The concept that capital builds things?

[RadioRaheem84]

I went through an entire schpeel about the labor theory of a value to a group of right wingers and the only response I received was; "capital built the factory, idiot".

I was caught off guard, because I thought I had explained the concept of the factory itself being one form of value which is traded off for another form of value (capital, money), and thus not really a productive act.

Just what the hell did they mean by "capital built the factory". "the workers did not band together and pool their money to build it, a rich man did".

How does one even argue against this radically anti-materialistic concept that has money, an inanimate object, actually building things? Do they not think that people build things?

I am assuming they mean, who first built the factory? That it was first built by someone with capital, paying workers to built it, thus the credit belongs to capital for the initial investment which spawned the factory?

[Rooster]

Capital (tries to) builds more capital. The fact that the process it took in this instance to get to that result end up with a factory being made is besides the point. The capitalist doesn't open up a factory just to employ people and to give them jobs.

[RadioRaheem84]

You worded it a lot better than I could've. I thought I at least explained this much to them, but Marxist economics is so alien to them that they just believe that capital had the major role because they do not think that people can build anything without there being some cash payment involved, so therefore cash capital is the origin of all production.

[ZeroNowhere]

Capital is past labour, but things are produced by living labour.

[Ravachol]

Though it's obvious Capital isn't productive, usually I don't see a point in arguing whether or not it's the workers' "right" to own the means of production. It's simply in their class interest, who cares what the bourgeoisie thinks or what their interests or entitlements are? It's the interests of one class against those of another, a matter of struggle not "right".

[RadioRaheem84]

The logic is razor sharp. No capitalists intention is to just build X product but to use capital to buy constant capital, in order to make more capital in the end. This is the circuit of capital.

As the CEO of US Steel once said, "we're not in the business of making steel, we're in the business of making money".

Capital is just one form of value (that itself comes from labour) used to buy other forms of value (also produced by labour), so what is the productive capability of capital? I cannot seem to find one.

[RichardAWilson]

Capital, in the form of financial resources used for expanding production, would remain with Socialism.

The difference is the distribution of capital ownership: I.e.:

With Capitalism: The workingman never earns enough to save enough to make him the engine behind expanding production.

With Socialism: It would be the savings of the workingman that financed those new factories, warehouses and stores.

[Pioneers_Violin]

I have a strongly pro-capitalist friend who is open to debates, disagreements and philosophical arguments without getting offended.

However, he is very heavily propagandized by the right. I say propagandized because he does not offer much rational discourse, just assertions.

Some of the many assertions:
"If I can make it than so can anyone else"
"Communism doesn't work, it fails every time it's tried."

And most relevant to this thread and fairly recent as well:

"Nothing gets done without Capital Investment and Risk."

I am not too bad at debate and countered this last gem with: "The people involved can pool their resources and take the risk or the state can accept the risk." (the state being a larger pool of involved people) As usual, I got the "That never works".

I feel that I could have done a much better job of debating this point. Does anyone have any suggestions?

PV

[Armchair War Criminal]

http://moreleftthanthou.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cartoon-ltv.jpg


I have a strongly pro-capitalist friend who is open to debates, disagreements and philosophical arguments without getting offended.

However, he is very heavily propagandized by the right. I say propagandized because he does not offer much rational discourse, just assertions.

Some of the many assertions:
"If I can make it than so can anyone else"
"Communism doesn't work, it fails every time it's tried."

And most relevant to this thread and fairly recent as well:

"Nothing gets done without Capital Investment and Risk."

I am not too bad at debate and countered this last gem with: "The people involved can pool their resources and take the risk or the state can accept the risk." (the state being a larger pool of involved people) As usual, I got the "That never works".

I feel that I could have done a much better job of debating this point. Does anyone have any suggestions?

PVYou need to give examples. Seriously, every single person has had it hammered into their head that communism never works, that it's great in theory but terrible in practice, Stalin and Mao were worse than Hitler, and so on and such forth. I myself opposed fundamentally reorganizing the economic system until I actually read up on the economic history of the second world and realized that no, actually, it did work.

[RichardAWilson]

Yes: State investments worked in Singapore. Indeed, Modern Singapore was financed with state investments (in cooperation with the private sector). Chile also used a “forced savings program” to build and finance new production.

Research Singapore's Economy with Wiki: "Singapore has a highly developed state capitalist mixed economy; the state owns stakes in firms that comprise perhaps 60% of the GDP through entities such as the sovereign wealth fund."

The same is true, though to a lesser degree: In Japan and South Korea.

So: You be the judge. Does it work? Well, it would seem it has worked for Asia.

[RichardAWilson]

There's no reason that savings (from the workingman) and supplemental savings (from the State) couldn't replace the bourgeoisie's savings and capital.

[~Spectre]

I am assuming they mean, who first built the factory?


You can argue that Feudalism > Capitalism, based on the "but where did X get the money for" game.

Reductio'd son.

[xub3rn00dlex]

I'm also of the understanding that workers wouldn't even need savings in the end if it was for their interests. Like if the proletariat wanted Honey nut Cheerios, but General Mills razed the factories, they'd build it themselves because other proletariat would want it. In return, there would be other proletariat who want cereal providing them with their labor in clothing, water, electrical, etc. Is this correct?

[RichardAWilson]

That's after we've transitioned to Communism. (Which will require technological innovations on a much larger scale to attain). During (Socialism): We will still need savings and capital for building factories and purchasing machines. The difference is who owns and controls those factories and machines and who finances them and reaps the profits from them. (I.e. The Workingman)

[Sixiang]

You worded it a lot better than I could've. I thought I at least explained this much to them, but Marxist economics is so alien to them that they just believe that capital had the major role because they do not think that people can build anything without there being some cash payment involved, so therefore cash capital is the origin of all production.

I can't remember exactly what work it was, but I seem to remember reading one of Marx's economic works where he dealt with this issue or something similar to it. Basically, it's like this:

The question is then, where does money derive its value from? This is where we get into the fact that the value of the money must come from some social measurement, some set, specific value that determines all other value. There must be some commodity that can be the measurement for all else's value. This is labor value. There is a certain power within man to produce. This is his labor power which he sells to the capitalists who then take his products and sell them to pay for more constant and variable capital. Of course it gets way more complicated and layered than that when you take it further. Society must have some need for the products and thus there is that idea of socially necessary labor time for different commodities because society demands different commodities more than others.

Not sure if I explained that well. I understand the overall concepts, but when it comes time to explain them, I cross things over.