12-09-2008, 07:31 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-vishwas+Dec 9 2008, 06:10 PM-->QUOTE(vishwas @ Dec 9 2008, 06:10 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
Sure, I would. But, I am laying off jobs that <i>I created in the first place!</i> Let me repeat, these are the jobs that I created. <b>I don't owe the workers a living.</b> I can lay them off if I can get a better profit by employing a fewer number. But again, these jobs were created by me. Also, I don't see what is wrong with a capitalist making a profit. It is his money. He is taking a big risk. It is his idea. How else is he going to make a living?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're proceeding from unproven assumptions such as "it's capitalist money" without explaining how he created capital in the first place. Which means, you'll be forced to fall back on surplus value created by labor. Hence, your assumption still remains unproven. Your second unproven assumption that capitalist creates jobs...capitalists need labor to create commodities and make profits, NOT because they want to create jobs. Take the bread production example, again. If the bread is priced at such a rate that only rich can afford it, then you could still say that the capitalist is feeding people. But is he? No, he's making profits and that he's fulfilling a social need is simply a necessary evil, as Kautsky would call it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
Unemployment does not serve the capitalist, anymore than employment does. Also how are workers <i>forced</i> to produce surplus value? They don't have to, they can just leave the job. And, yes capitalists want profit.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the whole point. Why would workers leave anything, when the product belongs to them? Regarding surplus value, if workers earn the value of the things they produce, the capitalist can't even break even. Which means, it's surplus value which enables the capitalist to carry out his business. It's the foundation of capitalism. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention in your class, have you? <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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. Yes, Americans will be out of jobs. Those jobs are not owed to Americans, anymore than they are owed to Indians.
If Americans can provide the same cheap labor, Indians will be out.Perfect! That is how the system is supposed to work. If someone else can perform a service at a cheaper price than I can, he will be paid for it.
[right][snapback]91628[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which means, you admit either certain sections of the society will be out of jobs, or they'll be forced to work more for less, or face dire financial conditions. Thanks for proving my earlier point that capitalists will always try to keep unemployment alive!
Sure, I would. But, I am laying off jobs that <i>I created in the first place!</i> Let me repeat, these are the jobs that I created. <b>I don't owe the workers a living.</b> I can lay them off if I can get a better profit by employing a fewer number. But again, these jobs were created by me. Also, I don't see what is wrong with a capitalist making a profit. It is his money. He is taking a big risk. It is his idea. How else is he going to make a living?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're proceeding from unproven assumptions such as "it's capitalist money" without explaining how he created capital in the first place. Which means, you'll be forced to fall back on surplus value created by labor. Hence, your assumption still remains unproven. Your second unproven assumption that capitalist creates jobs...capitalists need labor to create commodities and make profits, NOT because they want to create jobs. Take the bread production example, again. If the bread is priced at such a rate that only rich can afford it, then you could still say that the capitalist is feeding people. But is he? No, he's making profits and that he's fulfilling a social need is simply a necessary evil, as Kautsky would call it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
Unemployment does not serve the capitalist, anymore than employment does. Also how are workers <i>forced</i> to produce surplus value? They don't have to, they can just leave the job. And, yes capitalists want profit.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the whole point. Why would workers leave anything, when the product belongs to them? Regarding surplus value, if workers earn the value of the things they produce, the capitalist can't even break even. Which means, it's surplus value which enables the capitalist to carry out his business. It's the foundation of capitalism. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention in your class, have you? <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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. Yes, Americans will be out of jobs. Those jobs are not owed to Americans, anymore than they are owed to Indians.
If Americans can provide the same cheap labor, Indians will be out.Perfect! That is how the system is supposed to work. If someone else can perform a service at a cheaper price than I can, he will be paid for it.
[right][snapback]91628[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which means, you admit either certain sections of the society will be out of jobs, or they'll be forced to work more for less, or face dire financial conditions. Thanks for proving my earlier point that capitalists will always try to keep unemployment alive!