Yo, what's going on? I like the layout on this site. It's pretty cool. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. In fact, i dont really like capitalism at all. I do agree that the State is inherently oppressive and would advocate abolishing it, ideally- and think the economy could be organized with worker's communes. But I dont really like capitalism. And ummm i like freedom too
AWESOME SMILEYS BTW
RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:11 am
Hi Keivyn. Glad you like the smileys.
If you like freedom, then why don't you like capitalism?
KEIVYN
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:14 am
Well capitalism is quite exploitative. The capital should be under the control of labour unions.
Freedom would exist when all workers own the means of production and are in charge of their own labour.
RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:28 am
Quote :
Well capitalism is quite exploitative...
How so? Workers are paid their marginal value product.
Quote :
Freedom would exist when all workers own the means of production and are in charge of their own labour
Under capitalism workers ARE in charge of who they hire their labour out to and the terms under which they do so. And if I own capital, what right do you or anyone else have to stop me trading with others in the form of employing workers?
KEIVYN
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:38 am
Quote :
How so? Workers are paid their marginal value product.
Well they're the ones who produce the product and should be paid for the the value the product. Labour creates everything, and even the tools of production have embedded labour. Without labour, there is no product.
The surplus value is exploitative because that value was the result of the labour.
Quote :
Under capitalism workers ARE in charge of who they hire their labour out to and on what terms they do so. And if I own capital, what right do you or anyone else have to stop me trading with others in the form of employing workers?
Yea, but you see the worksers dont have much choice. There are less jobs than there are people looking for work, so they have to settle for something. It 's voluntary only in the sense that it's better than the alternative: starvation.
RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:44 am
KEIVYN wrote:
even the tools of production have embedded labour.
Which labour has already been paid for.
Quote :
Without labour, there is no product.
Nor without the capital.
Quote :
The surplus value is exploitative because that value was the result of the labour.
Together with the capital.
Quote :
There are less jobs than there are people looking for work
False in a free market.
Quote :
It's voluntary only in the sense that it's better than the alternative: starvation.
That could be said about any kind of work. Food and drink isn't just lying around the place like some Big Rock Candy Mountain, it must be produced first.
KEIVYN
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:53 am
Quote :
Which labour has already been paid for.
The labour used for the tools of production was also exploited, though
Quote :
Nor without the capital.
Which may also have been created by workers
Quote :
That could be said about any kind of work.
The worker is not in an ideal situation when he applies for a job, in the sense that he is not paid for everything he produces or the value of the service. If the worker is completely in charge of his own labour, then the worker works voluntarily because there is a benefit on his end, not simply because it is better than the alternative
RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:01 am
Quote :
Which labour has already been paid for.
The labour used for the tools of production was also exploited, though No, they were paid their marginal value product of labour. You're just repeating the same fallacy.
Quote :
Nor without the capital.
Which may also have been created by workers Who were paid.
Quote :
That could be said about any kind of work.
The worker is not in an ideal situation when he applies for a job, in the sense that he is not paid for everything he produces or the value of the service. But he is. Which part of "marginal value product" did you not understand?
If the worker is completely in charge of his own labour, then the worker works voluntarily because there is a benefit on his end, not simply because it is better than the alternative The "benefit" is precisely that's it's "better than the alternative."
KEIVYN
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:12 am
Quote :
No, they were paid their marginal value product of labour. You're just repeating the same fallacy.
So the owner of the means of production profits from the surplus value of the work produced by the worker, meaning that the worker did not get the whole value of the work that they produced. Paying the marginal value of their product is exploitative. Getting a profit is inherently exploitative.
Quote :
Who were paid.
Ok so only who produced the capital and the people who created the product should be involved
Quote :
He is. Which part of "marginal value product" did you not understand?
Again, the workers are involved in producing the revenues for the company and therefore should be paid the full amount for their work
Quote :
The "benefit" is precisely that's it's "better than the alternative."
So the person only enters the employment because being paid pennies is better than starving. Is that a justification for exploitation?
RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:20 am
Think of it this way. If the laborers who produced the capital KEPT it (instead of being paid in money wages) and then THEY (as the owners of the capital) hired a second bunch of workers to work with that capital to produce a consumer product, would that second group deserve to be paid the full product?
KEIVYN
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:32 am
Quote :
Think of it this way. If the laborers who produced the the capital KEPT it (instead of being paid in money wages) and then THEY (as owners of the capital) hired a second bunch of workers to work with that capital to produce a consumer product, would that second group deserve to be paid the full product?
No because the product created was the result of the capital and the labour- workers creating the good using the capital should be get most of surplus value, with the workers who created the capital getting a smaller component of it. In the typical example where the capitalist buys the means of production and hires people to utilize the capital to produce goods, the capitalist did not create any of the value so should not profit.
RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:37 am
Quote :
In the typical example where the capitalist buys the means of production and hires people to utilize the capital to produce goods, the capitalist did not create any of the value so should not profit.
Bingo! He bought the means of production, which means the rights those initial workers had, (and which you just affirmed includes being paid something for the final consumer product) have been transferred to the capitalist.
KEIVYN
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:49 am
Quote :
Bingo! He bought the means of production, which means the rights those initial workers had, (and which you just affirmed includes being paid something for the final consumer product) have been transferred to the capitalist.
But the capitalist did not create it, so the workers who created it should b enefit from any profit that comes as a result of its use. The capitalist who bought it would profit long after the workers who created it by its continued use in the to produce the goods. There should be no intermediate party- those who produced the means of production and those who used the means of production to create something of value should be that are involved
RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:58 am
KEIVYN wrote:
Quote :
Bingo! He bought the means of production, which means the rights those initial workers had, (and which you just affirmed includes being paid something for the final consumer product) have been transferred to the capitalist.
But the capitalist did not create it, so the workers who created it should benefit from any profit that comes as a result of its use. No, they sold it (as is their right), thereby surrendering all claim to any such profit.
There should be no intermediate party So now you deny the initial producers of the capital the right to their product, to dispose of it as they see fit: to sell it?
KEIVYN
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:19 am
Quote :
No, they sold it (as is their right), thereby surrendering all claim to any such profit.
If by selling it, they surrender all claim to any profit, then the capitalist should not get any of the profit as he did not produce any of the product. If those who PRODUCEeD tge means oif production hire people to use the capital they created, they are then entitled to some of the revenue earned, as their labour was involved in producing the capital and therefore the product
Quote :
So now you deny the initial producers of the capital the right to their product, to dispose of it as they see fit: to sell it?
No- they can sell it to workers directly who will utilize the product to create goods but will be entitled to a fraction of the revunue. But if the capitalist simply buys the capital and then employs workers- what work has he done in creating the product? He simply pays capital, hire workers, and profits from the surplus labour
RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:31 am
KEIVYN wrote:
Quote :
No, they sold it (as is their right), thereby surrendering all claim to any such profit.
If by selling it, they surrender all claim to any profit, then the capitalist should not get any of the profit as he did not produce any of the product. Don't you even know what it means to "sell" something? It's those very rights to accrue profits that were sold to the capitalist!
Quote :
So now you deny the initial producers of the capital the right to their product, to dispose of it as they see fit: to sell it?
No- they can sell it to workers directly If they truly own it, they can sell it to whomever they like, including a capitalist.
Your entire position is self-annihilated by a fatal contradiction at its core.
Last edited by Nemo on Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:06 am; edited 1 time in total
KEIVYN
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:45 am
Quote :
Don't you even know what it means to "sell" something? It's those very rights to accrue profits that were sold to the capitalist!
So now the capitalist uses his investments to hire workers for what he will pay them the market value of that particular labour, not what they worth as a result of what they have produced (essentially the whole thing), taking advantage of both the workers who produce the capitaql and the workers who produced the product, and then getting the vast majority of the profit. The capitalist gets money from the initial investment (not having produced anything), which is fundamentally unfair.
Quote :
If they truly own it, they can sell it to whomever they like, including a capitalist.
Your entire position is destroyed by a fatal contradiction at its core.
The whole way in which goods are produced needs to be completely revamped. The capitalist has a better position, generating profit from his investment, where workers have no choice but to sell their labour. What needs to happen is there needs to be community involvement in the production of goods, whereby buying and selling have been ckmpletely eliminated, and the all workers have control of the tools neccessqry to produce their goods, thereby eliminating the need of a capitalist. Yes, the people who produce the capital have the right to sell it to whoever theyu want, but by the very natue, it's unfair as those with the most money accumulate more by investing the money they have intomore
RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:59 am
KEIVYN wrote:
Quote :
Don't you even know what it means to "sell" something? It's those very rights to accrue profits that were sold to the capitalist!
So now the capitalist uses his investments to hire workers for what he will pay them the market value of that particular labour, not what they worth as a result of what they have produced (essentially the whole thing), Ah, but it's NOT the whole thing, is it? You've already admitted the producers of the capital should be paid, not just the second bunch of workers.
taking advantage of both the workers who produce the capital No, they agreed to sell to the capitalist.
and the workers who produced the product, Not unless the original producers of the capital also were "taking advantage" of them, which you explicitly denied.
and then getting the vast majority(???) of the profit. The capitalist gets money from the initial investment (not having produced anything), which is fundamentally unfair. It's perfectly fair, as they paid for the right to do so.
Quote :
If they truly own it, they can sell it to whomever they like, including a capitalist.
Your entire position is destroyed by a fatal contradiction at its core.
The whole way in which goods are produced needs to be completely revamped. The capitalist has a better position, generating profit from his investment, where workers have no choice but to sell their labour. What needs to happen is there needs to be community involvement in the production of goods, whereby buying and selling have been ckmpletely eliminated, and the all workers have control of the tools neccessqry to produce their goods, thereby eliminating the need of a capitalist. Yes, the people who produce the capital have the right to sell it to whoever theyu want, but by the very natue, it's unfair as those with the most money accumulate more by investing the money they have intomore
KEIVYN
Subject: Re: Sup Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:14 am
Quote :
Ah, but it's NOT the whole thing, is it? You've already admitted the producers of the capital should be paid, not just the second bunch of workers.
Yes because they actually produced something that allowedthe production of the good that was subsequently produced, so tjust the workers would be cpompensated for their work (ie, both the people who creared the capital, and those who created the final product)
Quote :
No, they agreed to sell to the capitalist.
just because there is an agreement with regards to the capital doesnt mean he should not pay the workers he hires the full value of their labour - minus the initial value of the capital in producing the good. He really should not profit from buying the tools and production and the labour
Quote :
Not unless the original producers of the capital also were "taking advantage" of them, which you explicitly denied.
Well they would have been taken advantage of if they weren't compensated for the value of the capital
Quote :
It's perfectly fair, as they paid for the right to do so.
It's not fair because they did not actually create anything of value but simply invested in tools and paid a fraction towards labour so that they can create something. If the capitalist is eliminated, things will still be produced, so the does nothing of value to society
RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Sup 
Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:08 am
