Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[Not2BSubjugated]

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?

Of course I understand, that was exactly the point I was getting at.

What I don't understand is how you're going to act as though this was a given all along. All you've said thus far is that labor time in creating the product should be the singular measurement of value. In fact, the point that you just made about heart surgery vs mopping also applies to your example of table making vs coffee harvesting, but was never acknowledged.

Picking coffee beans is entry level, no skill work. Two hands, working legs, undamaged spine, perfectly qualified.

Table making, or any sort of wood working or furniture making, is an acquired skill.

If the table maker had to spend time to learn his craft, why the **** would a 5 hour table be worth only 5 hours of harvested coffee beans?

My other big problem with Marxism. Aside from being too simple to map over reality accurately, I have the hardest time finding Marxists who can maintain any sort of consistency in their principles.

 

[Tehon]

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.

I can appreciate what the capitalist system of production has accomplished in developing the techniques of production. But there comes a time when it becomes self defeating when looked at through the lens of society.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

No, I don't see how that works. If he reduced the value of the table by reducing the labor time, what would be the incentive to build the facilities in order to produce things more efficiently? You won't get anything more for having a greater production capacity, so why put in the effort? You're pushing for a system that rewards people for working stupid and dragging their heels. That's exactly why productivity drops to shit in communist countries, because "socially necessary labor time" means "work slower, you'll get paid the same", only in your particularly iteration, it's even worse, "work slower, you'll get paid MORE."

 

[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?

Of course I understand, that was exactly the point I was getting at.

What I don't understand is how you're going to act as though this was a given all along. All you've said thus far is that labor time in creating the product should be the singular measurement of value. In fact, the point that you just made about heart surgery vs mopping also applies to your example of table making vs coffee harvesting, but was never acknowledged.

Picking coffee beans is entry level, no skill work. Two hands, working legs, undamaged spine, perfectly qualified.

Table making, or any sort of wood working or furniture making, is an acquired skill.

If the table maker had to spend time to learn his craft, why the **** would a 5 hour table be worth only 5 hours of harvested coffee beans?

My other big problem with Marxism. Aside from being too simple to map over reality accurately, I have the hardest time finding Marxists who can maintain any sort of consistency in their principles.

In fact, the point that you just made about heart surgery vs mopping also applies to your example of table making vs coffee harvesting, but was never acknowledged.

I think it was acknowledged in the quantity of the articles traded.

My other big problem with Marxism. Aside from being too simple to map over reality accurately, I have the hardest time finding Marxists who can maintain any sort of consistency in their principles.

I have been fairly consistent throughout this thread, It might not be readily evident due to the low level of intellectual integrity possessed by my detractors, but it's there.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

I can appreciate what the capitalist system of production has accomplished in developing the techniques of production. But there comes a time when it becomes self defeating when looked at through the lens of society.

Self-defeating or no, nobody's yet offered up a better alternative. The sad fact of the matter is that, with government or "the people" using other peoples' money to build and trying to base their economics on morality rather than pragmatism, it's even more problematic and less efficient than the far from perfect capitalist setup.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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?

Of course I understand, that was exactly the point I was getting at.

What I don't understand is how you're going to act as though this was a given all along. All you've said thus far is that labor time in creating the product should be the singular measurement of value. In fact, the point that you just made about heart surgery vs mopping also applies to your example of table making vs coffee harvesting, but was never acknowledged.

Picking coffee beans is entry level, no skill work. Two hands, working legs, undamaged spine, perfectly qualified.

Table making, or any sort of wood working or furniture making, is an acquired skill.

If the table maker had to spend time to learn his craft, why the **** would a 5 hour table be worth only 5 hours of harvested coffee beans?

My other big problem with Marxism. Aside from being too simple to map over reality accurately, I have the hardest time finding Marxists who can maintain any sort of consistency in their principles.

In fact, the point that you just made about heart surgery vs mopping also applies to your example of table making vs coffee harvesting, but was never acknowledged.

I think it was acknowledged in the quantity of the articles traded.

My other big problem with Marxism. Aside from being too simple to map over reality accurately, I have the hardest time finding Marxists who can maintain any sort of consistency in their principles.

I have been fairly consistent throughout this thread, It might not be readily evident due to the low level of intellectual integrity possessed by my detractors, but it's there.

I don't know about the articles, but what -you- said was that 5 hours of table making was worth 5 hours of coffee picking.

When entry level farm hand work is worth the same as the acquired skill of carpentry, no, it is NOT, in fact, consistent to say that the heart surgeon's schooling (skill acquisition) should be factored in when comparing his labor against a janitor's.

Also inconsistent is that the skill acquisition of the heart surgeon counts, but the facility building of the capitalist only counts to LOWER THE VALUE of his labor.

Why would, on the one hand, someone's efforts building toward the final production of the end product be worth consideration, but someone else's efforts building toward that final production not be worth anything, and in fact be worth LESS than nothing by lowering the value of his production vs the cost of raw materials?

 

[Norman]

81. pages...

Only the leftists are confused about where to find socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It doesn't work in small homogenous communities either.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The alternative is economic collapse, which is what we always see whenever someone idiotically attempts to implement socialism. The socialist government will also "withold value from the worker." Otherwise it would have nothing with which to construct factories and equipment. Unfortunately the socialist government always pisses the money down the sewer hole.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Only the leftists are confused about where to find socialism.

Indeed, it's quite easy to see socialism in action though, too bad it's just socialism for the rich.....

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong. The key characteristic is collective control. There's no requirement for democracy. In fact, the more democratic it is, the more implausible it becomes. You can't run a factory democratically. You can't have a vote every time you need to make a decision on the design of a product, or the price it sells at, or whether to purchase some new equipment. The result would be disasterous if it was ever attempted.

 

[SeaGal]

It doesn't work in small homogenous communities either.

Perhaps you're right. I was thinking of the Israeli kibbutz, which did ultimately fail. Socialism is a system counter intuitive to human nature.

 

[dblack]

Marxist thinking involves several incorrect premises. The conviction that capitalists add no value, and merely "extract" it from hapless "labor", is chief among these. Anyone who's ever worked for themselves, or tried to start their own business realizes this immediately. It's a hell of a lot more work. Organizing a business venture, finding suppliers, retailers, customers. Even at the level pure speculative investing, capitalists are making the vital decisions concerning capital distribution.

All of these functions still need to be performed for a large project to succeed. The conceit of Marxism is the fantasy that all these jobs can be done "collectively".

 

[Tehon]

Marxist thinking involves several incorrect premises. The conviction that capitalists add no value, and merely "extract" it from hapless "labor", is chief among these. Anyone who's ever worked for themselves, or tried to start their own business realizes this immediately. It's a hell of a lot more work. Organizing a business venture, finding suppliers, retailers, customers. Even at the level pure speculative investing, capitalists are making the vital decisions concerning capital distribution.

All of these functions still need to be performed for a large project to succeed. The conceit of Marxism is the fantasy that all these jobs can be done "collectively".

What your capitalist is doing is creating wealth.

Creating value consists of the physical act of transforming nature into a use value.

 

[bripat9643]

Marxist thinking involves several incorrect premises. The conviction that capitalists add no value, and merely "extract" it from hapless "labor", is chief among these. Anyone who's ever worked for themselves, or tried to start their own business realizes this immediately. It's a hell of a lot more work. Organizing a business venture, finding suppliers, retailers, customers. Even at the level pure speculative investing, capitalists are making the vital decisions concerning capital distribution.

All of these functions still need to be performed for a large project to succeed. The conceit of Marxism is the fantasy that all these jobs can be done "collectively".

What your capitalist is doing is creating wealth.

Creating value consists of the physical act of transforming nature into a use value.

Creating value is creating wealth, and visa versa. There's no real distinction between the two other than the face that the former can be evaluated in terms of money.

 

[danielpalos]

the US was Ordained and Established via socialism, not capitalism.

 

[Tehon]

I don't know about the articles, but what -you- said was that 5 hours of table making was worth 5 hours of coffee picking.

Quantitatively speaking, how is that wrong?

 

[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.

No, I don't see how that works. If he reduced the value of the table by reducing the labor time, what would be the incentive to build the facilities in order to produce things more efficiently? You won't get anything more for having a greater production capacity, so why put in the effort? You're pushing for a system that rewards people for working stupid and dragging their heels. That's exactly why productivity drops to shit in communist countries, because "socially necessary labor time" means "work slower, you'll get paid the same", only in your particularly iteration, it's even worse, "work slower, you'll get paid MORE."

No, I don't see how that works. If he reduced the value of the table by reducing the labor time, what would be the incentive to build the facilities in order to produce things more efficiently? You won't get anything more for having a greater production capacity, so why put in the effort?

It's driven by competition. He does it because he seeks advantage over his competitor. How do you not see that?

The incentive is to build things cheaper which will give him an advantage in the marketplace, for a time, until his competitors catch up. Once they do the socially necessary labor time to produce the commodity decreases.

It's not oversimplification, it's fundamentals. Get you some.

 

[dblack]

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.

No, I don't see how that works. If he reduced the value of the table by reducing the labor time, what would be the incentive to build the facilities in order to produce things more efficiently? You won't get anything more for having a greater production capacity, so why put in the effort? You're pushing for a system that rewards people for working stupid and dragging their heels. That's exactly why productivity drops to shit in communist countries, because "socially necessary labor time" means "work slower, you'll get paid the same", only in your particularly iteration, it's even worse, "work slower, you'll get paid MORE."

No, I don't see how that works. If he reduced the value of the table by reducing the labor time, what would be the incentive to build the facilities in order to produce things more efficiently? You won't get anything more for having a greater production capacity, so why put in the effort?

It's driven by competition. He does it because he seeks advantage over his competitor. How do you not see that?

The incentive is to build things cheaper which will give him an advantage in the marketplace, for a time, until his competitors catch up. Once they do the socially necessary labor time to produce the commodity decreases.

It's not oversimplification, it's fundamentals. Get you some.

It's the biggest load of flim-flam I've seen in a while - and that's counting Trump.

Seriously, Tehon - if you're seeing your self as an ambassador for socialism, don't quit your day job. You make it sound about as legit as Amway.

 

[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.

No, I don't see how that works. If he reduced the value of the table by reducing the labor time, what would be the incentive to build the facilities in order to produce things more efficiently? You won't get anything more for having a greater production capacity, so why put in the effort? You're pushing for a system that rewards people for working stupid and dragging their heels. That's exactly why productivity drops to shit in communist countries, because "socially necessary labor time" means "work slower, you'll get paid the same", only in your particularly iteration, it's even worse, "work slower, you'll get paid MORE."

No, I don't see how that works. If he reduced the value of the table by reducing the labor time, what would be the incentive to build the facilities in order to produce things more efficiently? You won't get anything more for having a greater production capacity, so why put in the effort?

It's driven by competition. He does it because he seeks advantage over his competitor. How do you not see that?

The incentive is to build things cheaper which will give him an advantage in the marketplace, for a time, until his competitors catch up. Once they do the socially necessary labor time to produce the commodity decreases.

It's not oversimplification, it's fundamentals. Get you some.

It's the biggest load of flim-flam I've seen in a while - and that's counting Trump.

Seriously, Tehon - if you're seeing your self as an ambassador for socialism, don't quit your day job. You make it sound about as legit as Amway.

You think we are discussing socialism?

The labor theory of value relates to the capitalist method of production.

Fundamentals.