Some fact for Nyder

[Misodoctakleidist]

Most of you will know Nyder as an ignorant cappie and since he recites the same misinformation constantly no matter how many times he is corrected i though i'd spell it out for him and others new the world of politics.

1. Communism doesn't make people poor.

In capitalist societies the bulk of the wealth is owned by the minority of the populations, under communism it is redistributed meaning that the vast majority of people are infact richer. I wealth was distributed equally then 90-99% would have more money, 1-10% would have less (depending on the country). I happen to know that Nyder lives in australia so unless he's a millionaire he himself would benifit under communism.

2. Stalinism is not the only form of communism

Stalinism is only one of many communist ideologies and is generaly despised by most other communists, capitalists like to pretend that Stalinism is the only form of communism because he killed 25 million people and makes communism look bad.

3. Communism doesn't force people to work in certain occupations

I dont know if Nyder belives this, sorry if you dont, but he seems to. People can choose what they want to do, much like they can in capitalism, the only difference is that they get paid the fair value of their labour.

4. There is no bougoirsie in communism

I thought this was quite obvious but Nyder keeps asking why the factory owners would distribute money amonst workers when they could keep it all and get rich and making such silly comments. There is no bougoirsie, everyone is working class, everyone owns everything so there is no one with a load of money that needs distribuing.

I'm sure there are more, feel free to add other capitalist misconceptions or stupid thing that Nyder keeps saying.

[Hoppe]

1. Communism doesn't make people poor.

With all respect but who says you can keep the same wealth in a communist society as we have now? When a long time ago economist showed that planned economies would result into chaos and irrationality even the pro-planners had to agree that they could only hope to keep the same standard of living as in a capitalist societies.


3. Communism doesn't force people to work in certain occupations

Communism gives people "freedom from necessity". Someone has to produce it. Who is going to become a garbageman? Your communists streets would be infested with dirt and diseases would flourish. A capitalist would simply offer someone money to clean the streets. Wouldn't you agree with me that you have a slight incentive problem here?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 09:18 PM
Communism gives people "freedom from necessity". Someone has to produce it. Who is going to become a garbageman? Your communists streets would be infested with dirt and diseases would flourish. A capitalist would simply offer someone money to clean the streets. Wouldn't you agree with me that you have a slight incentive problem here?
err no, communism would offer garbage men more money than capitalism does.

you talk shit hoppe.

[dancingoutlaw]

1. Communism doesn't make people poor.

In capitalist societies the bulk of the wealth is owned by the minority of the populations, under communism it is redistributed meaning that the vast majority of people are infact richer. I wealth was distributed equally then 90-99% would have more money, 1-10% would have less (depending on the country). I happen to know that Nyder lives in australia so unless he's a millionaire he himself would benifit under communism.

True wealth is created and earned not distributed. When wealth is distributed then who takes on the task of distributing? How is this equality achieved?


2. Stalinism is not the only form of communism

Stalinism is only one of many communist ideologies and is generaly despised by most other communists, capitalists like to pretend that Stalinism is the only form of communism because he killed 25 million people and makes communism look bad.

Yes those like Mao, Kim Jung-il, and all the African experiments have come out better.


3. Communism doesn't force people to work in certain occupations

I dont know if Nyder belives this, sorry if you dont, but he seems to. People can choose what they want to do, much like they can in capitalism, the only difference is that they get paid the fair value of their labour.

What exactly is this fair value? Are you refering to Labor Value theory? That has been considered unworkable for many years now. Without a market how is the value of goods and services set? How does one set the value of intangibles like poems, literature, music and art?


4. There is no bougoirsie in communism

I thought this was quite obvious but Nyder keeps asking why the factory owners would distribute money amonst workers when they could keep it all and get rich and making such silly comments. There is no bougoirsie, everyone is working class, everyone owns everything so there is no one with a load of money that needs distribuing.

I'm sure there are more, feel free to add other capitalist misconceptions or stupid thing that Nyder keeps saying.

You are right there are no bougoirsie in Communism. What exists though are government managers which I consider worse.

peace

[Nyder]

Oh thank you that has cleared it all up for me now I'll become a die-hard communist! :P

There are many flaws in your superficial arguments and luckily I am kind enough to point them out for you:


1. Communism doesn't make people poor.

In capitalist societies the bulk of the wealth is owned by the minority of the populations, under communism it is redistributed meaning that the vast majority of people are infact richer. I wealth was distributed equally then 90-99% would have more money, 1-10% would have less (depending on the country). I happen to know that Nyder lives in australia so unless he's a millionaire he himself would benifit under communism.

If everyone earns the same amount then no one will have the incentive to achieve above everyone else in communism. Why would I want to study 10 years to be doctor when I could just be a street sweeper for the same wage?

I would not benefit under communism, as I know that however hard I try and achieve I will always be at the same level as everyone else I might as well not even bother.


2. Stalinism is not the only form of communism

Stalinism is only one of many communist ideologies and is generaly despised by most other communists, capitalists like to pretend that Stalinism is the only form of communism because he killed 25 million people and makes communism look bad.

The fact that Stalinism IS a form of communism is bad enough. But the reality is that this is what transpired from the misguided attempt to enforce communism upon the masses.

I think that a stateless communist society is unworkable; because you will need a state to stop people from owning private property and engaging in private enterprise.


3. Communism doesn't force people to work in certain occupations

I dont know if Nyder belives this, sorry if you dont, but he seems to. People can choose what they want to do, much like they can in capitalism, the only difference is that they get paid the fair value of their labour.

Communism would make most people work in very basic occupations because there is no incentive to achieve above that level.

Nevertheless, how do you determine what is 'fair value'? I have already mentioned that most employees would prefer wages then bargaining on the profit value of the product they are producing. This is because companies can run at a considerable loss for long periods. Therefore labour is made into a fixed value (that can be determined through supply and demand for labour of a particular skill), which can change through promotion or increase in wages.

Basically what you should realise is that profit is not a fixed amount, it changes all the time - so if managment wants to pay workers according to the value that they produce, the workers will have to take profits and losses also.


4. There is no bougoirsie in communism

I thought this was quite obvious but Nyder keeps asking why the factory owners would distribute money amonst workers when they could keep it all and get rich and making such silly comments. There is no bougoirsie, everyone is working class, everyone owns everything so there is no one with a load of money that needs distribuing.

Why do you make the assumption that anyone else has the right to determine the relationship between an employer and employee? They are the best judge of their agreed upon contract, not anyone else. And again, how are you going to determine this value? Keep in mind that the more expensive you make labour to hire, the less employers will be willing to hire.

If there is no private property then what incentive will people have to invent, innovate and produce goods and services? Personal incentive is more powerful than for 'the good of society'. If I have to sacrifice all of my effort for no reward I am no better than a slave.

[Al Creed]

I have a question for you, Nyder,

If you're SUCH a big fan of Capitalism...what were you doing on a site called "Che-Lives," in the first place? Are you hiding something, deep within, or are you here just to be a royal pain in the ass? Sometimes, I wonder about the Capitalists who post on this board...

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 09:18 PM
Communism gives people "freedom from necessity". Someone has to produce it. Who is going to become a garbageman? Your communists streets would be infested with dirt and diseases would flourish. A capitalist would simply offer someone money to clean the streets. Wouldn't you agree with me that you have a slight incentive problem here?
Some people (few unfortunately) will voluntarily do that from time to time. They will have a small benefit for doing so. Others could do that full time, for a bigger income, but I don't like the idea. The other option is making the ones who oppose us do that, but as you will say we are then against freedom of thought and ideas, let's say this will be done by the criminals (thieves, murderers, rapers...) until when they have done it enough. With luck, people will create systems that make this tasks easier, cleaner and quicker.


If everyone earns the same amount then no one will have the incentive to achieve above everyone else in communism. Why would I want to study 10 years to be doctor when I could just be a street sweeper for the same wage?

The idea of commmunism is reaching a society where no one is "above" everyone else. And I'm surprised that a liberal cappie thought about studying! I though they only cared about money. And are you saying that doctors only care about money? Then we have a HUGE problem because if those are the ones who should help our health...
Anyway, the lack of doctors is already a good incentive. Who will take care of you if there arent doctors?


I think that a stateless communist society is unworkable; because you will need a state to stop people from owning private property and engaging in private enterprise.

You will need a state in your libertarian capitalist utopia to proetect private property. Have you ever read about Anarchism? How could people have private property in such a system? If some day we reach Anarchism, I hope you don't live with us, I bet you want to steal things and say they are your private property. You are a menace to an anarchist society.


Personal incentive is more powerful than for 'the good of society'.

In case you haven't noticed, you would be part of the society, so what you do for "the good of society" will also be good for you.

[Hoppe]

Some people (few unfortunately) will voluntarily do that from time to time. They will have a small benefit for doing so. Others could do that full time, for a bigger income, but I don't like the idea. The other option is making the ones who oppose us do that, but as you will say we are then against freedom of thought and ideas, let's say this will be done by the criminals (thieves, murderers, rapers...) until when they have done it enough. With luck, people will create systems that make this tasks easier, cleaner and quicker.

Which income? I thought you'd abolish money. Possibly some people will do it but will they do it for an infinite amount of time. This is a huge assumption. If these people would benefit (in a material, or monetary sense) this would be a clear example of a free market solution. In all the other cases it is merely coercion.

And with luck..........that's wishfull thinking isn't?


In case you haven't noticed, you would be part of the society, so what you do for "the good of society" will also be good for you.

I am part of a society now as well. If I somehow, mentally unstable, decided to do dangerous work that would benefit society, it would not necessarily benefit me. A capitalist society would pay me a riskpremium. Again you have an incentive problem.

[Desert Fox]

I only want to add one thing to this topic, the reason why I didn't bother to read this topic is through. Is because you hit on the man (nyder) and not only the group. Don't direct call anyone on this board, I find this quit stupid and immature.

[Comandante Mashka]

About "who would pick up the garbage. . ."

Did you know that a doctor can't catch up to the amount of money an electrician makes? All those years in university is money, while the electrician is making money especially in Canada, they are paid pretty good).

The bottom line is, it all come downs to personal motivation, vocation, and self-realization. I just wanted to add that volunteering programs in Cuba have been implemented for years. My Cuban friend told me that he had to work in a farm as his volunteer work; it wouldn't surprise me if they picked up garbage too.

[The Feral Underclass]

1. Communism doesn't make people poor.

In capitalist societies the bulk of the wealth is owned by the minority of the populations, under communism it is redistributed meaning that the vast majority of people are infact richer. I wealth was distributed equally then 90-99% would have more money, 1-10% would have less (depending on the country). I happen to know that Nyder lives in australia so unless he's a millionaire he himself would benifit under communism.

This is NOT communism. It's some sort of shit socialism. I say again, it is NOT communism.


2. Stalinism is not the only form of communism

Stalinism is only one of many communist ideologies and is generaly despised by most other communists, capitalists like to pretend that Stalinism is the only form of communism because he killed 25 million people and makes communism look bad.

Stalinism is NOT communism. It is some deranged state-capitalism. It is NOT communism!

Communism

Communism is very much like anarchism by principle. Communism is a society without a state. "Where people work according to their abilities and recieve according to their needs." This means that in return for doing socially necessary work, ie cleaning the garbage. You are provided for with food, shelter, water, electricity etc etc.

In a society like this people would have masses of free time. Lets say you had a different job every week. One week cleraning garbage for 5 hours, the next week making bread for 6 hours. This then means that human beings have the time to do things they want too. Maybe some like to paint, or make sculptures. Maybe some people want to make a film or design a new faster aeroplane. A community may want to hold a huge music fesitval so they do it.

This is what communism is!!! Of couse you can be ignorant and simply take what happened in Russia and China and say "if they called it communism, then it must be." Even "marxists" do this. Nevertheless, it is not communism.

Marx made it clear in his writings that at this point, "the second stage..." the state would wither away and society would be organized the way I described.

Stalinism

Marx talked about stages to communism. Socialism being the first stage. This is what Lenin created when the Bolsheviks took power. In this second stage Marx talked about "the dictatership of the proletariat." This was to defend the revolution and start the process. Of course it never got that far, because it turned into a dictatership of a small elite, who forced workers into collectives and brought all the means of production into their control. After lenin died stalin continued this process and in alot of ways extended this second stage. I do not belive he had any intention of withering away the state. This is why he enforced it with a huge army and secret service.

This is not communism.

[Misodoctakleidist]

1. Communism doesn't make people poor.

In capitalist societies the bulk of the wealth is owned by the minority of the populations, under communism it is redistributed meaning that the vast majority of people are infact richer. I wealth was distributed equally then 90-99% would have more money, 1-10% would have less (depending on the country). I happen to know that Nyder lives in australia so unless he's a millionaire he himself would benifit under communism.

This is NOT communism. It's some sort of shit socialism. I say again, it is NOT communism.

I wasn't proposing the distribution of wealth, i was just attempting to show that communism doesn't make people poor like nyder keeps saying by demonstating how vast wealth inequalities are.



2. Stalinism is not the only form of communism

Stalinism is only one of many communist ideologies and is generaly despised by most other communists, capitalists like to pretend that Stalinism is the only form of communism because he killed 25 million people and makes communism look bad.

Stalinism is NOT communism. It is some deranged state-capitalism. It is NOT communism!

I didn't want to get into a discusion about stalinism by saying that it isn't communism, although that is my opinion, i said this because nyder keeps going on about stalin as if we all support him.

[The Feral Underclass]

I wasn't proposing the distribution of wealth, i was just attempting to show that communism doesn't make people poor like nyder keeps saying by demonstating how vast wealth inequalities are.

It is a problem you will face a lot comrade. People who have never read a book about communism, or have read a bouregois-bias book about communism, based on Stalin, will always claim to have such a deep understanding of what it is. It is common, and something I deal with everyday.


I didn't want to get into a discusion about stalinism by saying that it isn't communism, although that is my opinion, i said this because nyder keeps going on about stalin as if we all support him.

Again it is ignorance. Peoples ability to anaylise and critzise is something you learn nowadays. For people like nyder "what you see is what you get." People who have such a black and white attitude towards communism and anarchism have usually only seen what has been written in the history books.

Stalin is the face of communism, it dosnt matter how obsurd and contradictory it is to people who have a deeper understanding. people will always associate communism with Stalin, because that is what they are told, in to be fair, what they have seen. It is a fact of life i'm afraid, it is our mission to show them they are wrong :ph34r:

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 3 2003, 09:06 PM

I wasn't proposing the distribution of wealth, i was just attempting to show that communism doesn't make people poor like nyder keeps saying by demonstating how vast wealth inequalities are.

It is a problem you will face a lot comrade. People who have never read a book about communism, or have read a bouregois-bias book about communism, based on Stalin, will always claim to have such a deep understanding of what it is. It is common, and something I deal with everyday.


I didn't want to get into a discusion about stalinism by saying that it isn't communism, although that is my opinion, i said this because nyder keeps going on about stalin as if we all support him.

Again it is ignorance. Peoples ability to anaylise and critzise is something you learn nowadays. For people like nyder "what you see is what you get." People who have such a black and white attitude towards communism and anarchism have usually only seen what has been written in the history books.

Stalin is the face of communism, it dosnt matter how obsurd and contradictory it is to people who have a deeper understanding. people will always associate communism with Stalin, because that is what they are told, in to be fair, what they have seen. It is a fact of life i'm afraid, it is our mission to show them they are wrong :ph34r:
Hmmm, can't I say the same thing about you with respect to capitalism..........

Your deep understanding is clearly biased by Marx.

[The Feral Underclass]

No you can not say the same! What is it about capitalism I need to study and understand? What philosophy is there that requires years of studying? What theories and concepts does it over to explain the existance of humans or the development of history?...none! it is an economic-mangerial system that creates situations which are blaringly obvious!

I am sounding rather religous about Marxism, I apologise. Nonetheless my point still stands.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 3 2003, 09:15 PM
No you can not say the same! What is it about capitalism I need to study and understand? What philosophy is there that requires years of studying? What theories and concepts does it over to explain the existance of humans or the development of history?...none! it is an economic-mangerial system that creates situations which are blaringly obvious!

I am sounding rather religous about Marxism, I apologise. Nonetheless my point still stands.
Yeah, easy answer.

If capitalism is so easy to understand why then is it so that I see so many uninformed answers? Luckily there are some people who are less shortsighed, maybe you want to read something from a compagnion (http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=369)

[The Feral Underclass]

I will read it.

As for being uninformed are you going to deny what capitalism has done and is doing to this small planet. You can not deny the starvation, poverty, unfair destribution of wealth and labour, wars, greed, materialism because they are facts. Just as exploitation is. And you can not be short sighted about the truth!

[The Feral Underclass]

the link didnt work!

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 3 2003, 09:47 PM
I will read it.

As for being uninformed are you going to deny what capitalism has done and is doing to this small planet. You can not deny the starvation, poverty, unfair destribution of wealth and labour, wars, greed, materialism because they are facts. Just as exploitation is. And you can not be short sighted about the truth!
I have changed the link, it should work now.

I can say the same things for those who followed the ideas of Marx, so we wouldn't go anywhere.

[The Feral Underclass]

I am not defending marxism. I am saying that I do not need to read capitalism to see what it is...you on the other hand can not understand marxism based on what you have seen....you dont understand marxism. sorry. it's a fact.

If I do not know the ins and outs of capitalist practice I can agree. This does not stop me from seeing what it has done to the world, and what it continues to do to the people. Marx anaylized it well. And I happen to agree with this critzism.

[Hoppe]

Yes, but a lot written down by Marx was obsolete even before it was published.

You don't know if I don't understand it. That's the easy argument to people who don't agree with you or who are not absorbing your point of view without questioning.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I feel the need to add something, today i have seen nyder claim, in three different posts, that the australain and american governments are not capitalist. I assume he means that the government and the capitalists are different people (because even nyder sin't stupid enough to think the countries aren't capitalist). The governments in capitalist countries are capitalist, the reason societies are capitalist is because the government, who decide economic policies, are capitalist. Nyder, do you know what the function of governemnts are? They make the laws and since the laws are capitalist that would suggest to me that so are the governments, not to mention that the US goverment is made up of oil tycoons.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 10:26 PM
I feel the need to add something, today i have seen nyder claim, in three different posts, that the australain and american governments are not capitalist. I assume he means that the government and the capitalists are different people (because even nyder sin't stupid enough to think the countries aren't capitalist). The governments in capitalist countries are capitalist, the reason societies are capitalist is because the government, who decide economic policies, are capitalist. Nyder, do you know what the function of governemnts are? They make the laws and since the laws are capitalist that would suggest to me that so are the governments, not to mention that the US goverment is made up of oil tycoons.
What determines the degree of freedom in a country is the size and control of Governments. Countries like Australia and America have much less interventionist governments then countries like Cuba, North Korea and China. This is not to say they are totally free market. Australia and America still have high tax rates and make a lot of laws restricting certain aspects of free trade. As I have stated before, in Australia, the average person spends one third of their year working for the Government. This is hardly a 'true' capitalist situation, but I still refer to Australia as a capitalist society as opposed to the third world and communist nations.

Here is the article pointing out that the average worker pays a third of their money to the taxman: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0...5%255E2,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7861155%255E2,00.html)

The only laws needed for the free market to work are laws against force or fraud. A Government should only exist to protect an individuals right to private property and to provide a judiciary to solve contract disputes.

Governments, by their very nature, are not capitalist, as they are funded through collective force. Capitalist operates through voluntary exchange. So how can you say that government and capitalism are not distinguishable?

[The Feral Underclass]

You don't know if I don't understand it. That's the easy argument to people who don't agree with you or who are not absorbing your point of view without questioning.

You don't understand Marxism...basic marxist theory such as communism and socialism you do not understand. If you do not understand that I can conclude logically that you do not understand more advanced theories...


Yes, but a lot written down by Marx was obsolete even before it was published.

I also agree. Alot of what he wrote is now obsolete. But his theories on economics and historical materialism are still relevant. if you do not agree, please say why?

[Hoppe]

Which economic theories do you mean? That all value is created by labour (this was obsolete before it was written down) or that a planned economy is better than a capitalist system, which has been refuted as well as far as I know?

[The Feral Underclass]

what I mean by economics is the more philosophical and pyschological aspects of his theory...the theory of exploitation and alienation...These are not obsolete today. They are as relevant as they were back in 1848.

Can you also tell me where marx wrote about a planned economy?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 4 2003, 09:34 AM
what I mean by economics is the more philosophical and pyschological aspects of his theory...the theory of exploitation and alienation...These are not obsolete today. They are as relevant as they were back in 1848.

Can you also tell me where marx wrote about a planned economy?
But if the labour theory doesn't hold, then there is no way you can say that there is exploitation.

Well, in the beginning of last century a economist asked the basic question how an economy which is not based on private property of the means of production is going to work. This was a bit of a blow for the movement since no one had actually thought about this thoroughly. As far as I am aware they were exposed as frauds.

[The Feral Underclass]

But if the labour theory doesn't hold, then there is no way you can say that there is exploitation.

I have given a describtion of exploitation. If you do not agree with my definition then please say why?

As for Marx and planned economics. Marx hardly ever talked about what would come next. he did talk about a dictatship of the proletariat and the two stages but nothing concrete. it was Lenin who extended this and put it into practice. He never spoke about a planned economy.

[Hoppe]

We're arguing in circles, the labour theory of value is false. If value is not created by labour but by something else, then you cannot speak about exploitation.

[The Feral Underclass]

If you have a factory that makes shoes and you have all the material and machienary what will you do then...you will need someone to make them...so you employ me, who makes your shoes for you to then sell. You make millions and millions and I make £280. What is there not to understand?

[Hoppe]

If I forced you to make shoes for me I would exploit you, this is not exploitation. If value is created by and only by labour, how come diamonds have value, which are a natural resource? And why do diamonds more value than say, a bananaleaf, which is also created by nature?

Nyder has also brought forward another argument, which is that employees might actually favour the steady income from wages over an insecure future profit (which can also be a loss, and they would have nothing). This is not exploitation either.

The labour theory is flawed and you should abandon it as soon as possible.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 04:32 PM
If I forced you to make shoes for me I would exploit you, this is not exploitation. If value is created by and only by labour, how come diamonds have value, which are a natural resource? And why do diamonds more value than say, a bananaleaf, which is also created by nature?

This proves what AT was saying about your lack of knowledge of marxism.

Marx specifically mentioned diomonds in the first volume of Das Kapital, ill try to sum up what he said but its been a while since i read it so excuse me if i get it wrong.

Diomond aquire their value because it requires labour to obtain them, although they dont need to be produced it takes labour to locate them and to mine them. The reason they are so valuable is because it takes so much labour to find and dig up just one diamond, when examined in comparison to you example of the banaleaf it quit obvious why diamonds are more valuable; To get diamons you fist have to analyse geological data, and be lucky, to know where to dig a mine and then many people have to work in the mine to find only a small number of diamonds whereas you can just pick a bananaleaf.

[Hoppe]

This doesn't prove anything except your pathetic ignorance. Let's put this diamond into a simple calculation by David Ricardo, you might have heard of him:

Suppose I employ twenty men at an expense of 1000 pounds for a year in the production of a commodity, and at the end of the year I employ twenty men again for another year, at a further expense of 1000 pounds in finishing or perfecting the same commodity, and that I bring it to market at the end of two years, if profits be 10 per cent., my commodity must sell for 2,310 pounds.; for I have employed 1000 pounds capital for one year, and 2,100 pounds capital for one year more. Another man employs precisely the same quantity of labour, but he employs it all in the first year; he employs forty men at an expense of 2000 pounds, and at the end of the first year he sells it with 10 per cent. profit, or for 2,200 pounds. Here then are two commodities having precisely the same quantity of labour bestowed on them, one of which sells for 2,310 pounds--the other for 2,200 pounds.

You also seem to miss the point that diamond is made by nature, not like a car which has been put together by workers. And why is a diamond more valuable than a ruby or jade or a pearl?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 07:27 PM
This doesn't prove anything except your pathetic ignorance. Let's put this diamond into a simple calculation by David Ricardo, you might have heard of him:

Suppose I employ twenty men at an expense of 1000 pounds for a year in the production of a commodity, and at the end of the year I employ twenty men again for another year, at a further expense of 1000 pounds in finishing or perfecting the same commodity, and that I bring it to market at the end of two years, if profits be 10 per cent., my commodity must sell for 2,310 pounds.; for I have employed 1000 pounds capital for one year, and 2,100 pounds capital for one year more. Another man employs precisely the same quantity of labour, but he employs it all in the first year; he employs forty men at an expense of 2000 pounds, and at the end of the first year he sells it with 10 per cent. profit, or for 2,200 pounds. Here then are two commodities having precisely the same quantity of labour bestowed on them, one of which sells for 2,310 pounds--the other for 2,200 pounds.

You also seem to miss the point that diamond is made by nature, not like a car which has been put together by workers. And why is a diamond more valuable than a ruby or jade or a pearl?
but the first commodity is only worth 2,200 ponds as well because it the social value of a commidity which determines its price, something which was a fundemental part of marx's theroy, if you actualy read das kapital your little example would be proven irrelivent in the first few pages. Since it is possible for the society in your exapmle to produce that commodity for 2,200 pounds then that is its value, the guy who produced it at a greater cost was inefficient and so his commodity is not worth 2,310 but 2,200, i could waste million of pounds making a chair but this doesn't increase its value by millions of punds because i was just inefficient.

Just because a diamond is natural doesn't mean there aren't costs in getting it, i have to mine it and cut it ect. The reason diamond is worth more than your other examples is because it costs more to obtain. (which i have already explained)

[Hoppe]

So that's why I asked you if I happen to find a diamond in a mine does it not have value? Is it only valuable if I bring it to a workers collective who cuts it?

[Misodoctakleidist]

whats with the 'workers collecitve' comment?

i could make little sense of your last post but if u were asking why a diamond you found was valuable then its because the chances of finding a diamond are so low, if you went round looking for diamonds you would spend many hours 'working' before you found one but the value of the diamond would be less than the average time it would take someone to find a diamond because just looking for one is not the most efficient method.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 10:39 AM
Which income? I thought you'd abolish money. Possibly some people will do it but will they do it for an infinite amount of time. This is a huge assumption. If these people would benefit (in a material, or monetary sense) this would be a clear example of a free market solution. In all the other cases it is merely coercion.


It depends on the shape the society takes. Some socialists believe in money, some don't. But most seem to want abolishing it, and even if there wasnt money people would get small benefits like getting hard to get things faster. But that depends on the whole shape of the society, something too long to describe here.


And with luck..........that's wishfull thinking isn't?

Well it's not easy to predict future inventions, that's what I meant.


I am part of a society now as well. If I somehow, mentally unstable, decided to do dangerous work that would benefit society, it would not necessarily benefit me. A capitalist society would pay me a riskpremium. Again you have an incentive problem.

I wonder why there should always be economical incentives.

[eyedrop]

If everyone earns the same amount then no one will have the incentive to achieve above everyone else in communism. Why would I want to study 10 years to be doctor when I could just be a street sweeper for the same wage?

I would not benefit under communism, as I know that however hard I try and achieve I will always be at the same level as everyone else I might as well not even bother.


Do you really believe that any work is done for the money alone, (if not in danger of starvation)
I think it seems much more likely that the work is done, indirectly, to obtain social status. (some are made to live in luxury, but that is more based on social status, in my world view)
Money is also used to obtain time saving devices, but the time saved would be equaled by the short working time in an communism society.

[The Feral Underclass]

Misodoctakleidist

It makes perfect sense...

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 10:13 PM
whats with the 'workers collecitve' comment?

i could make little sense of your last post but if u were asking why a diamond you found was valuable then its because the chances of finding a diamond are so low, if you went round looking for diamonds you would spend many hours 'working' before you found one but the value of the diamond would be less than the average time it would take someone to find a diamond because just looking for one is not the most efficient method.
Well, an Ltd is also ok.

The chances of finding other things are also low. But I understand that if I happen to find one that the value of the stone would be equal to the labourvalue if the stone had to be found and cut? <_<

Gold and iron can be easily found in nature but the first is more valuable than the other. Yet gold will be primarily used in jewelry and the other more for social benefit like building factories, wrenches etc. How can this be explained?

[opie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 10:02 PM
So that&#39;s why I asked you if I happen to find a diamond in a mine does it not have value? Is it only valuable if I bring it to a workers collective who cuts it?
Actually diamonds are worth little, Debeer ( Owner of 99% of all the diamonds on the world) only distributed very little diamonds into the market so they stay expensive. And if all the diamonds flooded into the market they wouldn&#39;t be worth much

Side not: debeer paid Hollywood to show that rich people used diamond jewelry because before it was only used in industry
industry

[dancingoutlaw]

A product is worth what the least interested party is willing to pay for it. For myself diamonds are worthless. I have no interest in purchasing such a thing and therefore find no value in it. A cheeseburger holds more value to me.

The problem with labor value theory is that the price of the product must be known before it goes to market to avoid any exploitation of labor. This is impossible since so many other factors come to bear once the product goes in the public view. The only way that labor value would work is if the entire economy rotated around this theory with strong government controls on every aspect of production of everything. This is like having the state as your mom, dad, and boss. This might appeal to some of you but I am sure the anarchists out there don&#39;t like it.

Also where labor value theory falls short is in the pricing of intangibles. How do you value a painting? It is certainly worth more than the sum of its parts. Is a good song worth more than the representation of it on paper?

peace