Labor Unions?

[RGacky3]

Especially Radical, anarcho-syndicalst ones, that work within Capitalism to destroy it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:34 pm
Especially Radical, anarcho-syndicalst ones, that work within Capitalism to destroy it.
What do you think proponents of a capitalists sytem are going to think of people that want to destryo it?
"Oh they're just fabulous, we need more people trying to destroy the system I uphold."?

[colonelguppy]

they're basically the same thing as trade cartels, but with the shoe on the other foot. whatever, i have no problem with poeple trying to use the system to their advantage, thats the whole point.

any violence they bring can be met with general law enforcement, if thats their choice.

[RGacky3]

What do you think proponents of a capitalists sytem are going to think of people that want to destryo it?
"Oh they're just fabulous, we need more people trying to destroy the system I uphold."?

But they are trying to destroy it within the framework of Capitalism, meaning its very hard to attack, because they are fighting using supply and demand for labor.


they're basically the same thing as trade cartels, but with the shoe on the other foot. whatever, i have no problem with poeple trying to use the system to their advantage, thats the whole point.

any violence they bring can be met with general law enforcement, if thats their choice.

Trade Cartels, kind of assuming that Labor (meaning people, humans, working) is a comodity, kind of a inhuman philosophy.

Any Violence they bring? If you look at the History of Labor Unions, especially anarcho-syndicalist ones, you'll notice its kind of the other way around, violence used against them.

If a Capitalist supports violence against unions, they they are supporting government intervention, basically supporting slavery (I doubt any Capitalists support violence against unions, generally its the pragmatic Capitalists that do it to keep their own power). But if they are ok with Anarcho-Syndicalist Unions and their right to Direct action (meaning strikes, slowing down work, pickets, boycotts, collective dicision making and the such), they would have to be OK with any outcome that achieves, and if those anarcho-syndicalist Unions destroy Capitalism within the Capitalist framework, without violence or political power, the Capitalists would basically have to be ok with that, so as not to contradict themselves.

[wtfm8lol]

But if they are ok with Anarcho-Syndicalist Unions and their right to Direct action (meaning strikes, slowing down work, pickets, boycotts, collective dicision making and the such), they would have to be OK with any outcome that achieves, and if those anarcho-syndicalist Unions destroy Capitalism within the Capitalist framework, without violence or political power, the Capitalists would basically have to be ok with that, so as not to contradict themselves.

luckily that will never happen because the vast majority of workers do not, in fact, feel oppressed like you try to tell them they do, so only a small minority would take part in this.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:44 pm
kind of assuming that Labor (meaning people, humans, working) is a comodity, kind of a inhuman philosophy.
I take it you're not a marxist? Labour is a commodity, it is in fact the only commodity workers are able to sell - and they are always paid less than its full price - this is the cornerstone of capitalist oppression.

If labour is not a commodity to you, how do you define exploitation?

[La Comédie Noire]

Trade Cartels, kind of assuming that Labor (meaning people, humans, working) is a comodity, kind of a inhuman philosophy.

Marx himself said labour was nothing but a commodity, but I get what you mean.

Edit:

Ah I see Jazzratt already pointed that out to you.


luckily that will never happen because the vast majority of workers do not, in fact, feel oppressed like you try to tell them they do, so only a small minority would take part in this.

Really? You mean you know how the vast majority of workers feel? Including the third world?

Let's see some proof.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 06:44 pm

they're basically the same thing as trade cartels, but with the shoe on the other foot. whatever, i have no problem with poeple trying to use the system to their advantage, thats the whole point.

any violence they bring can be met with general law enforcement, if thats their choice.

Trade Cartels, kind of assuming that Labor (meaning people, humans, working) is a comodity, kind of a inhuman philosophy.

what's the difference? in economic terms, it falls within the goods and services category.


Any Violence they bring? If you look at the History of Labor Unions, especially anarcho-syndicalist ones, you'll notice its kind of the other way around, violence used against them.

If a Capitalist supports violence against unions, they they are supporting government intervention, basically supporting slavery (I doubt any Capitalists support violence against unions, generally its the pragmatic Capitalists that do it to keep their own power). But if they are ok with Anarcho-Syndicalist Unions and their right to Direct action (meaning strikes, slowing down work, pickets, boycotts, collective dicision making and the such), they would have to be OK with any outcome that achieves, and if those anarcho-syndicalist Unions destroy Capitalism within the Capitalist framework, without violence or political power, the Capitalists would basically have to be ok with that, so as not to contradict themselves.

well i was just referring to the threadstarter talking about physically destroying the system, although there are always cases of unions violently threatening scabs and whatnot.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 27, 2007 07:04 pm--> (Jazzratt @ January 27, 2007 07:04 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 11:44 pm
kind of assuming that Labor (meaning people, humans, working) is a comodity, kind of a inhuman philosophy.
I take it you're not a marxist? Labour is a commodity, it is in fact the only commodity workers are able to sell - and they are always paid less than its full price - this is the cornerstone of capitalist oppression. [/b]
people always say this as if they know for a fact what the "full price" for labor is. cut the bullshit, no such number exists outside the agreement between the employer and employee.

oh, and what specifically is "youth oppression"?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+January 28, 2007 12:19 am--> (colonelguppy @ January 28, 2007 12:19 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:04 pm

[email protected] 27, 2007 11:44 pm
kind of assuming that Labor (meaning people, humans, working) is a comodity, kind of a inhuman philosophy.
I take it you're not a marxist? Labour is a commodity, it is in fact the only commodity workers are able to sell - and they are always paid less than its full price - this is the cornerstone of capitalist oppression.
people always say this as if they know for a fact what the "full price" for labor is. cut the bullshit, no such number exists outside the agreement between the employer and employee. [/b]
You're full of shit, the employer does nothing and the worker does everything therefore the value of the worker's labour is the value of the product created - which is equal to the labour that goes into it.

THis is a discussion for grown ups (Marxists, Anarchists and the likes) I'd appreciate it if the kids (cappies and other trollocs) kept out.


oh, and what specifically is "youth oppression"? A fucking stupid idea developed by people with an idiot rock-on for assining 'oppressed' status to every fucking individual they can think of - youth opression is nothing more than an excuse for white, middle class idiot teenagers to stand up and declare themselves opressed when all material evidence points to the very opposite. Most often cited in support of this ridiculous idea is the traditional family (where parents are seen as 'oppressive' - I understand a lot of the cappies here are parents and therfore understand how idiotic this is) and age-based laws (Drinking, smoking and sex - thoughthe ages could do with being lowered to about 14 I wouldn't say the 13 year olds are opressed because they can't drink half a bottle of scotch, have wild animal sex and then light up and I'm sure most people would agree.).

Youth oppression is a load of bollocks.

[La Comédie Noire]

Youth oppression is a load of bollocks.

Finally Someone is smart!! The higher privilaged students at my school are so full of shit like this one girl in my sociology class. She thought that having to put a sticker on your car to park in the student parking lot was "oppresive". She also wanted to start a petition to let us drink coffee in class cause she couldnt destroy her kidneys every hour of the fucking day :lol:

[wtfm8lol]

Really? You mean you know how the vast majority of workers feel?

i know they're not pissed off enough to overthrow the current system even though its easily in their power to do so. they're not stupid; they know their options and they've clearly stated that they support a mostly free-market with some welfare-type programs.


Including the third world?

no, and i dont care what they feel either.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:39 am

Really? You mean you know how the vast majority of workers feel?

i know they're not pissed off enough to overthrow the current system even though its easily in their power to do so. they're not stupid; they know their options and they've clearly stated that they support a mostly free-market with some welfare-type programs.

That's mainly because the 'free' market holds all the power, they are not making much of an educated desicion as they know very little about anarchy or communism and you know that full well, you're being intllectully dishonest.




Including the third world?

no, and i dont care what they feel either. Of course you don't you're a white-chauvanist, quasi-nationalist ameri****.

[La Comédie Noire]

no, and i dont care what they feel either.

Okay you just contradicted yourself so fucking bad. You just said you know how the majority of workers feel yet you just claimed you have no idea what the workers in the third world feel like even thou they are the majority of workers :D

Of course the workers of 1st world nations are okay thats because alot of them are the labour aristocracy, they live quite well off the super profits obtained from the 3rd world but you would'nt know anything about that.

[wtfm8lol]

That's mainly because the 'free' market holds all the power, they are not making much of an educated desicion as they know very little about anarchy or communism and you know that full well, you're being intllectully dishonest.

i guess its a good thing theyve got you to liberate them and enlighten them then, isn't it?


Of course the workers of 1st wrold nations are okay thats because alot of them are the labour aristocracy, they live quite well off the super profits obtained from the 3rd world but you would'nt know anything about that.

ya, because we were so fucking poor and badly off before globalization took off a few decades ago, right?

[RGacky3]

You are all missing the entire point of this thread, I'm not talking about the Value of Labor, I'm not a Marxist, but thats not the point. This is a question for Capitalists. This is'nt about if it could happen or not.

I'm assuming Capitalists understand the theory of Syndicalism, and if not I hope they read a little about it. My question is would they have an objection to this theory, of Organized labor destroying Capitalism with Direct Action within the framework of Capitalism, its not a question of if its likely or not, or whatever, my question is would Capitalists have an objection to it.

I would also like Capitalists ideas on Labor Unions in general, but more importantly my question about Syndicalism, and/or anarcho-Syndicalism.

[La Comédie Noire]

ya, because we were so fucking poor and badly off before globalization took off a few decades ago, right?

Ya it ain't the good old days anymore when you could just exploit labour at home. :D
But look silly even before globalization we were still using poor countries towards our benefit. Spanish - American War ring a ding ding a bell?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:56 am

That's mainly because the 'free' market holds all the power, they are not making much of an educated desicion as they know very little about anarchy or communism and you know that full well, you're being intllectully dishonest.

i guess its a good thing theyve got you to liberate them and enlighten them then, isn't it?
Yes.

Surprisingly, I happen to know a more sane and fair system underwhich people can live their lives and I want to spread support for this :o OH NOES I MUST BE AN EVIL MIND DICTATOR, LOLZ.

You're a vacuos and thoutoughly unintelligent **** and were it up to me you would not only have been banned from this forum but hunted down and fed live wasps.

[colonelguppy]

You're full of shit, the employer does nothing and the worker does everything

well now you're just plain lying, i was hoping for an honest answer. now, i realize you don't have a job and therefore don't realize how a place of business works, but that's no excuse for just making shit up.


therefore the value of the worker's labour is the value of the product created

you're forgetting about management of labor and recources, as well as marketing and dealing with local governments etc... strait unguided labor won't get anything effeciently done in the real world.


- which is equal to the labour that goes into it.

actaully the value of the product is determined by the people who use or consume it. i could spend hundred of man hours making a suit of chainmail for our military, but considering they have no use or want for it they would never buy it, rendering the object valueless.


THis is a discussion for grown ups (Marxists, Anarchists and the likes) I'd appreciate it if the kids (cappies and other trollocs) kept out.

i'm pretty sure this thread was started with the intent of asking capitalists on their opinion of labor unions, and i know your confused, but try and keep up.


A fucking stupid idea developed by people with an idiot rock-on for assining 'oppressed' status to every fucking individual they can think of - youth opression is nothing more than an excuse for white, middle class idiot teenagers to stand up and declare themselves opressed when all material evidence points to the very opposite. Most often cited in support of this ridiculous idea is the traditional family (where parents are seen as 'oppressive' - I understand a lot of the cappies here are parents and therfore understand how idiotic this is) and age-based laws (Drinking, smoking and sex - thoughthe ages could do with being lowered to about 14 I wouldn't say the 13 year olds are opressed because they can't drink half a bottle of scotch, have wild animal sex and then light up and I'm sure most people would agree.).

Youth oppression is a load of bollocks.

yeah i would have to agree with you on that one.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:11 am

You're full of shit, the employer does nothing and the worker does everything

well now you're just plain lying, i was hoping for an honest answer. now, i realize you don't have a job and therefore don't realize how a place of business works, but that's no excuse for just making shit up.
Stupid assumption I had a job recently ( iwas fired again), point is that the fat **** at the top did nothing whilst I did all the fucking cleaning and shit. The other guys there also did work, but the guy at the top is just responsible for counting beans and delegating the work.



therefore the value of the worker's labour is the value of the product created

you're forgetting about management of labor and recources, as well as marketing and dealing with local governments etc... strait unguided labor won't get anything effeciently done in the real world. What exactly does a labour manager manage without any fucking labour, smartarse.



- which is equal to the labour that goes into it.

actaully the value of the product is determined by the people who use or consume it. i could spend hundred of man hours making a suit of chainmail for our military, but considering they have no use or want for it they would never buy it, rendering the object valueless. Use or want means fuck all in terms of value, whether or not someone buys something doesn't mean shit as far as value is concerned.



THis is a discussion for grown ups (Marxists, Anarchists and the likes) I'd appreciate it if the kids (cappies and other trollocs) kept out.

i'm pretty sure this thread was started with the intent of asking capitalists on their opinion of labor unions, and i know your confused, but try and keep up. Not the thread, twatbadger, the sub-discussion.

[La Comédie Noire]

actaully the value of the product is determined by the people who use or consume it. i could spend hundred of man hours making a suit of chainmail for our military, but considering they have no use or want for it they would never buy it, rendering the object valueless.

Actually I was just talking about this..


Demand affects the surplus value, or profits, of a commodity. How much a commodity cost still has very much to do with how much time is put into making it. Take a chair for instance It costs 20 dollars to make but people are crazy about it so they'll pay 35 dollars for it thats a surplus, or profit, of 15 dollars. Now say they make alot of chairs than the supply rises so instead of people paying 35 dollars for a chair they only have to pay 25, thats a loss of 10 dollars in profit. As you can see demand affects the surplus value not the labour/time value.

You can make that chain mail and while it wont have any exchange or market value it will however still have a value, labour + material expended to make it, crystalized in it.

Now disappear from my sight! :D

[colonelguppy]

Stupid assumption I had a job recently ( iwas fired again), point is that the fat **** at the top did nothing whilst I did all the fucking cleaning and shit. The other guys there also did work, but the guy at the top is just responsible for counting beans and delegating the work.

"counting beans and delegating work" is work you moron, even if you've trivialized it beyond recognition.


What exactly does a labour manager manage without any fucking labour, smartarse.

and what exactly does labor work on without having instruction first? what are we all just going to sporatically start growing corn in a feild?


Use or want means fuck all in terms of value, whether or not someone buys something doesn't mean shit as far as value is concerned.

of course it does, its why gold is expensive and other metals aren't. is gold really more useful or rare than the other metals? no, people just like the way it looks and feels.

you can string together all sorts of statements a profanities, but you're still going to look like an angry retard enless you use some reasoning to back your claims up.


Not the thread, twatbadger, the sub-discussion.

the sub discussion is completely relevent to capitalists as long as you make insane claims about the system. if you really can't handle my replies then stop making stupid posts.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 27, 2007 08:20 pm

actaully the value of the product is determined by the people who use or consume it. i could spend hundred of man hours making a suit of chainmail for our military, but considering they have no use or want for it they would never buy it, rendering the object valueless.

Actually I was just talking about this..


Demand affects the surplus value, or profits, of a commodity. How much a commodity cost still has very much to do with how much time is put into making it. Take a chair for instance It costs 20 dollars to make but people are crazy about it so they'll pay 35 dollars for it thats a surplus, or profit, of 15 dollars. Now say they make alot of chairs than the supply rises so instead of people paying 35 dollars for a chair they only have to pay 25, thats a loss of 10 dollars in profit. As you can see demand affects the surplus value not the labour/time value.

You can make that chain mail and while it wont have any exchange or market value it will however still have a value, labour + material expended to make it, crystalized in it.

Now disappear from my sight! :D
what? if no one wants to utilize the finished good, the product is valueless. its will just sit there without aiding anyone in any endevor. yes it will retain value in the form of the raw materials that were put into it, but the labor put into transforming it will be wasted if no one wants it.

[La Comédie Noire]

what? if no one wants to utilize the finished good, the product is valueless. its will just sit there without aiding anyone in any endevor. yes it will retain value in the form of the raw materials that were put into it, but the labor put into transforming it will be wasted if no one wants it.

Yeah which is why I said...


You can make that chain mail and while it wont have any exchange or market value it will however still have a value, labour + material expended to make it, crystalized in it.

You basically just said labour determines the value of a commodity, even when no one wants it.

I agree. :D

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 27, 2007 08:46 pm

what? if no one wants to utilize the finished good, the product is valueless. its will just sit there without aiding anyone in any endevor. yes it will retain value in the form of the raw materials that were put into it, but the labor put into transforming it will be wasted if no one wants it.

Yeah which is why I said...


You can make that chain mail and while it wont have any exchange or market value it will however still have a value, labour + material expended to make it, crystalized in it.

You basically just said labour determines the value of a commodity, even when no one wants it.

I agree. :D
how is there value without market value?

[La Comédie Noire]

how is there value without market value?

Well thats what Marx called a Use - Value, which despite what you cappies try to say is seperate from exchange value.

Take a food commodity like cheese. Put it in a market where theres lots of cheese and its pretty useless, low market value. But it is still able to be eaten therefore it has a use value. Labour has still been exacted upon it making a value but there is no surplus value. Not profitable for a big time Capitalist such as yourself but it could feed a family. Infact you cappies engage everyday in making scarcity so exchange value may stay very high!

I mean you ever wonder why inorder to make profit you have to ask for the original value, how much it costed to make, plus interest, how much people are willing to pay extra? I mean after a product is done it doesnt just magically cost nothing. It costs what it took to make it.

[wtfm8lol]

a suit of armor can't be used, unlike your cheese.

[La Comédie Noire]

I'm actually going to have to concede and let someone else take it up cause I kind of lost where I was going with that one. :blush:

[RGacky3]

All right aparently I can't ask a damn question and get a real response. So far all of the posts have been arguments about value labor value and that stuff, nothing to do with my question.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:28 am
[You're full of shit, the employer does nothing and the worker does everything
On what do you base this?

Does the employer not identify market need, manage labor, manage production, manage marketing, manage administration, and so on?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 27, 2007 09:12 pm

how is there value without market value?

Well thats what Marx called a Use - Value, which despite what you cappies try to say is seperate from exchange value.

Take a food commodity like cheese. Put it in a market where theres lots of cheese and its pretty useless, low market value. But it is still able to be eaten therefore it has a use value. Labour has still been exacted upon it making a value but there is no surplus value. Not profitable for a big time Capitalist such as yourself but it could feed a family. Infact you cappies engage everyday in making scarcity so exchange value may stay very high!

I mean you ever wonder why inorder to make profit you have to ask for the original value, how much it costed to make, plus interest, how much people are willing to pay extra? I mean after a product is done it doesnt just magically cost nothing. It costs what it took to make it.
what if no one wants the cheese?

[La Comédie Noire]

what if no one wants the cheese?

It still retains use value. You can not want somehting at a time but still need it sooner or later. I think you should rephrase your question, its not that no one wants the cheese its just those able to participate in the market already have enough cheese to last them, there are still people who can't participate in the market, afford its goods, who could really do with some cheese. Give them their fucking cheese you pig bastard!!

That is Socialists biggest gripe with the market. Uneven distribution of wealth, wasted surplus, all do to the fact the market just didnt call for it at the time so its not profitable to make. We want to turn the act of producing into a need driven process, not a profitable venture.

The Market does'nt provide well enough, I demand a better system.

But thats me rambling. Just go back to my other quote...



I mean you ever wonder why inorder to make profit you have to ask for the original value, how much it costed to make, plus interest, how much people are willing to pay extra? I mean after a product is done it doesnt just magically cost nothing. It costs what it took to make it.

Look at it this way everyone needs water, it's in high demand but it basically costs nothing to get, just go turn on your tap. Thats because the labour time involved with finding it and harnassing it isnt all that much.

Now take a look at diamonds they cost alot even though they are basically worthless. Thats because the labour time involved in finding and making them is huge. If they found a way to compress carbon and make diamonds they'd become worthless. Why? Because the labour embodied in making them wouldnt be all that much anymore.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29, 2007 02:12 pm

what if no one wants the cheese?

It still retains use value. You can not want somehting at a time but still need it sooner or later.
i would say that untill the cheese is wanted, it loses its value (cheese is a bad example because its perishable, lets use... SUV's). the market adjusts for this. SUV's were very popular in the late 90's and early this decade, but do to rising gas prices, their appeal dropped and thus so did their price. i can account for this, as my SUV has depreciated more than it should have when it was bought, by several thousand dollars (using bluebook values).

my whole point is that something without a consumer is something without value. you could guess that it might be valuable in the future, and if its true then thats good. however, this could be hard to predict, so it might be wiser to try and extract the raw materials from the unwanted product and reapply them in a more useful way if possible.


I think you should rephrase your question, its not that no one wants the cheese its just those able to participate in the market already have enough cheese to last them, there are still people who can't participate in the market, afford its goods, who could really do with some cheese. Give them their fucking cheese you pig bastard!!

if the price of cheese is high enough that no one is buying, then either a) cheese sucks and no one wants at any price it so the cost of producing and selling for a profit is impossible, in which case cheese production will stop, or b) the price is simply too high, and will lower thus resulting in more people being able to afford cheese.

poor people being able to afford cheese is really a seperate issue from determining value, if you want to go there we can.

[La Comédie Noire]

I'm not arguing against the fact people need to want something for it to be made. I'm arguing the fact that there is a labour value and a surplus value and demand effects the surplus value.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 27, 2007 08:20 pm

actaully the value of the product is determined by the people who use or consume it. i could spend hundred of man hours making a suit of chainmail for our military, but considering they have no use or want for it they would never buy it, rendering the object valueless.

Actually I was just talking about this..


Demand affects the surplus value, or profits, of a commodity. How much a commodity cost still has very much to do with how much time is put into making it. Take a chair for instance It costs 20 dollars to make but people are crazy about it so they'll pay 35 dollars for it thats a surplus, or profit, of 15 dollars. Now say they make alot of chairs than the supply rises so instead of people paying 35 dollars for a chair they only have to pay 25, thats a loss of 10 dollars in profit. As you can see demand affects the surplus value not the labour/time value.

You can make that chain mail and while it wont have any exchange or market value it will however still have a value, labour + material expended to make it, crystalized in it.

Now disappear from my sight! :D

No, the chain mail has no value to it if nobody wants it.

How much is a horse drawn buggy worth? Why build one? Why not?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29, 2007 04:42 pm
I'm not arguing against the fact people need to want something for it to be made. I'm arguing the fact that there is a labour value and a surplus value and demand effects the surplus value.
The problem comes about when you exend that thought out. If production has value, even if their is no need for the produced item, then what's the argument against producing that product?

The thing is, you are complaining that capitalism does not allow for the production of needed things which some people might need. But you propose smashing a system which does have mechanisms for production of what people need, for a system which does not.

Production for need and production for profit are not contrary ideaas, but one in the same.

[ZX3]

I for one have never thought much of socialism's professed defense of labor unions. Any thought upon the subject leads to the conclusion that labor unions will have far more power and freedom in a capitalist rather than a socialist environment.

[La Comédie Noire]

No, the chain mail has no value to it if nobody wants it.

The chain mail Doesnt have market value, it could'nt create a surplus value, but it does have value embodied in the labour and materials that were used to make it. For instance you could sell the chain mail to a car company that wishes to melt down the metal to make cars with. While the labour exacted upon it has gone to waste you would still want to sell it for as close to the cost of production as possible.


The problem comes about when you exend that thought out. If production has value, even if their is no need for the produced item, then what's the argument against producing that product?

Well a capitalist wouldnt produce it because it would'nt create profit thats the argument against it.


The thing is, you are complaining that capitalism does not allow for the production of needed things which some people might need. But you propose smashing a system which does have mechanisms for production of what people need, for a system which does not.

It doesnt effectivley distribute goods, it doesnt produce things because they are needed it produces only that which brings profit. Not everything needed is profitable, and not everything profitable is needed.

Say a company wants to build a bunch of toys but at the same time a public works project needs to build a dam. If the toy company is able to make a profit but the dam is'nt those supplies will go to the toy company instead of the public works project. That is'nt giving people what they need, thats creating as much profit as possible in a short amount of time. Market Forces don't help in the long term.

Socialism puts production in the hand of the producers, it allows those who are in need to decide what is made by society. Thats the best mechanism for producing what is needed.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29, 2007 05:59 pm

No, the chain mail has no value to it if nobody wants it.

The chain mail Doesnt have market value, it could'nt create a surplus value, but it does have value embodied in the labour and materials that were used to make it. For instance you could sell the chain mail to a car company that wishes to melt down the metal to make cars with. While the labour exacted upon it has gone to waste you would still want to sell it for as close to the cost of production as possible.


The problem comes about when you exend that thought out. If production has value, even if their is no need for the produced item, then what's the argument against producing that product?

Well a capitalist wouldnt produce it because it would'nt create profit thats the argument against it.


The thing is, you are complaining that capitalism does not allow for the production of needed things which some people might need. But you propose smashing a system which does have mechanisms for production of what people need, for a system which does not.

It doesnt effectivley distribute goods, it doesnt produce things because they are needed it produces only that which brings profit. Not everything needed is profitable, and not everything profitable is needed.

Say a company wants to build a bunch of toys but at the same time a public works project needs to build a dam. If the toy company is able to make a profit but the dam is'nt those supplies will go to the toy company instead of the public works project. That is'nt giving people what they need, thats creating as much profit as possible in a short amount of time. Market Forces don't help in the long term.

Socialism puts production in the hand of the producers, it allows those who are in need to decide what is made by society. Thats the best mechanism for producing what is needed.
The purpose of the chain mail being produced is not for it be melted down so as to make metal to build cars. The metal could have gone directly to the auto company.

Capitalism absolutely effectively distributes goods. An item being produced in a capitalist environment is by defintion already distributed- somebody, somewhere wants it.

As far as the dam vs the toy factory:
If the community finds that the dam is more valuable than the toy store, then they will judge the resources needed to be more valuable than will the toy company. And will in turn expend more of their resources to get those materials. After all, there does need to be a rationale for determining that a dam is valuable to begin with. If simple construction is the determining value, then there is no way for the community to guage whether the dam is in fact a valuable investment. Perhaps having children will make the community better.

[La Comédie Noire]

The purpose of the chain mail being produced is not for it be melted down so as to make metal to build cars. The metal could have gone directly to the auto company.

Well by whatever miscalculation on the companies part the chain mail has still been made and since it cannot be sold as chain mail they have to cut their losses and sell it for as close to the price of production as possible.


Capitalism absolutely effectively distributes goods. An item being produced in a capitalist environment is by defintion already distributed- somebody, somewhere wants it.


The very nature of Capitalism is inefficent. It's goal is to get the highest possible market value for a commodity by keeping surplus low. This means not everyones needs get met.

The market may produce what people want but not everyone who wants it gets it. Where in Socialism this may be possible due to the fact you don't have to destroy surplus as to make sure things stay profitable.



If the community finds that the dam is more valuable than the toy store, then they will judge the resources needed to be more valuable than will the toy company.

Unfortunately it does'nt work that way. Communities don't get to decide which stores come to their area, if that was the case I would've told Wal-Mart to fuck off long ago. I mean you could say boy cott or protest, or petition and alot of communities try that but it doesnt always work well.


And will in turn expend more of their resources to get those materials. After all, there does need to be a rationale for determining that a dam is valuable to begin with. If simple construction is the determining value, then there is no way for the community to guage whether the dam is in fact a valuable investment. Perhaps having children will make the community better.

What do you mean "will expand more of it's resources?". No, what will happen is whoever has more capital will get to buy that plot of land, and if it turns out to be a toy store then they get no dam. This shows that a market economy is'nt based on pragmatism or everyones needs, it's based on short term profit and the needs of a few. And the only argument cappies have for us is "well those few are so well off, it's not realistic to think you can help everyone!"

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29, 2007 08:56 pm

The purpose of the chain mail being produced is not for it be melted down so as to make metal to build cars. The metal could have gone directly to the auto company.

Well by whatever miscalculation on the companies part the chain mail has still been made and since it cannot be sold as chain mail they have to cut their losses and sell it for as close to the price of production as possible.


Capitalism absolutely effectively distributes goods. An item being produced in a capitalist environment is by defintion already distributed- somebody, somewhere wants it.


The very nature of Capitalism is inefficent. It's goal is to get the highest possible market value for a commodity by keeping surplus low. This means not everyones needs get met.

The market may produce what people want but not everyone who wants it gets it. Where in Socialism this may be possible due to the fact you don't have to destroy surplus as to make sure things stay profitable.



If the community finds that the dam is more valuable than the toy store, then they will judge the resources needed to be more valuable than will the toy company.

Unfortunately it does'nt work that way. Communities don't get to decide which stores come to their area, if that was the case I would've told Wal-Mart to fuck off long ago. I mean you could say boy cott or protest, or petition and alot of communities try that but it doesnt always work well.


And will in turn expend more of their resources to get those materials. After all, there does need to be a rationale for determining that a dam is valuable to begin with. If simple construction is the determining value, then there is no way for the community to guage whether the dam is in fact a valuable investment. Perhaps having children will make the community better.

What do you mean "will expand more of it's resources?". No, what will happen is whoever has more capital will get to buy that plot of land, and if it turns out to be a toy store then they get no dam. This shows that a market economy is'nt based on pragmatism or everyones needs, it's based on short term profit and the needs of a few. And the only argument cappies have for us is "well those few are so well off, it's not realistic to think you can help everyone!"
Okay. This is promising.

Given your scenario of the chain mail, WHY was it an economic miscalculation to use the metal to make the chain mail instead of the auto parts? What information tells the producer this is so?

The rest of the examples such as the toy factory vs. the dam can fall in once that question has been answered.

[RGacky3]

Question to Mods, can I redo the thread? this ones been hijacked by another damn economic value argument.

[RGacky3]

Question to Mods, can I redo the thread? this ones been hijacked by another damn economic value argument.

[La Comédie Noire]

Question to Mods, can I redo the thread? this ones been hijacked by another damn economic value argument.

I'm sorry, this is my last post on this topic I promise cause I'm not gonna be able to get online for awhile.

So anyways..



Given your scenario of the chain mail, WHY was it an economic miscalculation to use the metal to make the chain mail instead of the auto parts? What information tells the producer this is so?

Because it does'nt retain any market value in that form, however it still retains production value. Lets say it took $200 per suit to make. The producer would want to sell his suits of armour for as close to $200 as he could as to cut his losses.

How would the producer know? The demand would tell him of course but people do not always get their demands met. It's an illusion of choice. You want a dam? too bad a private firm has bought the resources and land because it will be profitable. But you still need toys right? Even then I never objected to the fact people get what they want, but those people are the ones who can effectively participate in the market. What about the workers who need a dam more then they need toys?


If your interested in contetsing this furhter I will be back on here sometime next week, I'll drop you a Pm or something.

[colonelguppy]

The chain mail Doesnt have market value, it could'nt create a surplus value, but it does have value embodied in the labour and materials that were used to make it. For instance you could sell the chain mail to a car company that wishes to melt down the metal to make cars with. While the labour exacted upon it has gone to waste you would still want to sell it for as close to the cost of production as possible.

yes, finally, thats what i'm getting at. while you may try and sell it at that cost, no one metal scrapper will buy it because the added labor put into does not change its value for them. all metal melts down about the same, thus making the only value to get out of the mail the materials used.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 30, 2007 11:34 pm

Because it does'nt retain any market value in that form, however it still retains production value. Lets say it took $200 per suit to make. The producer would want to sell his suits of armour for as close to $200 as he could as to cut his losses.

How would the producer know? The demand would tell him of course but people do not always get their demands met. It's an illusion of choice. You want a dam? too bad a private firm has bought the resources and land because it will be profitable. But you still need toys right? Even then I never objected to the fact people get what they want, but those people are the ones who can effectively participate in the market. What about the workers who need a dam more then they need toys?


If your interested in contetsing this furhter I will be back on here sometime next week, I'll drop you a Pm or something.
Okay. let's string this along:

A decision is made to produce a suit of armor rather than auto parts. So what happens next? Well, resources need to ne allocated. The metal, the energy, the labor and the time all need to be allocated for the production of this suit of armor. There are two immediate problems which face both the capitalist and socialist producer:

1. The resources used to produced the suit of armor cannot be used to produce car parts.
2. The resources used, with the exception of the metal, can never be used again.
So this suit of armor is produced and it cost $200 to produce.

Now the divergence- Nobody wishes to purchase the suit of armor for anywhere approaching $200. For the capitalist, this is the nightmare scenario. For the socialist, its not a big deal. Who is right?

The capitalist is correct. Look at what has happened. The community has allocated resources for the production of an item which does not benefit the community in any fashion. This cannot be considered good. The socialist says, The metal can be melted down and turned into car parts. And so it can. But consider: In order to melt down the suit of armor, the community needs to allocate resources (labor, time, energy) which cannot be used to do anything else, and which can never be used again. Then the community needs to allocate resources to turn that metal into car parts. No harm, no foul? Yes, there is. Because then community has used more resources to produce the same number of car parts than had the car parts been built in the first place. Rather than two sets of car parts, the community only winds up with one for the same investment of resources. Spread that line of thinking out thriough the entire economy, and the result is a highly inefficient wasteful society which does not benefit anyone.
So in socialism, the debate becomes not "Why build a suit of armor" but rather "Why not build a suit of armor." There is really no reason not to.

[BobKKKindle$]

If the means of production were subject to the control of the community, then why would commodities of no use-value be created? It is safe to assume that people would choose to advocate the production of commodities that they percieved as useful - they are going to be the ones impacted by the oppurtunity cost of using scarce resources to produce whatever commodity in whatever quantity and so it should follow that they will not use resources in a manner that does not fulfil their wants and needs.

In a free market system, producers will make commodities where there is the biggest potential for profit, given that profit maximisation is the primary aim for any organisation based on private proprty. This is normally equivalent to what economists call effective demand - those that are willing and able to purchase a commodity. Effective demand can often be seperated from the needs and wants of society due to the inclusion of the necessity of having sufficient monetary resources - given that Capitalist societies tend to be charactrised by inequality in the distribution of wealth this is of great significance, as the commodities that are produced will, in general, simply reflect the wants of those who command the greatest purchasing power.

It should also be noted that the quantity of a commodity that is produced may be effected by the profit motive. A case in point is agriculture in developed countries - the state is forced to purchase large quantities of agricultural goods in order to maintain a sufficiently high market price - this yields an artifically high price to consumers as a limited quantity of the commodity is avaliable for purchase. In a socialist system, the income of the farmer would not be determined by his revenue and so the maximum quantity of the commodity could be produced. Use value rather than exchange value.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:48 am
If the means of production were subject to the control of the community, then why would commodities of no use-value be created? It is safe to assume that people would choose to advocate the production of commodities that they percieved as useful - they are going to be the ones impacted by the oppurtunity cost of using scarce resources to produce whatever commodity in whatever quantity and so it should follow that they will not use resources in a manner that does not fulfil their wants and needs.

In a free market system, producers will make commodities where there is the biggest potential for profit, given that profit maximisation is the primary aim for any organisation based on private proprty. This is normally equivalent to what economists call effective demand - those that are willing and able to purchase a commodity. Effective demand can often be seperated from the needs and wants of society due to the inclusion of the necessity of having sufficient monetary resources - given that Capitalist societies tend to be charactrised by inequality in the distribution of wealth this is of great significance, as the commodities that are produced will, in general, simply reflect the wants of those who command the greatest purchasing power.

It should also be noted that the quantity of a commodity that is produced may be effected by the profit motive. A case in point is agriculture in developed countries - the state is forced to purchase large quantities of agricultural goods in order to maintain a sufficiently high market price - this yields an artifically high price to consumers as a limited quantity of the commodity is avaliable for purchase. In a socialist system, the income of the farmer would not be determined by his revenue and so the maximum quantity of the commodity could be produced. Use value rather than exchange value.
The capitalist has no interest in producing items which nobody desires. He loses money. If he persists, he goes out of business, and the damage to the community ends

Why would a socialist community produce items which nobody wants? I am sure they would not, at least as a matter of policy. Buut how does the socialist know what is needed? What tells the community this? Comrade Floyd has set up the argument that even if nobody wishes the product, it does not really matter to a great degree. So yes, while it is certainly reasonable that people in a community would wish to use their resources in ways which only is beneficial, there is no particular "penalty" as it were to not to do so, to gamble, or to be just plain wrong.

[BobKKKindle$]

The capitalist has no interest in producing items which nobody desires. He loses money. If he persists, he goes out of business, and the damage to the community ends

You are failing to recognize the important distinction between the idea of wanting to have access to a good or service and actually being able in terms of commanding financial resources. I am sure that everyone wants to have access to a basic standard of shelter, healthcare, and nutrition - but if, in the absence of government intervention, they do not have the money to purchase these commodities, they will not have access to them. They do not form part of effective demand. The Capitalist only produces for those who command effective demand. Maybe you can provide something reminiscent of a decent rebuttal next time?


What tells the community this?

The community decide for themselves through direct-democratic institutions which goods are to be produced. There is no need for a system of 'price signals' as under Capitalism, as one could say that votes and consensus decisions act as signals upon which production is based.


So yes, while it is certainly reasonable that people in a community would wish to use their resources in ways which only is beneficial, there is no particular "penalty" as it were to not to do so, to gamble, or to be just plain wrong.

Could you please rephrase this? It makes no sense. And what do you mean 'be just plain wrong'? Are you saying that people are not 'aware' of the commodities that they want produced? If people, under Capitalism, are able to spend their money at their own discretion, I see no reason why people under Socialism would not be able to make sensible choices, as individuals and groups, as to what should be produced.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:29 am

The capitalist has no interest in producing items which nobody desires. He loses money. If he persists, he goes out of business, and the damage to the community ends

You are failing to recognize the important distinction between the idea of wanting to have access to a good or service and actually being able in terms of commanding financial resources. I am sure that everyone wants to have access to a basic standard of shelter, healthcare, and nutrition - but if, in the absence of government intervention, they do not have the money to purchase these commodities, they will not have access to them. They do not form part of effective demand. The Capitalist only produces for those who command effective demand. Maybe you can provide something reminiscent of a decent rebuttal next time?


What tells the community this?

The community decide for themselves through direct-democratic institutions which goods are to be produced. There is no need for a system of 'price signals' as under Capitalism, as one could say that votes and consensus decisions act as signals upon which production is based.


So yes, while it is certainly reasonable that people in a community would wish to use their resources in ways which only is beneficial, there is no particular "penalty" as it were to not to do so, to gamble, or to be just plain wrong.

Could you please rephrase this? It makes no sense. And what do you mean 'be just plain wrong'? Are you saying that people are not 'aware' of the commodities that they want produced? If people, under Capitalism, are able to spend their money at their own discretion, I see no reason why people under Socialism would not be able to make sensible choices, as individuals and groups, as to what should be produced.
1. The distinction is meaningless. Yes, the capitalist produces only those things for which there is demand, as, you have explained, will the socialist. Yes, not everyone can have access to ahve everything they want. But this problem exists for the socialist as well.

2. Presumably, in the socialist democratic process, the decision as to what to produce will be an informed one. What is the information used in making these decisions?

3. As far as being "plain wrong" I mean exactly that. people are not perfect and mistakes will be made.
But i think the comparison you make is wrong. People can decide for themselves what they want. But they are only deciding for themselves. your scenario has the people deciding fopr each other what they want produced. How many nail clippers does a person need a year? I have no idea and can only base this on my own circumstances. And honestly, i really don't care, and i suspect most people feel the same way. But your ideas says yes, it is a community decision how many nail clippers will need to be produced. And people will actually have to vote on it!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 03:27 pm
But your ideas says yes, it is a community decision how many nail clippers will need to be produced. And people will actually have to vote on it!
Man would that be a fun debate!

"Clearly the people advocating we produce fewer toenail clippers hate sexy feet!"

:lol:

[Johnny Anarcho]

:redstar: Industrial Workers of the World-One Big Union for All the Workers! (http://www.iww.org/) :redstar:

Nuff' said.

[La Comédie Noire]

Comrade Floyd has set up the argument that even if nobody wishes the product, it does not really matter to a great degree.

No, I said labour/time/resources have a great impact on the value of a commodity. I totally concur to your statement that want is a precondition to the production of a commodity.

Bobkindles has merley elaborated, with better terminology, on what I was arguing poorly before.

Thankyou Bob :)

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 02, 2007 04:52 pm
:redstar: Industrial Workers of the World-One Big Union for All the Workers! (http://www.iww.org/) :redstar:

Nuff' said.
HELL YEAH!!!

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by RGacky3+February 03, 2007 04:27 pm--> (RGacky3 @ February 03, 2007 04:27 pm)
Johnny [email protected] 02, 2007 04:52 pm
:redstar: Industrial Workers of the World-One Big Union for All the Workers! (http://www.iww.org/) :redstar:

Nuff' said.
HELL YEAH!!! [/b]
Hey, do they allow students to join and can you get me one of those "Fighting Union" buttons?

[RGacky3]

They do allow Students to join.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

To join the IWW you must first meet the following conditions:

* You must be a worker (not an employer);
* You agree with the Preamble to the IWW Constitution;
* You will study the IWW's principles and make yourself acquainted with its purposes.

http://www.iww.org/join/joinnow.shtml

[RGacky3]

http://www.iww.org/en/join/questions.shtml

Students can join.

[More Fire for the People]

Even priests and members of parliament can join :( I think the IWW needs a big wake up call.

[RGacky3]

Why?

Why would the IWW or and Revolutionary Union bar people based on religious beliefs? In many lands some of the most zelous :D revolutionaries have been religious ones. Religious freedom is as important as any freedom.

Any mass revolutoinary union must be a Union of ALL workers, whatever their religions beliefs.

http://www.iww.org/en/culture/official/obu/obu3.shtml (go down to no politics in this Union)

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:28 pm
Why?

Why would the IWW or and Revolutionary Union bar people based on religious beliefs? In many lands some of the most zelous :D revolutionaries have been religious ones. Religious freedom is as important as any freedom.

Any mass revolutoinary union must be a Union of ALL workers, whatever their religions beliefs.
Because a priest isn't a worker?

[RGacky3]

I believe he would consider himself a worker for God, a volunteer. If he has the concience to join the IWW to fight for worker rights, I don't see why he should be barred.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:33 pm
I believe he would consider himself a worker for God, a volunteer. If he has the concience to join the IWW to fight for worker rights, I don't see why he should be barred.
Because he's not a worker. He doesn't sell his labor to earn a wage. Oh, and according to your idea that a priest is a worker for God then God is a capitalist.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:33 pm
I believe he would consider himself a worker for God, a volunteer. If he has the concience to join the IWW to fight for worker rights, I don't see why he should be barred.
Agreed.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 04, 2007 08:27 pm
Because he's not a worker. He doesn't sell his labor to earn a wage. Oh, and according to your idea that a priest is a worker for God then God is a capitalist.
You know what I mean dude, Self-employeed are also allowed to join. As long as one is not part of the exploiting class I believe they should have a right and be encouraged to support a workers movement.

[classwarveteran]

A few points on the IWW and board comments:

Priests can be workers. If you are hired by the Board of a congregation, for example, they will set your wage, working conditions, etc. We've got one or two of these folks in the union -- one is not working in that capacity currently, and the other one works for the humanistic Unitarian Universalists, which is more like a feel-good spirituality group with decent social justice lectures than anything else.

I agree that those holding elected governmental office should be barred from membership. The union prohibits paid political party officials, but members of parliament, for example, the Constitution is not as clear about. More importantly, usually these talk-shop people have staff that they direct. It's more of an indirect employment relationship with the SSP folks, but still a messy situation.

Students can be admitted to membership in Industrial Union 620 (Education Workers) on the theory that they are apprentices of industry. Most work on the side in addition to attending classes.

The category of self employed is another story. Their membership can be continued (assuming they joined as a worker) only if the self-employment is to be temporary. I can't say you won't find exceptions or seeming exceptions because some of these categories are not so cut-and-dry, and because this Constitutional provision has not always been enforced the way it should be (imho). Those in worker collectives, while not having a boss, are eligible for membership.

[RGacky3]

How is being self employed only a temporary option? How is it different than being in a Collective?