Development of Private Property

[JazzRemington]

I have a question on Marxist theory on the development of private property.

I understand that the State was founded after the development of private property in order to defend it, but I'm confused as to the material causes of private property in the first place. Was it because the population increased to the point where individual ownership was no longer at that particular time and that production output was extremely limited?

[Snitza]

Technology in production increased to a point where societies need not move around from place to place, nomadically usurping resources wherever they go. Instead as production quality got better and better, more things could be produced, so tribes began sticking around in one place(woodland areas, mountainous regions, oceanic ports) and exploiting the resources there.

Production picked up so much due to advances in technology that there was a surplus of almost everything. I believe that because so much stuff was created, certain people were put in "charge" of certain areas of production. Thus the first pseudo-owning-class was established, and private property came into existance. It was probably due to "survival of the fittest", that is the baddest and meanest people took control of the means to produce, and established their own "gangs"(police, army) to protect their goods.

[redstar2000]

It seems to me that private property really began with nomadism and the domestication of herd animals. Once your family/clan had a reliable source of meat, you no longer "had" to depend on the chance outcome of the hunt...and you had "something worth stealing".

It's also my view that when herd animals were first domesticated, the males of the clan observed the necessary role of the male animal in procreation...leading directly to "father right" and private property in women and children.

You can actually see this developing in the early books of the Old Testament...probably folk legends written down long after the "events" took place. After agriculture was invented, nomadism was probably regarded as "a golden age". :lol:

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

[Lamanov]

Tell me if this helps...

A switch from "nomadism" to agriculture was a decisive factor. Men's domestic role increased, because instead of hunting and gathering, they were working on land at what became permanent homes.

This caused a massive increase in productivity of labor time, thus the population, so far regularly checked by constant movement and food shortages, began to increase in quantity, giving a rise to further labor division.

Labor division which resulted a surplus value caused appropriation of these "divisions" by certain families and individuals, giving foundation to private property over the means of production.

Massive land exploitation or massive crop failures, wars - giving war prisoners who became household slaves, trade of surplus products which become commodity... all of this produced exploitation on the basis of such private appropriation.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Not exactly to do with the topic at hand, but this might interest you....


Originally posted by Understanding History+--> (Understanding History)For example, when people first learnt to grow their own food (by planting seeds and domesticating animals) and to store it (in earthenware pots) there was a complete revolution in social life - called by archaeologists ‘the neolithic revolution’. Humans had to cooperate together now to clear the land and to harvest food, as well as to hunt animals. They could live together in much greater numbers than before, they could store food and they could begin to exchange goods with other settlements.

The first towns could develop. For the first time there was the possibility of some people leading lives that did not involve them just in providing food: some would specialise in making pots, some in mining flints and later metal for tools and weapons, some in carrying through elementary administrative tasks for the settlement as a whole. More ominously, the stored surplus of food provided a motive for war.

People had begun by discovering new ways of dealing with the world around them, or harnessing nature to their needs. But in the process, without intending it, they had transformed the society in which they lived and with it their own lives. Marx summed up this process: a development of the ‘forces of pro*duction’ changed the ‘relations of production’ and, through them, society.[/b]

From Chapter 2 of How Marxism Works (http://www.comcen.com.au/~marcn/redflag/archive/harman/hmw/index.html) by Chris Harman.

Basically, there were innovations in the "means of production" (as has already been pointed out). Which then meant it was possible for humans to settle, which then meant that class society started (because people worked in different fields) and then (I suspect) private property was introduced to deal with the differences in the distribution of wealth.

Really at that time private property was very progressive, because without it early civilisation wouldn't have been possible.


redstar2000
It seems to me that private property really began with nomadism and the domestication of herd animals.

I always thought the concept first came about during the first big civilisation (can't remember the name). When for society to function, the first laws were drawn up and murder (within the masses) was made illegal.

I didn't think the concept came about before people settled down. Mainly because private property (and as an extension "rule of law") requires some form of enforcement, meaning a division of labour and therefore class society.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+--> (DJ-TC) Tell me if this helps...[/b]

It appears you have spent too much time trying to figure out how to explain your viewpoint rather then what your viewpoint actually is.

Linguistic masterbastion usually leaves both you and I "unfulfilled".


Originally posted by DJ-TC+--> (DJ-TC)This caused a massive increase in productivity of labor time, thus the population, so far regularly checked by constant movement and food shortages, began to increase in quantity, giving a rise to further labor division.[/b]

Considering that nomadic tribes spent the majority of their day (or days) attempting to "find" food, usually leading to long treks over several miles, it is more plausible that domestication of the family unit actually decreased labour time and intensity.

I really fail to see how the division of labour (the breaking of a complex task into many simpler tasks for delegation to several individuals) really is of any consequense considering that the concept itself is derived from capitalist economical theory.


DJ-[email protected]
Labor division which resulted a surplus value caused appropriation of these "divisions" by certain families and individuals, giving foundation to private property over the means of production.

There seems to me that something was "left out" of this; surplus value is actually
negatively affected by an increase in the division of labour.

Adding additional labour capital in the form of labour dicision to an existing mode of production rarely if ever creates a larger margin of profit for a specific product.

In addition, the division of labour has absolutely nothing to do with the development of private property; private property must have already been created in order for a monetary or currency system to develop.

Without the concept of private property, "value" is never realised. Without "value" there is no economic theory at all.

Again, I really don't see how this would even matter under pre-monetary conditions.


DJ-TC
Massive land exploitation or massive crop failures, wars - giving war prisoners who became household slaves, trade of surplus products which become commodity... all of this produced exploitation on the basis of such private appropriation.

All this really says is that the creation of private property led to the exploitation of labour within a capitalist economical paradigm.

Tell us something we don't know.

[voice of the voiceless]

the first societies were primitive communist societies.

When tools, i.e the means of production became more efficient, a surplus was created (previously any surplus was freely given away because tribes moved around to much to keep it)

When enough was produced to create a vast surplus, not everyone had to work anymore. Meaning a section of society was released from manual labour. Administrative jobs developed as tribes near where bagdhad is now began to develope irrigation. This required administration as work became more complex, this elite began to enrich itself at the expense of those below them.

Religion also played a fundamental role; when people first explored the world they were overwhelmed with wonder, and looked for ideas to explain things. Eventually a small minority claimed the existance of divine agencies created these wonders. These people became an elite as well, because they had ideological domination.

Eventuall this early form of communism became a fetter on societies production and so slave societies began. Private property now for example, has amounted to 200 people owning more wealth than the poorest 2.4 billion people. So, conclusively, private property is now the fetter on this society. It should, and will be swept away by public ownership of the huge multinationals etc which dominate and divide the earth between them for profit.

[Lamanov]

Emphasis added:


Originally posted by Comrade RAF+--> (Comrade RAF)Considering that nomadic tribes spent the majority of their day (or days) attempting to "find" food, usually leading to long treks over several miles, it is more plausible that domestication of the family unit actually decreased labour time and intensity.[/b]


Originally posted by DJ-TC+--> (DJ-TC)This caused a massive increase in productivity of labor time, thus the population, so far regularly checked by constant movement and food shortages, began to increase in quantity, giving a rise to further labor division.[/b]

Yhess? So how are these two premises contradictory?

--------------------


Comrade [email protected]
There seems to me that something was "left out" of this; surplus value is actually negatively affected by an increase in the division of labour.

:huh: wtf!

Labor division - which results from upgrade in technical side of the process - increases productivity / decreases labor time -- or better yet -- makes a complicated task diffused into less complicated tasks which can be performed faster or with less skill -- thus, less cost.

If labor division had a negative effect on surplus value: then the history as we know it would be non existent. We would still be trapped in cyclical time hunting and gathering for 10000 years to this day.

Division of labor is a major premise in creation of private properity. This is one of the basic elements of historical materialism.

Thus, the rest of your post simply falls out of place.


Comrade RAF
Tell us something we don't know.

So it turns out that I just did that. :lol:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by voice of the voiceless+--> (voice of the voiceless)the first societies were primitive communist societies.[/b]

Not at all.

Communism would not have been invented for many millenia. Primative societies were communalistic in nature.

Even assuming you are not referring to actual "primative" societies but are actually alluding to early civilised societies, only a very small portion of the social stratum, those usually projected as "divine connections" to the gods, produced a "surplus" of goods that could be compared exponentially to their personal status.

That being the case, these surpluses were used as more of a symbol of status then anything else.


voice of the voiceless
Eventuall this early form of communism became a fetter on societies production and so slave societies began.

Considering that the concept of "money" has been around since the late stone age with standardised currency dating back to around 2300 to 2500 BC, it simply does not "add up" that early societies were anything near what would later be classified as communist; or even communalist in most cases.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+--> (DJ-TC)Yhess? So how are these two premises contradictory?[/b]

To find the contradiction we must examine your entire statement; not just what you decided to hack out to save face:


Originally posted by DJ-TC+--> (DJ-TC)A switch from "nomadism" to agriculture was a decisive factor. Men's domestic role increased, because instead of hunting and gathering, they were working on land at what became permanent homes.

This caused a massive increase in productivity of labor time, thus the population, so far regularly checked by constant movement and food shortages, began to increase in quantity, giving a rise to further labor division.[/b]

As the reader can clearly see, you have suggested that labour output for a male among a given family unit actually increases upon domestication of said family unit.

I corrected you by advising you otherwise.

Get it?


Originally posted by DJ-TC
Labor division - which results from upgrade in technical side of the process - increases productivity / decreases labor time -- or better yet -- makes a complicated task diffused into less complicated tasks which can be performed faster or with less skill -- thus, less cost.

You are still confused about what exactly the division of labour actually means. If you refer back to my original post, you will see the definition.

If Marx was right about the capitalist division of labour, the increased labour capital (variable capital) will add to the tendency for the rate of profit to fall.

This of course was prior to the modern labour market setting inflation at a steady 3-5 % on fixed capital costs of production.

"Efficiency of production" is absolutely meaningless if you cannot sell enough of your product to equal more than the combined fixed and labour capital costs; especially since the free market has never been able to accuratly predict consumer trends for any great length of time.


dj-[email protected]
If labor division had a negative effect on surplus value: then the history as we know it would be non existent. We would still be trapped in cyclical time hunting and gathering for 10000 years to this day.

Not so.

The concept of division of labour is only applicable within a capitalist economic paradigm.

Considering the fact that 10,000 years ago man was still in the late stages of the upper paleolithic period, the capitalist concept of "value" (an absolute necessity for the division of labour to be a factor in anything) was not even a caveman's wet dream.

He was more concerned with trying to get those dastardly stone axes to keep an edge for more than 10 minutes. :lol:


dj-tc
So it turns out that I just did that.

Put your pride back into your stomach and learn something son.

[Red Powers]

from Comrade RAF

If Marx was right about the capitalist division of labour, the increased labour capital (variable capital) will add to the tendency for the rate of profit to fall.


I don't know about the rest of your post, I didn't read it too carefully, but this is incorrect.

Increased variable capital will yield increased surplus value boosting the rate of profit. That rate tends to fall when constant capital rises in relation to variable capital. This wouldn't necessarily be the case with a simple division of labor.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 24 2006, 07:38 PM
from Comrade RAF

If Marx was right about the capitalist division of labour, the increased labour capital (variable capital) will add to the tendency for the rate of profit to fall.


I don't know about the rest of your post, I didn't read it too carefully, but this is incorrect.

Increased variable capital will yield increased surplus value boosting the rate of profit. That rate tends to fall when constant capital rises in relation to variable capital. This wouldn't necessarily be the case with a simple division of labor.
You are confused.

Increased labour capital will never yield and increase in surplus value; however if you decrease the amount of labour capital invested (lay off employees, cut pay, etc.)in a product you may be able to increase the rate of profit for a few business cycles.

That is of course until the ever rising fixed capital rates combined with a finite amount of labour capital (finite in the sense there is a minimum amount of labour capital that must be spent in order to maintain production) equal more than the market value of a product.

The division of labour principle allows for certain tasks to be divided among several labourers in the place of one.

If you are able to accomplish this and still have a lower labour cost than when the same task was done by one individual I'm sure there will be a line of capitalists ready to hand you the nobel prize in labour tom-fuckery.

[Red Powers]

I am only confused about what you are trying to say.



The division of labour principle allows for certain tasks to be divided among several labourers in the place of one.

If you are able to accomplish this and still have a lower labour cost than when the same task was done by one individual I'm sure there will be a line of capitalists ready to hand you the nobel prize in labour tom-fuckery.

Not so. Division of labor means that work is reorganized among several laborers so that instead of each making a pair of shoes one is cutting out soles, another is stitching, another glueing etc. It amounts to an increase in productivity without an increase in fixed costs. Haven't you ever heard of Adam Smith?

And again what causes the rate of profit to fall is the growing proportion of constant capital. All things being equal hiring (and exploiting) more workers will increase the amount of surplus value, if the capitalist can sell the junk.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by red somethingorother+--> (red somethingorother)Not so. Division of labor means that work is reorganized among several laborers so that instead of each making a pair of shoes one is cutting out soles, another is stitching, another glueing etc. It amounts to an increase in productivity without an increase in fixed costs. Haven't you ever heard of Adam Smith?
[/b]

It appears you also may have a problem with reading comprehension. I suggest you read the portion of my text you quoted again and then your own response.

In regard to Smith, he was 100 level reading at CSUN and required at LSE, for reasons more "nostalgic" then anything else; he also died in 1790.

Hardly an expert on modern economical theory, or even Marxist economical theory don't you think?

Since you again confused, an increase or decrease in labour capital will not affect the rate of fixed capital; hence why it is called fixed capital.

In capitalist economics, increase in productivity means jack squat if the market return capital does not surpass fixed capital (constant) combined with investment, circulating and labour capital (Variable).


red somekat
And again what causes the rate of profit to fall is the growing proportion of constant capital. All things being equal hiring (and exploiting) more workers will increase the amount of surplus value, if the capitalist can sell the junk.

And again, you are confused.

[Lamanov]

:lol:

I always knew Stalinists had a problem "grasping" historical materialism and basic economics (*mostly because of their political orientation which keeps them intellectually checked)... but this is serious!

You think that labor division is necessarily an element of capitalist economy alone. IT's not.


Originally posted by Comrade RAF
As the reader can clearly see, you have suggested that labour output for a male among a given family unit actually increases upon domestication of said family unit.

I'll explain it to you in simple sygilogism:

P1: Community, instead of hunting (nomadic) applies land cultivation (domestic)
P2: Men, former hunters, become field workers
Co: Male's domestic role increases (giving a basis for patriarchical family relations)

Why did this happen:

P1: Cultivation is technologically superior, thus more productive
P2: Community makes same time output on cultivation as it did on hunting
Co: Communities' labor time increases productivity > production

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by dj-tc+--> (dj-tc)I always knew Stalinists had a problem "grasping" historical materialism and basic economics (*mostly because of their political orientation which keeps them intellectually checked)... but this is serious!
[/b]

I hate to burst your bubble kid but I am no "Stalinist". I can give two fuck about Stalin, Lenin and your precious Trot.

In addition, I suggest you review your sentences prior to posting them; your poor grammar and confusion of the material makes them almost completely incomprehensible.

For instance, in order for you to post this sentence:


Originally posted by dj-tc+--> (dj-tc)You think that labor division is necessarily an element of capitalist economy alone. IT's not.[/b]

You must have completely misunderstood this entire thread; my suggestion to you would be to start from the beginning.


dj-[email protected]
I'll explain it to you in simple sygilogism:


:lol: Here's another suggestion for you: try looking these words up in the dictionary
before you post them. The word you are looking for is syllogism.


dj-tc
P1: Community, instead of hunting (nomadic) applies land cultivation (domestic)
P2: Men, former hunters, become field workers
Co: Male's domestic role increases (giving a basis for patriarchical family relations)

Why did this happen:

P1: Cultivation is technologically superior, thus more productive
P2: Community makes same time output on cultivation as it did on hunting
Co: Communities' labor time increases productivity > production

Ugh. You still don't get it.

I can see it's is going to be pointless to continue. Good luck with your "studies".

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Comrade RAF+--> (Comrade RAF)...your precious Trot.[/b]

:huh: :rolleyes: I'm not a trot.


Originally posted by Comrade RAF+--> (Comrade RAF)The concept of division of labour is only applicable within a capitalist economic paradigm.[/b]


Originally posted by DJ-TC
So you think that labor division is necessarily an element of capitalist economy alone. IT's not.


Originally posted by Comrade RAF
You must have completely misunderstood this entire thread; my suggestion to you would be to start from the beginning.

[Ehh.]


Originally posted by Comrade RAF
The concept of division of labour is only applicable within a capitalist economic paradigm.


Comrade [email protected]
You are still confused about what exactly the division of labour actually means. If you refer back to my original post, you will see the definition.

I did. It isn't there. :rolleyes:

I suggest you to look up labor division.


Comrade RAF
In addition, I suggest you review your sentences prior to posting them; your poor grammar and confusion of the material makes them almost completely incomprehensible.

[...]

Here's another suggestion for you: try looking these words up in the dictionary
before you post them. The word you are looking for is syllogism.

:mellow: This may surprise you, but trashing my grammar does not make your idiocy smaller. On the contrary.

[Vinny Rafarino]

QUOTE (Comrade RAF)
The concept of division of labour is only applicable within a capitalist economic paradigm.
QUOTE (DJ-TC)
So you think that labor division is necessarily an element of capitalist economy alone. IT's not.
QUOTE (Comrade RAF)
You must have completely misunderstood this entire thread; my suggestion to you would be to start from the beginning.
[Ehh.]
qUOTE (Comrade RAF)
The concept of division of labour is only applicable within a capitalist economic paradigm.


Like I said, you have missed the entire thread. I have explained it to you three times in this case and you still don't get it.

The division of labour is a capitalist economical theory that is useless in an environment where value is of no consequence.

That's it son, last time.

Any reply other than a comprehensible and logical post will be ignored.

[enigma2517]

No need to get rude now.


In addition, the division of labour has absolutely nothing to do with the development of private property; private property must have already been created in order for a monetary or currency system to develop.


Yes and no. Private property must exist to expand and sustain division of labor, but that doesn't mean it didn't originate to facilitate DOL.

In nomadic societies, everybody did pretty much the same thing. I find a strong branch, tie a heavy stone to it, and hunt.

The skills and products that existed back then were obtainable by everybody. You could make everything you needed from the Earth.

Then, tasks became more complex. I can't go hunt and build structures at the same time. Its too physically taxing. So, I give a portion of my hunt that day to a person that will build my house for me.

More importantly, its the means of producing this house which are the most important. Not only do I have to build stuff, but I have build the tools first. Whats more efficient, everybody building their own tools, or having a few "master sets" that everybody uses?

Within a small nomadic group, it would NOT be impossible to delegate such tasks. On a small level, such an arrangement could work out. However, as DOL increased (and so did productivity) so did the population. In a society where technology could not yet facilitate direct oversight of all production, private property became necessary.

I had to have something to ensure that you worked for me and that I worked for you. This, however, only happened after division of labor had begun developing on a significantly larger scale.

Private property came after the initial DOL, as a means to sustain growth.


The division of labour is a capitalist economical theory that is useless in an environment where value is of no consequence. The theory yes, but the concept no. It existed in societies long before capitalism. This could really just be a battle of semantics really.

Of course value existed. Value has always existed! Value is simply the amount of labor you put into something....and hasn't labor always existed? Of course, if you're talking about EXCHANGE value then sure. At first it was almost 0 because the only things you could trade were meat, skins, and weapons

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by enigma2517+--> (enigma2517)Yes and no. Private property must exist to expand and sustain division of labor, but that doesn't mean it didn't originate to facilitate DOL.[/b]

I think you need to read that section of my post again. You will see that I clearly state that private property must have already existed in order for a "currency system" to develop.

Without a practical economic recourse "division of labour" means fuck all.


Originally posted by same [email protected]
Private property came after the initial DOL, as a means to sustain growth.

The theory yes, but the concept no. It existed in societies long before capitalism. This could really just be a battle of semantics really.


Nonsense, prior to private property and the development of currency and economic value there is no such thing as the division of labour (an economic concept).

Perhaps you should call what you are referring to the "delegation of labour".


enigma2517
Of course value existed. Value has always existed! Value is simply the amount of labor you put into something....and hasn't labor always existed


Not true at all.

Economical value meant to absolutely nothing to anyone until the development of economics.

As far as the labour theory of value goes, it would be a smart move on your part to dump it.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Comrade RAF+--> (Comrade RAF)The division of labour is a capitalist economical theory that is useless in an environment where value is of no consequence.[/b]


Comrade RAF
Nonsense, prior to private property and the development of currency and economic value there is no such thing as the division of labour (an economic concept).

Division of labor is not just a "capitalist economical theory" and its mere abstract theoretical concept. Division of labor is actual qualitative change in the totality of working process (regardless if exchange value exists or not). First [natural] division of labor came, logically, between men and women. First major technical division of labor is exactly the on we were talking about: hunting and agriculture.


I'm not interested in this discourse any more. I posted this fact for the history's sake (to save it from this brutal rape).

[KC]

Comrade RAF, I suggest you read Capital. Look at the first chapter:


Originally posted by Capital Ch. 1+--> (Capital Ch. 1)This division of labour is a necessary condition for the production of commodities, but it does not follow, conversely, that the production of commodities is a necessary condition for the division of labour. In the primitive Indian community there is social division of labour, without production of commodities. Or, to take an example nearer home, in every factory the labour is divided according to a system, but this division is not brought about by the operatives mutually exchanging their individual products.[/b]


Originally posted by Capital Ch. 1+--> (Capital Ch. 1)In a community, the produce of which in general takes the form of commodities, i.e., in a community of commodity producers, this qualitative difference between the useful forms of labour that are carried on independently of individual producers, each on their own account, develops into a complex system, a social division of labour.[/b]


Capital Ch. [email protected]
Wherever the want of clothing forced them to it, the human race made clothes for thousands of years, without a single man becoming a tailor.


Comrade Raf

As far as the labour theory of value goes, it would be a smart move on your part to dump it.


And why is that? It works perfectly fine.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by dj+--> (dj)Division of labor is not just a "capitalist economical theory" and its mere abstract theoretical concept. Division of labor is actual qualitative change in the totality of working process (regardless if exchange value exists or not). First [natural] division of labor came, logically, between men and women. First major technical division of labor is exactly the on we were talking about: hunting and agriculture.
[/b]

Good grief, why can't you put your head around this concept? You kids make it look like I'm trying to explain general relativity to a school child.

If you have not gotten it by now then I fear you never will. Oh well.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Comrade RAF, I suggest you read Capital. Look at the first chapter:

Considering that Capital was written "many moons" after the development of Capitalism and the concept of the division of labour, I fail to see how Marx intergrating the concept into his economic theory is of any relation to our current discussion.

Just to let you in on a secret, I read Capital (all of it mind you) before you were even a glimmer of thought in your parent's eyes. I then re-read it in graduate school.

Twice over...huh....talk about a sleeper, only Nietsche's crap will cure insomnia that quick.


lazar
And why is that? It works perfectly fine.

You must have a crystal ball because the LTV has never (thank goodness) been put into practise ever.

I used to dig the LTV too, until I finally determined that it is now an obsolete concept that will not be applicable in any future Communist society.

[KC]

Considering that Capital was written "many moons" after the development of Capitalism and the concept of the division of labour, I fail to see how Marx intergrating the concept into his economic theory is of any relation to our current discussion.

Because the fact of the matter is that division of labour was around before capitalism.



Just to let you in on a secret, I read Capital (all of it mind you) before you were even a glimmer of thought in your parent's eyes. I then re-read it in graduate school.

And yet you fail to grasp the basic concept of division of labour? Maybe you need to read it again.



You must have a crystal ball because the LTV has never (thank goodness) been put into practise ever.

I used to dig the LTV too, until I finally determined that it is now an obsolete concept that will not be applicable in any future Communist society.

It isn't a price model. It is a way of describing the process of exchange. Do you discount the rate of profit as well, as there is no way to precisely calculate it? Hell, you might as well discount Marxist economics altogether! :o

Increasing the divison of labour will decrease wages, making it possible for companies to hire more workers for the same price. Because of the fact that there are more workers, more surplus value can be extracted from them. Because of this, the division of labour will increase surplus value more than it will variable capital, stabilizing the rate of profit somewhat (s/(v+c) = rate of profit. Since s becomes larger for the same v, the rate of profit goes up).

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by lazar+--> (lazar)Because the fact of the matter is that division of labour was around before capitalism.[/b]

Like I already stated, the division of labour is an economic concept. What you are talking about would be better refered to as a "delegation" of labour.

Therefore you avoid any confusion with the actual economic principal. Why can't you get your brain around that?


Originally posted by lazar+--> (lazar)And yet you fail to grasp the basic concept of division of labour? Maybe you need to read it again.[/b]

See the above post, son.


[email protected]
Hell, you might as well discount Marxist economics altogether!

Excellent idea!

Give or take several concepts that are still applicable in the modern era, scrapping the whole lot aint such a bad idea.


lazar
Increasing the divison of labour will decrease wages, making it possible for companies to hire more workers for the same price.

You would think so eh? Unfortunately it really does not work out like that. The division of labour decreases a wage for a small group of individuals yet requires are larger number from the existing labour pool to accomplish the same task.

Like I said before, if you think you can get this to work you would win the nobel prize!

Just think, you would be capitalism's big hero; no more layoffs, no more factory closures....The answer was that simple all along!

Just hire more labour!

:lol:

[KC]

Like I already stated, the division of labour is an economic concept. What you are talking about would be better refered to as a "delegation" of labour.

Therefore you avoid any confusion with the actual economic principal. Why can't you get your brain around that?


So we are basically arguing semantics.


You would think so eh? Unfortunately it really does not work out like that. The division of labour decreases a wage for a small group of individuals yet requires are larger number from the existing labour pool to accomplish the same task.


That's the point. You can get more variable capital for the same price.



Just think, you would be capitalism's big hero; no more layoffs, no more factory closures....The answer was that simple all along!

This happens when the worker's labour ceases to be productive (products aren't selling), constant capital is increased in such a way where less workers are needed (automation), or to move to a different location to hire cheaper labour (outsourcing).



Just hire more labour!

No. Just increase the division of labour to get higher profit margins. Which is what happens. After all, if increasing the division of labour meant a lower profit, why would anyone do it in the first place?

[KC]

Comrade RAF, do you have a response? I was really interested in this debate; I really thought it was going somewhere and hope for it to continue further.

[red_che]

Originally posted by voice of the [email protected] 24 2006, 08:56 PM
the first societies were primitive communist societies.

When tools, i.e the means of production became more efficient, a surplus was created (previously any surplus was freely given away because tribes moved around to much to keep it)

When enough was produced to create a vast surplus, not everyone had to work anymore. Meaning a section of society was released from manual labour. Administrative jobs developed as tribes near where bagdhad is now began to develope irrigation. This required administration as work became more complex, this elite began to enrich itself at the expense of those below them.

Religion also played a fundamental role; when people first explored the world they were overwhelmed with wonder, and looked for ideas to explain things. Eventually a small minority claimed the existance of divine agencies created these wonders. These people became an elite as well, because they had ideological domination.

Eventuall this early form of communism became a fetter on societies production and so slave societies began. Private property now for example, has amounted to 200 people owning more wealth than the poorest 2.4 billion people. So, conclusively, private property is now the fetter on this society. It should, and will be swept away by public ownership of the huge multinationals etc which dominate and divide the earth between them for profit.
Private property began when family units have existed. In fact, the first "properties" owned by men were women. Domesticating them for their own purposes of reproduction.

In the German Ideology, Marx and Engels stated, "The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children." And Engels, on the Origin of the Family, adds "The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male."

Now, this clearly states that private property originates from the organization of family units.

Tools, on the other hand, were communal property first during the early stages of primitive communal society until only when family units began to emerge sometime during the last stage of primitive society) did men own their tools to produce for their family's needs. It is on this basic organization also that tribes began.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by lazar
That's the point. You can get more variable capital for the same price.


Not exactly.

The first thing you need to do is stop attempting to express the principals of capitalist economics using Marxist economics.

I spent too many years attempting to "make sense" of caapitalist economics using Marxist theory only to run into the same dead ends as everyone else.

Marxist economics is, for the most part, the wrong tool for the wrong job.

Capitalist economics is invaluable in a way that makes Marxist economical theory nothing more than "historical rhetoric": it has the ability to prove the impending collapse of Capitalism using capitalism's own words!

In any case, you can't "get" more labour capital then what you pay for; hence why it is a "rate of capital".

You can either cut or add to the labour capital rate by adding or terminating employees.


This happens when the worker's labour ceases to be productive (products aren't selling), constant capital is increased in such a way where less workers are needed (automation), or to move to a different location to hire cheaper labour (outsourcing).

This passage really doesn't make much sense, especially within the context of what I wrote but I will tackle it anyway: fixed and investment capital are, save for inflation, written into every business cycle and are in many cases used to lower the rate of labour capital. (one of the only true "flexible" rates of capital)

That much is true, however the post production marketability of a specific product has little do do with the productivity of a labour force; anti-trust laws force capitalist enterprises to continually develop new products leading to a labour force that can quite easily be moved to other projects with little or no added training.

There are however several "old" companies that have survived for decades upon decades with an immense market share for one or two products.

In these cases, you will definitely see an incredible amount of automation; the purpose of this however is more to combat inflation than simple "worker complacency".


No. Just increase the division of labour to get higher profit margins. Which is what happens.

It just doesn't work like that.


why would anyone do it in the first place?

To produce jobs. Without them how will your GDP continue to expand?

[KC]

I spent too many years attempting to "make sense" of caapitalist economics using Marxist theory only to run into the same dead ends as everyone else.

What would those be?



In any case, you can't "get" more labour capital then what you pay for; hence why it is a "rate of capital".

You can either cut or add to the labour capital rate by adding or terminating employees.


This is essentially surplus value, so yes, you do get more labour capital than what you pay for in this form of surplus value.




It just doesn't work like that.

Explain why.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Lazar
This is essentially surplus value, so yes, you do get more labour capital than what you pay for in this form of surplus value.

It's not even remotely close to surplus value.



Explain why.

Unfortunately that would require me providing you with several months worth of economics courses. If you had a remedial understanding of economics, it wouldn't be so bad.

If that were the case however, you never would have bothered with this question in the first place.


What would those be?


First lesson: try looking them up.

[enigma2517]

First lesson: try looking them up.

Well, maybe in all of your wisdom you could possibly make a suggestion?

Geez, this guy is trying (very honestly) to learn.

You've taken all these years to find out about these things, why can't you take just a few minutes and provide a short synapsis and some suggested reading material?


You kids make it look like I'm trying to explain general relativity to a school child.

If you have not gotten it by now then I fear you never will. Oh well.

The elitest attitude is not necessary. Have you ever considered that maybe what you're saying is either wrong or that you might be expressing it in terms that are simply not convincing enough?

I won't deny that you do in fact seem very intellectually capable, but you are not very socially intelligent. Making asses of people won't get them to see it your way.

Thats the point of posting isn't it? Having a debate so other people can reflect on your ideas and vice versa. What you seem to be engaging in is academic masterbation. I'm sorry, but I can't get this feeling that being right for you is more important that explaining to others why it is that you are right.

Sure, economics isn't easy. Thats why this is important. That is why we are asking you to help us. So please do :)


Nonsense, prior to private property and the development of currency and economic value there is no such thing as the division of labour (an economic concept).

Perhaps you should call what you are referring to the "delegation of labour".

Agreed. But is currency a must, or only private property? Can't a barter/trade system take the place of currency?

Either way, you earlier asserted that division of labor did not exist until capitalism. Yet here the only prerequiests[sic] that you set out are, property, currency, and value. Many societies had all of those, a few thousand years before capitalism.

First I manufactor something using tools, a mule, and some land that I privately own. Then I sell it for x amount of Dinars. Then I take my Dinars to the market and buy a scraf that somebody else has made.

Does your definition of division of labor involve something explicitly inherent to capitalism? Not just market economics in general?