Why communism will work, and capitalism won’t.

Truthisnonexistent:

The incidence of losses will fall on the workers as a collective. I don't see why you are asserting I want to do away with profit and loss. If a democratically owned business fails to meet society's needs they will inevitably fail. If a business meets society's needs exceptionally and receives profit, the collective can vote and democratically choose what said profit will be spent on, be it bonuses for all the workers, more machines, donate to charity, anything.

Fair enough, we have profit & loss. But you misunderstand the roll of the entrepreneur. The skill of the entrepreneur is to employ resources to satisfy the consumers. He must employ them efficiently in order to satisfy the demand of the consumers. If he does, he gains “profit”, if he does not, he suffers losses. All exchange with the entrepreneur is done on a voluntary basis. He hires the Engineer as an engineer and not as an entrepreneur. If the Engineer wanted to be an entrepreneur, he would try to earn his living as an entrepreneur and not as an engineer. Perhaps the engineer is ambitious and wants to be both. He can strive to be whatever he wishes, but he cannot force himself on others. He does not have a right to be an engineer, others must seek his service. He does not have a right to be an entrepreneur either; others must seek that service also. This is the whole point of a market economy: to produce the things that public wants. To direct the capital (funded by savings) into the proper lines of production that best satisfies the consumers. The law of supply and demand cannot be tempered with by involuntary means if we are to have a society that creates wealth. ################## What exactly is your complaint? That the reward of the entrepreneur be distributed among all those who have already previously reached an agreement with the entrepreneur on the value of the exchange of their service? If this is what the engineer is looking for, then he is looking to be an entrepreneur. He could seek such an agreement with some business owner, but like you said, he would risk his income, just as any other entrepreneur. He would not work for a relatively secured salary agreed ahead of time, but for a share of the profit. Fine, but this is all legitimate business for free people in a free society to voluntarily conduct among themselves. I think you fail to realize that such a system based on voluntary exchange yields free market economy.

Truthisnonexistent:

How are workers the original owners of the means of production? The worker sells his labor correct, it is an exchange between two individuals, correct. But there is no non-exploitative, practical alternative, not everyone can be self-employed. The worker's wage is not within the market and laws of supply and demand. The boss wants the worker's wage to be as low as possible, if the worker's wage was really in line with the market, they would be paid for what they produce and there would be no profit for the boss that does not produce anything. The boss wants low wages to increase his profit.

Because all workers are voluntarily selling their services on a free market. The value of their service is supply & demand. You claim you recognize the truth of scarcity. Very well, then you cannot argue that the value of goods and services can be determined by anything else other then the free market. That is, by how much individuals value your service. by how much they are willing to pay you, or forgo something else, for the benefit of your service. The values are subjective. All wages cannot be determined arbitrarily by some democratic process. They are determined by the consumers! What you fail to realize is that the market economy is nothing but a collection of voluntary exchanges, each between two parties. The bigger the economy, or the more complex, the more exchanges there are. All prices, including wages are determined by the consumers! profits (or losses) are determined by consumers! ###### Yes the boss wants to pay as low as possible, but so does the employee want to get as much as possible. Once again, SCARCITY! Labor is scarce. It is no different then tomatoes. You want to buy tomatoes as cheaply as possible, but the seller want to charge as much as possible. Entrepreneurs are competing for human labor just as they are competing for capital goods. Wages rise when there is an increase in demand, and should fall when there is a decrease in demand. Unlike capital goods, human labor cannot increase in quantity by means of better production processes or technological advancements (which all, by the way, require savings of the capitalists which you detest so much). This is why wages actually increase on NET as the economy grows, while the prices of consumer goods can fall. We all become wealthier. There is no exploitation in a free market economy.

Truthisnonexistent:

40 percent of the worlds wealth is owned by 1 percent of the worlds population while children are starving, does that speak well of our economic system?

The 40 to 1 is a meaningless assertion that proves nothing, so I don’t even care if it is true or not. Starving people in our age is a tragedy! The nations of starving people have no Capitalism. They reject it. They don’t understand the cause of their misery. The cause of their poverty is not the success of others. Wealth in a free market economy is created, not expropriated! If you want to abolish proverty, then you want as many capitalists and entrepreneurs to exist in those nations. They will exist, but you must stop rejecting free market capitalism.

Truthisnonexistent:

That's the way it should be (one worker paid more than the other according to production) but it is still exploitative because neither worker is paid anywhere near in full for what they produce.

According to whom? To you? Lets suppose they are underpaid, the problem isn't they are underpaid, rather it's whether or not they themselves realize they are underpaid. But there's entirely a good chance that they know this and find other factors mitigate the lower wage (A safer job, more regular hours, benefits, and etc). In essence, what you perceive as exploitation for them may not be exploitation. The nature of the subjectivity is largely due to the fact that there are internal factors (and even external ones) which are unseen and probably will never be seen. As such, your analysis of the situation itself will never be wholly objective or capable of accurately handling the situation as such. Or in simpler terms: you only see the crest of the wave, but not the forces underneath that drive it.

Truthisnonexistent:

How can you even say that the laborer's productivity is paid for in whole, if that was true than there would be no profit for the boss.

That's supposing a boss isn't doing anything meaningful. Lets understand that the classical models of the firm are fundamentally wrong. Yes, wrong. Capital isn't homogenuous. Labor isn't homogenuous. And so on. Heterogeinty is the norm, rather than the exception in the nature of the firm. As such, a boss, or entrepreneur's purpose is to analysis all the factors involved in production and bring them into the optimal (or rather next to optimal) configuration. Thus, a "boss" or entrepreneur is no more exploitative than the shrewd chess player that uses whatever pieces he's been given. But more interestingly is that the relationship of the entrepreneur to the laborer is one that is complementing as the laborer knows more in terms of his specific job compared to the entrepreneur who knows more in terms of the whole of the approach for which that job is being undertaken.

 

 

Markus:

Firstly, communism is not about making people equal, it is about making society fairer, stopping exploitation of workers, helping people who have to work all hours of the day and still only have enough money to barely make ends meet. Stopping the inhumane working conditions in Asia, and those earning pittance for their labour. Preventing the countless number of children dying in sweatshops in Indonesia, for example, etc etc. Capitalism causes all this, communism will prevent this.

Ok. Now your task is to prove that it's capitalism and not mercantilism/interventionism/socialism which causes it. Good luck. Then you have to show that "fairness" is what you actually work for, and that exploitation happens, and all the rest. Good luck.

 Oh, and you'll have to prove that we're all our brothers' keeper. Good luck, kid.

Truthisnonexistent:

That's the way it should be (one worker paid more than the other according to production) but it is still exploitative because neither worker is paid anywhere near in full for what they produce.

Oh please. The labor theory of value has been refuted to death. At least get to the 1880s and the marginal revolution, will ya? If not, please refrain from spouting economic gibberish.

Truthisnonexistent:

Tragedy of the Commons as in Garrett Hardin? Has that theory really been proven? Democratically controlled business worked great in anarchic Spain, productivity sky rocketed.

Not really, and since money was banned on pain of death, "anarchic Spain" didn't fare so well.

 

Daniel:

Truthisnonexistent:

... Democratically controlled business worked great in anarchic Spain, productivity sky rocketed.

 

Source(s) please.

Truthisnonexistent:

In democratically controlled business's wages would inevitably be higher because there is no money reaped from every worker for one owner.

 

What are the benefits of a higher wage? What is wrong with the owner reaping money from the workers? Is the owner not a worker?

Truthisnonexistent:

So the workers would realize that if the business falls and a capitalist business takes over they would have lower wages and insufficient hours and conditions. Not to mention renting yourself to an institution is highly unnatural.

Why is renting yourself to an institution "highly unnatural"? What are "insufficient hours"?

Truthisnonexistent:

Obviously, theft would be illegal in any socialist society. I'm guessing you also have a problem with democracy? Two wolves and a sheep?

Wouldn't theft be impossible under socialism since there is no private property?

 

"the country enjoyed a measure of prosperity and pay rises"

http://libcom.org/history/1868-1936-anarchism-in-spain

Benefits of a higher wage.. Hell, what are the benefits of being payed for your labor at all? Let's just be slaves. Take a factory, an owner sits in his office and most likely manages the distribution of the products. Now I'm sure any worker can pick up a phone and call a store and arrange a deal, the owner reaps an insane amount of undeserved profit. Without the workers there is no business. The same cannot be said about the owner.

Renting yourself to another human is no different then being owned by another human.

Unacceptable working hours.

I don't see how private property contradicts with "collective ownership of the means of production"

 

Higher wage != more wealth that can be bought. Otherwise, I could print myself a gazillion ladyattis bucks and buy out the planet.

Truthisnonexistent:

"the country enjoyed a measure of prosperity and pay rises"

http://libcom.org/history/1868-1936-anarchism-in-spain

Pay? Not with money. It was banned.

And no--not any worker can call and arrange a deal. You clearly have zero knowledge of what it takes to run a business. I'm going to ask this question sincerely and honestly: are you not yet out of high school?

 

Lord Shore-Twilly:

A ridiculous argument. Clearly there must be, and indeed is, a distinction between something that occurs naturally and the artifical constructions of 'natural' creatures.

And what's ridiculous is claiming that trade is artificial. For it to be artificial, it must be FORCED.

Truthisnonexistent:

Benefits of a higher wage.. Hell, what are the benefits of being payed for your labor at all? Let's just be slaves. Take a factory, an owner sits in his office and most likely manages the distribution of the products. Now I'm sure any worker can pick up a phone and call a store and arrange a deal

 

Not that this is a complete argument against your point, but it's demonstratably untrue that workers can do exactly what management does.

 

Again, not an argument, I frankly don't care if they could because the entire concept behind communism is old and worn. It's a new century. A new millenia. Let's try something different.

Truthisnonexistent:

"the country enjoyed a measure of prosperity and pay rises"

http://libcom.org/history/1868-1936-anarchism-in-spain

Benefits of a higher wage.. Hell, what are the benefits of being payed for your labor at all?

You can buy stuff. So are saying that if workers were paid more, then they would buy able to buy more stuff? How would the factory owner be able to stuff is he doesnt make a profit and, thus, has no money to buy stuff?

Truthisnonexistent:

Take a factory, an owner sits in his office and most likely manages the distribution of the products. Now I'm sure any worker can pick up a phone and call a store and arrange a deal,

Not one that is mute. Btw, so you admit that an owner can a be a woker?

Truthisnonexistent:

the owner reaps an insane amount of undeserved profit. Without the workers there is no business. The same cannot be said about the owner.

What is considered an "insane amount of undeserved profit"?

Truthisnonexistent:

Renting yourself to another human is no different then being owned by another human.

So ownership and renting are the same? So, if rent a house, does that mean that I also own it?

Truthisnonexistent:

Unacceptable working hours.

What are "unacceptable working hours"?

Truthisnonexistent:

I don't see how private property contradicts with "collective ownership of the means of production"

So an individual in a socialist society can own a factory?

Can I get a response to this?

 

Truthisnonexistent:

That's the way it should be (one worker paid more than the other according to production) but it is still exploitative because neither worker is paid anywhere near in full for what they produce. Say worker A makes seven shirts and worker b makes four shirts. Each shirt is worth twenty dollars. Worker A's labor equates to 140 dollars and work B's labor equates to 80 dollars. They are not paid directly for what they produce even if their pay is still in wages and one is paid more than the other it is still exploitative because the boss collects profit. Worker A should be payed close to 140 dollars, minus money which is used to transfer the shirts to the store and worker B should be payed close to 80 dollars. How can you even say that the laborer's productivity is paid for in whole, if that was true than there would be no profit for the boss.

 

Value is subjective. Anyway, what is wrong with the owner making a profit if the worker agreed to do the work at the given price? Also, the price at which the owner sells the product is not directly determined by the costs. The price is directly determined by supply and demand. Furthermore, if a worker produces a shirt for $2, and then the factory owner sells the shirt for $1, should the worker return $1 to the factory owner? Afterall, the worker was paid more than what the shirt was valued. Lastly, you are ignoring time preference.

Daniel:

Truthisnonexistent:

That's the way it should be (one worker paid more than the other according to production) but it is still exploitative because neither worker is paid anywhere near in full for what they produce. Say worker A makes seven shirts and worker b makes four shirts. Each shirt is worth twenty dollars. Worker A's labor equates to 140 dollars and work B's labor equates to 80 dollars. They are not paid directly for what they produce even if their pay is still in wages and one is paid more than the other it is still exploitative because the boss collects profit. Worker A should be payed close to 140 dollars, minus money which is used to transfer the shirts to the store and worker B should be payed close to 80 dollars. How can you even say that the laborer's productivity is paid for in whole, if that was true than there would be no profit for the boss.

 

Value is subjective. Anyway, what is wrong with the owner making a profit if the worker agreed to do the work at the given price? Also, the price at which the owner sells the product is not directly determined by the costs. The price is directly determined by supply and demand. Furthermore, if a worker produces a shirt for $2, and then the factory owner sells the shirt for $1, should the worker return $1 to the factory owner? Afterall, the worker was paid more than what the shirt was valued. Lastly, you are ignoring time preference.

Because there is no non-exploitative alternative. It is silly to suggest such a situation because such a situation will never happen.

DD5:

Truthisnonexistent:

The incidence of losses will fall on the workers as a collective. I don't see why you are asserting I want to do away with profit and loss. If a democratically owned business fails to meet society's needs they will inevitably fail. If a business meets society's needs exceptionally and receives profit, the collective can vote and democratically choose what said profit will be spent on, be it bonuses for all the workers, more machines, donate to charity, anything.

Fair enough, we have profit & loss. But you misunderstand the roll of the entrepreneur. The skill of the entrepreneur is to employ resources to satisfy the consumers. He must employ them efficiently in order to satisfy the demand of the consumers. If he does, he gains “profit”, if he does not, he suffers losses. All exchange with the entrepreneur is done on a voluntary basis. He hires the Engineer as an engineer and not as an entrepreneur. If the Engineer wanted to be an entrepreneur, he would try to earn his living as an entrepreneur and not as an engineer. Perhaps the engineer is ambitious and wants to be both. He can strive to be whatever he wishes, but he cannot force himself on others. He does not have a right to be an engineer, others must seek his service. He does not have a right to be an entrepreneur either; others must seek that service also. This is the whole point of a market economy: to produce the things that public wants. To direct the capital (funded by savings) into the proper lines of production that best satisfies the consumers. The law of supply and demand cannot be tempered with by involuntary means if we are to have a society that creates wealth. ################## What exactly is your complaint? That the reward of the entrepreneur be distributed among all those who have already previously reached an agreement with the entrepreneur on the value of the exchange of their service? If this is what the engineer is looking for, then he is looking to be an entrepreneur. He could seek such an agreement with some business owner, but like you said, he would risk his income, just as any other entrepreneur. He would not work for a relatively secured salary agreed ahead of time, but for a share of the profit. Fine, but this is all legitimate business for free people in a free society to voluntarily conduct among themselves. I think you fail to realize that such a system based on voluntary exchange yields free market economy.

Truthisnonexistent:

How are workers the original owners of the means of production? The worker sells his labor correct, it is an exchange between two individuals, correct. But there is no non-exploitative, practical alternative, not everyone can be self-employed. The worker's wage is not within the market and laws of supply and demand. The boss wants the worker's wage to be as low as possible, if the worker's wage was really in line with the market, they would be paid for what they produce and there would be no profit for the boss that does not produce anything. The boss wants low wages to increase his profit.

Because all workers are voluntarily selling their services on a free market. The value of their service is supply & demand. You claim you recognize the truth of scarcity. Very well, then you cannot argue that the value of goods and services can be determined by anything else other then the free market. That is, by how much individuals value your service. by how much they are willing to pay you, or forgo something else, for the benefit of your service. The values are subjective. All wages cannot be determined arbitrarily by some democratic process. They are determined by the consumers! What you fail to realize is that the market economy is nothing but a collection of voluntary exchanges, each between two parties. The bigger the economy, or the more complex, the more exchanges there are. All prices, including wages are determined by the consumers! profits (or losses) are determined by consumers! ###### Yes the boss wants to pay as low as possible, but so does the employee want to get as much as possible. Once again, SCARCITY! Labor is scarce. It is no different then tomatoes. You want to buy tomatoes as cheaply as possible, but the seller want to charge as much as possible. Entrepreneurs are competing for human labor just as they are competing for capital goods. Wages rise when there is an increase in demand, and should fall when there is a decrease in demand. Unlike capital goods, human labor cannot increase in quantity by means of better production processes or technological advancements (which all, by the way, require savings of the capitalists which you detest so much). This is why wages actually increase on NET as the economy grows, while the prices of consumer goods can fall. We all become wealthier. There is no exploitation in a free market economy.

Truthisnonexistent:

40 percent of the worlds wealth is owned by 1 percent of the worlds population while children are starving, does that speak well of our economic system?

The 40 to 1 is a meaningless assertion that proves nothing, so I don’t even care if it is true or not. Starving people in our age is a tragedy! The nations of starving people have no Capitalism. They reject it. They don’t understand the cause of their misery. The cause of their poverty is not the success of others. Wealth in a free market economy is created, not expropriated! If you want to abolish proverty, then you want as many capitalists and entrepreneurs to exist in those nations. They will exist, but you must stop rejecting free market capitalism.

It's damn near impossible to read your posts..

Why can't an entrepreneur be replaced with the collective? Yes these exchanges between worker and owner are made on a voluntary basis but there is no non-exploitative, practical alternative for workers. No, the whole point of a capitalist economy is profit for the owners of the means of production. If the whole point of a market economy was to meet society's demands then there would be no poverty, when there are people with so much capital they don't know what to do with it and there are children dying of starvation, you cannot say that capitalism's function is to meet the consumer's (society's) needs.  Wages would not be chosen democratically, they would not be chosen at all like an owner chooses a wage for a worker. Yes the worker wants the most he can get as does the owner that's is where the question of who deserves it more. The person who actually produces it or the person who owns it. The owner cannot own the product if it was not produced therefore, the worker deserves to be paid in full for his labor.

Wages would be decided by how much you produce not a democratic vote. Wealth is created for the business owners, the minority. Wealth is expropriated from the workers, the majority of society because they are not payed for what they produce. So it creates wealth for the minority of society while expropriates wealth from the majority of society. There is no exploitation in a free market society? So there is no profit for an owner?

Oh yeah those stupid Africans rejecting capitalism. They sure were pretty accepting of British capitalism and look where that got them! Look at all the entrepreneurs that existed then.  But you know what they need to do? Become entrepreneurs! Yes, it solves everything!

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Truthisnonexistent:

"the country enjoyed a measure of prosperity and pay rises"

http://libcom.org/history/1868-1936-anarchism-in-spain

Pay? Not with money. It was banned.

And no--not any worker can call and arrange a deal. You clearly have zero knowledge of what it takes to run a business. I'm going to ask this question sincerely and honestly: are you not yet out of high school?

 

Source..

Then what does a factory boss do, that justifies worker exploitation.

 

Daniel:

Truthisnonexistent:

"the country enjoyed a measure of prosperity and pay rises"

http://libcom.org/history/1868-1936-anarchism-in-spain

Benefits of a higher wage.. Hell, what are the benefits of being payed for your labor at all?

You can buy stuff. So are saying that if workers were paid more, then they would buy able to buy more stuff? How would the factory owner be able to stuff is he doesnt make a profit and, thus, has no money to buy stuff?

Truthisnonexistent:

Take a factory, an owner sits in his office and most likely manages the distribution of the products. Now I'm sure any worker can pick up a phone and call a store and arrange a deal,

Not one that is mute. Btw, so you admit that an owner can a be a woker?

Truthisnonexistent:

the owner reaps an insane amount of undeserved profit. Without the workers there is no business. The same cannot be said about the owner.

What is considered an "insane amount of undeserved profit"?

Truthisnonexistent:

Renting yourself to another human is no different then being owned by another human.

So ownership and renting are the same? So, if rent a house, does that mean that I also own it?

Truthisnonexistent:

Unacceptable working hours.

What are "unacceptable working hours"?

Truthisnonexistent:

I don't see how private property contradicts with "collective ownership of the means of production"

So an individual in a socialist society can own a factory?

The workers aren't going to be paid for what they produce in a capitalist business so it's a pointless question. The day  the workers are paid for what they produce is the day that the owner is replaced with democratic ownership.

I'm sure an owner could perform a factory job.

Undeserved profit is any profit reaped through worker exploitation.

I was speaking in terms of  it being natural or not. Renting yourself is just as unnatural as selling yourself. 

That is to be determined by the workers.

Yes an individual can own a factory as long as exploitation does not occur just as an individual can own a tooth brush because there is no exploitation or coercion.

 

 

 

 

Truthisnonexistent:

Because there is no non-exploitative alternative.

Again, what is wrong with exploitation?

Truthisnonexistent:

It is silly to suggest such a situation because such a situation will never happen.

Are you saying that producers never sell their products below cost?

Truthisnonexistent:

No, the whole point of a capitalist economy is profit for the owners of the means of production.

What's wrong with that?

Truthisnonexistent:

If the whole point of a market economy was to meet society's demands then there would be no poverty, when there are people with so much capital they don't know what to do with it and there are children dying of starvation, you cannot say that capitalism's function is to meet the consumer's (society's) needs. 

For clarification: what is your definition of capitalism? Also, look at what the attempted-socialism did in Russia. People starved to death! Look at what is happening in China now. The Chinese can eat meat!

Truthisnonexistent:

Wages would not be chosen democratically, they would not be chosen at all like an owner chooses a wage for a worker. Yes the worker wants the most he can get as does the owner that's is where the question of who deserves it more. The person who actually produces it or the person who owns it. The owner cannot own the product if it was not produced therefore, the worker deserves to be paid in full for his labor.

Even if what you wrote made any sense, cannot a worker agree to get paid less than the "full value"? Or must he be forced to receive the "full value"?

Truthisnonexistent:

Wages would be decided by how much you produce not a democratic vote. Wealth is created for the business owners, the minority. Wealth is expropriated from the workers, the majority of society because they are not payed for what they produce. So it creates wealth for the minority of society while expropriates wealth from the majority of society. There is no exploitation in a free market society? So there is no profit for an owner?

What are you talking about? The workers produce goods using the owners resources. How can you expropriate something you own?

Truthisnonexistent:

Oh yeah those stupid Africans rejecting capitalism. They sure were pretty accepting of British capitalism and look where that got them! Look at all the entrepreneurs that existed then.  But you know what they need to do? Become entrepreneurs! Yes, it solves everything!

What the hell are you talking about? "British capitalism" wasn't free-market capitalism. You do understand the difference, right? You do understand that we are supporting free-market capitalism, not fascism, right?

Truthisnonexistent:

The workers aren't going to be paid for what they produce in a capitalist business so it's a pointless question. The day  the workers are paid for what they produce is the day that the owner is replaced with democratic ownership.

So in order to have "democratic ownership" you must steal the property of the rightful owner?

What the hell is democratic ownership anyway?

Truthisnonexistent:

Undeserved profit is any profit reaped through worker exploitation.

Hahaha.....

Truthisnonexistent:

Yes an individual can own a factory as long as exploitation does not occur just as an individual can own a tooth brush because there is no exploitation or coercion.

Oh I see, you can have property........ as long as you don't employ anyone or create new capital with it. Sure, that makes sense.

 

Truthisnonexistent:

"the country enjoyed a measure of prosperity and pay rises"

http://libcom.org/history/1868-1936-anarchism-in-spain

Knight of BAAWA:

Pay? Not with money. It was banned.

And no--not any worker can call and arrange a deal. You clearly have zero knowledge of what it takes to run a business. I'm going to ask this question sincerely and honestly: are you not yet out of high school?

Truthisnonexistent:

Source..

That money was banned in anarchic spain? http://wiki.infoshop.org/Anarchism_in_Spain#1936_Revolution

Infoshop, if you didn't know, is run by a communist who likes to masquerade as an anarchist.

 

Truthisnonexistent:

Then what does a factory boss do, that justifies worker exploitation.

FIrst you must prove that exploitation exists. And remember: the LTV has been refuted.

Democracy fails in politics, and fails much more in economics. Democracy can't establish a rational economic order, and it leaves the door open for the mob rule. It is based on collectivism, egalitarian ideas, which oppresses the individual and endangers minorities. Maybe you should read more about economics, as I find that the "leftists" common denominator is their ignorance about economics facts. Maybe you are willing to sacrifice economic progress for a more egalitarian society; we don't. There's still too much poverty in the world (and not caused by capitalism and economic inegalitarianism) to embrace your ideas.

Daniel:

Truthisnonexistent:

Because there is no non-exploitative alternative.

Again, what is wrong with exploitation?

Truthisnonexistent:

It is silly to suggest such a situation because such a situation will never happen.

 

Are you saying that producers never sell their products below cost?

 

Truthisnonexistent:

No, the whole point of a capitalist economy is profit for the owners of the means of production.

What's wrong with that?

Truthisnonexistent:

If the whole point of a market economy was to meet society's demands then there would be no poverty, when there are people with so much capital they don't know what to do with it and there are children dying of starvation, you cannot say that capitalism's function is to meet the consumer's (society's) needs. 

For clarification: what your definition of capitalism? Also, look at what the attempted socialism did in Russia. People starved to death! Look at what is happening in China now. The Chinese can eat meat!

Truthisnonexistent:

Wages would not be chosen democratically, they would not be chosen at all like an owner chooses a wage for a worker. Yes the worker wants the most he can get as does the owner that's is where the question of who deserves it more. The person who actually produces it or the person who owns it. The owner cannot own the product if it was not produced therefore, the worker deserves to be paid in full for his labor.

Even if what you wrote made any sense, cannot a worker agree to get paid less than the "full value"? Or must he be forced to receive the "full value"?

Truthisnonexistent:

Wages would be decided by how much you produce not a democratic vote. Wealth is created for the business owners, the minority. Wealth is expropriated from the workers, the majority of society because they are not payed for what they produce. So it creates wealth for the minority of society while expropriates wealth from the majority of society. There is no exploitation in a free market society? So there is no profit for an owner?

What are you talking about? The workers produce goods using the owners resources. How can you expropriate something you own?

Truthisnonexistent:

Oh yeah those stupid Africans rejecting capitalism. They sure were pretty accepting of British capitalism and look where that got them! Look at all the entrepreneurs that existed then.  But you know what they need to do? Become entrepreneurs! Yes, it solves everything!

What the hell are you talking about? "British capitalism" wasn't free-market capitalism. You do understand the difference, right? You do understand we are supporting free-market capitalism?

It puts wealth in the hands of the undeserving.

No, I'm saying that such a situation will never happen in a wage system.

A minority's well being should not be put in front of everyone's well being.

My definition of capitalism:  A market system based on free enterprise while the means of production are privately owned. You speak of the failed socialism in Russia. How about the failed capitalism in Africa or South and Central America? Now I know you are going to complain and say it's not real capitalism, well it is. Their economic system is a market economy which is based on free enterprise and private ownership of the means of production.

Yeah, I just reread it I left some words and punctuation out. Realistically the worker would not want to take less than full value, it's a meaningless question.

The owner's resources that the owner purchased through worker exploitation. The worker's essentially payed for the resources.

Yes I do understand the difference. You can't blame the people of Africa that were exploited by colonial capitalism for not accepting free market capitalism because the very people that benefit from our current capitalism don't want free market capitalism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truthisnonexistent:

The workers aren't going to be paid for what they produce in a capitalist business so it's a pointless question.

That doesn't follow.

Truthisnonexistent:

Undeserved profit is any profit reaped through worker exploitation.

What's wrong with "undeserved profits"?

Truthisnonexistent:

 Renting yourself is just as unnatural as selling yourself. 

Why/how are they unnatural?

Truthisnonexistent:

That is to be determined by the workers.

Please provide a definition for "unacceptable working hours", not an explanation as to who would determine "unacceptable working hours".

Truthisnonexistent:

Yes an individual can own a factory as long as exploitation does not occur just as an individual can own a tooth brush because there is no exploitation or coercion.

So, under socialism, you can have both collective ownership of all the means of production and individual ownership of some of the means of production?

@Knight_of_BAAWA

If there was no exploitation, there would be no profit for the owner.

 

Daniel:

Truthisnonexistent:

The workers aren't going to be paid for what they produce in a capitalist business so it's a pointless question.

That doesn't follow.

Truthisnonexistent:

Undeserved profit is any profit reaped through worker exploitation.

 

What's wrong with "undeserved profits"?

Truthisnonexistent:

 Renting yourself is just as unnatural as selling yourself. 

Why/how are they unnatural?

Truthisnonexistent:

That is to be determined by the workers.

Please provide a definition for "unacceptable working hours", not an explanation as to who would determine "unacceptable working hours".

Truthisnonexistent:

Yes an individual can own a factory as long as exploitation does not occur just as an individual can own a tooth brush because there is no exploitation or coercion.

So, under socialism, you can have both collective ownership of all the means of production and individual ownership of some of the means of production?

How does it not follow? In a capitalist business i.e. a business that is privately owned,  the workers will not be payed for what they produce because the owner reaps profit.

They don't deserve it. What's wrong with theft? What's wrong with murder? You think you're so damn witty for asking these meaningless, redundant questions that lead to nowhere but more questions from you.

You have no moral objection to slavery? You don't see anything unnatural with a human owning another human? You don't see ducks owning other ducks, you don't see cows owning other cows. It doesn't happen in nature, it is unnatural.

I cannot tell you because it is preference. In socialism you can work as long as you want, or not work at all. If worker A works ten hours but only produces 10 shirts. He will be payed for the 10 shirts not the 10 hours.

As long as no exploitation is involved. So that individually owned business would be a one person business most likely, unless the business owner would pay the workers for what they produce. The workers would not settle for anything less seeing other workers get payed higher wages for the same work.

Again, we've discussed this earlier. The owner isn't exploiting due to profit. You seem to *ignore* my points entirely on the nature of the owner/entrepreneur. *face palms*

The whole Marxist/socialist concept of "exploitation" is an absurdity anyway. 

If  you feel the need to pontificate about "exploitation" of wage labor by capitalist entrepreneurs, I might just as aptly point out the exploitation of the entrepreneur by the worker.  After all, the worker is taking advantage of the entrepreneur's previous labor and thrift in accumulating capital, his willingness to take risks, his organizational and leadership abilities, his vision and his talent for discerning and predicting consumer demand, in order to secure a greater share of material wealth than the worker would be able to attain acting on his own.  He is absolved of the needs to save and invest, to assume risk, and to cultivate skills of leadership and management.  He may focus his efforts upon those skills central to his trade.  His compensation is certain, defined by contract; while it lacks the potential that the entrepreneur enjoys for great profit, it also lacks the possibility of loss that the entrepreneur must bear.   He is free to spend his entire income on consumption goods if he likes, without shouldering the responsibilities of setting aside savings for capital and planning for future production which are some of the entrepreneur's most basic duties.

Without all the services and advantages provided by the entrepreneur, that enable the worker to increase the productivity of his skills, the worker is either forced to assume those duties himself, though he may be ill-suited to them, or to blunder blindly ahead without capital or direction.

Still believe that the "lazy" entrepreneur is superfluous and does not contribute significantly to the value of the final product?

Truthisnonexistent:

@Knight_of_BAAWA

If there was no exploitation, there would be no profit for the owner.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ok, now try proving it. Remember: you can't just assert it. Evidence is required, little one. And evidence is sorely lacking for your stance. So, pray grace us with your wisdom.

 

Jon Irenicus:

Hardly, it is about common usage. 'Natural' is an antonym of 'artificial'.

Actually, it can be used either way, and all "artificial" really denotes is that something was constructed, not that it is necessarily unnatural...

 

A ridiculous argument. Clearly there must be, and indeed is, a distinction between something that occurs naturally and the artifical constructions of 'natural' creatures.

Ridiculous is the denial of calling trade natural.

But is that a reflection on trade, or a reflection on the intellectual development of primates to the point that they have constructed trade customs?

It isn't a reflection on anything! It just shows how ingrained it is in the species' nature, as much as satisfying its needs requires it puts in some kind of effort.

'

How very tedious, you have resorted to your typical retort of 'nu-uh'.

NO U!

Knight_of_BAAWA:

NO U!

Quite.

 

next.

Truthisnonexistent:

It puts wealth in the hands of the undeserving.

What if I suggest that no one is deserving and that you get... what you get, regardless of who you are or however important you think you may be.

 

Truthisnonexistent:

@Knight_of_BAAWA

If there was no exploitation, there would be no profit for the owner.

 

So how exactly do you intend to pay for the rent of capital, the interest on the loan, and provide an incentive for risk taking when the price = variable cost, and nothing goes to cover fixed costs or the normal profit?

 

Daniel:

Truthisnonexistent:

The workers aren't going to be paid for what they produce in a capitalist business so it's a pointless question.

That doesn't follow.

Truthisnonexistent:

Undeserved profit is any profit reaped through worker exploitation.

 

what is undeserved profit? The only logical thing I can think of is monopoly profits (which we are all against). Unless you are again against normal profits.

What's wrong with "undeserved profits"?

Truthisnonexistent:

 Renting yourself is just as unnatural as selling yourself. 

Why/how are they unnatural?

Truthisnonexistent:

That is to be determined by the workers.

Please provide a definition for "unacceptable working hours", not an explanation as to who would determine "unacceptable working hours".

Truthisnonexistent:

Yes an individual can own a factory as long as exploitation does not occur just as an individual can own a tooth brush because there is no exploitation or coercion.

So, under socialism, you can have both collective ownership of all the means of production and individual ownership of some of the means of production?

How does it not follow? In a capitalist business i.e. a business that is privately owned,  the workers will not be payed for what they produce because the owner reaps profit.

 

They are paid for the value they add to the transaction and product. But there is also a share of value added by the enterpreneur and the management, and you need to go to pay for the materials and fixed cost. So wages != price.

They don't deserve it. What's wrong with theft? What's wrong with murder? You think you're so damn witty for asking these meaningless, redundant questions that lead to nowhere but more questions from you.

You have no moral objection to slavery? You don't see anything unnatural with a human owning another human? You don't see ducks owning other ducks, you don't see cows owning other cows. It doesn't happen in nature, it is unnatural.

I cannot tell you because it is preference. In socialism you can work as long as you want, or not work at all. If worker A works ten hours but only produces 10 shirts. He will be payed for the 10 shirts not the 10 hours.

As long as no exploitation is involved. So that individually owned business would be a one person business most likely, unless the business owner would pay the workers for what they produce. The workers would not settle for anything less seeing other workers get payed higher wages for the same work.

Murder is wrong because it is a violation of self-ownerhip. If you cant justify your ethics they should be  assumed to be wrong.

Lord Shore-Twilly:

Quite.

Ever get the feeling that we're just making fun of you?

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Truthisnonexistent:

@Knight_of_BAAWA

If there was no exploitation, there would be no profit for the owner.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ok, now try proving it. Remember: you can't just assert it. Evidence is required, little one. And evidence is sorely lacking for your stance. So, pray grace us with your wisdom.

It's not an assertion?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Boycotts/NikeThird_facts.html

Chinese workers make $1.75 a day

Vietnamese workers make $l.60 a day

Indonesian workers make $2.46 a day

For arguments sake let's say they made the cheapest shoe Nike has on their website which is twenty dollars.

http://store.nike.com/index.jsp?sitesrc=uslp&country=US&lang_locale=en_US#l=shop,pdp,ctr-inline/cid-100701/pid-203501/pgid-247828

Now how many shoes do you think they make in a day? They obviously make more expensive shoes but you can do the math on how much they are exploited even if they just make the cheapest model. Even if an American under the minimum wage laws produce these shoes, they are exploited 13 dollars.

 

 

And what's the average rent per month in those places. How much is a pound of rice? And so on? Remember, prices and wages are interval zeros, not real zeros.

Also, it's still not exploited if the gains are not wholly passed on to the workers as it's passed on to the entrepreneur, his/her investors, and other related persons.

Let me use an analogy so you can understand what value the capitalist adds through assuming risk.

 

One of the jobs I do to pay for college is to occasionally clean the bathrooms at the local grocery store (among other tasks I do there). There is a lot of capital available to me to perform that task, including not only the bathroom itself, but the mop & bucket, broom and dustpan, all sorts of cleaning supplies, running water, paper towel, etc. I do not own that capital, the stockholders who own the corporation that owns the store do.

 

Now suppose that the customers who normally use that bathroom decide to go to the bathroom at home, or clean up their own mess instead of paying me to do it. I am out of tha particular job, but I can just transfer deparments or apply somewhere else. But the capital that has been invested in that paticular job has depreciated. And how did the stockholders finance that capital? Either through their own peronal savings, or through a loan. And now the savings or collateral to that loan has lost value. So the stockholders have lost money.

 

Investing in capital is risky business, it isnt a one way gravy train like socialists want you to think. And the value added by capitalists is that they assume that risk, so the worker doesnt have to go into debt or put his own savings on the line.

Truthisnonexistent:

@Knight_of_BAAWA

If there was no exploitation, there would be no profit for the owner.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ok, now try proving it. Remember: you can't just assert it. Evidence is required, little one. And evidence is sorely lacking for your stance. So, pray grace us with your wisdom.

Truthisnonexistent:

It's not an assertion?

It is simply an assertion. The website, while a nice emotive plea, isn't evidence. So show that there is exploitation. Remember: EMOTIVE PLEAS DO NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS EXPLOITATION. YOUR HURT FEELINGS DON'T DEMONSTRATE EXPLOITATION. Get it now? You need logical argumentation, not sob-stories.

Taras Smereka:

 

So how exactly do you intend to pay for the rent of capital, the interest on the loan, and provide an incentive for risk taking when the price = variable cost, and nothing goes to cover fixed costs or the normal profit?

what is undeserved profit? The only logical thing I can think of is monopoly profits (which we are all against). Unless you are again against normal profits.

They are paid for the value they add to the transaction and product. But there is also a share of value added by the enterpreneur and the management, and you need to go to pay for the materials and fixed cost. So wages != price.

These questions are all meaningless because I am not arguing for worker self management in a capitalist system.

Any profit collected in capitalism that comes from worker exploitation is undeserved.

The workers creates the product itself. The owner does add a value but the owner's job could easily be replaced with a democratic collective.

 

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Truthisnonexistent:

@Knight_of_BAAWA

If there was no exploitation, there would be no profit for the owner.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ok, now try proving it. Remember: you can't just assert it. Evidence is required, little one. And evidence is sorely lacking for your stance. So, pray grace us with your wisdom.

Truthisnonexistent:

It's not an assertion?

It is simply an assertion. The website, while a nice emotive plea, isn't evidence. So show that there is exploitation. Remember: EMOTIVE PLEAS DO NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS EXPLOITATION. YOUR HURT FEELINGS DON'T DEMONSTRATE EXPLOITATION. Get it now? You need logical argumentation, not sob-stories.

I wasn't meaning for you to work at the website and base your whole reply on it.. I did show that there was exploitation. I show you the wages, and I showed the cheapest product they made. Leaving a difference of about 18 dollars, some of that goes to transporation but the rest goes to profit. Which is exploitation. The worker produces more than they are payed for also known as exploitation. How is that not exploitaition?

The owner adds value being the person who thought up the use in the first place. And the owner continues to adjust the firm's capital to ensure that firm's purpose continues to be sustainable. Thus, ensuring there are jobs for workers in the first place. *SIGHS*

ladyattis:

The owner adds value being the person who thought up the use in the first place. And the owner continues to adjust the firm's capital to ensure that firm's purpose continues to be sustainable. Thus, ensuring there are jobs for workers in the first place. *SIGHS*

This could easily be replaced with democratic control. The worker which produces the products and capital in the first place, ensures the owner collects profit and has a business.

Truthisnonexistent:

The workers creates the product itself. The owner does add a value but the owner's job could easily be replaced with a democratic collective.

 

Not to suggest that there is anything close to a free-market in modern capitalism today, but if this is the case, then why hasn't it?

 

I could answer that in terms you might not like, that it has partially delivered all of its worth to a competitive system through successful corporations like Wal-Mart which give much power to localize employees at the expense of a great deal of loss with central control. But again, I don't know how much you'll agree with that.

Much like the "Austrian Business Cycle Theory" has already delivered most of its worth to modern neoclassical business cycle theories in the competitive field of ideas.

 

EDIT: Also, I think you largely over-estimate the potential for worker cooperatives. Though the idea of localized knowledge is a great one that even the most adement of "conservative types" supported, it has a great many flaws. Transaction costs, for example, seem to be the main block for democratic collectives to overcome.