Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

Yes. I see.
It means that the worker does not own what he works on, so he will be paid less than the value he creates.

First, we cannot talk as if this is an ironclad rule that follows in specifics. These are tendencies within markets, not rules for interactions. Sometimes people will receive less than others or more than others for comparable work; there will be bad and good luck. Variation is a cost and reward of freedom.

Now, with that said, it is an economic mistake to speak as if the laborer creates value. You follow a prestigious line in thinking this, as the idea was formulated with economists David Ricardo and Adam Smith. This line of thinking is called the Labor Theory of Value, where the value of a good is the equivalent to the labor invested in bringing it to its consumable state. It was not until Karl Marx appropriated the theory to explain how exploitation exists and can be measured did economists begin to question it. Beginning with economists Stanley Jevons and Carl Menger, economists began to accept the marginalist subjective theory of value, where value becomes a psychological aspect of the consumer. The product only gains value as the consumer perceives it as both scarce and useful.

So no, the worker does not receive compensation less than the value he creates, simply because, while it can be said that consumer goods cannot be brought to market without the labor, there is no necessary connection between the value of a good and the labor applied (this last part was largely a quote of Menger).

Now, to reword it into a manner that is true and likely pretty consistent what you were getting at, the laborers involved in bringing some good to market in which capital goods were employed in the process will receive less than full compensation for the value of the product. Put simply: When capital and labor are combined to complete some product, the owner of capital will receive some profit despite adding no labor.

Now from there you seem to question my ability to mesh that with other statements I have made in this thread.

That I will answer in a bit. Work is keeping me from finishing this in one shot.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

First, we cannot talk as if this is an ironclad rule that follows in specifics. These are tendencies within markets, not rules for interactions. Sometimes people will receive less than others or more than others for comparable work; there will be bad and good luck. Variation is a cost and reward of freedom.

Now, with that said, it is an economic mistake to speak as if the laborer creates value. You follow a prestigious line in thinking this, as the idea was formulated with economists David Ricardo and Adam Smith. This line of thinking is called the Labor Theory of Value, where the value of a good is the equivalent to the labor invested in bringing it to its consumable state. It was not until Karl Marx appropriated the theory to explain how exploitation exists and can be measured did economists begin to question it. Beginning with economists Stanley Jevons and Carl Menger, economists began to accept the marginalist subjective theory of value, where value becomes a psychological aspect of the consumer. The product only gains value as the consumer perceives it as both scarce and useful.

So no, the worker does not receive compensation less than the value he creates, simply because, while it can be said that consumer goods cannot be brought to market without the labor, there is no necessary connection between the value of a good and the labor applied (this last part was largely a quote of Menger).

Now, to reword it into a manner that is true and likely pretty consistent what you were getting at, the laborers involved in bringing some good to market in which capital goods were employed in the process will receive less than full compensation for the value of the product. Put simply: When capital and labor are combined to complete some product, the owner of capital will receive some profit despite adding no labor.

Thanks for clearing that up. I stand corrected.

I like to add that I didn't necessarily consider that negative, if I made that impression.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Now from there you seem to question my ability to mesh that with other statements I have made in this thread.

It's more that I don't understand it. I think I agree with you, I just wondered what that statement implies.

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by Xris

Noon ,you are not listening,lobbying is a result of capitalism it requires that you use your power to unfairly influence the governments.Its not socialist idea,never was never will be.

I am not suggesting that lobbying is part of the doctrine of socialism. I am saying that lobbying is by defintion a request from some company for the government to do something which will help it, directly or indirectly (subsidy for itself, harmful regulation for its competitor, e.g.). Therefore, if the government did not have the authority to do such things (regulate, subsidize) there would be no lobbying. Again, let me reiterate. I am not suggesting that socialism desires lobbying or advocates it. We are in agreement that wealthy people and institutions will always attempt to use their power to shape policy in their favor, aren't we? My point is simply that such people or companies can only get what they want (some sort of government intervention to their advantage) in a socialistic system, because the government doesen't have the power to do what they want in a pure free market system. Can we agree on that? The logic seems pretty airtight to me. If not, give me an example of corperate lobbying that could occur if the government did not have the power to regulate and subsidize, and if there was no graduated income tax with complex loopholes (BTW, I advocate a very low flat tax).

Exploitation of labour is not a valid complaint about capitalism?Do you understand that since the industrial revolution initiated in the uk and the founder of a capitalist ideology we have seen nothing but exploitation.The socialists came into being as an answer to the uncontrolled exploitation of labour in this free for all capitalist jungle.Just come and look at our wonderful victorian houses that where built on child labour and exploited workers.Dark satanic mills.Children down mines, working from dawn to dusk in sweat shops.Now we have created labour laws fought against by the capitalist elite who saw their profits threatened.

I'm not denying that in the early days of the industrial revolution, there were some pretty horendous working conditions and practices. However, firstly, let me say there were no slaves or indentured servants; everyone who worked in a coal mine was there by choice. If anyone was being forced ot work, I oppose that. And forced labor is not a tenet of free market capitalism. As for child labor, that is a problem for me as well. If the worker is not old enough to enter into a legally binding contract, but he is forced to work by his parents, then he is a sort of slave or indentured servant. Its a tricky issue, because some people under the age of 18 (or whatever the age is in any given socoiety for entering into legally binding contracts) do want to work, so 'child labor' shouldn't be banned outright. I don't have solutions for this, but I understand your point.

However, secondly, the free market is responsible for the greatest and most rapid increase in the standard of living ever in human history. It was a process, but by the mid 20th century, the same calibre of workers who were dying in rancid Chicago slaughter houses were buying new cars, installing air condtioning in their homes, sending their kids to college, and taking vacations to Florida. Socialism is not productive of anything. Socialism is a state of decadence, to turn a philosophical phrase, which sucedes a period of growth. Socialism is the cannibalization fo wealth and prosperity. On other words, your ideal socialist states, even Norway, will eventually collapse under theit own weight, or revert to significantly lower standards of living. The latter is the plan and is happening now. 'Sustainability' = penury and a return to feudalism.

Thirdly, the improvement of working conditions was not so much the consequence of compassionate government regulation, though that played a role; it was mostly the result of the increasing mechanization of industry; i.e. there was no need for llittle Johnny to go down into the bowls of the coal mine to shove TNT into the cracks, a machine could do it, so little johnny got an easier, less dangerous job.

We now see this ideology exported to countries where the workers have no such protection and you say its fair because they dont have to work in these sweat shops, your views are in my opinion blinkered by your cushioned life style.

I'm not saying its fair. I'm saying it none of my business or yours. If Yuan Chang wants to work in a sweat shop in Shanghai and the sweat shop owner wants to hire him, that is entirely between Yuan Chang and his employer. Who am I to dictate ethics, who are you? And let me remind you of something. One of the reasons that I called 19th century America 'more or less' a free market society was the policy of the government vis a vis unions. In a free market society, the government can no more regulate voluntary assosciation of labor than it can voluntary associations of capital. One of the reasons for the nasty condition you have mentioned is that the government not only prohibited unionization (contrary to free market principles) but actively busted the unions, often with violent force. If unions were allowed to form, they woud naturally balance the power of large corporations. In China where Yuan Chang works all day for pennies, I'll bet its illegal for unions to operate, or maybe everyone is the member of the official state union, run by the government, which amounts to the same thing: no power to negotiate for better conditions or wages.

[xris]

You still fail to realise that when man women or child had to work, they have not always had a choice in their place of employment.One damned job was just as bad as the other.We had vagrancy laws where even being unemployed was a sin even though you sought work.
The working class in my opinion suffered too long without revolting against oppression.They where resilient, suffered long arduous hours, deprivation and with very little reward while their masters extravagance was openly displayed.
I am a revolutionary, i will carry the red flag with honour and pride and when i see the third world workers treated with the same contempt my blood runs with anger.
My fathers struggled for justice, im not going to let any forget the horrors good working class men women and children suffered by the hand of capitalists.
Men of power destroyed the promise of socialism with their desire for revenge and power but the message can not be destroyed.We need to respect each other, be honest and moral in all we that we do.I live by that code and still exist in capitalist society.My children ,in business, maintain that code and it makes me extremely proud.

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by xris

I am a revolutionary, i will carry the red flag with honour and pride and when i see the third world workers treated with the same contempt my blood runs with anger.

Enjoy your potato soup. No, none for me thanks.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

I am a revolutionary, i will carry the red flag with honour and pride and when i see the third world workers treated with the same contempt my blood runs with anger.

I apologize for the term, I mean no offense, but you are a useful idiot.
They will be the first ones to be removed to forced labor camps after the revolution for they know to much and they are expected to rebel when they see that their beautiful communist state brought them oppression.

[xris]

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

I apologize for the term, I mean no offense, but you are a useful idiot.
They will be the first ones to be removed to forced labor camps after the revolution for they know to much and they are expected to rebel when they see that their beautiful communist state brought them oppression.

Terms like that from you are acceptable because i don't expect anything less from a mindless nerd such as you.If it was from someones opinion i respected it might give me some problem but from you its a badge of honour.Now don't get me wrong..

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

Terms like that from you are acceptable because i don't expect anything less from a mindless nerd such as you.If it was from someones opinion i respected it might give me some problem but from you its a badge of honour.Now don't get me wrong..

Should we get back to the topic? You were about to tell me how your perfect society should work. (Except from becoming oil-rich.)

[EmperorNero]

Re: socialism.

The most socialist state of the US, California.
Listen to this, jump to minute 2, or 5, or 10.

http://910knew.com/cc-common/podcast/listen_icon.gif

Who wants a government that gone wild?

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by xris

Terms like that from you are acceptable because i don't expect anything less from a mindless nerd such as you.If it was from someones opinion i respected it might give me some problem but from you its a badge of honour.Now don't get me wrong..

Let's not name call. EmperorNero really wasn't trying to insult you. Useful idiot is a phrase adopted by the KGB to describe people who could be used to further the Soviet agenda either without knowing at all, or without realizing the full implications of the Soviet system. If you go to the other thread, I posted a bunch of links to videos on the second page or so. The one is an interview with an ex-KGB officer who defected. He uses the term and that's where Nero got it. You should watch the video. Hopefully, it will show you how the collectivists operate and make you as disgusted as I was; if we can't change your mind though, consider it an instructional video for your revolution. (As Nero said though, if you want to survive your revolution, make sure you don't know much or play too great a role)