Subject: Re: TO GEORGE ORWELL HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST

From: [email-masked] (Big O )
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 14:37:01 -0700

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Terry
Johnson) wrote:

=| In <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Big
O ) writes:
=| >
=| >In short, the worker does not OWN any of his/her own labor - the state
=| >does; thus implying that the worker does not even own him/herself - the
=| >state does.   The worker gets only the fruit of his/her labors the state
=| >deems as surplus to the state's needs.  And the state's needs will always
=| >expand to consume nearly all the amount of wealth (fruits of labor) the
=| >workers create.
=| >
=| >Just another name for feudal serfdom!!!  With the state replacing the
=| >feudal lords of yore.
=| >
=| But your contention--or at least that of the authors of the sophomoric 
=| critique of Marx's theory of value that you posted--is that everything 
=| that is not paid in wages to the worker is created by the capitalist.
=| Or, in other words:

=| "In short, the worker does not OWN any of his/her own labour--the capitalist 
=| does; thus implying that the worker does not even own him/herself--the 
=| capitalist does. The worker gets only the fruit of his/her labour that the 
=| capitalist deems as surplus to the capitalist's needs. And the
capitalist's needs 
=| will always expand to consume nearly all the wealth (fruits of labour) the 
=| workers create."

The worker very much owns his/her own labor in a capitalist system and
he/she has basically these options from which to voluntarily choose from:

a) To freely use his/her own labor to create whatever items and services
they deem they require for their lifestyle.  {The totally self-sufficient
person.}
b) To freely use his/her own labor to create whatever items and services
they believe they can trade to acquire whatever items and services they
deem they require for their lifestyle.  {The self-employed business
man/woman.}
c) To freely exchange his/her own labor for whatever items they deem they
require for their lifestyle.  {Actually a subset of (b) above.  The
typical employee entering into a mutual contract with a business owner.}
d) All of the above.  {The typical everyday person.}

Socialism does not offer these options to the individual for even the
totally self-sufficient person is forcefully required to fork-over a
portion of their fruits of labor to the collective.

If a capitalist only gave the worker's that which was deemed as surplus
the capitalist's needs, then why would capitalists give the workers
anything since you are claiming that the capitalist's needs will always
expand to consume nearly all the wealth the workers create?  In such a
system there would be no businesses existing for workers to exchange their
labor for since there would be no items/services to be given in exchange
to the workers.  I.e. - the only options left open are (a) and (b) above.

This claim of yours is unsubstantiated because it fails to explain why
there are many places in the USA where very few jobs exist at the min-wage
level -- employers are having to offer higher then min-wage wages to get
qualified employees to come to work for them.

=| Marx's point is that, once the capitalist were removed, the workers owuld be 
=| free to make their own decisions about how much of their product should be 
=| expended on their personal consumption, and how much for investment, 
=| social goods, and provision for the poor. His point is that these decisions, 
=| instead of being made privately, by the capitalist, would be made 
=| democratically, by the workers as a whole.

Marx's concept that people can democrately decide what they can
steal/extort from each other is proof that Marxism does NOT recognize that
the individual owns his/her labor.  Marxism only works in a society where
ALL of people do not believe that they own themselves and thus do not own
their labor -- a society where the state owns all -- a society of
absolutely marxist perfect individuals (which have not, do not, nor will
ever exist).  Therefore, Marxism, to function on a large scale, must
resort to the use of initial force against those that refuse to put the
collectivist ring through their noses.

In a truely free society, marxism can exist on a small scale in small
communities where ALL the members of the community have ***voluntarily***
accepted to follow the doctrine and where initial force will not be used
to increase or maintain membership in the community.  On a large scale,
socialism, in all of its may forms, must resort to the use of initial
force against those individuals that refuse to ***voluntarily*** accept
and follow the doctrine established.

Friedrich A. Hayek:  "That socialism can be put into practice only by
methods which most socialists disapprove is, of course, a lesson learned
by many social reformers in the past."

=| >No. Scarcity, what they can be used for (besides in jewelry), and what
=| >some one is willing to pay for them.
=| >Why do you think most industrial grade diamonds in the USA are now
=| >man-made (requiring very little humn labor) instead of being imported?  
=| If you'd read some Marx,

I read Marx over 30 years ago!
 
=| Price, as I said, is a product of supply and demand. Marx did not argue 
=| otherwise. But long-term changes in the average price of a commodity, he 
=| argued, were the result of changes in the amount of socially necessary 
=| labour required to produce it. It doesn't matter who does the labour. It's 
=| the fact that it requires labour to produce that gives it value.

The value of my old books has nothing to do with the labor that went into
producing them.  In fact, adjusting for inflation, they would be probably
valued at far many times than they are now if the labor was the ruling
factor.

=| >Regardless how much labor goes into producing something, if there is no
=| >buyers then the value of the labor is zero.  Otherwise, we would still be
=| >producing lots of buggywhips and those owning the inventory would be
=| >wealthy.
=| >
=| How many times do I have to repeat the words "socially necessary labour"? 
=| It's not a difficult concept to understand. Labour expended in the
creation of 
=| a commodity that does not sell does not create value and is not socially 
=| necessary. It's wasted.

Under capitalism one only looks at "necessary labour", not "socially
necessary labour" -- because the later very quickly leads to
featherbedding and creating jobs that produce no services and products
that have 'value-added' and thus are not creating wealth, just consuming
it at the expense of others, who do produce services and products that
have 'value-added' and thus are ,creating wealth, through higher prices
and taxes.

=| >The value is because there is a demand for it; with no demand, then
=| >regardless of how much or how little labor goes into extracting it, it is
=| >has no value.  Otherwise, we would still be producing lots of buggywhips
=| >and those owning the inventory would be wealthy.
=| 
=| Repeating yourself just makes you look stupid.

Preaching Marxism just makes you look stupid.

=| Here's a question for you. 
=| How much woudl a car be worth if it took the labour of 1,000 men to produce 
=| it? Would it be worth less if one man could produce the same car with his 
=| own labour in a single day?

Did 999 of the 1000 do nothing but collect a paycheck?

Did the self-employed person do such with a tremendous investment in technology?

Very possibly the cost of the investment in technology to allow a single
person to produce a vehicle in a day could exceed the cost of the 999
additional employees and the price to sell it would have to be set higher
to at least recover costs.  If it didn't sell at the higher price, then
the self-employed person would very quickly be out of business.

The actual worth, in both cases, is what people are willing to pay for it.

=| The supply of commodities is a function of the amount of social labour 
=| required to produce them. If a new technique reduces the amount of necessary 
=| labour, then the value--and price--of the commodity will fall. Why? Because 
=| the effective supply will increase.

New technology is not limited to just reducing the amount of labor
required.  New technology can provide better materials which didn't exist,
regardless of the labor; and can provide new processes to handle materials
which weren't usable before, regardless of the labor.  These can lead to
significantly lower prices without changing the labor involved.  These can
also lead to many new products and services that basically were not
possible, regardless of the labor and thus create many new jobs.

=| >That is still very typically before the products are sold in most
=| >businesses.  Therefore, for most instances of employement, the BOTTOM LINE
=| >is that the business is making a major advance while the worker makes a
=| >very minor advance.  A business is typically assuming a greater risk
=| >because the employeer has a contract with the employee to regularly pay
=| >the employee but the business does not always have a contract with buyers
=| >to purchase all of the product made.
=| >
=| How does risk create value?

Without rewarding 'risk taking' there will be little or no risk taking and
thus new products, services, processes, businesses formed, etc., etc.,
etc. and all the jobs associated with such will not appear as quickly --
thus the value derived from 'risk taking' is faster economic growth and
better products and services in a shorter period of time.

=| Why do you assume capitalists are the only risk-takers?

I didn't say they were the 'only' risk-takers.  But risk-taken has to be
done smartly and capitalism seems provides far more incentives to do such.

=| All capitalists risk, if they risk anything at all, is their capital;
workers, 
=| in the course of their jobs, risk their lives.

Where did the capitalists get that capital in the 1st place -- mostly from
taking risks with their own lives.  You are a typical marxist under the
delusion that all capitalist are born in beds lined with millions of
dollars.  An overwhelming majority of the millionaires in the USA are
self-made out of their own hard work and risk-taking.

Suggestion -- go into business for yourself and after 5 years come back
and tell us how easy it was to become a wealthy capitalist.

I'm a capitalist.  I work as an electronics engineer and take risks with
some of the fruits of my labor and invest in stocks, bonds, etc.

=| Saying capitalists are paid well because they take risks with their capital 
=| is like saying generals are paid well because they take risks with their 
=| military reputations.  

Capitalists are paid well because they are suppose take wise risks with
their capital; just like generals are paid well because they take wise
risks with the military resources at their command.  Capitalists that
don't make enough wise decisions are soon broke and out of the business;
generals that don't make enough wise decisions are soon relieved of ther
command, captured, or killed.

=| >Can be done, though, if the landlord believes you are a good credit risk. 
=| >Or you might even offer the landlord a share of the profits for assuming
=| >some of the risks.
=| >
=| Come on. How common is it for landlords to collect the June rent on June 
=| 30, and not June 1? How often have you moved into an apartment and 
=| paid neither rent, nor damage deposit, until after your first month's 
=| occupancy?
=| You won't get anywhere by treating me and anyone else following this 
=| thread as if we were shut-ins or imbeciles.

Obviously, most landlords don't consider most people to be good credit
risks or don't want to assume some of the risks (if the place being rented
was for a business).  But that is their FREEDOM to make that choice.  It
is not your right to dictate to them how they will make that choice.
 
=| >Furthermore, it does not account for what is a $20 bottle of red wine
=| >today being worth only $5 (in constant $) 5 years later and then $5,000
=| >(in constant $) 50 years later yet the labor "worked up or crystallized in
=| >it" never changed.
=| >
=| You're making two logical errors.
=| One, you're assuming that storage of a commodity doesn't come at any 
=| cost. Commodities generally increase in price over time as a direct function 
=| of the cost of storing them--until, that is, they can be replaced by another 
=| commodity of equivalent value. That's why grain prices drop at harvest and 
=| rise through the winter and spring--all other factors being equal.

The cost of storage, in the above example has very little, if anything, to
do with increase in value.  A different bottle of wine setting right next
to the first might get sold for $4 fifty years later yet it would have
been stored the same amount of time as the first.

The cost for storing grain has very little to do with the changes in the
prices.  Supply and demand do!  The cost of the grain storage facility,
depreciated over its useful life span, is very little and the operation
and maintenance of such is typically very little.

Currently wheat prices in the USA have gone from $3.50 to $6.50 per bushel
and it ain't because of storage costs.

=| Two, you're assuming that because some wines appreciate in value over time, 
=| all do. That isn't true. The average price of wine, of any vintage, is
a function 
=| of the labour required to produce it, Marx would argue; but the price
of each 
=| individual bottle of wine will vary according to supply and demand, or to 
=| changing consumer preferences.
=| A 30-year-old Bordeaux commands a high price because it takes a great deal 
=| of labour to produce another commodity of equivalent quality. But its price--
=| and its underlying value--will change in conjunction with changes in the 
=| productivity of labour.
=| Otherwise, we'd ALL be expending our labour producing wine.

I didn't say all wines wines appreciate in value over time, most
depreciate after being 10 years old.

Price per vintage year is far more influnced by the quality of the grapes
which is a function of that year's growing season.  The labor typically
remains the same year-to-year but prices can vary signiicantly
year-to-year.

=| >Thus they have to create a new product (e.g. - custom or to-order
=| >hand-weaving) and/or find a new market that is willing to pay the same or
=| >higher wages for the same amount of effort as before.
=| >
=| Yep. Maybe you are getting it?

That's what capitalism and the free market are about!!!  Glad to see that
you're dumping marxism.

=| >Otherwise, they either have to accept progress or join it; but stop the
=| >belly-aching.
=| >
=| Nope. You're not.
=| This isn't about belly-aching.
=| It's about economics.

And marxism is NOT doing well when compared to the Austrian School of
Ecomonics.  Read von Mises and Hayek.

-- 
"Big O" <[email-masked]>

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have 
made laws.  On the contrary, it was the fact that life, 
liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to 
make laws in the first place."
      Frederic Bastiat

"Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will."
      Alexander Hamilton

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone 
seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
      Frederic Bastiat

"Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income 
pie, decent government is impossible."
      Friedrich A. Hayek