Forced Redistribution

[RGacky3]

I've heard a lot of descriptions of Socialism (By Capitalists) as forced wealth re-distribution, or forcably taking property from the rich.

Obviously, you could say that during a revolution wealth is taken by force.

However what they fail to mention, is that the whole system of Capitalism and private property is built on threat of force, i.e. The reason the strawberry picker does'nt get to keep all the strawberries, is because the 'land owner' claims a right to the land, and if the stawberry picker keeps his strawberries, he's a theif and he goes to prison, so whats stopping the strawberry picker from keeping what he picks, is force.

So really when a Capitalist talks about Socialism being forced redistributoin, its kind of akin to someone calling the guy grabbing someone elses arm who is trying to punch him a violent guy.

[Robert]

I will not assume that every owner of every strawberry field stole their land. He just may have bought it (gasp!) with borrowed money (double gasp!). Someone started every farm. Nothing prevents you from starting one. If you do, I won't put cute quotes around your title of "owner," and I'll salute you for creating strawberry picking jobs. I may also sneak into the patch and steal some strawberries from you in the name of the revolution. I like strawberries, and for some reason they taste better when stolen, like stolen melons

Pompous ass.

[apathy maybe]

You miss the point.

OK, even if you ignore the centuries of war, genocide and stolen land (two of the relatively recent examples being in the USA and Australia), capitalism still exists only because of the threat of force.

Capitalism couldn't exist without the state threatening force against those that would take something from someone else.

In other words, the only reason that the strawberry picker doesn't keep most of the berries picked, is because if they do, they will have forced used against them.

[mikelepore]

Some people find it difficult to recognize that the workers produce all of the wealth, while the capitalists contribute nothing useful to production, because the process is complicated by an infinite series of every worker's labor being mixed into every other worker's products. For example, mine workers helped to pick the strawberries, because mine workers extracted the iron ore needed to make the axle of the wagon used by the strawberry picker. Every article contains the results of the labor of the entire working class. Interpreting this complexity is associated with several kinds of errors. One error is to speak as though just one worker creates one particular article. Another error, the one that make people become conservative about capitalism, is to assume that there must be some genuine necessity in every event in the process, even the event of the capitalist sitting on his butt and sending out memos to the workers to tell them to work faster, that is, entirely useless and parasitic activity.

[RGacky3]

I will not assume that every owner of every strawberry field stole their land. He just may have bought it (gasp!) with borrowed money (double gasp!).

I never said it was stolen, (in legal terms), but him buying it all it pretty much means is that he's buying the states protection for that piece of land. Just because theoretically anyone can do it does'nt make it valid. Hell, a slave can escape, get a loan, get a farm and buy slaves.

[pusher robot]

However what they fail to mention, is that the whole system of Capitalism and private property is built on threat of force,

That's true of any system of law, generally. You are arguing against the concept of law in the abstract.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Robert the Great+December 20, 2007 01:31 am--> (Robert the Great @ December 20, 2007 01:31 am) I will not assume that every owner of every strawberry field stole their land. He just may have bought it [/b]
from who? how did he get it?


I'll save you the time. All this came about as a result of the inclosures acts, in which the ruling class in England stole the peoples lands and gave them to nobel men. These "legal" reforms began in the 12th centuary, and were resisted by the toiling masses from the very begining.

So yea, it was stolen and is held by lethal force.



Originally posted by A declaration from the poor opressed peoples of the [email protected]
And therefore, though you did not kill or theeve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand, by the power of the Sword; and so you justifie the wicked deeds of your Fathers; and that sin of your Fathers, shall be visited upon the Head of you, and your Children, to the third and fourth Generation, and longer too, till your bloody and theeving power be rooted out of the Land.


You may wish to consult the "True Lellers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers)" who lead a revolt after the English Civil war, defied the inclosure acts and attempted to re-occupy the land stolen from them in 1649. They were mostly killed and imprisoned, and later wrote "A declaration from the poor opressed peoples of the England" which still rings true today. You can read the full thing here (http://www.bilderberg.org/land/poor.htm)


A declaration from the poor opressed peoples of the England

And that your buying and selling of Land, and the Fruits of it, one to another, is The cursed thing, and was brought in by War; which hath, and still does establish murder, and theft, In the hands of some branches of Mankinde over others, which is the greatest outward burden, and unrighteous power, that the Creation groans under: For the power of inclosing Land, and owning Propriety, was brought into the Creation by your Ancestors by the Sword; which first did murther their fellow Creatures, Men, and after plunder or steal away their Land, and left this Land successively to you, their Children.




Signed for and in behalf of all the poor oppressed people of England, and the whole world.

:D

[RGacky3]

That's true of any system of law, generally. You are arguing against the concept of law in the abstract.

Yes But most Capitalists will claim that, Capitalism is simply the natural way of things, i.e. the free way, whereas other forms such as Socialism are not natural, and rather must be enforced. What I'm pointing out is that Capitalism far from being the Natural state of things, must have a huge governmental system to uphold it.

[pusher robot]

far from being the Natural state of things, must have a huge governmental system to uphold it.

I think it's quite a stretch to call a simple police force a "huge governmental system."

Capitalism is based on individualism, not naturalism.

EDIT: In any case, property rights don't require the state action you are thinking of. Private, hired security forces are also capable of enforcing property rights.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 20, 2007 10:22 pm
Private, hired security forces are also capable of enforcing property rights.
Or undermining it if someone else is willing to pay more.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 20, 2007 10:22 pm
EDIT: In any case, property rights don't require the state action you are thinking of. Private, hired security forces are also capable of enforcing property rights.
and likely stealing property while they're at it. Please explain to me how a private security force - a force of militants with the stated goal of maximizing profit - will not become the same thing a state or police force is in our current society.

[RGacky3]

I think it's quite a stretch to call a simple police force a "huge governmental system."

There are a lot of laws that have to do with private property rights.


Capitalism is based on individualism, not naturalism.

Capitalism is based on individualism for those who are on top. For those who have.


Private, hired security forces are also capable of enforcing property rights.

If you claim ownership to a land, and have a private security force go around and make sure people who pick the grapes which you claim ownership give them a portion of their grapes (which they don't do, they take all the grapes and pay something to keep them there), how is that different than street gangs of Mobsters going around extorting money from local businesses, with the threat of killing them, because they claim ownership of a certain block. Its really fundementally not different.

[pusher robot]

how is that different than street gangs of Mobsters going around extorting money from local businesses, with the threat of killing them, because they claim ownership of a certain block. Its really fundementally not different.

The difference is the legitimacy of the claim to ownership.

I'm not saying that not having a police force is a good idea, I'm saying it's not philosophically necessary like the OP claimed. It is prudent, however, for obvious reasons.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:17 am

If you claim ownership to a land, and have a private security force go around and make sure people who pick the grapes which you claim ownership give them a portion of their grapes (which they don't do, they take all the grapes and pay something to keep them there), how is that different than street gangs of Mobsters going around extorting money from local businesses, with the threat of killing them, because they claim ownership of a certain block. Its really fundementally not different.
The mobsters as described are not doing anything for production. Its already been done. The busnesses exist. The mobsters do nothing to improve a product. They are not being productive.

But the capitalist is the one who takes the risk, marshalls the land and labor into developing the vinyards for that purpose he believes is in most need by the community. He is being productive.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:10 pm

That's true of any system of law, generally. You are arguing against the concept of law in the abstract.

Yes But most Capitalists will claim that, Capitalism is simply the natural way of things, i.e. the free way, whereas other forms such as Socialism are not natural, and rather must be enforced. What I'm pointing out is that Capitalism far from being the Natural state of things, must have a huge governmental system to uphold it.
The capitalist view of the situation the correct one.

The socialist view of the issue is narrow, viewed from the end of production.

Why is the strawberry picker a thief in the given example? Because he is not picking strawberries for himself. He is picking strawberries to satisfy the strawberry consumption needs of the community. Such would have to be true in the socialist community (and the csuch theft would have to be considered a worse offense in the socialist community than stealing from the capitalist in the capitalist community) as well.

[RGacky3]

The difference is the legitimacy of the claim to ownership.

EXCACTLY, thats it, a piece of paper from the government, thats all there is. Where does that legitimacy come from? What makes that claim legitimate?

Really theres nothing.


But the capitalist is the one who takes the risk, marshalls the land and labor into developing the vinyards for that purpose he believes is in most need by the community. He is being productive.

Whethere or not, he's being productive is irrelivent, Mobsters many times will be big philanthropists, hell, many times they will help out businesses they extort from.

Them being productive does'nt give them the right to exploit other peoples labor, in essence extorting them.

[Robert]

No doubt there is fraud and force, even murder, behind some great fortunes, maybe many. What does one do about it? I say we do the best we can while maintaining as much freedom as possible and opportunity for more wealth to be created. Where victims of fraud, theft or violence can be identified, I agree they should be compensated, even restored to their property if it still exists. I have a problem too with the plantation system apparently still in place in much of Latin America, peasants working their own ancestral land for pennies with no real hope of ever getting together enough capital to start their own shop of any kind. If a large land grant originated from some Spanish king who claimed the country because he felt like it, obviously the indigenous people have grievances. How they implement them short of revolution I don't claim to know. Castro was inevitable, though I question the legitimacy of his reign obviously.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:28 pm


Whethere or not, he's being productive is irrelivent, Mobsters many times will be big philanthropists, hell, many times they will help out businesses they extort from.

Them being productive does'nt give them the right to exploit other peoples labor, in essence extorting them.

Philanthropy is not production. Its consumption.

The analogy remains flawed.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

pusher:

That's true of any system of law, generally. You are arguing against the concept of law in the abstract.
I think the point is that when capitalists argue against communism on the basis that force must be used to maintain order, it is in fact they who are arguing against the concept of law in the abstract, while of course supporting capitalist laws and governmental systems. It's hypocrisy.


I think it's quite a stretch to call a simple police force a "huge governmental system."
Em, why? Even the simplest police force, so long as it maintains (or even tries to maintain) law and order amongst the general population, is a huge governmental system.


Capitalism is based on individualism, not naturalism.
I think the idea is that capitalism is a result of "human nature", and therefore is the "natural state of things".

So you reject this notion then?



EDIT: In any case, property rights don't require the state action you are thinking of. Private, hired security forces are also capable of enforcing property rights.

They tend to use force as well.


The difference is the legitimacy of the claim to ownership.

From where exactly does this legitimacy derive? In capitalism it is based on wealth, which I would say is an objectionable ground for determining legitimacy.



I'm not saying that not having a police force is a good idea, I'm saying it's not philosophically necessary like the OP claimed. It is prudent, however, for obvious reasons.
Yes it is "philosophically necessary", in any system where the sole incentive for doing anything is material self-interest. It doesn't necessarily have to be a state-run police force, but there must be a body vested with the power to use force to protect property.

Green:

The capitalist view of the situation the correct one.

The socialist view of the issue is narrow, viewed from the end of production.

How does this mean that capitalism is natural and socialism is unnatural?



Why is the strawberry picker a thief in the given example? Because he is not picking strawberries for himself. He is picking strawberries to satisfy the strawberry consumption needs of the community. Such would have to be true in the socialist community (and the csuch theft would have to be considered a worse offense in the socialist community than stealing from the capitalist in the capitalist community) as well.
That is not why the strawberry-picker is a thief in a capitalist society; the thief could then distribute the strawberries amongst society in a way that is as or even more socially beneficial than the land-owner selling them, and he would still be a thief and still be punished in capitalist society. In a capitalist society theft is based on the violation of the property rights of an individual, not acting to the detriment of the common good.


Philanthropy is not production. Its consumption.
It is socially productive.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:12 pm

Green:

The capitalist view of the situation the correct one.

The socialist view of the issue is narrow, viewed from the end of production.

How does this mean that capitalism is natural and socialism is unnatural?



Why is the strawberry picker a thief in the given example? Because he is not picking strawberries for himself. He is picking strawberries to satisfy the strawberry consumption needs of the community. Such would have to be true in the socialist community (and the csuch theft would have to be considered a worse offense in the socialist community than stealing from the capitalist in the capitalist community) as well.
That is not why the strawberry-picker is a thief in a capitalist society; the thief could then distribute the strawberries amongst society in a way that is as or even more socially beneficial than the land-owner selling them, and he would still be a thief and still be punished in capitalist society. In a capitalist society theft is based on the violation of the property rights of an individual, not acting to the detriment of the common good.


Philanthropy is not production. Its consumption.
It is socially productive.
1. Because there is more to production than simply bringing home the finished product.

2. It is extremely doubtful that our thieving strawberry picker in a capitalist community is going to do a better job of distribution strawberries than the strawberry capitalist. And this is because of the nature of capitalism: Distribution is not a problem for a capitalist community, since products are produced knowing to where they are going. Production is distribution, in the capitalist orbit. The strawberries have already been distibuted in the capitalist world.

It is in the socialist community where the thrieving strawberry picker might do a better job of distributing the strawberries. And this is because ofd the nature of socialism: Distribution is a MAJOR problem for the socialist, since both production and distribution is dependent upon a vote, of which there is no natural reason for there to be an affinity between the two.

Furthermore, the thieving strawberry picker in the socialist community has committed the graver offense. The distribution of those strawberries has been determined by a vote in the council. The thief is thwarting the will of the people in his actions. In the capitalist community, he is simply stealing a few berries which, though illegal, is not a major deal.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:12 pm


Philanthropy is not production. Its consumption.
It is socially productive.
It is still consumption. Someone is using his wealth and not receiving an equal or greater return. It can only be considered productive if the result of the philanthropy is greater than what the philanthrope gave.

But regardless, the community can support philanthropy only to the extent it can support using resources in such a gamble. Which still requires the outlook that production must be geared for profit- the value of a finished product greater the sum of its parts.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 26, 2007 03:41 pm--> (Green Dragon @ December 26, 2007 03:41 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 09:12 pm


Philanthropy is not production. Its consumption.
It is socially productive.
It is still consumption. Someone is using his wealth and not receiving an equal or greater return. It can only be considered productive if the result of the philanthropy is greater than what the philanthrope gave. [/b]
You claimed in the other thread that the end result of economic actions - that is, goods like medicene etc. - are profitable (and I think productive, but "productive" seems to fit either way). Are you countering that claim here?

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:01 am
You claimed in the other thread that the end result of economic actions - that is, goods like medicene etc. - are profitable (and I think productive, but "productive" seems to fit either way). Are you countering that claim here?
Profit is nothing more than the value of a finished product being greater than the sum of its parts. All economic activity has to strive for profit- even in a socialist community. Otherwise, the community has no rational way of determining if its production is rational (that is that the objective is that finished product is valued by the community greater than the parts used to produce it).

Philanthropy is possible because of wealth created as above. Wealth is not created by producing goods not valued by the community.

What I am saying is that the wealth is being consumed in some fashion, not created. Now, it could be entirely justifiable and for noble purposes. But such a community could support such philanthropy if it was wealthy enough to do it, that is it can afford to consume wealth to some extent rather than create it.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 28, 2007 01:42 am--> (Green Dragon @ December 28, 2007 01:42 am)
[email protected] 27, 2007 02:01 am
You claimed in the other thread that the end result of economic actions - that is, goods like medicene etc. - are profitable (and I think productive, but "productive" seems to fit either way). Are you countering that claim here?
Profit is nothing more than the value of a finished product being greater than the sum of its parts. All economic activity has to strive for profit- even in a socialist community. Otherwise, the community has no rational way of determining if its production is rational (that is that the objective is that finished product is valued by the community greater than the parts used to produce it).

Philanthropy is possible because of wealth created as above. Wealth is not created by producing goods not valued by the community.

What I am saying is that the wealth is being consumed in some fashion, not created. Now, it could be entirely justifiable and for noble purposes. But such a community could support such philanthropy if it was wealthy enough to do it, that is it can afford to consume wealth to some extent rather than create it. [/b]
How does this explain the disparity between the two posts you made? Is philanthropy unproductive because the value of money is not worth the charity given? Do you really think that hoarding inanimate objects is better than transforming said objects into useful goods for those who need them? That is what you are saying, though I don't know that you can really be that cold.

[Robert]

Is philanthropy unproductive because the value of money is not worth the charity given? Do you really think that hoarding inanimate objects is better than transforming said objects into useful goods for those who need them?

Answer to first question is yes. (What have I "produced" if I give you a dollar?)

Answer to second question is no IMO, but it is a matter of opinion, and besides the question is poorly worded. Philanthropy in itself doesn't transform anything, I don't think. It's just the transference of stuff from point A to point B. Maybe good things will follow, often not, but the transfer is not "production."

Giving to the truly needy is laudable. But there are very few rich men who keep their treasure stuffed under a mattress or hoarded in the garage. I hope you knew that.

If the money goes into a bank, it gets loaned out. If it is invested in bonds, schools and stadiums get built. If it is used to buy a yacht, the yacht builders and their employees get paid for their labor, and the suppliers for the materials. Then I get to go for a cruise and drink champagne to your health.

What's wrong with that?

Hors d'oeuvres, anyone? Pass the Grey Poupon.

[Lynx]

Wasn't it Milton Friedman who suggested giving money to poor people?

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 28, 2007 01:42 am
Profit is nothing more than the value of a finished product being greater than the sum of its parts. All economic activity has to strive for profit- even in a socialist community. Otherwise, the community has no rational way of determining if its production is rational (that is that the objective is that finished product is valued by the community greater than the parts used to produce it).
What makes it more than the sum of it's part, I wonder?

The answer is labour. Why is a coat made from 10 yards of linen pricier than 10 yards of linen by itself?

Because you are willing to pay more to save yourself the labour.

So, if labour allows companies to charge this extra thing that makes profit, does it not follow that workers must be paid less than their worth to make a profit?

Capitalism is an exploitative relationship, and the wealth of the capitalist is effectively stolen. The work done by a capitalist is not so specialised, taxing, and time consuming to give them wages 100 times that of their employees, and you know this no matter how much you might see them as essential Nietzchean superheroes.

[pusher robot]

The answer is labour. Why is a coat made from 10 yards of linen pricier than 10 yards of linen by itself?

No, if the answer were labor, then a statue of dig'em that took the same 10 yards of linen and twice as much work to make would be twice as valuable. But...it's not.


Because you are willing to pay more to save yourself the labour.
But what a concession you have made! So you recognize, then, that the actual value of labor is no greater than what each individual would pay to avoid it. Thus, if I'm not willing to forgo $8 an hour not to work, the actual value of my labor is $8. If someone is willing to pay me any more than that, that's a profit that accrues to me. Even if my labor transforms a $10 item into a $100 one, my labor itself is still only worth $8.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 28, 2007 01:42 am
Profit is nothing more than the value of a finished product being greater than the sum of its parts. All economic activity has to strive for profit- even in a socialist community. Otherwise, the community has no rational way of determining if its production is rational (that is that the objective is that finished product is valued by the community greater than the parts used to produce it).

Philanthropy is possible because of wealth created as above. Wealth is not created by producing goods not valued by the community.

What I am saying is that the wealth is being consumed in some fashion, not created. Now, it could be entirely justifiable and for noble purposes. But such a community could support such philanthropy if it was wealthy enough to do it, that is it can afford to consume wealth to some extent rather than create it.
Also, there won't be any profit in a socialist society; you'll get your share based on how much work you put in, not your ability to use property to exploit those without property. Profit in capitalism inherently comes from taking advantage of those who have no choice but to sell their labour for survival, as explained above; the ability of people to accumulate wealth disproportionate to the work they put in is evidence of an exploitative society.

In capitalism, all production is geared towards making a profit for an elite, rather than being used to serve the people. Our productive capabilities aren't put to full use, precisely because if they were there would be an overproduction crisis, causing prices to fall and destroying profitability. Production should be ran not for profit, but with the intention of maximising production and making people as wealthy as possible.

"Otherwise, the community has no rational way of determining if its production is rational (that is that the objective is that finished product is valued by the community greater than the parts used to produce it)."

But the community don't value it as greater than the sum of it's parts; just the extra value that labour gives to a commodity, when converted into price, doesn't find it's way back to those who created that value; it is expropriated by the employer who gives the workers back as small a wage as he can get away with.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 28, 2007 03:47 pm
So you recognize, then, that the actual value of labor is no greater than what each individual would pay to avoid it.
Bollocks. The value of labor is in part the skills learned by the worker.

Even Capitalism disagrees with your assertion. The value of labor under Capitalism (in theory) is how much someone is 'willing' to work in a particullar field as opposed to others.

You have yet to attempt to effectively counter expropriation.

[Matty_UK]

No, if the answer were labor, then a statue of dig'em that took the same 10 yards of linen and twice as much work to make would be twice as valuable. But...it's not.

No idea what a statue of dig 'em is, so I'm not sure how to argue with that.


But what a concession you have made! So you recognize, then, that the actual value of labor is no greater than what each individual would pay to avoid it.

Ok.


Thus, if I'm not willing to forgo $8 an hour not to work, the actual value of my labor is $8. If someone is willing to pay me any more than that, that's a profit that accrues to me. Even if my labor transforms a $10 item into a $100 one, my labor itself is still only worth $8.

I'm not sure what you're saying....you aren't willing to lose $8 an hour by not working, so the value of your labour is worth $8?

No, the value of your labour depends on how much other people will pay for you to do something they won't have to do. Just because you would settle for $8 an hour doesn't mean your labour isn't generating much more money than that, and that it's going to someone else, not you, is exploitation.

I see what you're saying, but you're judging the value of your labour on it's exchange value alone, and it's more complex than that.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:21 pm
No idea what a statue of dig 'em is, so I'm not sure how to argue with that.
He's referring to an episode of Family Guy where the wierd-ass mayor builds a gold statue of Dig 'em, the Smacks cereal frog, and gets recalled.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+December 28, 2007 10:24 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ December 28, 2007 10:24 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 04:21 pm
No idea what a statue of dig 'em is, so I'm not sure how to argue with that.
He's referring to an episode of Family Guy where the wierd-ass mayor builds a gold statue of Dig 'em, the Smacks cereal frog, and gets recalled. [/b]
Oh, well, in that case then it's simply wasted labour. Labour that isn't useful to anyone doesn't have much value, no matter how much of it there is.

[pusher robot]

Oh, well, in that case then it's simply wasted labour. Labour that isn't useful to anyone doesn't have much value, no matter how much of it there is.

And how do we determine whether it's useful? By whether the outputs are more valuable than the inputs.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 28, 2007 10:45 pm

Oh, well, in that case then it's simply wasted labour. Labour that isn't useful to anyone doesn't have much value, no matter how much of it there is.

And how do we determine whether it's useful? By whether the outputs are more valuable than the inputs.
Whether or not anyone wants to buy it is a pretty good indication of useful it is.

And I explained before, it's an illusion that the final commodity has more value than the sum of it's parts, (if we include labour as a component, anyway) just because the capitalist makes more money than he spends. He makes more money than he spends by ripping off his employees.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:06 pm
Also, there won't be any profit in a socialist society; you'll get your share based on how much work you put in, not your ability to use property to exploit those without property. Profit in capitalism inherently comes from taking advantage of those who have no choice but to sell their labour for survival, as explained above; the ability of people to accumulate wealth disproportionate to the work they put in is evidence of an exploitative society.


The problem though is that the purpose of work is to produce needed goods for the community. So simply putting a certain amount of work "in" is insufficient. It has to be the "right" kind of work over the "wrong" kind of work. And then there is the issue of the "right" way to do the "right" work over the "wrong" way of doing the "right" work. The community needs to have ways to make such distinctions. A democratic community is NOT the answer, since this merely describes the process. The information which a council would use in making such a decision is what is being asked to provide.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:06 pm

In capitalism, all production is geared towards making a profit for an elite, rather than being used to serve the people. Our productive capabilities aren't put to full use, precisely because if they were there would be an overproduction crisis, causing prices to fall and destroying profitability. Production should be ran not for profit, but with the intention of maximising production and making people as wealthy as possible.

[
Since a profit cannot be accrued unless people are willing to purchase a product, this by definition means the pursuit of profit does serve the people.

If "overproduction" occurs, it means that resources that could have been allocated to other production have been wasted. I am not sure why that problem of "overproduction" would not be a problem in the socialist community. Production ought to be "maximised" but any community needs to have ways for making those determinations.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:06 pm

But the community don't value it as greater than the sum of it's parts; just the extra value that labour gives to a commodity, when converted into price, doesn't find it's way back to those who created that value; it is expropriated by the employer who gives the workers back as small a wage as he can get away with.
Of course it does. Why build it if it doesn't? I mean do you value the silicon in your computer the same or MORE than the computer? How about the plastic (or metal) of your garbage can?
Of course you don't. And you are not alone.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 28, 2007 06:47 am

Is philanthropy unproductive because the value of money is not worth the charity given? Do you really think that hoarding inanimate objects is better than transforming said objects into useful goods for those who need them?

Answer to first question is yes. (What have I "produced" if I give you a dollar?)
Giving to legitimate charity usually does have an end result of transforming paper into food aid, shelter, emergency transportation, etc.




Answer to second question is no IMO, but it is a matter of opinion, and besides the question is poorly worded. Philanthropy in itself doesn't transform anything, I don't think. It's just the transference of stuff from point A to point B. Maybe good things will follow, often not,
It's good to know you value relief aid so little.


but the transfer is not "production."
Trade is not productive, then? the entire backbone of capitalism is unproductive?

You really think its unproductive to move your money into a position to be used (stimulating production) and help those genuinely in need? As a side note, we should assume that this is what charity is - not simply giving people money. It's clearly a cop - out to pretend that charity is simply transferance of funds; it's not.1


Giving to the truly needy is laudable. But there are very few rich men who keep their treasure stuffed under a mattress or hoarded in the garage. I hope you knew that.
I never said there were, or implied it.


If the money goes into a bank, it gets loaned out. If it is invested in bonds, schools and stadiums get built. If it is used to buy a yacht, the yacht builders and their employees get paid for their labor, and the suppliers for the materials. Then I get to go for a cruise and drink champagne to your health.

What's wrong with that?
Nothing in and of itself, and I didn't explicitly say anything against it. I am merely claiming that more good comes from charity, and further that it is more productive to put money as directly used (as charity does) than as a loanable, tradable bit of profit. Don't you think that workign with habitat for humanity is more productive for society than doing random bank work?

It should be noted, further, that the argument has not been about whether or not charity is more productive than putting the money in the bank, I am just pointing this out. The argument is simply that charity is or isn't productive, and unless you talk of shams like the salvation army, most charity is very productive.


Hors d'oeuvres, anyone? Pass the Grey Poupon.
I'll stick with my budget crap for now. In my position, you just can't afford fancy prices.

[Robert]

Don't you think that workign with habitat for humanity is more productive for society than doing random bank work?


Random? You do pretty well for such a young man. But the answer is "no."



I'll stick with my budget crap for now. In my position, you just can't afford fancy prices.

All the more reason to turn from socialism and go make a few bucks. You'll drive nicer cars, play nicer guitars, and get more p---y. Don't that sound good?

[RevSkeptic]

But what a concession you have made! So you recognize, then, that the actual value of labor is no greater than what each individual would pay to avoid it. Thus, if I'm not willing to forgo $8 an hour not to work, the actual value of my labor is $8. If someone is willing to pay me any more than that, that's a profit that accrues to me. Even if my labor transforms a $10 item into a $100 one, my labor itself is still only worth $8.

The value of labour is only worth as much as those holding most of the money is willing to pay for it which is as little as possible without inciting a rebellion that they couldn't crush with military and police forces which those holding most of the money also pays.

Now, if the rich (those holding most of the money) also pays the military and police forces poorly then we would have a situation wouldn't we? Revolution might not be the only problem, but paying off mercenary police for "protection" would also be likely.

[RevSkeptic]

Don't you think that workign with habitat for humanity is more productive for society than doing random bank work?
Random? You do pretty well for such a young man. But the answer is "no."

Bank work isn't random. It's procedural which means any which one of these morons poring over spreadsheets can be replaced with a smart enough computer program. Making computer programs and coming up with new math and physics formulas and investigating A.I. are random work. Doing the mindless work of lemmings that most of humanity is engaged in isn't random. Compared to someone who is truly creative some bank drone is a subhuman monkey.



I'll stick with my budget crap for now. In my position, you just can't afford fancy prices.
All the more reason to turn from socialism and go make a few bucks. You'll drive nicer cars, play nicer guitars, and get more p---y. Don't that sound good?

You are a good example of a psychopath, but I assume there are more psychopaths out there than naive do-gooders can possibly imagine.

[Robert]

Compared to someone who is truly creative some bank drone is a subhuman monkey.

You obviously have no idea what a bank really is. Or what it's personnel does. You also have no idea of how a bank works.

Wake up, my bitter friend. Coffee's brewing. Inhale and smell it before it's too late!

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 29, 2007 03:34 pm
The problem though is that the purpose of work is to produce needed goods for the community. So simply putting a certain amount of work "in" is insufficient. It has to be the "right" kind of work over the "wrong" kind of work. And then there is the issue of the "right" way to do the "right" work over the "wrong" way of doing the "right" work. The community needs to have ways to make such distinctions. A democratic community is NOT the answer, since this merely describes the process. The information which a council would use in making such a decision is what is being asked to provide.
Well yes, labour is only valuable when it's going into something people have a use for, I think that's fairly obvious.

I'm not sure why you seem to think a democratic community is incapable of determining what is useful to make and what isn't, assuming that's what you mean by "right" and "wrong" kinds of work. It seems fairly common sense to me, could you elaborate on that a bit?

[Robert]

you seem to think a democratic community is incapable of determining what is useful

Not to butt in, but you are describing a capitalist free market.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 29, 2007 03:42 pm
Since a profit cannot be accrued unless people are willing to purchase a product, this by definition means the pursuit of profit does serve the people.

If "overproduction" occurs, it means that resources that could have been allocated to other production have been wasted. I am not sure why that problem of "overproduction" would not be a problem in the socialist community. Production ought to be "maximised" but any community needs to have ways for making those determinations.
But people can have their needs served without a capitalist making profit; also people aren't only consumers, they're workers as well and the profit the capitalist makes comes from them.

R.e. overproduction; firstly, overproduction isn't merely producing more than people want, as you'd probably agree human wants are infinite. Overproduction in capitalism is producing more than people can consume, more than their spending power allows for. The trouble is, the exchange value of labour is lower than it's use value, the value it adds to a commodity, due to them being exploited. Therefore, the total produce in a capitalist society is always going to be higher than the total spending power of it's people.

It isn't a problem in socialism because firstly, people aren't exploited; secondly, it doesn't matter if something isn't bringing money to investors, because as the economy is planned investment goes into production as long as it's serving a function.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 29, 2007 03:47 pm--> (Green Dragon @ December 29, 2007 03:47 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 10:06 pm

But the community don't value it as greater than the sum of it's parts; just the extra value that labour gives to a commodity, when converted into price, doesn't find it's way back to those who created that value; it is expropriated by the employer who gives the workers back as small a wage as he can get away with.
Of course it does. Why build it if it doesn't? I mean do you value the silicon in your computer the same or MORE than the computer? How about the plastic (or metal) of your garbage can?
Of course you don't. And you are not alone. [/b]
OK, I think we're actually in agreement here. What I'm saying is that the labour used to assemble the seperate physical components increase it in value, and make people willing to pay more for it.

A day to day example is, I can make about 40-50 cigarettes from a 25gram pack of drum tobacco with some rizlas and filters for about the same price as I could buy a pack of 20 marlboro lights. People pay more for the marlboro lights because they're paying for someone else to assemble the cigarette, hence increasing the price.

Are we in agreement that labour has value other than it's exchange value? (how much the employer pays for it)

[RevSkeptic]

You obviously have no idea what a bank really is. Or what it's personnel does. You also have no idea of how a bank works.

Wake up, my bitter friend. Coffee's brewing. Inhale and smell it before it's too late!

I got plenty of good ideas of how a bank works. I'm just challenging you to provide evidence that you know how a bank works and that any of the academic theories applied to risk management has anything to do with tangible reality. If it's not tangible reality, but manufactured statistics and probability then what is it? Probability and statistics is used mostly in gambling and game theory is it not? The conclusion then must be that the so-called intellectual elites of the present system, which includes you, are nothing more than casino owners and gambling addicts.

Oh, by the way. Being trained in a practical field of technology gives me the advantage of being able to test all my theories in a laboratory setting to confirm everything that my professors tell me isn't pure bullshit. So you'll have to do better than say my prof told me this and my prof told me that. How can you confirm any of your theories isn't pure bullshit by practical laboratory tests.

[RNK]

So essentially, now that all your arguements have been countered, you're falling back on the tried and tested "well, communism has never happened, so you can't prove it'll work" theory.

Thankfully, science isn't so archaic.

[kromando33]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 09:08 am
So essentially, now that all your arguements have been countered, you're falling back on the tried and tested "well, communism has never happened, so you can't prove it'll work" theory.

Thankfully, science isn't so archaic.
Indeed comrade, I swear at Uni I have heard that saying hundreds of times, along with the other 'teenage-idealist' classics such as 'Stalin was a capitalist' and 'bureaucratic class'. I have never seen such sad example of defeatism to the bourgeois in this forum.

[Robert]

How can you confirm any of your theories isn't pure bullshit by practical laboratory tests.

Because, my child, real banks fail in the real market. Not in a laboratory. If the bankers and the "drones" sit on their asses all day twiddling their thumbs and other "random" (you're betraying your youth with that word) tasks, their banks will quickly close due to lack of the profit that follows the lack of the utility I think -- I pray -- that you favor. That isn't "theoretical", that's reality. If they don't close voluntarily the bank regulators will do it for them. It happens all the time.

Now go rake the leaves in your mommy's yard. I bet she'll give you a cookie.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by kromando33+December 31, 2007 09:21 am--> (kromando33 @ December 31, 2007 09:21 am)
[email protected] 31, 2007 09:08 am
So essentially, now that all your arguements have been countered, you're falling back on the tried and tested "well, communism has never happened, so you can't prove it'll work" theory.

Thankfully, science isn't so archaic.
Indeed comrade, I swear at Uni I have heard that saying hundreds of times, along with the other 'teenage-idealist' classics such as 'Stalin was a capitalist' and 'bureaucratic class'. I have never seen such sad example of defeatism to the bourgeois in this forum. [/b]
"Teenage idealist?"

Look comrade, the differences between USSR "socialism" and western capitalism aren't too significant in the grand scheme of things, at least not compared to the differences between natural subsistence economy and industrial commodity economy. The USSR remained a commodity economy, with capitalist class relations; the bureaucrats did live off surplus values of proletarians, and collectively served the function of directing the expansion of capital.

Looking at China and the USSR it's clear to me that the demands of industrial development were, inevitably, more of a priority for the state. The development was generally pretty successful, but it doesn't mean it was socialist. Fact is, internal accumulation of national capital was a more efficient way of developing than letting your economy be raped by foreign capital. (law of combined and uneven development yadda yadda yadda) What capitalism is has largely been defined by the ways in which it differed from the USSR model; but it doesn't mean the general capitalist epoch is so narrowly defined or that the USSR wasn't part of an inevitable capitalist mode of development. I suspect something similar would have happened in the USSR and China if the word communism had never been uttered, albeit with different values and justifications.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 03:44 pm


Look comrade, the differences between USSR "socialism" and western capitalism aren't too significant in the grand scheme of things, at least not compared to the differences between natural subsistence economy and industrial commodity economy. The USSR remained a commodity economy, with capitalist class relations; the bureaucrats did live off surplus values of proletarians, and collectively served the function of directing the expansion of capital.

Looking at China and the USSR it's clear to me that the demands of industrial development were, inevitably, more of a priority for the state. The development was generally pretty successful, but it doesn't mean it was socialist. Fact is, internal accumulation of national capital was a more efficient way of developing than letting your economy be raped by foreign capital. (law of combined and uneven development yadda yadda yadda) What capitalism is has largely been defined by the ways in which it differed from the USSR model; but it doesn't mean the general capitalist epoch is so narrowly defined or that the USSR wasn't part of an inevitable capitalist mode of development. I suspect something similar would have happened in the USSR and China if the word communism had never been uttered, albeit with different values and justifications.
Yes. That is how socialism develped in the USSR. Its how socialism WILL develop ANYWHERE, regardless of the best attempts otherwise. And that is beacuse the capitalist serves a needed role in production which the socialist community will have to replicate in some fashion. It just won't do it as effectively.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:13 pm
Well yes, labour is only valuable when it's going into something people have a use for, I think that's fairly obvious.

I'm not sure why you seem to think a democratic community is incapable of determining what is useful to make and what isn't, assuming that's what you mean by "right" and "wrong" kinds of work. It seems fairly common sense to me, could you elaborate on that a bit?
Obviously a democratic community can vote to produce X units of this product, or vote to build an airport here rather than there.
But in doing so one would hope that there is some sort of justification to make one decsion over the other. Arguments are going to have to be made, yes?

What is being asked is the knowledge which is being used in making that decsision. Twenty five years ago would personal computers be "needed" by the community (over other goods)? Doubtful, since humanity had survived previously without them. Relying upon what is "obvious" seems a rather inefficent way of making decsions. It seems aa recipe for a static community that does not progeress at all.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:56 pm
OK, I think we're actually in agreement here. What I'm saying is that the labour used to assemble the seperate physical components increase it in value, and make people willing to pay more for it.

A day to day example is, I can make about 40-50 cigarettes from a 25gram pack of drum tobacco with some rizlas and filters for about the same price as I could buy a pack of 20 marlboro lights. People pay more for the marlboro lights because they're paying for someone else to assemble the cigarette, hence increasing the price.

Are we in agreement that labour has value other than it's exchange value? (how much the employer pays for it)
IF they want the product. That is what sets the price.
Labor is paid what the labor is worth to the rest of the community.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:44 pm
But people can have their needs served without a capitalist making profit; also people aren't only consumers, they're workers as well and the profit the capitalist makes comes from them.

R.e. overproduction; firstly, overproduction isn't merely producing more than people want, as you'd probably agree human wants are infinite. Overproduction in capitalism is producing more than people can consume, more than their spending power allows for. The trouble is, the exchange value of labour is lower than it's use value, the value it adds to a commodity, due to them being exploited. Therefore, the total produce in a capitalist society is always going to be higher than the total spending power of it's people.

It isn't a problem in socialism because firstly, people aren't exploited; secondly, it doesn't matter if something isn't bringing money to investors, because as the economy is planned investment goes into production as long as it's serving a function.
Of course needs can be met without a capitalist making a profit.

Capitalists are consumers as well. Its meaningless. The worker at a given industry is not consuming in any relevent amount that which he produces. The worker is working to satisfy someone else's needs, not his own.

Human wants are indeed infinite. But production is not. The socialist community faces this constraint no less so than the capitalist one. Overproduction in a capitalist community means the capitalist loses profit. In the socialist community...? Nothing. There is no reason NOT to overproduce in the socialist community (and thus waste resources).

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 31, 2007 03:53 pm
Yes. That is how socialism develped in the USSR. Its how socialism WILL develop ANYWHERE, regardless of the best attempts otherwise. And that is beacuse the capitalist serves a needed role in production which the socialist community will have to replicate in some fashion. It just won't do it as effectively.
Who says the USSR wasn't effective? The rate of industrialisation and increase in life expectancy and standards of living are unprecedented in human history, you can't argue with that. It developed far more effectively than other third world countries that didn't resist the global market, and still continue to display meekness in the face of IMF policy makers.

And you say the capitalist serves a needed role in production; which role is that? The management role is clearly something that can be handled democratically, as proved throughout history by the actions of workers, most recently in Argentina and Venezeula. ( http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10329 )

If you mean the role of expropriating surplus value and investing it elsewhere; again, surely the worker's, who unlike the capitalists are effected by public services are capable of investing in community projects of any kind.

Obviously individual co-ordinators are needed, but why can't they be temporarily elected?

The problem with the other places, is that those revolutions all happened in under-developed countries with a very small proletariat, which was incapable of forming a leadership; most of them in the USSR were illiterate! A bureaucracy seperate to the worker's soviets was brought in from the educated elite of the old order, who ultimately formed the stalinist faction within the state; this is a consequence of the underdevelopment and backwardness of the country, not of socialism!

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 31, 2007 03:59 pm--> (Green Dragon @ December 31, 2007 03:59 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 05:13 pm
Well yes, labour is only valuable when it's going into something people have a use for, I think that's fairly obvious.

I'm not sure why you seem to think a democratic community is incapable of determining what is useful to make and what isn't, assuming that's what you mean by "right" and "wrong" kinds of work. It seems fairly common sense to me, could you elaborate on that a bit?
Obviously a democratic community can vote to produce X units of this product, or vote to build an airport here rather than there.
But in doing so one would hope that there is some sort of justification to make one decsion over the other. Arguments are going to have to be made, yes?

What is being asked is the knowledge which is being used in making that decsision. Twenty five years ago would personal computers be "needed" by the community (over other goods)? Doubtful, since humanity had survived previously without them. Relying upon what is "obvious" seems a rather inefficent way of making decsions. It seems aa recipe for a static community that does not progeress at all. [/b]
R&D isn't exclusive to capitalism; I think it's pretty unlikely that nobody in society would see the need for research and development.

In fact, as in a socialist society there would be somewhat less work to do (production could be increasingly automated and the total social produce divided up directly, rather than through wages, while in capitalism new jobs that contribute very little to society must be created, ensuring people will always be working long hours no matter how advanced in technology capitalism is) I speculate that we will get more and more technology; some of the greatest cultures in history, Ancient Greece and Rome, have contributed much to philosophy, art, science etcetc precisely because none of their citizens did any labour; they had slaves to do it for them. Humans, when freed from tedious labour, are naturally creative beings and I think they will strive to innovate to improve society.

Also...the USSR had a planned economy and they sent the first man into space.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 31, 2007 04:03 pm--> (Green Dragon @ December 31, 2007 04:03 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 05:56 pm
OK, I think we're actually in agreement here. What I'm saying is that the labour used to assemble the seperate physical components increase it in value, and make people willing to pay more for it.

A day to day example is, I can make about 40-50 cigarettes from a 25gram pack of drum tobacco with some rizlas and filters for about the same price as I could buy a pack of 20 marlboro lights. People pay more for the marlboro lights because they're paying for someone else to assemble the cigarette, hence increasing the price.

Are we in agreement that labour has value other than it's exchange value? (how much the employer pays for it)
IF they want the product. That is what sets the price.
Labor is paid what the labor is worth to the rest of the community. [/b]
Agreed; but my point is that the money people are willing to pay for the labour doesn't go to the labourer; it goes to the capitalist.

In simple terms; no capitalist will employ a worker who costs more than the wealth (s)he'll create for the capitalist.

You can agree with that, surely?

[Green Dragon]

R&D isn't exclusive to capitalism; I think it's pretty unlikely that nobody in society would see the need for research and development.

In fact, as in a socialist society there would be somewhat less work to do (production could be increasingly automated and the total social produce divided up directly, rather than through wages, while in capitalism new jobs that contribute very little to society must be created, ensuring people will always be working long hours no matter how advanced in technology capitalism is) I speculate that we will get more and more technology; some of the greatest cultures in history, Ancient Greece and Rome, have contributed much to philosophy, art, science etcetc precisely because none of their citizens did any labour; they had slaves to do it for them. Humans, when freed from tedious labour, are naturally creative beings and I think they will strive to innovate to improve society.

Also...the USSR had a planned economy and they sent the first man into space.

R&D has nothing to do with it. The problem remains the same. A rational system needs to be in place even for decisions regarding R&D.

[Green Dragon]

In simple terms; no capitalist will employ a worker who costs more than the wealth (s)he'll create for the capitalist.

You can agree with that, surely?

The same is true for the socialist community. What sense does it make to allocate labor in a direction which benefits the community less than what it costs it?