|
Eschat0n posted:However, given the stupendous efficiency with which knowledge work injects wealth into an economy, why is it that libraries, open source licensing initiatives, pure research, and the like are not similarly championed, funded, and otherwise encouraged? Why are patents allowed to degrade this highly efficient means of improving economic growth? I don't have answers to these questions yet - usually a sign of a chink in the structure I'm imagining... that's literally what public universities are for
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
I think what you are basically asking isn't so much what is "wealth" but what is "value" op https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(economics)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:
then why are people willing to purchase completely unimproved pieces of land and count it as among their assets? seems like wealth to me it seems to me that you are trying really, really hard to describe the labor theory of value without reading anything about labor theory of value. I don't agree with the LTV but it's like you are going to incredible length to rediscover 19th century economic concepts.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:It seems to me that when you buy unimproved land you're doing it through some kind of social organization which sanctions the act and is willing to back that up with law/violence. Furthermore, the land in and of itself is not wealth-providing to society as a whole unless it is eventually improved (through work). I realize that's a nuanced argument. Well, OP, it certainly provides wealth to the individual who buys it, you say. He can sell it to someone else who then improves it, but it certainly represented wealth to that middle man, didn't it? I agree that it did, in the same way that money represents wealth. The land represents the ability to get wealth out of it by work. I can go buy an asteroid made of solid gold tomorrow, but because no one can actually go improve that asteroid, no one in their right mind agrees it represents wealth. so basically what you are saying is that property has exchange value but no use value
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
ok is op basically just reaching the conclusion property rights only exist insofar a state exists to enforce it?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
quote:- It seems more and more apparent that it was also wrong to call this thread an economics thread. What I'm really talking about is a predication of economics; a process of human life. I do still think understanding this predicate is really crucial for understanding economics rightly, though. I'm guessing the next question you'll ask is "But what are humans" Typo fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Feb 12, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:This forum is extremely paranoid. This is actually extremely true
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
I'm reminded of Eprisa
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:2. I relate how the work in his definition is (of course) a physical process which causes increases in entropy. How? I don't think entropy was even understood at the time of Marx? Granted I haven't read all 1000 pages of kapital but I never encountered this definition before. Where are you pulling the idea that Marxist definition of work is "a physical process which causes increases in entropy."?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:Yes, this part does not come from Marx. I mean, I actually think entropy as a concept in physics was under development during Marx's lifetime, but you're right that he didn't deal with it. The connection is that he says use-values are created by human labor/work. And it is trivial to say human labor is a physical process. It is further trivial to point out that physical processes cause increases in entropy. So if I run around aimlessly is that work and therefore wealth?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:
Why is this when capitalism have not being the existing economic system for the vast majority human societies for the vast majority of human history? Both Marxist and mainstream historians considers the beginning of capitalism to be sometime around early modern Europe: commonly sited in modern day low counties. Though some sees elements of it going as far back as the Roman Empire and it can be argued that Song China resembled a capitalist economy at certain points. Global capitalism, in the sense that vast majority of the world's population lives in what could be defined as capitalist states, have arguably only really existed for a couple of decades since the end of the cold war. The timeline for the existence of capitalism is a blip in human history, why do you claim that it is the "natural economic state"? Typo fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Feb 19, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
also w.r.t my last post, before you start posting another 5 paragraphs on why you think capitalism is increasing entropy or selling coconuts on mars w/e, I'm just going with this definition of capitalism:quote:a socioeconomic system with the following six characteristics: I don't think the above is particularly controversial and I hope we can both agree to use this as a framework to discuss
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:
There isn't a natural state of human economies, unless you consider hunter-gathers bartering with each other or the division of labor between male and female in a tribal context the "natural state", because that was what human economies were like the vast majority of human existence before the state existed quote:"capitalism is what happens when you get the government out of the market." when people say "capitalism" what they really mean are "markets" period, even then you have to wonder how markets are suppose to function in absence of governments enforcing property rights and contracts and arbitrating business disputes at a minimum Typo fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Feb 19, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What the gently caress does natural mean? It's a loving nonsense word unless you're talking about trees. it it's a morally loaded term to justify _________: the economic system I prefer
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:Different countries and entities practice different economies, yes. Of course they are tightly interdependent, but that's the "level of control" we as humans have over the global economy, really - a national level of control. If you want, you might force your nation to commit to a very sustainable economy that will benefit everyone in the long run - but what if another nation commits to a very unsustainable economy that reaps more dividends in the short run, allowing them to replace you in the global economy or even outright conquer you? You end up losing the ability to control as much of the global economy as you used to, and they end up controlling more of it. This does not look good for the sustainable economy. Hopefully there's a way to be sustainable and competitive at a global level. Those are very well understood problems in economics, namely externalities and the collective actions problem. Carbon emissions from USA and China sinking some pacific islands under the sea is probably one of the best example of externalities there is. And on the political science side, this goes into super-national institutions and whether nation-states as organizing units are obsolete in the 21st century. And this is why things like the Kyoto treaty (whether you think it's enough or not) exist. I'm not sure why we need to redefine work as entropy or whatever to understand this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
Eschat0n posted:It's more than those things. Externalities describe unintended consequences, but these aren't necessarily even unintended. Certain countries may even view it as their function to conquer and subsume other national economies. Collective action problems certain describe the issue, but hopefully we can get more specific than that. Super-national agreements and entities such as the EU (much more than the UN) really simply comprise larger, worse-coordinated nations, unless one of them manages world domination/cooperation. No it doesn't, from the first sentence of the wiki article I linked: quote:In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. there's nothing about intentions here, an externality can be intended or unintended this btw, is one of the problems ppl itt have with you and why they seem frustrated, namely that you seem unwilling to do like a 5 second reading of concepts that people are trying to explain to you that are really vital to understanding the issues you are coming to grasps with Typo fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Feb 21, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
quote:The desire to base all this on work and entropy is an attempt to describe how economics arises out of the conditions of the natural world (trees, per OwlFancier) and ends up with systems we have today. Ideally you could describe all economic and pre-economic systems of wealth in a single way, understand how they were inevitably going to arise given the conditions, and do all this within a framework that centralizes sustainability and efficiency while not worrying more than we have to about what is right and good. No one really cares to argue with the Laws of Thermodynamics these days, so I figured that was a good place to try to build from. Of course can argue night and day about whether or not I've properly mapped the one discipline to the other - and that's valid, and what I hope to continue doing here. But all you are really saying here is that everything uses energy and there is a finite amount of energy in the universe to be used up because the universe is (probably) finite, which is true, I'm just not sure why you need like 10 pages of words to say this or how this is non-trivial the idea that there are finite resources (scarcity) and that we need to find a good way of allocating said finite resources is the very premise of economics as a discipline: whether you are of the Marxist or Neoclassical school. I think your entire 10 page thesis when boiled down is just replace "resources" with energy or thermodynamics or something in the above statement Typo fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Feb 21, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
and OP, the idea you are vaguely coming to grasp with is something called Malthusiniasm and neo-malthusianism only instead of food and land it's energy you are using instead
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
like the thing OP is trying to say (and maybe has already said but I'm not gonna read the last 2342349 paragraphs he wrote) is basically: 1) there's a limited pool of energy 2) entropy takes away from this pool 3) work = creating wealth = using up energy = entropy 4) wealth is energy 5) this framework is useful because it encourages us to think about finite energy available to us on earth it's just that this is a pretty useless framework from just thinking about resources as resources because as others have already said the earth is not a closed system (there's more energy than we can use blasted out of the sun we just don't have the technology to fully harvest it yet) and the actual sustainability issues the Earth faces isn't that we are "running out" of energy or even specific resources like oil but rather the side effects from particular technological means of production (heh) causing specific environmental parameters like avg global temperature to change. Typo fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You're working backwards if you think policy drives circumstances rather than the other way around. it's both ways, a feedback cycle if you will
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
neither are somethingawful forums strictly speaking
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They are if you want to sell them. Nobody buys dug and refilled holes. LTV is working on the assumption that you are producing a product for use and/or sale as a commodity. but isn't this just defining the value based on someone's willingness to purchase something?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Dean of Swing posted:
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
not gonna lie guardian h'mee did pass through my mind when I was skimming through op's posts
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No the price of a thing has nothing, individually, to do with the labour required to produce it, value and price are not the same thing, I already said that. The price of things fluctuates wildly, the value of things specifically refers to the embodied labour of a product and its relation to the sum of stored wealth in existence at the time. so how do you calculate the value of a single bitcoin according to LTV?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 06:39
|
|
|
quote:Sum total of the labour required to produce it, so, the value of the labour and resources requried to generate the energy and produce the equipment necessary to perform the calculations. quote:What I can't tell you is whether or not the value, for the purpose of calculating the total economic value of the product, stays the same per unit based on its production cost. quote:If I had to guess though I would suggest it's probably you add the labour value of each unit produced onto the end and then average it across all instances of the product. But since the product stays the same as you say, its use-value doesn't change, how come the "total economic value" change when the marginal cost of production rises over time? Because of supply-demand changes the exchange value since presumably less units of buttcoin could be produced? But then how is that different from a price shift? Typo fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
you could argue that buttcoins are much closer to being a "physical" commodity like gold than an actual currency but then again in Marx's day fiat currency wasn't widespread and everyone was on the gold standard so maybe he sees currency as commodity because for him money = gold + minting under which the labor to produce isn't trivial Typo fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's exactly how you do it, right back to the raw resource extraction which is achieved via pure labour. Though of course most methods of extraction require tools produced elsewhere so you would need to plot out the whole economy to get an accurate understanding, it's not something you can really do it's a theory of how you would do it if you had to, and a way of conceiving the way the economy increases in value over time. But even if we were to, for a moment ignore the capital cost of extracting raw resources, different labor are still valued differently. Let's say we are extracting a barrel of oil from the ground. How do you establish the ratio of "labor value" for an hour of trained petroleum engineer vs hour of untrained worker whose job is just to use pickaxes to break apart rocks to get to the oil underneath (just an example I don't know poo poo about oil extraction process). Do we assume both have uniformal value? Do we fall back on the "labor hours" needed to train the engineer vs manual worker (but that once again begs the infinitely regressive and circular question of how to value -those- workers at the university or w/e) I mean if your basic point is that LTV is a philosophical concept and not an analytics tool I agree with you. quote:The total economic value changes as you bring more of a thing into existence anyway. Two cars have more value than one car because you've put more labour in to convert the raw parts to a more useful form. If you have to search around harder to get parts to build the second car, that uses more labour, and drives the value of the second car up. But what if marginal cost of production drops due to economy of scale, does that make the first car worth less? quote:It is like a price change because the increased labour costs necessitate an increased sale price for the second car, but the point of LTV is to argue that the second car is actually more valuable than the first one because it represents more embodied labour. Regardless of what you might sell it for at market. But can you see the problem with this philosophy if the two cars are identical, nobody would care that the production cost of the second car was higher in labor hours or w/e. If the second car took more hours to make but (for w/e reason) had a defect engine or w/e due to a careless mistake, would it be valued higher than the first car still? It seems to me valuing something based on the process of production rather than end product doesn't fit real life very well. Typo fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, a lot of people would suggest that an hour of a human life is actually worth the same, whether it is spent scrubbing floors or building rockets. You could reasonably include education costs in there yes, but fundamentally the argument that LTV advances is that the CEO's time is not actually worth more than yours, and the reason you get paid a fraction of what they do has nothing to do with worth and everything to do with them deciding to pay themselves more and you less because they are the only ones who get to make that decision. CEO vs worker is a pretty loaded example, because there are empirical studies showing yeah a large percentage of CEOs are useless and don't do poo poo so yeah it's easy to argue their time isn't worth anymore than your time. But I think it's really hard to make the same argument that an hour of time of a trained doctor or nuclear engineer is worth exactly the same as a manual worker or janitor. A doctor for instance, might very well be using his or her hour of time to save a life which to me is way more valuable and takes more skill than a manual worker's hour. Even if you think that they -should- be valued the same, treating all labor hours as having the same value seems like a completely unworkable way of organizing your economy. quote:I don't think so, but it definitely makes the second car worth less and thus lowers the average worth of all cars you have produced, because the socially necessary labour required to make it has decreased, even though producing it still definitely increases the total value of cars you have produced. Automation and historical labour embodied in productive capital such as a forest transformed into arable land or a mine dug to a mineral seam, or an already existing assembly line, that reduces the amount of labour someone alive today needs to do to produce things, and LTV argues that this means the products are worth less, because they require less labour to make. What should morally happen and what LTV is often used to argue, is that the gains of this production efficiency should be spread among everyone putting work-hours into the production, but instead they are generally given to the owners of the means of production to do with as they please. quote:If the production errors are genuinely accidental and require labour to fix, that has simply increased the socially necessary labour cost of producing the car. On aggregate this is part of the production cost, sometimes you will have errors and you need to budget labour hours to fix them because your means of production is imperfect. So yes, the second car is worth more because it took longer to make. Of course you can't sell it for more, but the average production cost in labour hours including fixing mistakes definitely would affect the price you sell all models of the car for, wouldn't it? can you see that this is sort of absurd? A more efficient production process which uses -less labor- per unit by LTV standards seem to be -lowering- the total economic value of same units produced. Which means the total value of your output actually -drops- as it gets more efficient and use less labor. As it gets less efficient, total value of output -increases-. quote:because they're skimming off the surplus value produced by the people who work to produce things. quote:What it should be doing is making us all live better lives, and to an extent it does, but it argues that it could be making our lives a lot better than it does if control of that production were democratically controlled Typo fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Mar 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
Ok so these posts are getting long so I'm gonna start splitting up the responsesOwlFancier posted:The argument is that the doctor's time is needed, but so is the janitor's. The heart surgery needs doing, but so does the floor need cleaning. The doctor is embodied labour in terms of the time taken to train them, so yes their time arguably is worth a bit more, but it's not, like, millions of times more. And absolutely the large majority of wage inequality is not well correlated to actual value of labour. And critically, the doctor's higher labour value is the result of labour that has been put into them. They are productive capital, in that instance, the same way a skilled labourer is. They are both needed but it seems to me that one is needed a lot more than the other: if the floors don't get cleaned at the theater for the night, worst that happens is the next morning some movie-watchers are gonna have a worse experience. If the Doctor doesn't work that night: somebody dies. But if you are acknowledging that different labor hours needs to be valued differently, that goes right back to my original question of how do you establish the ratio of value between the doctor's hour of work vs a janitor's hour of work. Typo posted:Let's say we are extracting a barrel of oil from the ground. How do you establish the ratio of "labor value" for an hour of trained petroleum engineer vs hour of untrained worker whose job is just to use pickaxes to break apart rocks to get to the oil underneath (just an example I don't know poo poo about oil extraction process). Do we assume both have uniformal value? Do we fall back on the "labor hours" needed to train the engineer vs manual worker (but that once again begs the infinitely regressive and circular question of how to value -those- workers at the university or w/e) quote:No, value per unit decreases, but the point of production efficiency is as it decreases the amount of labour needed to produce an object, you can produce more things with the same amount of labour. The total economic value produced per hour (LTV wise) remains the same as long as you have the same amount of people producing things, but that economic value encompasses more goods. And obviously the total economic value in existence increases because you have been producing longer, produced more things. Again the example of a fully automated society, that would be post scarcity, commodities would have no value, unless, of course, artificial scarcity were created by the owners of the automated means of production. Say Month 1, Socialistic Factory Co-op gets order for 10 cars, workers spend (again example) total 1000 hours to make 10 cars Month 2, Factory gets order for 10 cars, worker spends only 900 hours to make them (they got more experienced at it) but don't make more because there's only order for 10 cars It seems to me under LTV framework the second month's 10 cars would actually be valued lower than the first month's production of 10 cars. Even though the second month's was manufactured at a greater efficiency. This again, seems absurd to me but it also seems to be the natural conclusion of this framework. quote:, you can produce more things with the same amount of labour. let's say first Month factory workers make 10 cars in 1000 man-hours Let's say second month Factory workers make 15 cars in 999 man-hours (they get more experienced and faster at making cars and slacked off a bit on the side) It seems to me that under LTV framework, the second month's "batch" of 15 cars would be valued -lower- than the first month's batch of 10 cars, despite there being more items of the same quality within the second batch. Which suggests to me this framework does not work very well when applied to real life. Since value is defined in such a way that maximizing value is to maximizing labor hours used to produce a widget rather than maximizing the production of widgets at a minimum cost. Maybe this is an appealing philosophy, and granted I admittedly have fallen behind on my readings of Marxist-Leninism so maybe it's explained away in chapter 11 of Kapital or w/e and I'm just misunderstanding completely. But I don't see this as workable when applied. quote:Now you're right that people balk at the idea, but is that because it's wrong or is it because they all wish they were the one's being paid millions? Or is it because they haven't considered the possibility that, through collective action, it might be possible to organize society differently? Certainly it's not how it works currently, and if you just decided, in one company, to pay everyone equally, then a lot of people wouldn't want to work there, but perhaps that's more societal inertia making it work that way? Typo fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Mar 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
quote:As far as I'm aware it doesn't. It would argue that your "life savings" such as they are represent embodied labour, and depending on where you got them from it might dispute the legitimacy of your having them in the first place. Advocates of the theory would probably suggest that the risks of investment in production should be socialized in the same way the benefits should be. If you get together with some other people and decide to pool the surplus of your labour and it makes a very useful business, then the results of that business should be distributed among its workers, but similarly if it doesn't, then you shouldn't be left destitute. You aren't supposed to be able transition to being able to live without doing anything because you had money and now you own the company, and extract work from everyone else, but equally you shouldn't be starving because you did that and it didn't go anywhere. Socialized ownership of the means of production is generally accompanied by socialized welfare systems as well. If I use the money to start new business, am I entitled to some kind of return outside of labor rendered for taking a risk with my savings? Or are you saying that any private investment is illegitimate in this framework and only the state can do it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
quote:LVT would suggest that the value from the end of doctors and janitors is equal
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:"Saving" implies either you were unjustly overcompensated for your labor and thus your wealth is stolen from someone who was undercompensated OR you subjected yourself to a lower standard of living than you should have had. But subjecting yourself to unhappiness is not justification to make up for your unhappiness by subjecting others to cruelty. I don' t think I follow this line of logic I defer consumption for the future (that's saving) out of wages paid to me for overfilling Socialistic quotas, how am I "subjecting others to cruelty"? Or am I misreading your argument. is deferring consumption to the future (trading a lower standard of living for today in exchange for higher standard of living tomorrow) inherently illegitimate as well? Is stuffing my money into a piggy bank instead of spending it today exploiting somebody? If so, do I literally have to spend my earnings the second I receive them to fulfill socialistic principles? quote:A doctor and janitor work just as hard so their labor has the same value. When you look at the value they provide society you're looking at a market demand definition of value. In LTV value is from the perspective of the laborer, or the doctor and janitor. Typo fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The suggestion is generally that you wouldn't live in a society where you have a right to own a factory, much less where you would be saving the capital required to do it. Your factory would also be collectively owned by all its workers. so is collecting interest from a business loan legitimate if I (an individual) don't own shares in w/e business I'm lending to?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Oh, no, I mean the act of profiting off private property. The act of pocketing wealth from your workers because you own the means of production is cruelty. quote:The idea of saving in the first place is antithetical to socialism. The reward for exceeding quotas and the widget factory is an economy with more widgets and thus everyone in the society has greater access to widgets, yourself included. quote:See, you're stuck in this very capitalist mindset. The idea is that everyone is entitled to an equal share of the economy. It's not you work an hour to earn a soda. You work an hour to contribute to society. Because society has enough sodas, you can consume a soda. Like I'm not arguing against your point, I just want to be clear where you are getting this from quote:Well, obviously we should prioritize doctor training to janitor training. But the reason is because human life is more important than clean floors, not because one is more valuable. But it seems to me like you -are- telling me that doctor labor hour is more valuable than janitor labor hour
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Hell no, usury is like the platonic ideal of capitalism. Just because you have money doesn't mean you have a right to force other people to give you more money for the privilege of borrowing it. so let's say I'm an individual who worked very hard at my socialist co-op and accumulated $1000 am I allowed to loan this at 2% interest to another newer Socialist co-op whose workers I know and all met with me and all agreed to pay me the 2% interest to buy a piece of machinery which increases profit by 4%? Or is that still considered exploitation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes it's exploitation, because you are charging them a portion of their surplus for the pleasure of having access to your capital. You can do this because you have the capital and they do not. The nature doesn't change because you made the numbers smaller. so if the state investment fund gains returns on capital (so they have more money to invest into other industries etc), is that exploitation? Does ROI need to be 0 at all times for the investor. Typo fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Savings, context matters. Saving under socialism is a non-sequitur. People don't own capital TO invest. Under capitalism, as I said, you saved one of two ways- you were overcompensated for your work (your savings are stolen from an undercompensated worker) or you lived below your own means. The former is unethical, the latter is ethical though masochistic. What about differed consumption? Let's say I'm throwing a party next month so I save up a little this month to spend more the next? That doesn't seem masochistic to me. Are you equating Socialism with "post-scarcity"? quote:The axiom is "violence is wrong." LTV suggests that private property is violence. Ergo, in an ethical socialist society means of production and excess production belong to society not individuals. quote:Taking advantage of that society without upholding your duty to that society is violence (i.e. he who does not work, neither shall he eat.) So how does LTV treat people who work but work more or less, is the guy who work 9 hours a day deserving of same share of the economy as the guy who works 4 hours a day? quote:What I'm arguing is OBJECTIVELY the hour of heart surgery and hour of floor cleaning have the same value or cost society the same. quote:But not all labour is a mere expenditure of simple human labour-power; very many sorts of labour involve the use of capabilities or knowledge acquired with the expenditure of greater or lesser effort, time and money. Do these kinds of compound labour produce, in the same interval of time, the same commodity values as simple labour, the expenditure of mere simple labour-power? Obviously not. The product of one hour of compound labour is a commodity of a higher value—perhaps double or treble — in comparison with the product of one hour of simple labour. Typo fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Shall I take by your total silence on my last post that you're conceding the argument? your post is pretty long (which I appreciate) and I will respond to it in due time, I'm not ignoring it
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Private capital, very specifically. quote:So, okay, I suppose you can limit your beer consumption in HOPES that we will have enough for a kegger next month, but without controlling other people's consumption that relationship is very abstract. This sort of society sounds outright totalitarian, even more so than real life Stalinism. It's one thing to ban people from buying shares of stocks in companies they don't work in, it's another to ban someone from saving up food and beverages for their kid's birthday party next month. I suspect whatever the principles are, implementing this sort of political economy is going to involve a lot of cases of government police going to farmer's houses and forcibly taking their seeds for planting next year and the food they have stocked for the winter to feed themselves. I leave the implications up to you. quote:It's less they deserve to starve as society is under no obligation to feed them. And I'm talking WILLFULLY refusing to contribute to society. If a farmer says he needs help on his field and you say you don't feel like it, maybe they don't "feel" like sharing their bread. quote:I would instead argue that members of a society are owed equal share of goods (at least, so much as the can actually use them. Obviously someone without children doesn't have "equal rights" to diapers) and we owe to society whatever our fair share of work is. That fair share of work is going to require context. If society works fine with everyone working 30 hours a week then 30 hours a week is your fair share. And if we're in a famine and everyone needs to put in 9 hour days farming then that's the fair share. Typo fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Mar 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2019 04:28
|
|