Capitalism vs Socialism

12-09-2008, 12:09 AM

I posted the below as a new thread, but apparently, the moderator doesn't want me to start new threads and wants me to use existing thread. Although, it beats me as to why, since there's no thread relevant to my post anywhere. But here goes nothing...I am reposting it below.

Discuss, if you care to. I've already lost faith in Hindus, so mean and cold, even when dealing with new posters. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /> And we wonder why Hindus have so few friends.

Hello Friends! smile.gif

I've always been a social democrat, but the recent events (not just terrorism but also political developments) made me rethink my beliefs. It's clear that Hinduism and Hindus are under threat, but I am still not convinced that social democracy isn't the right way. And when I say social democracy, I am referring to the systems prevalent in Scandinavian countries, NOT to the nonsense being done in the name of socialism by our Indian communists/Nehruvian socialists. mad.gif So please, let's be clear on that.

I am confused as to how Hindutva or any ideology that's based on nationalism can ever be free of conflict, because inherent in such philosophies is the 'us vs them' attitude. So I'd like some clarification on that.

Also, I am surprised as to why no Hindu here and elsewhere fails to recognize capitalism as the real problem behind terrorism. For instance, if A is a terrorist and B the victim of the said terrorist, then a capitalist would rather sell arms to both parties and expand profits. So why would he try and solve the problem of terrorism, when keeping it alive would benefit him? mad.gif He wouldn't, which explains why western countries and our money-minded politicians keep terrorism alive. Capitalism views everything as a business opportunity, and terrorism is no exception.

Second, if we identify ourselves as Hindus, we're pitted against Muslims, Christians, communists, capitalists, and these people are a huge number controlling 100 nations, oil and other resources, a powerful military, amongst other advantages. It's impossible to fight against such odds. sad.gif More importantly, a Hindu in India has nothing in common with a Muslim in Pakistan. But the same Hindu as a worker has a lot in common with the muslim worker in pakistan. So would it not be better to approach the whole problem as a socialist, rather than as a Hindu, because that way, we'll have something in common with all nations/cultures/races/religions?

Hopefully, I haven't offended anyone with this. I am not trying to impose socialism, just wondering whether Hindus, like the Jews of the 20th century, are in a position where they have to become socialists (by political orientation, NOT that they have to give up their religion) in order to become an international movement, and thereby gain strength. smile.gif

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 12-09-2008, 02:34 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

QUOTEI've always been a social democrat, but the recent events (not just terrorism but also political developments) made me rethink my beliefs. It's clear that Hinduism and Hindus are under threat, but I am still not convinced that social democracy isn't the right way. And when I say social democracy, I am referring to the systems prevalent in Scandinavian countries, NOT to the nonsense being done in the name of socialism by our Indian communists/Nehruvian socialists. mad.gif So please, let's be clear on that.
I do not want to get into economics too much on this thread but suffice it to say that what happens in the Scandinavian countries is called a nanny state, and I would even go so far as to say legalized theft by the gov't is what it is. They work from the assumption that people who are rich are somehow to blame for the status of the underclass, and thus the gov't shall take some of their money and under their esteemed oversight give it to the people in need. The problem with that is, first off there is a general principle we can note on our own from everyday observation, people generally don't spend other peoples money as carefully as they spend their own money. When the gov't takes money off the rich and spends it on the poor, their intentions maybe good but the reality is that it's not their money and they won't have the same carefulness when they spend it. The second problem with that assumption is who gives the gov't the right to play robin hood which if an individual did would land him in jail. Of course there are other side effects typical of such ideologies, the people in power think they know whats best for us, if for exmaple someone doesn't want gay marriage then shut up your say doesn't matter because that is a fundamental right they say, but if the same guy wants to fight all out bare knuckle with another adult after they both signed an agreement saying they know the risks, well then out comes the gov't saying that it's too violent and dangerous, and they know whats the best way for you to fight.

The solution to poverty does not lie in gov't thieving from the well off and giving it to people who they decide need it but in what private individuals themselves do, people who go out with novel ideas and create new jobs, or establish private schools with minimal fees so that kids in poverty can have education do far more to uplift people from poverty than gov't sponsored welfare schemes do, not the gov't which doles out welfare perpetually so that the people who they are supposed to help end up with no incentive at all to ever get off welfare (why should they, when the gov't is paying for everything?)

I will deal with your other points later on.

Bharatvarsh · 12-09-2008, 02:59 AM

QUOTEI am confused as to how Hindutva or any ideology that's based on nationalism can ever be free of conflict, because inherent in such philosophies is the 'us vs them' attitude. So I'd like some clarification on that.
Savarkar who coined the word Hindutva always said that ultimately nationalism was too narrow of an ideology and that one day it too will have to go away in favor of humanism but he said that with an important caveat, as long as others in the world are not ready to give up their own nationalism Hindus should not do so either. If the world voluntarily moves toward discarding narrow nationalism in time then the Hindus too shall shall take part in it but as long as others aggressively maintain their religious/national identity as Muslims, Christians, British etc it is SUICIDAL for Hindus alone to give up a sense of nationhood and have a free for all attitude regarding their own soil, and he was right.

Hindu history is full of misplaced generosity that backfired spectacularly, Prithviraj Chauhan let off Ghori the first time they won because he foolishly thought killing an enemy who submitted was not dharma, well Ghori had no such compulsions and killed Chauhan the second time he invaded and massacred countless Hindu civilians.

When Muslims give up their idea of a worldwide Muslim ummah, when xtians give up their belief of believers vs heathens, then we can talk about going past narrow nationalism. Let them take the initiative for once because through out history Hindus have been screwed by their misplaced generosity towards others.

Also even scandanavian countries have a sense of nationalism, and I am sure you will see more and more of it as the Muslim % in EU goes up.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 12-09-2008, 06:03 AM by dhu.)

QUOTE(barat @ Dec 9 2008, 12:09 AM)Also, I am surprised as to why no Hindu here and elsewhere fails to recognize capitalism as the real problem behind terrorism.



Barat, welcome to forum. It takes a lot of guts to post on forum for first time. Don't get discouraged by thread thing.

Capitalism versus Communism (private versus state) are obsolete categories and only make sense as part of a complete propaganda systems emanating out of west. I believe that even heathen versus believer categories fail at ground reality levels and are really only secondary. Only the 'colonialism' category is really meaningful and primary. Is capitalism a propaganda facade for colonialism? Indians never cared about theory but rather only about functionality; hence these capitalism versus Communism debates-invectives are only at surface level in India and never really took root. Who were early sponsors of Communism in India? Why were they opposed to Independence movement? Is there a relation to the colonial power ruling India at the time. Take analogy with sponsors of Communists in India today; why Brinda attacked Ramdev on behalf of Western pharmas, all the while posturing as anti-western. Why Romila is sponsored by Library of Congress and Kluge, all the while affecting (pretending) anti-westernism. False flag hiding the true source is operative word for all these characters.

Go to colonialism thread in the Indian history section; you will see that American state itself started out as the rebelling British East India company. Therefore, all the rhetoric about great western private sector, rugged individualism, and so on... automatically falls into the propaganda category (and not at the truth level which we Hindus function at).

12-09-2008, 06:39 AM

Capitalism or Socialism are all fine and dandy in the Western context. We should go back to our basics - i.e. Dharma. We need the rule of Dharmam.

Bharatvarsh · 12-09-2008, 08:02 AM

Dharmam is just one part, artham is another significant part of politics, the fact that 60 years later so many people are in poverty can be attributed the decisions made in 47 regarding economic policies and which were implemented without stop for almost 50 years. It won't do to just say vaguely to the people that we need dharmam, where is the platform of the BJP or any other so called "right" parties regarding each of the main issues facing the nation, such as poverty, terrorism etc. By platform I don't mean usual garbage slogans of "garibi hatao" that congress drums up but actual concrete solutions

12-09-2008, 11:12 AM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 9 2008, 02:29 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEI've always been a social democrat, but the recent events (not just terrorism but also political developments) made me rethink my beliefs. It's clear that Hinduism and Hindus are under threat, but I am still not convinced that social democracy isn't the right way. And when I say social democracy, I am referring to the systems prevalent in Scandinavian countries, NOT to the nonsense being done in the name of socialism by our Indian communists/Nehruvian socialists. mad.gif So please, let's be clear on that.
I do not want to get into economics too much on this thread but suffice it to say that what happens in the Scandinavian countries is called a nanny state, and I would even go so far as to say legalized theft by the gov't is what it is.
</div>

This is standard capitalist propaganda which, surprisingly, most Indians seem to swallow without questioning. I've heard this many times, and it's the most simplistic way of analyzing things. First off, the so-called rich control the means of production at the expense of the poor, that in itself is illegal and unethical. So legalized theft doesn't make sense here, since the person you're allegedly stealing from is a thief himself.

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. It's similar to banks keeping debt alive. No debts=No banks. 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).

What's the solution? Production has to become socialist, but for that to happen, workers must manage production, because the worker is at the same time the consumer. But until then, we need a transitional stage, we can call that social democracy, where capitalist mode of production can continue, yet the state has to engage in the socialist mode of REDISTRIBUTION of wealth.

This isn't legalized theft, because 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? If this is theft, then the capitalist control of the means of production is worse than theft, it's terrorism.

Whether or not people agree with all this, at least let's think with an open mind, and not get carried away by capitalist propaganda.

12-09-2008, 11:26 AM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 9 2008, 02:59 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEI am confused as to how Hindutva or any ideology that's based on nationalism can ever be free of conflict, because inherent in such philosophies is the 'us vs them' attitude. So I'd like some clarification on that.
Savarkar who coined the word Hindutva always said that ultimately nationalism was too narrow of an ideology and that one day it too will have to go away in favor of humanism but he said that with an important caveat, as long as others in the world are not ready to give up their own nationalism Hindus should not do so either. If the world voluntarily moves toward discarding narrow nationalism in time then the Hindus too shall shall take part in it but as long as others aggressively maintain their religious/national identity as Muslims, Christians, British etc it is SUICIDAL for Hindus alone to give up a sense of nationhood and have a free for all attitude regarding their own soil, and he was right.
</div>

I agree that Hindus should defend themselves, but do we need nationalism to do that? It hasn't helped thus far, and pitted against powerful enemies, it's a lost cause. A more logical approach is to convert the working class (from the enemy camp) to internationalism, that way they can be our allies. Otherwise, it's impossible for people from diverse backgrounds to get together. We need a common thread to connect people from different countries, and workers consciousness is one such thing. Scandinavian countries are a diff. story, because they don't have as many enemies, besides they're still part of the 'western' block, and they can always fall back on other western nations. India's situation is entirely different.

What I am trying to say is that, Nobody is going to care for us Hindus, because except in the subcontinent, there aren't many Hindu countries out there, it's mostly western and Islamic. So why would they stick their necks out for us? They wouldn't. But workers from their countries would. An Islamic Pakistan would never be friendly with Hindu India, but let's say Pakistan and India both become workers state. Then it's in their best interests NOT to fight, and instead cooperate. The fact they're workers itself would be a common ground on which relationships can be built. Hindus and Muslims may fight, but Hindu workers and Muslims workers won't, because they have something in common: they're both workers.

12-09-2008, 11:33 AM

QUOTE(dhu @ Dec 9 2008, 06:01 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(barat @ Dec 9 2008, 12:09 AM)Also, I am surprised as to why no Hindu here and elsewhere fails to recognize capitalism as the real problem behind terrorism.



Barat, welcome to forum. It takes a lot of guts to post on forum for first time. Don't get discouraged by thread thing.

Capitalism versus Communism (private versus state) are obsolete categories and only make sense as part of a complete propaganda systems emanating out of west. I believe that even heathen versus believer categories fail at ground reality levels and are really only secondary. Only the 'colonialism' category is really meaningful and primary. Is capitalism a propaganda facade for colonialism? Indians never cared about theory but rather only about functionality; hence these capitalism versus Communism debates-invectives are only at surface level in India and never really took root. Who were early sponsors of Communism in India? Why were they opposed to Independence movement? Is there a relation to the colonial power ruling India at the time. Take analogy with sponsors of Communists in India today; why Brinda attacked Ramdev on behalf of Western pharmas, all the while posturing as anti-western. Why Romila is sponsored by Library of Congress and Kluge, all the while affecting (pretending) anti-westernism. False flag hiding the true source is operative word for all these characters.

Go to colonialism thread in the Indian history section; you will see that American state itself started out as the rebelling British East India company. Therefore, all the rhetoric about great western private sector, rugged individualism, and so on... automatically falls into the propaganda category (and not at the truth level which we Hindus function at).
[right][snapback]91594[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Thanks for the welcome, Dhu. I am a little confused by the message. When I spoke of capitalism/communism, I was only referring to the economic systems. How people manipulate these things is another matter. Even good things are manipulated. Caste System, which is actually a division of labor system, was also misused by people. So we're not trying to understand these events in isolation. We're trying to understand an ideology as it is.

For instance, how would you feel if someone judged Hinduism based on the actions of 'Hindus' like Lalloo? You would be quick to say Lalloo isn't true Hindu, etc. etc. The same goes for socialism as well. In its essence, it's about production NOT for profit, but for social needs. So by definition, it's a benign system, as opposed to capitalism where profits come before people, so much so even daily necessities like bread/water are under private control, and hence people who can't afford these things starve.

12-09-2008, 11:42 AM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 9 2008, 08:02 AM)Dharmam is just one part, artham is another significant part of politics, the fact that 60 years later so many people are in poverty can be attributed the decisions made in 47 regarding economic policies and which were implemented without stop for almostÂ 50 years. It won't do to just say vaguely to the people that we need dharmam, where is the platform of the BJP or any other so called "right" parties regarding each of the main issues facing the nation, such as poverty, terrorism etc. By platform I don't mean usual garbage slogans of "garibi hatao" that congress drums up but actual concrete solutions
[right][snapback]91605[/snapback][/right]


This is the problem with most Hindus, as you've rightly mentioned. Practicality is missing. I am yet to come across a book written by Hindus on how they'll handle the economy, if they're against both capitalism and socialism. Many Hindus I've met say Integral Humanism is the way, but when I ask them, what mode of production will they have in such a system, they draw a blank. Or, what sort of governance, they draw a blank. Contrast this with the mountains of books written by socialists on virtually every subject matter you can think of. This is why they come across as intellectuals, and are respected, even if people don't always agree with them.

12-09-2008, 02:26 PM

QUOTETo 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 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.
QUOTE 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?
QUOTEthe 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?Also, QUOTELikewise, 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.

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?

12-09-2008, 05:07 PM

QUOTE(vishwas @ Dec 9 2008, 02:26 PM)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.

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.

QUOTE 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?

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.

QUOTELikewise, 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.

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.

QUOTETake, 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]


Labor theory of value will help you understand this.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 12-09-2008, 05:45 PM by Husky.)

Hypertastic.
Now a communista (or a psecular ex-member who's morphed into a red colour now, just to continue distracting) invites itself over to peddle the Holy Relic of Communism on the heathen IF's Hindutva board.

How rude of you all to interrupt him with a response, when his Red Eminence so richly deserves to be allowed to Monologue (in its kind's own thread)?

12-09-2008, 06:10 PM

QUOTEI 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?

QUOTESo 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.
QUOTENot 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.
QUOTEIf 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.

12-09-2008, 06:25 PM

QUOTEEither way, workers will pay the price on behalf of capitalists.What price? The loss of a job? Again, it is not my job. Let me be clearer. <b>There is no job. A job is nothing more than work my employer needs done.</b> When my employer decides that he can get that work done for a better price elsewhere, he will do so.

QUOTETry 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.The issue of commodity-backed money vs paper money is irrelevant to the issue of why lending is bad. You just wasted your time posting the above para.
QUOTEOTOH, 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).You are right. But that is because, the borrower already finds value in your money. And, that is enough. As long as your borrower finds your money valuable and <i>scarce</i>, it has economic value.

12-09-2008, 06:27 PM

QUOTEWhich 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). How? Say, You gave me Rs.100/-. I refuse to pay you back. How did you make a profit?
QUOTEWhich means, the so-called losses that I make are simply profits that I miss out on, and NOT losses in the conventional sense.What conventional sense? The lost opportunity is a real loss. The usual concept of losing money only accounts for an "accounting" loss. But the opportunity lost is as real as an accounting loss.
QUOTEAnd this process continues with multiple customers, which means poor people are perpetually in debt, whereas rich get richer, EVEN IF THEY MAKE LOSSES.This is ridiculous.

QUOTEBut 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. If you are referring to the paper-money versus commodity-backed money, that is a different issue, and has nothing to do with lending, and its alleged problems. Please, get back to the issues you have with lending. Remember, in a gold-backed currency, you will still have lending.

QUOTEThese 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.Yes, and the marxists have been discredited, along with the useless "labor theory of value" you keep bringing up. The initial idea (#1) is not labor - if you think it is labor, how much value would you assign to it? Same goes for capital (#2). If that is also labor or its product, how much value would you assign to it? You cannot redefine labor to mean everything.

Also, if by value, you mean revenue earned, would you like the workers to be paid a share of the revenue rather than wages? So, if no one buys the Indica, should the workers get Rs.0/- as their share of the revenue? Because remember, that is what happens to the capitalist. He is taking a risk. <b>Would you like the workers to be saddled with a similar risk?</b>

Bharatvarsh · 12-09-2008, 07:22 PM

Vishwas said most of what I wanted to say, you say labor power is what helps a capitalist have his production, that same labourer is getting paid for what he does, if he thinks he is treated unfairly then let him quit his job, and start his own business by sticking his neck out like the capitalist owner did.

History is full of ordinary people coming up with ideas, and making themselves millionaires by implementing them, so nothing is stopping the labourers from doing the same, it's another matter that most people cannot, not everyone born will be an einstein or bill gates.

12-09-2008, 07:31 PM

QUOTE(vishwas @ Dec 9 2008, 06:10 PM)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?

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.

QUOTESo 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.

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& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

QUOTENot 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]


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!

Bharatvarsh · 12-09-2008, 07:33 PM

QUOTEWhat I am trying to say is that, Nobody is going to care for us Hindus, because except in the subcontinent, there aren't many Hindu countries out there, it's mostly western and Islamic. So why would they stick their necks out for us? They wouldn't. But workers from their countries would. An Islamic Pakistan would never be friendly with Hindu India, but let's say Pakistan and India both become workers state. Then it's in their best interests NOT to fight, and instead cooperate. The fact they're workers itself would be a common ground on which relationships can be built. Hindus and Muslims may fight, but Hindu workers and Muslims workers won't, because they have something in common: they're both workers. 
You do not seem to have studied history much, suffice it to say for many Muslim workers the religious impulse is far more important than so called worker solidarity. History bears testimony to that, check what they did with the communists who helped them get Pakistan after 1947, that seem like worker solidarity to you?

When riots happen, the ordinary Muslim fanatic doesn't usually go after some rich Hindu businessman but his dirt poor next door Hindu neighbor who probably works in the same factory as him.

Man does not live by bread and butter alone, often times there are many things that will leave economic considerations far behind.

12-09-2008, 07:42 PM

QUOTE(vishwas @ Dec 9 2008, 06:25 PM)Either way, workers will pay the price on behalf of capitalists.
What price? The loss of a job? Again, it is not my job. Let me be clearer. <b>There is no job. A job is nothing more than work my employer needs done.</b> When my employer decides that he can get that work done for a better price elsewhere, he will do so.

This has been explained already. You're proceeding on the assumption that jobs are gifts given to the worker by the capitalists. It is not. Labor is what makes commodities possible, and commodities make profits possible. Hence, to say that capitalists don't require labor is silly, it's the other way around. Without labor, there's no commodities=no profits=no capitalism.

QUOTETry 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.
The issue of commodity-backed money vs paper money is irrelevant to the issue of why lending is bad. You just wasted your time posting the above para.

Wasted, because you couldn't understand how the monetary system works. <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> Have you even heard of how fractional reserve banking works? Try to turn a few pages, and you'll understand why this is all extremely important. Until then, I am not gonna waste my time arguing with a guy who doesn't know the basics, so much so he wonders how understanding fiat money system is relevant to the subject matter.

QUOTEOTOH, 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).You are right. But that is because, the borrower already finds value in your money. And, that is enough. As long as your borrower finds your money valuable and <i>scarce</i>, it has economic value.
[right][snapback]91630[/snapback][/right]


Sorry, no serious economist will agree that as long as borrower finds value in money, there's value. What a silly thing to say! Unless money can correspond to the products and services in an economy, it'll lead to hyperinflation (if there's an increase in money supply, as it always does in such systems). This actually proves that money LOSES its value due to such practices. The result: common man has to bear the brunt of rising prices and suchlike.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?