Is Capitalism a form of Slavery Wage Slavery ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is Capitalism a form of Slavery Wage Slavery ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

[Bud Struggle]

Slavs are slaves. It doesn't matter if their chains are made of steel, iron or plastic.

[Tim Cornelis]

I usually refrain from using such loaded terms but one could make a case for it. The situation of sweatshop labour is perhaps even worse than some cases of chattel slavery and in Brazil slaves too could buy their freedom if they had enough money.

[Tim Cornelis]

Slavs are slaves. It doesn't matter if their chains are made of steel, iron or plastic.

Not cool man, Slavic people are people too.

[Bud Struggle]

Not cool man, Slavic people are people too.Ouch!

I am Polish. Typo.

[RichardAWilson]

Excuse me? Capitalism is wage slavery. That's the foundation of Marxism. Everything else is building on that underlying truth.

[danyboy27]

Of course it is.

Some people might rephrase it in a more ethical manner by saying that we own ourselves and we make a conscient choice of participating to this system by selling ourselves to the higest bidder, but really, its a different form of slavery.

We all need money to live in this system, it dosnt matter where its coming from, we depend on those who give it to us.

[Rafiq]

Excuse me? Capitalism is wage slavery. That's the foundation of Marxism. Everything else is building on that underlying truth.



I hope you are joking. If you are not, Im personally insulted

[RichardAWilson]

Well, it has more to do with alienation.

However, wage slavery (I.e. Capitalism) is the foundation of alienation.

Yes, I'm serious.

[DinodudeEpic]

I hope you are joking. If you are not, Im personally insulted

Wage slavery is the foundation of capitalism.

Property means the means of production. If it is owned by someone and you are working on it without having ownership and getting paid from it directly, then you are in some form of slavery.

Although, I prefer to call it Wage Labor to distinguish it from real slavery. Only using it to characterize how capitalism takes away our liberty to own the fruits of our labor.

[Tablo]

I usually refrain from using such loaded terms but one could make a case for it. The situation of sweatshop labour is perhaps even worse than some cases of chattel slavery and in Brazil slaves too could buy their freedom if they had enough money.
True, but most slaves in Brazil died before that could happen. They had incredibly high mortality rates.

[Le Socialiste]

Yes, wage slavery is an integral aspect of capitalism.

[thefinalmarch]

Wage slavery refers to the socio-economic phenomenon under capitalism whereby workers are beholden to the capitalist classes. That is to say, they have an obligation to work for a capitalist otherwise they will not be paid any wages and will therefore be unable to subsist. We do not merely work to survive in capitalism, we work for a capitalist whom we hope will let us survive.

[EvilRedGuy]

Not cool man, Slavic people are people too.


You fail.

[Revolution starts with U]

Excuse me sir... SIR!

..*pant *pant (as I run up) I think you lost something. It looks like your sense of humor :lol:

[MURDOC]

I think its tremendously insulting to the people who actually endured slavery during the 17th-19th century in America and elsewhere to even remotely compare/equate their living situation with that of average people in developed, capitalist societies today. The comparison is laughably beyond ridiculous.

[tir1944]

I think its tremendously insulting to the people who actually endured slavery during the 17th-19th century in America and elsewhere to even remotely compare/equate their living situation with that of average people in developed, capitalist societies today.
Yes,living standards in America rose.You point?
Also don't forget that even today Blacks are on average much poorer than Whites.

[MURDOC]

Yes,living standards in America rose.You point?
Also don't forget that even today Blacks are on average much poorer than Whites.

Living standards rose all over the world, in fact, despite the so called "iron law of wages".

The contention seems to be that "working for a wage/salary makes you a slave". I disagree with this, obviously. That was my point.

[Revolution starts with U]

Working for a wage means somoene other than you has exclusive right to decide how productive you are. It also means that person has exclusive right to tell you how to do your job.

It's not that it IS slavery. The question is; is there really anything other than a semantical difference?

[MURDOC]

Working for a wage means somoene other than you has exclusive right to decide how productive you are. It also means that person has exclusive right to tell you how to do your job.

Only assuming you agree to work for him/her. You are ignoring the crucial difference; you can quit your job and work for someone else. Or start your own business. Or do nothing.


It's not that it IS slavery. The question is; is there really anything other than a semantical difference?

Only in so much as there is a difference between black and white, night and day, etc......

[Maslo]

Slavery:
"Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work."

Wage Slavery - This might be true in a pure or libertarian capitalism, where you are often forced to work for an employer, since the "choice" between working and starving (not having basic necessities) is not a choice at all. You may be free from external forcings, but you are not free from internal forcings.

In social capitalism with good welfare system on the other hand, you are free to not work for an employer and still not be threatened with lack of basic necessities required for survival (you lose only luxuries), so both external and internal forcings are absent. So there the concept of wage slavery is not applicable. Thus capitalism does not necessarily imply wage slavery.

Wage slavery is not the same as alienation of labor, thats illogical. Wage slavery implies alienation, but not the other way around.

[hatzel]

Living standards rose all over the world, in fact, despite the so called "iron law of wages".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that you believe in the iron law of wages, or that we do? And why would this prevent improving living standards anyway?

[MattShizzle]

Only assuming you agree to work for him/her. You are ignoring the crucial difference; you can quit your job and work for someone else. Or start your own business. Or do nothing.






:rolleyes:

Yeah work for someone else who will treat/pay you the same. Starting your own business isn't really an option for most. Or do nothing and starve. Some option.

I don't see how "work for some asshole in bad conditions for very little pay or be homeless/starve" is much better than "do this lousy work and we'll feed/clothe you or else be beaten/killed."

[Bud Struggle]

:rolleyes:

Yeah work for someone else who will treat/pay you the same. Starting your own business isn't really an option for most. Or do nothing and starve. Some option.

I don't see how "work for some asshole in bad conditions for very little pay or be homeless/starve" is much better than "do this lousy work and we'll feed/clothe you or else be beaten/killed."

Maybe. Lots of people have great jobs offering lots to society and themselves. But these people made themselves people of value by aquiring skills that make them useful and productive to society.

There is no difference between being useful to some company and useful to post Revolutionary society (except maybe at the top levels.)

Study engineering--not poetry. That rule would apply to pre and post Revolutionary society.

And believe me, after the Revolution we will have a much harder line on slackers than the Capitalsit do now.

[MURDOC]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that you believe in the iron law of wages, or that we do?

I don't know what you personally believe, but I am making the bold assumption that many people on this forum are fans of Marx.


And why would this prevent improving living standards anyway?

The iron law of wages states that wages tend towards the absolute minimum amount possible to sustain the worker's life. It was "established" at a time before more advanced theories of measuring and understanding the causes/effects of economic well being existed.

[MURDOC]

:rolleyes:

Yeah work for someone else who will treat/pay you the same. Starting your own business isn't really an option for most. Or do nothing and starve. Some option.

I don't see how "work for some asshole in bad conditions for very little pay or be homeless/starve" is much better than "do this lousy work and we'll feed/clothe you or else be beaten/killed."

The point is that the fact that you can choose where to work means that you will have access to employment opportunities beyond "working for some asshole in bad conditions for very little pay". Competition for work drives up the market clearing price of labor.

African slaves in 19th century America did not have this freedom, obviously.

[Bud Struggle]

The iron law of wages states...

"Iron law of wages?"

Who makes up this stuff? :D

[hatzel]

I don't know what you personally believe, but I am making the bold assumption that many people on this forum are fans of Marx.

Marx? You mean the guy who wrote this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch02.htm) about that "so-called law"? I mean, I'm not a Marxist...but even I know that these "fans of Marx" would happily criticise the iron law of wages.


The iron law of wages states that wages tend towards the absolute minimum amount possible to sustain the worker's life. It was "established" at a time before more advanced theories of measuring and understanding the causes/effects of economic well being existed.
Okay. But even if we imagine the iron law of wages were correct, one could also argue that somebody who just about scrapes by in contemporary Western society would have a higher standard of living than somebody of a comparatively higher social standing in previous eras. You know, when people just threw their crap in the street so everybody got dysentery. Depends how you measure 'standard of living,' though, really. However, a link between this hypothetical iron law of wages and standard of living could only be made if society itself remained constant over time. Which isn't the case.

[Rafiq]

Living standards have fell in the past thirty years for the majority of the world... Anyone who sais otherwise needs to get out more.

[MattShizzle]

Competition for work drives up the market clearing price of labor.


Maybe in Fantasyland...

[Bud Struggle]

Living standards have fell in the past thirty years for the majority of the world... Anyone who sais otherwise needs to get out more.

The real question is: who cares?

[Rafiq]

The real question is: who cares?

The victims of this phenomena?

[Conscript]

The point is that the fact that you can choose where to work means that you will have access to employment opportunities beyond "working for some asshole in bad conditions for very little pay". Competition for work drives up the market clearing price of labor.

The job market is almost always a buyers' market and, no, you cannot choose where you want to work. Not any more than a store chooses its customers.

Workers are inherently at a disadvantage opportunity wise because they make up the majority of the population. Why does that matter? Because the resulting mass selling of labor power means a saturated market where the only buyers are investors who may or may not be too scared to try and make money off you. The fact that capitalism maintains a legion of unemployed means job competition is more readily heading towards bad conditions and very little pay, as that is the nature of the market.

Don't kid yourself, for most people there isn't that kind of opportunity. Seeking more is a quick way to receive nothing, ask any seller. People aren't looking for the next stepping stone on the way to wealth, they're hoping they don't have to take a couple steps down while capital contemplates their future.

Wage slavery is a real thing. Yes, workers are not 'owned' by capitalists, but insofar as possessors of labor power they are. Since the worker derives his income almost entirely from the sale of his labor power, he is a slave to the wage, the value the capitalist places on his productive ability.

You have a fucked up idea of what voluntary is, but I know the problem. It ignorantly (probably quite voluntarily too :laugh:) never goes beyond the signature on a contract.

[Judicator]

Excuse me? Capitalism is wage slavery. That's the foundation of Marxism. Everything else is building on that underlying truth.

If capitalists fired everyone, replaced them (literally 100% of the workforce) with machines, and let the former workers rot on the streets, you'd have capitalism but no wage slavery, since nobody would be earning a wage.

[thefinalmarch]

Wage Slavery - This might be true in a pure or libertarian capitalism, where you are often forced to work for an employer, since the "choice" between working and starving (not having basic necessities) is not a choice at all. You may be free from external forcings, but you are not free from internal forcings.
You actually read my post, yeah?

There is no physical coercion, but there is an obligation to work otherwise you'll end up poor, homeless, or even dead.

[Cal Engime]

Marx? You mean the guy who wrote this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch02.htm) about that "so-called law"? I mean, I'm not a Marxist...but even I know that these "fans of Marx" would happily criticise the iron law of wages.As you can see, Marx's main problem with the iron law is that it is "iron"; while he does not believe that it would be valid in the future communist society, he does believe that in the capitalist system, "Der Durchschnittspreis der Lohnarbeit ist das Minimum des Arbeitslohnes, d.h. die Summe der Lebensmittel, die notwendig sind, um den Arbeiter als Arbeiter am Leben zu erhalten." (Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei) Anyone who has read Marx's single most famous work, and not just the Wikipedia article "Iron Law of Wages", should know this.

[RGacky3]

In social capitalism with good welfare system on the other hand, you are free to not work for an employer and still not be threatened with lack of basic necessities required for survival (you lose only luxuries), so both external and internal forcings are absent. So there the concept of wage slavery is not applicable. Thus capitalism does not necessarily imply wage slavery.


There is no such system called social capitalism, there are tons and tons of different social democratic or welfare capitalist models.


If capitalists fired everyone, replaced them (literally 100% of the workforce) with machines, and let the former workers rot on the streets, you'd have capitalism but no wage slavery, since nobody would be earning a wage.

You also would'nt have an economy.


"Iron law of wages?"

Who makes up this stuff? :D

The real question is: who cares?

people who understand economics, and obviously not for people posting aobut economics while knowing nothing about it.


Maybe. Lots of people have great jobs offering lots to society and themselves. But these people made themselves people of value by aquiring skills that make them useful and productive to society.


The market does'nt reward usefulness to society.


There is no difference between being useful to some company and useful to post Revolutionary society (except maybe at the top levels.)

Study engineering--not poetry. That rule would apply to pre and post Revolutionary society.

And believe me, after the Revolution we will have a much harder line on slackers than the Capitalsit do now.

Right now the smartest minds in the US are not going into medicine, they are not going into engineering, they are not going into science, they are going into Finance .... because that rewards them the most, there is something wrong with that system.

Also those without opportunities, many of them more incentive to sell drugs than to get an education, there is something wrong with that system.

Look work needs to get done, we all know that, but the question is do we want a system where people that work have control over what they produce? Or the system we have now, where people that work have no control over what they produce but instead a small elite does.

[EvilRedGuy]

Excuse me sir... SIR!

..*pant *pant (as I run up) I think you lost something. It looks like your sense of humor :lol:


I find sticking a huge sharp metal object throughout your spine to be funny, so yes i have a sense of humor.

[danyboy27]

I think its tremendously insulting to the people who actually endured slavery during the 17th-19th century in America and elsewhere to even remotely compare/equate their living situation with that of average people in developed, capitalist societies today. The comparison is laughably beyond ridiculous.

Living standard for both slaveowner and slaves rose in the american south trought the time, slave where better fed, worked less hours and had a better living standard than the black living in the north.

A black guy in the free north had to fight for his life on a constant basis, never knew when his boss would fire him or his landlord trhow him into the street, he never knew when he will be lynched.

is it really an argument for slavery? of course not.

just like the rising living standard is not an argument to justify wage slavery trought the world.

[Revolution starts with U]

I find sticking a huge sharp metal object throughout your spine to be funny, so yes i have a sense of humor.
Buddy, I gaurantee Im a lot faster than you. But you can try! I love a good challenge :thumbup: (Maybe thats why Im a socialist? :rolleyes:)


If capitalists fired everyone, replaced them (literally 100% of the workforce) with machines, and let the former workers rot on the streets, you'd have capitalism but no wage slavery, since nobody would be earning a wage.
That could literally never happen. Who would service the machines? The capitalist?! HA!
Either way, suppose for the sake of argument it did happen. You would still have 99% of the population who genrally have no means of support but to offer their services for a wage. They won't be able to find this wage, but it still remains functionally their only choice.
So, in all reality, you still have wage labor. You just happen to have 100% unemployment.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I agree Capitalism is Slavery for Wages.

[MURDOC]

Living standards have fell in the past thirty years for the majority of the world... Anyone who sais otherwise needs to get out more.

I disagree. I get out plenty, thanks. There is substantial amounts of academic research on my side.

econtalk.org/archives/2011/10/bruce_meyer_on.html

Russ Roberts: "... the claim is made that the rising tide did not lift all boats. Rather, it only lifted the big, rich yachts. The dinghies of the poor and the middle class did not share in that tide of improvement, share in that wellbeing. What are your thoughts on these claims?

Bruce Meyer: "They are basically wrong. And that's what 10 years of research by myself and James Sullivan at Notre Dame has shown. If you measure incomes better, accounting properly for inflation, median incomes have gone up by about 50% since 1980. And if you look at consumption, it's gone up by a similar amount over that whole period"

Of course, you don't actually have to do that much research to come to these conclusions. Just talk to an average american family; father and mother both age ~30. Ask them how many cars, TVs, cell phones and computers they have, how big their house is, whether they have central heating and air. Then ask the same questions to this couple's parents in regard to what their life was like when they were ~30. If they are anything like most Americans, the difference will most likely be substantial.



Maybe in Fantasyland...

no, this is actually a phenomenon which takes place everywhere. Ask your employed neighbors in Bernville, PA. I am sure you will discover that the vast majority of them are making above minimum wage. Why do you suppose this is?



The job market is almost always a buyers' market and, no, you cannot choose where you want to work. Not any more than a store chooses its customers.

I can't choose where I want to work???!?!?!? What a ridiculously bold and incorrect statement!


Workers are inherently at a disadvantage opportunity wise because they make up the majority of the population. Why does that matter? Because the resulting mass selling of labor power means a saturated market where the only buyers are investors who may or may not be too scared to try and make money off you.

You are only looking at the resulting price of labor from one side of the equation. It doesn't matter that sellers of labor outnumber buyers as long as the market itself is competitive, which it is. The demand for labor is thus driven by the productivity of the laborers. This is what drives wages.



The fact that capitalism maintains a legion of unemployed means job competition is more readily heading towards bad conditions and very little pay, as that is the nature of the market.

Capitalism does not "maintain a legion of unemployed". I'm not sure where you've gotten this idea from.


Don't kid yourself, for most people there isn't that kind of opportunity. Seeking more is a quick way to receive nothing, ask any seller. People aren't looking for the next stepping stone on the way to wealth, they're hoping they don't have to take a couple steps down while capital contemplates their future.

This bleak characterization is simply inaccurate and does not represent what "most people" in developed countries actually experience.


Wage slavery is a real thing. Yes, workers are not 'owned' by capitalists, but insofar as possessors of labor power they are. Since the worker derives his income almost entirely from the sale of his labor power, he is a slave to the wage, the value the capitalist places on his productive ability.

Is a baker a "slave" to buyers of muffins then, because he derives his income entirely from the sale of muffins?

The comparison of working for a salary and slavery is patently absurd. It is precisely the fact that you are not paid a wage at all which is the defining characteristic of slavery.



Living standard for both slaveowner and slaves rose in the american south trought the time, slave where better fed, worked less hours and had a better living standard than the black living in the north.

A black guy in the free north had to fight for his life on a constant basis, never knew when his boss would fire him or his landlord trhow him into the street, he never knew when he will be lynched.

is it really an argument for slavery? of course not.

just like the rising living standard is not an argument to justify wage slavery trought the world.

The fact that standard of living for the world's poor has unarguably risen as a result of free market capitalism is not the only reason I am a supporter of it, though I am glad you are at least willing to acknowledge it. I believe that it is the best economic model at raising standard of living, and that despite the good intentions of its advocates, socialism will invariably result in abject poverty and tyranny, as has been the case in every recorded instance in history.

[danyboy27]

The fact that standard of living for the world's poor has unarguably risen as a result of free market capitalism is not the only reason I am a supporter of it, though I am glad you are at least willing to acknowledge it. I believe that it is the best economic model at raising standard of living, and that despite the good intentions of advocates of socialism, it will invariably result in abject poverty and tyranny, as has been the case in every recorded instance in history.
Not really, the world poor living standard got ''better'' beccause of modern medecine, and modern medecine is hardly something capitalism can get the credit for it.

and ''better'' is always relative, considering the avearge chinese work 70 hours a week, the quality of living of those individuals are not really what i would call great.

[MURDOC]

Not really, the world poor living standard got ''better'' beccause of modern medecine, and modern medecine is hardly something capitalism can get the credit for it.

Are you under the impression that advances in medicine are the only thing to improve the lives of the masses over the last ~150 years or so?

And of course capitalism is responsible for advances in medicine! It would be impossible to argue otherwise. Before the industrial revolution, 98% of people worked on farms because it required that many people to generate the food necessary for our survival. More efficient farming techniques have dropped this number to somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% today. So what are those 96% caught in between doing today? All sorts of things! Designing, improving and researching technological innovations in all aspects of our life -- including medicine -- is one of those things. This would not be possible if we were all still stuck on farms. But thanks to division of labor and the immense gains in productivity brought about via market forces, this is no longer the case.


and ''better'' is always relative, considering the avearge chinese work 70 hours a week, the quality of living of those individuals are not really what i would call great.

You would probably not call it "great". The people who had to live under Mao probably would. In a few decades time, as long as the Chinese government continues on the path of economic liberalization and market reforms it is currently on, the Chinese economy will probably look very similar to our own. They are following the path to development that we ourselves went down; it just so happens they are good number of decades behind.

[danyboy27]

Are you under the impression that advances in medicine are the only thing to improve the lives of the masses over the last ~150 years or so?

And of course capitalism is responsible for advances in medicine! It would be impossible to argue otherwise. Before the industrial revolution, 98% of people worked on farms because it required that many people to generate the food necessary for our survival. More efficient farming techniques have dropped this number to somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% today. So what are those 96% caught in between doing today? All sorts of things! Designing, improving and researching technological innovations in all aspects of our life -- including medicine -- is one of those things. This would not be possible if we were all still stuck on farms. But thanks to division of labor and the immense gains in productivity brought about via market forces, this is no longer the case.

Medecine and technology didnt developed beccause of capitalism, i doubt the guy who invented the wheel had profit in mind, and einstein wasnt what you would call an ''entrepreneur''. Science and medecine are developed beccause its an inherent need for human being to develop new concepts, new invention to fill the need of peoples.

With the arrival of computer science made great progress, and computer wasnt created to make money, it was created to fill a need.



You would probably not call it "great". The people who had to live under Mao probably would. In a few decades time, as long as the Chinese government continues on the path of economic liberalization and market reforms it is currently on, the Chinese economy will probably look very similar to our own. They are following the path to development that we ourselves went down; it just so happens they are good number of decades behind.
Mao sucked but that hardly an argument against communism, its like saying hitler or Franco are an arguments against capitalism, that ridiculous.

[Revolution starts with U]

econtalk.org/archives/2011/10/bruce_meyer_on.html

Russ Roberts: "... the claim is made that the rising tide did not lift all boats. Rather, it only lifted the big, rich yachts. The dinghies of the poor and the middle class did not share in that tide of improvement, share in that wellbeing. What are your thoughts on these claims?

Bruce Meyer: "They are basically wrong. And that's what 10 years of research by myself and James Sullivan at Notre Dame has shown. If you measure incomes better, accounting properly for inflation, median incomes have gone up by about 50% since 1980. And if you look at consumption, it's gone up by a similar amount over that whole period"

Of course, you don't actually have to do that much research to come to these conclusions. Just talk to an average american family; father and mother both age ~30. Ask them how many cars, TVs, cell phones and computers they have, how big their house is, whether they have central heating and air. Then ask the same questions to this couple's parents in regard to what their life was like when they were ~30. If they are anything like most Americans, the difference will most likely be substantial.

They have those things because of debt. Not because their wages went up significantly.





You are only looking at the resulting price of labor from one side of the equation. It doesn't matter that sellers of labor outnumber buyers as long as the market itself is competitive, which it is. The demand for labor is thus driven by the productivity of the laborers. This is what drives wages.

Except, again, the evidence is clear that wages have remained static or gone down while productivity has gone up. Debt sure has gone up... not wages.





Capitalism does not "maintain a legion of unemployed". I'm not sure where you've gotten this idea from.

From the legions of unemployed people that have existed since day one of capitalism... maybe?

Name one socialist experiment in history...? You will probably name all the ones that claimed socialism but weren't, and miss all the ones that were socialism and might not have claimed it.

[MURDOC]

They have those things because of debt. Not because their wages went up significantly.




Except, again, the evidence is clear that wages have remained static or gone down while productivity has gone up. Debt sure has gone up... not wages.

I addressed this in the other thread.


From the legions of unemployed people that have existed since day one of capitalism... maybe?

Typically in the US, when we are not in the midst of any of the multitude of recessions/depressions caused by the state, unemployment varies between 3-5% of the workforce. This hardly seems to be "legions". Especially once you recognize that it is not the same 3-5% of people that are constantly unemployed; it is a rotating set of people moving into and out of the work force. In the 90s, for example, the mean duration of unemployment was typically only about 10-20 weeks.



Name one socialist experiment in history...? You will probably name all the ones that claimed socialism but weren't, and miss all the ones that were socialism and might not have claimed it.

There are innumerable. I can't think of anything closer to a controlled experiment in the field of economics than cutting a city in half down the middle, and having one side take part in market capitalism and the other state run socialism. This is precisely what happened in Berlin after WWII. The result is well known to all; the soviets built a wall with armed guards surrounding the city. They were ordered to shoot on site anyone attempting to escape their "workers utopia". And yet living conditions were so miserable, many still tried anyway.

Of course you, like most, will probably just hand wave this away as "not really socialism", not adhering strictly enough to whatever particular flavor of socialism you believe will "really work", just as is always done to account for the myriad of sociopathic tyrants who have genocided their way to impoverishing their people in the name of socialism.

There are also many examples of communes and small "socialist" societies which collapse do to infighting and an inability to properly and efficiently produce goods and services the way market economies allow. The first example to come to mind is the early history of the Plymouth Plantation:

enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0902/0902amsoc.htm

"The Pilgrims at Plymouth set up a common store that worked on the principle of "From Each According To His Ability - To Each According To His Need". Everything that the colony produced was placed in the common store and was then distributed out as needed.

For two years the colony worked to create a socialist Utopia but even with an additional 30 settlers who arrived a year after the Mayflower, the colony barely survived. Each winter the colonist would go hungry being reduced to rations of a quarter pound of bread at times."

[Revolution starts with U]

Typically in the US, when we are not in the midst of any of the multitude of recessions/depressions caused by the state, unemployment varies between 3-5% of the workforce. This hardly seems to be "legions". Especially once you recognize that it is not the same 3-5% of people that are constantly unemployed; it is a rotating set of people moving into and out of the work force. In the 90s, for example, the mean duration of unemployment was typically only about 10-20 weeks.

Prior to 1913, how exactly were the booms and busts "caused by the state?"
So, in a period of heavy colonization (and that was what conquering the west was, make no mistake) we sometimes get as low as 5% unemployment... and that somehow validates capitalism? Do you think that were we not colonizing the west at the time, providing a place to send the unemployed, that 5% would have held?



There are innumerable. I can't think of anything closer to a controlled experiment in the field of economics than cutting a city in half down the middle, and having one side take part in market capitalism and the other state run socialism. This is precisely what happened in Berlin after WWII. The result is well known to all; the soviets built a wall with armed guards surrounding the city. They were ordered to shoot on site anyone attempting to escape their "workers utopia". And yet living conditions were so miserable, many still tried anyway.

I must be psychic, as my prediction came true :thumbup:
You, my friend, are as opaque as a freshly cleaned window :lol:


Of course you, like most, will probably just hand wave this away as "not really socialism", not adhering strictly enough to whatever particular flavor of socialism you believe will "really work", just as is always done to account for the myriad of sociopathic tyrants who have genocided their way to impoverishing their people in the name of socialism.

I know, I know. USSR was really socialist, but the US isn't really capitalist :thumbup: I like the doublethink...

There are also many examples of communes and small "socialist" societies which collapse do to infighting and an inability to properly and efficiently produce goods and services the way market economies allow.
Hmm... are there not just as many examples of communes and small socialist societies which were violently crushed by the protectors of class domination?


The first example to come to mind is the early history of the Plymouth Plantation:

enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0902/0902amsoc.htm

"The Pilgrims at Plymouth set up a common store that worked on the principle of "From Each According To His Ability - To Each According To His Need". Everything that the colony produced was placed in the common store and was then distributed out as needed.

For two years the colony worked to create a socialist Utopia but even with an additional 30 settlers who arrived a year after the Mayflower, the colony barely survived. Each winter the colonist would go hungry being reduced to rations of a quarter pound of bread at times."

Just once, for me, Google:
"Plymouth colony survived because of capitalism, criticisms"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/25/rewriting-history-fox-reporter-claims-socialism-killed-thanksgiving/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/weekinreview/21zernike.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
(Just because I suspect that you won't google it, because you don't really care ;))

[NGNM85]

As per the OP's question; 'Capitalism' is an economic system. I would say that nothing like it exists, and, furthermore, that it has few precedents in history, but that's another ball of wax. 'Wage-slavery' is a term for the conditions of the vast majority of laborers in an economic system where the means of production are privately owned.

[Judicator]

I agree Capitalism is Slavery for Wages.

Only if you have taxes, since those are forced labor.

[RGacky3]

Only if you have taxes, since those are forced labor.

So you buy the labor theory of value ... ?

[Judicator]

So you buy the labor theory of value ... ?

Nope, LTV is false.

[RGacky3]

if taxes are false labor, then your essencially believing that labor is what creates wealth, your wording basically fits in with the LTV.

(Btw before Marx, Ricardo, Smith, ALL the classical economists believed in the LTV, the only reason many neo-classicals and austrians don't is because its related to marx, it has nothing to do with economics all to do with ideological hatred.)

[Judicator]

if taxes are false labor, then your essencially believing that labor is what creates wealth, your wording basically fits in with the LTV.

(Btw before Marx, Ricardo, Smith, ALL the classical economists believed in the LTV, the only reason many neo-classicals and austrians don't is because its related to marx, it has nothing to do with economics all to do with ideological hatred.)

Taxes are false labor? What does that mean?

Economists reject the LTV because it claims the value of something is absolute, not relative.

[RGacky3]

Taxes are false labor? What does that mean?

Economists reject the LTV because it claims the value of something is absolute, not relative.

Forced labor, I meant forced labor.

Do you know what the LTV is? Based on Ricardo, Smith and Marx?

[B5C]

"The Pilgrims at Plymouth set up a common store that worked on the principle of "From Each According To His Ability - To Each According To His Need". Everything that the colony produced was placed in the common store and was then distributed out as needed.

For two years the colony worked to create a socialist Utopia but even with an additional 30 settlers who arrived a year after the Mayflower, the colony barely survived. Each winter the colonist would go hungry being reduced to rations of a quarter pound of bread at times."

They weren't following Socialism. They were following the teachings of Jesus.

[RGacky3]

They weren't following Socialism. They were following the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus was a Socialist ...

[disbeliever]

Slavery and Freedom are both states of mind

[RGacky3]

Slavery and Freedom are both states of mind


Tell that to a dude in prison.

[Judicator]

Do you know what the LTV is? Based on Ricardo, Smith and Marx?

Lots of things based on the ideas of famous thinkers are false, including the LTV.

[RGacky3]

"The Pilgrims at Plymouth set up a common store that worked on the principle of "From Each According To His Ability - To Each According To His Need". Everything that the colony produced was placed in the common store and was then distributed out as needed.

For two years the colony worked to create a socialist Utopia but even with an additional 30 settlers who arrived a year after the Mayflower, the colony barely survived. Each winter the colonist would go hungry being reduced to rations of a quarter pound of bread at times."

The pilgrims were contractors for the London Company ... they were a corporate subsidiary, internally they organized communally, but they were a corporate subsidiary.


Lots of things based on the ideas of famous thinkers are false, including the LTV.

Explain to me what the LTV is because I don't think you understand it, and why is it wrong?

[Jose Gracchus]

As per the OP's question; 'Capitalism' is an economic system. I would say that nothing like it exists, and, furthermore, that it has few precedents in history, but that's another ball of wax. 'Wage-slavery' is a term for the conditions of the vast majority of laborers in an economic system where the means of production are privately owned.

What is the point in treating capitalism some kind of 'ideal-type' by which real life must be measured, rather than instead look at certain central characteristics of material life, and seeing capitalism in the continuity of social relations in modern production and economic life? The UK in 1750 was capitalist. It is today as well,

[Judicator]

Explain to me what the LTV is because I don't think you understand it, and why is it wrong?

The idea that labor is the sole source of value. This isn't true because labor isn't the sole source of value; all factors of production are sources of value.

[Adorno4498]

I thought that LTV meant that labour is one of the sources of value, specifically socially necessary labour time needed to produce a commodity? :(

[RGacky3]

The idea that labor is the sole source of value. This isn't true because labor isn't the sole source of value; all factors of production are sources of value.

The labor is the only source of value beyond the origional material capital, i.e. the only reason a chair is worth more than the wood it was created with and the machines that it was made with is due to the fact that there is labor embodied in it.

The same goes with the wood, what makes wood worth something is the fact that some one cut down the tree and chopped it up, otherwise it would be a true, the same goes with the machine, the technology it was designed with and the metal that it was made from and so on. The only thing that gives those things any value is the labor mixed in with it.

Of coarse when you buy a chair you are also buying the wood, but the value it was as a CHAIR is from the labor.

[RGacky3]

BTW, its funny that the classical economists used the labor theory of value and set up a defence of capitalism, then Marx used their own presumtions to point out problems in capitalism, what do neo-classicals do? they can't refute it, so they just start from a whole different theory of value :D.

[Baseball]

The same goes with the wood, what makes wood worth something is the fact that some one cut down the tree and chopped it up, otherwise it would be a true, the same goes with the machine, the technology it was designed with and the metal that it was made from and so on. The only thing that gives those things any value is the labor mixed in with it.

Of coarse when you buy a chair you are also buying the wood, but the value it was as a CHAIR is from the labor.

Truly? Then are a 1000 typewriters more valuable than a single computer?

[danyboy27]

Truly? Then are a 1000 typewriters more valuable than a single computer?

It would depend of many factors gacky mentionned above.

1000 typewritters could probably be more valuable than a computer, the opposite is also true, its all about the technology and ressources involved in the production of the goods.

a verry simple typewritter could be assembled and build verry quickly, a more technologically advanced one could take a little more than that and require a more specialised workforce to assemble.

[Baseball]

It would depend of many factors gacky mentionned above.

1000 typewritters could probably be more valuable than a computer, the opposite is also true, its all about the technology and ressources involved in the production of the goods.

a verry simple typewritter could be assembled and build verry quickly, a more technologically advanced one could take a little more than that and require a more specialised workforce to assemble.

Are people, in general, better off using a typewriter or a computer?

[Marxaveli]

^^A completely subjective question that has no bearing relationship to the LTV.

[Judicator]

The labor is the only source of value beyond the origional material capital, i.e. the only reason a chair is worth more than the wood it was created with and the machines that it was made with is due to the fact that there is labor embodied in it.

The same goes with the wood, what makes wood worth something is the fact that some one cut down the tree and chopped it up, otherwise it would be a true, the same goes with the machine, the technology it was designed with and the metal that it was made from and so on. The only thing that gives those things any value is the labor mixed in with it.

Of coarse when you buy a chair you are also buying the wood, but the value it was as a CHAIR is from the labor.

The value of the chair comes from several things:
1) the wood
2) the human time spent making the chair
3) the tools used
4) the blueprint for the chair
5) the demand for chairs
6) maybe more stuff...

Presumably the tools (etc) were created at some point by other people, but that's largely irrelevant to their current value. Their current value comes only from the fact that they can be used in making chairs.

[Adorno4498]

What about sign-based/social value? Obviously, socially necessary labour time and exchange value are important, but what about the symbolism of commodities? How does one explain junk food? Think about it, easy to make, not efficient to the stomach, YET PEOPLE BUY IT!

[RGacky3]

Truly? Then are a 1000 typewriters more valuable than a single computer?

When you have equal supply and demand, i.e. 1000 people that want 1000 typewriters and onle one person that wants a single computer, then yeah.


The value of the chair comes from several things:
1) the wood
2) the human time spent making the chair
3) the tools used
4) the blueprint for the chair
5) the demand for chairs
6) maybe more stuff...


1. the value of the wood is alread accounted for.
2. thats the labor.
3. thats accounted for.
4. thats the labor
5. thats a seperate issue.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2301625]When you have equal supply and demand, i.e. 1000 people that want 1000 typewriters and onle one person that wants a single computer, then yeah.

Then I guess the value of the typewriter or chair is determined by who wants it.

[RGacky3]

Then I guess the value of the typewriter or chair is determined by who wants it.

Which tells you NOTHING about economics.

[danyboy27]

Are people, in general, better off using a typewriter or a computer?

It would depend on a multiple of factor. Many people still use typewritter beccause its more secure and reliable than a computer.

[Rafiq]

Wage labour is not necessarily a form of slavery, however we can put a proletarian and a slave under the same catagory.

The main difference is that a proletarian rents out his own labour constantly, while a slave's labour is owned as property by another human or being (aliens ftw).

[Rafiq]

[QUOTE]

Then I guess the value of the typewriter or chair is determined by who wants it.

No, the price of a typwriter and a chair may be partially determined by who wants it, but not the value. Should the price fall bellow the value then the capitalist makes no profit. Supply and demand may partially determine the surplus value the capitalist extracts, however not the actual value.

[Tim Cornelis]

The value of the chair comes from several things:
1) the wood
2) the human time spent making the chair
3) the tools used
4) the blueprint for the chair
5) the demand for chairs
6) maybe more stuff...

Presumably the tools (etc) were created at some point by other people, but that's largely irrelevant to their current value. Their current value comes only from the fact that they can be used in making chairs.

1. The wood used is use-value--which is regonised in Marxist economics.
2. Labour expanded in producing the chair--which is regonised in Marxist economics.
3. The tools is "dead labour"--which is regonised in Marxist economics.
4. An idea itself does not produce value.
5. That reflects price rather than value (they are related but not identical).
6. Like?

[RGacky3]

4. An idea itself does not produce value.


Mental prowress is labor.

[Rooster]

The value of the chair comes from several things:
1) the wood

Which is just a tree until you chop it down.


2) the human time spent making the chair

Human labour


3) the tools used

Human labour


4) the blueprint for the chair

Human labour


5) the demand for chairs

Which is based on human labour of other products, the productive capacity of society, the relative exchange values.


6) maybe more stuff...

Such as?


Presumably the tools (etc) were created at some point by other people, but that's largely irrelevant to their current value.

Why?


Their current value comes only from the fact that they can be used in making chairs.

Have you ever seen the tools used to make chairs? They're quite flexible. I'm sure you can think of more than one use for a saw, staple gun, drill, etc.

[freethinker]

For billions in the Third World It is

But Wage Work is not always slavery

[Adorno4498]

Mental prowress is labor.
A question that concerns me daily.

[Judicator]

Which is just a tree until you chop it down.


The tree is valuable too. People will pay for just trees, and not because it takes a lot of labor to find a forest.



Human labour


Tools aren't labor... this should be obvious to even a Marxist.



Which is based on human labour of other products, the productive capacity of society, the relative exchange values.


Productive capacity is based on things like technology.



Such as?


Other factors of production.



Why?


Because it's a sunk cost.



Have you ever seen the tools used to make chairs? They're quite flexible. I'm sure you can think of more than one use for a saw, staple gun, drill, etc.


A powerful objection.... Let me rephrase: Their current value comes only from the fact that they can be used in making various goods.

[RGacky3]

The tree is valuable too. People will pay for just trees, and not because it takes a lot of labor to find a forest.


Yeah, but a tree is not a commodity, the LTOV is a COMMODITY theory of value.


Tools aren't labor... this should be obvious to even a Marxist.


They are the result of human labor, and don't contribute anything without human labor.


Productive capacity is based on things like technology.


Which is hte result of human labor.


A powerful objection.... Let me rephrase: Their current value comes only from the fact that they can be used in making various goods.

Yes, thats called use value, which is an intrinsic part of labor value.

[Rooster]

The tree is valuable too. People will pay for just trees,

What do you mean that people will pay for just trees?


and not because it takes a lot of labor to find a forest.

It takes labour to chop down a tree, to transport it, to process it into usable wood and then it takes labour to transport that wood and turn it into something else.


Tools aren't labor... this should be obvious to even a Marxist.Tools were made.


Productive capacity is based on things like technology.Technology is labour, unless you think ipods grow on trees.


Other factors of production.You mean more labour?


Because it's a sunk cost. So tools are just a sunk cost?


A powerful objection.... Let me rephrase: Their current value comes only from the fact that they can be used in making various goods.Are you denying that tools are commodities? :confused:

[Rafiq]

The tree is valuable too. People will pay for just trees, and not because it takes a lot of labor to find a forest.

Ah, but this is not exclusive to the mode of production (s) that came before capitalism.

The ownership of something that is natural (That requires no labor to produce) is the basis of the Bourgeois Dictatorship. Never the less a tree is only a use-value.


Tools aren't labor... this should be obvious to even a Marxist.

All forms of capital are dead labor. But tools are not inherently capital, but none the less required labor to create (As for machines as well).




Productive capacity is based on things like technology.

And who builds this technology? Where does it come from? Your ass?


Other factors of production.

Again, such as? There is nature and there is labor (and dead labor). What else now?



Because it's a sunk cost.


Come again?


A powerful objection.... Let me rephrase: Their current value comes only from the fact that they can be used in making various goods.

They are dead labor.

[Judicator]

What do you mean that people will pay for just trees?


People will pay more for land with trees on it vs. land without trees.


It takes labour to chop down a tree, to transport it, to process it into usable wood and then it takes labour to transport that wood and turn it into something else.

Okay, and?



Tools were made.


Once made (i.e. as soon as they are tools) they aren't labor.



Technology is labour, unless you think ipods grow on trees.


Technology is knowledge, not labor...



You mean more labour?


No, capital, technology, land, etc.



So tools are just a sunk cost?


Who is saying that? I said the labor that went into them is a sunk cost.



Are you denying that tools are commodities?


I'm saying that the value of tools comes only from the fact that they can be used in making various goods.

What that has to do with being a commodity is unclear...commodities are things traded with very little qualitative differentiation (ex wheat), so this probably excludes tools.

[Judicator]

Ah, but this is not exclusive to the mode of production (s) that came before capitalism.

The ownership of something that is natural (That requires no labor to produce) is the basis of the Bourgeois Dictatorship. Never the less a tree is only a use-value.


Presumably someone will also value a forest that was planted by humans...but again, not because it was planted by humans, but because the trees are themselves valuable.



All forms of capital are dead labor. But tools are not inherently capital, but none the less required labor to create (As for machines as well).


Dead labor? What a silly metaphor :laugh:



And who builds this technology? Where does it come from? Your ass?


Why are its origins relevant to its present value?



There is nature and there is labor (and dead labor). What else now?


Capital and technology and so on.



Come again?


A past cost that cannot be recovered.



They are dead labor.


Their value is independent of the number of people who worked on it in the past.

[Rafiq]

Presumably someone will also value a forest that was planted by humans...but again, not because it was planted by humans, but because the trees are themselves valuable.

Because of their use-value.




Dead labor? What a silly metaphor :laugh:


It's not a metaphor. Capital is dead labor. think.


Why are its origins relevant to its present value?

Think about what you just said there. You must admit, that was really dumb of you to say.

It's present value was a result of it's "origins". That is the whole point.




Capital and technology and so on.


Capital is dead labor, and technology can either be

1. Dead Labor in the form of capital

2. Still a product of labor, but used for something else.

none the less it is still a result of labor.

You have Labor and Nature that are the source of all value. there is nothing else.



A past cost that cannot be recovered.

The cost of... The tools?

You must be joking. Think about how stupid you are sounding.




Their value is independent of the number of people who worked on it in the past.

Again, another dumb statement. How can you say that and take yourself seriously?

Their value is determined by the amount of labor put into it, whether that be ten people or one person (ten people with the labor power of one person).

But it's not irrelevant.

It is still dead labor. The (tools) are created by the labor, and the labor value manifests itself in the tools and machines, and all the value that is produced by the machines and the tools are a result of the original labor manifested in them.

We call them dead labor because like the undead, they carry on and live through sucking the labor of the worker's on a consistent basis (Worker's operate and use the tools and machines).

[Rafiq]

People will pay more for land with trees on it vs. land without trees.


Use value




Okay, and?

And that is what gives value to the fruits of the tree (not literal fruits).



Once made (i.e. as soon as they are tools) they aren't labor.

You are right, they are dead labor, and only carry on their existence through sucking already existing labor out of a working man. (A man using a hammer in a factory gives the value).



Technology is knowledge, not labor...

Technology is not knowledge or labor, technology can only exist as a result of labor, though, and the knowledge that comes afterwords.




No, capital, technology, land, etc.

:laugh: Shut up about technology. What is this, something new? :rolleyes:

Other factors of production can only be a dependent on labor or nature.




Who is saying that? I said the labor that went into them is a sunk cost.


Which makes no sense at all.



I'm saying that the value of tools comes only from the fact that they can be used in making various goods.

It depends if the tools are used as capital or not. If they are being used as capital then they are dead labor.


What that has to do with being a commodity is unclear...commodities are things traded with very little qualitative differentiation (ex wheat), so this probably excludes tools.

Sometimes tools are sold as a commodity, sometimes they are used as capital.

What givse them their value when being sold is the labor put into them, like anything else (Otherwise they would be for free).

But when they are used as capital, once bought, what gives them value is the laborers using them, they act as a sort of vampire like thingy, value wise, giving commodities value only because of the labor put into them originally.

Ergo, dead labor.

[Judicator]

The number of ad hom attacks makes it seem like you don't believe your arguments can stand on their own.



It's not a metaphor. Capital is dead labor. think.


Labor cannot literally be alive or dead (since it's an activity).


It's present value was a result of it's "origins". That is the whole point.

No...it's present value is a function of what you can do with it on an ongoing basis. Present value perhaps is a difficult concept for you, but it's a function of *future* returns, not past costs (i.e where it came from).



The cost of... The tools?


:confused: what about it?



Their value is determined by the amount of labor put into it, whether that be ten people or one person (ten people with the labor power of one person).


If enough people dig holes and fill them up then the ground is valuable :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:



It is still dead labor. The (tools) are created by the labor, and the labor value manifests itself in the tools and machines, and all the value that is produced by the machines and the tools are a result of the original labor manifested in them.

The original labor is gone...tools are just tools.



We call them dead labor because like the undead


That's a metaphor. Maybe this is a complicated concept for you as well.



We call them dead labor because like the undead, they carry on and live through sucking the labor of the worker's on a consistent basis (Worker's operate and use the tools and machines).


Lol "sucking the labor of the worker's"? What does that even mean?



And that is what gives value to the fruits of the tree (not literal fruits).


No, a tree is valuable because it contains wood. Applying to labor to anything won't produce wood, you need a tree. Ergo, trees are valuable.



Shut up about technology. What is this, something new?


The value of intellectual property is not a function of the number of labor hours it took to make it...it's a function of what you can do with it. Technology that took years to develop but is now obsolete is worthless, even though under your view since it took so much labor to make, it must be valuable!



Which makes no sense at all.


What part don't you understand? Sunk costs are a simple concept.



It depends if the tools are used as capital or not. If they are being used as capital then they are dead labor.


It doesn't matter what the tools are used for. A gold bar is has the same value whether you bury it in a vault or use it in industrial processes. It does not become valuable when you actually use it (i.e. when it's capital)...it's valuable because you have the option to use it.



But when they are used as capital, once bought, what gives them value is the laborers using them, they act as a sort of vampire like thingy, value wise, giving commodities value only because of the labor put into them originally.


What gives them value is the fact that they produce a marginal increase in production when added to the production process. It's a mistake to attribute this value to the labor. Since labor without the tool produces less, it cannot account for the increase in production when the tool is added.

[RGacky3]

Your totally missundersanding the labor theory of value, use value is a seperate thing, the LTOV is saying what prices are based on when you take supply and demand out of the picture (i.e. they are at equilibrium), its not a moral measure based on what different people "value," thats totally irrelivent to the argument.

[RGacky3]

There have been many studies on this btw, and its consitantly shown that market prices generally follow the labor theory of value, http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/DZ_article1.pdf, http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/labthvalue.pdf.

[Rafiq]

The number of ad hom attacks makes it seem like you don't believe your arguments can stand on their own.



Labor cannot literally be alive or dead (since it's an activity).



No...it's present value is a function of what you can do with it on an ongoing basis. Present value perhaps is a difficult concept for you, but it's a function of *future* returns, not past costs (i.e where it came from).



:confused: what about it?



If enough people dig holes and fill them up then the ground is valuable :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:



The original labor is gone...tools are just tools.



That's a metaphor. Maybe this is a complicated concept for you as well.



Lol "sucking the labor of the worker's"? What does that even mean?



No, a tree is valuable because it contains wood. Applying to labor to anything won't produce wood, you need a tree. Ergo, trees are valuable.



The value of intellectual property is not a function of the number of labor hours it took to make it...it's a function of what you can do with it. Technology that took years to develop but is now obsolete is worthless, even though under your view since it took so much labor to make, it must be valuable!



What part don't you understand? Sunk costs are a simple concept.



It doesn't matter what the tools are used for. A gold bar is has the same value whether you bury it in a vault or use it in industrial processes. It does not become valuable when you actually use it (i.e. when it's capital)...it's valuable because you have the option to use it.



What gives them value is the fact that they produce a marginal increase in production when added to the production process. It's a mistake to attribute this value to the labor. Since labor without the tool produces less, it cannot account for the increase in production when the tool is added.

1. Don't care

2. Yes it can. It manifests itself in capital and that is why we call it dead labor.

3. Present value would be nothing without the labor.

4. Think

5. So sad... It's called SOCIAL LABOR and USE VALUE. "IF THE COMMODITY IS UNWANTED OR UNUSWFUL THEN IT IS USLESS AND SO IS THE LABOR" that was in the first chapter of capital, hahhahahha dumb shit...

6. You can't comprehend what dead labor is. You're like a wounded little creature resorting to desperate acts of argument.


I ll reply to the rest of your horse shit post when I come home from school lmfao

[RGacky3]

3. Present value would be nothing without the labor.


keep in mind, its not the actual labor that is the determinant in the LTOV (of Marx, it is of Ricardo), its the socially necessary labor time, in other words if you build a car by hand, when socially its possible to create it using much less value iwth machines, the value is from the socially necessary labor time, i.e. the minimum.

This means that value changes with productivity.

[Judicator]

1. Don't care

2. Yes it can. It manifests itself in capital and that is why we call it dead labor.

3. Present value would be nothing without the labor.

4. Think

5. So sad... It's called SOCIAL LABOR and USE VALUE. "IF THE COMMODITY IS UNWANTED OR UNUSWFUL THEN IT IS USLESS AND SO IS THE LABOR" that was in the first chapter of capital, hahhahahha dumb shit...

6. You can't comprehend what dead labor is. You're like a wounded little creature resorting to desperate acts of argument.


I ll reply to the rest of your horse shit post when I come home from school lmfao

1) You should, because they can't stand on their own.

2) You're trying to avoid the obvious conclusion that capital creates value by renaming it "dead labor." So-called dead labor isn't labor at all.

3) Present value is independent of the past labor ("dead labor" lol) used to create whatever capital you're using now.

4) I did. If you did too, you'd realize the LTV is silly.

5) Human wants are a determinant of value, not the amount of labor. Thanks for finally agreeing.

6) It's an incoherent concept (a contradiction in terms...dead labor) or a bad metaphor at best. I'm sorry you don't know what a metaphor is. Maybe you should spend some more time in the wonderful Detroit school system and you'll learn.

[RGacky3]

5) Human wants are a determinant of value, not the amount of labor. Thanks for finally agreeing.


IF YOU TAKE AWAY SUPPLY AND DEMAND, THE LTV IS THE MAIN DETERMINANT OF VALUE. Son of a *****, how are you not getting this.

[Judicator]

IF YOU TAKE AWAY SUPPLY AND DEMAND, THE LTV IS THE MAIN DETERMINANT OF VALUE. Son of a *****, how are you not getting this.

If you take away supply and demand it's difficult to have value at all.

The LTV puts unwarranted emphasis on previously-incurred labor costs, as if they are the source of value, when in fact value comes from future usefulness. Capital goods and things like them have value in their own right because of their ongoing usefulness, not because it took a lot of man-hours to make them decades ago.

[RGacky3]

If you take away supply and demand it's difficult to have value at all.


When supply and demand are at equilibrium.


The LTV puts unwarranted emphasis on previously-incurred labor costs, as if they are the source of value, when in fact value comes from future usefulness. Capital goods and things like them have value in their own right because of their ongoing usefulness, not because it took a lot of man-hours to make them decades ago.

The labor theory of value is apart from use value, Marx talks about use value all the time, and its part of his labor theory of value, i.e. commodities, to be commodities HAVE to have use value for someone, then it has demand, then some one meets that demand with supply, having those 2 and equilibrium the value will be the labor time.

THAT IS THE LTOV.

Your objections to the ltov are just ignorance about it.

[Judicator]

When supply and demand are at equilibrium.

Yes, this equilibrium determines the fair market value. Demand is unrelated to labor or any factor of production (for consumer goods at least). And supply is determined by scarcity of many factors other than labor.


having those 2 and equilibrium the value will be the labor time.

THAT IS THE LTOV.

Equilibrium is determined by more than just the amount of labor that was needed to make something. This should be obvious even to you, which would make the LTV as you've stated it obviously false.

[RGacky3]

Yes, this equilibrium determines the fair market value. Demand is unrelated to labor or any factor of production (for consumer goods at least). And supply is determined by scarcity of many factors other than labor.


If supply=demand what determains the value?

You can't say equilibrium determains the value because thats meaningless.

Its the labor.


Equilibrium is determined by more than just the amount of labor that was needed to make something. This should be obvious even to you, which would make the LTV as you've stated it obviously false.

Equilibrium of supply and demand, is just when supply = demand, then you have value based of the LTV, which means that LTV is the basis of value which is then changed by supply and demand to make price.

Your not not only missunderstanding the LTV your also missunderstanding market equilibrium, as you missunderstood use value.

[Judicator]

If supply=demand what determains the value?

You can't say equilibrium determains the value because thats meaningless

Sure you can. It's very meaningful, just look at market prices of objects you see every day. I could care less about how much labor went into something....


Equilibrium of supply and demand, is just when supply = demand, then you have value based of the LTV, which means that LTV is the basis of value which is then changed by supply and demand to make price.

Your mistake here is in thinking there's some kind of external absolute "value" that exists apart from the tradeoffs people make every day (i.e. supply/demand).

Labor isn't the basis of value because of all of the other non-labor factor inputs I've listed which co-determine value. I don't know how many different ways I need to say that for you to get it through your head.

[RGacky3]

Sure you can. It's very meaningful, just look at market prices of objects you see every day. I could care less about how much labor went into something....


equilibrium is not a "thing" that can determine anything.

You know what you also could care less about when shopping? supply and demand.

Prices are determined by the LTOV PLUS the supply and demand not being ad equilibrium.

If they were at equilibrium, i.e. 10 products for 10 people, the price would be determined by the ltov.


Your mistake here is in thinking there's some kind of external absolute "value" that exists apart from the tradeoffs people make every day (i.e. supply/demand).


but there is, if there was'nt all prices would be exactly the same at equilibrium.


Labor isn't the basis of value because of all of the other non-labor factor inputs I've listed which co-determine value. I don't know how many different ways I need to say that for you to get it through your head.

And i responded to all those factors to show they are either also value, or are taken into account by the LTOV.

[Judicator]

equilibrium is not a "thing" that can determine anything.


:confused: It's a thing that determines market prices, for one.



but there is, if there was'nt all prices would be exactly the same at equilibrium.


There is? Where? Value is not independent of human desires...



And i responded to all those factors to show they are either also value, or are taken into account by the LTOV.


So we agree they are also sources of value....

If by "taken into account by the LTOV" you mean the LTOV just renames them as something containing the word "labor" then okay...but that's not much of a theory. The LTOV leads to all kinds of silly conclusions (e.g. labor intensive goods should be more expensive...when they often aren't - compare clothing made in Bangladesh to microchips made in Taiwan), and is ridiculous on it's face in its attempt to force everything to be some form of labor, despite facts to the contrary.

[RGacky3]

:confused: It's a thing that determines market prices, for one.


I"m talking about numerical supply and demand, i.e. literally how much supply vrs demand.


There is? Where? Value is not independent of human desires...


human desires = Use value, which is the cause of demand.

Any commodity always has use value for someone, but that does'nt determine the price.


If by "taken into account by the LTOV" you mean the LTOV just renames them as something containing the word "labor" then okay...but that's not much of a theory. The LTOV leads to all kinds of silly conclusions (e.g. labor intensive goods should be more expensive...when they often aren't - compare clothing made in Bangladesh to microchips made in Taiwan), and is ridiculous on it's face in its attempt to force everything to be some form of labor, despite facts to the contrary.

Yeah .... Microchips take more labor .... they take more machines, which require more labor, they take more intellectual labor, and they take more educationally intensive labor, and so on.

and then prices go up or down based on supply and demand.