If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Something like that, yes. Production of anything is usually a team effort. How do you measure the value of each person's input?
No, it is not a justifiable return as you aren't actually doing any work.
Nope.
The government doesn't neccesarily have to be the owners of the means of production.
Well its kind of difficult, seeing as you have so many mistaken assumptions. But here goes - the Soviet system was state capitalism, because instead of a private individual appropriating profit from surplus labour, it was the state and this surplus labour (profit) was used to keep the state elite in luxury while everyone else ate potatoes. The mistakes of the USSR were many and without going into the entire history of the revolution, it kind of boils down to differences in theory - dictatorship of the proletariat and the necessity of vanguards vs people's co-op's and collectives etc. Look it up if you're that interested.
Like the labour theory of value you mean?
Well yes, exactly.
See above
People who own the MoP but don't actually work themselves - shareholders for instance.
sounds rather primitive to me.
As Klintock points out, there's nothing abstract about the theory. Why do you think inflation occurs? Is it some abstract theory that doesn't really operate within the realms of reality or is it the devaluation of money due to the fact that it's not backed by anything tangible? You create more money and it's value decreases. This is exactly the reason why the American economy is so screwed at the moment and part of the reason, i'd speculate, that we have the war in Iraq. It's not the oil as such that they're after, it's what the oil means to the dollar in an economical sense when it's exclusively traded in it.
But these peoples money helps create value.
The money these people invest, buys the machines etc that the workers use to make the products.
So how can you say that these people deserve no reward?
The MArxist attitude to shareholders is vastly outdated, when Marx was writing, the 'capitalist' was the rich person, ordinary people were sperated form them.
Now most people can and do earn shares, shares they buy with the money they earned form their labour........
Why don't people use common sense?
Take a look at the world, is it better or worse, in an economic sense, than when money 'had real value'
It is better, if you claim otherwise you are an idiot........
This makes it difficult for you to argue that the devaluation of money is such a bad thing, doesn't it?
Money not being backed by Gold as a reason for the war in Iraq?
Genius,,,,,,,,,,,,,
How?
That's not creating value.
Because they do no work.
You haven't actually said anything here.
"most people" don't own shares - and yes, they may have bought them with money they earned but so what?
More people are depressed and on anti depressants in the West, than before, or in other countries.
Sure is great living here, no? And our faith in the system is shown by increasingly low voter turnouts. It was a good idea, Democracy and Capitalism. Shame it doesn't work properly.
Can't combine the two without sacrificing the other.
If a worker tries to build something with primitive tools they will not create much value. If an investor comes along and says he will give the worker money to buy modern tools, so that he can build more stuff, then he has helped create value, and by your own logic, deserves reward.
No he has not done any labour himself, but the money he used to invest was from his own labour.
Who are you to say what someone should do with the proceeds of their labour?
I would have to find out, but it would not surprise me if most people (in the Uk) owned shares, would it you?
a) You would rather live 100 years ago, or some other time or place, if so you are probably an idiot.......
b) What has voter turnouts got to do with capitalism, voter turnouts are lower now than they were in the 80s and it might be argued that UK was more capitlaist then.....
Well, no, its likely actually that the money invested was stolen off someone else.
Well exactly, this is the crux of the matter. Who are you to say that I can't keep the proceeds of my labour?
Yes, it would.
I can't see where anyone has said that.
Go on the, argue it (this should be good
Ahhh, so you concede that investment adds value then?
What money is this that was stolen off someone else, who are you thinking of exactly?
Well the govt share of the economy is larger now than it was under Maggie (we are getting back to topic in a round about way!)
This is silly thats a valid argument and your dismissing it as usual with a cheep comment totaly irrelevent to the discussion
That could be a man who has retired say a retired Doctor, gives some younger man money to buy/equip a garage, from his lifes savings in return for free mainatence on his can and a share of the profits, whats wrong with that hows it steeling.
I don't understand your posts at all. It's all gibberish.
No.
You and me. See my thread "Why I'm a socialist" from a few months ago.
Is it? In what way? Figures please.
To quote
Why is it that investors are thieves?
Who is it that the money has been stolen off and in what way?
The Weimar Republic.
Go and look up what happens to the "value" of scraps of paper.
No, its actually the crux of the matter.
Nothing wrong with that. I never said there would be. Please try and keep up.
We've been through this so many times on here - if you're interested, do a search. I've already pointed you in the right direction.
So thats an example of people turning a profit off money, ie investing
If you havnt got a problem with that then yopu accept that its legitimate to make a profit from investing yes ?
OK so there are unscruplous deal taking place where money is dubiously aquired, if you object to those such deals then the way forward is with regulation perhaps a "speculation Tax" firmer rules on company ownership so someone cant buy a company with its own debt.
But that's not the point, is it?
If the retired doctor kept all of the profits and made the man work for £5.50 an hour then it would be stealing the labour of the employee. It's an obvious difference, it's not a hard point to grasp.
I'm not in the business of criticising individuals like in this scenario, its pathetic and a waste of time. However, the basic relations on a macro scale in a capitalist system are exploitative. There's no getting away from it, its how the system works. People are forced to sell their labour to other people in order to survive.
Yes in that case the paper was valueless and guess what it was very bad most people ended up existing within a barter economy and people wernt happy with it, nor would you be.
A much better system is where the government keeps controlle of the money supply keeps people beleiving in "valueless paper" then guess what it stops being valueless, you can get paid in it and buy with it therefore its not valueless is it?