Hank Morgan

[BuyOurEverything]

Hank Morgan, I have to inquire about number 3 in your signature. You say no person has the right to the fruits of another's labour. Does that mean that you oppose the appropriation of the proletariat's labour by the owners of the means of production?

[HankMorgan]

Sorry it took me so long to reply, BOE. Che-live$ wasn't working last night. Does the "$" look as funny to you in che-lives (long may it prosper) as is it does to me in "U$"?

I don't think anyone's labor should be appropriated. No way should the proletariat's labor be appropriated by the owner of the means of production. I think the proletariat should be paid what the market says their labor is worth. It would be wrong to be paid anything less.

My guess is we agree that no one should have their property extorted away or stolen.

That being said let's go down your road a little and see where we end up.

Suppose the owner of the widget manufacturing plant reads a few posts on che-lives and sees the light. The owner takes the vast millions he is receiving, divides it equally amongst all the workers and himself. Now all the workers are being paid considerably more than the going rate for widget makers.

The next day there is line of people standing outside the widget plant. All of the people are skilled widget makers and they're all ready and willing to make excellent widgets but at a rate of pay less than the widget makers inside the factory.

Now we from where we stand we can see some interesting things.

First off, who should have the widget making job? The current widget makers or someone in line who'll do it for less? How does the communist system determine who should have the job?

As we can see from the example there is an incentive to get the most widget making bang for the buck. Is this why capitalism seems to prosper where other systems just get by?

What if the widget makers standing in line are willing to make widgets for very very little money. Maybe they'd be glad to have the job for a bare subsistance wage. Is it exploitation to give them what they want? Remember they're willing to do it for less.

Probably we only disagree on what to do when the value of a day's labor is extremely low. I say give incentive to the people who make widget factories. Then the owners of the factories have to compete for workers which drives up the value of a day's labor. You say require the people who make widget factories to pay widget makers more. That makes the line outside the factory longer and provides discouragement to anyone who wants to open a widget factory.

[revolutionindia]

I enjoy the fruits of trees planted by other men who
in all probability never lived long enough to eat the fruits
of the trees planted by them.

I enjoy these fruits because of someone's labour .

there's a saying

Do the work never worry about the fruits of your labour.

I would not mind if my labour benefited someone else
because I have enjoyed the benefit of someone else's labour.

[HankMorgan]

revolutionindia, I like your style.

I too enjoy the fruits of other peoples' labor which I obtained access to by way of the free exchange of property. It's through their efforts that I'm able to view what you wrote via the internet.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I partly agree with you.

I too don't like to see that someone enriches on my labour. But surely you don't mind that someone who can't take care of himself uses some "fruits of your labour".

[Osman Ghazi]

The Capitalist Mantra: 'No one has the right to the fruits of anyone else's labour, except the owner to the worker's, of course'

[lucid]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 3 2004, 12:28 AM
The Capitalist Mantra: 'No one has the right to the fruits of anyone else's labour, except the owner to the worker's, of course'
It's illegal to "own" people in the United States. I think you meant to say employed. Lets take your computer for example. It is not a chair, or some other easy to manufacture item. It is extremely complicated and required a lot of different people with different skills.

If you look at the entire PC manufacturing process it would range from engineers that actually design the chips and boards to the people that pack the PC's into boxes and ship them out. You also have people that write the software and the people at the helpdesk that support the software. Hopefully you get the point.

I think it's safe to say that the people that the engineers and software programmers have more education than the people that box the items. These people took significant time out of their life to get an education. While they where burning the midnight oil studying the other group was probably hanging out with friends, smoking dope, or whatever. They where doing other things with their time other than getting an education.

This is where we really start butting heads. It seems that you think the software engineers are greedy bastards because they make six figures and drive a BMW and they exploit the people supporting the product at the helpdesk. I look at it and say the helpdesk should be happy that someone put the time in to make the product or they wouldn't have a job. Same thing goes with the engineer that designs the hardware. If that person didn't spend ten years of his life geeking out in his basement the helpdesk wouldn't need any people.

How can you justify taking away the rewards for the people that actually put the time in to develop the product? Why should someone be rewarded for being not being their best?

[Shredder]

I agree that the software engineer is worth more than the packager, unlike the status quo ultra-left infants on this board. To each according to his ability, I say.

But what I'm against is those who 'own' for a living.

A stock trader buys a stock low and sells it high. But his action of buying and selling of a share of stock did not directly effect the price(in any measurable increment). Whose 'labor' is his profit the 'fruit' of? It certainly isn't his own. His buying and selling did not create anything new. He takes advantage of price changes caused by totally independent sources. Granted, capitalism couldn't do without investment capital, but society could, and it would be in the mutual interest (not altruism) of the workers to squash those who own for a living and squash them when they try to sprout up again.

[synthesis]

I think it's safe to say that the people that the engineers and software programmers have more education than the people that box the items. These people took significant time out of their life to get an education. While they where burning the midnight oil studying the other group was probably hanging out with friends, smoking dope, or whatever. They where doing other things with their time other than getting an education.

That - or perhaps the manual laborers simply could not afford an education. Suppose they had to support their family by working two jobs at minimum wage. Oh, wait, this is America, poor people must deserve their lot :rolleyes:

Trust me, if I could have afforded college, I would have partaken.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 01:47 AM
That - or perhaps the manual laborers simply could not afford an education. Suppose they had to support their family by working two jobs at minimum wage. Oh, wait, this is America, poor people must deserve their lot :rolleyes:

Trust me, if I could have afforded college, I would have partaken.
In the US there are tons of programs to help people with college. I don't know what you have heard but anyone that says otherwise is a lier. If you have a low income you can get grants and loans to cover college. If you are a minority there is even more available for you. My wife went back to school when she was 30. She moved back in with family and worked a part time job just to get benefits for her and her kids. She was able to get enough grants to pay for all of her schooling with money left over.

There are opportunities in this country for people that truly want to make their life better. It seems like some people just don't mind being at the bottom and living off of others. Why is that the fault of a successful person? Where is the line drawn to differentiate people that want to do better but are having a hard time and people that truly just don't give a shit?

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 01:22 AM
I agree that the software engineer is worth more than the packager, unlike the status quo ultra-left infants on this board. To each according to his ability, I say.

But what I'm against is those who 'own' for a living.

A stock trader buys a stock low and sells it high. But his action of buying and selling of a share of stock did not directly effect the price(in any measurable increment). Whose 'labor' is his profit the 'fruit' of? It certainly isn't his own. His buying and selling did not create anything new. He takes advantage of price changes caused by totally independent sources. Granted, capitalism couldn't do without investment capital, but society could, and it would be in the mutual interest (not altruism) of the workers to squash those who own for a living and squash them when they try to sprout up again.
How would new companies be started if you "squashed" the entrepreneur when they tried to start something on their own?

If you took a bunch of low level employees from a certain company do you really think they could get together and make a successful company?

[synthesis]

In the US there are tons of programs to help people with college. I don't know what you have heard but anyone that says otherwise is a lier. If you have a low income you can get grants and loans to cover college.

Do you really think that tuition money is the only barrier keeping people from a 'higher education'?


Where is the line drawn to differentiate people that want to do better but are having a hard time and people that truly just don't give a shit?

It's simple. The line is drawn when it is guaranteed that anyone who wants a job can get one. That's central to socialism.


How would new companies be started if you "squashed" the entrepreneur when they tried to start something on their own?

New means of production would be created by collective decisions, i.e., by necessity. This is the meaning of "economic democracy", again, socialism.

[Shredder]

All industries will be cooperating and planning together in order to mutually help themselves. They hold the demands and control the supply. In the same methods that they run the current economy, they can create new businesses if they want to. The beauty is this: instead of entrepreneurs creating new products or services in exchange for cash, people cooperating to create new products and services for nothing more than the new products and services themselves.

[Osman Ghazi]

Originally posted by lucid+May 3 2004, 01:01 AM--> (lucid @ May 3 2004, 01:01 AM)
Osman [email protected] 3 2004, 12:28 AM
The Capitalist Mantra: 'No one has the right to the fruits of anyone else's labour, except the owner to the worker's, of course'
It's illegal to "own" people in the United States. I think you meant to say employed. Lets take your computer for example. It is not a chair, or some other easy to manufacture item. It is extremely complicated and required a lot of different people with different skills.

If you look at the entire PC manufacturing process it would range from engineers that actually design the chips and boards to the people that pack the PC's into boxes and ship them out. You also have people that write the software and the people at the helpdesk that support the software. Hopefully you get the point.

I think it's safe to say that the people that the engineers and software programmers have more education than the people that box the items. These people took significant time out of their life to get an education. While they where burning the midnight oil studying the other group was probably hanging out with friends, smoking dope, or whatever. They where doing other things with their time other than getting an education.

This is where we really start butting heads. It seems that you think the software engineers are greedy s because they make six figures and drive a BMW and they exploit the people supporting the product at the helpdesk. I look at it and say the helpdesk should be happy that someone put the time in to make the product or they wouldn't have a job. Same thing goes with the engineer that designs the hardware. If that person didn't spend ten years of his life geeking out in his basement the helpdesk wouldn't need any people.

How can you justify taking away the rewards for the people that actually put the time in to develop the product? Why should someone be rewarded for being not being their best? [/b]
Lucid, you completely missed my point, although i do appreciate the fact that you actually made an intelligent response instead of what has become your usual blahblahblah.

I wasn't talking about owning people nor was i incriminating people who get job training. What I was saying was that if a person owns a business (the owner) and does no work, but gets money because he has paid someone (a worker) to work for him, he is taking the fruits of that worker's labours.
I mean, it is a relatively simple concept: the worker works and gets some money, the owner doesn't work and gets some money. Where did the money come from if not from the work of the worker?

[lucid]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 3 2004, 02:36 PM
Lucid, you completely missed my point, although i do appreciate the fact that you actually made an intelligent response instead of what has become your usual blahblahblah.

I wasn't talking about owning people nor was i incriminating people who get job training. What I was saying was that if a person owns a business (the owner) and does no work, but gets money because he has paid someone (a worker) to work for him, he is taking the fruits of that worker's labours.
I mean, it is a relatively simple concept: the worker works and gets some money, the owner doesn't work and gets some money. Where did the money come from if not from the work of the worker?
I know several small business owners that employ a few people and the owners work very hard. I know one guy that started a computer company and he employs several college kids at seven bucks an hour. He easily works 80 hours a week and his employees really like working with him. He has taught them a lot of stuff about PC's. For everyone fortune 500 enterprise there are probably 100 small business's that employ people. Are they just as evil or are you just against large enterprises?

[antieverything]

Wow, Hank...remember when we had this discussion something like a year ago?

[Osman Ghazi]

True, there are many business owners that work hard. And it's just as true that there are more small businesses than large ones. However, it is the large ones that employ the most people, not small ones. And in every corporation, you see the same effect; the workers work, the owners do nothing and take the most.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 3 2004, 07:10 PM
True, there are many business owners that work hard. And it's just as true that there are more small businesses than large ones. However, it is the large ones that employ the most people, not small ones. And in every corporation, you see the same effect; the workers work, the owners do nothing and take the most.
Check your statistics. Most people are employed by small companies in the US. And from the larger ones only a small percentage is listed.

[Osman Ghazi]

Really? Do you have any statistics for this?

[DaCuBaN]

How can you justify taking away the rewards for the people that actually put the time in to develop the product? Why should someone be rewarded for...not being their best?

It's a matter of outlook. Why should you, no matter how hard you work, keep all the benefits yourself like a miserly scrooge? Surely you want to share these things with family and freinds?

The difference between capitalism and socialism (in my mind) is most important in it's psychological guise - the dividing line you create in your mind between those that recquire you're 'protection' and those who do not.

It's not about selfishness - it's about self-righteousness.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 01:22 AM
I agree that the software engineer is worth more than the packager, unlike the status quo ultra-left infants on this board. To each according to his ability, I say.

But what I'm against is those who 'own' for a living.

A stock trader buys a stock low and sells it high. But his action of buying and selling of a share of stock did not directly effect the price(in any measurable increment). Whose 'labor' is his profit the 'fruit' of? It certainly isn't his own. His buying and selling did not create anything new. He takes advantage of price changes caused by totally independent sources. Granted, capitalism couldn't do without investment capital, but society could, and it would be in the mutual interest (not altruism) of the workers to squash those who own for a living and squash them when they try to sprout up again.
But the investor is pummping $$$ into the market place at substantial risk. Stock traders lose money as easily as they make it. Investment markets are a necessary function of a strong economy, as they allow financial resources to be available across all enterprises and commodities. Thus, the investor puts money into widgets. INC, but only does well if the company does well. The factory worker at Widgets, Inc. gets a salary no matter how well the company does (layoffs not withstanding).

Thus, the risk taken by a stock trader is much higher than the risk taken by a widget line-worker on a salary. The capitalist system has many elements of "risk/reward" opportunirtes, but it is a choice whether you want to take the risk or not.

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2004, 01:30 AM
But the investor is pummping $$$ into the market place at substantial risk. Stock traders lose money as easily as they make it. Investment markets are a necessary function of a strong economy, as they allow financial resources to be available across all enterprises and commodities. Thus, the investor puts money into widgets. INC, but only does well if the company does well. The factory worker at Widgets, Inc. gets a salary no matter how well the company does (layoffs not withstanding).

Thus, the risk taken by a stock trader is much higher than the risk taken by a widget line-worker on a salary. The capitalist system has many elements of "risk/reward" opportunirtes, but it is a choice whether you want to take the risk or not.
The point is that these people do not do any work at all... they're simply gambling (something that many consider to be a pass-time, and hence fun)
The whole system is geared so the rich get richer. I can't understand why any reasonable person could advocate it.

The arguments for rewarding the hard-working carry at least some weight, but what right should someone who has (for example) inherited a fortune have to that money? they did not work for it, and hence do not deserve it by this reasoning - they 'have' because of their blood. There's no equality there.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:52 PM
Wow, Hank...remember when we had this discussion something like a year ago?
Yep