I was talking to a Right Wing Capitalist the other day he told me since the business

[tradeunionsupporter]

I was talking to a Right Wing Capitalist the other day he told me since the business owner or business owners started the business the workers or the working class would not have had a Job if not for the Capitalist having a business idea and starting and running a business therefor he said that the workers don't really create all the wealth he said that the workers should not own and run the means of production since they did not start the businesses my question is does he have a good point or not ?

[Pierre.Laporte]

Where would he be without the workers? His entire wealth is based off the exploitation of the workers and taking the fruits of his labor for his own. Had he not have the workers working under him, he would be just one man with an idea and nothing more. Perhaps on the same level as his workers as a tradesperson like the days before capitalism.

[Revolutionair]

No he does not have a good point.

He is using 2 horrible arguments:
1. Without a capitalist starting the business, there wouldn't be any means of production.
2. Workers are too stupid to run a business.

The first argument which he used is called the 'Broken Window Fallacy'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

He is saying because without the capitalist starting a business within a capitalist system, there would be no businesses. This means that there is either capitalism or there is nothing. He does not take into consideration that the society might be socialist, granting people the materials required not based on exchange-value but on use-value, and therefore workers could start a business if they need more products.

The 2nd argument is that workers are too stupid to think. I like the way other people on this forum handle this argument. The argument holds that people are made of different metals, that your position in society is predetermined and you should not question your position. You can easily see why this argument is horrible. We are NOT made from different materials. This is a very cheap lie to keep workers in place.

[Revolution starts with U]

On another note (because those are pretty good answers)... so? Why does he make 7 even 100s of times as much as his workers because he had an idea?
In a socialist society, entrepreneurs would be "paid" what the workers thought they deserved. And people are generally good-willed, so it is likely the entrepreneur will be handsomely rewarded for his efforts. But he would not have authoritative control over the business, unless he can do everything himself.

[Lt. Ferret]

people are NOT generally good willed with finite goods.

and if you think the most base laborers can do the higher end aspects of a business just look how ungodly inefficient the soviet union was when they started killing off kulaks, let alone the actual business owners.

cant blame ALL of your multitude of industrial accidents on sabotage, although they can try.

and i dont think that entrepreneurs are the only ones that can create businesses but its pretty interesting that in most marxist ideologies they have to wait for the capitalists to build the companies and factories before they take them over.

[Revolution starts with U]

people are NOT generally good willed with finite goods.

This is nothing but a semantic debate, it all depends on how you see it. But it seems to me that generally most people, most of the time, are cooperative.


and if you think the most base laborers can do the higher end aspects of a business just look how ungodly inefficient the soviet union was when they started killing off kulaks, let alone the actual business owners.

How long you been on this site?
It doesn't matter if your avg unskilled laborer could manage the business. He deserves to have a say, and a reasonable share of the income.




and i dont think that entrepreneurs are the only ones that can create businesses but its pretty interesting that in most marxist ideologies they have to wait for the capitalists to build the companies and factories before they take them over.

There could be some truth to that (considering the bolded part) but I would not be the person to ask.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

people are NOT generally good willed with finite goods.

and if you think the most base laborers can do the higher end aspects of a business just look how ungodly inefficient the soviet union was when they started killing off kulaks, let alone the actual business owners.

cant blame ALL of your multitude of industrial accidents on sabotage, although they can try.

and i dont think that entrepreneurs are the only ones that can create businesses but its pretty interesting that in most marxist ideologies they have to wait for the capitalists to build the companies and factories before they take them over.

Ok, there are a few things wrong with this statement.

First, in no socialist ideology is it proposed that all intellectuals are killed off. That is just absurd. In fact, higher education would be made free. In a system similar to a hiring process, people go into positions for which they are qualified. However, all individuals are considered equal in labor. The jobs that the individuals perform are equally as important, for one could not exist without the other (unnecessary jobs are phased out to maximize efficiency). Just because one individual is born more intelligent than another does not mean that he should live in luxury while the less intelligent individual, regardless of how hard he works, lives a life of scarcity. It is illogical. We are the product of billions of years of evolution, we damn well should start acting like it. All of the jobs are necessary, the same labor is required for each, and so wealth should be distributed equally among all workers, regardless of respective position.

Next, the progression of socioeconomic development suggested by Marx is not suggested because we "Need capitalists to build factories for us". Marx is talking about an inevitable progression, fueled by class antagonisms, that will lead us gradually to communism. He argues that socialism would be far more effective at establishing business due to the elimination of many internal contradictions and inefficiencies of capitalism. However, he recognizes that things are often gradual (qualitative to quantitative change in dialectics) and capitalism is often a natural step along the way to greater equality.

However, although capitalism is more equitable and more effective than previous socioeconomic systems, it is not enough. To quote Engels:


"With this as its basic constitution, civilization achieved things of which gentile society was not even remotely capable. But it achieved them by setting in motion the lowest instincts and passions in man and developing them at the expense of all his other abilities. From its first day to this, sheer greed was the driving spirit of civilization; wealth and again wealth and once more wealth, wealth, not of society, but of the single scurvy individual–here was its one and final aim. If at the same time the progressive development of science and a repeated flowering of supreme art dropped into its lap, it was only because without them modern wealth could not have completely realized its achievements. Since civilization is founded on the exploitation of one class by another class, its whole development proceeds in a constant contradiction. Every step forward in production is at the same time a step backwards in the position of the oppressed class, that is, of the great majority. Whatever benefits some necessarily injures the others; every fresh emancipation of one class is necessarily a new oppression for another class. The most striking proof of this is provided by the introduction of machinery, the effects of which are now known to the whole world. And if among the barbarians, as we saw, the distinction between rights and duties could hardly be drawn, civilization makes the difference and antagonism between them clear even to the dullest intelligence by giving one class practically all the rights and the other class practically all the duties.
But that should not be: what is good for the ruling class must also be good for the whole of society, with which the ruling-class identifies itself. Therefore the more civilization advances, the more it is compelled to cover the evils it necessarily creates with the cloak of love and charity, to palliate them or to deny them–in short, to introduce a conventional hypocrisy which was unknown to earlier forms of society and even to the first stages of civilization, and which culminates in the pronouncement: the exploitation of the oppressed class is carried on by the exploiting class simply and solely in the interests of the exploited class itself; and if the exploited class cannot see it and even grows rebellious, that is the basest ingratitude to its benefactors, the exploiters."

[Baseball]

In a system similar to a hiring process, people go into positions for which they are qualified.

You would need to discuss this with 'Revolution Starts with U." He or she has already not only accepted the reality that unqualified people may wind up working at a job, he or she has also said that person has the same right to run that job as the qualified. i wonder if at the end of "billions of years" of evolution is the refusal to distinguish between skilled and unskilled, knowledge and lack thereof.


However, all individuals are considered equal in labor.

Yep. In reality this is false, and which is a long standing error of socialism.


The jobs that the individuals perform are equally as important, for one could not exist without the other

I would wonder about the truth of this. Clearly, "unneccessary" jobs are not as important.


(unnecessary jobs are phased out to maximize efficiency).

Providing, of course, that the workers in those "unneccessary" jobs consent to their employment being phased out. Nor is it clear why socialists, who always seem to object to such happenstances when it occurs in the capitalist economy, would suddenly 'see the light' as it were.


Just because one individual is born more intelligent than another does not mean that he should live in luxury while the less intelligent individual, regardless of how hard he works, lives a life of scarcity. It is illogical.

A strawman argument. Should the hardworking blacksmith earn as much as the hardworking electrical engineer? Are the labor of both of equal value to the community?


All of the jobs are necessary, the same labor is required for each, and so wealth should be distributed equally among all workers, regardless of respective position.

Or presumably, value of the labor to the community, or value of the labor of the individual worker to that job. Such a view sets up a host of problems.


Next, the progression of socioeconomic development suggested by Marx is not suggested because we "Need capitalists to build factories for us".

What that other post refers to is that socialist regimes have always needed the skills and expertise of the capitalist lands to put their house in order. The counter-argument that this is because such socialist lands were poor doesn't wash-- it goes completely against Marx's theory of how socialism develops. It also calls into question the ability of socialist communities to continue to develop. Judging from the 20th century, it seems a reasonable concern for the socialist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I was talking to a Right Wing Capitalist the other dayWell, there's your problem. :lol:


he told me since the business owner or business owners started the business the workers or the working class would not have had a Job if not for the Capitalist having a business idea and starting and running a business therefor he said that the workers don't really create all the wealth he said that the workers should not own and run the means of production since they did not start the businesses my question is does he have a good point or not ?It's not a good point, you could make the same argument in favor of slavery - the slave master bought you fair and square and decided what cash crops to grow, what right do slaves have for any of that?

Many businesses - in fact almost all the biggest ones are not owned by the people who came up with the idea. Why should someone run a business (i.e. make all the decisions and set the terms) just because they had some start-up capital or bought-out another company? Where did that start up capital come from? Other businesses? Where did that capital come from? Eventually it all goes back to primitive accumulation: enclosure of pesant lands, resource and labor removal from Africa, straight-up robbery of the Americas and Asia.

What's wrong in this conception of wealth is that capitalists don't make wealth, they make profits. They invest money to get more money from the end result. How do they get more money from their initial investment? They hire people to increase the value (create new wealth) through some kind of labor activity. The cost of labor goes into the price of the final commodity, but it is an average cost whereas the worker gets paid hourly - he/she produces more that the value of what they produce and that becomes the profit. So laborers actually create the wealth, the capitalists merely manage the profit.

[Lt. Ferret]

What capitalists make are efficient systems to produce goods. The biggest problem I've ever seen with planned economies is their terrible inefficiences. Yes you can point to a myriad of singular instances where a capitalist enterprise has been inefficient, but profits are money saved lowering the cost of the production of an item while still being able to sell it on a market where people go "this is a fair price, i'll buy this widget".

when socialists can create and maintain hyper-efficient forms of production they'll be golden. til then they arent.

[Robert]

when socialists can create and maintain hyper-efficient forms of production they'll be golden. til then they arent.

I didn't know that such was even their goal, which is another fundamental problem with socialism: it does not view the consumer as an entity to be reckoned with, never mind satisfied.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Yep. In reality this is false, and which is a long standing error of socialism.Why is this false? Don't you understand that the value of commodities is rooted directly from labor value?


I would wonder about the truth of this. Clearly, "unneccessary" jobs are not as important.
A planned economy and advances in technology allow mundane jobs and jobs that are not necessary to be phased out over time. The labor used for those jobs is then focused into fields where it would be beneficial.


Providing, of course, that the workers in those "unneccessary" jobs consent to their employment being phased out. Nor is it clear why socialists, who always seem to object to such happenstances when it occurs in the capitalist economy, would suddenly 'see the light' as it were.We socialists works towards the highest efficiency in economics. If a job is phased out under capitalism, we are upset because capitalist economics allow for such absurdities as unemployment (a blatant waste of labor power). Under late-socialism where higher level education will be "free" the labor that was once used for those unneeded jobs will be focused into new fields where the labor is needed. We will be achieving more with the same amount of labor. Not doing so would be the greatest sign of economic inefficiency (one of our contentions against capitalism).



A strawman argument. Should the hardworking blacksmith earn as much as the hardworking electrical engineer? Are the labor of both of equal value to the community?Yes, and Marx talks bout this here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
Or presumably, value of the labor to the community, or value of the labor of the individual worker to that job. Such a view sets up a host of problems.Such as?


What that other post refers to is that socialist regimes have always needed the skills and expertise of the capitalist lands to put their house in order. The counter-argument that this is because such socialist lands were poor doesn't wash-- it goes completely against Marx's theory of how socialism develops. It also calls into question the ability of socialist communities to continue to develop. Judging from the 20th century, it seems a reasonable concern for the socialist.This is a complete fallacy and misunderstanding of Marxist-Leninist thought. Under socialism, labor is more effectively used (see unemployment). The problems with surplus value (not enough money among consumers to purchase all produced products) are resolved. There is no reason why development can't go just as fast, if not faster under socialism than under capitalism. This is especially true given that workers directly control their own lives and enterprises (it's as if everyone is self-employed). Business is no longer a slave to capital, and so can produce for use-value rather than exchange value, boosting efficiency even further. I don't see how capitalist means of production being used does either:
a.) Slow development or
b.) Contradict Marx's theory on how society develops.

[Revolution starts with U]

You would need to discuss this with 'Revolution Starts with U." He or she has already not only accepted the reality that unqualified people may wind up working at a job,
Does George Bush ring a bell? Are you saying this is untrue? I was once a pizza flipper... and I was terrible at it.

he or she has also said that person has the same right to run that job as the qualified.
citation plz. I never said any such thing. In fact, I said even if he doesn't, he still has a right for his voice to be heard.

i wonder if at the end of "billions of years" of evolution is the refusal to distinguish between skilled and unskilled, knowledge and lack thereof.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously, friend.




Yep. In reality this is false, and which is a long standing error of socialism.

To say that a doctor is objectively more important than a artist you have to make a value/moral judgement. All labor is equal. No matter what system you are in, it is society at large that makes the decision on what jobs are important.




I would wonder about the truth of this. Clearly, "unneccessary" jobs are not as important.

See above.




A strawman argument. Should the hardworking blacksmith earn as much as the hardworking electrical engineer? Are the labor of both of equal value to the community?

Do you know what strawman means? I think you are using it in the wrong context here (else why would you continue the same argument).
To the community they may not be, or they could. That's not the point. Objectively, there is no way to call a doctor better than an artist. They are equal to nature (both wil get you laid).

[renzo_novatore]

he told me since the business owner or business owners started the business the workers or the working class would not have had a Job if not for the Capitalist having a business idea and starting and running a business therefor he said that the workers don't really create all the wealth he said that the workers should not own and run the means of production since they did not start the businesses my question is does he have a good point or not ?


Yes, indeed, all authoritarians will say this: "I know what's best for you." That is the basic gist of the argument, capitalists know what's best for you. Supply side economics is merely the bourgeois version of what slave masters used to say in order to justify their position: "We're civilizing the brute!" According to the slave masters, why, they were completely selfless, they kidnapped the poor African in order to civilize him and make him all happy! Of course, this is absurd. And it is also absurd for the bourgeoisie to say that they're completely selfless, that they're providing everyone with jobs, that only they know how to allocate resources, and that we should be thankful - they're not here to provide people with jobs or make sure resources are allocated smoothly, just as slave masters weren't trying to civilize people - they're only wanting to live at the expense of the workers!!! Don't be fooled! We're not children! We can provide ourselves with jobs and we can be better than them at running our own workplaces!

[Jimmie Higgins]

What capitalists make are efficient systems to produce goods.They create efficient systems to produce profit. There are many things that capitalist companies do that is totally wasteful and inefficient, but it increases profits, so they do it anyway. Why does China get rice from California? Why does California get Oranges from Florida? How are traffic jams efficient? How are wars? How are recessions and depressions where useful products go unused because they can't be sold at a profit?


The biggest problem I've ever seen with planned economies is their terrible inefficiencies.Inefficient for who? The rulers or the people? That's the way all class systems are because the needs of people are not always the needs of the rulers of the system. All economies are planned, the important factor is how they are planned and for what purposes/whose interests.


fundamental problem with socialism: it does not view the consumer as an entity to be reckoned with, never mind satisfied.When does capitalism care about the consumer? Why would produce be destroyed while people starve if satisfying consumers of things was the goal of capitalism? Why would there be vacant homes and homelessness - very picky consumers? Capitalism has no interest in the consumer, the consumer is incidental, profit is the goal. To get profit, some kind of consumer has to be in mind, it must be useful to someone somewhere, but it is not abstract "consumers" as some amorphous group that the market cares about.

If you mean the USSR or Cuba do not care about the wishes of their population, then yes, that is not their highest priority. But that's not socialism, socialism would get rid of this artificial "consumer" group, production would be based on democratically decided priorities of the population themselves. Inefficiency would be discouraged because why spend time and resources producing things no one wants? Meanwhile, capitalism is producing "Eat, Pray, Love" "Pirates of the Caribbean 4" and Snuggies by the boat-load. Efficient?

Even if there were some bumps in production on a democratic basis, I'd rather have that and the possibility of making it more efficient at carrying out popular will than have the most efficient possible capitalism that callously let's millions of "consumers" starve all the time while destroying staple foods to keep the market prices at a profitable level.

[Baseball]

Why is this false? Don't you understand that the value of commodities is rooted directly from labor value?

Rubbish.


A planned economy and advances in technology allow mundane jobs and jobs that are not necessary to be phased out over time. The labor used for those jobs is then focused into fields where it would be beneficial.

Of course, capitalism also has methods of phasing out unnecessary jobs.
They are perhaps not as successful in phasing out "mundane" jobs, but that is largely the result of such a job being outside the scope of capitalism. There is no way to objectively measure such a job. I doubt socialists have any such ability either.


If a job is phased out under capitalism, we are upset because capitalist economics allow for such absurdities as unemployment (a blatant waste of labor power).

Perhaps. But very few people whose jobs are phased out are unemployed for life.


Under late-socialism where higher level education will be "free" the labor that was once used for those unneeded jobs will be focused into new fields where the labor is needed.

This is, of course, absolutely true of capitalism. The difference being that capitalism, correctly, points out that unemployment creates a labor pool where "new fields" can search out needed labor, based upon the value to the community of the new field, and the value of the labor to the company of the new field.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;1991343]Does George Bush ring a bell? Are you saying this is untrue? I was once a pizza flipper... and I was terrible at it.

I was responding to a note which indicated that socialism will result in people working where they are qualified. I indicated that you, as well as me, saw such a result as ludicrous.


citation plz. I never said any such thing. In fact, I said even if he doesn't, he still has a right for his voice to be heard.

I am sorry. My understanding of socialism is that the workers control and run their operations. I thought one of the "lessons" learned from the USSR was to avoid a sort of caste system, a bureauacracy.




To say that a doctor is objectively more important than a artist you have to make a value/moral judgement. All labor is equal. No matter what system you are in, it is society at large that makes the decision on what jobs are important.

And generally "society at large" in a capitalist community has judged the labor of a doctor to be of a greater value than the labor of an artist.






That's not the point. Objectively, there is no way to call a doctor better than an artist. They are equal to nature

That isn't what is being compared. The value of a beautiful painting cannot be objectively measured. But not so the value of a beautiful appendectomy.

[Reznov]

Where would he be without the workers? His entire wealth is based off the exploitation of the workers and taking the fruits of his labor for his own. Had he not have the workers working under him, he would be just one man with an idea and nothing more. Perhaps on the same level as his workers as a tradesperson like the days before capitalism.

I got a reply similar to this,

"Well what if its a small family owned business, worked and managed by the owner?"

[Robert]

To which you replied?

[Revolution starts with U]

Good for him...? He's not extracting surplus value from anyone, so.. do your thing man.

[Revolution starts with U]

I am sorry. My understanding of socialism is that the workers control and run their operations. I thought one of the "lessons" learned from the USSR was to avoid a sort of caste system, a bureauacracy
It depends on how you define beuracracy. Some beuracracies are democratically accountable, and rightfully so.







And generally "society at large" in a capitalist community has judged the labor of a doctor to be of a greater value than the labor of an artist.

And who has the material power to enforce these values in a capitalist society? Would you call 1-10% "society at large?"






That isn't what is being compared. The value of a beautiful painting cannot be objectively measured. But not so the value of a beautiful appendectomy.

It sure can. For the painter... it's valued at what he will sell it for the lowest. That's not to say the buyer will value it as much. But if you think labor plays no role in something's value... try going to a mechanic :cool:

[Baseball]

And who has the material power to enforce these values in a capitalist society? Would you call 1-10% "society at large?"

An error of socialism is to say that capitalists dictate production. The socialists then transplant this error onto their own thinking and declare that the workers will dictate production. The producers, the socialists argue, are in control in the capitalist community and should be so in the socialist

But the truth is that the consumers control and dictate production in capitalism system. Indeed, it should be so in any rational community.




It sure can. For the painter... it's valued at what he will sell it for the lowest. That's not to say the buyer will value it as much.

Its value is then not what the painter. Who cares how much the painter values his creation?


But if you think labor plays no role in something's value... try going to a mechanic :cool:

Apples and oranges. Many of the revlefters hereabout talk about socialism as leading to a renaissance for mass transit, trains, maglevs ect ect ect. As such, the value of auto mechanics will decline. This would be so no matter how skilled is a particular mechanic.

[Ocean Seal]

I was talking to a Right Wing Capitalist the other day he told me since the business owner or business owners started the business the workers or the working class would not have had a Job if not for the Capitalist having a business idea and starting and running a business therefor he said that the workers don't really create all the wealth he said that the workers should not own and run the means of production since they did not start the businesses my question is does he have a good point or not ?
Its interesting at some points you will hear that the capitalists say that the markets create the jobs, yet you'll hear them say that the capitalist class creates them as well?
The slight irony is that the workers don't need to have that specific boss for the jobs. If that boss wouldn't have entered the market another capitalist would have?
Also THE BOSS CREATES NO WEALTH, THE BOSS EXTRACTS WEALTH

And lastly I've seen a lot of capitalists make this argument before that the workers are not entitled to the means of production. While you should work to establish that they're, in the grand scheme of things its not even relevant. They're getting exploited, and they're not getting the full extent of their labor. If they take the means of production for themselves, living conditions improve for the vast majority. Perhaps the top .5% can no longer afford the latest BMW's and Mercedes' but who cares. Everyone else is eating better, living in better housing, potentially out of debt, and has free healthcare and education.

[Lt. Ferret]

the boss creates the process to create wealth.


its pretty easy and people do it all the time, go form a collective business. its like a corporation but everyone can be a part of it. co-ops are all over trendy college towns, and they work.

[RGacky3]

the boss creates the process to create wealth.


its pretty easy and people do it all the time, go form a collective business. its like a corporation but everyone can be a part of it. co-ops are all over trendy college towns, and they work.


No, they provide the wealth to create the wealth, the process has always been there.

[Revolution starts with U]

Capitalist control of the economy may be tempered by the consumers, but it is not dictated by them. The capitalist makes the decisions, ultimately. He just has to make them within certain limits laid out by the consumer (and in a more free market system, he has far more of a say than the consumer, as the consumer's are not connected in any way).

[Baseball]

Capitalist control of the economy may be tempered by the consumers, but it is not dictated by them. The capitalist makes the decisions, ultimately. He just has to make them within certain limits laid out by the consumer (and in a more free market system, he has far more of a say than the consumer, as the consumer's are not connected in any way).

Why, in a socialist community, would the decisions made by the workers NOT be made within limits as dictated by the consumer?

[Rafiq]

What a shit argument.

We don't give a fuck about bourgeois morals.

Just because in Capitalism a Capitalist "Starts a buisness" doesn't mean we CAN'T!

This is really stupid.

With proper educational systems, workers can in fact control the means of production directly.

It all depends on if you believe in democracy.

The Capitalist strives off of the worker's labour. If a capitalist 'starts' a buisness with no workers, he is a jackass who will make no profit.

I hate the argument "I EMPLOYED YOU, YOU BE GRATEFUL IF IT WERE NOT FOR ME YOU WOULD NOT HAVE JOB"

I would reply "IF IT WERE NOT FOR ME, YOU WOULD HAVE NO MEANS OF LIVING".

The working class does not need the capitalist. The Capitalist needs the working class.

Get rid of the capitalist, no more problem.

No Capitalist, no problem ;)

[Revolution starts with U]

Why, in a socialist community, would the decisions made by the workers NOT be made within limits as dictated by the consumer?

They would. That was my point. The temperance of the marginal consumer is irrelevant. What matters is real world power structures.

Every worker is a consumer. Every consumer is a worker (yes, begging is working). The problem is that only some of us are capitalists.