Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Depends which way you view it, I guess, but labour is generally more to do with per individual commodity.

    Suppose you have factory o
    So Labour power is a fairly useless concept....


    Suppose I have a factory, so what?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    So Labour power is a fairly useless concept....
    Labour power is the exchange value, labour is the use value.


    Suppose I have a factory, so what?
    Sorry, must have nudged a key something just before I posted that last post.

    Suppose you have a factory of 60 workers, and they each produce one chocolate bar a minute.

    Then suppose somewhere else there is one worker who also produces one a minute.

    Obviously your factory employs more labour-power, but the amount of labour invested in each chocolate bar is, on average at least, the same.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    libertarian capitalist, you should make your own way in life, not rely on others. especially not the state, regulations are nice, but for realists life is what you make of it. not everyone is born with equal opportunities, so those who aren't will try to create opportunities for themselves. some are too lazy, for some it's too difficult because you simply can't fill the quota... get used to it. However in the U.K you cannot really complain of poor education etc because at least you are getting some, it's also your choice whether you decide to furthest your knowledge and read elsewhere... capitalism is the only viable way forward because where does the public sector get it's money from (in the U.K) the private sector(which is capitalist) germany do the same but they have better forms of production etc...notice china is communist yet most of their people don't seem to be that well off? once you restrict the market you restrict people, people need freedom, maybe some of you should move elsewhere, create your own socialist country/communist and see what happens...you won;t get anywhere because you won;t have money to give to everyone, also to the person who wrote Africa would do better as a socialist state, no it would not until at least some form of capitalism had raised enough money to build it's foundations and increase standard of living for a few who could then help the poor
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Labour power is the exchange value, labour is the use value.
    Now I am totally confused.

    Labour is the amount of time that went into something. That defines it value. Therefore its price. Therefore its exchange value. Not labour power?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Now I am totally confused.

    Labour is the amount of time that went into something. That defines it value. Therefore its price. Therefore its exchange value. Not labour power?
    He's talking in Marxist terms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_value
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Now I am totally confused.

    Labour is the amount of time that went into something. That defines it value. Therefore its price. Therefore its exchange value. Not labour power?
    That's mostly right. Switch price and exchange value round and it's good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A capitalist.

    We've seen over and over in history how socialism doesn't work.

    viva la free market
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr. Bassman)
    Not really.

    The concept of 'poor' and 'rich' just wouldn't exist in a socialist state.

    Think of it in this simple way. Ten people are on an island, trapped, have to work to survive etc.

    A socialist 'plan' would be for the ten people to set the amount of resources need and allocate work to each person in a fair way and then distribute the resources fairly. Everyone lives, reasonably comfortably.

    A capitalist 'plan' would be one guy telling nine guys to go work as hard as they possibly can so that he can keep a majority of the resources and then distribute the rest to the other people just enough so that they can survive, maybe giving a select few enough to have a comfortable life so that there's no uprising.

    Which one makes more sense? People need to stop viewing socialism as Soviet 'communism' part 2 or even as some kind of working class uprising. It's just a logical system in which everyone can live a comfortable lifestyle.
    In a capitalist plan everybody would be motivated by self-determination to try their hardest to survive by collecting and trading items with one another.

    In a socialist plan people are just given resources without working hard for them and they eventually loose their sense of work ethic and once the resources are used up they die because they haven't learnt the skills to survive.

    "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" (meaning that they can feed themselves without the state needing to intervene)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    That's mostly right. Switch price and exchange value round and it's good.
    So two goods

    A has 50 hours of labour that went into it

    B has 5 hours of labour that went into it


    The price of A will tend towards 10x the price of B?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    In a capitalist plan everybody would be motivated by self-determination to try their hardest to survive by collecting and trading items with one another.

    In a socialist plan people are just given resources without working hard for them and they eventually loose their sense of work ethic and once the resources are used up they die because they haven't learnt the skills to survive.

    "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" (meaning that they can feed themselves without the state needing to intervene)
    1, motivation is irrelevant. If someone is employing you they take every single bit of profit they can get and give you just enough to survive, or to keep you working for them. It's impossible for everyone to be successful in a capitalist system. Sure, anyone (theoretically) can become successful and thrive but that means that inevitably the others will be trampled on as a result. Forgetting the analogy, look at McDonalds. If you work there you probably get paid minimum wage whilst the CEO gets paid millions/billions for the same (if not more comfortable, less degrading etc.) work as you. Does that make sense? A society where people can basically exploit your work for their own gain? SOMEONE (and by someone, I mean the majority of the population) has to be the worker for a capitalist system to work. It's a delusion that everyone can be successful if they just 'work hard', as if someone working tough minimum wage jobs doesn't...

    2, In a socialist system people aren't just given resources. Everyone, as a community, sets a goal of how much everyone needs to live comfortably. Then people are allocated what they need to do (always less work for everyone than in a capitalist system since no profit is required) and receive what they need. They don't lose work ethic, if anything they gain from it. Nothing is more demoralising than having to work a crap, tough job all day only to receive a minimum wage salary. A socialist system really is a 'reap what you sow' one, since you work for what you get essentially.

    Also, I think you took the analogy too far lol. No one's going to die from socialism... I don't really understand what you mean by people not learning skills.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    So two goods

    A has 50 hours of labour that went into it

    B has 5 hours of labour that went into it


    The price of A will tend towards 10x the price of B?
    Sort of. That's the starting point. That would be the case if we had a perfect model, i.e. if all companies producing A had equal technology, if all producing B had equal technology, if the money supply was stable, etc.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If the amount of labour to produce A was 50 hours across the board, and then all that changed was that it suddenly dropped to 5 hours, the LTV says the prices would tend towards roughly 10% of what it was previously.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Broadly socialist, but that doesn't mean I reject capitalism. I agree with equality and I firmly believe in the welfare state and support the idea of a meritocratic society. But at the same time, I think their has to be a place for capitalism, perhaps not the capitalism centered society in which we live, but there is a place for it.

    My Mum lived for 5 years in former Yugoslavia (before it was the former) and so lived in a communist society, and as much as she loved it and has always said how liberating it is to be in a situation where no-one has any money, and no-one really cares about having "stuff", because their is no "stuff" to be had. She says that at the same time, you cannot have a truly equal society, without it in itself creating inequalities. That capitalism, in moderation, can create the basis for a fairer society.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr. Bassman)
    1, motivation is irrelevant. If someone is employing you they take every single bit of profit they can get and give you just enough to survive, or to keep you working for them. It's impossible for everyone to be successful in a capitalist system. Sure, anyone (theoretically) can become successful and thrive but that means that inevitably the others will be trampled on as a result. Forgetting the analogy, look at McDonalds. If you work there you probably get paid minimum wage whilst the CEO gets paid millions/billions for the same (if not more comfortable, less degrading etc.) work as you. Does that make sense? A society where people can basically exploit your work for their own gain? SOMEONE (and by someone, I mean the majority of the population) has to be the worker for a capitalist system to work. It's a delusion that everyone can be successful if they just 'work hard', as if someone working tough minimum wage jobs doesn't...
    Socialism prevents people who would be very successful from achieving their full potential. Also under capitalism some people succeed and others fail whereas socialism means nobody succeeds or fails they're just stuck in a void where no matter how much or little they work they will not be affected.

    (Original post by Dr. Bassman)
    2, In a socialist system people aren't just given resources. Everyone, as a community, sets a goal of how much everyone needs to live comfortably. Then people are allocated what they need to do (always less work for everyone than in a capitalist system since no profit is required) and receive what they need. They don't lose work ethic, if anything they gain from it. Nothing is more demoralising than having to work a crap, tough job all day only to receive a minimum wage salary. A socialist system really is a 'reap what you sow' one, since you work for what you get essentially.

    Also, I think you took the analogy too far lol. No one's going to die from socialism... I don't really understand what you mean by people not learning skills.
    The problem with socialism and communism is they work great on paper but in reality you end up with authoritarian dictatorships who oppress their people.

    Capitalism does have it's problems, but it's the best thing we're ever going to get in real-life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    Socialism prevents people who would be very successful from achieving their full potential. Also under capitalism some people succeed and others fail whereas socialism means nobody succeeds or fails they're just stuck in a void where no matter how much or little they work they will not be affected.
    So it doesn't matter that the majority of the world's population live in poverty, so long as some people can be rich? That's a weird logic to me. Life is not all about money. I think everyone would be a lot happier if everyone lived comfortably. That's another point, socialism does more than just make everyone as rich as everyone else. Think of the vastly reduced crime rate? People don't need to steal for money anymore etc. I think we should judge success on more than just money don't you?

    The problem with socialism and communism is they work great on paper but in reality you end up with authoritarian dictatorships who oppress their people.

    Capitalism does have it's problems, but it's the best thing we're ever going to get in real-life.
    There's never been a true socialist state though. People keep saying they work on paper but not in practice but this is only because the people who benefit from capitalism are the ones blocking socialism from taking place and spreading propaganda about it so even people who would benefit from socialism don't want it. It's sad, and I think I agree that capitalism is the best thing we're going to get because socialism probably won't happen (at least not for a very long time).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Sort of. That's the starting point. That would be the case if we had a perfect model, i.e. if all companies producing A had equal technology, if all producing B had equal technology, if the money supply was stable, etc.
    Lets suppose everyone was bat**** crazy over B. All they wanted was B. Everybody loved B.

    This meant there was always a severe shortage of B. Does this have any effect on the price of B?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Lets suppose everyone was bat**** crazy over B. All they wanted was B. Everybody loved B.

    This meant there was always a severe shortage of B. Does this have any effect on the price of B?
    There wouldn't always be a severe shortage because someone else would come up to fill the demand.

    To quote Ricardo;

    "It is the cost of production which must ultimately regulate the price of commodities, and not, as has been often said, the proportion between the supply and demand: the proportion between supply and demand may, indeed, for a time, affect the market value of a commodity, until it is supplied in greater or less abundance, according as the demand may have increased or diminished; but this effect will be only of temporary duration."
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    There wouldn't always be a severe shortage because someone else would come up to fill the demand.
    In essence you are arguing that supply curves are always perfectly elastic....

    It does not matter how much people want things. There will always be a way to supply it at the same price?


    Anyway I am deducing your argument is that because the price has risen this calls more supply. This then reduces the price?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Would it be correct for me to say that, if a person has to deal with some group of people and this group of people would work together either positively or negatively for themselves and not for the intended person, that they are following what we called a socialist ideology?

    e.g. Person X comes to group Y. Some person in group Y is causing trouble with X. X has done nothing wrong and comes back to group Y and consulted some other person, but that some other person refuses to help X because that person thinks that X has caused trouble in group Y and the person would need to help out the other person in group Y and makes sure that no other person like X would cause any more further troubles to its group.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr. Bassman)
    So it doesn't matter that the majority of the world's population live in poverty, so long as some people can be rich? That's a weird logic to me. Life is not all about money. I think everyone would be a lot happier if everyone lived comfortably. That's another point, socialism does more than just make everyone as rich as everyone else. Think of the vastly reduced crime rate? People don't need to steal for money anymore etc. I think we should judge success on more than just money don't you?
    Under capitalism most people live fairly comfortably. Under socialism, nobody lives comfortably due to high taxes and laws which under democratic capitalism would be considered an oppression of civil liberties. I don't know whether socialism will reduce crime rate or not so if you have any sources I'll be willing to accept them.

    (Original post by Dr. Bassman)
    There's never been a true socialist state though. People keep saying they work on paper but not in practice but this is only because the people who benefit from capitalism are the ones blocking socialism from taking place and spreading propaganda about it so even people who would benefit from socialism don't want it. It's sad, and I think I agree that capitalism is the best thing we're going to get because socialism probably won't happen (at least not for a very long time).
    I believe we should live in a capitalist meritocracy where people succeed based on their abilities and intellect.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.