Political Crossfire Forums

[The Impeacher]

LetsGetReal wrote: Impeacher can you please name a "Monopoly" that existed without government support?

Labor does equal value but not in the sense that you have put it. If I create the job for the worker was that labor? If I give him the tools to perform the work, is that labor? If I supply the material to perform the work, was that labor? The real problem with marx is that intellectual abilities are null and void. They aren't worth 2 cents. I'm the one smart enough to put everything in motion but I should recieve nothing in return? Why is intellectual creativity/property worth nothing? Do I not work when in thought? My new idea to save the company millions to increase productivity, effeciency, and overall profits is worth nothing? Marx was an idealist who believed the workers were being repressed by a big brother type of guy who steals from them what is rightfully theirs. Not taking into account labor that cannot be seen.

Price is determinant upon Demand/Supply. Price doesn't always equal the value. Recognized value is the price consumers are willing to pay, but intrinsic value would be what the item is worth through costs. If making an item costed me 200$ then it is worth 200$, but if someone else sees a value higher then that they are willing to pay the intrinsic value is relinquished and the recognized value takes over. The customer sets the recognized value not the supplier.

I am not denying intrinsic value in products, the point is that they are the product of prior labor.

As for your first part, the thing to do is to collect a wage or a set percentage for the "job" of being a capitalist.

Why does taking "the risk," entitle one to all of the rewards?

What Monopoly that existed without government? I don't see the point of the question, though I'd like you to tell me where capitalist cronies have flourished without government?

The point is, I think Marx would have found capitalism to be a better proposition if there was profit sharing.

Keep in mind the sate of manufacturing in London circa the 1860s and 80s, I doubt many modern American capitalists would care to defend those practices.

[The Impeacher]

jawsome wrote: The Impeacher wrote: jawsome wrote: Robin Hood- This is something I am trying to understand, as well.

In a Marxist/Socialist approach, how is innovation, intelligence, creativity, etc. taken into account in the determination of value? I can understand the argument in certain circumstances (e.g., a small farm based economy, or other sectors where there is little room for innovation and such), but not in more modern technological industries.

I fail to understand the question. Are you asking how a planned economy would handle that?

I also find trying to figure out how Marx would have felt about, say, pricing computer software a little daft.

The economist I would suggest you first look into for the development of National Economy's is Friederich List, who was the first I am aware of to postulate the importance of what he termed "the products of mentation" and the role the state plays via education and whatnot.

No, I'm asking how intellectual property (maybe intellectual capital would make sense? I don't know) comes into play in the assessment of value.

I addressed this question to Kindred a few pages back, but he's a very busy dude with much more serious things to do, so I doubt he's had time to address it, so maybe you could have a go at it: Quote: How does one factor intellectual property into the equation? E.g., a worker might be able to make, say, a DVD player in an hour, getting paid $10 an hour. The DVD player makes a profit of $100 each. The surplus, if I understand correctly, is the $90 difference, right?

But how do you account for the creator of the product and his possible thought and work to go into the player?


Does innovation and intelligence go into the equation of assessing value in a Marxist critique? If so, how?

I am not a Marxist per se, so I can only venture an educated guess.

That which you speak of I have often read of as social capital, ie, the invesment of the Nation in terms of educational infrastructure and whatnot.

Do you go to a state school? If you do or did, then you have received subsidised education. Does not that count as an investment in any resultant intellectual property?

That is why those protections things don't last forever. As it is, I think copyright and patent laws have been abused and expanded in a protectionist manner that is destructive to further innovation.

However, I do not think they should be abolished altogether. 25 years seems reasonable to me....

Also, do remember that a license is required when using anothers property, should that be completely suspect to a market based valuation? When you see the DVD logo, a royalty is paid to Magnovox, Sony etal and whomever developed that technology. However, good old fashioned taxes seem like a reasonable way to regroup these shared costs, imho.

I would have to look into neomarxist takes as to what they are suggesting now, but I am sure you could google "marxism intellectual property" and find out some good stuff yourself.

I just did:

http://www.marxist.com/intellectual-property-rights221105.htm

[The Impeacher]

Damn,

that is a real good article, I am still reading it, but this section near the end hits it - its about the separation of public goods from private goods. So, DVD would not really be a public good in any direct sense I could think of.

Quote: And in Capital, Volume I, on page 508, “once discovered, the law of deflection of a magnetic needle in a field of electric current, or the law of magnetisation of iron by electricity, cost absolutely nothing.” And, in a footnote on the same page, “Science, generally speaking, costs the capitalist nothing, a fact that by no means prevents him from exploiting it.”

And again, “…a distinction should be made between universal labour and co-operative labour. Both kinds play their role in the process of production, both flow one into the other, but both are also differentiated. Universal labour is all scientific labour, all discovery and all invention… The far greater cost of operating an establishment based on a new invention as compared to later establishments arising ex suis ossibus.” (from their very bones)

“This is so very true that the trail-blazers generally go bankrupt, and only those who later buy the buildings, machinery etc., at a cheaper price make money out of it. It is therefore, generally the most worthless and miserable sort of money capitalists who draw the greatest profit out of all the new developments of the universal labour of the human spirit and their social application through combined labour.” (Capital, Volume III, p. 199)

So information and ideas have some, but not all, the characteristics of a public good.

Most of this extends from the notions and arguments about the Tragedy of the Commons, essentially modern capitalists are societal free riders if they do not redistribute their wealth. If you recall my John Locke arguments from awhile back, you will know I am quite fond of arguments about the Commons.

Once could argue this is why the inheritance tax [renamed as the Death Tax by wealthy elites] should be 100%. I think it should be high, but not that high.

Apparently, death is a form of wealth production and transfer in American Capitalism.... so, it's a good job to have rich parents die if you can get it , I guess?

So, profiting from public goods = wealthy investor class as free riders stealing from the intellectual commons of the past [?]

I think that is pretty hard to deny, imho.

[LetsGetReal]

The Impeacher wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Impeacher can you please name a "Monopoly" that existed without government support?

Labor does equal value but not in the sense that you have put it. If I create the job for the worker was that labor? If I give him the tools to perform the work, is that labor? If I supply the material to perform the work, was that labor? The real problem with marx is that intellectual abilities are null and void. They aren't worth 2 cents. I'm the one smart enough to put everything in motion but I should recieve nothing in return? Why is intellectual creativity/property worth nothing? Do I not work when in thought? My new idea to save the company millions to increase productivity, effeciency, and overall profits is worth nothing? Marx was an idealist who believed the workers were being repressed by a big brother type of guy who steals from them what is rightfully theirs. Not taking into account labor that cannot be seen.

Price is determinant upon Demand/Supply. Price doesn't always equal the value. Recognized value is the price consumers are willing to pay, but intrinsic value would be what the item is worth through costs. If making an item costed me 200$ then it is worth 200$, but if someone else sees a value higher then that they are willing to pay the intrinsic value is relinquished and the recognized value takes over. The customer sets the recognized value not the supplier.

I am not denying intrinsic value in products, the point is that they are the product of prior labor.

As for your first part, the thing to do is to collect a wage or a set percentage for the "job" of being a capitalist.

Why does taking "the risk," entitle one to all of the rewards?

What Monopoly that existed without government? I don't see the point of the question, though I'd like you to tell me where capitalist cronies have flourished without government?

The point is, I think Marx would have found capitalism to be a better proposition if there was profit sharing.

Keep in mind the sate of manufacturing in London circa the 1860s and 80s, I doubt many modern American capitalists would care to defend those practices. Would you not say having a job and getting paid a reward? Having the ability to take care of ones self or family.

The part of a capitalist is to pay a person what they are worth and are willing to work for. This comes by taking an observation of their experience, intelligence, motivation, and responsibility. If you can find someone cheaper that is the same what is wrong with that? Its called econmoics stupid!!(Haha had to)

A salary is a type of reward. Bigger the risk the bigger profit/loss I thought this was common sense. The worker is risking very little why should he get a grandeous reward?

The question is important because the Free market Capitalism works if it is not being restrained by government through corruption,socialism, or communism.

What is your definition of flourishing?

Profit sharing exists when you take in part some of the risk, so in return you can take part in some of the losses.

You bring up London 60's/80's, I'll bring up Stalin and Mao which one do you think is worse?

[LetsGetReal]

I don't think that article could be anymore one-sided and subjective. Would like me to post things from Free Republic?

[The Impeacher]

LetsGetReal wrote: I don't think that article could be anymore one-sided and subjective. Would like me to post things from Free Republic?

That is a fascinsting analysis to a question that you did not ask.

[issaiah1332]

CrossEyedMary wrote: social wrote: Its gona have to be communism. The amount of people who conflate communism as a theory with communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. is astounding.
Same here. Communism is completely different from the fascism posing as communism you see in all those countries.

I feel the same!

[LetsGetReal]

issaiah1332 wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: social wrote: Its gona have to be communism. The amount of people who conflate communism as a theory with communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. is astounding.
Same here. Communism is completely different from the fascism posing as communism you see in all those countries.

I feel the same! If 100% of the time you stub your toe when you walk what is the chance it will happen again?

You act like these Communist states happened like this because of the people, not the idea. You must be either taking a naive look at communism or truly don't know what your talking about. Communism will only bring upon itself death of the individual, of society, and of all who participate in it. There is a reason it has always happened this way look at my analogy for further clarification. :wink:

And to see a Libertarian in support/defense of Communism is quite eye opening.:shock:

Facism is in direct relationship with the idea of Communism. How else would you enslave the whole country?

[jawsome]

The Impeacher wrote: jawsome wrote: The Impeacher wrote: jawsome wrote: Robin Hood- This is something I am trying to understand, as well.

In a Marxist/Socialist approach, how is innovation, intelligence, creativity, etc. taken into account in the determination of value? I can understand the argument in certain circumstances (e.g., a small farm based economy, or other sectors where there is little room for innovation and such), but not in more modern technological industries.

I fail to understand the question. Are you asking how a planned economy would handle that?

I also find trying to figure out how Marx would have felt about, say, pricing computer software a little daft.

The economist I would suggest you first look into for the development of National Economy's is Friederich List, who was the first I am aware of to postulate the importance of what he termed "the products of mentation" and the role the state plays via education and whatnot.

No, I'm asking how intellectual property (maybe intellectual capital would make sense? I don't know) comes into play in the assessment of value.

I addressed this question to Kindred a few pages back, but he's a very busy dude with much more serious things to do, so I doubt he's had time to address it, so maybe you could have a go at it: Quote: How does one factor intellectual property into the equation? E.g., a worker might be able to make, say, a DVD player in an hour, getting paid $10 an hour. The DVD player makes a profit of $100 each. The surplus, if I understand correctly, is the $90 difference, right?

But how do you account for the creator of the product and his possible thought and work to go into the player?


Does innovation and intelligence go into the equation of assessing value in a Marxist critique? If so, how?

I am not a Marxist per se, so I can only venture an educated guess.

Cool, thanks.

Quote: That which you speak of I have often read of as social capital, ie, the invesment of the Nation in terms of educational infrastructure and whatnot.

Do you go to a state school? If you do or did, then you have received subsidised education. Does not that count as an investment in any resultant intellectual property?

I think that's a pretty far-reaching stretch to solve the problem. It's incredibly hard to quantify and qualify how much traditional schooling has helped and influenced innovation and creation, be it technological or entrepreneurial.

For the record, I've gone to public schools my whole life and am now at Cal, and strongly support public education.

Quote: That is why those protections things don't last forever. As it is, I think copyright and patent laws have been abused and expanded in a protectionist manner that is destructive to further innovation.

I agree. They do help in many cases, but hinder progress in others, and lead to unjust and irrational protections that the state is not justified in creating.

Quote: However, I do not think they should be abolished altogether. 25 years seems reasonable to me....

I think certain things should be abolished (many prescriptions and other scientific discoveries) whereas others should be life long (art/literature/etc.).

Quote: Also, do remember that a license is required when using anothers property, should that be completely suspect to a market based valuation? When you see the DVD logo, a royalty is paid to Magnovox, Sony etal and whomever developed that technology. However, good old fashioned taxes seem like a reasonable way to regroup these shared costs, imho.

I'm not sure how I feel about it. I do feel like everyone has the right to a design they own and how it is used, but I think it's kind of ridiculous how protective many companies are. They're obviously doing it for profit, which is their right, but I personally wouldn't do it. It's free advertising in many ways.

Quote: I would have to look into neomarxist takes as to what they are suggesting now, but I am sure you could google "marxism intellectual property" and find out some good stuff yourself.

I just did:

http://www.marxist.com/intellectual-property-rights221105.htm

Cool, I'll read it.

That said, I think you either misunderstood my question or avoided it completely. I'll ask again, and hopefully in clearer terms: How is innovation and creativity inserted into the assessment of value? Both of these play HUGE roles in the creation of products (especially in the modern world), and surely must be taken into account in any worthwhile system of economics.

[The Impeacher]

jawsome wrote: jawsome wrote:
In a Marxist/Socialist approach, how is innovation, intelligence, creativity, etc. taken into account in the determination of value? I can understand the argument in certain circumstances (e.g., a small farm based economy, or other sectors where there is little room for innovation and such), but not in more modern technological industries.



The Impeacher wrote: That which you speak of I have often read of as social capital, ie, the invesment of the Nation in terms of educational infrastructure and whatnot.

Do you go to a state school? If you do or did, then you have received subsidised education. Does not that count as an investment in any resultant intellectual property?

I think that's a pretty far-reaching stretch to solve the problem. It's incredibly hard to quantify and qualify how much traditional schooling has helped and influenced innovation and creation, be it technological or entrepreneurial.

For the record, I've gone to public schools my whole life and am now at Cal, and strongly support public education.

[...]

That said, I think you either misunderstood my question or avoided it completely. I'll ask again, and hopefully in clearer terms: How is innovation and creativity inserted into the assessment of value? Both of these play HUGE roles in the creation of products (especially in the modern world), and surely must be taken into account in any worthwhile system of economics.

I am pretty sure the answer is right in front of you and in the post above.

How you think you can leech of the state for you education with no obligation while sniping about quantification seems rather daft. Your education is supported by taxes, yet you feel you are somehow not responsible for paying taxes yourself? That response is so selfish I am not sure how to respond to it.

And sorry, you clarification of the question still does not make sense. As I asked you before, are you asking how a planned economy would treat what amounts to the intellectual commons? The economic conditions determine how value is determined...

There is no such thing as a "marxist economy," part of why talking about Marx in this thread makes so much sense. There is also really no such thing as a "Marxist valuation."

Marx analysed Capitalism circa the late 1800s, and noted how its exploitation of resources would likely evolve given that state of affairs, ie a ceteris paribus economic assumption. Much of what Marx observed quickly became obsolete in the early 1900s, as nearly all Nation's began intervening in the economies as they all collapsed rather quickly, due mostly to market failures of various types.

That said, if you had read Marx in context, he would likely argue that the people would determine how to handle the intellectual commons, not the investors.

If the people want the State to hold the licenses, it would. In areas where they do not what the State to intervene, it would not. It's just that simple. They may also think that the intellectual commons should be absolutely free, and then require most of the profits from the said innovation and return it to the intellectual commons from which it sprung. A loan of knowledge, as it were.

You seem to think you can drink from the waters, and then not replenish them. I just do not understand that form of thinking.

The key to valuation depends on the nature of the commodity, and the nature of what we are using as currency or means of exchange - and there is no baseline 'Marxist economy" to benchmark that answer against.

[jawsome]

The Impeacher wrote: jawsome wrote: jawsome wrote:
In a Marxist/Socialist approach, how is innovation, intelligence, creativity, etc. taken into account in the determination of value? I can understand the argument in certain circumstances (e.g., a small farm based economy, or other sectors where there is little room for innovation and such), but not in more modern technological industries.



The Impeacher wrote: That which you speak of I have often read of as social capital, ie, the invesment of the Nation in terms of educational infrastructure and whatnot.

Do you go to a state school? If you do or did, then you have received subsidised education. Does not that count as an investment in any resultant intellectual property?

I think that's a pretty far-reaching stretch to solve the problem. It's incredibly hard to quantify and qualify how much traditional schooling has helped and influenced innovation and creation, be it technological or entrepreneurial.

For the record, I've gone to public schools my whole life and am now at Cal, and strongly support public education.

[...]

That said, I think you either misunderstood my question or avoided it completely. I'll ask again, and hopefully in clearer terms: How is innovation and creativity inserted into the assessment of value? Both of these play HUGE roles in the creation of products (especially in the modern world), and surely must be taken into account in any worthwhile system of economics.

I am pretty sure the answer is right in front of you and in the post above.

How you think you can leech of the state for you education with no obligation while sniping about quantification seems rather daft. Your education is supported by taxes, yet you feel you are somehow not responsible for paying taxes yourself? That response is so selfish I am not sure how to respond to it.

I don't get where you draw this from. Of course I feel responsbile for paying taxes myself, and of course I understand where my education comes from, and many other things I use and support. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist or extreme minarchist or something. I have plenty of qualms with capitalism, in fact. I am just trying to understand a particular aspect of Marxist theory.

Quote: And sorry, you clarification of the question still does not make sense. As I asked you before, are you asking how a planned economy would treat what amounts to the intellectual commons? The economic conditions determine how value is determined...

Sorry, I forgot to answer that. No, I'm asking how one could put intellectual properties of a human's work into the equation of value. Marxists claim that workers are exploited because they do not receive the full value of what the produce, but I do not feel many Marxists take into account the intrinsic value of intellect and innovation on the part of the capitalist, or other individuals involved in the production.

E.g., Bill Gates created much of computer software, yet it can easily and cheaply be produced by workers in, say, Taiwan or Korea. How would Marxist thought account for Gates's innovation and work when determining the production of his products?

Quote: There is no such thing as a "marxist economy," part of why talking about Marx in this thread makes so much sense. There is also really no such thing as a "Marxist valuation."

Okay, then perhaps I am confused or not well enough informed, hence my wanting to discuss and debate this.

Quote: Marx analysed Capitalism circa the late 1800s, and noted how its exploitation of resources would likely evolve given that state of affairs, ie a ceteris paribus economic assumption. Much of what Marx observed quickly became obsolete in the early 1900s, as nearly all Nation's began intervening in the economies as they all collapsed rather quickly, due mostly to market failures of various types.

That's true.

Quote: That said, if you had read Marx in context, he would likely argue that the people would determine how to handle the intellectual commons, not the investors.

Perhaps. That would probably be most likely.

Quote: If the people want the State to hold the licenses, it would. In areas where they do not what the State to intervene, it would not. It's just that simple. They may also think that the intellectual commons should be absolutely free, and then require most of the profits from the said innovation and return it to the intellectual commons from which it sprung. A loan of knowledge, as it were.

Okay, I understand what you're saying, and feel this is a good explanation of what the theory might call for. I disagree with it, but that's for a different thread.

Quote: You seem to think you can drink from the waters, and then not replenish them. I just do not understand that form of thinking.

Where do you get that idea from? I truly don't understand where you got this strange perception of me.

Quote: The key to valuation depends on the nature of the commodity, and the nature of what we are using as currency or means of exchange - and there is no baseline 'Marxist economy" to benchmark that answer against.

I bolded the key part of this phrase because this is exactly what I am trying to understand. The nature of the commodity intrinsically--at least, in my mind--implies the amount of intelligence and innovation that was necessary to conceptualize, develop, and produce said product, hence its being necessary to be accounted for in the valuation of the product.

[DevilMan]

I realy don't think that communism is that misunderstood. I understand it and most people I know do too. Communism is a great idea... On paper. The fact of the matter is that its too easy for the ruling party to become a tyrant. There are a lot of people who don't understand communism. But those people are from the cold war era, propaganda made them not understand. How can you understand things when every news station in the country says that russians kill babies, stomp puppies, and throw kittens in wood chippers. I think that the more contemporary political crowd understands communism.

Realy I think fascism isn't understood how it should. There are benifits... Just its hard to think of them because the world is still recovering from WWII in a way.

[Francisck]

I believe that anarchism is the most missunderstood, i believe that i my self am an anachist...... so alot of people believe that we just want to kill people and make everything go bad, but that's not true, i just believe we don't need the goverment and that everything can work with a FREE-market.

[social]

jawsome wrote: social wrote: jawsome wrote: social wrote: jawsome wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: After reading this thread, it would have to be Capitalism.

Communism= Death of the Individual

Capitalism= Pure Freedom to the Individual(economic sense)

I just can't believe there are still communists who argue for it, your arguing against ones self.

The ironic thing is a lot of Communists critique Capitalism with a capitalistic approach: they believe people are being exploited of their natural, private right to their labor.

This is a rather ineffective criticism that seems to suggest that communism is based on the same type of greed that drives many capitalist societies.

I didn't mean to imply that.

Quote: For a start, the fact that someone is entitled to what they produce does not amount to an advocation of the universal right to private property, to the right, per se, to own the results of one's private labour, or to any other right-wing ideal or "capitalistic approach" you can pull out of the bag.

I never stated that. The fact that someone is entitled to the results of their labor is an entitlement to private property of some sort, I believe. Do you agree?

I have absolutely no idea where you get the beleif that Marx said people aren't entitled to anything, labour or property. Never did he say that people aren't entitled to what they themselves have earned.

Where did I ever mention Marx? I think one big misunderstanding is that I said "A lot of Communists say...", not "Marx says this..."

Perhaps it is. But I'm under the impression that the theories Marxism and Communism cannot be divorced - unless of course when talking of communism you're actually referring to Stalinism, or one of the many fascist regimes claiming to be "communist". But even then, I suppose, there is a link to Marx and Marxism, however neglible...

Quote: But, again, I ask: is the entitlement to one's private labour a form of private property? If not, why do you disagree?

I can't view labour as "property" because it is neither a piece of land (as in real estate) or a material possession. But even if it were, as I said in my previous post, most communists do not deny the right to ownership of property, as long as property is earned.

A factory, for example, may be "owned" by a group of workers, who have "earnt" it through building and managing it. It is not of course privately owned, because communist societies are seen to be classless. The idea of a classless society comes not from the belief that everyone shares the same values and attitudes, but from the idea that equality can be derived from the creation of equal access to the means of production, the most important factor in determining the organisation of society.

Quote: Quote: Quote: It is but a simple idea, used to demonstrate certain people do not get what they deserve and that many get far more than they earn.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote: Communism as a thoery is about bridging the gap that divides these people; whether or not its theoretical model implies private property or economic freedom or any thing of the kind in your eyes, is irrelvant.

I do not know how Communism's theoretical model possibly implying private property, its antithesis, to exist is irrelevant. Could you please explain?

You have not proved that labour is in fact private property and therefore you cannot suggest that communism implies private property.

Quote: Quote: Whether you think communism is based on a "capitalist approach" because people are entitled to the "private property" of thier own labour does not concern me or I should think anyone else. It seems far more of a minute semantical concern than a damning, last-nail-in-the-coffin criticism of communism.

I never claimed it to be. And, really, I don't know how it would be minute should it be true, or somehow implied.

I had never really thought of the implication under a week or so ago after reading this article.

Quote: Quote: Quote: The fact that in a communist society one is entitled only to what one earns - according, of course, to what others earn and how this affects the rest of the proletariat - makes your point rather null and void.

I don't see how that fact makes it null and void. It still implies that one is nonetheless entitled to a form of private property--whatever one earns, whether it be according to what others earn and how it might affect others.

It seems to me you're playing word games now; and although you may have a point, I don't feel the need to clarify these "implications", or supply you with a definition of "private property", because you know as well as I do what Marx was referring to when he talked of private property. It was not someone's soul, someone's labour, someone's brain, someone's wage, - but property, aka land.

Quote: Where, again, did Marx say no one was entitled to property?

I have always understood Marxism/Communism to be the abolition of private property. This is, as I'm sure you know, the summation of Communist theory by Marx himself. Maybe I do not understand it well enough, though. That is always a possibility.

Marx's proclamation of the abolition of private property should not give you the impression that, in such a society, no one is entitled to property.

[issaiah1332]

LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: social wrote: Its gona have to be communism. The amount of people who conflate communism as a theory with communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. is astounding.
Same here. Communism is completely different from the fascism posing as communism you see in all those countries.

I feel the same! If 100% of the time you stub your toe when you walk what is the chance it will happen again?

You act like these Communist states happened like this because of the people, not the idea. You must be either taking a naive look at communism or truly don't know what your talking about. Communism will only bring upon itself death of the individual, of society, and of all who participate in it. There is a reason it has always happened this way look at my analogy for further clarification. :wink:

And to see a Libertarian in support/defense of Communism is quite eye opening.:shock:

Facism is in direct relationship with the idea of Communism. How else would you enslave the whole country?


The idea is not flawed at all only your understanding. In Communism there is no slavery. It is impossible to be a slave, in true Communism, when there is no master over the slave. Everyone works, everyone is equal, everyone gets what they need. No one is controlling them, they are not a slave to how much money they have, and there is no state. Who is the slave owner? Everyone works is commune, to help each other. When one works together one can truly be free.

[jawsome]

social wrote: jawsome wrote: social wrote: jawsome wrote: social wrote: jawsome wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: After reading this thread, it would have to be Capitalism.

Communism= Death of the Individual

Capitalism= Pure Freedom to the Individual(economic sense)

I just can't believe there are still communists who argue for it, your arguing against ones self.

The ironic thing is a lot of Communists critique Capitalism with a capitalistic approach: they believe people are being exploited of their natural, private right to their labor.

This is a rather ineffective criticism that seems to suggest that communism is based on the same type of greed that drives many capitalist societies.

I didn't mean to imply that.

Quote: For a start, the fact that someone is entitled to what they produce does not amount to an advocation of the universal right to private property, to the right, per se, to own the results of one's private labour, or to any other right-wing ideal or "capitalistic approach" you can pull out of the bag.

I never stated that. The fact that someone is entitled to the results of their labor is an entitlement to private property of some sort, I believe. Do you agree?

I have absolutely no idea where you get the beleif that Marx said people aren't entitled to anything, labour or property. Never did he say that people aren't entitled to what they themselves have earned.

Where did I ever mention Marx? I think one big misunderstanding is that I said "A lot of Communists say...", not "Marx says this..."

Perhaps it is. But I'm under the impression that the theories Marxism and Communism cannot be divorced - unless of course when talking of communism you're actually referring to Stalinism, or one of the many fascist regimes claiming to be "communist". But even then, I suppose, there is a link to Marx and Marxism, however neglible...

Thanks for replying. :)

I agree that they can't be divorced, but I would also argue that there can be differences in interpretation, as well as off-shoots of sorts, which create different philosophies (I'd say many Communists are not 100% Marxists, and vice versa).

And of course I'm not referring to Stalinism--no one who has the slightest understanding of Communist theory would claim that Stalinism or what we've seen in the "Communist countries" of the 20th century are anywhere near what a true Communist/Marxist society would be like.

Quote: Quote: But, again, I ask: is the entitlement to one's private labour a form of private property? If not, why do you disagree?

I can't view labour as "property" because it is neither a piece of land (as in real estate) or a material possession. But even if it were, as I said in my previous post, most communists do not deny the right to ownership of property, as long as property is earned.

Labor seems to be a creation of one's self, possibly an extension of one's self. It obviously produces something, and is something, and only one can own one's labor, so it seems like property of some sort. As you stated, it is not as material as other forms of property, so it is hard to really define.

Quote: A factory, for example, may be "owned" by a group of workers, who have "earnt" it through building and managing it. It is not of course privately owned, because communist societies are seen to be classless. The idea of a classless society comes not from the belief that everyone shares the same values and attitudes, but from the idea that equality can be derived from the creation of equal access to the means of production, the most important factor in determining the organisation of society.

I understand this, and do think it is possible, but only on small scales. It does, of course, have its benefits and disadvantages, like every other economic system.

Do you feel it could exist on a large scale, say, on the national level?

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: It is but a simple idea, used to demonstrate certain people do not get what they deserve and that many get far more than they earn.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote: Communism as a thoery is about bridging the gap that divides these people; whether or not its theoretical model implies private property or economic freedom or any thing of the kind in your eyes, is irrelvant.

I do not know how Communism's theoretical model possibly implying private property, its antithesis, to exist is irrelevant. Could you please explain?

You have not proved that labour is in fact private property and therefore you cannot suggest that communism implies private property.

Perhaps you will disagree, but I don't think anyone else can own your labor, unless you voluntarily "rent" it out, as it is your time and your life. That, to me, seems to show some kind of private ownership.

What do you view labor as? It's a tricky and complex issue and I am interested in your comments on it.

[quote] Quote: Quote: Whether you think communism is based on a "capitalist approach" because people are entitled to the "private property" of thier own labour does not concern me or I should think anyone else. It seems far more of a minute semantical concern than a damning, last-nail-in-the-coffin criticism of communism.

I never claimed it to be. And, really, I don't know how it would be minute should it be true, or somehow implied.

I had never really thought of the implication under a week or so ago after reading this article.

Quote: Quote: Quote: The fact that in a communist society one is entitled only to what one earns - according, of course, to what others earn and how this affects the rest of the proletariat - makes your point rather null and void.

I don't see how that fact makes it null and void. It still implies that one is nonetheless entitled to a form of private property--whatever one earns, whether it be according to what others earn and how it might affect others.

It seems to me you're playing word games now; and although you may have a point, I don't feel the need to clarify these "implications", or supply you with a definition of "private property", because you know as well as I do what Marx was referring to when he talked of private property. It was not someone's soul, someone's labour, someone's brain, someone's wage, - but property, aka land.

Fair enough. I just feel like the theory shouldn't stop at individuals or labor, as the latter is a huge part of every economic theory and must be understood in the context of the theory itself.

[The Impeacher]

Jawsome,

both your question with me and with Social seem to have some common elements, and I am quoting this post which you have seem to have missed to try to expand...

The Impeacher wrote:

Quote: And in Capital, Volume I, on page 508, “once discovered, the law of deflection of a magnetic needle in a field of electric current, or the law of magnetisation of iron by electricity, cost absolutely nothing.” And, in a footnote on the same page, “Science, generally speaking, costs the capitalist nothing, a fact that by no means prevents him from exploiting it.”

And again, “…a distinction should be made between universal labour and co-operative labour. Both kinds play their role in the process of production, both flow one into the other, but both are also differentiated. Universal labour is all scientific labour, all discovery and all invention… The far greater cost of operating an establishment based on a new invention as compared to later establishments arising ex suis ossibus.” (from their very bones)

“This is so very true that the trail-blazers generally go bankrupt, and only those who later buy the buildings, machinery etc., at a cheaper price make money out of it. It is therefore, generally the most worthless and miserable sort of money capitalists who draw the greatest profit out of all the new developments of the universal labour of the human spirit and their social application through combined labour.” (Capital, Volume III, p. 199)

So information and ideas have some, but not all, the characteristics of a public good.

Most of this extends from the notions and arguments about the Tragedy of the Commons, essentially modern capitalists are societal free riders if they do not redistribute their wealth. If you recall my John Locke arguments from awhile back, you will know I am quite fond of arguments about the Commons.

Once could argue this is why the inheritance tax [renamed as the Death Tax by wealthy elites] should be 100%. I think it should be high, but not that high.

Apparently, death is a form of wealth production and transfer in American Capitalism.... so, it's a good job to have rich parents die if you can get it , I guess?

So, profiting from public goods = wealthy investor class as free riders stealing from the intellectual commons of the past [?]

I think that is pretty hard to deny, imho.


You must conceptually separate in your mind, private from public goods and property.

So first, the problem is property, you are applying your modern concepts of private property back into Marx's works. That is illogical, Marx wrote well before the comsumer prooduction explosion, though he did anticipate it and felt that gains would be more postive then negative, but he feared theat relative serfdom of the workers would continue to create a pool of workers to suit the capitlists need for labor.

The proof of Marx's accuracy is in what you know of as "poverty." If you live in poverty, you still make only subsistance wages. This was Marx's fear of capitalist exploitation, and I am sure he would advocate a War on Poverty.

However, in Marx's time something like a bunch of socks or a pack of shirts would have been a REAL innovation. Really think about that. Yeah, they had radio and some other stuff, but the consumer world you live in is really a post WWII creation...

As for Bill Gates, you miss the point.

Did Bill Gates invent the PC? No. But he innovated a concept for a PC with some help.

Did he invent the GUI? No.

The microchip? No.

The silicone wafer and manufacturing? No.

Did he purchase DOS, something he developed as an employee, from IBM? Yes

He purchased other software from Xerox, that developed into Windows.

And so, Bill Gates relies on prior intellectual capital and technologies such as computers, microchips, monitors, silicon and several manufacturing breakthroughs for him to make a profit. Most of these innovations were government funded, usally from the "Cold War" or the "Space War" with the Soviets.

He then, in Marx speak, is exploiting the intellectual commons of science for his personal gain, in terms of his profits. Of course we know its not all about his wants, but no one can deny his innovations are mostly reconfiguring other's ideas. No one can deny that many of his innovations came from government funded programs, that operated at such a loss that purely "entrepenurial capitalism" would likely not attempt, and certainly not then and in that manner. That took collective resources...

To his credit, Gates seems to know this, and now we have the Gates the philanthropist.

I suggest it is possible that Gates would agree that everything I have said is true, and that is why he feels obligated to give back to the "Commons," granted in his own way.

So, how would it be valued? I think it is safe to say that all surplus value from public goods go back to the public good, to the benefit of all.

In other words, the surplus value of profits would only be collective profits, the innovator would likely receive his wage plus some form of bonus or incentive/reward system - and any other approach to the numerical assessment value would be related to the commodification which is relative to how the economy is structured of how currency either is, or is not employed.

Though, I sincerely doubt anyone would be exchanging ration coupons for iPods. ;)

To each, according to his own. If one is truly an artist, then he creates art and lives his life. The "value" of the art should be immaterial as long he lives in comfort, relative the the prosperity of the collective. How can someone want for oneself what no one else really has? That would be a classless society fact.

There is no necessary reason that innovation be as stifled as it was under Lenninsim, Stalinism or Maoism. But then, it is a big leap from naturally occuring, democratic socialism to communism. It is the essence of the socialist/communist debate.

If entrepenurial socialism is not an impossible oxymoron, I look forward to its arrival. But via democratic means, not through a violent revolution. A classless society remains a utopian vision far off on the horizon, if not possibly never ever truly acheived.

[LetsGetReal]

issaiah1332 wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: social wrote: Its gona have to be communism. The amount of people who conflate communism as a theory with communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. is astounding.
Same here. Communism is completely different from the fascism posing as communism you see in all those countries.

I feel the same! If 100% of the time you stub your toe when you walk what is the chance it will happen again?

You act like these Communist states happened like this because of the people, not the idea. You must be either taking a naive look at communism or truly don't know what your talking about. Communism will only bring upon itself death of the individual, of society, and of all who participate in it. There is a reason it has always happened this way look at my analogy for further clarification. :wink:

And to see a Libertarian in support/defense of Communism is quite eye opening.:shock:

Facism is in direct relationship with the idea of Communism. How else would you enslave the whole country?


The idea is not flawed at all only your understanding. In Communism there is no slavery. It is impossible to be a slave, in true Communism, when there is no master over the slave. Everyone works, everyone is equal, everyone gets what they need. No one is controlling them, they are not a slave to how much money they have, and there is no state. Who is the slave owner? Everyone works is commune, to help each other. When one works together one can truly be free. Are you serious? There is a state and it is your master :?. Who truly wants to be equal? What if we're all equally poor, would you want that? Why does my intellect/abilities earn me no merit beyond what a normal person can achieve?

And are you not controlling them by not allowing them to get what they want even if someone else doesn't? Or by not allowing them to have better things than anyone else?

[The Impeacher]

LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: social wrote: Its gona have to be communism. The amount of people who conflate communism as a theory with communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. is astounding.
Same here. Communism is completely different from the fascism posing as communism you see in all those countries.

I feel the same! If 100% of the time you stub your toe when you walk what is the chance it will happen again?

You act like these Communist states happened like this because of the people, not the idea. You must be either taking a naive look at communism or truly don't know what your talking about. Communism will only bring upon itself death of the individual, of society, and of all who participate in it. There is a reason it has always happened this way look at my analogy for further clarification. :wink:

And to see a Libertarian in support/defense of Communism is quite eye opening.:shock:

Facism is in direct relationship with the idea of Communism. How else would you enslave the whole country?


The idea is not flawed at all only your understanding. In Communism there is no slavery. It is impossible to be a slave, in true Communism, when there is no master over the slave. Everyone works, everyone is equal, everyone gets what they need. No one is controlling them, they are not a slave to how much money they have, and there is no state. Who is the slave owner? Everyone works is commune, to help each other. When one works together one can truly be free. Are you serious? There is a state and it is your master :?. Who truly wants to be equal? What if we're all equally poor, would you want that? Why does my intellect/abilities earn me no merit beyond what a normal person can achieve?

And are you not controlling them by not allowing them to get what they want even if someone else doesn't? Or by not allowing them to have better things than anyone else?

How you can craft a post like that and call yourself a Christian is simply astonishing to me.

[FinnMacCool]

Quote: Not allowed by whom?
By the people that live there.

Quote:
Good luck finding people who want to clean toilets.

Of course nobody will want to clean toilets. But, if a toilet smells, why would people not clean the toilets? Just because people aren't forced to do something doesn't mean they won't do it. It's just that people won't be cleaning toilets so they can, you know, survive.