Is anyone here familiar with the Marxist argument that workers are entitled to a share of the employers' profits because they are being exploited, i.e. are not being properly compensated for their contribution?
I think these communist ideas gorw out of frustration. Today, its probably fustration on the increasing difficulty of making a living. And alot of that has to do with government controlling more and more resources, which means less resources for the people. And, people who have more resources from government contracts, which means less resources for the people.
The answer isn't more government control of more resources, its less government, free up resources from government so people have more resources. Of course, government has already screwed things up, as there are alot of people who have made alot of money from the government, and when the government does release its resources, they'll be able to buy more of them, unfairly.
Smiling Dave: Wage laborers are in a similar, if less extreme, situation, in which their entire livelihood and contribution are tied to their labor; having no "property" with which to claim as their own. 1. ...having no property... I don't get this. Wage laborers cannot and do not own houses and cars and clothing and shares of stock? We must be talking about different wage laborers than the ones I know. Those guys own plenty of stuff. 2. ...they are alienated...their entire livelihood and contribution are tied to their labor... I imagine being "alienated" is bad thing. So that a capitalist, as opposed to a wage laborer, is in a good situation, one that the alienated wage laborers should aspire to so they can stop feeling alienated and being enslaved. But socialists want everyone to be alienated and enslaved. They don't anyone to own anything. 3. Production is still based on exchangeability, not need. Sadly, when I asked a prominent socialist here about my needs for a yacht to be hand washed every day by others and set aside for my exclusive use, [and I may as well add my need for a harem full of dancing girls and the Taj Mahal to live in, indeed my need for a continent, nay a planet, of my own], he got very emotional. He tried to explain that I have to grow up and that I don't really need all that stuff, that I am being [and i assume he meant this in the best possible way] a childish baby saying I need all that stuff. He recommended that I grow up. I replied that he had earlier stipulated that under socialism, my needs will be self determined. Why is he now saying that my self determined needs are not needs at all? For some reason, he did not reply to this, but left the forum in a huff, and by "huff" I mean a flood of insults aimed in my direction. Who, in your version of socialism, decides what I need? Me? Will I get my planet then, all to myself? I need Earth, by the way. Or will you decide for me? If so, will I also get to decide what you need? Can we do a deal here? You decide I need half of Earth, and i'll decide you need the other half, with everyone else needing nothing but to serve the two of us. 4. "Profit" in the socialist sense is not simply a positive income/expense ratio for the business. "Profit" is the income claimed by the capitalist after such ratios have been established. I call BS. Where did Marx or anyone else, make this distinction? And given that this distinction exists, how do we know that what you call "profit in the socialist sense" exists at all? I claim that the only thing there is, is a positive income/expense ratio. What is your proof otherwise? Not only that, where does the posistive income/expense ratio come from, according to the labor theory of value? What I see here is a feeble attempt to rewrite a provenly false and absurd doctrine to fit the facts a little better. Socialist Russia was a disaster, in human as well as economic terms? Well, that's because it was capitalism running the show there. How ridiculous.
Wage laborers are in a similar, if less extreme, situation, in which their entire livelihood and contribution are tied to their labor; having no "property" with which to claim as their own.
1. ...having no property...
I don't get this. Wage laborers cannot and do not own houses and cars and clothing and shares of stock? We must be talking about different wage laborers than the ones I know. Those guys own plenty of stuff.
2. ...they are alienated...their entire livelihood and contribution are tied to their labor...
I imagine being "alienated" is bad thing. So that a capitalist, as opposed to a wage laborer, is in a good situation, one that the alienated wage laborers should aspire to so they can stop feeling alienated and being enslaved.
But socialists want everyone to be alienated and enslaved. They don't anyone to own anything.
3. Production is still based on exchangeability, not need.
Sadly, when I asked a prominent socialist here about my needs for a yacht to be hand washed every day by others and set aside for my exclusive use, [and I may as well add my need for a harem full of dancing girls and the Taj Mahal to live in, indeed my need for a continent, nay a planet, of my own], he got very emotional. He tried to explain that I have to grow up and that I don't really need all that stuff, that I am being [and i assume he meant this in the best possible way] a childish baby saying I need all that stuff. He recommended that I grow up.
I replied that he had earlier stipulated that under socialism, my needs will be self determined. Why is he now saying that my self determined needs are not needs at all?
For some reason, he did not reply to this, but left the forum in a huff, and by "huff" I mean a flood of insults aimed in my direction.
Who, in your version of socialism, decides what I need? Me? Will I get my planet then, all to myself? I need Earth, by the way.
Or will you decide for me? If so, will I also get to decide what you need? Can we do a deal here? You decide I need half of Earth, and i'll decide you need the other half, with everyone else needing nothing but to serve the two of us.
4. "Profit" in the socialist sense is not simply a positive income/expense ratio for the business. "Profit" is the income claimed by the capitalist after such ratios have been established.
I call BS. Where did Marx or anyone else, make this distinction? And given that this distinction exists, how do we know that what you call "profit in the socialist sense" exists at all? I claim that the only thing there is, is a positive income/expense ratio. What is your proof otherwise?
Not only that, where does the posistive income/expense ratio come from, according to the labor theory of value?
What I see here is a feeble attempt to rewrite a provenly false and absurd doctrine to fit the facts a little better. Socialist Russia was a disaster, in human as well as economic terms? Well, that's because it was capitalism running the show there. How ridiculous.
That's the problem tho, and why so many fail at refuting Marx; cars and clothing (even shares of stock to a limited extent, if it's still connected to the job contract) are not really private property, they are personal possessions. Private property is a specific form of possession (in Marxist terms, at least) over productive items which entials the legal justification for monopoly status over said possessions. We can argue semantics, or just leave it at that.
Yes, and slaves should aspire to be slave masters, not to crush the slave system and its perveyors.
That's because he's a moralist and idealist. If I could help them all out of that, I would glady do so. The fact is you may or may not have that "need" or want. In a monied system, you can obtain it. Good luck obtaining it when something of that magntitude of production cannot be claimed exclusively.
Your needs will be largely self-determined, as most production can go on without a hitch leaving us all with basically free access to consumption. But your largely self-determined needs will be subject to reasonable democratic accountability and control. This is already the case with capitalism, will be the case in ancapistan, and only strengthened in a (true) socialist system. (Yes, I define Marxist-Leninist government, state capitalism, as capitalism)
Can we do a deal here?
Yes. The one caveat is that you cannot use unequal access to production and legality against me.
Go back and reread Marx with this is just a given. Why is it a given? Because it is literally the classic definition of "profit" as used by Smith (et al); interest from stocks. Your comrades here (filc and nero) agree with me on this point. Profit is not the income/expense ratio of the company, but the interest a capitalist gains by his ownership of stock.
Normal profit represents the total opportunity costs (both explicit and implicit) of a venture to an investor or entrepreneur, whilst economic profit (also abnormal, pure, supernormal or excess profit, as the case may be monopoly or oligopoly profit, or simply profit) is, at least in the neoclassical microeconomic theory which dominates modern economics, the difference between a firm's total revenue and all costs, including normal profit.[1] Economic profit is thus contrasted with economic interest which is the return to an owner of capital stock or money or bonds.[citation needed] A related concept, sometimes considered synonymous in certain contexts, is that of economic rent - economic profit can be considered as entrepreneurial rent.[citation needed] Economic profit in contemporary neoclassical economics should be differentiated from that of the previously dominant school of classical economics and Marxian economics, which defined profit as the return to the employer of capital stock (such as machinery, factories, and ploughs) in any productive pursuit involving labor
[The USSR ran itself like one giant corporation. It still produced commodities (production based on exchange) for sale on the world market. It retained the boss/worker relationship, tho with a tad more democratic accountability (in this regard. It is far less accountable, and far more deplorable, than liberal democracy in most regards) It was not liberal capitalism, that is for sure. But it was capitalism.]
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
@ OT: It's called exploitation theory.
See Eugen Böhm von Bawerk's work where this is directly addressed