Re: [ox-en] Robinsonades (was: Re: Role of markets)
- From: "Franz Nahrada" <f.nahrada reflex.at>
- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:08:36 +0200
Patrick I think I need to give up.
its hard to make you understand anything here. I constantly deny the fact
that the evil derives from "price above costs" and you constantly
reiterate it. No progress. Christian was less patient and I think he was
right.
"but that is only because the state is being used as a tool by
corporations that are
working against us"
but why is the tool a tool. Ever thought about why the state could be that
tool? Yes big is better for them, but its also a question of quality and
not just of size.
you write:
Competition is highest when the consumers own the Capital.
If the people that happen to have the skills to operate the Capital
are the owners, then competition would almost certainly be lower since
there are usually more consumers of a product than the workers needed
to produce it.
Still no argument against my fundamental assertion that competition begets
the need for capital as borrowed sum of money allowing to expand
production.
By 'producer' do you mean 'owner', or do you mean 'worker'?
the logic is the same. does it tell you something? When a procducer is
qwner, its the owner. If the owner emloys his own laborforce as
self-empoyed, it would be the "worker". In both cases they seek to realize
the value of the commodity on the market.
By 'value' do you mean 'profit' or 'product'?
neirher nor. it does not make a difference is there is profit in the
products price or the price reflects simply cost (including self-waging):
value must be "realized" after it is produced. (=) Products must sell, and
unless there is some sort of planned economy (which renders all money and
value obsolete) you never know if products sell. Thats the nature of
competition!
Let me see if I've got this straight:
"Value" means "Exchange Value".
- yes. But there is still a difference that you do not even see.
exchange value is the representation of value in another commodity, that
is why the closer look has to differenciate even those. But we can treat
that as a minor issue.
"Exchange Value" means "Profit".
- why? thats absolutely fluffy. Thats not a relation of equality, but
exchange value is at a much more general level. You need to introduce
money, money turns to capital, capital means money that wants to become
more money, has to act, risk and then you end up at - profit.
"Profit" means "Price above Cost".
- Christian also tried to explain that this is right and wrong at the
same time, because profit within a commodity producing society is
achievable only when there was a production process in between. Otherwise
it would be a zero - sum game. So its after the transformation of money
into commodities and the retransformation into money profit plays a role.
Some call it the "reward",,,,
"Price above Cost" occurs when workers input more or better labortime?
in the case of the capitalists employing workers I would rather say: more
AND faster. Read Marx chapters about absolute and relative surplus value!
workers are more OBJECT here than the SuBJECTS. or better: they are
subjected to capitals organisation of production.
This seems to be part of the faulty reasoning for claiming ownership
should be in the hands of those that happen to have the skills to
operate it instead of in the hands of those that need the products
thereof.
Thats a lie, no one wants to reason here that this mode of production is
meaningful or should prevail. It makes me a bit angry that you claim
anybody who analyzes the reasons why these things happen - automatically
justifies these things. In the opposite. You have to do away with value,
money and capital to resolve the issue, thats the message!
Price above Cost occurs when the consumer is "in a bind" because he
has no ownership to protect him from gouging prices. If he owned
Capital that he could not operate, he could still fulfill his goals
"at cost", without paying profit, by hiring a skilled worker.
We say in German: If my grandmother ("Omi") had four wheels she would be a
bus ("Omnibus"), meaning that you completely ignore that capital works
only on the premise that some people have it (and can employ others) and
some not (So they ARE workers). Yet you are very close to thruth: those
who have it MUST care that their valuable source of income is not consumed
away, so they hire the skilled workers to work - not just for their needs,
but for the reproduction of capital. Got it?
It also sounds like you and Marx think the worker 'deserves' the
difference between price and cost because his wage was not full, fair
compensation.
Neither me nor Marx thinks that. Marx ridiculed the Gotha Programme and
the "Recht auf den unverkürzten Arbeitsertrag", the right for the full
compensation of labours produce. No, the difference between wage and price
is nothing but the sign of succesful exploitation, and only the so called
communists could be stupid enough to organize an exploitation without
capitalists for the benefit of the workers.
As a consumer, I could hire those same workers at that same wage if
only I had "at cost" access to the Capital required for that
production. I DO have "at cost" access when I am an owner, so clearly
consumers should own Capital to eliminate the difference between price
and cost. Profit is exploitation on the consuming side, not on the
working side.
I wish you good luck with this program. You will see that even if you want
simple reproduction of the capital, you cannot simply consume it. And why
should anybody still work by the way? Arent they all consumers who could
employ capital?
No, I do not want to continue. Can somebody else pitch in?
Franz
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de