[anarchism101]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
No I do not agee with that. I agree that you must employ labour, however you could employ your own labour. Take for example a sole trader who owns his own capital and also uses his own labour with said capital. The situation gives rise to the condition where the sole trader is simultaneously the capitalist and the labourer. To be a capitalist you just need to coordinate labour and capital for production.

It just turns out that it can be the most productive way of using capital is to coordinate it with other peoples labour.

To be a capitalist, you must be a private owner of the means of production, i.e. someone other than the workers using said means of production (though the capitalist could also be one of the workers), as outlined in the wiki passage.

This is just bizarre, because this states that owning the means of production is just aquiring profit from production, rather than actually controlling or even owning resources.

It's describing a relation, which is what ownership is. You could say it doesn't describe all the relations of ownership, but those aren't relevant to this issue.

If 10 workers were not to use capital, they could produce £10 worth of output. If these same workers were to use their mates machine, they could produce £30 worth of output. Where did that extra £20 of output come from?

That doesn't answer the question. When there's no cost to anyone else, why should anyone else get anything?

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by The Socktor)
Said ice cream in the summer because it would take more refrigeration I'd think.

So which would you prefer, which would pay more for, which one is more valuable?

An ice cream on a sweltering hot day, or an ice cream on an ice morning?

Sorry, an objective theory of value is bull****.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by anarchism101)
That doesn't answer the question. When there's no cost to anyone else, why should anyone else get anything?

ffs, I have explained why there is a cost imposed on the capitalist when capital is created.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
ffs, I have explained why there is a cost imposed on the capitalist when capital is created.

Yes, when it is created. Not when it is used.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Yes, when it is created. Not when it is used.

Nope. Machines get worn out as they are used. Capital depreciates in its productive capacity.

Ever noticed how older cars have lost some of their power?


Seriously, Marx did make some legitiment analysis of capitalism (you are bound to when you write a book as long as he did) but the labour theory of value and his theories of exploitation are not.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Seriously, Marx did make some legitiment analysis of capitalism (you are bound to when you write a book as long as he did) but the labour theory of value and his theories of exploitation are not.

Do you not think it is exploitative when some people can live luxurious lives of leisure whilst others toil to serve them?

Exploitation is the nature of any economic elite.

I'm not saying that is a call to revolution just making an observation.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by snozzle)
Do you not think it is exploitative when some people can live luxurious lives of leisure whilst others toil to serve them?

Firstly, the Marxist explanation of "exploitation" is just false. However that is not to say it cannot or does not happen.

Secondly, the answer is, it depends.

It is important that the term exploitation is defined. And to Marx exploitation meant having the value you created taken from you by somebody else, essentially theft, which ironically is precisely the principle of his most notable quote.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

[The Socktor]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
So which would you prefer, which would pay more for, which one is more valuable?

An ice cream on a sweltering hot day, or an ice cream on an ice morning?

Well, as I've mentioned it would take more refrigeration in the winter, hence more energy would be required to get it to you while still frozen, hence more labour, therefore under either theory the ice cream in the summer would cost more. Obviously I'd prefer it in the summer (though it wouldn't be the first time I've eaten ice cream in the winter), but you see if hardly anybody is interested in an ice cream at that time then there's no point producing that many in the first place.

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Sorry, an objective theory of value is bull****.

I'm not necessarily in favour of an objective theory, we might have to begin with a reformed subjective system and then gradually phase out the profit made by sales.

[The Socktor]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
It is important that the term exploitation is defined. And to Marx exploitation meant having the value you created taken from you by somebody else, essentially theft, which ironically is precisely the principle of his most notable quote.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Well the idea behind that is that we end up with a gift-based economy. I can't see how that would be theft as everything would be given to people by the rest of society rather than having them take it from anybody.

I suppose looking at things through the eye of a capitalist, his methods of achieving that may perhaps be considered theft, but if you're skipping to the end result, I don't see any theft.

For the record I'm not in favour of a gift economy, just saying.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Nope. Machines get worn out as they are used. Capital depreciates in its productive capacity.

Ever noticed how older cars have lost some of their power?


Seriously, Marx did make some legitiment analysis of capitalism (you are bound to when you write a book as long as he did) but the labour theory of value and his theories of exploitation are not.

And as I had said in previous posts, assuming that there are either no upkeep costs or that the workers cover them.

Tbh, the LTV isn't that relevant to most of Marx's other stuff. Despite putting it at the start, it could have been more of a finishing touch. Apparently he sat around for years wondering how to start Capital and just settled on commodities more or less at random, and then kept the themes going. Most of what he wrote wasn't new - it had been done by the classical economists and Proudhon - but Marx expanded on it and gave a different take.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Tbh, the LTV isn't that relevant to most of Marx's other stuff.

That depends on your perspective. And if you are a person who wants to believe capitalism is inherently bad then the labour theory of value is a perfect part of Marx's ideas to abuse.

Marx definitely made very valuable analysis of capitalism, infact one could argue that Keynes used Marx's money accumulation analysis to derive out the possibility of a general glut in a capitalist economy, but we will never know if that is actually true.

It is a shame that Marx's reputation as a thinker has been so tarnished by his disciples in both the intellectual sense and the practical political sense.

[IFondledAGibbon]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
I completely disagree. Human being are little better than gibbons. Yet our capitalist economy with state intervention (which in most cases has ill consequences) has created a society where everyone has access to food, education, healthcare, clean water, clean air. It is the most equal and proserpous stage of human kind. The rich live the same lives as the poor. The rich have bigger homes, but both still have homes. The rich have faster cars, but the poor still have transport that can get them around the country. The rich have more food, but even the poor can be obese.

What about all the capitalist countries in which poverty and starvation is widespread? What about all the developing nations whose woes are being exacerbated by “free trade” and global capitalism? In any case, my point was more about the environment. Capitalism is the primary cause for climate change. Most people recognise we need renewable and “green” energy, yet we still can’t direct enough capital to those industries because we don’t have proper control over investment. My point was that anyone who believes that government subsidies alone will solve this problem is deluded.

It’s true that capitalism has brought about the most prosperous period in human history. However, you can’t deny that capitalism has and always will cause massive inequality, demoralising unemployment, large scale environmental destruction, a lack of real democracy and widespread poverty nationally and globally. I don’t want to abolish culture and society; I don’t even want to abolish markets. I want a different more egalitarian system that does not carry the inherent problems with capitalist ones.

No. Human beings are unequal, that is the cause of inequality. And if you think you can manufacture that out, then you are a fool.

You haven’t explained anything. You’ve just acknowledged that inequality exists. The statement: “Human beings are unequal, that is the cause of inequality” is literally sig worthy. Are you trying to say we’re born unequal or what?

Every human being’s “success” is determined by his/her genetics, luck and environment. Some people have “better” genetics and this contributes to their success, however the primary factor that influences a person’s ability to live a prosperous life is what environment they’re brought up in. My point however, was say there was no wealthy capitalist class, regardless of how a person became a capitalist, and if all their wealth was to be redistributed among workers, then overall, society would be more utilitarian as the vast majority would be better off.

Nope I do not agree with that. As I have said, the rich and the poor live very similar lives today. The extra wealth of the rich buys them nicer things, but it does not give them a fundamentally different life to the poor.

The bolded sentence sums up why I think you’re naive. Even in the UK, one of the most prosperous states in the world has an abundance of problems e.g. millions unemployed, hundreds of thousands homeless, millions in relative poverty i.e. without the material means to participate fully in accepted daily life. These problems exist even without considering the effects of economic crisis and our impact on the planet. We need a better system.

The only exception I know of to this general rule is education, where the rich are in a very advantageous position. The irony is that education is western societies most socialist enterprise.

I hope you realise the reason why the UK has such low social mobility and the rich are much more likely to prosper is primarily due to the fact that rich parents can afford to send their children to PRIVATE schools. You think more privatisation would help?

[Lord Hysteria]

(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
What about all the capitalist countries in which poverty and starvation is widespread? What about all the developing nations whose woes are being exacerbated by “free trade” and global capitalism? In any case, my point was more about the environment. Capitalism is the primary cause for climate change. Most people recognise we need renewable and “green” energy, yet we still can’t direct enough capital to those industries because we don’t have proper control over investment. My point was that anyone who believes that government subsidies alone will solve this problem is deluded.

To chip in slightly, and engage with you ...

If what you're saying is right, then it is not capitalism but human beings, that are causing global warming. Capitalism is nothing without human voluntary transactions. The ineluctable conclusion is that to curb global warming is to start killing off some of the human population ...

I'm not entirely convinced that humans alone are causing the world to change! I am reminded of Pascal Brucker's point about the imperialism of the anti-imperialist. By placing humans above-and-beyond everything else and indulging in masochistic self-flagellation you're gratifying an imperialist mindset that places humans in a transcendent position. By saying that "we" caused this-and-that, you can to snub at everything else. He writes "self-denigration is all too clearly a form of indirect self-glorification". You see yourself as "master and destroyer" of the planet! And more to the point, what could have possibly lead you to believe the planet is being destroyed? Because you don't like it? ... Jes!

Anyway, just some food for thought ... I don't fancy a long-winded verbose battle of a debate descending in an endless myriad of quotations ..

[IFondledAGibbon]

(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
To chip in slightly, and engage with you ...

If what you're saying is right, then it is not capitalism but human beings, that are causing global warming. Capitalism is nothing without human voluntary transactions. The ineluctable conclusion is that to curb global warming is to start killing off some of the human population ...

Human beings respond to incentives, I think capitalism fails to incentivise environmental protectionism. I also really dislike the term “voluntary transactions” since any and all transactions are based upon the conditions they’re made in. Capitalism doesn’t create the right conditions for people to stop burning fossil fuels, to invest in green energy or stop consuming. If we don’t change, then we may well kill off a bunch of people, indirectly.

I'm not entirely convinced that humans alone are causing the world to change! I am reminded of Pascal Brucker's point about the imperialism of the anti-imperialist. By placing humans above-and-beyond everything else and indulging in masochistic self-flagellation you're gratifying an imperialist mindset that places humans in a transcendent position. By saying that "we" caused this-and-that, you can to snub at everything else. He writes "self-denigration is all too clearly a form of indirect self-glorification". You see yourself as "master and destroyer" of the planet! And more to the point, what could have possibly lead you to believe the planet is being destroyed? Because you don't like it? ... Jes!

Interesting idea but I think we now have enough empirical evidence showing how our actions are causing the climate to change, which is widely available online.

Anyway, just some food for thought ... I don't fancy a long-winded verbose battle of a debate descending in an endless myriad of quotations ..

What’s the fun in that!?

[snozzle]

(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
I'm not entirely convinced that humans alone are causing the world to change! I am reminded of Pascal Brucker's point about the imperialism of the anti-imperialist. By placing humans above-and-beyond everything else and indulging in masochistic self-flagellation you're gratifying an imperialist mindset that places humans in a transcendent position. By saying that "we" caused this-and-that, you can to snub at everything else. He writes "self-denigration is all too clearly a form of indirect self-glorification". You see yourself as "master and destroyer" of the planet! And more to the point, what could have possibly lead you to believe the planet is being destroyed? Because you don't like it? ... Jes!

Anyway, just some food for thought ... I don't fancy a long-winded verbose battle of a debate descending in an endless myriad of quotations ..

We've been 'othering' nature since probably Bacon and definitely since modern science. Our being is seen as the fixed and immutable, changing nature is seen as object to be controlled, mastered, tamed. Is the climate change phenomenon not just a continuation of this worldview?

[Lord Hysteria]

(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
Human beings respond to incentives, I think capitalism fails to incentivise environmental protectionism. I also really dislike the term “voluntary transactions” since any and all transactions are based upon the conditions they’re made in. Capitalism doesn’t create the right conditions for people to stop burning fossil fuels, to invest in green energy or stop consuming. If we don’t change, then we may well kill off a bunch of people, indirectly.


Interesting idea but I think we now have enough empirical evidence showing how our actions are causing the climate to change, which is widely available online.


What’s the fun in that!?

You're right. Capitalism doesn't incentivise this-and-that. The whole point about capitalism is that there isn't some self-preening overlord bending the market to his plan. For instance, I think zoos are a disgrace and I wish they never existed. But I don't go saying "oh if only capitalism would incentivize people to do what I happen to think is right and ban zoos!". If you're concerned about it, then go and debate and discuss. But you're not interested in that. You want to find some way and forcing everyone to do what you want.

However, I also think you pretty much summed-up your philosophy though when you said that people should "stop consuming". As far as you're concerned, the real problem is that humans are acting human. You've realised that people don't really share your views, thus you're trying to find some way of forcing (or to use the euphemism "incentivize") them to do what you want.

Now, I am actually rather neutral on this global warming theory. But I know that the evidence is not nearly as clear-cut as you put it.

[Lord Hysteria]

(Original post by snozzle)
We've been 'othering' nature since probably Bacon and definitely since modern science. Our being is seen as the fixed and immutable, changing nature is seen as object to be controlled, mastered, tamed. Is the climate change phenomenon not just a continuation of this worldview?

Not exactly. This micro-meglomanaic attributes onto itself certain things and denies everyone and everything else that ... it's not just mastering something ...

[snozzle]

(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
Not exactly. This micro-meglomanaic attributes onto itself certain things and denies everyone and everything else that ... it's not just mastering something ...

What is it mastering then but nature? I suppose it is seeking to master the behavior of unenlightened others...it is othering the mass of people as well as nature. Saving nature from ourselves and ignorant men from themselves?

What puzzles me is the gusto by which the state has got involved and is committed to the AGW hypothesis. I tend to view the democratic state as a fairly parasitic and useless apparatus with its architects and politicians capable of short termism only. AGW is on such a long time scale as to offer no practical incentive for the politician to care.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
It’s true that capitalism has brought about the most prosperous period in human history. However, you can’t deny that capitalism has and always will cause massive inequality

I do not agree. I think capitalism is the great equaliser of human outcomes. Sure outcomes are unequal, but you have to compare something to something else. And the nations where the common man does best are the nations where they have had largely free enterprise, namely the west. It is just remarkable how equal our society is when you compare it to all of human history.

You haven’t explained anything. You’ve just acknowledged that inequality exists. The statement: “Human beings are unequal, that is the cause of inequality” is literally sig worthy. Are you trying to say we’re born unequal or what?

Yes, we are unequal. For example, I am smarter than you. Notice the inequality.

There is a big difference between saying everyone should be treated equally and saying that we are all unequal and different.

My point however, was say there was no wealthy capitalist class, regardless of how a person became a capitalist, and if all their wealth was to be redistributed among workers, then overall, society would be more utilitarian as the vast majority would be better off.

No, there would be less wealth overall. As I have tried to point out, capitalists create capital, and capital increases the productive capacity of workers, thus the workers are in real terms wealthier when the capitalists create capital.

The bolded sentence sums up why I think you’re naive. Even in the UK, one of the most prosperous states in the world has an abundance of problems e.g. millions unemployed, hundreds of thousands homeless, millions in relative poverty i.e. without the material means to participate fully in accepted daily life.

Relative poverty, what an absolute joke. You can never get rid of relative poverty, unless everyone literally has the same amount of everything.

Anyway, homeless people and unemployed are all individual tragedies, and there is definitely a role for the government and the community to help people in distress. But imposing some kind of "democratic firms" will not solve these problems. Infact I suspect "democratic firm" could be a cause of unemployment as the incumbent workers will not want their profits reduced by introducing new workers.

I hope you realise the reason why the UK has such low social mobility and the rich are much more likely to prosper is primarily due to the fact that rich parents can afford to send their children to PRIVATE schools. You think more privatisation would help?

Yes, I want to create a system where the poor can access a market in education, namely by just attaching money to children for their schooling. Allow the poor to take part in the same competitive market that the rich enjoy. The reason why education sucks for the poor, is because the government provides their education.

What will definitely not help, is more socialism.

[Oswy]

(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
...Capitalism is nothing without human voluntary transactions...

You can't separate human behaviour from the economic and social arrangements within which they must take place. Indeed, given that we very much live within capitalism's dictates our 'voluntary' transactions are all too obviously determined by its machinery.