12-09-2008, 02:26 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->To explain this further, take the production of bread, for instance. If bread is produced to fulfill social needs, we call it the socialist mode production. But if bread is produced to make profits, we're purposely starving people by putting a price tag. Now the counter argument from capitalists usually is, People should work, then they can pay for anything. But the truth is, unemployment can only soar in the capitalist system, because it's in the capitalists' interest to hire less workers (so as to cut down on labor costs and increase profits). He purposely keeps unemployment alive, or he would go out of business.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Let us talk about an individual capitalist. How does he keep unemployment alive? Is that really his goal? Say, I decide to start a company to make cars. The first thing I need to do, is to <i>employ</i> workers. How can I make cars without employing them? I don't have much of a choice in the matter.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> It's similar to banks keeping debt alive. No debts=No banks.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, you think banks should not give out loans? Why not? Do you think, that if banks would not give out loans, no one else would? What about moneylenders in the disorganized sector? If all these were banned, how would those who need money now in the hopes of investing it to make more money live?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the capitalist mode of production itself is made possible by LABOR POWER ONLY, raw materials don't become wealth by magic. In other words, if capitalist mode of production itself is possible only through labor, what's wrong with the state giving labor a fair share by taxing the rich?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Also, <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Likewise, no unemployment means capitalism would disappear (because profits would disappear, since workers will get the full value of labor, therefore there's no surplus value).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Why should workers get the full value of labor? They did not create it alone in the first place. A good or service is created by atleast 3 things:
1. The initial technological or entrepreneurial idea
2. Capital - which includes all kinds of resources, including money, land, etc.
3. Labor - which includes what the workers and the managers do.
Take, for instance, the Indica car, manufactured by the Tatas. Do you think Ratan Tata and his executive team (which brought in the initial idea and the capital) should not get any credit at all, for the manufacture of the Indica. No reward at all? If not, how much? How did you calculate it?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> It's similar to banks keeping debt alive. No debts=No banks.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, you think banks should not give out loans? Why not? Do you think, that if banks would not give out loans, no one else would? What about moneylenders in the disorganized sector? If all these were banned, how would those who need money now in the hopes of investing it to make more money live?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the capitalist mode of production itself is made possible by LABOR POWER ONLY, raw materials don't become wealth by magic. In other words, if capitalist mode of production itself is possible only through labor, what's wrong with the state giving labor a fair share by taxing the rich?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Also, <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Likewise, no unemployment means capitalism would disappear (because profits would disappear, since workers will get the full value of labor, therefore there's no surplus value).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Why should workers get the full value of labor? They did not create it alone in the first place. A good or service is created by atleast 3 things:
1. The initial technological or entrepreneurial idea
2. Capital - which includes all kinds of resources, including money, land, etc.
3. Labor - which includes what the workers and the managers do.
Take, for instance, the Indica car, manufactured by the Tatas. Do you think Ratan Tata and his executive team (which brought in the initial idea and the capital) should not get any credit at all, for the manufacture of the Indica. No reward at all? If not, how much? How did you calculate it?