 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
Then elaborate.
|
All people need to eat and need shelter to survive. That is obvious. NOw, its not like there is much land left open for someone to claim as their own, then go chop down some trees for their home and so forth. To live they need money, to make money they need to sell their labor to another individual to earn the cash to buy their goods from somoene else (or the very folks they work for). The communist critique then is that we have a system in whcih people end up toiling for life not becuase they love to toil, but because they have to toil in order to have what they need to live. Now, back in the times of subsistance farming, that is just the reality of life. But we have moved on, and the means of production today are far beyond that- we are at a level where society could provide the basics of life to everyone period, and then free everyone to do whatever they love, to stop the alienation of worker and labor. But we don't do so, becuase we value more a system in which private owners of capital can maximixe their wealth. We have placed as a higher moral the maximazation of wealth over allowing everyone to do what they love.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
In the condition you mention, if you and I don't agree on the set of rules, then there is no morality. In a siutation with one perosn morality does not exist. With two, it only exists if both people agree. I could kill you or you me and the only problem would be ones conscience. If you start getting a lot of people, then maybe you need a social convention.
So, no, saying private ownership is moral is simply saying social convention says privcate ownership is good. But what is the basis of said convention? |
WOW
So if you met me on a deserted island you would have no moral compunction about killing me.
You see certain moral principles go with me wherever I am and not interfering with the well being of another (unless necessary) would be one of them.
THat would involve
not harming you unless necessary (self defense)
not taking or destroying things you have created ( I could justify taking some things if I were starving butb then again if I were in the situation of plenty I could not morally allow you to starve).
I do find it interesting that you would see nothing of prior society or any of your training and upbringing-- surviving.
No morality unless we agree hmmm---So if a big dude joins our island and immediately begins beating you, I guess I have no moral responsibility and in fact the new dude is doing nothing wrong since we had not agreed that beating each other was "wrong".
-------
Sorry but to me morality always exists. If I were ALONE on that island my morality doesn't disappear. The things I considered wrong would still be wrong to me. My beliefs in right and wrong are not THAT fluid
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Well, that's an interesting faith based arguement. any arguements to back it up? |
Nope-- I just can't see how any person that has acquired or adopted a moral code (yes through training and social convention) could abandon it so easily.
You mentioned conscience... How is that relevant if NOTHING you could do could possibly be WRONG.?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
NO-- do whatever you want -- just don't expect me or society to compensate you for it. If everybody did exactly what they desired, many of the needs of the society ( even food and shelter) would be unmet. Yet you wish to play chess or fish, or play civ3 all day and then have food and shelter. Where does this come from? If you answer is Star Trek we are back to a far off fantasy in which case, I say FINE-- once all needs are met and labour is not required to meet needs, we can all do as we please |
Society does not compensate it- a private individual does. See, only in communism does SOCIETY actually compensate you. This is where Che's value arguement vs. Kid comes up.
quote:
Not in the sense that most people would use the term wealthy. A rather poor person might scrape together $500 to buy a piece of equipment that he can rent out for $80 bucks a month. He is a capitalist but no one would call him wealthy. |
I don't tow the line that anyone owning capital=capitalst. I own a hammer. I am not a capitalist.
quote:
If this situation is FINE, ie no moral problem then you have just accepted a situation where PROFIT is moral.  |
Profit in an of itself is not evil. The question is, is profit your sole motivation?
quote:
So you are asserting a right for anyone to be "employed" at anything they choose? Does this hold if there is no value to anyone in their chose field? |
No, you would not be "employed" anymore than a subsitance famer is employed. Thats the point, the ability o live and love what you do not necessarily as an employee. (for there must be an employer)
quote:
Again-- in star trek maybe this could happen but in the current and forseeable world I simply do not see how this is possible regardless of the economic or governmental system. |
You assume of course perhaps that everyone would like to lounge and do nothing at all all day long-which is really nonsense. I do know there is more than enough wealth to feed, cloth, and educate every single child on the planet. We don't, but we have far more than is necessary to do that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
And I want to see a communist logically tell me how there is anything offensive in the tractor example. |
There is nothing offensive in that example, since you removed all actual problems that arise from capitalism: the owner of capital worked as hell to get his capital, and he doesn't exploit the worker.
The problem is that, for one of those win-win situations, you have plenty of win-lose situation. Heck, the very example you use could be quickly twisted in a win-lose situation if we make the story progress a little bit:
The trqctor owner becomes too old to manage it, and he sells his productive capital to some ditch-digging company in town. The ditch-digging company must satisfy its shareholders / moneylenders, and thus it requires a much higher return on investment from the guy who works the tractor. As such, he sees a strong decline of his income (but not enough to make him go back to the shovel).
Progressively, the balance shifts. The workers gain eventually 10$ an hour, while the shareholders get 15$ (the company's functioning fees remain pretty much the same as what they were previously).
Sure, the worker still has better working conditions than with their shovels. But he is stripped of most of the value of their work. He'd be far better off with a tractor of his own, but he doesn't necessarily have the money for that. Hence, he has to continue working for that company.
The reason why I gave your bright example a dark future is not because I wanted the emotional aspect back in. I wanted to show that even your example of a really nice and deserving owner had the potential to turn into capitalist exploitation - and a fair potential at that.
This is why I endorse a socialist system over a social-democratic one: because the private ownership of capital is the very reason why many people gain far less money than they could if they actually earned the value of their work.
Even if capitalism permits the existence of "kind" owners (and they do exist), it also has all the mechanisms to permit the existence of impersonal, despotic entities that care only for the financial return. And this is the grave problem of capitalism IMHO, which I think Market Socialism would solve. The kind of Market Socialism I envision would have nearly no impact on family or small-scale businesses, which are personalized entities where "kind" bosses can indeed exist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
You honestly don't see the problem here? You just finished arguing that if the capital shouldn't be rewarded because it's the work that's creating the value. |
This is not what I argued. Value is fundamentally produced by the combination of work * capital. I think that those who only provide capital shouldn't be rewarded, for moral reasons (with all the reservations about practicability).
If the value rises, damn right I want the worker to reap the rewards of it. The raise of productivity means that his work is worth more, so it's entirely normal he gets more money.
quote:
Now you're happy to reward the same thing for nothing, only because it's you that owns the capital instead of someone else. |
Th painter (that would be me?) continues to work, doesn't he? So how exactly does it oppose my idea that work should be rewarded?
quote:
In other words, someone who is not responsible for the change in financial position is reaping the rewards of it. You didn't increase your productivity, and you're being compensated for work that is not yours. You're no different than the capitalist today. |
Err, how exactly didn't I increase my productivity (I'm not sure I understand the vocabulary)? Do you mean that I am not responsible in doing so, or do you think that my work isn't more productive as before?
Again, it is pretty straightforward. Value is a combination of work*capital. I think only those who work in a company should get the financial rewards of that company, and that impersonal owners not working in should not. How exactly does it contradict my morals to say that the workers of the company get a pay rise if the company has produced significantly more value?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
There is nothing offensive in that example, since you removed all actual problems that arise from capitalism: the owner of capital worked as hell to get his capital, and he doesn't exploit the worker.
The problem is that, for one of those win-win situations, you have plenty of win-lose situation. Heck, the very example you use could be quickly twisted in a win-lose situation if we make the story progress a little bit:
...snip...
|
I should really let Flubber argue this one on his own, but to me the problem is that you've placed an artificial cap on the number of people that can buy a tractor. As I see the example, the guy who bought the tractor in the first place did so by digging ditches and saving his money. But now, even with the workers making more than the original tractor owner did when he was digging ditches, no one can afford to buy another tractor. Why is this?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
This is not what I argued. Value is fundamentally produced by the combination of work * capital. I think that those who only provide capital shouldn't be rewarded, for moral reasons (with all the reservations about practicability).
If the value rises, damn right I want the worker to reap the rewards of it. The raise of productivity means that his work is worth more, so it's entirely normal he gets more money.
Th painter (that would be me?) continues to work, doesn't he? So how exactly does it oppose my idea that work should be rewarded?
Err, how exactly didn't I increase my productivity (I'm not sure I understand the vocabulary)? Do you mean that I am not responsible in doing so, or do you think that my work isn't more productive as before?
Again, it is pretty straightforward. Value is a combination of work*capital. I think only those who work in a company should get the financial rewards of that company, and that impersonal owners not working in should not. How exactly does it contradict my morals to say that the workers of the company get a pay rise if the company has produced significantly more value? |
But how has your company produced significantly more value? You still make the same 400 widgets a year in the exact same manner as you did before. The only difference is that now you're making more money because some people in another company figured out a way to do their job better. You had precisely zero to do with their increase in productivity, but you, the owner of the capital, is getting rewarded for work you did not do.
You seem to be using value and profit interchangably, which is a problem. If you equate the two, then you have to object to Flubber's tractor situation - because there you're not getting 100% of the price paid for your labour. If you don't equate them, then you haven't increased the value of your work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
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.
|
Where does this magical term "worth" come into things? Yes a capitalist has to buy things (including labor) for less than they sell them for. Since suckers aren't lined up saying "let me sell you X for less than what the other guy will pay", it is only possible to sell things for more than other people are selling the same thing by adding something to it. That something may be work in organization, transporting, marketing or even capital (such as letting the worker use my tractor).
I still don't see something. VERY BASIC QUESTION-- HOW DO YOU DETERMINE HOW MUCH AN AMOUNT OF WORK IS WORTH ?? ( and if it is increased value, are you willing to pay the oil rig workers $2.4 millon each)
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
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.
|
I call BULLCRAP. Or do you mean "survive" in its othermeanings than : "to remain alive or in existence".
In any event, I would say that the majority or working folk (in Canada and the US for instance) live a comfotable existence. I would even go on to say that the VAST majority do not see their existence threatened in any way due to economic circumstances. And of those that do, I am betting that they are not availing themselves of available government programs and charity works.
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
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. |
Now you use "value"-- is this the same as "worth"?
Oh and your assertion is not always true-- The capitalist may have to pay a worker even if they are unable to sell the fruits of the labour onward. Thats part of the risk of being a capitalist.
Again and again it appears that communists discount the idea that a worker has any free will. Well, as a worker I dispute that. Mrs flubber is a worker and gets a good wage. But if they want her to work outside her regular 22 hours, they pay her double time or she doesn't go in. Free will . I didn't like my pay in NL so I moved thousands of miles. Free will.
Are there employers that abuse their employees? Yes. Are there people that feel they need a given job due to an abundant supply of labor. Again yes. But the answer to me is in the minimum wage and labor standards laws. Also its in the free market-- If there is too much labor available where you are. . . MOVE. Or does the communist system forsee employing people wherever they happen to want to live?
As a worker, I wish to thank all you communist folks for your concern about my well-being. For the same reasons that I personally would not wish to be in a union, I think I'll decline.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
I should really let Flubber argue this one on his own, |
No keep going. I had a good run but won't be around for a few hours now that I am back to work.
I still want an answer on the worth of labor question though. Kid keeps saying the capitalist don't give the worker what their labor is "worth". I want to know who assigns the value and how.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Kontiki:
I misread the original example, I thought "I" was the widget-painter. Since the quality and the quantity of my job doesn't change, I am not entitled to any inherent pay raise, except for the redistribution of the profit at the end of the year, if the general assembly decides to redistribute them.
For if the company's prfit raises, no matter if my job changed or not, I should reap part of those increased profits as I am part of the machinery. I believe that the people who found a way to get higher productivity should have a nice bonus, far bigger than the boon obtained by the rest of the employees. |
It doesn't matter if you're the widget painter. In that case, you still paint 400 widgets a year, just like you used to.
It's the second paragraph that's the issue here, though. You are getting increased pay for no increase in value creation. The machinery that created the increase in profits is no different than the capitalist's machinery now. Just like the capitalist, you've done no work to increase the profits and the value of your output has stayed the same, yet you are reaping the reward. In actuality, you are the capitalist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
Just like the capitalist, you've done no work to increase the profits |
Who, exactly, has? Maybe the commercials who found a cheaper paint? I have already mentioned that whomever is responsible for finding a cheaper paint should get rewarded appropriately.
quote:
you've done no work to increase the profits and the value of your output has stayed the same, yet you are reaping the reward |
The value has stayed the same, but the added value rose (added value = final price - price of the production process at the exception of wages). It is only normal that I get my fair share of the added value, even if the total value remains the same.
I don't see what is shocking about it. I continue to work, I continue to produce value, and thanks to a new arrangement, I (as a part of the society) produce a higher added value than before.
I do not believe that there is anything wrong with reaping the rewards of a rise in productivity or, as in your example, of a rise in added value. I believe there is something wrong to reap them when your only claim to reap them is that you own the means of production - I reject the legitimacy of that particular form of wealth distribution. I don't reject the idea that wealth should be distributed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
When a capitalist buys something, or rents something, or hires someone, he decides that the price that he is paying is less than what the thing is worth. When he sells the thing he decided that the thing is worth less than what he sells it for. I hope this helps you become a better capitalist. |
That's what EVERYONE does.
The value of an object (which may be an intangible thing, like a patent or a music file) is a function of the object and the person. The value of some object X to person Y is val(X,Y). We normally represent this as equal to val($x,Y), where x is the maximum dollar value Y would pay for X and the minimum dollar value for which Y would sell X. If Y is selling X to Z, the price will be val(X,Y) < price < val(X,Z), by definition.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-12-2004 22:57
|