A few suggestions please

[Zingu]

I've been going on and off with this Liberatarian I know, I was talking to him about Crisis Theory, and I recently got this responce, I already know some rebuttals I can talk about, but I need some clarfication, about how in an easy, logical way I can really drive forth that ALL wealth is created off the exploitation of labor, as you will see below:

(He also failed to address alot of points about Crisis Theory that I presented)


Hey ####, thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts to paper. I hope you have enjoyed your break.

Some thoughts of my own. Regarding labor as the source of all wealth. Let's first agree that any labor that does not produce something of value is a waste of labor. I could employ thousands of people at a cost of millions of dollars and have nothing of value to show for it, and no wealth. Of course, the worker would have received pay, until the company went bankrupt. But the fact that labor worked really hard to produce a valuable product or service doesn't equate to a valuable product or service. Who holds the risk? Not the worker. They received compensation for their labor.

Wealth is created by creating value. How did Bill Gates come to his billions of dollars? By exploiting labor? You can rest assured that the MicroSoft labor pool has been very happily compensated. In fact most have become extremely wealthy themselves. Did Bill Gates come to his riches on the backs of the consumer? On the contrary, Bill Gates and MicroSoft have made it possible for millions of people around the world to increase their productivity and create wealth of their own. I would not be in the business I am without the MicroSoft Access. The MS's database program has made it possible for me to run my business efficiently and profitably. It cost Bill Gates millions of dollars to create and maintain MS Access - with no guarantee that anyone was going to buy it. In the end, I am able to use MS Access to create my own wealth at an extreemly small fraction of the cost Bill Gates to develope.

On the other hand, other software companies that failed to gain enough market share in the database market have ceased to exist. Has labor ever given back a penny to a capitalist when the company failed?

And who is the capitalist? The lines are quite blurry. Public companies are owned by the public. Most of whom make up the labor force. When Bill Gates worked for MicroSoft, was he an exploited worker? Was the public that owned MS stock exploiting his labor?

Rather than capitalist and labor, we should consider property rights. The capitalist (those who choose to invest and risk in a business venture) holds the property of money. The worker hold the property of his labor. In free market capitalism the worker freely chooses to exchange his or her labor for compensation (usually in the form of money, our universally accepted symbol of value.) Both exchange property for property - in a non-zero-sum exchange. Both parties are wealthier after the transaction than before- otherwise they would not have entered the exchange. As a capitalist investor, I have decided that I value the product of someone else's labor more than a given sum of money (a wage). The worker has decided that they value the wage more than the product of their labor. (Of course, they could have stayed home and used their labor and keep its end product. However, by their actions they have stated that the believe the wage they work for is of greater value.)

got to run for now. Let's talk soon.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I don't know if this will be of any help, but here goes....


Originally posted by Libertarian+--> (Libertarian)I could employ thousands of people at a cost of millions of dollars and have nothing of value to show for it, and no wealth. Of course, the worker would have received pay, until the company went bankrupt.[/b]

If he was the Capitalist, he too would have received his pay up until bankruptcy. His pay would also have been more and given corporate law bankruptcy wouldn't really effect him, his house, car etc. would all be protected.

The worker on the other hand would be out on his arse (perhaps with a small redundancy package). Would the worker be able to find re-employment straight away? ....who knows, but if he didn't, getting health-care, paying the mortgage, buying food even would be a struggle.

Plus the Capitalist being payed more would likely have some savings to tide him over, would the worker have savings as well? ....I doubt it.


Originally posted by Libertarian+--> (Libertarian)But the fact that labor worked really hard to produce a valuable product or service doesn't equate to a valuable product or service.[/b]

Not all the time, no. However most of the time a products value is determined by the level of skill needed for its making and the amount of labour time (plus costs etc.).

Rarely is a product produced which no one wants, which would be a waste of labour. These occurrences are probably getting even rarer now with things like the internet (ebay etc.). Which mean virtually any product can be sold.

Plus in case he hasn't noticed, consumer tests are usually done beforehand to see if there is a "niche" for said product. It's not all a game of "pot-chance."


Originally posted by Libertarian
Who holds the risk?

Well we already discussed how the worker may suffer and how the Capitalist probably won't.

However generally speaking, no one "holds the risk." The Capitalist keeps his assets, the bank recovers their assets through various methods, only the worker risks losing his home etc. through not having a regular wage any more.

I thought "free-marketers" already knew this kind of stuff?


Originally posted by Libertarian
In fact most have become extremely wealthy themselves.

Well the workers in outer-wherever don't get payed that much and they're certainly not "extremely wealthy."


Originally posted by Libertarian
It cost Bill Gates millions of dollars to create and maintain MS Access - with no guarantee that anyone was going to buy it.

Again it's not "pot-luck" whether a product sells or not. Companies spend millions conducted all kinds of surveys to determine whether there is a market for their product, the bigger the company, the better the survey. Bill Gates and Microsoft's "risk factor" is probably extremely low.


Originally posted by Libertarian
On the other hand, other software companies that failed to gain enough market share in the database market have ceased to exist.

So what? ....are we supposed to feel pity for these people?


Originally posted by Libertarian
Has labor ever given back a penny to a capitalist when the company failed?

Well no, because when a company fails "labour" is far worse off than the Capitalist. However I have heard of cases where the workforce has had its wages (drastically) reduced or invested in the company, to keep said company afloat.

Is that generous enough for you?


Originally posted by Libertarian
Public companies are owned by the public. Most of whom make up the labor force.

Well most "public companies" have two, three maybe four majority shareholders. These few people have all the power and make all the decisions.


Originally posted by Libertarian
When Bill Gates worked for MicroSoft, was he an exploited worker?

Well we'd have to know his exact job role, wage etc. to determine this.


[email protected]
free market capitalism the worker freely chooses to exchange his or her labor for compensation

Well not really.

There is for instance, very little (if any) negotiation in this "exchange." The worker has a fairly simple choice, work (for the wage decided by the Capitalist) or starve.


Libertarian
However, by their actions they have stated that the believe the wage they work for is of greater value.)

No their actions have stated that they have to survive.
____

It's a strange concept, but most Libertarians (no doubt inspired by the putrid reactionary Ayn Rand) seem to think the Capitalist is being bullied by the worker. This always leads me to think they are one of two things: A Capitalist or someone who has never worked. Which is he?

[redstar2000]

Zingu, I know what I am about to say is completely "unconstructive".

But I urge you not to waste your valuable time and energy arguing with right-wing dolts!

Look for people -- however rare they might be -- who are at least open to a rational consideration of communist ideas.

And if you can't find any at the moment, then read a book or play a computer game...at least you'll get some pleasure out of your time.

Life is short...don't waste any of it arguing with morons!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Morpheus]

Bill Gates was born rich, he didn't earn it. His grandfather, a bank vice president, left him a million dollar trust fund. By Microsoft's own standards Bill Gate's rise to prominence involved a fair bit of pirating other people's software, code & ideas. His famous "Open Letter to Hobbyists" condemned hobbyist computer programers for using the version of the Basic programming language he developed, but he himself never paid royalties to the people who created the original basic. Plus there's the fact that computers were originally developed by the state, which subsidized their development (though military and university research) for decades. Once it had been developed to the point where it was commercially viable millionaires like Gates were allowed to take it over and use it to turn themselves into billionaires, but they never had to pay a cent for the government developed technology they used to create their fortunes. Since this unofficial subsidy was paid for with taxes, even a libertarian capitalist has to admit that Gates has benefited from the robbery of the general population.

[bruno718]

Let me start by saying that Libertarians suck ass. I had one as a teacher once, and he too had the misconception that potential labor is property. This is the main flaw of the Libertarian philosophy, and this is where you need to tell this right-wing nut job that he is full of shit.

In his opening paragraph (I don't know how to do that quote thing yet, forgive me), he states that a worker would be compensated if the business failed, fully, until the business goes bankrupt. ENRON anyone? Where did those workers' pensions go? Were they fully compensated. No.

Secondly he says that wealth is created. Wealth can't be created because when it comes down to it, there are human necessities, and nobody creates that. People must eat to survive, it's a fundamental law of the world we live in. Maybe Bill Gates created his software, but that is an idea only. How was his software distributed? Workers. Who made the boxes to package his software and who created the discs he uses and who gave him paper to write his instruction manuals? None of his "created" wealth is possible without workers.

Why should the labor force give back to a capitalist? The bank does that.

This guy doesn't know Bill Gates, and the guy before me explained Gates' wealth prior to the whole microsoft thing.

His fifth paragraph pisses me off the most. This is where the crap is truly spewed from the Libertarians mouth. He talks about property rights. Yes, someone who has money then has property. He probably has a car, a house, and can afford to eat. However, the worker doesn't hold property in his labor. Being able to say "I can do work" doesn't mean you have something of value. Read the Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck - somebody else can do the work (except apparently the capitalist himself). One of his sentences starts with "In free market capitalism . . ."
which brings me to my next point.

There is no such thing as free market capitalism.

The idea behind this is that if businesses can go where they want and pay as they wish, people and workers can choose what businesses to work for. Unfortunately, in this world there are nation borders. It is illegal for a Mexican to move to the United States without proper documentation and all that other bullshit. So the worker cannot always go somewhere else. Yet because of NAFTA and the new CAFTA-DR, business can. Why does business have more rights than that of a human being?

Next the asshole writes "The worker has decided that they value the wage more than the product of their labor. (Of course, they could have stayed home and used their labor and keep its end product. However, by their actions they have stated that the believe the wage they work for is of greater value.)"

Bullshit. The worker has decided to eat and nothing more. The worker cannot stay at home (especially if they don't have one) or keep its end product. You cannot eat potential labor. This statement is ludicris.

Oh and Redstar, it seems like you're one of the big names on this forum and generally well respected here, but I don't understand your position on not dealing with the right-wingers. This is exactly what we must do. We must expose their stupidity to the people, so they can see for themselves where their best interests are (a socialist state). It's not a waste of time, because fascism is what we are fighting. The two parties of the United States are the new fascist leaders. People won't just wake up - they are falling into a deeper coma as I write this. While we have our disagreements here on the left, we basically agree on the fundamental things. We're not racists, we want social freedom, we want people to have living wages. We must fight those who do not stand for these principles.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by bruno718
Oh and Redstar, it seems like you're one of the big names on this forum and generally well respected here, but I don't understand your position on not dealing with the right-wingers.

Well, some people like some of the things I have to say...and some have a rather different opinion. :lol:

I'm not saying don't attack the right-wing. I'm saying that it's a mistake to waste one's time and energy arguing with a particular right-winger.

You're not going to "win him over" to "our side"...no matter what you say.

I actually got some Libertarians once to admit that the logic of their position would lead to the restoration of slavery.

It didn't bother them a bit. :o

Right-Wing "Libertarianism" and the Restoration of Slavery (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083547923&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by bruno718
(I don't know how to do that quote thing yet, forgive me)

You press the "Quote" button above (next to the "@" button and "Code" button) and this should appear....

[Q U O T E] (without the spaces) then once you've finished putting whatever you want in the quote, you press the button again and this should appear....

[/ Q U O T E] (without the spaces).

You can also use the quote function just by typing the letters (write [QUOTE ]). You add a name into the quote by doing this....

[Q U O T E=(insert name)] (without the spaces). Then you close the quote in the same way ([/Q UOTE]).

Hope this helps (it took me ages to figure it out).