Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Entrepreneurs and managers are productive. Investment/ownership is a provider, only necessary under the propertarian system.
Investment and ownership do not belong together within the point you are trying to make. Investment is clearly a deliberate, productive action on the part of someone. Your argument seems to be that ownership is not in itself productive...it simply "is", or is a supporting framework within which we can be productive.
I suppose you could make that argument - that "ownership" doesn't have brains, therefore can't actively produce anything...it's just a thing, a concept - and that would be fine. However, you can't make that argument in comparison with other systems and assume that our productive capacity would be the same without the concept of ownership. The idea of property and ownership is a human response to the reality of scarce time, space and matter by which we can reduce conflict. So, sure, it will never physically attach a gizmo to a widget for you. But if you are trying to line-item attribute productive capacity to all of the works of man, the lion's share would undoubtedly belong to this concept.
Drew Brando: @flic I have no idea how you have the patience to explain things.
@flic
I have no idea how you have the patience to explain things.
I've just about lost it. Look at EvilSocialists ability to at least consider his opponents points. Taking time and care before responding, and even withdrawing a response to a later time so that adequate thought is given. Look at his civility. In contrast look at Epicurus's knee-jerk reactionary tendencies. Look at how he is focusing on words and meaning, while EvilSocialist has moved past the unproductive pedanditry and is actually attempting to tackle the problems the Austrian School raises, like Calculaiton.
It matters not whether property is tyrannical or not. What matters is economic calculaiton. Who cares if property is tyrannical, if 90% of the world goes hungry because you cannot econmically provide for them. This is the continued StrawMan Epicurus has offered. He's never offered an actual critique of the econoimic system. Instead he's appealing to emotion and his own personal understanding of what he thinks ethics ought to be. All I hear from him is "It's just not fair!". As if life was somehow meant to be fair.
So where in my definition of Capitalism am I being dishonest?
It would be akin to me saying: what's your problem with socialism, and by that I mean free acess to resource based on merit. Capitalism may promote voluntary exchange, but it is not only voluntary exchange. You can say that the means of production being privately owned leads to voluntary exchange (which is as true as them being privately owned leads to coercion). But that is not the same thing as saying any time anyone voluntarily exchanges something, they were practicing capitalism.
It also leads this community to say clever tricks like "it's capitalism v coercion." Which sound good, but are utterly ridiculous.
No you have not defined anything. You can't even stick to a single definition. In fact you can't even agree on simple english phrases. To make matters worse it sounds like your endorsing multiple definitions of Socialism as well.
Whenever you want to start being honest...
"Absolute property laws, generally 'this is mine and not yours' or more specifically 'the establishment of the homesteader as final arbiter on said property." Idk, what is this, the 8th or 9th time I've defined it? And the 0th time you have even said anything regarding the definition I have provided multiple times.
The above definition is realized under a model of voluntary exchange. How can this be denied? I'm not saying that other forms of Capitalism cannot exist. In fact I would argue that removing Capitalism and markets all together is completely impossible, as it tries to deny praxeology. What I am saying is, the conclusion of voluntary exchange, is the private means of production.
First, that is entirely different than defining capitalism solely as voluntary exchange.
Second, this is what I'm saying; "I would argue that removing Capitalism and markets all together is completely impossible" is why your definition of capitalism is entirely incoherent. Why then did capitalism not exist for 200k years of human existence? Wait, for you it did, because voluntary exchange has.
Third, voluntary exchange has existed for well over 200k years. Why then did it only lead to private property in the last few hundred years? Once again, incoherent definitions are ill suited for rational discourse outside one's own circle.
Became confused in our last debacle where you went scurrying away unable to answer my quesitons or
Dishonesty at its finest. I suggest you re-read that thread you are referring to.
I have answered your questions multiple times, and have even posited my own questions for you, which have remained unanswered. You have repeatedly not seen my answers and continued to claim that I didn't even attempt to answer you.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
I like Evilsocialist, he explains in some threads how co-op factories work. Although it still looks like a primitive form of wealth redistribution and not very efficient. From what I see, syndicalism is a slippery slope to socialism.
Nonetheless in a capitalist society you can have both type of factories, where as in a socialist you can't.
This is actually a good point. But the investment itself doesn't actually produce anything. It provides the atmosphere. If a group of people came over a hill to find an abandoned factory that still has all its parts and resources, they would still be able to produce using said factory without the help of any investor.
What I am saying is, no matter how necessary private ownership is under the propertarian system, it is not actually necessary for production. It may or may not be more effecient, but it is not necessary for the productive process itself.
I think your engrish isn't very good, atleast comprehension. You tend to bring up the same points over and over again.
Again, you fail to argument your points.
Go in peace brother, may your benevolence save "humanity".
Epicurus:It would be akin to me saying: what's your problem with socialism,
Well thats the very issue at hand. Given the socialist definition provided, it's hard to show how you can employ money-prices. In doing so many market-socialists have had to re-define the definition of socialism. The example provided above.
On the other hand, Capitalism is a logical conclusion to voluntary exchange.
Epicurus:It also leads this community to say clever tricks like "it's capitalism v coercion." Which sound good, but are utterly ridiculous.
People need to better guard their statements, but it is the initiation of force thats the problem, not force alone. MOst people here get that. Those people here looking to fight, on the other hand, use that as ammunition.
Epicurus:Whenever you want to start being honest...
How am I being dishonest? You may have confused me. Which is easy to do as it's extremely difficult to follow you. You manipulate words, and pull things from contexts which makes it very hard to follow. Explain to me the dishonesty, or stop calling me that. Insulting me won't give your argument any more merit.
Epicirus:"Absolute property laws, generally 'this is mine and not yours' or more specifically 'the establishment of the homesteader as final arbiter on said property." Idk, what is this, the 8th or 9th time I've defined it? And the 0th time you have even said anything regarding the definition I have provided multiple times.
Epicirus:First, that is entirely different than defining capitalism solely as voluntary exchange.
Voluntary exchange implies property. It implies one party has a possession of an object, and the other as well. And that both parties give up posession of those objects in exchange. You cannot have exchange without admitting that one person has current possession over an object.
Ultimately this comes back to my main point. Given praxeology, how are you going to build your utopian socialist society, in a such a away as to not act as a market clone? (Therebye defeating the very purpose).
Epicurus:Second, this is what I'm saying; "I would argue that removing Capitalism and markets all together is completely impossible" is why your definition of capitalism is entirely incoherent. Why then did capitalism not exist for 200k years of human existence? Wait, for you it did, because voluntary exchange has.
Umm.. As long as humans have been around, there has been the exercise of exchange, and akcnowledge of property. Or at least the acknowledgement that certain people carry and have access to resources. Otherwise there would never have been any exchange in the first place.
All you can do here at this point is try to pretend that exchange, has nothing to do with property and capitalism.
Epicurus:Third, voluntary exchange has existed for well over 200k years.
Well that implies private control over scarce resources(Otherwise there would be no exchange). Oops I just re-stated capitalism...
Epicurus:Dishonesty at its finest. I suggest you re-read that thread you are referring to.
No your a liar!(6 year old voice)
Epicurus:I have answered your questions multiple times,
Dishonesty at its finest. I suggest you re-read that thread you are referring to. (Your answers left much to be desired)
Why don't you just quote yourself where you allegedly explained all of this stuff? And make a note whether or not I had been participating in those threads at that time? Keep in mind you responded to me first. I never went after you.
Otherwise stop calling me dishonest. As it's a dishonest thing to do! :)
Epicirus your going to have to stop the definition strawman arguments as it proves nothing.
You have to prove how your system is not just a regurgitated capitalism, re-phrasing key concepts so as to adher and promote to your own personal ideology.
Explain to us how the multiple parties can occupy and enjoy the same scarce resource at the same given time, therebye proving that the concept of property need not exist? Explain to us how the concept of property can go away. The concept. Otherwise your just assigning a new word or phrase to serve the same purpose.
As long as there is voluntary exchange, we are implying the control and posession of of scarce resources to individuals. As long as we allow that to persist, voluntary exchange that is, a most vendible good will emerge on the market. This is money. As long as we continue to allow voluntary exchange employing the most vendible good, you will have an emergent capitalist order. You will have savings, capital accumulation, and so on and so forth. All of thes ethings are built from the bottom up, deduced logically, from praxeology. You have to refute praxeology, you have to refute scarcity. Get started.
Well that implies private control over scarce resources(Otherwise there would be no exchange). Oops I just re-stated capitalism..
Priceless.
Rather then being trollish and cal them ridiculous(without explaiining yourself). Why not help them out and remind them that it's not Capitalism v Coercion(Which I haven't really heard much of). But abused application of the initation of force.
It's funny because I have explained why numerous times.
It's dishonest when you accuse me of not answering your questions when I have answered them multiple times.
Can you re-word definition in in a way that is comprehensible?
The difference between property and private property (is there a difference to you?) is that in private property the owner/homesteader is the final arbiter on the rules surrounding said property, whereas property for most of human existence was not regarded in such a manner.
Yes. And my point was that there is a difference between property and private property. Private property requires strict legal codes protecting the holder of the property's right to the property. Property merely entials someone is holding the property. One of the fundamental differences between captialism and other economic systems is said definition of private property.
I have my given causes I like to promote, and things I am against. But the whole point of socialism is that the people will define it. It wouldn't be democratic if I merely said "society will function like this because I said so." My point is not to "build" any type of society. It is to point out what is wrong with ours (at least from my PoV) and let the people decide where to go in the future.
No. I can "pretend" that captialism is more than just property and voluntary exchange. Captialism is a system of private property wherein the legal structure protects the holder of property as final arbiter over said property and promotes exchange through the profit motive. I can and have shown why your definition is incoherent and unusable. Can you do the same for mine? (Notice I have not appealed to history here, either)
No, it implies control over scarce resources... it says nothing about whether that control is private or not. That's my point.
Filc:I appreciate your participation EvilSocialist. Sorry if I come off across as a bit brash. Your quite a pleasant to discuss with.
Hi, I have not found you brash at any point. You are also pleasant to discuss with, thanks. I have started to read “Human Action” and am finding it an interesting read. I also briefly skipped ahead to read about methodological individualism and will try to incorporate that into my approach. However, please take my responses to your questions with a “pinch of salt”, if you will.
Filc:What your describing here is a modern day corporation. Interest sharing is called a dividend. Capitalism already does this. I myself am a laborer, part owner, and shareholder in dozens of other companies. I get paid annually via dividends, and I also earn a regularly scheduled wage.
Except that corporations are coercive monopolies which receive government subsidies and bail outs (I believe). When you think about it, this system (libertarian socialism not corporatism) is voluntary. Businesses under capitalism need investment funds at some stage to expand their business and they can they achieve this through selling shares (or taking loans which has more risk attached) which is one of the reasons why co-operatives don’t “grow” very much under capitalism; I mean they tend to stay as nice small businesses. This is great and all but a socialist would want to build a whole society based on co-operative labour and abolish market systems. Under the system I am proposing when there is a small supply of investment funds in the labour vault in comparison to a given demand (I prefer the term labour vault over community “bank”) the delegate helping to run the labour vault will distribute vouchers based on an objective and recognised evaluation of a good (I will deal with the evaluation in a second) minus a small deduction when a producer submits his/her product. This small deduction allows for the delegate to increase the supply of investment funds and meet the demand for investment funds.
When the producer from a syndicate comes and asks for investment, he must present the delegate with a business plan and the delegate will then decide whether it’s worth supplying him with these funds. This means that rational economic decision making isn’t taken out by a central planning agency; it is made by the producer himself with respect to his own competitive industry. But these funds are a loan and the producer must pay them back (without interest) overtime.
Dividends are different because they are shares of interest supplied to the share holders (how do you actually get dividends by the way? I’ve heard that a company’s director is not actually legally obliged to hand out dividends to the company’s shareholders. Under such circumstances it seems little more than a risky gambling trade, hoping that the value of your shares will increase so you can sell them [and the purchaser of those shares isn’t likely to benefit, if you think about it]. Not that I’m attacking the system, just trying to figure it out).
Now, some may argue along the lines of risk. Loans are risky because they must be paid back and the producer risks being held personally responsible. Under capitalism, investment on the other hand means that the investors can share some of the risk in the hope of getting a return at some later point (dividends, whatever). Whilst this is true, the producer is no longer risking so much because he does not have to pay for the land or capital he works on. He only needs to pay for machinery and other equipment to enhance the land or capital he works on. So in this way, there is less risk.
As far as interest goes, it is a hot contention point whether time has a monetary value anyway.
Filc:To anyone who runs anything. Who bares the consequences for poor decisions? Capitalism shows that it matches the most efficient party to his/her best job. People who are responsible for managing situations, and are good at it, are pushed to the top. Bureaucracies on the other hand shuffle people around not according to their productivity. It's not always clear whether someone is good at what they do or not. Bad policies and decisions are punished on the whole, rather then the individual who made the bad decision. This also causes a moral hazard for people in power to abuse the system, placing the risks on the whole, rather then him/herself. How does your system continue to encourage individuals who share a larger load of responsibility or work?
Under capitalism the entrepreneur are said to accountable for to the consumer (or lack of business), I won’t attack this position, for now. Usually with socialism, officials, delegates or representatives are said to be accountable for democratically by petition or otherwise. This holds true for the participant working in the labour vault which is a voluntary and open community organisation; he must display his paperwork to all open eyes to prevent corruption. He is a delegate and recallable for by petition. He is also earning either the average salary of the average producer coordinating his economic activity through that particular vault, in which case he hopes to increase economic activity and make the system more efficient, or, alternatively, he deducts from the labourer’s voucher (with consent from the labourer in question) and competes with other participants working in the labour vault for customers. Some of these schemes and systems have been innovated by myself, I must say.
Also, he might be accountable for by vote but he has volunteered himself for this, so it is voluntary. There need not be a decision by the plurality (which, as you would say, is impossible without representation through an authoritative figure of some kind).
So you see, a member working at the labour vault is in charge of his own affairs as much as a producer working in a syndicate.
Filc:Can you better word this? Or let me know which post where you provided an explanation of how you would formulate prices.Also lets be honest here, your talking about the creation of money prices. Especially when you refer to the employment of historical transactionary data. Your talking about employing money, though in a framework that suits your own personal preferences.You are trying to re-create money.Can you send me a link to where you already explained this? I apologize that I missed it....
Firstly, price =/= value.
Secondly, labour vouchers, unlike money, are destroyed on use. This is important. If it is circulated then it means it is used as a medium of exchange and the use value becomes a commodity; its physical properties are abstracted from it (I have read the whole of the first chapter of Capital, Vol.I). It is treated as a quantity and not a quality. This is because the objective evaluation (and it is objective, as Mises himself admits in Economic Calculation) is based on market transactions, whereas for labour vouchers it is based on something entirely different. You asked me to address with my own points, so here goes (I have made some slight moderations in places in regards to the context of this post and grammatical/spelling mistakes I made earlier);
"The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value." - Marx, Capital, Vol.I, Chapter One, Section A
...
[L]ets say 10 groups of producers in a given community produce 10 computers in a given working day (x hours) on average between each individual group.
One group of producers therefore is likely to produce 10 computers in x hours; the socially necessary labour time for one computer is x/10.
x hours = 10 computers
Group A produces between them 10 computers in x hours; they are paid (as a group) x hours worth of labour vouchers.
Group B produces between them 10 computers in 2x hours; they aren't paid 2x because they have taken twice as long than average; they are only paid x.
Group C produces between them 20 computers in x hours; they are paid 2x for their super productivity.
The community bank, where these goods are distributed, can calculate this easily since they only have to calculated articles per labourer on deposit. They can calculate this, perhaps in terms of the time in minutes since the labourer last deposited the good. E.g., 1 day = 1440 mins. He produces 10 computers. This figure is compared with other labourers (for the sake of argument, they all produce 10 computers as well).
Yes, he is not working all day but neither are any of the other labourers. If they want to work overhours though, they can be counted as more productive for a given period of time and payed a higher salary since they produce more than others do on average; socially necessary labour time decreases (since there is an increase in average productivity and consequently supply). As labour time increases so does the value of the produce and the amount the consumer must pay in terms of labour vouchers. An efficient evaluation of the produce is necessary for the producer to compare higher order goods so he can calculate the most efficient and cost effective mode of production (as Mises explains in Economic Calculation).
The member working at the labour vault no longer has to employ some bureacratic inspection team to figure out the socially necessary labour time. He simply makes a note of transactions (that is the deposit of goods and the withdrawal of goods) which are put on to a database for everyone to see. This means that the producer can look at this database to see how supply and demand is operating in his particular line of production; whether consumption levels are high or low; whether it is worth producing a particular good or not.
Now, you are probably wondering about maximising quality of goods (I have only explained so far how the producer would only be supplied with labour vouchers in terms of how much he produces and not how well he produces). The producer is only paid labour vouchers when a consumer purchases his good. This is why he is wasting his time and energy if he produces goods that there is no demand for or if he produces goods of a poor quality. I am not yet sure how refunds would work, though.
Not all the changes in circumstances (the socially necessary labour time may change if there is a new technology invented which allows producers to make computers even faster) need be calculated by individuals although the relevant research helps to a degree. The labour vault notes changes made in terms of the average number of goods deposited and can mark down changes in production that caused this shift in production as irrelevant or anomalies if it is impossible to find them.
The value of labour vouchers = cost of production of labour-power + socially necessary labour time - negative externalities (that can be taken into account) + positive externalities (that can be taken into account) + small percentage calculated according to low supply/high demand - low percentage according to high supply/low demand + cost of mode of production (including cost of raw materials, etc.) +/- other variables
Forgery:
[W]e would try as hard as possible to make vouchers that can't be forged but, just like under capitalism, we can only do our best.
That said, if money doesn't have the watermark symbol it is fraudulent so we can do the same for vouchers. In fact, vouchers would only be stored off in the bank where they check for the watermark with a machine unlike in shops where they are less likely to have the necessary watermark.
Theft:
The labour voucher can only be used by the individual, perhaps by a photo on said labour voucher of the producer, or other means. This means that vouchers are of no use once stolen.
Market Systems:
What I have described is not a market system; a market system entails exchange of some sort. It is in name and actuality a gift economy but I have incorporated some market-like structures in order to facilitate calculation.
Without a recognised capitalist banking system, there is no money. Without money a person has to resort to bartering to make exchanges. If they do this it is inefficient as it requires a double coincidence of wants. This is why I think the producer would have to end up participate in the labour vault scheme rather than bartering goods.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:No, it implies control over scarce resources... it says nothing about whether that control is private or not. That's my point.
If it is not privately controlled then we cannot conclude that there is voluntary exchange. What is your interpretation of private?
I don't want to go down a circular road with you, where every definition has a sub-definition that needs further explanation ad-infinitum. I skipped the rest of your post. From this point forward I want to keep things short and to the point with you. It's too hard to follow otherwise.
If there is voluntary exchange, you are implying that a person or group of person's is acting as the final arbiter in controlled possession over a scarce resource. That is axiomatically implied in the concept of "Exchange". If this were not the case, there would be no exchange.
Epicurus:I can and have shown why your definition is incoherent and unusable.
You did?
Epicurus:Can you do the same for mine? (Notice I have not appealed to history here, either)
No because I haven't a clue as to what your definition is. I've seen you endorse two different definitions of socialism
@EvilSocialistFellow
Thanks for the reply. Forgive me if it takes some time getting back to you.
EmperorNero:Yeah, but in the end humans make their determinations not based on rational arguments, but based on some emotional feeling. Facts and augments are then used to defend ones position, but it is reached based on an intuitive gut feeling. That's what I wanted to address, what makes EvilSocialistFellow not like private property? ... [If your concern is with economic efficiency, then there's really no question that propertarianism wins the debate. But that's usually not what socialists care about. Usually it's some concern about equality or fairness, or envy. That's what I meant, why do you intuitively dislike capitalism?
[If your concern is with economic efficiency, then there's really no question that propertarianism wins the debate. But that's usually not what socialists care about. Usually it's some concern about equality or fairness, or envy. That's what I meant, why do you intuitively dislike capitalism?
Actually, I agree with this; people do usually formulate opinions based on emotions and so forth and then find evidence and statistics to back up their argument, not the other way round (find evidence and statistics then base their arguments on that). As for me, I don't know. If there is some intuitive reason for disliking something about capitalism it is subconscious and not known to me (consciously).
EvilSocialistFellow:Actually, I agree with this; people do usually formulate opinions based on emotions and so forth and then find evidence and statistics to back up their argument, not the other way round (find evidence and statistics then base their arguments on that). As for me, I don't know. If there is some intuitive reason for disliking something about capitalism it is subconscious and not known to me (consciously).
We probably do posses a subconscious mentality that makes us accept certain beliefs easier. But what I meant was malleable ideas that just aren't expressed explicitly because we think of them as obvious. Earlier you mentioned that you think the workers should have more of a say in how the factory is run. You stated that as if it's just obvious to you that the workers are the ones who really produce the output of a factory, sort of a toned down version of Marxian exploitation theory. If you conceptualize it that way then of course you think it's unfair that the capitalist gets to make all the decisions and you will look for a better solution. But once you know how it really works in a market economy that dislike might be resolved. So what do you think about my earlier response?
Your second statement was something about how we can really know whether capitalism did create modern economic growth, or whether that is mistaking correlation for causation. I think economic statistics can resolve that one. We just have to contrast Hong Kong with any similarly sized city in mainland China. Or compare Haiti to neighbors with more secure property rights. As such I don't understand why you think this happened. People didn't suddenly start to work harder. And we don't have better technology than last year because a year passed, through most of history there was no noteworthy economic improvement. And in modern non-propertarian societies like the Soviet union or Haiti things don't really improve unless they get help from the propertarian part of the world. So if not capitalism, what else could it have been?
In all honsety, capitalism is "cruel". A free market forces people with outdated skills to improve or loose they're jobs. It can trully hurt someone with family.
On the other hand, a governement job is no where like that. Governement jobs are secure, that's why often people slack, and that's why in the long run the service it provides becomes worser. As it gets worser, more money is required thus taxes increase. The governement becomes bigger and bigger.
If you happen to be wealthy, you move elsewhere, since with these high taxes you can't afford to pay the bills. If you happen to be really wealthy, you can find ways to evade these taxes through loopholes.
In a society where the governement is allmighty, "bussinessmen" become friends with the governement. Silly laws like minimum wage or the Incandescent light bulb appear and ruin the economy. These are one of the millions of problems with Corporatism(often confused with Capitalism).
Another problem with Corporatism is that many people think, that the best way to improve our society is to tax the "rich". They're intentions are very sincere but not well thought. It's quite stupid really. Seeing as the wealthy either leave the country and shutdown they're bussinesses, or evade taxes through loopholes. In the end, the tax burden is left on the "middle class" to support "the poor" who become dependant on handouts.
Your second statement was something about how we can really know whether capitalism did create modern economic growth, or whether that is mistaking correlation for causation.
Ireland too, since it lowered it's taxes and deregulated the place is amazing.
Emperor Nero:We probably do posses a subconscious mentality that makes us accept certain beliefs easier. But what I meant was malleable ideas that just aren't expressed explicitly because we think of them as obvious. Earlier you mentioned that you think the workers should have more of a say in how the factory is run. You stated that as if it's just obvious to you that the workers are the ones who really produce the output of a factory, sort of a toned down version of Marxian exploitation theory. If you conceptualize it that way then of course you think it's unfair that the capitalist gets to make all the decisions and you will look for a better solution...
Well you (and other people) seem to know a lot more than me about economics, etc. So I don’t want to “debate” as such, rather clarify my position (as I did just now, up above with filc) and ask questions here and there/see what I can learn.
...But once you know how it really works in a market economy that dislike might be resolved. So what do you think about my earlier response: The workers of a factory are paid according to supply and demand. It is therefore misleading to ask what share of the factories profits they are entitled to. They are not paid a share of the factories profits at all, but a market wage. They would be paid the same if the factory makes a loss or if the capitalist chose to bury the output instead of selling it. The capitalist produces the entire output of the factory. He, too, is paid according to supply and demand. He makes a profit if the market value of what he produced is more than what he spent producing it, e.g. buying raw materials and paying workers. He does not take away a share of the workers profits in return for administrating production. This is elementary supply and demand economics.
The workers of a factory are paid according to supply and demand. It is therefore misleading to ask what share of the factories profits they are entitled to. They are not paid a share of the factories profits at all, but a market wage. They would be paid the same if the factory makes a loss or if the capitalist chose to bury the output instead of selling it. The capitalist produces the entire output of the factory. He, too, is paid according to supply and demand. He makes a profit if the market value of what he produced is more than what he spent producing it, e.g. buying raw materials and paying workers. He does not take away a share of the workers profits in return for administrating production. This is elementary supply and demand economics.
Well, Marx actually talks a bit about the market factors that determine wages in Wage Labour and Capital:
How supply and demand is limited by cost of production:
"The price of a commodity rises considerably owing to a failing supply or a disproportionately growing demand...A mass of capital will be thrown into the prosperous branch of industry, and this immigration of capital into the provinces of the favored industry will continue until it yields no more than the customary profits, or, rather until the price of its products, owning to overproduction, sinks below the cost of production."
Determination of wages for labourer:
“What, then, is the cost of production of labour-power?
It is the cost required for the maintenance of the labourer as a labourer, and for his education and training as a labourer.
Therefore, the shorter the time required for training up to a particular sort of work, the smaller is the cost of production of the worker, the lower is the price of his labour-power, his wages. In those branches of industry in which hardly any period of apprenticeship is necessary and the mere bodily existence of the worker is sufficient, the cost of his production is limited almost exclusively to the commodities necessary for keeping him in working condition. The price of his work will therefore be determined by the price of the necessary means of subsistence.”
There is a welfare state at present, so it is hard to determine what wages would be like under free market capitalism (which, from what I gather, we have never really experienced, at least not in its purest form).
Now it is true the risks that the owners of small businesses must make are rather large, given the taxes, uneven income, (regular wages for workers), but consider that, for the most part, small businesses would actually be left alone. During the Spanish Revolution, in fact, many business holders were perfectly happy to declare themselves part of the evergrowing project (its in Homage to Catalonia, can’t find it right now, though). Often, its the case that with these businesses, there is a fairly amicable relationship between the workers and their manager, anyways. The development would be a steady one and while they can claim ownership (or rather use-rights) in terms of labour once property (in the sense of absolute property rights) has been abolished, loans would not have to be taken to purchase capital in the first place and risks would be massively reduced (if you see my points about investment above during the exchange with filc). The biggest task for us is collectivising large ogilopolies (and often ones that have achieved their supply of wealth and market dominance through corporatism and general state coercion, might I add) which can immediately be put into the hands of the producers.
Your second statement was something about how we can really know whether capitalism did create modern economic growth, or whether that is mistaking correlation for causation. I think economic statistics can resolve that one. We just have to contrast Hong Kong with any similarly sized city in mainland China. Or compare Haiti to neighbors with more secure property rights. As such I don't understand why you think this happened. People didn't suddenly start to work harder. And we don't have better technology than last year because a year passed, through most of history there was no noteworthy economic improvement. And in modern non-propertarian societies like the Soviet union or Haiti things don't really improve unless they get help from the propertarian part of the world. So if not capitalism, what else could if have been?
Problem is many of these economic statistics only take into account GDP which can be highly problematic. For instance, I can organise a massive charity project, feeding bread to homeless people for free. These people are that bit wealthier as a result but its not recorded as growth per capita unless there is money involved. Similarly, I can get energy for free from a solar pannel or I can get “free services” from my own manual labour to get my clothes cleaned, dried, etc. Again, no money transaction recorded; no bumping up in my economy. But I have acted purposefully to maximise utility (or rather remove discontent) – [Mises’ actor theory]. Or consider this scenario. I can live as a farmer and be completely (or almost completely) autosufficient, live a great life with my family and friends helping out on the farm (ok its not that easy but still) but barely add a penny to my country’s GDP. Then I can go and live in the city, live in a slummiest low town bedsit and barely earn £1 a day (as an exaggeration, but then in some countries that is not far from the case) but I’d be adding £1 to my country’s GDP.
Another issue is that production levels aren’t sufficient methods of deduction by themselves. If the rich have far more wealth, then the vast majority of production is (according to levels of demand) going to be centred around cars, computers, champagne, jaccuzzi, etc. rather than basic things like food and water. (This has very little to do with the fact that wealth is redistributed into the general economy once luxury items are purchased, by the way; demand for certain goods is still higher). In other words, production is designed to accommodate the customer with the largest wallet. Then production can also reflect anti-depressants, drugs, alcohol; i.e. coping devices for an unbearable system.
The other problem asides from those associated with statistics is again, the issue of “is it capitalism or something else?” Lets take the wealth in, lets say, Great Britain which arguably has “relatively liberalised trade” (when compared with other countries), at least internally, anyhow. But we have managed to accumulate a vast deal of our wealth from massive exploitation of third world countries. Multi-trans national corporations have totally devastated the already completely poverty wrecked South Africa, for instance, Shell’s oil spills and the pollution of the River Delta in Nigeria and the massive profits obtained by various oil companies co-operating with an incredibly crooked local government. Yes, this is corporatism not laissez-faire capitalism, I realise that but my point is “where does all this wealth come from? The free market or something else?” Then there is the issue of the historic state coercion that paved the way to our current economic system in the western world (and the wealth we currently possess), namely the plundering of gold from colonised nations, the exportation of slaves, the expropriation and massive taxation of serfs (Britain) and later artisans and peasants (the US), etc. That was the history of our accumulation of wealth; boy am I proud to be British ;)
Also, North Korea is not really my dream goal for socialism, lol.
I realise I might have made a mistake or two in the economics and actualities above, heh heh, so feel free to point them out.
p.s. Just so you know; even if you, and others, do manage to persuade me away from socialism I am likely to just play Devil’s Advocate ;), after all my name is EvilSocialist, I can’t change that now, can I ;)
I don't know if you know this but North Ireland has only recently had a huge recession and had to bail out the banks; http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/17/no-more-pot-of-gold/
I`m aware about that, the recession hit the whole world. When I say better I meant better then it was 10-20 years ago.
For more information on the free market effect, check out Sweeden 1970`s.
Ok, cool :)