[anarchism101]

(Original post by ckingalt)
Except for that very insignificant distinction that I and my employees have/had a choice and slaves don't.

Irrelevant. In fact, in the context of the analogy, simply wrong, because slaves are here being compared to workers. A worker cannot simply choose to be rich, just as a slave cannot choose to be free.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
You have to spend money to make money! Where do you think the initial money came from in the first place? Inheritance is not an acceptable answer because people don't receive that until around their 50s.

You're kind of answering your own question there. It's the initial money, i.e. the money before the capitalist business started, so it's outside the realm of this debate. It might be from inheritance, or from savings, or wherever. But that's not the point. I say that using capital to take wealth produced by workers is exploitative in itself, regardless of whether the capital was earned using just means or not.

Even the money capitalists need to start a business is something they had to earn or create as workers.

The wealth created by the workers would be minimal without risk and business strategy.

As I mentioned, it would be exactly the same without risk, because the level or even presence of risk has no contribution to production. Capital is the same whether it cost someone's life savings or it cost 50p to a billionaire.

Business strategy is something I'll discuss below, as it's more relevant to management.

It is insight, hard-work, and intelligence that drive this ability to succeed at business. Get someone on the dole now, give them £100,000 and tell them to set up a business. See how long it lasts given how many businesses fail in the 1st year. Why don't those businesses succeed given they are hiring workers I wonder...

OK, so what's your point? That because not all potential exploiters succeed, exploitation is OK?

As I said before, you need to spend money to make money. It is how you spend your money that is the key difference. Forgoing luxuries in order to take a strategic risk.

There's a difference between needing to spend money and only spending money.
As for 'forgoing luxuries', again, it's something that's only possible if you have the money in the first place. In other words, rewarding the rich for being rich.

The owner doesn't necessarily manage the workers. They may hire a decent manager to do it for them whilst they direct and steer the business. As for the question whether workers can manage themselves..from what I have seen, no.

Doesn't that only further demonstrate the parasitism of the owner?

If a separate manager were needed in a worker-run enterprise, then they would no doubt appoint one.

A shelf-stacker would just be given hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of food and a factory labourer would be given hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of machinery? Dream on!

Not individually, but collectively as part of the worker-run firm.

People are motivated to create family wealth, personal freedom, and a legacy.

Read what I said what I meant by private property again:

(Original post by anarchism101)
When I say 'private property', I don't simply mean anything owned, as you seem to have misinterpreted. 'Ownership' is a very broad and vague term that encompasses all sorts of social relations. But by 'private property', I mean a very specific social relation - the power to extract wealth created by someone else from them through the institution of private property. By which I mean landlordism, rent, wabe labour, etc.

If anything, workers are leeching of the resources and established reputation of the company.

The company only has a reputation because of its workers, only has the money to pay for resources because of its workers (possibly a little bit down to other workers).

Fair enough. I shall assume there is absolutely zero bias..

This is what I mean. I've seen plenty of these debates before and the pro-capitalist side often adhoms from any angle. Regardless of what you've done, there's always something in their minds about it which somehow makes you less qualified to debate on the subject at hand.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ckingalt)
I understand your viewpoint even though I adamantly disagree with it. You either fail to understand or refuse to acknowledge the incentive of ownership itself. Anyone who has ever gone from renting their living space to owning one will tell you that their is a very tangible difference in the way they regard the two situations. Anyone who has ever gone from being a worker to an owner will tell you ownership matters beyond the financial incentive. My business in my passion specifically because it's mine. It would be near impossible to find a manager to run my business as well as I do. It's not that there are not more capable managers than I. It's that they simply don't covet it the way I do. There is no replacement for that.

OK, suppose you're right. If anything, the model I advocate - that of worker-owned enterprises - would gain even more benefit from this than the current capitalist model of centralised minority ownership.

That said, however, attitudes to ownership are very flexible throughout history. The idea of ownership of something as separate from use of it is a pretty recent one.

For example, in the French Revolution, the feudal land rights of the nobility were abolished in August 1789 and the land was sold off, mostly to middle-class businessmen, over the next few months. However, as the Revolution went further, particularly with the start of the war and the Terror, this became a sticking point. The peasants who farmed the previously feudal land simply hadn't understood it. From their point of view, the land had always been theirs because they farmed it, the feudal lords merely had certain rights over the land and its occupants. And now the feudal lords were gone, the land was now theirs and they would recognise no other claim on it - indeed, they didn't think there could be any other legitimate claim to it.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by paperclip)
I'd have thought corporation tax was the fairest tax? As it's a tax on profits.

Unless you mean in a socialist economy, because corporations wouldn't exist to be taxed?



Instead we have people working for monetary reward, which impairs performance and therefore stifles economic growth. Self-destructive capitalism

That relates to real monetary reward, whereas I am talking about ownership, something entirely different. One is paying lots of money to an employee (albeit a high-ranking one), whereas the other is the unrealised prospect of high rewards. This potential is worth more than money in motivation.

For example, in setting up a business you can pay people in nothing but shares of the company and the incentive to work hard will be just as high, if not higher than if they were paid. This is providing they have a passion for what the company does, for I am assuming setting up a company you have no passion for is not going to be a success.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
You're kind of answering your own question there. It's the initial money, i.e. the money before the capitalist business started, so it's outside the realm of this debate. It might be from inheritance, or from savings, or wherever. But that's not the point. I say that using capital to take wealth produced by workers is exploitative in itself, regardless of whether the capital was earned using just means or not.

Even the money capitalists need to start a business is something they had to earn or create as workers.



As I mentioned, it would be exactly the same without risk, because the level or even presence of risk has no contribution to production. Capital is the same whether it cost someone's life savings or it cost 50p to a billionaire.

Business strategy is something I'll discuss below, as it's more relevant to management.



OK, so what's your point? That because not all potential exploiters succeed, exploitation is OK?



There's a difference between needing to spend money and only spending money.
As for 'forgoing luxuries', again, it's something that's only possible if you have the money in the first place. In other words, rewarding the rich for being rich.



Doesn't that only further demonstrate the parasitism of the owner?

If a separate manager were needed in a worker-run enterprise, then they would no doubt appoint one.



Not individually, but collectively as part of the worker-run firm.



Read what I said what I meant by private property again:





The company only has a reputation because of its workers, only has the money to pay for resources because of its workers (possibly a little bit down to other workers).



This is what I mean. I've seen plenty of these debates before and the pro-capitalist side often adhoms from any angle. Regardless of what you've done, there's always something in their minds about it which somehow makes you less qualified to debate on the subject at hand.

The value added to the employees work by a business owner is much more than the value of the work in isolation. Pay reflects this, which is why employees who hold the most opportunities and take the most risks are paid the best. Mindless work without real risks and strategy is worth little.

No, it would not be exactly the same without risk. Look at the example of mineral extraction. Would workers digging a hole in the ground be worth billions if they don't find anything? Would the returns be the same if the workers spent £2 million on manufacturing equipment that they could not sell once the market changes? Strategic risk is a massive part of business. Production on its own is a terrible idea.

It shows that it takes more than just production to be successful. If business was just a matter of relying on workers, then so many businesses would not fail in 1st year. Again, risk.

Erm, no. You can create a start-up on a shoestring with a loan from the bank if you have a good plan. Virgin group, Amstrad, IKEA...how many businesses do you think started up with vast quantities of wealth?

No, management is about steering the workforce. CEO's and the exec make strategic risks but are paid well for it and it is a mutual trade-off. Ask any CEO if they are being exploited

A worker run firm would need an exec to control risks and strategy. If that was done democratically then it would be terrible as many employees don't know about business. If you were to bring in a CEO etc then the pay would have to be competitive. There are worker run companies where that happens, but that doesn't detract from the fact that privately owned companies provide a lot of wealth. Plus, if the government were to provide the funds, I am not sure the government would be willing to take heavy financial risks. They would much rather have private individuals take risks and then tax the rewards. Government is not a risk-taker in business.

The company only has a reputation because of its workers? LOL No, the workers are replaceable. If something can be replaced in the company it is not intrinsic to its reputation. As for initial reputation, most companies start off with the owners building up a reputation on their own and it is these first steps that are the most important. After that it is merely delegation of the manual part.

[ckingalt]

(Original post by screenager2004)
Connected to Q3, but I think the transition can only occur gradually through globalisation. One country cannot abandon capitalism on it's own when other countries still use it. However we're heading towards an inevitable situation where national barriers and state economies are becoming less relevant. Eventually there will be some kind of global governance, and it's at that point where we realise that capitalism has too many flaws to be sustainable.

(GDP/per capita of world) average salary for the entire world is about $7000 per annum http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/MateNagy.shtml The poverty line for developed nations is about $12000 per person and below http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml.

What you suggest above would reduce the quality of life for even the poor within developed nations. I agree that we are moving towards such an agenda but I reject it for reasons of self preservation. Are you really willing to reduce your annual income to $7000 per year in the interest of global equality?

(Original post by screenager2004)
won't be 'seizures' of property - that suggests that there are people unwilling to share global resources equally. As I said before, if capitalism is to be abandoned, it will occur very gradually through a transition of thinking. Human beings will start to consider their identity as a species rather than artificial national barriers. The concept of property will become less socially acceptable.

What you are suggesting here is more about an enlightenment of our species than a reform of our societies. It is a nice sentiment and if we survive we may even obtain it after a thousand years or more. I was asking more in terms of an ideology that a government could justifiably coerce it's citizens to follow.

(Original post by screenager2004)
I don't see how it's an injustice. No one owns the mountains or the sea. It existed before you were born and it will exist after you die. Nothing is ever yours to claim in the first place. Property is an immoral concept. Every single human being inherits this earth. It doesn't belong to anyone.

What about a home someone built with their own two hands? what about a master work of art? What about intellectual property? We are discussing more than just undeveloped land.

(Original post by screenager2004)
The important thing is that all people have access to a minimum quality of life. Not that everyone is exactly equal: chance will always create natural inequalities. Under capitalism there are millions who lack even the basic resources to sustain life. That is the problem.

I agree with most of this but I think capitalism is not the cause. Just as Capitalism has its' flaws so does Socialism. Neither is equipped to end hunger and famine within our lifetime.

(Original post by screenager2004)
business owners are in the 1% - you're not thinking globally. If your income is around £25k or above you're in the 1%. http://www.globalrichlist.com/
I dont see why he is any more deserving to lay claim to global resources for himself than any other human being.
1) EVERYONE works for 30 years. He is not an exceptional case.
2) He could only create that business with the environment and resources available to him. He didn't invent everything from scratch. he used the transport networks, police protection, healthcare and education that EVERYONE paid for to be able to create that business.

Your missing the point that in my example the business owner is someone who played by the rules ascribed to them. If a dramatic socialized reform were to occur that person would have had the rug jerked out from under them, effectively eliminating everything that had struggled to achieve. That is a gross injustice.

(Original post by screenager2004)
Q2/3. National boundaries will no longer be relevant. They're barbaric and inefficient ways of governance.

I understand the logic here intellectually but the earths 7 billion people are no where near ready for this. I don't want to assimilate my lifestyle with those of the middle east and they probably don't want to assimilate with mine. Until our cultures blend to a point where some reasonable consensus can occur we will continue to need those borders. In our current state those borders actually prevent more violence than they cause. We have a long way to go.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
The value added to the employees work by a business owner is much more than the value of the work in isolation. Pay reflects this, which is why employees who hold the most opportunities and take the most risks are paid the best. Mindless work without real risks and strategy is worth little.

No value is added by the business owner. The only thing that can create value is labour. That can be physical, mental, etc, but it is still labour.

No, it would not be exactly the same without risk. Look at the example of mineral extraction. Would workers digging a hole in the ground be worth billions if they don't find anything? Would the returns be the same if the workers spent £2 million on manufacturing equipment that they could not sell once the market changes?

Neither of which refute my point. For example, in the example you gave of mineral extraction, digging a hole in the ground is valuable when you find things of value there. What level of risk it requires, or whether it requires risk at all, to achieve this has no impact on the production process.

It shows that it takes more than just production to be successful. If business was just a matter of relying on workers, then so many businesses would not fail in 1st year. Again, risk.

It shows nothing except that the business is less competent that its competitors. In most new businesses anyway, the owners usually have a dual role as owner and worker.

Erm, no. You can create a start-up on a shoestring with a loan from the bank if you have a good plan. Virgin group, Amstrad, IKEA...how many businesses do you think started up with vast quantities of wealth?

Why the obsession with start-ups? The vast majority of business investment is not start-up investment.

No, management is about steering the workforce. CEO's and the exec make strategic risks but are paid well for it and it is a mutual trade-off. Ask any CEO if they are being exploited

CEOs and other executives are sort of in the middle. Usually, they're effectively capitalists, though they can have the dual role I mentioned above.

A worker run firm would need an exec to control risks and strategy. If that was done democratically then it would be terrible as many employees don't know about business. If you were to bring in a CEO etc then the pay would have to be competitive. There are worker run companies where that happens, but that doesn't detract from the fact that privately owned companies provide a lot of wealth.

The economic changes caused by the change in model are a different debate. For now, I'm simply concerned with the workers receiving the full value of what they produce.

The company only has a reputation because of its workers? LOL No, the workers are replaceable. If something can be replaced in the company it is not intrinsic to its reputation. As for initial reputation, most companies start off with the owners building up a reputation on their own and it is these first steps that are the most important. After that it is merely delegation of the manual part.

Everyone is replaceable. Businesses change hands. The workers in general, however, are not. While individual workers can be replaced, there must be workers. There is no such need of the capitalist.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
No value is added by the business owner. The only thing that can create value is labour. That can be physical, mental, etc, but it is still labour.



Neither of which refute my point. For example, in the example you gave of mineral extraction, digging a hole in the ground is valuable when you find things of value there. What level of risk it requires, or whether it requires risk at all, to achieve this has no impact on the production process.



It shows nothing except that the business is less competent that its competitors. In most new businesses anyway, the owners usually have a dual role as owner and worker.



Why the obsession with start-ups? The vast majority of business investment is not start-up investment.



CEOs and other executives are sort of in the middle. Usually, they're effectively capitalists, though they can have the dual role I mentioned above.



The economic changes caused by the change in model are a different debate. For now, I'm simply concerned with the workers receiving the full value of what they produce.



Everyone is replaceable. Businesses change hands. The workers in general, however, are not. While individual workers can be replaced, there must be workers. There is no such need of the capitalist.

All value stems from the business owner. Without the owner there would be no business! Besides, do you not think the owner is capable of labour? You don't just set up a business and have it run itself.

There is a risk on where to drill the hole. It has a massive part on the production process because if the risk doesn't pay off there is zero production. If it does, then there will be production. That risk of where do drill ultimately determines whether or not there will be any production.

So now you are admitting that the owner does work? Above you said that no value is added by the owner...

Every business had to start small and grow at some point in their history. As such it is kind of the root of capitalism.

The full value of what they produce would be impossible to determine. A shelf stackers value is questionable, as are a lot of other jobs. How would you even go about putting a value on it? Pay is based on their transfer earnings. Below that and they will just move elsewhere to do the same job. The value they add which they could do anywhere else whether on their own or with another company is factored into their earnings within capitalism.

Again, how would you go about determining full value? Assume you have a worker in manufacturing and the final product per unit sells at £10. Subtract material costs, machinery maintenance and purchase, shipping, marketing, tax, and give him the rest? Each internal activity such as marketing would also have the question of what value to put on it, but for now lets assume that is clear. So out of the £10 lets say he gets £1. Where is the excess profits that is used to develop and expand the company further? If you are paying the worker the whole value, the company would never expand as it wouldn't have money to invest elsewhere. How would you solve that?

Assume you say that you solve it by having someone who takes a proportion of the workers salary and invests it in furthering the business, lets call him the CEO. As the workers are creating value and contributing towards business expansion (where they will get the rewards of the business), lets call them partners. Eventually these partners want to delegate some of the simpler tasks as a part of building the business. They pay these new people a fee for their work (almost like a contractor) and offers them shares in the company after a while so they too can share in the value of the company. See where this is heading?

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
All value stems from the business owner. Without the owner there would be no business!

There is no 'business' in itself as such, it's merely a term for expressing the sum of the parts - i.e. the workers, the capital (both physical and marketing - i.e. branding, etc). That's what has value. Yes, the owner owns the capital, but we've already been through the fact that capital usually comes from previous surplus value (i.e. you get money because you already have it), and that surplus value normally far exceeds the costs of capital anyway.

Besides, do you not think the owner is capable of labour? You don't just set up a business and have it run itself.

So now you are admitting that the owner does work? Above you said that no value is added by the owner...

I mentioned the concept of dual role before. The owner can also be a worker, yes, but those are two distinct roles. They can add value as a worker, but not as an owner.

There is a risk on where to drill the hole. It has a massive part on the production process because if the risk doesn't pay off there is zero production. If it does, then there will be production. That risk of where do drill ultimately determines whether or not there will be any production.

How do you know there's a risk. There may be no risk and everyone knows perfectly well that the hole is full of oil. How risky this decision is, or whether there is even a risk at all, does not affect how much oil there is in the hole, and so production will be the same. A business owner that knew perfectly well about the oil and one who was simply guessing would have the same result.

Something else that should be noted is that your ability to 'risk' is dependent on how much money you have.

Every business had to start small and grow at some point in their history. As such it is kind of the root of capitalism.

Not necessarily actually. During the Industrial Revolution in Britain, there was a huge correlation between the families who became rich industrialists and the families who had previously been rich landowning feudal lords.

And even if it were true, so what? A system whereby spending money is 'rewarded' with more money is not made OK because the original money wasn't earned that way.

The full value of what they produce would be impossible to determine. A shelf stackers value is questionable, as are a lot of other jobs. How would you even go about putting a value on it? Pay is based on their transfer earnings. Below that and they will just move elsewhere to do the same job. The value they add which they could do anywhere else whether on their own or with another company is factored into their earnings within capitalism.

No, often we can't tell the value of an individual worker's work. When they're part of a process many different jobs are done by many different people a lot of the time. However, that doesn't refute the point that all value is created by labour.

Again, how would you go about determining full value? Assume you have a worker in manufacturing and the final product per unit sells at £10. Subtract material costs, machinery maintenance and purchase, shipping, marketing, tax, and give him the rest? Each internal activity such as marketing would also have the question of what value to put on it, but for now lets assume that is clear. So out of the £10 lets say he gets £1. Where is the excess profits that is used to develop and expand the company further? If you are paying the worker the whole value, the company would never expand as it wouldn't have money to invest elsewhere. How would you solve that?

How much each worker within a co-operative or collective would earn is up to the workers of that co-op, but in a market economy they'd have to be competitive. How exactly things are decided would depend on the structure they'd decided to use.

Assume you say that you solve it by having someone who takes a proportion of the workers salary and invests it in furthering the business, lets call him the CEO. As the workers are creating value and contributing towards business expansion (where they will get the rewards of the business), lets call them partners. Eventually these partners want to delegate some of the simpler tasks as a part of building the business. They pay these new people a fee for their work (almost like a contractor) and offers them shares in the company after a while so they too can share in the value of the company. See where this is heading?

So at what point in your line of reasoning does it become necessary to create shares?

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
There is no 'business' in itself as such, it's merely a term for expressing the sum of the parts - i.e. the workers, the capital (both physical and marketing - i.e. branding, etc). That's what has value. Yes, the owner owns the capital, but we've already been through the fact that capital usually comes from previous surplus value (i.e. you get money because you already have it), and that surplus value normally far exceeds the costs of capital anyway.



I mentioned the concept of dual role before. The owner can also be a worker, yes, but those are two distinct roles. They can add value as a worker, but not as an owner.



How do you know there's a risk. There may be no risk and everyone knows perfectly well that the hole is full of oil. How risky this decision is, or whether there is even a risk at all, does not affect how much oil there is in the hole, and so production will be the same. A business owner that knew perfectly well about the oil and one who was simply guessing would have the same result.

Something else that should be noted is that your ability to 'risk' is dependent on how much money you have.



Not necessarily actually. During the Industrial Revolution in Britain, there was a huge correlation between the families who became rich industrialists and the families who had previously been rich landowning feudal lords.

And even if it were true, so what? A system whereby spending money is 'rewarded' with more money is not made OK because the original money wasn't earned that way.



No, often we can't tell the value of an individual worker's work. When they're part of a process many different jobs are done by many different people a lot of the time. However, that doesn't refute the point that all value is created by labour.



How much each worker within a co-operative or collective would earn is up to the workers of that co-op, but in a market economy they'd have to be competitive. How exactly things are decided would depend on the structure they'd decided to use.



So at what point in your line of reasoning does it become necessary to create shares?

It stems from the owner though. All the capital and workers have been accumulated, they didn't start out with them. Workers are merely assets that are bought in the same way a machine can be bought. I don't hear you arguing that automated machines should be getting a 'fair share' of the value they produce . So, if a company has machines whose labour creates the value, then can the owner get a greater share of the value? Your argument appears to be turning into one for the automation of a workforce!!

It is the initial value that is added that is most important though. As you said, the more money the company makes the easier it is to make more of that money. With that in mind, the start-up years will be the most crucial.

Haha Sorry but I know that even with awesome exploration tests there is no guarantee of the size of an oil field or the quality of oil until it has been fully appraised (this determines commercial viability). This is why something like 1/10 attempts to find oil succeed. Would the other 9 bother doing expensive tests if they knew there was no oil? It is a very risky business, especially with the costs involved.

There is always risk present, just with different pay-offs.

Industrial revolution was some time ago! Not quite sure society functions like that any more, lol.

Yes, yes it does. If a working man were to buy a fishing rod and catch fish which he would then sell, would you begrudge his fish because he used money to buy the rod? No, you would probably say 'that is a hard working man who used the resources he had to make some money'.

When it goes beyond all realms of practicality it makes a difference. Theory is only as relevant as to whether it can be applied. This cannot.

Getting workers to decide their own salary? Something tells me that self-interest would cause a lot of problems with that. Don't try to say 'not all workers are self-interested'. Yeah, they are. Society isn't made up of Mother Theresa's and Gandhi's.

Shares are made for each partner, representing their share of the business value. If they chose to they could sell or distribute their shares as it is theirs to do what they want with. The value of that share will naturally change with how well the company does.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
It stems from the owner though. All the capital and workers have been accumulated, they didn't start out with them. Workers are merely assets that are bought in the same way a machine can be bought.

But the owner does not create the accumulated capital, it's also created by workers.

Workers aren't bought any more; that was what slavery was. Now it's closer to rent, but thanks for pointing out the similarities so I don't have to.

I don't hear you arguing that automated machines should be getting a 'fair share' of the value they produce

They don't produce. They enable production to take place. Even if 99.9% of the process was automated, you still need someone to press the buttons and to maintain and fix the machines when they break.

The machines are also a product of labour, it should be noted. Also, even if you could determine a 'contribution of capital', that doesn't mean that the act of owning capital is productive.

So, if a company has machines whose labour creates the value, then can the owner get a greater share of the value? Your argument appears to be turning into one for the automation of a workforce!!

See above.

It is the initial value that is added that is most important though. As you said, the more money the company makes the easier it is to make more of that money. With that in mind, the start-up years will be the most crucial.

So what? I'm still not getting why you think this is an argument against what I'm saying. I'm arguing that capitalists exploit workers and you respond by talking about how hard it is to become a successful capitalist.

Haha Sorry but I know that even with awesome exploration tests there is no guarantee of the size of an oil field or the quality of oil until it has been fully appraised (this determines commercial viability). This is why something like 1/10 attempts to find oil succeed. Would the other 9 bother doing expensive tests if they knew there was no oil? It is a very risky business, especially with the costs involved.

It was an example that we're using for the sake of argument. Examples can't be bound by current technological restrictions. We can assume for the sake of argument that we can tell the size of field and quality of oil.

There is always risk present, just with different pay-offs.

If you're arguing that risk is relative (which if you're saying there is always risk present, you have to), then there is risk in every action ever taken, but it doesn't receive a reward. Also, if risk is relative, the reward would be proportional. Yet it isn't.

Industrial revolution was some time ago! Not quite sure society functions like that any more, lol.

Not too far away actually, though with a different face. Economies are still heavily state-coordinated. And there's still a noticeable correlation between being born into wealth and ending up wealthy, especially since the start of the neoliberal era.

Anyway, the timing isn't that important. The most relevant thing is that you were claiming some sort of 'immaculate conception of capitalism' which is quite demonstrably false.

Yes, yes it does. If a working man were to buy a fishing rod and catch fish which he would then sell, would you begrudge his fish because he used money to buy the rod? No, you would probably say 'that is a hard working man who used the resources he had to make some money'.

Yes, because he actually worked to catch the fish himself. A more apt example would be if, as well as buying the fishing rod, he also paid someone else to catch the fish more him, and yet consistently came out with profits. That's something I'd begrudge.

When it goes beyond all realms of practicality it makes a difference. Theory is only as relevant as to whether it can be applied. This cannot.

If labour creates 100% of value but does not receive 100%, we don't need to work out who is being exploited the most to say labour is being exploited.

Getting workers to decide their own salary? Something tells me that self-interest would cause a lot of problems with that. Don't try to say 'not all workers are self-interested'. Yeah, they are. Society isn't made up of Mother Theresa's and Gandhi's.

So why's self-interest a problem? They still need to get the other workers in the firm to agree.

Shares are made for each partner, representing their share of the business value.

Hence why I argue against them. As labour produces all value, it should receive it. Shares detach labour from ownership.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
But the owner does not create the accumulated capital, it's also created by workers.

Workers aren't bought any more; that was what slavery was. Now it's closer to rent, but thanks for pointing out the similarities so I don't have to.



They don't produce. They enable production to take place. Even if 99.9% of the process was automated, you still need someone to press the buttons and to maintain and fix the machines when they break.

The machines are also a product of labour, it should be noted. Also, even if you could determine a 'contribution of capital', that doesn't mean that the act of owning capital is productive.



See above.



So what? I'm still not getting why you think this is an argument against what I'm saying. I'm arguing that capitalists exploit workers and you respond by talking about how hard it is to become a successful capitalist.



It was an example that we're using for the sake of argument. Examples can't be bound by current technological restrictions. We can assume for the sake of argument that we can tell the size of field and quality of oil.



If you're arguing that risk is relative (which if you're saying there is always risk present, you have to), then there is risk in every action ever taken, but it doesn't receive a reward. Also, if risk is relative, the reward would be proportional. Yet it isn't.



Not too far away actually, though with a different face. Economies are still heavily state-coordinated. And there's still a noticeable correlation between being born into wealth and ending up wealthy, especially since the start of the neoliberal era.

Anyway, the timing isn't that important. The most relevant thing is that you were claiming some sort of 'immaculate conception of capitalism' which is quite demonstrably false.



Yes, because he actually worked to catch the fish himself. A more apt example would be if, as well as buying the fishing rod, he also paid someone else to catch the fish more him, and yet consistently came out with profits. That's something I'd begrudge.



If labour creates 100% of value but does not receive 100%, we don't need to work out who is being exploited the most to say labour is being exploited.



So why's self-interest a problem? They still need to get the other workers in the firm to agree.



Hence why I argue against them. As labour produces all value, it should receive it. Shares detach labour from ownership.

No, capital is accumulated from the original capital held at the start. That is nothing to do with workers.

So someone who sits down and presses a few buttons or watches a screen should get all the value produced by the machines? If so, I know what to say next If not, then you contradict yourself Also, machinery cost is already factored into all value produced no matter what the system. You don't continually pay someone every time you use something you bought outright do you?

No, I am taking the argument into reality rather than theory. So yes, I can bind it by real restrictions, as theory without practicality is rambling.

It isn't that black and white any more though, and it certainly is nowhere near as difficult. To use that comparison was a complete exaggeration.

The rod is just a tool to fulfil a purpose. Workers are just a tool to fulfil a purpose too. Value only comes from using the tool in the correct way, which is what a business owner does. The fisherman has to decide where to fish, what bait to use, etc..Business owners do the same.

Labour doesn't create 100% of value though, far from it. If it was detached from ownership everything would be state owned and we know that doesn't work

Either way, it's never going to happen anywhere near our lifetimes, so you may as well join the system before you grow old poor and bitter Get a better work ethic before it's too late

[siwelmail]

Nice work OP.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
No, capital is accumulated from the original capital held at the start. That is nothing to do with workers.

So if you have some capital, it will magically produce more for you?

Of course not, workers have to produce it.

Where did the first 'original capital' come from? It was natural resources, which were transformed with labour into more useful things, including more capital.

So someone who sits down and presses a few buttons or watches a screen should get all the value produced by the machines? If so, I know what to say next If not, then you contradict yourself Also, machinery cost is already factored into all value produced no matter what the system. You don't continually pay someone every time you use something you bought outright do you?

'All the value'? It's unlikely to be much considering how little labour has to be put into the process.

OK, so we take machinery costs into account - the amount of the value workers create but don't get tends to be notably more than machinery costs - obviously, as otherwise the capitalist wouldn't make a profit.

No, I am taking the argument into reality rather than theory. So yes, I can bind it by real restrictions, as theory without practicality is rambling.

You're not using 'real restrictions', rather 'current' or 'example-specific' restrictions. That you chose a bad example is not my fault.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is practically no risk - maybe its a couple of decades in the future and something has been invented which allows us to locate oil, and know its quantity and quality exactly without digging first. Or maybe a foreign company started the digging and found the oil, but then had to leave due to the government bringing in restrictions on foreigners. I'm sure you can think of more. Regardless of whether the decision was risky or not, the production is going to be the same.

It isn't that black and white any more though, and it certainly is nowhere near as difficult. To use that comparison was a complete exaggeration.

It wasn't a comparison, it was simply showing that the 'immaculate conception of capitalism' picture you presented was false, and due to state intervention continues to be so to this day.

The rod is just a tool to fulfil a purpose. Workers are just a tool to fulfil a purpose too.

That's very bad analysis, as the two are crucially different. The rod, a means of production, cannot create new value, merely facilitate its creation. Labour, on the other hand, creates new value.

Value only comes from using the tool in the correct way, which is what a business owner does. The fisherman has to decide where to fish, what bait to use, etc..Business owners do the same.

Decision-making is labour. Any decision making the owner does, they do as a worker (and I'd still advocate that self-management would deal with this better).

Labour doesn't create 100% of value though, far from it.

Nothing else can create value. Capital had to be created by workers too. Everything is created out of original natural resources, which of course originally had no value because they were free to take.

If it was detached from ownership everything would be state owned and we know that doesn't work

'If'? Labour is detached from ownership. That's what I want to end.

Either way, it's never going to happen anywhere near our lifetimes, so you may as well join the system before you grow old poor and bitter Get a better work ethic before it's too late

I'm sure people said in 1788 that monarchy in France wouldn't change in their lifetimes.

By the way, appeal to tradition fallacy.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
So if you have some capital, it will magically produce more for you?

Of course not, workers have to produce it.

Where did the first 'original capital' come from? It was natural resources, which were transformed with labour into more useful things, including more capital.



'All the value'? It's unlikely to be much considering how little labour has to be put into the process.

OK, so we take machinery costs into account - the amount of the value workers create but don't get tends to be notably more than machinery costs - obviously, as otherwise the capitalist wouldn't make a profit.



You're not using 'real restrictions', rather 'current' or 'example-specific' restrictions. That you chose a bad example is not my fault.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is practically no risk - maybe its a couple of decades in the future and something has been invented which allows us to locate oil, and know its quantity and quality exactly without digging first. Or maybe a foreign company started the digging and found the oil, but then had to leave due to the government bringing in restrictions on foreigners. I'm sure you can think of more. Regardless of whether the decision was risky or not, the production is going to be the same.



It wasn't a comparison, it was simply showing that the 'immaculate conception of capitalism' picture you presented was false, and due to state intervention continues to be so to this day.



That's very bad analysis, as the two are crucially different. The rod, a means of production, cannot create new value, merely facilitate its creation. Labour, on the other hand, creates new value.



Decision-making is labour. Any decision making the owner does, they do as a worker (and I'd still advocate that self-management would deal with this better).



Nothing else can create value. Capital had to be created by workers too. Everything is created out of original natural resources, which of course originally had no value because they were free to take.



'If'? Labour is detached from ownership. That's what I want to end.



I'm sure people said in 1788 that monarchy in France wouldn't change in their lifetimes.

By the way, appeal to tradition fallacy.

I was merely saying that the owners work at the start is the crucial point. Anything after that is just a form of contracting and as such the workers should not have a share in the value of the company.

Yes, by the owner, who then contracts workers at a fixed rate to produce. Unless they are entered as partners, they should hold no share of the value as they are paid a fee for their labour!

You cannot easily judge the value of the work against that of the machine. Again, the operator should be seen merely as a contractor. You are also forgetting the necessity of quasi rent.

There is always risk though. Political, commercial (price fluctuations), unexpected disasters, the list goes on. Entering a new market is always risky. Buying a failing company to turn around is risky. If you could find a way to become very wealthy risk free, then you must be a business genius!

The main thing I was getting at is that private companies today wouldn't have come about if it wasn't for an individual or group of individuals who decided to start the process. As such, they are the business. Workers brought in after that point should be seen as mere contractors.

How can a worker create new value and not a rod? A worker can be assumed to have a fixed set of skills for a specific task. I fail to see what you mean.

OK! So decision making is labour Therefore the initial labour of decision making (deciding to set up the company) gives the owner 100% of the value at the moment it is registered. All workers after that are merely contracted in by the 100% owner. Self management can exist through a workers co-operative. If workers felt so hard done by they would merely throw their money together and set one up. At that point they would become partners in the business. I see nothing wrong with partnerships! But it sounds like you want to change the structure of existing companies or enforce rules only allowing equal partnerships with no contracting. That would just be inequitable and inefficient.

That wouldn't work though. You would just have to rely on the state for creating jobs as it wouldn't be worth an individuals time or effort if everyone they employed gained a share of ownership. It would completely deter expansion if every person the owner hired didn't increase his share, but merely took all the extra value themselves. You would make the same amount of money down the market on your own You might expand a company but no-one would benefit more from that increased work load. It would just be a race to the bottom.

You think we are a year off having what is dangerously close to communism if it were ever to be put into practice?

All in all, lets say you are a shelf-stacker on £6 an hour. YOU are deciding to enter into a contract to stack shelves at £6 an hour. You are adding more value to the company than you take, but that's what contractors do!! Whether it is an employment contract or a temporary one, you are in the business of charging a fixed pre-arranged rate for your services, so live with it. If you want to keep the value you create then set up a business on yourself or with other like-minded people.

If you still disagree, I can imagine the changes to trading and investment banking now if employees get to keep what they create

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
I was merely saying that the owners work at the start is the crucial point. Anything after that is just a form of contracting and as such the workers should not have a share in the value of the company.

Yes, by the owner, who then contracts workers at a fixed rate to produce. Unless they are entered as partners, they should hold no share of the value as they are paid a fee for their labour!

All you've done there is described what currently happens, rather than tried to justify it. Whatever you want to call it, wealth that you get without creating is wealth someone else creates but doesn't get.

You cannot easily judge the value of the work against that of the machine. Again, the operator should be seen merely as a contractor. You are also forgetting the necessity of quasi rent.

The cost of the machine is very easily worked out.

There is always risk though. Political, commercial (price fluctuations), unexpected disasters, the list goes on. Entering a new market is always risky. Buying a failing company to turn around is risky. If you could find a way to become very wealthy risk free, then you must be a business genius!

So you're advocating that risk is relative rather than black and white? In that case the 'reward' ought to be proportional (as extra risk would = extra reward), yet that's not the case.

The main thing I was getting at is that private companies today wouldn't have come about if it wasn't for an individual or group of individuals who decided to start the process. As such, they are the business. Workers brought in after that point should be seen as mere contractors.

Business and production is a continuous process. A company is where it is at a particular point in time for various reasons, any of which could have changed the outcome had they not happened. Picking out one as a sole cause is fallacious.

Call them whatever you want, but workers create everything of value any business has. Owners, by definition, create nothing. Owners can also be workers, but to say profiting from other workers' labour is OK because you were a worker a while back is a bit ridiculous.

How can a worker create new value and not a rod? A worker can be assumed to have a fixed set of skills for a specific task. I fail to see what you mean.

Because that's how economics works. Labour creates things, capital enables that creation.

OK! So decision making is labour Therefore the initial labour of decision making (deciding to set up the company) gives the owner 100% of the value at the moment it is registered. All workers after that are merely contracted in by the 100% owner.

Registration is irrelevant. It's just a piece of paper from the state. What you mean is the owner, acting as a worker, originally does 100% of the labour and so produces 100% of the value. Yes, but this state of affairs doesn't continue.

Self management can exist through a workers co-operative. If workers felt so hard done by they would merely throw their money together and set one up.

As they are deprived of capital, that's not easy.

At that point they would become partners in the business. I see nothing wrong with partnerships! But it sounds like you want to change the structure of existing companies or enforce rules only allowing equal partnerships with no contracting. That would just be inequitable and inefficient.

What I'm saying is that everyone should have a right to the product of their labour. If that exists, then any distinctions between associations such as 'partnerships' or 'contracting' would no longer exist, simply free association.

That wouldn't work though. You would just have to rely on the state for creating jobs as it wouldn't be worth an individuals time or effort if everyone they employed gained a share of ownership.

Worker control of production would be the end of any concept of employment as such, there would simply be free workers and their associations.

It would completely deter expansion if every person the owner hired didn't increase his share, but merely took all the extra value themselves. You would make the same amount of money down the market on your own You might expand a company but no-one would benefit more from that increased work load. It would just be a race to the bottom.

Correct, the workers' associations are likely to be small. Why's that a problem?

You think we are a year off having what is dangerously close to communism if it were ever to be put into practice?

No, not necessarily, I'm just pointing out that acting as if things can't change is naive.

All in all, lets say you are a shelf-stacker on £6 an hour. YOU are deciding to enter into a contract to stack shelves at £6 an hour. You are adding more value to the company than you take, but that's what contractors do!! Whether it is an employment contract or a temporary one, you are in the business of charging a fixed pre-arranged rate for your services, so live with it. If you want to keep the value you create then set up a business on yourself or with other like-minded people.

Well done for describing the current state of things again. If people are in a situation whereby to survive, they must work for less than they create, then the system that creates such situations is unjust.

If you still disagree, I can imagine the changes to trading and investment banking now if employees get to keep what they create

So can I. There's a good chance they would no longer exist.

[snozzle]

(Original post by anarchism101)
OK, suppose you're right. If anything, the model I advocate - that of worker-owned enterprises - would gain even more benefit from this than the current capitalist model of centralised minority ownership.

Worker-owned enterprises are quite possible within our current judico-political system.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
All you've done there is described what currently happens, rather than tried to justify it. Whatever you want to call it, wealth that you get without creating is wealth someone else creates but doesn't get.



The cost of the machine is very easily worked out.



So you're advocating that risk is relative rather than black and white? In that case the 'reward' ought to be proportional (as extra risk would = extra reward), yet that's not the case.



Business and production is a continuous process. A company is where it is at a particular point in time for various reasons, any of which could have changed the outcome had they not happened. Picking out one as a sole cause is fallacious.

Call them whatever you want, but workers create everything of value any business has. Owners, by definition, create nothing. Owners can also be workers, but to say profiting from other workers' labour is OK because you were a worker a while back is a bit ridiculous.



Because that's how economics works. Labour creates things, capital enables that creation.



Registration is irrelevant. It's just a piece of paper from the state. What you mean is the owner, acting as a worker, originally does 100% of the labour and so produces 100% of the value. Yes, but this state of affairs doesn't continue.



As they are deprived of capital, that's not easy.



What I'm saying is that everyone should have a right to the product of their labour. If that exists, then any distinctions between associations such as 'partnerships' or 'contracting' would no longer exist, simply free association.



Worker control of production would be the end of any concept of employment as such, there would simply be free workers and their associations.



Correct, the workers' associations are likely to be small. Why's that a problem?



No, not necessarily, I'm just pointing out that acting as if things can't change is naive.



Well done for describing the current state of things again. If people are in a situation whereby to survive, they must work for less than they create, then the system that creates such situations is unjust.



So can I. There's a good chance they would no longer exist.

No, because that someone else wouldn't have the opportunity to create anything in that company without something already existing.

Value produced by machines goes beyond mere cost. There would be no point buying the machine otherwise.

I am just saying that risk exists in all business and that any success is reliant on it. Actually, it is often the case that high strategic risks yield most reward.

Not all business is production. What about pretty much every service industry? The value added by workers is comparable to a services contractor who is paid a fixed arranged amount before their value realised. No,because it is mere delegation. You seem to avoid the point that a worker can set up on their own if they want to realise their own value!! Why should they leach of another's resources when they can do as you propose.

Oh, so because something ISN'T EASY means that it should not happen at all? Boo hoo.

Everyone already does have the right to the product of their labour, providing they use their own capital or that of an investors.

Small workers associations. Hmm, something tells me that our defence, exports, and all heavy industry would go then. We would all be living communally and be ****ed over by the rest of the world. I also suppose you don't want any foreign investors or imports, because that's what would happen.

Haha, you think people have to work for less than they produce to survive?! Ever heard of benefits? They don't have to work at all to survive.

Firstly, you are focussed on manufacturing industries. The value of anyone else is impossible to determine.

Secondly, you constantly forget business expansion and the need for big business.

Finally, you assume that the UK is a closed country, forgetting we are reliant on foreign investment and capital for jobs. You want to get rid of the financial industry? How would capital to create business come about, because the government sure can't afford it with debts to pay back. Don't suggest the whole world will change, it won't.

I am going to quit this thread now as it takes up too much time and is far too circular. You can call it a win in your deluded world if you must

One final thing. Until you realise that everyone in this country already has the tools for complete economic freedom, you will never be free or happy. You delude yourself into believing you are a victim and get stuck in a rut for the rest of your life, where you do nothing but mutter and hope for the glorious revolution. It is a political version of holding out for that winning lottery ticket. You have 2 options ahead. Victimise yourself and never live a free or happy life, or just get on with it and realise your potential. I don't care if you say that I am the voice of oppression or blah blah, it doesn't escape the fact that there is one life and you DO have the chance to make the most of it.


Farewell, and best of luck in deciding where you want to be in life

[snozzle]

(Original post by ForKicks)
If you are paying the worker the whole value,

There is no such thing. If a worker puts value in a good show me the value. Where is it? Can you bottle it? Touch it? Can you extract it?

Labour theory of value sound good but it collapses when you try and pin it down. It is ultimately a form of platonic mysticism. There is no essence called value.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by snozzle)
There is no such thing. If a worker puts value in a good show me the value. Where is it? Can you bottle it? Touch it? Can you extract it?

Labour theory of value sound good but it collapses when you try and pin it down. It is ultimately a form of platonic mysticism. There is no essence called value.

I addressed the impossibility of that, lol. I eventually thought I would entertain the possibility to state that it still wouldn't work.

Don't mind the odd clarification, but not going to get sucked back into the circular debate of the last however many posts.