Do Capitalists Have Superior Bargaining Power?

[Freedom Works]

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1602

[Latifa]

Wow, what crap.

Frankly whether or not this claim that capitalists have superior bargaining power depends on one thing - whether or not the capitalist pays a fair wage in proportion to their labour value.

Does that EVER happen?

[Freedom Works]

Always - or else the worker will change jobs.

[Andy Bowden]

What if the worker has little other choice in jobs?

[Freedom Works]

When has the exception started defining what the rule is?

[Publius]

If the proportion of captialists to workers were changed, say, 1,000,000 capitalists in search of just a few workers, would the morality of capitalism be changed to where capitalists were the ones in need of help?

And yes I understand that this proportion is illogical, but I'm asking a theoretical and philosophical question.

In this case it's the proleteriat who rules the bourgeiousie; who's side does communism take up?

If it takes the side of the bourgeosie it loses all credibility as a force for helping the proletariat, if communism, in this situation, supports the proleteriat, it loses any argument it may have for compassion, as the capitalists will surely be disadvantaged in this deal.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:33 PM
If the proportion of captialists to workers were changed, say, 1,000,000 capitalists in search of just a few workers, would the morality of capitalism be changed to where capitalists were the ones in need of help?

And yes I understand that this proportion is illogical, but I'm asking a theoretical and philosophical question.

In this case it's the proleteriat who rules the bourgeiousie; who's side does communism take up?

If it takes the side of the bourgeosie it loses all credibility as a force for helping the proletariat, if communism, in this situation, supports the proleteriat, it loses any argument it may have for compassion, as the capitalists will surely be disadvantaged in this deal.
the other capitalists would have no workers, their buisnesses would fail, making them workers. then there are more workers making the proletarians loose control in this situation. ;)

[LSD]

In this case it's the proleteriat who rules the bourgeiousie; who's side does communism take up?

Communism supports the proletariat because its exploited, not because it's the proletariat.

In ancient Rome, we would have supported the slaves; in feudal France, we would have supported the middle class.

Communism is the liberation movement that is appropriate for contemporary class relationships. It cannot exist under any other. There were no "communists" in Hellenistic Greece or in Carolingian Europe, there couldn't be. The class dynamics were not such to create nor foster such an ideological movement.

Likewise, in the hypothetical that you present, there would be no place for a communist movement. Ignoring the fact that the environment you describe could never emerge under capitalism, in that situation, "communism" would not exist.

Basically, your question is inane. It's like asking what side the American Abolitionists would take if then slave relationships were inverted -- if suddenly it was the whites who were enslaved. By your logic, they could not side with either. If they sided with the black slave owners they'd lose their "moral compassion", if they sided with the white slaves they'd lose their "credibility".

Do you see how pointless this is? A black-rights movement wouldn't exist in a world in which blacks were not exploited. Likewise, a proletarian-rights movement would not exist in a world win which the proletariat was not exploited.

Liberation movements only emerge when there is a need for liberation. Honestly, doesn't that go without saying?

[Freedom Works]

because its exploited
Prove it.


A black-rights movement wouldn't exist in a world in which blacks were not exploited. Likewise, a proletarian-rights movement would not exist in a world win which the proletariat was not exploited.
God must exist then - there is a movement!

[KC]

Prove it.

Marx already has.



God must exist then - there is a movement!

Comparing the civil rights movement to the existance of god because people believe it? What's wrong with you? The civil rights movement existed because people wanted rights. The "religious movement" you speak of exists because people believe something. Just because people believe something doesn't make it so. But if enough people want something bad enough then it will happen. Can't you come up with better arguments than these?

[Freedom Works]

Marx already has.
Marx is wrong. Prove it in your own words.


Comparing the civil rights movement to the existance of god because people believe it?
Workers don't have special rights. Humans have rights.


What's wrong with you?
I value rationality over emotion.


But if enough people want something bad enough then it will happen.
Interesting way to put 'might makes right'.

[Andy Bowden]

When has the exception started defining what the rule is?

Its not the exception. Most workers in the world come from the Third World, and have little other choice.

[Freedom Works]

Most workers in the world come from the Third World, and have little other choice.
Because the "government" steals their money and artifically raises the price of running a business.

[KC]

Because the "government" is controlled by the corporations.

[Freedom Works]

Stop spamming; make a point or don't make absurd assertions (esp. ones previously made!).

In what ways is the "government" controlled?

[KC]

1. Big business donates money to a politician's campaign in return for supporting whatever agenda that business has in mind
2. Politicians own businesses so they use government to their financial advantage.

[quincunx5]

1. Big business donates money to a politician's campaign in return for supporting whatever agenda that business has in mind
2. Politicians own businesses so they use government to their financial advantage.


Aside from the fact that you've been told countless number of times that the government came first, you are seriously lacking in facts.

There has never been a politician whose major (>50%) support came from big business.

Some of these "big businesses" were Labor Unions, large non-profit organizations, and small-business alliances. However most politican support came from plain people.

Governments don't produce goods and services. They have to go to the market place. They pick a firms arbitrarily and try to keep them around. An incestuous relationship is formed.

[KC]

Aside from the fact that you've been told countless number of times that the government came first, you are seriously lacking in facts.

Aside from the fact that you've been told countless number of times that it doesn't matter what came first, you are seriously lacking in factual support.

[Publius]

the other capitalists would have no workers, their buisnesses would fail, making them workers. then there are more workers making the proletarians loose control in this situation. ;)

I'm aware of the practical limitations of the scenario.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 10:46 PM




Communism supports the proletariat because its exploited, not because it's the proletariat.

So then the question becomes how exploited are they really?



Communism is the liberation movement that is appropriate for contemporary class relationships. It cannot exist under any other. There were no "communists" in Hellenistic Greece or in Carolingian Europe, there couldn't be. The class dynamics were not such to create nor foster such an ideological movement.

Likewise, in the hypothetical that you present, there would be no place for a communist movement. Ignoring the fact that the environment you describe could never emerge under capitalism, in that situation, "communism" would not exist.

But isn't the worker STILL being 'exploited'?

He isn't getting the full product of his labor.



Basically, your question is inane. It's like asking what side the American Abolitionists would take if then slave relationships were inverted -- if suddenly it was the whites who were enslaved. By your logic, they could not side with either. If they sided with the black slave owners they'd lose their "moral compassion", if they sided with the white slaves they'd lose their "credibility".

No, because the abolitionists didn't have the hokey metaphysics of dialectics and the necessity of the class struggle for proleterian revolution as baggage.

The reason communists lose their credibility in the hypothetical (And abolitionists wouldn't) is because how communists frame the debate.

According to Marx, the worker would still be getting 'exploited', wheras if anything similar happend to the black slaves, the abolitionists would declare it a victory for freedom.

Marxists wouldn't.



Do you see how pointless this is? A black-rights movement wouldn't exist in a world in which blacks were not exploited. Likewise, a proletarian-rights movement would not exist in a world win which the proletariat was not exploited.

Liberation movements only emerge when there is a need for liberation. Honestly, doesn't that go without saying?

Why doesn't that person need liberated?

A portion of his labor is being stolen by the capitalist as profit.

I thought that was the problem you guys had with capitalism?

[red_orchestra]

Freedom Works:

You claim that the working class is not exploited by buisness, but by Government. In fact both groups are effecting the life conditions of the working class people...its pretty obvious. In order for the working class to represented correctly one must have a Government which reduces social inequalities and promotes workers rights. Big buisness must also be regulated or it will become a tyranic entity, this much has been proven time and time again.

[quincunx5]

Aside from the fact that you've been told countless number of times that it doesn't matter what came first, you are seriously lacking in factual support.


Where is your sturdy intellectual leg to stand on?

Tell me why history does not matter?

[Freedom Works]

You claim that the working class is not exploited by buisness, but by Government.
Never directly, but the labor of the worker IS being stolen by "government", in the form of taxes. Profit however is NOT stolen, because the worker needs the capitalist, as well as the capitalist needing the worker. Labor without capital to labor upon is useless.


In order for the working class to represented correctly one must have a Government which reduces social inequalities and promotes workers rights.
The workers can represent themself. The capitalists can represent themself as well. Workers don't have special rights. Social inequalities are irrelanvant. I desire equality of rights, not equality of results, and so you should.


Big buisness must also be regulated or it will become a tyranic entity, this much has been proven time and time again.
What history have YOU been studying?!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Never directly, but the labor of the worker IS being stolen by "government", in the form of taxes. Profit however is NOT stolen, because the worker needs the capitalist, as well as the capitalist needing the worker. Labor without capital to labor upon is useless.Workers don't need capitalists in order to produce, they need capitalists in capitalism in order to make a wage to survive. Now let's look at historical examples of your claims:

1. Capitalists need the workers: well you can look at any effective strike and see that this is true. The Capitalist must hire scabs in a strike or production stops.

2. Workers need capitalists: well if you look at the Paris commune, you have to say that this is not the case. Workers were able to organize at a grassroots level and get things done to a certain extent. So, in truth, workers need factories and land and the means of production (as do capitalists) but they don't need capitalists in order to produce things.



In order for the working class to represented correctly one must have a Government which reduces social inequalities and promotes workers rights.
The workers can represent themself. The capitalists can represent themself as well. Workers don't have special rights. Social inequalities are irrelanvant. I desire equality of rights, not equality of results, and so you should.Rights are what you fight for. If worker's and bosses actually engaged in contracts of "mutual consent" then workers would want a piece of the business for investing their labor just as "investors" (of capital) demand a piece of the business for investing capital. Can you imagine any investor recieving a wage in return for a capital investment? They wouldn't stand for that kind of contract, the difference for workers is we have no capital and must take what we are offered or we can't survive.

If everyone had a home and food, then workers could afford to be more picky and dictate the terms of their labor, but that is not what life in capitalism is like. Capitalists can sit on their money and not starve, workers have to sell their labor to someone or they will starve, no mutual contract can be arranged with these conditions, it's like saying a carjacking is a mutual arrangement becauce the person being jacked has the option to not give up his car just like the man with a gun has the option to not shoot him.



Big buisness must also be regulated or it will become a tyranic entity, this much has been proven time and time again.
What history have YOU been studying?!Oh I don't know the one which includes the industrial revolution. Really, there was little government intervention during the victorian era and children were either working in factories or stealing or prostituting themselves on the street. These horrible conditions actually lead to reformist organizations which petitioned the government to do something about the horrible conditions brought on by industry.

[KC]

Tell me why history does not matter?

Because the form of government has changed. It does not matter which has come first, it only matters what the relationship is like now.

[quincunx5]

Because the form of government has changed. It does not matter which has come first, it only matters what the relationship is like now.


Not true at all. There has never been a time when government didn't need to buy goods and services from the market.

Think about it. Do you think governments manufactured paper on which laws were written? Did they manufacture the pens? NO. The government like all people need the market.



2. Workers need capitalists: well if you look at the Paris commune, you have to say that this is not the case. Workers were able to organize at a grassroots level and get things done to a certain extent. So, in truth, workers need factories and land and the means of production (as do capitalists) but they don't need capitalists in order to produce things.


They don't need captalists, if they choose to be them. Workers and Capitalists are mostly the same people.



Rights are what you fight for. If worker's and bosses actually engaged in contracts of "mutual consent" then workers would want a piece of the business for investing their labor just as "investors" (of capital) demand a piece of the business for investing capital. Can you imagine any investor recieving a wage in return for a capital investment? They wouldn't stand for that kind of contract, the difference for workers is we have no capital and must take what we are offered or we can't survive.


Workers can invest their money in another company. Sometimes they can invest in their own. Some of the biggest capitalists in history started off doing exactly that.



Capitalists can sit on their money and not starve, workers have to sell their labor to someone or they will starve


Capitalists can sit on their money once they have that money. Most capitalists had to work for it, therefore they can do as they please.

The worker can work for themselves. They can also become mostly capitalists later in their life.

That is what indeed happens in a mostly free society.



it's like saying a carjacking is a mutual arrangement becauce the person being jacked has the option to not give up his car just like the man with a gun has the option to not shoot him.


Capitalists are not wealth stealers. They are wealth creators.
The government is a wealth confiscator.



Oh I don't know the one which includes the industrial revolution. Really, there was little government intervention during the victorian era and children were either working in factories or stealing or prostituting themselves on the street.


And what were these children doing before that?

Most of the working children were supported by their parents. It was their attempt to prosper their family by having everyone in it work. Those who were working were not stealing and were not prostituing themselves in the street. They were doing those things prior to working.



These horrible conditions actually lead to reformist organizations which petitioned the government to do something about the horrible conditions brought on by industry.


And this relieved everything, right?

Take a closer look at why the reformist organizations wanted to remove children from the work place. It wasn't because child labour was 'horrible', even though that was their phony banner. Their actions were purely for their own benefit.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 2 2005, 08:53 AM

Marx already has.
Marx is wrong. Prove it in your own words.

[/quote]
Too lazy to read Marx on your own?

Considering that you are a Randite subjectivist, I consider your arguments completely devoid of credibility. Even amongst the majority of pro-capitalists, people as yourself are viewed as lunatics. :rolleyes:

[Freedom Works]

Too lazy to read Marx on your own?
Too lazy to prove it in your own words?

[Forward Union]

I don't think he's lazy mate, it's just that, im fairly sure you'll agree that whatever he replys with, it won't change your mind.

The proletariat is exploited, and if you have rejected such a blatant fact then he has no reason to suspect you will actually appreciate his post. It's quite acceptable to debate these ideas, but when you outright reject fact it gets a bit pathetic.

[enigma2517]

I have a better idea.

Since you are the challenger, please give us your critique of Marx and how he was wrong.

Is his conception of history incorrect?

His interpretation of it?

What parts?

Of course, I agree with the above poster and assume you probably haven't even touched a page of it but if you have some points to debate please bring them up.

[KC]

Too lazy to prove it in your own words?

Why should he? If Marx spent a considerable portion of his life proving so, he couldn't nearly do a better job in one post than Marx did in one lifetime. You will get a better answer from Marx, so why not read Marx?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:41 PM


Marx already has.
Marx is wrong. Prove it in your own words.


Too lazy to read Marx on your own?

Considering that you are a Randite subjectivist, I consider your arguments completely devoid of credibility. Even amongst the majority of pro-capitalists, people as yourself are viewed as lunatics. :rolleyes: [/quote]
Man thoes randites are annoying! I have tried to have real debated with them, but then they tell me that my opinions are lies! Someone's beliefs or opinion could be correct or incorrect, but an opinion can not be a lie! It's like I tell them I believe in democracy, and they reply that I actually hate it and want totalitarianism. I tell them I'm not a stalinist and they reply that it's a lie and I actually worship stalin.

It's like: 'A' is 'A' unless 'A' has an opinion different than yours, in that case 'A' is actually 'B' pretending to be 'A'.

They call themselves objectivists and yet they get a big portion of their philosophy from a science-fiction novel! They call themselves objectivists and yet Ayn Rand said in congressional hearings that a movies was communist propaganda because it showed Russians smiling and Russians never actually smile!? I mean the movie (if I remember correctly from reading about this) was actually pro-russian US propaganda from WWII, but her "objective" proof that it was USSR propaganda was that it showed smiling russians? Objectivly I think you'd have to admit that Russians under Stalin or Tzar or whatever have the capacity to smile and have done it from time to time.

After the revolution, Objectivists should be given their own newspaper to be given out free and displayed for peoples' entertainment right next to the national enquirer: "The collectivist lies of Bat-boy - page 8".