the prominent systemic problem

[Lowtech]

the prominent systemic problem of capitalism is the use of money. money implies a duality of value that is actually impossible. suppose you have a bucket. then you sold that bucket. you then believe that the value of that bucket still resides in the bucket but it also now resides in the form of money in your pocket. this is an impossibility. value cannot duplicate itself. anymore than a gallon of water can spontaneously become 2 gallons of water. but then you'll probably say the bucket represents value the buyer produced via his "earnings". with that you're still incorrect, the value he produced (earned) has been consumed. it was consumed in the production of the product he made (or helped make). the end user of that product is who ultimately consumes that value. value by nature is transient and only manifest when consumed. that consumption could be utilized to produce usable materials and items that allow for further consumption, however value resides in things that can be directly consumed (prior to consumption). tools themselves had their value consumed in their own production. you might then say that if you produce more than you consume, say grow more food than you need or make more tools or clothing than you need, you can trade for things you are unable to make yourself. however this is not the same as an asset. an asset is designed not to trade real surplus value for tangible things, but rather to trade money for more money. it panders directly into that imaginary duality of value that doesn't exist. this leads to the understanding that when an item is sold at a profit, much of what is paid is satisfied by the item rendered, but that only amounts to value equal to production cost, that does not satisfy the profit or "surplus value." that amount was surrendered with nothing rendered in return. profit is uncompensated consumption. in this truth, we realize that profit and taxes, and wealth and welfare have no difference mathematically.

[Baseball]

money implies a duality of value that is actually impossible. suppose you have a bucket. then you sold that bucket. you then believe that the value of that bucket still resides in the bucket but it also now resides in
the form of money in your pocket.

The bucket is sold because the value of the money is greater than the value of the bucket.

The bucket is bought because the value of the bucket is greater than the value of the money.

Once sold, the bucket retains value-- but not to the seller.

Such a state of affairs naturally needs to continue to exist in a socialist community.
To the extent that a socialist community seeks to abolish money, it simply makes production far more difficult and onerous than it need be.

but then you'll probably say the bucket represents value the buyer produced via his "earnings". with that you're still incorrect, the value he produced (earned) has been consumed. it was consumed in the production of the product he made (or helped make).

The "earnings;s were part of the consumption of the product.

the end user of that product is who ultimately consumes that value.

A plastic bucket requires the production of plastic. When the producers of plastic, produce their plastic, that is the end use of their work.
Yet obviously, that doesn't help the person who wants a plastic bucket.
Maybe he wil just get a metal one. was the plastic produced for that plastic bucket, or wasted?

value by nature is transient and only manifest when consumed.

I guess. A ten dollar bucket is only worth ten dollars if people are willing to spend ten dollars.

that consumption could be utilized to produce usable materials and items that allow for further consumption, however value resides in things that can be directly consumed (prior to consumption)

I jumped the gun-- plastic produced for a plastic bucket is directly consumed-- by the bucket workers.

tools themselves had their value consumed in their own production. you might then say that if you produce more than you consume, say grow more food than you need or make more tools or clothing than you need, you can trade for things you are unable to make yourself.

OK-- trading for profit.

this leads to the understanding that when an item is sold at a profit, much of what is paid is satisfied by the item rendered, but that only amounts to value equal to production cost, that does not satisfy the profit or "surplus value." that amount was surrendered with nothing rendered in return.

Money is a measurement of value. One needs to be able to determine whether production of goods has value, and their value compared to each other (ie metal buckets vs. plastic buckets or buckets versus lunch out).
Profit measures that and that is the return rendered.

[Lowtech]

The bucket is sold because the value of the money is greater than the value of the bucket.

The bucket is bought because the value of the bucket is greater than the value of the money.

the perplexing concept of value you describe cannot coincide with physical value and is useless and detrimental to economics as economics is concerned with physical goods and thier uses in the sustaining of every individual on the planet.

I guess. A ten dollar bucket is only worth ten dollars if people are willing to spend ten dollars.

^this is exactly the arcane notion of value only observed in market environments and all together inconsistent with real, quantifiable value, and incompatible with productive infrastructure whose intended purpose is to sustain an entire classless civilization.

Money is a measurement of value. One needs to be able to determine whether production of goods has value, and their value compared to each other (ie metal buckets vs. plastic buckets or buckets versus lunch out).
Profit measures that and that is the return rendered.

firstly, money has never accurately measured value. Being when price is above production cost, it is representing an amount above actual value and therefore erroneous. Value is based on production cost and is quantifiable, intrinsic and objective. If one states value is measurable (As you imply via the use of money), one has accepted value to be quantifiable. Value cannot be both subjective and quantifiable. Therefore any argument that implies the use of money and markets are part of a legitimate economic system is immediately shown to be baseless.

[Baseball]

the perplexing concept of value you describe cannot coincide with physical value and is useless and detrimental to economics as economics is concerned with physical goods and thier uses in the sustaining of every individual on the planet.

Sure it can-- some people need buckets, but not all people.
Its true of other items as well.

^this is exactly the arcane notion of value only observed in market environments and all together inconsistent with real, quantifiable value, and incompatible with productive infrastructure whose intended purpose is to sustain an entire classless civilization.

The I guess there will be problems sustaining "an entire classless civilization."

firstly, money has never accurately measured value.

Its not perfect, true.

But its the best we got.

Being when price is above production cost, it is representing an amount above actual value and therefore erroneous.

it reflects the value people place upon the item.
All items being priced for cost makes no sense, as then there is no way to determine whether the production of the item was truly needed, that the costs involved resulted in a gain and a benefit for society.

In other words, a civilization, from an economic angle here, cannot be sustained if it can't justify its production.

[Slavic]

You are both wrong with your equations.

money implies a duality of value that is actually impossible. suppose you have a bucket. then you sold that bucket. you then believe that the value of that bucket still resides in the bucket but it also now resides in the form of money in your pocket. this is an impossibility. value cannot duplicate itself.

Money does not have a duality of value, money represents liquid interchangeable value. The bucket has a value of $10, $10 cash has a value of $10. When both are exchanged each component retains its initial value but changes ownership. There is no new value generated during exchanges.

The bucket is sold because the value of the money is greater than the value of the bucket.
The bucket is bought because the value of the bucket is greater than the value of the money.
Once sold, the bucket retains value-- but not to the seller.

The bucket isn't sold because the value of money is greater. The bucket is exchanged for its value for equal value of money. You are thinking about price. If the bucket is sold at higher or lower than its value, then its price is different than its value, its value is still retained.

I think that you are trying to fit profit into your equation. Profit isn't generated from the exchange of commodity for money, profit is generated by extracting surplus value from workers.

Assume that all commodity's value is the summation of the value of its components during its construction.

A bucket's value is $10. The plastic in the bucket is valued at $6 and the labor of the worker is $4.

Lets say that the components used to create the plastic is valued at $6.
Lets say that the components used to create the worker is valued at $2.

The bucket industry buys the plastic for $6 and the worker's labor for $2. This results in $2 of surplus value produced by the worker infused into the bucket. This will yield a $2 profit on the sale.

[RedMaterialist]

The bucket is sold because the value of the money is greater than the value of the bucket.

The bucket is bought because the value of the bucket is greater than the value of the money.

Once sold, the bucket retains value-- but not to the seller.

[/QUOTE]

Bucket seller, A, sells bucket for $5.00 because $5.00 is worth more than the bucket is worth. To do this A must find a buyer dumb enough to pay more for something than it is worth. Even if he can do this, A must still turn around and buy something himself, which he must pay more for than it is worth. So nothing is gained or lost.

Bucket buyer B buys a bucket for $5.00 because the value of the bucket is worth more than $5.00. To do this, B must find a seller who is willing to sell something for less than it is worth. Even if he can do this he himself must then buy something for more than it is worth. Again, the same outcome as A.

This kind of economic 'thinking' is typical of marginal utility economics. It doesn't make any sense. Yet it is the only economics taught in the U.S.

The reality is this: The bucket is sold for what it is worth, $5.00. If the seller is a capitalist, then the bucket cost him $2.50 to produce and distribute. The extra $2.50, the profit, surplus, value-added, was produced, created, by the worker. The $2.50 paid to the worker is labor-wages, the additional $2.50 is labor for which the capitalist paid nothing. That is where profit comes from.

How can the capitalist pay a worker only half of what the worker actually produces? Because, in part, there are millions of workers who are unemployed, close to 15-20% of the population. Labor is a "resource" which is always in an artificially high supply.

[Slavic]

How can the capitalist pay a worker only half of what the worker actually produces? Because, in part, there are millions of workers who are unemployed, close to 15-20% of the population. Labor is a "resource" which is always in an artificially high supply.

Besides using the labor reserves as a tool to pay lower prices for labor, the amount of value consumed by the worker to live is much lower than the amount of value he is required to work into a commodity.

The lesser the value needed to consume for a worker to live is a good thing if workers are only required to work into commodities the value of their person, hence socialism. In capitalism, the decreasing value needed to live is a boon to capitalist since workers produce more surplus value.

[RedMaterialist]

Besides using the labor reserves as a tool to pay lower prices for labor, the amount of value consumed by the worker to live is much lower than the amount of value he is required to work into a commodity.

The lesser the value needed to consume for a worker to live is a good thing if workers are only required to work into commodities the value of their person, hence socialism. In capitalism, the decreasing value needed to live is a boon to capitalist since workers produce more surplus value.

And, the capitalist owns the bucket factory, therefore, when the bucket comes off the assembly line he owns the bucket. The worker's labor is a commodity which ceases to exist as soon as the day is over, and the worker owns nothing but the labor he can provide the next day. Essentially, workers don't own what they themselves produce.

[Lowtech]

Sure it can-- some people need buckets, but not all people.
Its true of other items as well.

that is exactly why most things mass produced now are a waste. capitalism producing mostly garbage is no excuse to attribute a higher value to more useful things, its grounds to scrap the entire illegitimate system all together.

Its not perfect, true.

But its the best we got.

do not confuse economic subjugation with better or popular.

it reflects the value people place upon the item.
All items being priced for cost makes no sense, as then there is no way to determine whether the production of the item was truly needed, that the costs involved resulted in a gain and a benefit for society.

^this is totally absurd as currently commodities are not produced based on need, they are produced based on profits. if your assumptions were correct, more than 80% of the population would not live on only $10 a day.

In other words, a civilization, from an economic angle here, cannot be sustained if it can't justify its production.

where the debate starts is that you and those like yourself only consider owners of capital to be part of that civilization. we, the producing class include every living individual in that civilization.

[Lowtech]

You are both wrong with your equations.

Money does not have a duality of value, money represents liquid interchangeable value. The bucket has a value of $10, $10 cash has a value of $10. When both are exchanged each component retains its initial value but changes ownership. There is no new value generated during exchanges.

represents value in a market environment, itself does not have value. after you've sold your bucket, the money in your hands do not retain water.

The bucket isn't sold because the value of money is greater. The bucket is exchanged for its value for equal value of money. You are thinking about price. If the bucket is sold at higher or lower than its value, then its price is different than its value, its value is still retained.

however you're still assuming money has value. something attributed value as a social construct doesn't mean it has real value.

I think that you are trying to fit profit into your equation. Profit isn't generated from the exchange of commodity for money, profit is generated by extracting surplus value from workers.

Assume that all commodity's value is the summation of the value of its components during its construction.

A bucket's value is $10. The plastic in the bucket is valued at $6 and the labor of the worker is $4.

Lets say that the components used to create the plastic is valued at $6.
Lets say that the components used to create the worker is valued at $2.

The bucket industry buys the plastic for $6 and the worker's labor for $2. This results in $2 of surplus value produced by the worker infused into the bucket. This will yield a $2 profit on the sale.

^this last bit is interesting. you see, real surplus value is only derived via over production. however profits in modern markets are derived not via over production but rather over pricing goods and underpaying workers. The latter is capitalism.

If capitalists could not over price goods, they would reduce workers into litteral unpaid slaves, leading to more immediate revolution. If they could not devalue labour, they would increase prices to even more rediculous heights or migrate to full automation but serving only the "desirables." The stability of capitalism comes down to how much the working class can tolerate and be made to believe is "economical."

[Slavic]

represents value in a market environment, itself does not have value. after you've sold your bucket, the money in your hands do not retain water.however you're still assuming money has value. something attributed value as a social construct doesn't mean it has real value.

. Regardless, the money represents a value it is fiat not gold standard. Despite its paper value 10$ cash can be exchanged for $10 with of value.

^this last bit is interesting. you see, real surplus value is only derived via over production. however profits in modern markets are derived not via over production but rather over pricing goods and underpaying workers. The latter is capitalism.

Surplus value is not from over production but increased efficiency in production. Over production drops the commodities price but its value is the same. That last bit is incorrect capitalists today still derive profits from extracting surplus value. Over pricing commodities would just lead to said capitalist being edged out of the market from the Law of Averages.

If capitalists could not over price goods, they would reduce workers into litteral unpaid slaves, leading to more immediate revolution. If they could not devalue labour, they would increase prices to even more rediculous heights or migrate to full automation but serving only the "desirables." The stability of capitalism comes down to how much the working class can tolerate and be made to believe is "economical."

there is no need to overprice goods profit is alreadr achieved through surplus value.

[Lowtech]

. Regardless, the money represents a value it is fiat not gold standard.

I am not disputing that money represents value. And social constructs can represent any multitude of things however it does not make them the same as what they represent. What I am saying is that the value of a commodity cannot reside both in the commodity and the money paid in its purchase. being that money has no real value.

Surplus value is not from over production but increased efficiency in production.

only capitalists believe cheaper automatically means efficient. Cheaper could mean slave labor went into the production or substandard dangerous materials.

Over production drops the commodities price but its value is the same. That last bit is incorrect capitalists today still derive profits from extracting surplus value. Over pricing commodities would just lead to said capitalist being edged out of the market from the Law of Averages.
there is no need to overprice goods profit is alreadr achieved through surplus value.

You are referring to market value which is itself a social construct that only exists within a market environment and is not an axiom of economics. Real surplus value is over producing and trading the extra. What capitalists do to people is an altogether seperate exploitation that uses arcane false economics to manufacture consent.