12-09-2008, 05:07 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-vishwas+Dec 9 2008, 02:26 PM-->QUOTE(vishwas @ Dec 9 2008, 02:26 PM)<!--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.Let us tal k 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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe any socialist would suggest that you can make cars without employing labor, so relax. The problem is, How much labor. Let's say you can employ 10 people to produce a certain commodity and make X profit. But employing 5, you can reduce labor costs and let's say you can make 5 times X. As a capitalist, you'd rather cut down jobs to increase profits. But that's not all. Labor hours for the 5 workers will be increased to account for the reduction in the workforce, which is why we still have sweatshops and such precarious working conditions.
So not is only unemployment inevitable (because it serves the capitalist), but those who're employed will be forced to produce surplus value to compensate for it. All because capitalists want profit. Not a coincidence that labor is moving from west to India (outsourcing), it's because capitalists want cheap labor from India to make profits. Which means, Americans will be out of jobs. If Americans can provide the same cheap labor, Indians will be out. Either way, workers will pay the price on behalf of capitalists. And this is just a small instance.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> It's similar to banks keeping debt alive. No debts=No banks.
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?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try to understand the meaning of 'money,' before you ask these questions. Money that's created today isn't really backed by gold, which means it doesn't correspond to any physical commodity that has value. Meaning, the loans being given are NOT given out of goodness of the heart (LOL at that), but to keep people in debt. Let me give another example. Suppose you deposit a chair, and I loan out a table. A transaction like this wouldn't run into difficulty, because both of them are physical commodities.
OTOH, with money functioning as medium of exchange, a lot of manipulation can and will be done, because I don't have to prove that the money I loan has value corresponding to that of the table (or any other commodity). Which means, even if the borrower fails to return the money, I still make profits from your deposits (which are promptly converted to tangible physical assets). Which means, the so-called losses that I make are simply profits that I miss out on, and NOT losses in the conventional sense. And this process continues with multiple customers, which means poor people are perpetually in debt, whereas rich get richer, EVEN IF THEY MAKE LOSSES.
But to understand all this, it's necessary that you understand how the monetary system works. Then you'll see how the system itself is created by the elite to fool the masses.
<!--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). 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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are all old questions, answered by Marxists many years ago. #1 is product of labor, and an idea is useless unless labor is employed to translate to reality#2 what you call capital, if it's a finished good, machinery, technology, it's a product of labor.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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?
[right][snapback]91620[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Labor theory of value will help you understand this.
I don't believe any socialist would suggest that you can make cars without employing labor, so relax. The problem is, How much labor. Let's say you can employ 10 people to produce a certain commodity and make X profit. But employing 5, you can reduce labor costs and let's say you can make 5 times X. As a capitalist, you'd rather cut down jobs to increase profits. But that's not all. Labor hours for the 5 workers will be increased to account for the reduction in the workforce, which is why we still have sweatshops and such precarious working conditions.
So not is only unemployment inevitable (because it serves the capitalist), but those who're employed will be forced to produce surplus value to compensate for it. All because capitalists want profit. Not a coincidence that labor is moving from west to India (outsourcing), it's because capitalists want cheap labor from India to make profits. Which means, Americans will be out of jobs. If Americans can provide the same cheap labor, Indians will be out. Either way, workers will pay the price on behalf of capitalists. And this is just a small instance.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> It's similar to banks keeping debt alive. No debts=No banks.
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?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try to understand the meaning of 'money,' before you ask these questions. Money that's created today isn't really backed by gold, which means it doesn't correspond to any physical commodity that has value. Meaning, the loans being given are NOT given out of goodness of the heart (LOL at that), but to keep people in debt. Let me give another example. Suppose you deposit a chair, and I loan out a table. A transaction like this wouldn't run into difficulty, because both of them are physical commodities.
OTOH, with money functioning as medium of exchange, a lot of manipulation can and will be done, because I don't have to prove that the money I loan has value corresponding to that of the table (or any other commodity). Which means, even if the borrower fails to return the money, I still make profits from your deposits (which are promptly converted to tangible physical assets). Which means, the so-called losses that I make are simply profits that I miss out on, and NOT losses in the conventional sense. And this process continues with multiple customers, which means poor people are perpetually in debt, whereas rich get richer, EVEN IF THEY MAKE LOSSES.
But to understand all this, it's necessary that you understand how the monetary system works. Then you'll see how the system itself is created by the elite to fool the masses.
<!--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). 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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are all old questions, answered by Marxists many years ago. #1 is product of labor, and an idea is useless unless labor is employed to translate to reality#2 what you call capital, if it's a finished good, machinery, technology, it's a product of labor.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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?
[right][snapback]91620[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Labor theory of value will help you understand this.