15-12-2004 22:01									#121
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GePap So perhaps true communism only works on the commune level and not the state level. You forget communism =/ marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, or Maoism. All those other -isms are subsects of the older communist notions.

I don't forget. Like capitalism there are many different beliefs and many continuing arguments. I don't expect the communists (meant generally) to agree any more than you should expect me to agree with all the capitalists.

I think if communism requires a general population to see their interest as being the same as the state, you have more difficulty as the state gets bigger and bigger.

I've read a little about the early Israeli kibbutz (far from enough to be truly knowledgeable) and they strike me as a situation where communism worked. United by religion, fear, recent oppression and existing hatred and looming attacks, people had a common interest in survival. The accounts I read were of people toiling hard for the common good in the early days of Israel. I confess that I am woefully uininformed as to the status of these entities today

	15-12-2004 22:02									#122
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Its very simple: why should a human being, to survive and feed himself, have to work in a relationship where they are only partly compensated for their own labor?

They don't. In fact, you are compensated entirely for your labor. It's just that your labor, once put through the machine (capital), becomes much more valuable. But it's my labor when it goes in, because I already bought it from you.

If I had a machine that made billions of dollars worth of stuff just by pressing a button, and I hired you to press the button, do you deserve billions of dollars?

	15-12-2004 22:04									#123
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Capital is always rewarded. It's practically a law of nature, and wholly independent of the economic structure at hand. If you need a factory to produce the widgets, then you need capital. It doesn't matter where it comes from - communism simply shifts the source from a private owner or investment consortium to the workers (the state, in principle, but the since in communism the workers = the state, it's the same thing). At the end of the day, the capital is as integral in creating value as the labour is. If the worker owns part of the capital, he gets part of the capital's reward.

That is pretty much it.
There are specifics one could argue about, but it is my general idea: the rewards of the capital should generally go to those who work on this capital, for the general moral reason that hard work should be rewarded, and that people shouldn't be stripped of what they earned through hard work.

	15-12-2004 22:06									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Flubber I confess that I am woefully uininformed as to the status of these entities today

They still exist, but they often have trouble competing against capitalist companies for whatever they produce that is to be sold outside of the Kibbutz. Also, the young, who are born there, leave very often.

	15-12-2004 22:07									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker If I had a machine that made billions of dollars worth of stuff just by pressing a button, and I hired you to press the button, do you deserve billions of dollars?

More than you do. At least, I made the effort to push the button

	15-12-2004 22:07									#126
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker They don't. In fact, you are compensated entirely for your labor. It's just that your labor, once put through the machine (capital), becomes much more valuable. But it's my labor when it goes in, because I already bought it from you.

And why should I have to sell my labor to survive?

quote: If I had a machine that made billions of dollars worth of stuff just by pressing a button, and I hired you to press the button, do you deserve billions of dollars?

Why shouldn't you? After all, with all the inflation, a bilion won't be worth much for long.

	15-12-2004 22:10									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: And why should I have to sell my labor to survive?

1) We have social safety nets.

2) Why should you be able to just lounge around and demand that we feed you?

quote: Why shouldn't you? After all, with all the inflation, a bilion won't be worth much for long.

It's a billion dollars worth of goods, not a billion pieces of green paper. But your point would hold - in fact, it's what would happen under capitalism - if lots of people had this machine. However, since only I do, and the system is rather large, my machine won't seriously affect supply and demand.

	15-12-2004 22:11									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker 1) We have social safety nets.

a socialist invention

quote: 2) Why should you be able to just lounge around and demand that we feed you?

No one ever said this.

	15-12-2004 22:11									#129
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor That is pretty much it. There are specifics one could argue about, but it is my general idea: the rewards of the capital should generally go to those who work on this capital, for the general moral reason that hard work should be rewarded, and that people shouldn't be stripped of what they earned through hard work.

Then you've opened up a huge flaw in your reasoning. Say you work in a labour-owned widget factory and make 400 unpainted widgets a year. Someone else in the same factory paints the widgets, and you make X number of dollars through your hard work. But now, the people in the paint factory have drastically improved their productivity, so paint becomes cheaper. Your factory buys the cheaper paint, and your factory makes more money without you increasing the amount or changing the type of work you do. You have now profitted from doing nothing. How does this jive with your morality?

	15-12-2004 22:12									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Flubber yup-- obviously there is value in the work he did getting the widget contract and selling. The widget maker can make more widgets as he doesn't have to market or transport them

You know I mean should he get compensated above that.

	15-12-2004 22:14									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Jumping ahead, because this is getting somewhat tedious, here's where I'm going: Capital is always rewarded. It's practically a law of nature, and wholly independent of the economic structure at hand. If you need a factory to produce the widgets, then you need capital. It doesn't matter where it comes from - communism simply shifts the source from a private owner or investment consortium to the workers (the state, in principle, but the since in communism the workers = the state, it's the same thing). At the end of the day, the capital is as integral in creating value as the labour is. If the worker owns part of the capital, he gets part of the capital's reward.

Duh

	15-12-2004 22:15									#132
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap a socialist invention

Not precisely, but whatever. Full-blown communism, or anything near it, is unnecessary.

quote: 2) Why should you be able to just lounge around and demand that we feed you?

No one ever said this. [/q]

You asked "And why should I have to sell my labor to survive?", which generally implies that you don't think that you should. If you do think that you should have to sell your labor to survive, then what was the point of the question?

	15-12-2004 22:18									#133
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker You asked "And why should I have to sell my labor to survive?", which generally implies that you don't think that you should. If you do think that you should have to sell your labor to survive, then what was the point of the question?

A subsistance farmer does not sell his labor to survive.

I thought that is an obvious question. I guess I was wrong.

	15-12-2004 22:19									#134
	Support Apolyton

quote: A subsistance farmer does not sell his labor to survive. I thought that is an obvious question. I guess I was wrong.

If you really want to be a subsistance farmer, you can.

	15-12-2004 22:19									#135
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Its very simple: why should a human being, to survive and feed himself, have to work in a relationship where they are only partly compensated for their own labor? They don't. In fact, you are compensated entirely for your labor. It's just that your labor, once put through the machine (capital), becomes much more valuable. But it's my labor when it goes in, because I already bought it from you. If I had a machine that made billions of dollars worth of stuff just by pressing a button, and I hired you to press the button, do you deserve billions of dollars?

Kuci,

If a capitalist buys a machine he intends to get a return on his investment. Why don't you think that the capitalist intends to get a return on his investment when he hires a worker? Do you think that he intends to give the worker exactly what he worked for?

	15-12-2004 22:22									#136
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker If you really want to be a subsistance farmer, you can.

You are dense.

The moral question is, why should someone have to sell their labor in order to have what they want in life? It implies a huge inequality, since the capitalist need not sell thier labor to survive either.

understood?

	15-12-2004 22:23									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap Its very simple: why should a human being, to survive and feed himself, have to work in a relationship where they are only partly compensated for their own labor? Is it not more moral for people to be able to use all their labor on themselves, or whatever they chose to work in that they decide they love?

First -- that wasn't the statement-- The statement was that people should essentially be paid enough to purchase that which they produce. If a person builds luxury yatchs, he may be one of 100 people involved in the construction stage. Hundreds more built the various parts and thousands cut and milled the wood and mined, transported and smelted the copper, iron, aluminum, silver, and lead. The owner of the yatchmaking place has already paid for that labor by buying the parts. Lets say all those parts cost 10 million dollars and the yatch will sell for 11 million-- At most the workers can EACH get in construction is $10,000 per yatch and thats not enough to buy what he labored on even if he built 10 a year.

Second- your question begs several more.

1. How do you determine what is full and what is partial compensation? remember my real world example where average revenue per oil worker is 2.4 million yearly. What is full compensation for the yatch builder? Do you price the item at each construction step to see what value a partucilar worker brought?

2. If a worker works on a product that ends up having no value, what is full compensation for that? Nothing ? Or a "fair wage" determined by somebody? Who determines it?

quote: Originally posted by GePap Is it not more moral for people to be able to use all their labor on themselves, or whatever they chose to work in that they decide they love?

A person can use all their labor on themselves. Nothing stops anybody from laboring on their own behalf. In fact a good chunk of trades folks here choose to set up their own shop. The guy that painted our house was a 22 year old doing just that-- you might aplaud him but then it would turn to boos since he dared hire some other folks.

As for the love part, I don't think ANY system will guarantee you a living in something you love. If it does, sign me up to that system and I will be a professional hockey player or a professional chess player. I'm assuming the fact that I suck at both is irrelevant.

	15-12-2004 22:24									#138
	Put an end to popups!

quote: If a capitalist buys a machine he intends to get a return on his investment. Why don't you think that the capitalist intends to get a return on his investment when he hires a worker? Do you think that he intends to give the worker exactly what he worked for?

The worker produces some stuff with his labor. The capitalist buys the stuff for some price that is greater than the value the laborer holds on it and less than the value the capitalist holds on it. The stuff is not the capitalists, not the laborer's. The capitalist then usually applies capital to the stuff and gets stuff of higher value, which he sells. Since it is of higher value, he usually gets a higher price for it than he paid for the stuff to which he applied the capital.

	15-12-2004 22:26									#139
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Duh

Read on, sweetie. Specifically two posts before your "duh" comment.

	15-12-2004 22:27									#140
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by GePap You are dense. The moral question is, why should someone have to sell their labor in order to have what they want in life? It implies a huge inequality, since the capitalist need not sell thier labor to survive either. understood?

Only those capitalists which were given a gift by someone else. Why shouldn't people be able to support others so much that they don't have to sell their labor to survive?

	15-12-2004 22:29									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker The capitalist buys the stuff for some price that is greater than the value the laborer holds on it and less than the value the capitalist holds on it.

Why do you think it's more valuable to the capitalist?

	15-12-2004 22:32									#142
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Flubber First -- that wasn't the statement-- The statement was that people should essentially be paid enough to purchase that which they produce. If a person builds luxury yatchs, he may be one of 100 people involved in the construction stage. Hundreds more built the various parts and thousands cut and milled the wood and mined, transported and smelted the copper, iron, aluminum, silver, and lead. The owner of the yatchmaking place has already paid for that labor by buying the parts. Lets say all those parts cost 10 million dollars and the yatch will sell for 11 million-- At most the workers can EACH get in construction is $10,000 per yatch and thats not enough to buy what he labored on even if he built 10 a year. Second- your question begs several more. 1. How do you determine what is full and what is partial compensation? remember my real world example where average revenue per oil worker is 2.4 million yearly. What is full compensation for the yatch builder? Do you price the item at each construction step to see what value a partucilar worker brought?[/q] 2. If a worker works on a product that ends up having no value, what is full compensation for that? Nothing ? Or a "fair wage" determined by somebody? Who determines it?

Your initial question missed the point of the idea.

quote: A person can use all their labor on themselves. Nothing stops anybody from laboring on their own behalf. In fact a good chunk of trades folks here choose to set up their own shop. The guy that painted our house was a 22 year old doing just that-- you might aplaud him but then it would turn to boos since he dared hire some other folks.

This guy was able to do that because there is a market for house painting which he was able to use by selling his labor. Imagine if he wanted to do something for which there was no profitable market? The hiring part is a red herring.

quote: As for the love part, I don't think ANY system will guarantee you a living in something you love. If it does, sign me up to that system and I will be a professional hockey player or a professional chess player. I'm assuming the fact that I suck at both is irrelevant.

Well, first problem is that the 'professional' statement again presuposes selling your labor.

but lets assume you decide playing hockey is what you want to do all the time. You mgiht find out this is true. You might find out after several years thought that this is not true, and that fishing is your true passion. Marx fantasized a system in which you could try it all until you found out what you trully loved to do, and could then do that and not starve to death.

In all these debates I always bring up Star Trek, and I do becuase there is a situation in which such a system is obviously possible, built on having reached a level of wealth and production where it is sustainable (a precondition Marx always set).

	15-12-2004 22:33									#143
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Then you've opened up a huge flaw in your reasoning. Say you work in a labour-owned widget factory and make 400 unpainted widgets a year. Someone else in the same factory paints the widgets, and you make X number of dollars through your hard work. But now, the people in the paint factory have drastically improved their productivity, so paint becomes cheaper. Your factory buys the cheaper paint, and your factory makes more money without you increasing the amount or changing the type of work you do. You have now profitted from doing nothing. How does this jive with your morality?

Simple. The work I do is now worth much more thanks to a better productivity. The money I earn still comes from the fact I actually work in the complany.

This is BTW why productivity is such a good news: it increases the value of work considerably, even meaning that one could get more money with fewer work. The gains of productivity tilt the equaltion "Labour*Capital=Value", and the increased value goes to those who work. Nothing immoral here, only good news

	15-12-2004 22:35									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The thing that you are missing Kuci, is that Mr. Moneybags has to buy things for less than they are worth and sell them more more than they are worth. That's the only way that he can compete with the other capitalists. If he doesn't he won't be a capitalist much longer. Labor is just another commondity to him. Just like buying a machine, he has to hire the worker for less than his work is worth.

The worker on the other hand is only trying to survive. He takes a wage that he can get. He's willing to trade his labor for less than it's worth so that he can survive.

You see the capitalist will only take the trade at a price below value, and the worker will accept the trade at a price below value. That's the exploitation of the system.

	15-12-2004 22:40									#145
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by GePap The moral question is, why should someone have to sell their labor in order to have what they want in life? It implies a huge inequality, since the capitalist need not sell thier labor to survive either. understood?

You don't. All you have to do is something that someone finds of value so you can trade the value they gove you for the things you want in life. If you decide to sell your labor so be it. If you decide to start a business then so be that.

Oh and don't equate capitalist/investor with wealthy . One is not necessarily the other. I think generally that communists find the wealthy to be more offensive than the capitalists. I see a lot of scorn for inherited wealth and attempts to ignore examples where a person accumulates capital through their own labor.


Lets go to the famous tractor example. A ditchdigger makes 10 bucks an hour. Another ditchdigger saves his money for years and buys a tractor. He offers to hire a ditchdigger to drive the tractor for 20 bucks an hour. The tractor is hired at 40 bucks an hour of which 15 dollars goes to expenses, maintenance and depreciation. The ditchdigger makes twice his previous wage ( and assume the previous wage was considered fair) for doing easier work. The old tractor owner gets $5 an hour in profit when he himself is not driving the tractor and this will allow him to retire earlier.

What is wrong in morality and common sense with that. Everyone is better off. Yet I keep getting told that the tractor driver is being exploited . . . when making half the money doing harder work, he is not exploited.

This is the hard work gang. Where theory collides with common sense

	15-12-2004 22:45									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Imagine if he wanted to do something for which there was no profitable market?

I want to play Civ all day. Instead, I must sell my labor for 40hrs a week to earn my pay. How terrible that I cannot fulfill my dream.

I apologize for the hit 'n run post, btw. I really need to catch up on the discussion, since I've missed several pages of what appears to be good debate.

-Arrian

	15-12-2004 22:48									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap Your initial question missed the point of the idea.

Then elaborate.

quote: Originally posted by GePap In all these debates I always bring up Star Trek, and I do becuase there is a situation in which such a system is obviously possible, built on having reached a level of wealth and production where it is sustainable (a precondition Marx always set).

Fine . Can you all let kid know this since I think he would impose the system now.

If we are talking some far distant time when there is ample for all, thats ok but then wouldn't most of the drivers leading to the revolution be absent. If everyone has good food and amenities, who will be striving for the changes?

	15-12-2004 22:51									#148
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Flubber You don't. All you have to do is something that someone finds of value so you can trade the value they gove you for the things you want in life. If you decide to sell your labor so be it. If you decide to start a business then so be that.

So you are saying your ability to do what you want is based on whether other people think it worthwhile?

quote: Oh and don't equate capitalist/investor with wealthy . One is not necessarily the other. I think generally that communists find the wealthy to be more offensive than the capitalists. I see a lot of scorn for inherited wealth and attempts to ignore examples where a person accumulates capital through their own labor.

If capital= wealth, then all capitalists are wealthy. Not all the wealthy might be capitalists.

quote: Lets go to the famous tractor example. A ditchdigger makes 10 bucks an hour. Another ditchdigger saves his money for years and buys a tractor. He offers to hire a ditchdigger to drive the tractor for 20 bucks an hour. The tractor is hired at 40 bucks an hour of which 15 dollars goes to expenses, maintenance and depreciation. The ditchdigger makes twice his previous wage ( and assume the previous wage was considered fair) for doing easier work. The old tractor owner gets $5 an hour in profit when he himself is not driving the tractor and this will allow him to retire earlier.

All which is fine, but has 0 to do with the moral question posed.

quote: What is wrong in morality and common sense with that. Everyone is better off. Yet I keep getting told that the tractor driver is being exploited . . . when making half the money doing harder work, he is not exploited.

Everyone is better off fine,

On the moral front, assuming that the ditchdigger was happy digging ditches and is happy driving a tractor then whatever. but what if the ditch digger wants to be a fisherman and is digging ditches because that is the only work left for the likes of him? The fact that he is making double the wage does not solve the issue of his alientation from his labor.

	15-12-2004 22:52									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Arrian I want to play Civ all day. Instead, I must sell my labor for 40hrs a week to earn my pay. How terrible that I cannot fulfill my dream. -Arrian

It is terrible, ins't it?

	15-12-2004 22:53									#150
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

And I want to see a communist logically tell me how there is anything offensive in the tractor example. I have removed all your emotional buttons such as idle rich and opressed worker. I want to see how your theoretical model works in the hard case where it is clear where everybody benefits AND where our "capitalist" is just a hardworking guy that scraped together a bit of cash to try to do something to make his life just a little better. He remains a worker that still toils every day