this means that labor is the *real* source of value under capitalism, and is the source of all resulting financial valuations, from there forward. (Keep in mind that capital cannot accumulate in the first place without it being built up from human labor effort -- human beings are the only species that *builds up* accumulated value -- animals don't.)

[Ovi]

It all depends on what consumers are demanding. Maybe certain people will only buy products that have a some kind of seal which promises that the product was not made by children. Stuff like this currently goes on in the diamond market.

It doesn't happen and it never will. The whole idea of rational consumer is flawed so everything based on this idea is also flawed, such as market economy.

This kind of propaganda (http://www.endchildlabor.org/).

I doubt grandma knows about that.


Of course it doesn't justify it. But until the conditions are met (industrially), certainly a better option than starving to death, or child prostitution?

Of course they are not volunteering. But taking away that (little) source of income will only make it worse, if there are no better alternatives around. This is why direct action, which I said above, is the best way to promote their well-being rather than just forbidding the existence of sweatshops and child labor by the State, and "hoping" they do something in the meantime.
And you propose child sweatshops to help the poor countries?

[Havet]

I doubt grandma knows about that.

Lol. Come on dude, she'll hear from it. How did grandma know about recycling? Global Warming? Animals about to become extinct?


And you propose child sweatshops to help the poor countries?

Oh no. Actually, i oppose the very existance of corporations.

But anyway, my point is that people (here) should organize themselves and provide help over there, as an alternative, so that kids have neither to resort to begging, prostitution, or child labor.

Just abolishing the child sweatshops will accomplish nicht. One needs to create the infrastructure so that they DON'T need to go to work anymore. And having faith that a State will do that is mighty naive in my opinion. Mutual aid and voluntary international associations help people in a far efficient way IMO.

[Skooma Addict]

( This shows the massive, myopic blind spot that market ideologues always exhibit -- they want to promote the idea that an overarching authoritarian (capitalist) state is not needed, but as soon as *policy alternatives*, like this "[no child labor] seal", are discussed, the *objective need* for a regulating authority creeps back into the situation. In this example there would be no way for consumers to differentiate between a business cartel-like collusion over a "seal of authenticity" or a genuine, independently verified "seal of authenticity". As things are now government pretty much rubber-stamps the business practices of major corporations anyway, but in some cases consumers (and even workers) can benefit from having a governmental third party in the mix, enforcing (mild) regulations. )

I really don't see the problem here. All I am saying is that if people will only buy products that aren't made with child labour, then businesses which don't use child labour will want to advertise this. Also, false adverting is fraud, and it would be illegal in a libertarian society. It would also be easy to find out if a company uses child labour or not. I'm sure you could fins out on the internet.


MPIE isn't putting up the issue of *representational voting* for consideration here -- what's being raised is the degree of *collective workers' control* over the *production process* that their labor is crucial to. Without their work effort the production process could not even happen at all. Therefore the workers should not *have* to be made default bystanders of a political racket of bourgeois parliamentarism. Since they're synonymous with the production process itself workers should have commensurate *direct control* over their own labor and the resulting work products.

I know labour is required in order to produce things. However, I do not think it is necessarily true that laborers should have complete ownership over their products. There are other factors that go into the production process besides labour.

Also, look at this example. I give a worker some pumpkin seeds, and I offer him 10 billion dollars to spend 10 minutes a day growing some pumpkins. He happily accepts my offer. Am I exploiting him?


You're making the mistake of *assuming* that workers in factories, and people in the outlying communities, would *decide* to continue using a market-based economic system. Markets are only the economic counterpart to a *bourgeois* (class-based) political system. Markets favor ownership by enabling the use of laborers as commodities, bought and sold like any common object. In this way labor value can be expropriated (stolen) through the wages system, since workers are *never* paid the full value of what their labor is worth to the employer -- not even *proportionately* to its relative input into the finished product.

You're *overstepping* your own political orientation by *presuming* to speak for what workers would do *if* they controlled their own labor input. It would actually be in the workers' *best interests* to *eliminate* *all* elitism so that they could retain *full control* over the labor process and the products of their labor. This would mean *doing away* with capitalism, ownership, markets, middlemen, and profits, in favor of a direct-decision and direct-distribution model for politics and economics, respectively.

The market has nothing to do with politics. Workers aren't paid the full value of their product, but their wages will naturally tend to approach their DMVP. From the fact that workers are not paid the full value of their product, you cannot claim that workers labour is being stolen. Part of the value of the workers product couldn't exist without the capital the worker is using.

I don't think it would be in the workers best interest to do away with capitalists, but I wouldn't prevent workers from forming their own firms. Do you want to prevent capitalists from forming their own firms?


Since this is a *political* forum what matters is what you -- or anyone else -- politically *support*. My point stands that you politically support a society in which some groups -- families, charities, churches, and others -- are *expected* to carry a greater economic cost in providing for the unmet living needs of those displaced from the market system, for whatever reason.

Does this surprise you? Are you shocked that I actually thinkthat charities and churches will help the poor?


*Or* -- since business collusions and price-fixing agreements are an everyday thing -- several businesses might collaborate on a more *political* basis to "keep the peace", in employment terms. Instead of engaging in outright competition and pricing wars over labor they can simply collude to maintain industry-wide agreements, even if it costs some businesses some competitive advantage over labor sourcing. By "playing ball" with the larger players the smaller businesses can build business *political capital* over the long run instead of trying to make it on their own in the wilderness.

This has been refuted many times by many people. If some businesses agreed to collaborate and price fix, then a huge profit opportunity exists for anyone who decides to compete with these businesses. Without government support, cartels would be pointless.


But in a market-based system those people who *control* the functioning of the factory *must* be *competitive* in the market or else they won't even be able to cover the cost of their supplies, much less make a profit, and will then risk going out of business -- this means that they, *whoever* they are, *must* function in the role of being motivated by profit, even if that means exploiting the workers of that factory. *Whoever* is managing the factory in a capitalist economy, even if they were workers yesterday, are, by function, *capitalist managers* today.

I don't understand what your saying. But I do know that in a free market you can organize a factory in any way you like. The factory can be "run by the workers" if that is what you desire. You could then trade your products with other people.


It's *easy* for a backer of the capitalist system to defend the practice of familial inheritance because the *entire system* is based on *private property* -- even if that wealth was inherited over the generations from exploiting past slave labor or underpaid immigrant labor today.

Just because someone *has* money to give away, for whatever reason, doesn't mean that the money came from the person's own efforts. Under capitalism money can be made anonymous, especially by those who are major political power brokers, or are in those circles. This means that money doesn't necessarily tell its own story -- cash, and even more large-scale, complicated transactions, can be passed off from party to party fairly silently.

Obviously, if I stole money and then gave it away to my kids, they would not have a legitimate claim to the money. But that is side stepping the issue. There is nothing inherently wrong with giving money away for free.


What matters to a *leftist* is where the *labor effort* came from -- since *wage-paid labor* is a *must* for *any* productive process -- even for services -- this means that labor is the *real* source of value under capitalism, and is the source of all resulting financial valuations, from there forward. (Keep in mind that capital cannot accumulate in the first place without it being built up from human labor effort -- human beings are the only species that *builds up* accumulated value -- animals don't.)

You do know that value is subjective, correct?

[Skooma Addict]

It doesn't happen and it never will.

How do you know this?


The whole idea of rational consumer is flawed so everything based on this idea is also flawed, such as market economy.

So you are saying consumers are irrational? If I am hungry, I will buy food.

[Dejavu]

The whole idea of rational consumer is flawed so everything based on this idea is also flawed, such as market economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise (http://www.revleft.com/vb/False%20Premise)

[Ovi]

Lol. Come on dude, she'll hear from it. How did grandma know about recycling? Global Warming? Animals about to become extinct?

And if grandma finds out about global warming, it will stop global warming? I don't understand why some think that WE can actually do anything about these problems; we can't in the current world order

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise (http://www.revleft.com/vb/False%20Premise)
What is that supposed to prove? At every lesson I got about economics in high school the teacher would explain us how the consumer who equates his happiness with products has the single goal of maximizing his happiness by consuming as much as possible. Being rational about his decisions was critical. However there is nothing rational about about consuming and the entire market economy which is based on this premise is just as flawed.

How do you know this?

Capitalism wasn't invented yesterday and practice shows us that people only know about the products they buy as much as the producers want them to know. You can start dreaming on how grandma is going to search the internet to find out about the working conditions of company X, the truth is that she'll never know.


So you are saying consumers are irrational? If I am hungry, I will buy food.
You'll buy mc donalds food, which is tasty simply because it's filled with artificial flavors and other compounds. You'll eat margarine because it's advertised and take sleeping pills without knowing shit about it's side effects. You're not being rational, you're being scammed and you don't have anything against that.

[Havet]

And if grandma finds out about global warming, it will stop global warming? I don't understand why some think that WE can actually do anything about these problems; we can't in the current world order

Seems a pretty defeatist view. You better go ahead and tell these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross) fellas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_Corps) that they're wasting their time.

Warning consumers through propaganda is not 100% effective, but it certainly shapes (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080504075109AAH9XSp) some people's actions.

[Skooma Addict]

However there is nothing rational about about consuming

:confused:


Capitalism wasn't invented yesterday and practice shows us that people only know about the products they buy as much as the producers want them to know. You can start dreaming on how grandma is going to search the internet to find out about the working conditions of company X, the truth is that she'll never know.

My grandma doesn't care, and I don't care either. However, maybe some people will only buy products which have a seal guaranteeing that the product was not made by child labour. If no seals exist, these people can search the internet. If they are too damn lazy to do this much, then that is their problem.

But if businesses will get a lot more customers if they can guarantee that their products were not made by children, then they will advertise this fact.

But again, lots of people don't want to buy diamonds which were mined using slave labour. So companies advertise the fact that their diamonds were acquired legitimately.


You'll buy mc donalds food, which is tasty simply because it's filled with artificial flavors and other compounds. You'll eat margarine because it's advertised and take sleeping pills without knowing shit about it's side effects. You're not being rational, you're being scammed and you don't have anything against that.

We are both defining "rational" differently. I acted perfectly rationally in your scenario. I was simply ignorant of the fact that I would encounter side effects.

[Ovi]

Seems a pretty defeatist view. You better go ahead and tell these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross) fellas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_Corps) that they're wasting their time.

Warning consumers through propaganda is not 100% effective, but it certainly shapes (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080504075109AAH9XSp) some people's actions.
I was talking about how propaganda will never improve anything and you ask me whether the red cross volunteers are wasting their time.
And talking on some forum about recycling is not going to increase recycling at all because we don't have a saying in how things are run!

In the free market, you do have a say in how things are run. If people stopped buying products which were made from child labor, then companies would stop using children to make their products.



My grandma doesn't care, and I don't care either. However, maybe some people will only buy products which have a seal guaranteeing that the product was not made by child labour. If no seals exist, these people can search the internet. If they are too damn lazy to do this much, then that is their problem.

Assuming that people don't want children to work 12 hours a day, you've just contradicted yourself. We don't want children to work but it's still being done. This means that we DON'T have a saying in how things are run


But if businesses will get a lot more customers if they can guarantee that their products were not made by children, then they will advertise this fact.

But again, lots of people don't want to buy diamonds which were mined using slave labour. So companies advertise the fact that their diamonds were acquired legitimately.

Ok, so now EVERYONE is supposed to know what products were made using child labor, that a certain company dumps toxic wastes in rivers, that sodium laureth sulfate is bad for their health, that cyclamate it's a potential carcinogenic, that many baby bottles leak bisphenol which is harmfull for humans and so on... It won't happen. It's impossible for everyone to know everything. But if you don't know these things about what you buy, then you can't make a rational decision. In the end market economy is nothing more but a way for people to scam each other, and they're not playing with their money only, but with their health and the environment too.


We are both defining "rational" differently. I acted perfectly rationally in your scenario. I was simply ignorant of the fact that I would encounter side effects.
So you're saying that you wanted to get obese, to increase the odds of developing cancer and other stuff? I doubt you (just like anyone else, me included) know anything about the stuff that you're buying.

[Dejavu]

At every lesson I got about economics in high school the teacher would explain us how the consumer who equates his happiness with products has the single goal of maximizing his happiness by consuming as much as possible. Being rational about his decisions was critical. However there is nothing rational about about consuming and the entire market economy which is based on this premise is just as flawed.Consuming as much as possible , eh? Nothing rational about consuming?
*Sigh* O.K. I guess you can look at it from a maximizing happiness perspective , I mean in the broader philosophical sense. Utility would be a more accurate description but I don't feel like getting into semantics.

I don't know where you get the 'consume as much as possible' claim as a basis for a market economy. If it were true that people just consumed as much as possible then economic calculation on the behalf of consumers would be non-existent. Do people save? Of course they do. I would agree if you reply 'not enough.' but that's not totally the fault of the person not saving. That is a complicated issue that has a lot to due with the current economic systems and the states' activities in said systems.

Furthermore, people limit allocation of their resources to purchase different means for various ends. One needs not look any farther than a supermarket and the assortment of groceries most people have. If they truly were set on consuming A , then they would purchase nothing but A but they are also interested in consuming B so they have to allocate how much resources get spent on both A&B respectively. That is what is meant by 'rational consumer.' Rational in the narrow sense and not always in the broader philosophical sense. A rational consumer does not mean the consumer which will only consume the bare minimum or the consumer that has expert knowledge related to that which she wishes to buy. It means ability to allocate resources to serve various purposes.

A market economy is not based on consumption as a foundational truism. A market economy is based on the social recognition of property rights and, as an extension, the voluntary trade of goods. From property rights all other rules/customs of a market economy rise.

Life itself , however , is based on consumption. I mean practically speaking , it is. Its inescapable that no matter what kind of people we become , what ideas we hold , we all have a universal dependence on the consumption of resources in order to continue living. A market economy is a way to to distribute those resources just like any other proposed economic system. Would you claim that this premise about life is flawed? Would you also claim that any concept which seeks to address the issue of distributing resources is also flawed? And finally , would you say that economics itself is flawed because of this need for humans to consume?

I might have misunderstood you completely so please let me know. I suggest not taking a truth about life , such as the need to consume , warping it , revolting at it , and twisting it to some how blame it as a flawed premise for an economic system that is one of many,since an economic concept is not necessarily about the consumption of resources but rather is about the distribution of resources.

[Skooma Addict]

Assuming that people don't want children to work 12 hours a day, you've just contradicted yourself. We don't want children to work but it's still being done. This means that we DON'T have a saying in how things are run

Children work 12 hours a day? I personally am not against children working. In many poor societies, it is just a fact that children will have to work, and I am happy children are able to get jobs. If you don't want to buy products which are made by children, that is fine by me. But until you can explain why child labour is wrong, you have no justification for making it illegal.


Ok, so now EVERYONE is supposed to know what products were made using child labor, that a certain company dumps toxic wastes in rivers, that sodium laureth sulfate is bad for their health, that cyclamate it's a potential carcinogenic, that many baby bottles leak bisphenol which is harmfull for humans and so on... It won't happen. It's impossible for everyone to know everything. But if you don't know these things about what you buy, then you can't make a rational decision. In the end market economy is nothing more but a way for people to scam each other, and they're not playing with their money only, but with their health and the environment too.

In a free market, rivers would be owned by actual people. So companies couldn't dump toxic waste into a river unless they owned the river. Not everyone wants to take the time to learn about what specific chemicals are good and bad for you. So you want to decide what people can eat now? But yea, imperfect knowledge exists, this is just a fact of nature. This is one of the reasons why socialism is flawed.

I see you do not understand what it means to make a rational decision. Lets say I were hungry, and in order to satisfy my hunger I go jump off a building. This would be an irrational decision. If I am hungry, and I buy a food which I think is healthy even though it contains a poison, then I made a rational decision. I simply did not know that the food was poisonous.

Do you deny that humans are rational beings?

[Skooma Addict]

Dejavu, how come I haven't seen you around here before? What is your political ideology?

[Ovi]

Children work 12 hours a day? I personally am not against children working. In many poor societies, it is just a fact that children will have to work, and I am happy children are able to get jobs. If you don't want to buy products which are made by children, that is fine by me. But until you can explain why child labour is wrong, you have no justification for making it illegal.

I don't care that you think children working in sweatshops is ok. The idea is that even if most people would care, it would not stop it from happening.



In a free market, rivers would be owned by actual people. So companies couldn't dump toxic waste into a river unless they owned the river. Not everyone wants to take the time to learn about what specific chemicals are good and bad for you. So you want to decide what people can eat now? But yea, imperfect knowledge exists, this is just a fact of nature. This is one of the reasons why socialism is flawed.

Nope, is the reason market economy is flawed. I can't know all these things about these products, but the manufacturers do. They are the ones supposed to do something about it because they are the only ones who know these things. Those who sell shampoo should not use harmful ingredients, those that sell baby bottles are supposed to use safe materials, and those who process food are supposed to never use harmful additives.


I see you do not understand what it means to make a rational decision. Lets say I were hungry, and in order to satisfy my hunger I go jump off a building. This would be an irrational decision. If I am hungry, and I buy a food which I think is healthy even though it contains a poison, then I made a rational decision. I simply did not know that the food was poisonous.

If you want to be healthy but the food you eat is not and you are not aware of it, then it's like jumping off a roof while being hungry.


Do you deny that humans are rational beings?
I deny that consumers can be rational in a market economy.

[Dejavu]

Dejavu, how come I haven't seen you around here before? What is your political ideology?

I'm old school. I used to post on these forums all the time both to the joy and chagrin of many. Tbh, I don't really have a political ideology. I am anti-politics just like one is anti-theist/atheist towards religion/gods/

I would fit in closest to what some might consider an individualist anarchist/mutualist.

[Skooma Addict]

I don't care that you think children working in sweatshops is ok. The idea is that even if most people would care, it would not stop it from happening.

That depends what you mean by "most" people. If 51% of the population didn't buy products from sweatshops, then yea, there would still be sweatshops. Altohugh there will be less than there would have been otherwise.


Nope, is the reason market economy is flawed. I can't know all these things about these products, but the manufacturers do. They are the ones supposed to do something about it because they are the only ones who know these things. Those who sell shampoo should not use harmful ingredients, those that sell baby bottles are supposed to use safe materials, and those who process food are supposed to never use harmful additives.

Many people do not care if their food is unhealthy. As for shampoo being poisonous, I have never had that problem. But you could sue a company if their shampoo poisoned you. Anyways, the free market naturally solves problems like this. The best products are produced in greater supply, and the products that consumers don't want to produce are no longer produced.

Even then, the existence of bad products does not mean the free market is somehow refuted.

When it comes to imperfect knowledge, socialism is the ideology that will run into far larger problems, such as how to rationally allocate scarce resources in the absence of the markets price system.



If you want to be healthy but the food you eat is not and you are not aware of it, then it's like jumping off a roof while being hungry.

A rational decision is a decision which follows from a logically sound proposition. The proposition does not have to be logically valid. So your wrong.


I'm old school. I used to post on these forums all the time both to the joy and chagrin of many. Tbh, I don't really have a political ideology. I am anti-politics just like one is anti-theist/atheist towards religion/gods/

I would fit in closest to what some might consider a market anarchist/mutualist.

Mutualism eh? Mutualism isn't very appealing in my opinion. I mean, it is based on the LTV...

[Dejavu]

That depends what you mean by "most" people. If 51% of the population didn't buy products from sweatshops, then yea, there would still be sweatshops. Altohugh there will be less than there would have been otherwise.



Many people do not care if their food is unhealthy. As for shampoo being poisonous, I have never had that problem. But you could sue a company if their shampoo poisoned you. Anyways, the free market naturally solves problems like this. The best products are produced in greater supply, and the products that consumers don't want to produce are no longer produced.

Even then, the existence of bad products does not mean the free market is somehow refuted.

When it comes to imperfect knowledge, socialism is the ideology that will run into far larger problems, such as how to rationally allocate scarce resources in the absence of the markets price system.



A rational decision is a decision which follows from a logically sound proposition. The proposition does not have to be logically valid. So your wrong.



Mutualism eh? Mutualism isn't very appealing in my opinion. I mean, it is based on the LTV...

Not all interpretations of mutalism are. I certainly do not endorse the LToV.
Fish back for some of my posts/threads regarding my criticisms of LToV.

[Skooma Addict]

Which aspects of Mutualism do you support?

[Dejavu]

I like quite a few of the ideas that come out of this blog. (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/)

I am fascinated by co-ops in particular.

[Ovi]

That depends what you mean by "most" people. If 51% of the population didn't buy products from sweatshops, then yea, there would still be sweatshops. Altohugh there will be less than there would have been otherwise.

No there wouldn't. Do you really think most people would agree with such treatment? I doubt it but it's still happening.


Many people do not care if their food is unhealthy. As for shampoo being poisonous, I have never had that problem. But you could sue a company if their shampoo poisoned you. Anyways, the free market naturally solves problems like this. The best products are produced in greater supply, and the products that consumers don't want to produce are no longer produced.

So you're saying that people naturally want harmful food additives and such?


Even then, the existence of bad products does not mean the free market is somehow refuted.

When it comes to imperfect knowledge, socialism is the ideology that will run into far larger problems, such as how to rationally allocate scarce resources in the absence of the markets price system.

Simply: rich can afford, the poor don't isn't a very good allocation practice either.


A rational decision is a decision which follows from a logically sound proposition. The proposition does not have to be logically valid. So your wrong.


In economics, sociology, and political science, a decision or situation is often called rational if it is in some sense optimal, and individuals or organizations are often called rational if they tend to act somehow optimally in pursuit of their goals.Call it what you want, the idea is that we have no saying in how things are run in a market economy and that there is no way people will ever know what they're buying

[Skooma Addict]

No there wouldn't. Do you really think most people would agree with such treatment? I doubt it but it's still happening.

Many people claim to oppose child labour. Then they turn around and buy Nike shoes. If you don't want to buy products made by child labour, then don't buy them. But In order to end child labour all together, living standards need to rise, or a vast majority need to stop buying products made by child labour.


So you're saying that people naturally want harmful food additives and such?

I personally don't really care if my food is healthy or not. I am sure there are some people who will only buy healthy foods.


Simply: rich can afford, the poor don't isn't a very good allocation practice either.

Resource allocation in the free market is rational. Resource allocation under socialism is not.


Call it what you want, the idea is that we have no saying in how things are run in a market economy and that there is no way people will ever know what they're buying

Lol, so when I go to the store to buy a soccer ball, I really have no idea what I am buying.

[Ovi]

Many people claim to oppose child labour. Then they turn around and buy Nike shoes. If you don't want to buy products made by child labour, then don't buy them. But In order to end child labour all together, living standards need to rise, or a vast majority need to stop buying products made by child labour.

I already told you that nobody can know everything about every product; this is why boycotting will never work as a way to "have a saying"



I personally don't really care if my food is healthy or not. I am sure there are some people who will only buy healthy foods.

That because most have no idea what they're made of


Ok, so now EVERYONE is supposed to know what products were made using child labor, that a certain company dumps toxic wastes in rivers, that sodium laureth sulfate is bad for their health, that cyclamate it's a potential carcinogenic, that many baby bottles leak bisphenol which is harmfull for humans and so on... It won't happen. It's impossible for everyone to know everything. But if you don't know these things about what you buy, then you can't make a rational decision. In the end market economy is nothing more but a way for people to scam each other, and they're not playing with their money only, but with their health and the environment too.



Resource allocation in the free market is rational. Resource allocation under socialism is not.



Lol, so when I go to the store to buy a soccer ball, I really have no idea what I am buying.
I already explained what I meant. And no you'll have no idea. If you're an environmentalist, you'll have no idea how much pollution was generated during manufacturing of that ball, whether it's biodegradable or whether child labor was used in the process.

[Skooma Addict]

I already told you that nobody can know everything about every product; this is why boycotting will never work as a way to "have a saying"


I know that nobody can know everything about every product. But that isn't even a critique of the free market.

I will try to explain this 1 more time. If enough people are opposed to child labour, companies which do not use child labour will advertise this on their products. If people who are opposed to child labour only buy products which have such a seal, then there will be less child labour than there otherwise would have been. Stuff like this currently goes on in the diamond market.


That because most have no idea what they're made of


Most don't want to take the time to learn everything there is to know about every product....there is something called opportunity cost.


I already explained what I meant. And no you'll have no idea. If you're an environmentalist, you'll have no idea how much pollution was generated during manufacturing of that ball, whether it's biodegradable or whether child labor was used in the process.

True, you might not know some of that stuff. If I am a racist, I won't know if the product was made by a white kid. If I hate tall people, I won't know if this product was made by a short person.

Your criticism isn't a criticism of the free market. Imperfect knowledge will exist no matter what.

I am just wondering, how would a socialist/anarchist/or whatever you support society solve these issues that you mentioned?

[Ovi]

I know that nobody can know everything about every product. But that isn't even a critique of the free market.

I will try to explain this 1 more time. If enough people are opposed to child labour, companies which do not use child labour will advertise this on their products. If people who are opposed to child labour only buy products which have such a seal, then there will be less child labour than there otherwise would have been. Stuff like this currently goes on in the diamond market.

So if enough people would find out that sodium laureth sulfate is harmfull they will stop buying such products and prevent others from manufacturing them; if enough people know that polycarbonate leaks bisphenol, if they'll know that cyclamate is a potential carconogenic, if if if...I already told you that this is impossible. Grandma won't know that your soccer ball was made using child labor.





Most don't want to take the time to learn everything there is to know about every product...

That's because it's impossible. That's the point.



there is something called opportunity cost.


I call it scamming.


True, you might not know some of that stuff. If I am a racist, I won't know if the product was made by a white kid. If I hate tall people, I won't know if this product was made by a short person.

Your criticism isn't a criticism of the free market. Imperfect knowledge will exist no matter what.

I am just wondering, how would a socialist/anarchist/or whatever you support society solve these issues that you mentioned?
I already said that. In anarchism there is no child labor and manufactureres would not use harmful substances.

[Skooma Addict]

So if enough people would find out that sodium laureth sulfate is harmfull they will stop buying such products and prevent others from manufacturing them; if enough people know that polycarbonate leaks bisphenol, if they'll know that cyclamate is a potential carconogenic, if if if...I already told you that this is impossible. Grandma won't know that your soccer ball was made using child labor.

My grandma wouldn't know because my grandma doesn't care. The rest of the facts you listed is stuff barely anyone cares about. I already explained this 5 times, and I used the diamond market as an example. You can respond to this portion of our discussion if you want, but I will be making no further responses.


That's because it's impossible. That's the point.

So then this has absolutely nothing to do with the free market.



I call it scamming.

You don't know what "opportunity cost" means. Search google.



already said that. In anarchism there is no child labor and manufactureres would not use harmful substances.

Those are two assertions which I would like you to prove.

[Ovi]

My grandma wouldn't know because my grandma doesn't care. The rest of the facts you listed is stuff barely anyone cares about.

So you don't give a shit that your food is junk? That your kid is exposed to bisphenol and other harmful substances?


So then this has absolutely nothing to do with the free market.

It was about the 'free' market.




You don't know what "opportunity cost" means. Search google.

So how is eating food additives supposed to be good for me?




Those are two assertions which I would like you to prove.

Nope, is the reason market economy is flawed. I can't know all these things about these products, but the manufacturers do. They are the ones supposed to do something about it because they are the only ones who know these things. Those who sell shampoo should not use harmful ingredients, those that sell baby bottles are supposed to use safe materials, and those who process food are supposed to never use harmful additives.Prove what? In communism there is no profit motive.

[Skooma Addict]

So you don't give a shit that your food is junk?

Not at all.


So how is eating food additives supposed to be good for me?

What does this have to do with opportunity cost?


Prove what? In communism there is no profit motive.

You said there would be no child labour, and that products would not use harmful substances.

Speaking of profit motive, I am sure you have heard of the calculation argument as has been put forth by Mises and Hayek?

[Ovi]

Not at all.

Neither about your kid? That sucks.


What does this have to do with opportunity cost?


Opportunity cost or economic opportunity loss is the value of the next best alternative foregone as the result of making a decision.[1] The next best thing that a person can engage in is referred to as the opportunity cost of doing the best thing and ignoring the next best thing to be done.
So how is eating food additives supposed to be the best thing for me?


You said there would be no child labour, and that products would not use harmful substances.

Of course not. Who would use child labor and harmful substances in a profitless post scarcity society?


Speaking of profit motive, I am sure you have heard of the calculation argument as has been put forth by Mises and Hayek?
Probably not.

[Skooma Addict]

So how is eating food additives supposed to be the best thing for me?

That isn't what we were discussing. I said people do not know everything about every product due to opportunity cost. It has nothing to do with the free market.


Of course not. Who would use child labor and harmful substances in a profitless post scarcity society?

Post Scarcity?

[RGacky3]

Quote:
So you don't give a shit that your food is junk?
Not at all.


Ask your mantits if they do. Or your heart.

[Skooma Addict]

Ask your mantits if they do. Or your heart.

I am an active person so I am fine. Doctor says im healthy. Ill start eating healthy once I am older and it has more of an effect on me. As of now, I am in the best shape of my life.

[RGacky3]

I am an active person so I am fine. Doctor says im healthy. Ill start eating healthy once I am older and it has more of an effect on me. As of now, I am in the best shape of my life.

I was'nt intending too attack your health or whatever, my point (and I should have made it clear), was to say that opportunity cost, and what it takes for capitalists to get there is not efficient or healthy, heart problems and the obesity problem is one of the "externalities" or the fast food industry.

The fact is, people live busy lives, work is very hard to come by, the food industry has made unhealthy food cheaper than healthy food, even though I guarantee you if you put it to a democratic process the food industry would not be the way it is.

Fast Food is just another example of the inefficiencies and "short term mentality" of Capitalism. Obesity is an externality of Fast Food and other Capitalist institutions.

If the "free market" was really free and the "peoples choice" then, if put to a democratic process, the results would be the same.

[Tungsten]

The free-market is essentially slavery.

Freedom is slavery, is it? Or was that just a Freudian slip?

[RGacky3]

There is no such thing as the free market, because the top 1% control more than the top 95% combined. So that 1%, along with maybe the top 5% control the market completely, so its only a free market for them, for everyone else they have to struggle and fight for the crumbs.

[Ovi]

There is no such thing as the free market, because the top 1% control more than the top 95% combined. So that 1%, along with maybe the top 5% control the market completely, so its only a free market for them, for everyone else they have to struggle and fight for the crumbs.
On what grounds were you restricted?

[RGacky3]

anti abortion

[Ovi]

That's it? Views can change, so as long as we're leftists I don't see how something like that matters so much. After all there are plenty of those who call themselves socialists and worship stalin.

[Conquer or Die]

People are banned out of dislike, here. Quote from Irving Kristol, however, and you're a Commie Club member.

[ckaihatsu]

I really don't see the problem here. All I am saying is that if people will only buy products that aren't made with child labour, then businesses which don't use child labour will want to advertise this. Also, false adverting is fraud, and it would be illegal in a libertarian society. It would also be easy to find out if a company uses child labour or not. I'm sure you could fins out on the internet.


So then the issue is *how* is 'fraud' defined, and *who* gets to *judge* what is 'fraud' and what isn't.

It would be in the *best interests* of the companies to *all* say on the Internet that they *don't* use child labor, whether they actually did or not -- better public image and better sales, right? (And if they *could* get away with using child labor then that would be a *profitable* practice, too.)

But *workers* have a *countervailing* interest -- one to *not* be exploited. Our society is at least enlightened enough to have child labor laws enforced, and so children are legally required to attend school and get a (free, public) education instead of wasting away their youth being exploited for their labor, as happened commonly in the days of the industrial revolution.

So my point stands -- the markets are *not*, and *cannot be* self-regulating. There *has* to be some kind of overarching, authoritative government to make and enforce judgments, preferably those that benefit laborers.





I know labour is required in order to produce things. However, I do not think it is necessarily true that laborers should have complete ownership over their products. There are other factors that go into the production process besides labour.


The *only* components that go into the production process are [1] labor, and [2] capital -- and capital is simply the accumulation of *past labor*, in the form of bricks-and-mortar, capital accounts, infrastructure, or whatever.

So everything that *transcends nature* is *labor-derived* -- and labor can only be one of *three* types: production-oriented (roughly "blue collar"), administrative / managerial (roughly "white collar"), or domestic / life-supporting (roughly "pink collar").

Only true leftists recognize these material facts and act on the basis of this understanding. Others, like yourself, develop an artificial respect (or "fetish") for the accumulations of built-up labor -- capital -- for its own sake, blithely ignoring that their creation was only possible in the first place from the (exploitative) use of human labor, in *all* cases.

Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends
http://tinyurl.com/6bs6va





Also, look at this example. I give a worker some pumpkin seeds, and I offer him 10 billion dollars to spend 10 minutes a day growing some pumpkins. He happily accepts my offer. Am I exploiting him?


*This* is a perfect example of the artificial respect, or fetish, that you have for the capital-accumulation side of things.

There is no good reason that I, or anyone else, should *respect* this scenario, or your purported claim to the ownership of a part of nature, or of past labor value represented in the form of money.

Instead, I would look with suspicion on how you came to possess the 10 billion dollars in the first place, and to what your reasoning is for separating yourself from the farm-laboring process yourself. Do you really want to harvest pumpkins? Then why not do the work yourself?

But of course you're not interested in growing and harvesting pumpkins for the pumpkin-use -- you're interested in them for their *commodity value*, and the only way to formalize that value is by *exploiting* laborers in the production process, *commodifying them* through the payment of wages.

(And please don't insult me, or anyone else here, with "10 billion dollars for 10 minutes of farm work".)





The market has nothing to do with politics.


The market has *everything* to do with politics, because it's only through the combined support for national and governmental practices that markets can exist at all. Your respect for private property extends to politically supporting any and all forces that will likewise support the institution of private property, whether they are governmental, politicking, military, commercial, thuggish, or otherwise.





Workers aren't paid the full value of their product,


Exactly. As I mentioned above, *all* nature-transcending items are only possible as a result of human labor, yet the reality remains that workers have never received the full value of their product.





but their wages will naturally tend to approach their DMVP.


This is in capital-oriented, or market-based, terms -- *not* labor-oriented terms.





From the fact that workers are not paid the full value of their product, you cannot claim that workers labour is being stolen. Part of the value of the workers product couldn't exist without the capital the worker is using.


Yes, workers' labor has *always* been stolen through the formalization of capital, or past-labor, into something separate from workers' control over their own production process in the present -- during the production process workers *should* be able to access the use of past-labor-produced ("capital") implements, since they are the results of past laboring efforts.





I don't think it would be in the workers best interest to do away with capitalists,


It would be *precisely* in workers' best interests to do away with capitalists since all that capitalists do is to separate workers from the products of their own labor efforts.





but I wouldn't prevent workers from forming their own firms.




I don't understand what your saying. But I do know that in a free market you can organize a factory in any way you like. The factory can be "run by the workers" if that is what you desire. You could then trade your products with other people.


As I noted earlier it's the *role* and *representation* that counts -- workers "forming their own firms" *cease* to be workers since, by that process, they have come to represent the interests of the firm, a composition of capital in a profit-seeking mode that exploits labor.





Do you want to prevent capitalists from forming their own firms?


Well, *yes*, actually, but not one or two here and there, but *entirely*, throughout the entire world.





Does this surprise you? Are you shocked that I actually thinkthat charities and churches will help the poor?


Again, as I mentioned before, what counts is that you *politically support* the expectation that *some* groups should have to *economically provide* for the unmet living needs of people outside of the market system while businesses (and government) *don't* have to.





This has been refuted many times by many people. If some businesses agreed to collaborate and price fix, then a huge profit opportunity exists for anyone who decides to compete with these businesses. Without government support, cartels would be pointless.


So this then is an *admission* that tacit government support for cartels exists, because if government actively pursued prosecutions of market-defeating business cartel agreements then businesses would be *forced* into participation at market rates. As things are now there is *no such* government enforcement of the market mechanism, as highlighted by the current, ongoing handout of billions of dollars in public funds to the largest banking institutions.





Obviously, if I stole money and then gave it away to my kids, they would not have a legitimate claim to the money. But that is side stepping the issue. There is nothing inherently wrong with giving money away for free.




You do know that value is subjective, correct?


*None* of this discussion is about "right" or "wrong" -- we would probably disagree in these terms, too, but the *basis* of my fundamental disagreement with you is on a *material* basis, namely where nature-transcending value comes from -- factually it is derived from human effort, or labor.

[Skooma Addict]

So then the issue is *how* is 'fraud' defined, and *who* gets to *judge* what is 'fraud' and what isn't.

It would be in the *best interests* of the companies to *all* say on the Internet that they *don't* use child labor, whether they actually did or not -- better public image and better sales, right? (And if they *could* get away with using child labor then that would be a *profitable* practice, too.)

But *workers* have a *countervailing* interest -- one to *not* be exploited. Our society is at least enlightened enough to have child labor laws enforced, and so children are legally required to attend school and get a (free, public) education instead of wasting away their youth being exploited for their labor, as happened commonly in the days of the industrial revolution.

So my point stands -- the markets are *not*, and *cannot be* self-regulating. There *has* to be some kind of overarching, authoritative government to make and enforce judgments, preferably those that benefit laborers.

Regarding who determines what is fraud and what is not; that would be up to the courts to decide. Markets are self regulating. For example, some products succeed while others fail. There doesn't have to be a government which benefits laborers at the expense of everyone else.

Child labor is important in countries like China where the majority of the population is poor. If China simply enacted a ban on child labor, millions of peoples lives would be ruined.



The *only* components that go into the production process are [1] labor, and [2] capital -- and capital is simply the accumulation of *past labor*, in the form of bricks-and-mortar, capital accounts, infrastructure, or whatever.

So everything that *transcends nature* is *labor-derived* -- and labor can only be one of *three* types: production-oriented (roughly "blue collar"), administrative / managerial (roughly "white collar"), or domestic / life-supporting (roughly "pink collar").

Only true leftists recognize these material facts and act on the basis of this understanding. Others, like yourself, develop an artificial respect (or "fetish") for the accumulations of built-up labor -- capital -- for its own sake, blithely ignoring that their creation was only possible in the first place from the (exploitative) use of human labor, in *all* cases.

That depends on how you define capital. Different people use different definitions. Your definition is decent enough. We need to remember however that land and natural resources are required.

I do not see how the fact that everything which transcends nature is labour derived is relevant. That doesn't change the fact that Capitalists still supply the required capital.

I should remind you that I am not a leftist. I praise the accumulation of possible because it is what leads to a raise in living standards for the majority of the population. Since you cannot rely on the dogmatic labour theory of value, I think you will have a hard time explaining how capitalism is inherently exploitative.


*This* is a perfect example of the artificial respect, or fetish, that you have for the capital-accumulation side of things.

There is no good reason that I, or anyone else, should *respect* this scenario, or your purported claim to the ownership of a part of nature, or of past labor value represented in the form of money.

Instead, I would look with suspicion on how you came to possess the 10 billion dollars in the first place, and to what your reasoning is for separating yourself from the farm-laboring process yourself. Do you really want to harvest pumpkins? Then why not do the work yourself?

But of course you're not interested in growing and harvesting pumpkins for the pumpkin-use -- you're interested in them for their *commodity value*, and the only way to formalize that value is by *exploiting* laborers in the production process, *commodifying them* through the payment of wages.

(And please don't insult me, or anyone else here, with "10 billion dollars for 10 minutes of farm work".)

Actually, this has absolutely nothing to do with capital accumulation, but suit yourself.

Alright, I will expand further. I found the land and single handedly worked on it my entire life for 70 years. Lets say I saved up 1 million dollars instead of 10 billion. All of my money was acquired through voluntary mutually beneficial exchanges with others who valued my product more than their money. NObod ever wanted to use my land, even though I would have allowed anyone who wanted it free access to my land.

So, even though you avoided my question, I will ask again. If I payed you 1 million dollars to harvest my pumpkins, and we can go ahead and assume that you enjoy harvesting pumpkins, am I exploiting you?



The market has *everything* to do with politics, because it's only through the combined support for national and governmental practices that markets can exist at all. Your respect for private property extends to politically supporting any and all forces that will likewise support the institution of private property, whether they are governmental, politicking, military, commercial, thuggish, or otherwise.

This is nothing more than a misunderstanding on your part.


Exactly. As I mentioned above, *all* nature-transcending items are only possible as a result of human labor, yet the reality remains that workers have never received the full value of their product.

Yea. I see nothing wrong with this. You speak like the Labour Theory of Value actually isn't dogmatic. I know some people worked 300 years ago to accumulate capital. It is not like today's workers have a right to the capital accumulated by others 300 years ago.


Exactly. As I mentioned above, *all* nature-transcending items are only possible as a result of human labor, yet the reality remains that workers have never received the full value of their product.

Labour is a necessary condition for the accumulation of capital, but it is not a sufficient condition. Anyways, I think I addressed this point already.

This is basically your claim....

Labour is required for the production of "nature transcending items. Therefore labourers should receive the full value of their product. But this is not self evident, and you need to explain why labourers must always receive the full value of their product.


This is in capital-oriented, or market-based, terms -- *not* labor-oriented terms.

Idk what that means.



Yes, workers' labor has *always* been stolen through the formalization of capital, or past-labor, into something separate from workers' control over their own production process in the present -- during the production process workers *should* be able to access the use of past-labor-produced ("capital") implements, since they are the results of past laboring efforts.

Why do today's workers have a natural right to the product of other laborers in the past? That makes no sense at all. I think your theory of value is all messed up.


It would be *precisely* in workers' best interests to do away with capitalists since all that capitalists do is to separate workers from the products of their own labor efforts.

Really? That is all capitalists do? For starters, capitalists pay workers before they complete their product. Would you rather wait 5 years until your product is sold before you can make money, or do you want to be paid on a regular basis? Capitalists also provide workers with the capital that they need in order produce certain goods.

There is nothing wrong with working for a capitalist. You certainly have no right to tell other people who they can and cannot work for.


As I noted earlier it's the *role* and *representation* that counts -- workers "forming their own firms" *cease* to be workers since, by that process, they have come to represent the interests of the firm, a composition of capital in a profit-seeking mode that exploits labor.

What? So now workers aren't allowed to form their own firms? Must we all work for our socialist overlords? Give me a break.


Well, *yes*, actually, but not one or two here and there, but *entirely*, throughout the entire world.

And your willing to use force against innocent people in order to do this? If I want to work for a capitalist, and a capitalist wants to hire me, will you stop us? I certainly would;t want to live your socialist distopia where resources are wasted and famines are common. Socialists who want to do this are just as dogmatic as those who want to force their religion on others.


Again, as I mentioned before, what counts is that you *politically support* the expectation that *some* groups should have to *economically provide* for the unmet living needs of people outside of the market system while businesses (and government) *don't* have to.

I expect that CHARITIES will help the poor. Same with churches.


So this then is an *admission* that tacit government support for cartels exists, because if government actively pursued prosecutions of market-defeating business cartel agreements then businesses would be *forced* into participation at market rates. As things are now there is *no such* government enforcement of the market mechanism, as highlighted by the current, ongoing handout of billions of dollars in public funds to the largest banking institutions.

Yea, government supports cartels. I already knew this.


*None* of this discussion is about "right" or "wrong" -- we would probably disagree in these terms, too, but the *basis* of my fundamental disagreement with you is on a *material* basis, namely where nature-transcending value comes from -- factually it is derived from human effort, or labor.

Labour and other factors; yes. But you have yet to prove how this is relevant. To go from this to the idea that workers must receive the full value of their product is unjustified unless you can provide a better argument.

In fact, it is often better for workers to be paid less than the full value of their product before their product is finished. I don't want to wait 2 years before I earn the full value of my product.

[ckaihatsu]

So my point stands -- the markets are *not*, and *cannot be* self-regulating. There *has* to be some kind of overarching, authoritative government to make and enforce judgments, preferably those that benefit laborers.





Regarding who determines what is fraud and what is not; that would be up to the courts to decide.




Markets are self regulating.


So we're in *agreement* that some sort of overarching administrative body (courts, government) is needed by business, to do business. This is *not* consistent with a definition of 'self-regulating markets'.





[S]ome products succeed while others fail. There doesn't have to be a government which benefits laborers at the expense of everyone else.


The *reality* is that capitalist government overwhelmingly favors the interests of the ownership class, *against* the interests of labor (for better wages and benefits). The funding of the military and police forces do *not* result in political and economic gains for workers' interests.





Child labor is important in countries like China where the majority of the population is poor. If China simply enacted a ban on child labor, millions of peoples lives would be ruined.


This reality reinforces *my* position that capitalist governments, like China's, do *not* "benefit laborers at the expense of everyone else," as you put it, above. (China is a *capitalist government because it backs businesses that only pay workers a *wage* -- workers do *not* actually *control* the running of the businesses or the country.)





That depends on how you define capital. Different people use different definitions. Your definition is decent enough. We need to remember however that land and natural resources are required.

I do not see how the fact that everything which transcends nature is labour derived is relevant.


It's relevant because it means that *everything* produced for human use was produced by human (or domesticated animal) labor, including accumulations of capital.

And *all people*, throughout the ages, have simply *found themselves* born onto the surface of the earth, with land and natural resources around them -- this means that there is no *inherent*, or at-birth difference from one person to the next in terms of ownership privileges or control privileges -- these happen according to *socio-political* dynamics once a person has entered into the social world in some regard.





That doesn't change the fact that Capitalists still supply the required capital.


Yes, that is the *current* reality, but by no means is it set in stone -- in past ages *kings* and *queens*, *clergy*, and *feudal lords* exercised absolute power over land, natural resources, and even people. But *that* social convention changed after awhile....





I should remind you that I am not a leftist. I praise the accumulation of possible because it is what leads to a raise in living standards for the majority of the population.


This is *not necessarily* the case -- living standards have been on the *decline* in the U.S. since the late '60s / '70s, for example. And we all know that the accumulation of capital benefits most those who are *accumulating* the capital -- the capitalists, not the laborers...(!)





Since you cannot rely on the dogmatic labour theory of value, I think you will have a hard time explaining how capitalism is inherently exploitative.




You speak like the Labour Theory of Value actually isn't dogmatic.


The labor theory of value is *not* a dogma, meaning some kind of a social *edict* -- it is something that even *you* have acknowledged as a *material fact* here in our discussion:






[N]ature-transcending value comes from [...] human effort, or labor.




Labour and other factors; yes.








*[A]ll* nature-transcending items are only possible as a result of human labor, yet the reality remains that workers have never received the full value of their product.




Yea. I see nothing wrong with this.






I know some people worked 300 years ago to accumulate capital. It is not like today's workers have a right to the capital accumulated by others 300 years ago.




Labour is required for the production of "nature transcending items. Therefore labourers should receive the full value of their product. But this is not self evident, and you need to explain why labourers must always receive the full value of their product.




Why do today's workers have a natural right to the product of other laborers in the past? That makes no sense at all. I think your theory of value is all messed up.


Current owners of capital today have no *inherent* right to the capital accumulated from past generations. Since we both acknowledge that accumulations of capital were only possible in the first place due to the work efforts of laborers, I think *today's* workers have more of a material right to the accumulated work-products, or capital, of past generations of workers than capitalists do.





So, even though you avoided my question, I will ask again. If I payed you 1 million dollars to harvest my pumpkins, and we can go ahead and assume that you enjoy harvesting pumpkins, am I exploiting you?





There is no good reason that I, or anyone else, should *respect* this scenario, or your purported claim to the ownership of a part of nature, or of past labor value represented in the form of money.





The market has *everything* to do with politics, because it's only through the combined support for national and governmental practices that markets can exist at all. Your respect for private property extends to politically supporting any and all forces that will likewise support the institution of private property, whether they are governmental, politicking, military, commercial, thuggish, or otherwise.





This is nothing more than a misunderstanding on your part.


You may want to explain yourself here.





This is in capital-oriented, or market-based, terms -- *not* labor-oriented terms.





Idk what that means.


Don't worry about it.





It would be *precisely* in workers' best interests to do away with capitalists since all that capitalists do is to separate workers from the products of their own labor efforts.




Really? That is all capitalists do? For starters, capitalists pay workers before they complete their product. Would you rather wait 5 years until your product is sold before you can make money, or do you want to be paid on a regular basis?




In fact, it is often better for workers to be paid less than the full value of their product before their product is finished. I don't want to wait 2 years before I earn the full value of my product.


The fact of the matter is that workers have *no choice*, as things stand. Because of the existence of private ownership of capital laborers are reduced to receiving compensation on ownership's terms, by ownership's time-frames, through the wages system.

If we had a *real* choice my answer would be that workers displace capitalist control altogether so that we have the *choice* of running factories in our own interests, without having to fork over the lion's share of the revenues in the form of profits to the capitalist ownership.





Capitalists also provide workers with the capital that they need in order produce certain goods.


This is *hardly* the case -- you're using a severe *distortion* here -- workers are *not* provided with capital in order to be exploited of their labor at the workplace.





There is nothing wrong with working for a capitalist. You certainly have no right to tell other people who they can and cannot work for.




And your willing to use force against innocent people in order to do this? If I want to work for a capitalist, and a capitalist wants to hire me, will you stop us?


I'll remind you that this is a *political* discussion, and is *not* personal -- this is *not* about *me*, or you, for that matter. Note that I speak in terms of the *best interests* of the *working class* all over the world.





What? So now workers aren't allowed to form their own firms? Must we all work for our socialist overlords? Give me a break.




I certainly would;t want to live your socialist distopia where resources are wasted and famines are common. Socialists who want to do this are just as dogmatic as those who want to force their religion on others.


Now you're invoking a specter of * Stalinism * here, which is *not* what I, and other revolutionary leftists, support. Socialism *must* be a worldwide control of the means of mass production by the world's working class, or else it *isn't* really socialism. It would *not* be in workers' best interests to form firms based on private ownership of capital.





I expect that *CHARITIES* will help the poor. Same with churches.





Again, as I mentioned before, what counts is that you *politically support* the expectation that *some* groups should have to *economically provide* for the unmet living needs of people outside of the market system while businesses (and government) *don't* have to.





[N]ature-transcending value comes from [...] human effort, or labor.




Labour and other factors; yes. But you have yet to prove how this is relevant. To go from this to the idea that workers must receive the full value of their product is unjustified unless you can provide a better argument.


No, I *don't* have to "provide a better argument" -- this is the only argument required for my point.

[Skooma Addict]

So we're in *agreement* that some sort of overarching administrative body (courts, government) is needed by business, to do business. This is *not* consistent with a definition of 'self-regulating markets'.

The courts I am referring to are courts which operate under the free market. So no, there is no single overarching administrative body.


The *reality* is that capitalist government overwhelmingly favors the interests of the ownership class, *against* the interests of labor (for better wages and benefits). The funding of the military and police forces do *not* result in political and economic gains for workers' interests.

Yea, government intervention in the economy is very bad. I do not think it is as black and white as you claim it is though.


This reality reinforces *my* position that capitalist governments, like China's, do *not* "benefit laborers at the expense of everyone else," as you put it, above. (China is a *capitalist government because it backs businesses that only pay workers a *wage* -- workers do *not* actually *control* the running of the businesses or the country.)

I do not support a "capitalist government". I believe all goods and services should be provided by the market.


It's relevant because it means that *everything* produced for human use was produced by human (or domesticated animal) labor, including accumulations of capital.

That is circular reasoning.


And *all people*, throughout the ages, have simply *found themselves* born onto the surface of the earth, with land and natural resources around them -- this means that there is no *inherent*, or at-birth difference from one person to the next in terms of ownership privileges or control privileges -- these happen according to *socio-political* dynamics once a person has entered into the social world in some regard.

I agree with you, assuming I understand you correctly.



Yes, that is the *current* reality, but by no means is it set in stone -- in past ages *kings* and *queens*, *clergy*, and *feudal lords* exercised absolute power over land, natural resources, and even people. But *that* social convention changed after awhile....

They did not exercise complete control over people or the land. But yea, some misguided socialists could overthrow our current system and install socialism. I agree that it is not set in stone.


This is *not necessarily* the case -- living standards have been on the *decline* in the U.S. since the late '60s / '70s, for example. And we all know that the accumulation of capital benefits most those who are *accumulating* the capital -- the capitalists, not the laborers...(!)

You still need to accumulate capital to raise living standards. The mere fact that capital is accumulated does not guarantee a rise in living standards, but that does not change the fact that in order to increase living standards in the long run, you need to accumulate capital.


The labor theory of value is *not* a dogma, meaning some kind of a social *edict* -- it is something that even *you* have acknowledged as a *material fact* here in our discussion:

What I said has nothing to do with the labor theory of value. The LTV is a dogmatic doctrine that no intellectually honest person can take seriously.


Current owners of capital today have no *inherent* right to the capital accumulated from past generations. Since we both acknowledge that accumulations of capital were only possible in the first place due to the work efforts of laborers, I think *today's* workers have more of a material right to the accumulated work-products, or capital, of past generations of workers than capitalists do.

Nobody has an inherent right to anything. There is no such thing as an inherent right. I think capitalists have a right to their capital as long as they acquired it through mutually beneficial voluntary transactions. This is a far more reasonable requirement compared to yours.

Anyways, I don't want to eliminate the entire capitalist class because I don't want a huge amount the innocent population to suffer.


You may want to explain yourself here.


The market has absolutely nothing to do with the government at all.



The fact of the matter is that workers have *no choice*, as things stand. Because of the existence of private ownership of capital laborers are reduced to receiving compensation on ownership's terms, by ownership's time-frames, through the wages system.

If we had a *real* choice my answer would be that workers displace capitalist control altogether so that we have the *choice* of running factories in our own interests, without having to fork over the lion's share of the revenues in the form of profits to the capitalist ownership.

In a free market, workers could organize themselves and run factories themselves. Now, they cannot stop others from working for capitalists if they desire. I think you should be supporting a free market. It allows for workers to open their own factories and run them how they see fit, but it doesn't come with all the fallacies that are apparent in socialism.



This is *hardly* the case -- you're using a severe *distortion* here -- workers are *not* provided with capital in order to be exploited of their labor at the workplace.


Capitalists do supply the required capital, and I will believe that workers are exploited once you prove it.


I'll remind you that this is a *political* discussion, and is *not* personal -- this is *not* about *me*, or you, for that matter. Note that I speak in terms of the *best interests* of the *working class* all over the world.

Just answer the question. Would you prevent me from working for a capitalist if that is what I want to do?


Now you're invoking a specter of * Stalinism * here, which is *not* what I, and other revolutionary leftists, support. Socialism *must* be a worldwide control of the means of mass production by the world's working class, or else it *isn't* really socialism. It would *not* be in workers' best interests to form firms based on private ownership of capital.

I cannot imagine how many people would die terrible deaths if there were a single world socialist government.



No, I *don't* have to "provide a better argument" -- this is the only argument required for my point.


So that is your entire argument? Well then, I will explain where you went wrong.

1. Labor is required for the production process.
2. Therefore laborers must retain the full value of their product, otherwise they are being exploited.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Also, are you going to respond to my pumpkin harvesting scenario? Am I exploiting you or not?

[ckaihatsu]

The courts I am referring to are courts which operate under the free market. So no, there is no single overarching administrative body.




I do not support a "capitalist government". I believe all goods and services should be provided by the market.




Yea, government intervention in the economy is very bad. I do not think it is as black and white as you claim it is though.


A definition of the "free market" implies a number of independently running, self-serving businesses -- as soon as you acknowledge that a system of courts (decision-making and -enforcing) is needed *among* these independent participants it's *no longer* the "free market" -- rather, they are all forming a pact in common to include an administrative (governmental) body that will provide a jurisdiction *over* all of the independent businesses -- this jurisdiction would extend into matters involving the goods and services provided by each business entity. This is *not* a "self-regulating market", it *is* a capitalist government.





It's relevant because it means that *everything* produced for human use was produced by human (or domesticated animal) labor, including accumulations of capital.





That is circular reasoning.


Not at all -- it is showing that without human labor there is no capital, because capital does not come from nature, nor does it self-accumulate.





You still need to accumulate capital to raise living standards. The mere fact that capital is accumulated does not guarantee a rise in living standards, but that does not change the fact that in order to increase living standards in the long run, you need to accumulate capital.


The accumulation of capital, like the reign of kings and queens, is *merely* a social convention. Yes, at one point the accumulation of capital from the merchant caste enabled the formation of joint-stock companies for imperialist exploration and colonization of the New World, and later the construction of factories for industrial production, but we could just as well have a humane, collectively controlled, non-capitalist system of mass labor control over those factories.





What I said has nothing to do with the labor theory of value. The LTV is a dogmatic doctrine that no intellectually honest person can take seriously.


What you have said indicates that you *do* understand the labor theory of value:





1. Labor is required for the production process.
2. Therefore laborers must retain the full value of their product, otherwise they are being exploited.





Nobody has an inherent right to anything. There is no such thing as an inherent right. I think capitalists have a right to their capital as long as they acquired it through mutually beneficial voluntary transactions. This is a far more reasonable requirement compared to yours.


I disagree because the transaction of paying workers a wage for their labor value is *inherently* a *one-sided*, *coercive* transaction, since workers have no option of their own outside of the capitalist-government-enforced economic system of private capital ownership.





Anyways, I don't want to eliminate the entire capitalist class because I don't want a huge amount the innocent population to suffer.


This is presumptuous.





The market has absolutely nothing to do with the government at all.


Yes, owners of capital rely on the capitalist government to enforce the rule of private property.





I cannot imagine how many people would die terrible deaths if there were a single world socialist government.




In a free market, workers could organize themselves and run factories themselves. Now, they cannot stop others from working for capitalists if they desire. I think you should be supporting a free market. It allows for workers to open their own factories and run them how they see fit, but it doesn't come with all the fallacies that are apparent in socialism.


Again, you're confusing 'socialism' for 'Stalinism' -- I provided a correction to this misuse of the term -- you may want to refer to it.

A true workers' control of the world's factories would displace the need for and practice of capital-based valuations altogether -- it would be far greater than a so-called "worker-owned workplace" here and there.





Capitalists do supply the required capital, and I will believe that workers are exploited once you prove it.


Here -- you summarized it rather well yourself:





1. Labor is required for the production process.
2. Therefore laborers must retain the full value of their product, otherwise they are being exploited.





Just answer the question. Would you prevent me from working for a capitalist if that is what I want to do?


In a worker-collectivized world economy there would be no capital and no capitalists.





Also, are you going to respond to my pumpkin harvesting scenario? Am I exploiting you or not?


No, there's no need to entertain it, and you know the answer anyway.

[Skooma Addict]

A definition of the "free market" implies a number of independently running, self-serving businesses -- as soon as you acknowledge that a system of courts (decision-making and -enforcing) is needed *among* these independent participants it's *no longer* the "free market" -- rather, they are all forming a pact in common to include an administrative (governmental) body that will provide a jurisdiction *over* all of the independent businesses -- this jurisdiction would extend into matters involving the goods and services provided by each business entity. This is *not* a "self-regulating market", it *is* a capitalist government.

No court is a monopoly, and people freely choose what court they would like to subscribe to. The courts do not function as a government.


The accumulation of capital, like the reign of kings and queens, is *merely* a social convention. Yes, at one point the accumulation of capital from the merchant caste enabled the formation of joint-stock companies for imperialist exploration and colonization of the New World, and later the construction of factories for industrial production, but we could just as well have a humane, collectively controlled, non-capitalist system of mass labor control over those factories.

I am not sure what you mean by a social convention.


What you have said indicates that you *do* understand the labor theory of value:

The dogmatic LTV claims that value is derived from the labor that goes into making a product. This is obviously false because value is subjective.


I disagree because the transaction of paying workers a wage for their labor value is *inherently* a *one-sided*, *coercive* transaction, since workers have no option of their own outside of the capitalist-government-enforced economic system of private capital ownership.

But my point was that there is no such thing as an "inherent" right. I also don't see how the capitalist/worker relationship is exploitative in a free market. Both the worker and the capitalist agree to a mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.


Yes, owners of capital rely on the capitalist government to enforce the rule of private property.

They do currently because the government is a monopoly. In a free market, this would not be the case.


Again, you're confusing 'socialism' for 'Stalinism' -- I provided a correction to this misuse of the term -- you may want to refer to it.

A true workers' control of the world's factories would displace the need for and practice of capital-based valuations altogether -- it would be far greater than a so-called "worker-owned workplace" here and there.


I know the difference between socialism and Stalinism. My point still stands, if the whole world were socialist, an untold amount of people would die. I am not saying they will be executed. I am saying civilization as we know it will collapse.


Here -- you summarized it rather well yourself:


What I said proves nothing....


In a worker-collectivized world economy there would be no capital and no capitalists.


So I take it you would then? You don't view this as unethical? I must live under your oppressive world socialist economy? What if I try to work for a capitalist, what would you do? Arrest me?



No, there's no need to entertain it, and you know the answer anyway.

I honestly don't know the answer, although I would be provided with some good lulz if you said yes.

[ckaihatsu]

No court is a monopoly, and people freely choose what court they would like to subscribe to. The courts do not function as a government.


If no court has a monopoly over the enforcement of a set of laws then there *is no* law -- what would prevent one business from taking a sledgehammer to the property of a competitor so as to put them out of business? The attacking business would have its own court that would exonerate its actions, while the business that was attacked would have *its* own court saying that it was wronged.

Without a pact that *supersedes* each business' individual, self-serving motives, there's *no point* -- it's back to feudalism and fiefdoms. (And this *really is* the existing terrain of the business world, and parts of government as well -- it's the "law of the jungle".)





I am not sure what you mean by a social convention.


A 'social convention' simply means a particular way that things are routinely done in a social setting. We typically eat with a knife, a fork, and a spoon, but that's only a *social convention* -- there are other (cultural) ways of using implements for the eating of food, or not using any implements at all.





The dogmatic LTV claims that value is derived from the labor that goes into making a product. This is obviously false because value is subjective.


First of all, the labor theory of value is *not* a social convention, or a dogma -- *no one* has *handed it down* as if to be setting a rule in place, or making it a social law. The labor theory of value is like the theory of *gravity* -- we say that it is real and truthful because of repeated experiences with it. And, again, just refer to your *own* definition of it -- you defined it well.

If we're talking about a *product* -- which we are -- then that means there had to be some kind of production process that *created* the product. That production process, no matter what the product or service, will have required the input of labor effort. The labor effort required *someone*, or many people, to take *time* out of their lives in order to be at work, putting forth the *labor effort*.

If you want to call that effort "subjective", you may -- it is *very real* to the person who had to be at work in order to make that labor value available for the production of the product, which may or may not subsequently be sold on the market. Without the labor input the product could not even be manufactured in the first place for a potential sale.





But my point was that there is no such thing as an "inherent" right. I also don't see how the capitalist/worker relationship is exploitative in a free market. Both the worker and the capitalist agree to a mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.





[T]he transaction of paying workers a wage for their labor value is *inherently* a *one-sided*, *coercive* transaction, since workers have no option of their own outside of the capitalist-government-enforced economic system of private capital ownership.





They do currently because the government is a monopoly. In a free market, this would not be the case.


Would the business participants in a "free market" each have their own security forces, then? And what if one company's security force attacked the security force of a *rival* company? Without a government monopoly on the use of force this is what could happen, for the acquisition of territory and markets. This is *exactly* what happens on an *international* scale, among nations, as with World War I and World War II.





I know the difference between socialism and Stalinism. My point still stands, if the whole world were socialist, an untold amount of people would die. I am not saying they will be executed. I am saying civilization as we know it will collapse.


No, it would be the *opposite*, because a world of workers would be able to *get rid* of private-property-based destructive competition once and for all -- with *everyone* a "co-owner" over *everything*, *no one* would be an owner over *anything* (except their own personal possessions). This would *eliminate* the acquisitive profit motive including all of the warfare it has spawned, to date -- a death toll of dozens of millions in the 20th century, and continuing.





So I take it you would then? You don't view this as unethical? I must live under your oppressive world socialist economy? What if I try to work for a capitalist, what would you do? Arrest me?


It wouldn't be "my" socialist economy, and it wouldn't be oppressive -- it would be *liberating* from the rule of private property. It's in the workers' best interests to control the factories of the world for their (our) own benefit -- there's nothing "unethical" about *that*.... So either the workers of the world make it happen, or else it doesn't happen -- it's not up to *me*...(!)

The issue of trying to work for a capitalist after a socialist revolution would be a moot point, like trying to join the king's army in our present society.





In a worker-collectivized world economy there would be no capital and no capitalists.

[Skooma Addict]

If no court has a monopoly over the enforcement of a set of laws then there *is no* law -- what would prevent one business from taking a sledgehammer to the property of a competitor so as to put them out of business? The attacking business would have its own court that would exonerate its actions, while the business that was attacked would have *its* own court saying that it was wronged.

Without a pact that *supersedes* each business' individual, self-serving motives, there's *no point* -- it's back to feudalism and fiefdoms. (And this *really is* the existing terrain of the business world, and parts of government as well -- it's the "law of the jungle".)

Courts would be motivated by the profit incentive not to go to war. There is a lot of literature on this. Private defense agencies would compete for customers. The PDA that goes to war will require its customers to pay higher premiums, and thus it will lose business.


First of all, the labor theory of value is *not* a social convention, or a dogma -- *no one* has *handed it down* as if to be setting a rule in place, or making it a social law. The labor theory of value is like the theory of *gravity* -- we say that it is real and truthful because of repeated experiences with it. And, again, just refer to your *own* definition of it -- you defined it well.

If we're talking about a *product* -- which we are -- then that means there had to be some kind of production process that *created* the product. That production process, no matter what the product or service, will have required the input of labor effort. The labor effort required *someone*, or many people, to take *time* out of their lives in order to be at work, putting forth the *labor effort*.

If you want to call that effort "subjective", you may -- it is *very real* to the person who had to be at work in order to make that labor value available for the production of the product, which may or may not subsequently be sold on the market. Without the labor input the product could not even be manufactured in the first place for a potential sale.

I know the LTV is not a social convention. It is an economic theory. The LTV is incorrect because all value is subjective.Therefore, adding more labor to a product does not itself make the product more valuable. But practically nobody, including socialists, actually believes in the LTV these days.


Would the business participants in a "free market" each have their own security forces, then? And what if one company's security force attacked the security force of a *rival* company? Without a government monopoly on the use of force this is what could happen, for the acquisition of territory and markets. This is *exactly* what happens on an *international* scale, among nations, as with World War I and World War II.

PDAs would operate a lot like insurance companies. You pay a monthly premium for police services. Why would two PDAs go to war with each other? War is expensive, and customers do not want to pay for war. The PDAs would most likely have some kind of pre-existing contract in place which would explain what they would do if a conflict ever arises. War is to be avoided at all costs.


No, it would be the *opposite*, because a world of workers would be able to *get rid* of private-property-based destructive competition once and for all -- with *everyone* a "co-owner" over *everything*, *no one* would be an owner over *anything* (except their own personal possessions). This would *eliminate* the acquisitive profit motive including all of the warfare it has spawned, to date -- a death toll of dozens of millions in the 20th century, and continuing.

What you just described would result in the collapse of civilization. If everyone were a co-owner of everything, the markets price system would be destroyed, and an economic depression worse than anything the world has ever seen would begin. The profit/loss mechanism is vital for determining where resources should be allocated.



It wouldn't be "my" socialist economy, and it wouldn't be oppressive -- it would be *liberating* from the rule of private property. It's in the workers' best interests to control the factories of the world for their (our) own benefit -- there's nothing "unethical" about *that*.... So either the workers of the world make it happen, or else it doesn't happen -- it's not up to *me*...(!)

The issue of trying to work for a capitalist after a socialist revolution would be a moot point, like trying to join the king's army in our present society.

You didn't really answer my question. Me and 10 other people want to work for a man who has saved up a lot of capital. He will become a capitalist, and we will work for him. Will you try to stop us?

[ckaihatsu]

Courts would be motivated by the profit incentive not to go to war. There is a lot of literature on this. Private defense agencies would compete for customers. The PDA that goes to war will require its customers to pay higher premiums, and thus it will lose business.




PDAs would operate a lot like insurance companies. You pay a monthly premium for police services. Why would two PDAs go to war with each other? War is expensive, and customers do not want to pay for war. The PDAs would most likely have some kind of pre-existing contract in place which would explain what they would do if a conflict ever arises. War is to be avoided at all costs.


On the flipside, there would be an *acquisitive*, *profit-oriented* motivation *to go* to war, in the hopes of gaining new territory, seizing built-up technology, resources, and markets.





I know the LTV is not a social convention. It is an economic theory. The LTV is incorrect because all value is subjective.


The *physical*, *mental*, or *emotional* effort that goes into the process of labor is *very* real and is measurable in time. In this way it is *objectively* verifiable, as on an employee timesheet.





Therefore, adding more labor to a product does not itself make the product more valuable.


Well, we can't always predict how well the resulting product will sell on the capitalist markets, where exchange values can fluctuate widely -- but nonetheless, whether a product sells well or not at all, the fact remains that it couldn't have been manufactured in the first place without labor -- thus the potential selling price of the product is only realizable due to the input of labor -- that's labor value.





But practically nobody, including socialists, actually believes in the LTV these days.


* Whatever * (It doesn't *require* people to "believe" in it -- it just *is*.)





What you just described would result in the collapse of civilization.


You're just being ideologically biased here -- we won't know until it actually happens. I'd rather have workers in control than (capitalist) leeches.





If everyone were a co-owner of everything, the markets price system would be destroyed,


*Now* you're getting it...!





and an economic depression worse than anything the world has ever seen would begin.


No, you're assuming that people breathe markets the way they breathe air -- alternatives *are* possible.





The profit/loss mechanism is vital for determining where resources should be allocated.


No, it isn't -- instead of the 'invisible hand', or hands-off economics, we can have the workers make *conscious assessments and decisions* as to what to produce and where it goes.





You didn't really answer my question. Me and 10 other people want to work for a man who has saved up a lot of capital. He will become a capitalist, and we will work for him. Will you try to stop us?


I already told you that this scenario is *moot* -- also, you're *personalizing*, which is inappropriate to a political discussion.