Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[danielpalos]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

No it is not a broad term. Socialism is well defined as an economic and political system in which the means of production is owned and managed by the government, (which usually devolves into tyranny). It is the Left that confuses social programs and infrastructure with socialism.

You guys would hate living under socialism - that economic and governing system cannot afford the generous benefits capitalism affords to our 'unfortunate'. In a socialist country - you don't work, you don't eat...yet there is no reward for working 'harder'. It is a system that can only succeed in small, homogenous communities, not large, diverse countries such as the US.

dear, we have a mixed market economy.

 

[Tehon]

Nope. Still the same issue. You keep steering around it. I'm beginning to suspect it's deliberate.

Let me ask some very specific questions. Hopefully you can answer:

"how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?"

In the above question, is the amount paid to the worker a market value? It seems like it must be - you've been clear that your intrinsic labor value is measured in "accumulated hours". And is it safe to assume that you're measuring the value created by the laborer in "accumulated hours"?

I'm asking because this seems like an obvious logic error - you're comparing two different, unrelated, measures. It's like comparing length, measured in inches, with weight, measured in pounds? It's like asking "Is three inches less than two pounds?"

And to be frank, what's it's really doing is promoting a lie - namely the notion that capitalists pay workers less than the "real" value of their work. But with such a glaring fallacy at the heart of it, I'm wondering why anyone ever bought into it? Why did you?

In the above question, is the amount paid to the worker a market value? It seems like it must be - you've been clear that your intrinsic labor value is measured in "accumulated hours". And is it safe to assume that you're measuring the value created by the laborer in "accumulated hours"?

The value only manifests itself in relation to another commodity.

In the example we are using the value created in making the table is equal to 50 lbs of coffee. The intrinsic value in each are equal to one another.

No matter the percentage, the laborer will only be given a portion of the value he created and which has become manifest in the exchange.

I'm beginning to see I'll never get a straight answer out of you. And if your aim here is to enlighten us on socialism, then it's your loss.

We are discussing a theory of value as it relates to labor. You asked for an objective measure of value. I am giving you one.

You're claiming that labor has intrinsic value, irrespective of its utility - and further, that capitalists profit by paying employees less than this intrinsic value. Yet you can't provide an objective measure of that value, which kind of submarines the "theory".

It seems the theory remains afloat.

Objectively the table is worth 50 lbs of coffee.

If it is your desire to bring money into the equation at this point we can easily do so.

Whose labor are we talking about, here?

If Peg Leg the Hobbling Pirate can only manage to harvest 20 lbs of coffee in the same time that it takes to build the table, is the table then only worth 20 lbs? What if the table maker is afflicted with narcolepsy and arthritis, and it takes him three times as long as previously stated to make the same table? Is that same table then worth 150 lbs of coffee?

Better yet, what if we're not talking coffee at all. What if we're talking wild berries.

Say we have Ted. Ted, over the years, has used much of his spare income to build a workshop attached to his home. He has built, bought, and otherwised compiled the machinery necessary to build furniture as efficiently as any one man might.

Then we have Chuck. Chuck picks wild berries on public land. He does this with only his hands and a small wicker basket.

In his workshop, Ted is able to make a table in 5 hours that would take someone without Ted's workshop facilities 20 hours to make. Since he makes it in 5 hours, is the "intrinsic value" of this table, in your mind, still worth only whatever amount of wild berries Chuck could harvest in 5 hours?

And this doesn't even account for the fact that building furniture properly isn't simple work. Proper carpentry is a skill earned through thousands of hours of experience. Any asshole with 2 hands can pick berries and drop 'em in a basket.

If we're only going to factor in labor time, what incentive is there to learn a skilled profession and go to the trouble of acquiring the tools for a dedicated trade? If I can get paid the same for mopping as I can for heart surgery, why the **** would I go study anatomy for 7 years? That shit ain't fun.

Essentially, your economic theory is AWESOME! Just not for any society that's more advanced than nomadic hunter-gatherers.

It doesn't really matter anyway.

Even if value is looked at as purely subjective, the laborer is getting the short end of the stick. The only way for the capitalist to increase his capital by selling the table is by withholding value from the worker.

 

[SeaGal]

No it is not a broad term. Socialism is well defined as an economic and political system in which the means of production is owned and managed by the government, (which usually devolves into tyranny). It is the Left that confuses social programs and infrastructure with socialism.

You guys would hate living under socialism - that economic and governing system cannot afford the generous benefits capitalism affords to our 'unfortunate'. In a socialist country - you don't work, you don't eat...yet there is no reward for working 'harder'. It is a system that can only succeed in small, homogenous communities, not large, diverse countries such as the US.

dear, we have a mixed market economy.

Irrelevant...though it could be reasoned that too much central planning is an economy killer. We have a regulated capitalist economy and a constitutional republic as our form of government. The debate is how much is too much. Socialism is one-stop economic and government shopping...there is no debate. The confused are those who believe otherwise.

 

[dudmuck]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

No it is not a broad term. Socialism is well defined as an economic and political system in which the means of production is owned and managed by the government, (which usually devolves into tyranny). It is the Left that confuses social programs and infrastructure with socialism.

You guys would hate living under socialism - that economic and governing system cannot afford the generous benefits capitalism affords to our 'unfortunate'. In a socialist country - you don't work, you don't eat...yet there is no reward for working 'harder'. It is a system that can only succeed in small, homogenous communities, not large, diverse countries such as the US.

Socialism is a broad term, where public ownership is only one variety of social ownership. It can also be collective or cooperative ownership. But the key characteristic is democratic control. If there isnt democratic control of ownership, the its something other than socialism.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Let me ask some very specific questions. Hopefully you can answer:

In the above question, is the amount paid to the worker a market value? It seems like it must be - you've been clear that your intrinsic labor value is measured in "accumulated hours". And is it safe to assume that you're measuring the value created by the laborer in "accumulated hours"?

I'm asking because this seems like an obvious logic error - you're comparing two different, unrelated, measures. It's like comparing length, measured in inches, with weight, measured in pounds? It's like asking "Is three inches less than two pounds?"

And to be frank, what's it's really doing is promoting a lie - namely the notion that capitalists pay workers less than the "real" value of their work. But with such a glaring fallacy at the heart of it, I'm wondering why anyone ever bought into it? Why did you?

In the above question, is the amount paid to the worker a market value? It seems like it must be - you've been clear that your intrinsic labor value is measured in "accumulated hours". And is it safe to assume that you're measuring the value created by the laborer in "accumulated hours"?

The value only manifests itself in relation to another commodity.

In the example we are using the value created in making the table is equal to 50 lbs of coffee. The intrinsic value in each are equal to one another.

No matter the percentage, the laborer will only be given a portion of the value he created and which has become manifest in the exchange.

I'm beginning to see I'll never get a straight answer out of you. And if your aim here is to enlighten us on socialism, then it's your loss.

We are discussing a theory of value as it relates to labor. You asked for an objective measure of value. I am giving you one.

You're claiming that labor has intrinsic value, irrespective of its utility - and further, that capitalists profit by paying employees less than this intrinsic value. Yet you can't provide an objective measure of that value, which kind of submarines the "theory".

It seems the theory remains afloat.

Objectively the table is worth 50 lbs of coffee.

If it is your desire to bring money into the equation at this point we can easily do so.

Whose labor are we talking about, here?

If Peg Leg the Hobbling Pirate can only manage to harvest 20 lbs of coffee in the same time that it takes to build the table, is the table then only worth 20 lbs? What if the table maker is afflicted with narcolepsy and arthritis, and it takes him three times as long as previously stated to make the same table? Is that same table then worth 150 lbs of coffee?

Better yet, what if we're not talking coffee at all. What if we're talking wild berries.

Say we have Ted. Ted, over the years, has used much of his spare income to build a workshop attached to his home. He has built, bought, and otherwised compiled the machinery necessary to build furniture as efficiently as any one man might.

Then we have Chuck. Chuck picks wild berries on public land. He does this with only his hands and a small wicker basket.

In his workshop, Ted is able to make a table in 5 hours that would take someone without Ted's workshop facilities 20 hours to make. Since he makes it in 5 hours, is the "intrinsic value" of this table, in your mind, still worth only whatever amount of wild berries Chuck could harvest in 5 hours?

And this doesn't even account for the fact that building furniture properly isn't simple work. Proper carpentry is a skill earned through thousands of hours of experience. Any asshole with 2 hands can pick berries and drop 'em in a basket.

If we're only going to factor in labor time, what incentive is there to learn a skilled profession and go to the trouble of acquiring the tools for a dedicated trade? If I can get paid the same for mopping as I can for heart surgery, why the **** would I go study anatomy for 7 years? That shit ain't fun.

Essentially, your economic theory is AWESOME! Just not for any society that's more advanced than nomadic hunter-gatherers.

It doesn't really matter anyway.

Even if value is looked at as purely subjective, the laborer is getting the short end of the stick. The only way for the capitalist to increase his capital by selling the table is by withholding value from the worker.

Bullshit. Part of the value (and a rather LARGE part of that value) of the product is based in the facilities used to create the product. The capitalist had to expend the fruit of his own labor to acquire those facilities that the worker used to facilitate his production. If the laborer didn't need those facilities, he wouldn't be working for the capitalist, he'd be building the products by himself on his own ******* land and keeping all of the revenue for himself. Yet he's not. He's expediting the process by using the capitalists tools and factory, allowing him to turn out each unit of production in a fraction of the time it would take him on his own.

Here's the thing. If you honestly believe that a random factory worker could use their own basic tools in their own garage to build the same product, and still turn out units quickly enough to make as much money solo as he does by being paid a tiny fraction of the revenue of each unit that he cranks out with the assistance of the factory and the machinery that's been compiled by the capitalist, you're fuckin dreaming. There's a reason that there's more guys working at the GM plant than there are building one car at a time in their garage and selling 'em independently.

 

[danielpalos]

No it is not a broad term. Socialism is well defined as an economic and political system in which the means of production is owned and managed by the government, (which usually devolves into tyranny). It is the Left that confuses social programs and infrastructure with socialism.

You guys would hate living under socialism - that economic and governing system cannot afford the generous benefits capitalism affords to our 'unfortunate'. In a socialist country - you don't work, you don't eat...yet there is no reward for working 'harder'. It is a system that can only succeed in small, homogenous communities, not large, diverse countries such as the US.

dear, we have a mixed market economy.

Irrelevant...though it could be reasoned that too much central planning is an economy killer. We have a regulated capitalist economy and a constitutional republic as our form of government. The debate is how much is too much. Socialism is one-stop economic and government shopping...there is no debate. The confused are those who believe otherwise.

That is an overly simplistic concept, from the Cold War. The right wing, really is, "that dumb".

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our Constitutions are examples of social-ism.

 

[SeaGal]

Socialism is a broad term, where public ownership is only one variety of social ownership. It can also be collective or cooperative ownership. But the key characteristic is democratic control. If there isnt democratic control of ownership, the its something other than socialism.

That is the promise in theory - in practice the promise has never materialized on a large scale. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[Doc1]

No it is not a broad term. Socialism is well defined as an economic and political system in which the means of production is owned and managed by the government, (which usually devolves into tyranny). It is the Left that confuses social programs and infrastructure with socialism.

You guys would hate living under socialism - that economic and governing system cannot afford the generous benefits capitalism affords to our 'unfortunate'. In a socialist country - you don't work, you don't eat...yet there is no reward for working 'harder'. It is a system that can only succeed in small, homogenous communities, not large, diverse countries such as the US.

dear, we have a mixed market economy.

Irrelevant...though it could be reasoned that too much central planning is an economy killer. We have a regulated capitalist economy and a constitutional republic as our form of government. The debate is how much is too much. Socialism is one-stop economic and government shopping...there is no debate. The confused are those who believe otherwise.

That is an overly simplistic concept, from the Cold War. The right wing, really is, "that dumb".

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our Constitutions are examples of social-ism.

I love how you Lefty's NEED your own affirmation.

 

[SeaGal]

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our Constitutions are examples of social-ism.

No dear - that is false. Putting lipstick on a pig changes not the taste of the pork.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our Constitutions are examples of social-ism.

No dear - that is false. Putting lipstick on a pig changes not the taste of the pork.

not at all; our Constitutions define the organization of our society.

 

[dudmuck]

Socialism is a broad term, where public ownership is only one variety of social ownership. It can also be collective or cooperative ownership. But the key characteristic is democratic control. If there isnt democratic control of ownership, the its something other than socialism.

That is the promise in theory - in practice the promise has never materialized on a large scale. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Nordic countries are generally considered the most successful socialist countries. Its always a mixed economy. In those countries, the public services offered are much more extensive that here in US. Finland is currently the happiest place.
China can be considered economically successful, but lacks some basic freedoms.

But socialism can exist on smaller scales, such as Mondragon. Or even in small scales in US, such as cooperative health care associates.

 

[danielpalos]

No it is not a broad term. Socialism is well defined as an economic and political system in which the means of production is owned and managed by the government, (which usually devolves into tyranny). It is the Left that confuses social programs and infrastructure with socialism.

You guys would hate living under socialism - that economic and governing system cannot afford the generous benefits capitalism affords to our 'unfortunate'. In a socialist country - you don't work, you don't eat...yet there is no reward for working 'harder'. It is a system that can only succeed in small, homogenous communities, not large, diverse countries such as the US.

dear, we have a mixed market economy.

Irrelevant...though it could be reasoned that too much central planning is an economy killer. We have a regulated capitalist economy and a constitutional republic as our form of government. The debate is how much is too much. Socialism is one-stop economic and government shopping...there is no debate. The confused are those who believe otherwise.

That is an overly simplistic concept, from the Cold War. The right wing, really is, "that dumb".

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our Constitutions are examples of social-ism.

I love how you Lefty's NEED your own affirmation.

It is about bearing True Witness to our own laws.

 

[Tehon]

The value only manifests itself in relation to another commodity.

In the example we are using the value created in making the table is equal to 50 lbs of coffee. The intrinsic value in each are equal to one another.

No matter the percentage, the laborer will only be given a portion of the value he created and which has become manifest in the exchange.

I'm beginning to see I'll never get a straight answer out of you. And if your aim here is to enlighten us on socialism, then it's your loss.

We are discussing a theory of value as it relates to labor. You asked for an objective measure of value. I am giving you one.

You're claiming that labor has intrinsic value, irrespective of its utility - and further, that capitalists profit by paying employees less than this intrinsic value. Yet you can't provide an objective measure of that value, which kind of submarines the "theory".

It seems the theory remains afloat.

Objectively the table is worth 50 lbs of coffee.

If it is your desire to bring money into the equation at this point we can easily do so.

Whose labor are we talking about, here?

If Peg Leg the Hobbling Pirate can only manage to harvest 20 lbs of coffee in the same time that it takes to build the table, is the table then only worth 20 lbs? What if the table maker is afflicted with narcolepsy and arthritis, and it takes him three times as long as previously stated to make the same table? Is that same table then worth 150 lbs of coffee?

Better yet, what if we're not talking coffee at all. What if we're talking wild berries.

Say we have Ted. Ted, over the years, has used much of his spare income to build a workshop attached to his home. He has built, bought, and otherwised compiled the machinery necessary to build furniture as efficiently as any one man might.

Then we have Chuck. Chuck picks wild berries on public land. He does this with only his hands and a small wicker basket.

In his workshop, Ted is able to make a table in 5 hours that would take someone without Ted's workshop facilities 20 hours to make. Since he makes it in 5 hours, is the "intrinsic value" of this table, in your mind, still worth only whatever amount of wild berries Chuck could harvest in 5 hours?

And this doesn't even account for the fact that building furniture properly isn't simple work. Proper carpentry is a skill earned through thousands of hours of experience. Any asshole with 2 hands can pick berries and drop 'em in a basket.

If we're only going to factor in labor time, what incentive is there to learn a skilled profession and go to the trouble of acquiring the tools for a dedicated trade? If I can get paid the same for mopping as I can for heart surgery, why the **** would I go study anatomy for 7 years? That shit ain't fun.

Essentially, your economic theory is AWESOME! Just not for any society that's more advanced than nomadic hunter-gatherers.

It doesn't really matter anyway.

Even if value is looked at as purely subjective, the laborer is getting the short end of the stick. The only way for the capitalist to increase his capital by selling the table is by withholding value from the worker.

Bullshit. Part of the value (and a rather LARGE part of that value) of the product is based in the facilities used to create the product. The capitalist had to expend the fruit of his own labor to acquire those facilities that the worker used to facilitate his production. If the laborer didn't need those facilities, he wouldn't be working for the capitalist, he'd be building the products by himself on his own ******* land and keeping all of the revenue for himself. Yet he's not. He's expediting the process by using the capitalists tools and factory, allowing him to turn out each unit of production in a fraction of the time it would take him on his own.

Here's the thing. If you honestly believe that a random factory worker could use their own basic tools in their own garage to build the same product, and still turn out units quickly enough to make as much money solo as he does by being paid a tiny fraction of the revenue of each unit that he cranks out with the assistance of the factory and the machinery that's been compiled by the capitalist, you're fuckin dreaming. There's a reason that there's more guys working at the GM plant than there are building one car at a time in their garage and selling 'em independently.

Bullshit. Part of the value (and a rather LARGE part of that value) of the product is based in the facilities used to create the product. The capitalist had to expend the fruit of his own labor to acquire those facilities that the worker used to facilitate his production. If the laborer didn't need those facilities, he wouldn't be working for the capitalist, he'd be building the products by himself on his own ******* land and keeping all of the revenue for himself. Yet he's not. He's expediting the process by using the capitalists tools and factory, allowing him to turn out each unit of production in a fraction of the time it would take him on his own.

Aside from the fact that the facility and tools are nothing but accumulated labor, neither created value in the car except by the power of labor. Even after the banks have been paid back (with interest) for the money lent to construct the facility and stock it with tools, the company still retains a profit (and a rather large profit). That is a cut of the value that was created by labor.

Here's the thing. If you honestly believe that a random factory worker could use their own basic tools in their own garage to build the same product, and still turn out units quickly enough to make as much money solo as he does by being paid a tiny fraction of the revenue of each unit that he cranks out with the assistance of the factory and the machinery that's been compiled by the capitalist, you're fuckin dreaming. There's a reason that there's more guys working at the GM plant than there are building one car at a time in their garage and selling 'em independently.

I don't believe that.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm beginning to see I'll never get a straight answer out of you. And if your aim here is to enlighten us on socialism, then it's your loss.

We are discussing a theory of value as it relates to labor. You asked for an objective measure of value. I am giving you one.

You're claiming that labor has intrinsic value, irrespective of its utility - and further, that capitalists profit by paying employees less than this intrinsic value. Yet you can't provide an objective measure of that value, which kind of submarines the "theory".

It seems the theory remains afloat.

Objectively the table is worth 50 lbs of coffee.

If it is your desire to bring money into the equation at this point we can easily do so.

Whose labor are we talking about, here?

If Peg Leg the Hobbling Pirate can only manage to harvest 20 lbs of coffee in the same time that it takes to build the table, is the table then only worth 20 lbs? What if the table maker is afflicted with narcolepsy and arthritis, and it takes him three times as long as previously stated to make the same table? Is that same table then worth 150 lbs of coffee?

Better yet, what if we're not talking coffee at all. What if we're talking wild berries.

Say we have Ted. Ted, over the years, has used much of his spare income to build a workshop attached to his home. He has built, bought, and otherwised compiled the machinery necessary to build furniture as efficiently as any one man might.

Then we have Chuck. Chuck picks wild berries on public land. He does this with only his hands and a small wicker basket.

In his workshop, Ted is able to make a table in 5 hours that would take someone without Ted's workshop facilities 20 hours to make. Since he makes it in 5 hours, is the "intrinsic value" of this table, in your mind, still worth only whatever amount of wild berries Chuck could harvest in 5 hours?

And this doesn't even account for the fact that building furniture properly isn't simple work. Proper carpentry is a skill earned through thousands of hours of experience. Any asshole with 2 hands can pick berries and drop 'em in a basket.

If we're only going to factor in labor time, what incentive is there to learn a skilled profession and go to the trouble of acquiring the tools for a dedicated trade? If I can get paid the same for mopping as I can for heart surgery, why the **** would I go study anatomy for 7 years? That shit ain't fun.

Essentially, your economic theory is AWESOME! Just not for any society that's more advanced than nomadic hunter-gatherers.

It doesn't really matter anyway.

Even if value is looked at as purely subjective, the laborer is getting the short end of the stick. The only way for the capitalist to increase his capital by selling the table is by withholding value from the worker.

Bullshit. Part of the value (and a rather LARGE part of that value) of the product is based in the facilities used to create the product. The capitalist had to expend the fruit of his own labor to acquire those facilities that the worker used to facilitate his production. If the laborer didn't need those facilities, he wouldn't be working for the capitalist, he'd be building the products by himself on his own ******* land and keeping all of the revenue for himself. Yet he's not. He's expediting the process by using the capitalists tools and factory, allowing him to turn out each unit of production in a fraction of the time it would take him on his own.

Here's the thing. If you honestly believe that a random factory worker could use their own basic tools in their own garage to build the same product, and still turn out units quickly enough to make as much money solo as he does by being paid a tiny fraction of the revenue of each unit that he cranks out with the assistance of the factory and the machinery that's been compiled by the capitalist, you're fuckin dreaming. There's a reason that there's more guys working at the GM plant than there are building one car at a time in their garage and selling 'em independently.

Bullshit. Part of the value (and a rather LARGE part of that value) of the product is based in the facilities used to create the product. The capitalist had to expend the fruit of his own labor to acquire those facilities that the worker used to facilitate his production. If the laborer didn't need those facilities, he wouldn't be working for the capitalist, he'd be building the products by himself on his own ******* land and keeping all of the revenue for himself. Yet he's not. He's expediting the process by using the capitalists tools and factory, allowing him to turn out each unit of production in a fraction of the time it would take him on his own.

Aside from the fact that the facility and tools are nothing but accumulated labor, neither created value in the car except by the power of labor. Even after the banks have been paid back (with interest) for the money lent to construct the facility and stock it with tools, the company still retains a profit (and a rather large profit). That is a cut of the value that was created by labor.

Here's the thing. If you honestly believe that a random factory worker could use their own basic tools in their own garage to build the same product, and still turn out units quickly enough to make as much money solo as he does by being paid a tiny fraction of the revenue of each unit that he cranks out with the assistance of the factory and the machinery that's been compiled by the capitalist, you're fuckin dreaming. There's a reason that there's more guys working at the GM plant than there are building one car at a time in their garage and selling 'em independently.

I don't believe that.

Banks don't lend people 100 percent of the cost of their venture. That means that the capitalist, in building his facilities, has to expend his own capital as well as what he is loaned. At some starting point, the capitalist (or future capitalist) doesn't yet have the capital with which to acquire that starting loan, or the capital with which to pay for the labor of others. The capitalist (or future capitalist) has to gather that initial sum through the efforts of his own labor, and then risk that sum on the portion of his venture that he pays for.

So not only does the capitalist have to initially delay gratification with the fruit of his own labor, he then has to compile that fruit over time, and then risk losing all of it to facilitate the labor he hires to work in his factory. The laborers just show up and pull the cranks.

Ah, right, also the capitalist has to pay close attention to his spending throughout his life. If his credit goes to shit because he isn't exceptionally responsible, then the banks won't lend him money, and he'll have to build his initial business with nothing but what he can put together through his own labor.

Meanwhile, the laborers, during the time leading up to their employment with the capitalist, can do whatever the **** they want with all of their money. Whether they saved it to start their own businesses one day or blew it all on Mountain Dew and Magic Cards, all they gotta be able to do is turn the cranks reliably and he'll still hire 'em and pay 'em just the same. They don't have to be careful about their spending. They can drive their credit rating so far into the ground that the bank tellers won't even look at 'em, let alone lend them money, and they can still have that job with the capitalist.

But nah, all that shit he has to do to put those facilities together, ignore it. Since bank loans are a big part of it, let's just pretend that the bank built the entire thing with no effort on the part of the capitalist just so they could fleece those workers together. This explanation might lack the nuance to make it even remotely accurate, but **** those rich ***** is more important than accuracy or truth. Power to the people!

 

[Doc1]

Socialism is a broad term, where public ownership is only one variety of social ownership. It can also be collective or cooperative ownership. But the key characteristic is democratic control. If there isnt democratic control of ownership, the its something other than socialism.

That is the promise in theory - in practice the promise has never materialized on a large scale. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Nordic countries are generally considered the most successful socialist countries. Its always a mixed economy. In those countries, the public services offered are much more extensive that here in US. Finland is currently the happiest place.
China can be considered economically successful, but lacks some basic freedoms.

But socialism can exist on smaller scales, such as Mondragon. Or even in small scales in US, such as cooperative health care associates.

Tax rate.
Finland 54.2
United States 26.0

Never gonna happen son.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Ussr
China
Greece
Detroit
Spain
Italy
Ven.
North Korea
most of S and C America
most of Africa

yea, leftist utopias


And you need to look up the word 'free', you have no grasp of what it means

Only two of those I would call Modern socialist countries , Spain and Italy. Or successful. Like I said Scandinavia EU original.. Canada Australia New Zealand Japan. We are the richest country in the world for crying out loud.

No they aren't the richest.

and all of that is modern socialism and or communism.

oh and, Scandinavia goes tits up if you enforce your green energy on them.

I said we are the richest country but we have so much inequality and so few benefits of citizenship like good pay good vacations good day care good health care paid parental leave cheap College. You GOP dupes are obsessed with immigrants and guns and abortion I suppose which the GOP will never solve because they're bought off d u h, dupe.

I love listening to you lie about America.

You act like you hate it here, and have acted that way since I've known you, but you refuse to leave.

walk that talk *****

I'm afraid you can't leave and after a while I don't want to. It's my country it's the GOP that sucks and it's stupid dupes like you brainwashed functional moron. How How a about those UB Bulls? Good night

but its' the dems that HATE America.

fool

 

[Tehon]

We are discussing a theory of value as it relates to labor. You asked for an objective measure of value. I am giving you one.
It seems the theory remains afloat.

Objectively the table is worth 50 lbs of coffee.

If it is your desire to bring money into the equation at this point we can easily do so.

Whose labor are we talking about, here?

If Peg Leg the Hobbling Pirate can only manage to harvest 20 lbs of coffee in the same time that it takes to build the table, is the table then only worth 20 lbs? What if the table maker is afflicted with narcolepsy and arthritis, and it takes him three times as long as previously stated to make the same table? Is that same table then worth 150 lbs of coffee?

Better yet, what if we're not talking coffee at all. What if we're talking wild berries.

Say we have Ted. Ted, over the years, has used much of his spare income to build a workshop attached to his home. He has built, bought, and otherwised compiled the machinery necessary to build furniture as efficiently as any one man might.

Then we have Chuck. Chuck picks wild berries on public land. He does this with only his hands and a small wicker basket.

In his workshop, Ted is able to make a table in 5 hours that would take someone without Ted's workshop facilities 20 hours to make. Since he makes it in 5 hours, is the "intrinsic value" of this table, in your mind, still worth only whatever amount of wild berries Chuck could harvest in 5 hours?

And this doesn't even account for the fact that building furniture properly isn't simple work. Proper carpentry is a skill earned through thousands of hours of experience. Any asshole with 2 hands can pick berries and drop 'em in a basket.

If we're only going to factor in labor time, what incentive is there to learn a skilled profession and go to the trouble of acquiring the tools for a dedicated trade? If I can get paid the same for mopping as I can for heart surgery, why the **** would I go study anatomy for 7 years? That shit ain't fun.

Essentially, your economic theory is AWESOME! Just not for any society that's more advanced than nomadic hunter-gatherers.

It doesn't really matter anyway.

Even if value is looked at as purely subjective, the laborer is getting the short end of the stick. The only way for the capitalist to increase his capital by selling the table is by withholding value from the worker.

Bullshit. Part of the value (and a rather LARGE part of that value) of the product is based in the facilities used to create the product. The capitalist had to expend the fruit of his own labor to acquire those facilities that the worker used to facilitate his production. If the laborer didn't need those facilities, he wouldn't be working for the capitalist, he'd be building the products by himself on his own ******* land and keeping all of the revenue for himself. Yet he's not. He's expediting the process by using the capitalists tools and factory, allowing him to turn out each unit of production in a fraction of the time it would take him on his own.

Here's the thing. If you honestly believe that a random factory worker could use their own basic tools in their own garage to build the same product, and still turn out units quickly enough to make as much money solo as he does by being paid a tiny fraction of the revenue of each unit that he cranks out with the assistance of the factory and the machinery that's been compiled by the capitalist, you're fuckin dreaming. There's a reason that there's more guys working at the GM plant than there are building one car at a time in their garage and selling 'em independently.

Bullshit. Part of the value (and a rather LARGE part of that value) of the product is based in the facilities used to create the product. The capitalist had to expend the fruit of his own labor to acquire those facilities that the worker used to facilitate his production. If the laborer didn't need those facilities, he wouldn't be working for the capitalist, he'd be building the products by himself on his own ******* land and keeping all of the revenue for himself. Yet he's not. He's expediting the process by using the capitalists tools and factory, allowing him to turn out each unit of production in a fraction of the time it would take him on his own.

Aside from the fact that the facility and tools are nothing but accumulated labor, neither created value in the car except by the power of labor. Even after the banks have been paid back (with interest) for the money lent to construct the facility and stock it with tools, the company still retains a profit (and a rather large profit). That is a cut of the value that was created by labor.

Here's the thing. If you honestly believe that a random factory worker could use their own basic tools in their own garage to build the same product, and still turn out units quickly enough to make as much money solo as he does by being paid a tiny fraction of the revenue of each unit that he cranks out with the assistance of the factory and the machinery that's been compiled by the capitalist, you're fuckin dreaming. There's a reason that there's more guys working at the GM plant than there are building one car at a time in their garage and selling 'em independently.

I don't believe that.

Banks don't lend people 100 percent of the cost of their venture. That means that the capitalist, in building his facilities, has to expend his own capital as well as what he is loaned. At some starting point, the capitalist (or future capitalist) doesn't yet have the capital with which to acquire that starting loan, or the capital with which to pay for the labor of others. The capitalist (or future capitalist) has to gather that initial sum through the efforts of his own labor, and then risk that sum on the portion of his venture that he pays for.

So not only does the capitalist have to initially delay gratification with the fruit of his own labor, he then has to compile that fruit over time, and then risk losing all of it to facilitate the labor he hires to work in his factory. The laborers just show up and pull the cranks.

Ah, right, also the capitalist has to pay close attention to his spending throughout his life. If his credit goes to shit because he isn't exceptionally responsible, then the banks won't lend him money, and he'll have to build his initial business with nothing but what he can put together through his own labor.

Meanwhile, the laborers, during the time leading up to their employment with the capitalist, can do whatever the **** they want with all of their money. Whether they saved it to start their own businesses one day or blew it all on Mountain Dew and Magic Cards, all they gotta be able to do is turn the cranks reliably and he'll still hire 'em and pay 'em just the same. They don't have to be careful about their spending. They can drive their credit rating so far into the ground that the bank tellers won't even look at 'em, let alone lend them money, and they can still have that job with the capitalist.

But nah, all that shit he has to do to put those facilities together, ignore it. Since bank loans are a big part of it, let's just pretend that the bank built the entire thing with no effort on the part of the capitalist just so they could fleece those workers together. This explanation might lack the nuance to make it even remotely accurate, but **** those rich ***** is more important than accuracy or truth. Power to the people!

But nah, all that shit he has to do to put those facilities together, ignore it. Since bank loans are a big part of it, let's just pretend that the bank built the entire thing with no effort on the part of the capitalist just so they could fleece those workers together.

It's just capital. The source is pretty much irrelevant. And I'm certainly not the one pretending that the capital built anything, only labor can do that. The capital only provides the ability to command the labor, and for that luxury, skims value off the top.

Power to the people!

Yes, the production of commodities is a social relationship. Societal wealth is created via the process of improving upon nature by means of labor distributed throughout society. Nothing more is required. The capitalist is not necessary to the process.

 

[Tehon]

If we're only going to factor in labor time, what incentive is there to learn a skilled profession and go to the trouble of acquiring the tools for a dedicated trade? If I can get paid the same for mopping as I can for heart surgery, why the **** would I go study anatomy for 7 years? That shit ain't fun.

The value of your labor is measured by the labor time you invested in acquiring your skill. Just like any other commodity. That is why the heart surgeon's labor is valued more than that of the janitor. Do you understand?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Whose labor are we talking about, here?

If Peg Leg the Hobbling Pirate can only manage to harvest 20 lbs of coffee in the same time that it takes to build the table, is the table then only worth 20 lbs? What if the table maker is afflicted with narcolepsy and arthritis, and it takes him three times as long as previously stated to make the same table? Is that same table then worth 150 lbs of coffee?

Better yet, what if we're not talking coffee at all. What if we're talking wild berries.

Say we have Ted. Ted, over the years, has used much of his spare income to build a workshop attached to his home. He has built, bought, and otherwised compiled the machinery necessary to build furniture as efficiently as any one man might.

Then we have Chuck. Chuck picks wild berries on public land. He does this with only his hands and a small wicker basket.

In his workshop, Ted is able to make a table in 5 hours that would take someone without Ted's workshop facilities 20 hours to make. Since he makes it in 5 hours, is the "intrinsic value" of this table, in your mind, still worth only whatever amount of wild berries Chuck could harvest in 5 hours?

And this doesn't even account for the fact that building furniture properly isn't simple work. Proper carpentry is a skill earned through thousands of hours of experience. Any asshole with 2 hands can pick berries and drop 'em in a basket.

If we're only going to factor in labor time, what incentive is there to learn a skilled profession and go to the trouble of acquiring the tools for a dedicated trade? If I can get paid the same for mopping as I can for heart surgery, why the **** would I go study anatomy for 7 years? That shit ain't fun.

Essentially, your economic theory is AWESOME! Just not for any society that's more advanced than nomadic hunter-gatherers.

It doesn't really matter anyway.

Even if value is looked at as purely subjective, the laborer is getting the short end of the stick. The only way for the capitalist to increase his capital by selling the table is by withholding value from the worker.

Bullshit. Part of the value (and a rather LARGE part of that value) of the product is based in the facilities used to create the product. The capitalist had to expend the fruit of his own labor to acquire those facilities that the worker used to facilitate his production. If the laborer didn't need those facilities, he wouldn't be working for the capitalist, he'd be building the products by himself on his own ******* land and keeping all of the revenue for himself. Yet he's not. He's expediting the process by using the capitalists tools and factory, allowing him to turn out each unit of production in a fraction of the time it would take him on his own.

Here's the thing. If you honestly believe that a random factory worker could use their own basic tools in their own garage to build the same product, and still turn out units quickly enough to make as much money solo as he does by being paid a tiny fraction of the revenue of each unit that he cranks out with the assistance of the factory and the machinery that's been compiled by the capitalist, you're fuckin dreaming. There's a reason that there's more guys working at the GM plant than there are building one car at a time in their garage and selling 'em independently.

Bullshit. Part of the value (and a rather LARGE part of that value) of the product is based in the facilities used to create the product. The capitalist had to expend the fruit of his own labor to acquire those facilities that the worker used to facilitate his production. If the laborer didn't need those facilities, he wouldn't be working for the capitalist, he'd be building the products by himself on his own ******* land and keeping all of the revenue for himself. Yet he's not. He's expediting the process by using the capitalists tools and factory, allowing him to turn out each unit of production in a fraction of the time it would take him on his own.

Aside from the fact that the facility and tools are nothing but accumulated labor, neither created value in the car except by the power of labor. Even after the banks have been paid back (with interest) for the money lent to construct the facility and stock it with tools, the company still retains a profit (and a rather large profit). That is a cut of the value that was created by labor.

Here's the thing. If you honestly believe that a random factory worker could use their own basic tools in their own garage to build the same product, and still turn out units quickly enough to make as much money solo as he does by being paid a tiny fraction of the revenue of each unit that he cranks out with the assistance of the factory and the machinery that's been compiled by the capitalist, you're fuckin dreaming. There's a reason that there's more guys working at the GM plant than there are building one car at a time in their garage and selling 'em independently.

I don't believe that.

Banks don't lend people 100 percent of the cost of their venture. That means that the capitalist, in building his facilities, has to expend his own capital as well as what he is loaned. At some starting point, the capitalist (or future capitalist) doesn't yet have the capital with which to acquire that starting loan, or the capital with which to pay for the labor of others. The capitalist (or future capitalist) has to gather that initial sum through the efforts of his own labor, and then risk that sum on the portion of his venture that he pays for.

So not only does the capitalist have to initially delay gratification with the fruit of his own labor, he then has to compile that fruit over time, and then risk losing all of it to facilitate the labor he hires to work in his factory. The laborers just show up and pull the cranks.

Ah, right, also the capitalist has to pay close attention to his spending throughout his life. If his credit goes to shit because he isn't exceptionally responsible, then the banks won't lend him money, and he'll have to build his initial business with nothing but what he can put together through his own labor.

Meanwhile, the laborers, during the time leading up to their employment with the capitalist, can do whatever the **** they want with all of their money. Whether they saved it to start their own businesses one day or blew it all on Mountain Dew and Magic Cards, all they gotta be able to do is turn the cranks reliably and he'll still hire 'em and pay 'em just the same. They don't have to be careful about their spending. They can drive their credit rating so far into the ground that the bank tellers won't even look at 'em, let alone lend them money, and they can still have that job with the capitalist.

But nah, all that shit he has to do to put those facilities together, ignore it. Since bank loans are a big part of it, let's just pretend that the bank built the entire thing with no effort on the part of the capitalist just so they could fleece those workers together. This explanation might lack the nuance to make it even remotely accurate, but **** those rich ***** is more important than accuracy or truth. Power to the people!

But nah, all that shit he has to do to put those facilities together, ignore it. Since bank loans are a big part of it, let's just pretend that the bank built the entire thing with no effort on the part of the capitalist just so they could fleece those workers together.

It's just capital. The source is pretty much irrelevant. And I'm certainly not the one pretending that the capital built anything, only labor can do that. The capital only provides the ability to command the labor, and for that luxury, skims value off the top.

Power to the people!

Yes, the production of commodities is a social relationship. Societal wealth is created via the process of improving upon nature by means of labor distributed throughout society. Nothing more is required. The capitalist is not necessary to the process.

No, the source is FAR from irrelevant. Insofar as the capitalist himself and his own labor are the source of his capital, that's effort and time that he put into those products. That effort and time is at least as deserving of reward as the effort and time of the laborers he hires.

And you're right, the capitalist isn't "necessary" to the process, but the capitalist is the guy who transforms the industry from random people building shit by hand in their own tiny workshops to a factory that efficiently mass produces the wealth creation. The capitalist is only necessary if you want enough units of a given product that, in a world of 7 billion, most of the people who want said product have access to it. Granted, government can also put together those workshops, but that comes with its own set of problems and, historically, doesn't turn out to be anywhere near as profitable as what the capitalists put together. Apparently, having to risk your own money in stead of money taken by force from your constituents is a pretty good incentive to actually build a product people want, and actually build it efficiently.

 

[Tehon]

Say we have Ted. Ted, over the years, has used much of his spare income to build a workshop attached to his home. He has built, bought, and otherwised compiled the machinery necessary to build furniture as efficiently as any one man might.

Then we have Chuck. Chuck picks wild berries on public land. He does this with only his hands and a small wicker basket.

In his workshop, Ted is able to make a table in 5 hours that would take someone without Ted's workshop facilities 20 hours to make. Since he makes it in 5 hours, is the "intrinsic value" of this table, in your mind, still worth only whatever amount of wild berries Chuck could harvest in 5 hours?

And this doesn't even account for the fact that building furniture properly isn't simple work. Proper carpentry is a skill earned through thousands of hours of experience. Any asshole with 2 hands can pick berries and drop 'em in a basket.

What Ted has done here is reduced the value of the table by eliminating labor time. See how that works? And he is going to force the other wood shops to cut their labor time so they can compete. This is how the concept of socially necessary labor time develops.

Another wood shop could decide not to compete and build a hand crafted table that requires more time to produce. More labor time equals more value. Of course this is where the subjectivity of use value comes into play. Some people appreciate the higher value in the handcrafted table.