Originally posted by sc4r+Aug 22 2003, 06:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sc4r @ Aug 22 2003, 06:08 AM)
Robot
[email protected] 21 2003, 02:43 AM
Should the worker be entitled to the fruit of his/her labor, how does the factory construction worker get paid? Or put another way, how can the means of production be public, while the fruit of ones labor remain private, should the labor fruit result in the creation of a means of production???
This, IMHO, is actually a very insightful question.
The naked reality is that the two ideas cannot be reconciled,within a socailist notion of ownerships rights, completely.
One has to assume that something is deciding what part of the fruits of anothers labour should go to the creator of production tools (factories, machines etc.) to simulate the effect of directly giving that worker the fruits. In other words the idea that it is self working is so much dog-doo.
This , of course, is why some form of social body is needed. This implies administration, and this knocks the idea of anarchy on the head.[/b]
I think various socialist authors have tried to reconcile this dilemma, by stating the capital creator can only get what he put in... The capitalist argue stored labor (AKA capital) is a reward for delaying consumption, and yet surely the reward should be the delay itself and nothing more, as a farmer who benefits from saving his seeds by not eating them in the fall, gets the reward of spring crops and nothing more.
The capitalist ignores the fact that their means of production are worthless without labor. Come an Armageddon, and there exist several people on earth, the factory will be deemed worthless, for it only had worth when it was mixed with labor. As a turnpike operator would benefit from a local tripling of the population, through this was not his hand, to which would seem to contradict the tenant that the capitalist has an objective price on their rent. Labor and the means of production are both important, but it is silly for the capitalist to assign the importance to such a magnitude that he does, for he is utterly dependent upon labor, and preys upon them with his superior bargaining power.
Sort of like a plant that needs both sunshine and water. They are both worthless to the plant without the presence of the other, and for one element to claim importance over the other (like what the capitalist do) would be absurd. Perhaps it would be best to properly share that which can only come about with a union together. A plus for communism and minus for socialism in my book... Ultimately I view socialism as being overly rigid.
Perhaps the only way socialism could work, would be if the stored labor is a public creation, fitting since the usage will ultimately (even in capitalism) be a public consumption. Ideally this would be communally or voluntarily conceived and would not necessitate the state with command economy or a clumsy tax system.
What's certain is that the current system has misallocated 99.99% of stored labor wealth due to compounded errors, and concern for the modern day factory 'owner' who never laid one brick and who fears loosing 'his' property to which such pity is misplaced.