Tao “All of these questions were, essentially, the same attempt to obscure the objective reality of exploitation with subjective relativity, and therefore, nonsense.”

I recall, when a student, subject to examination by my professional body, fellow wannabes, of the idler and dullardly type, upon exiting exams, justified their lack of competency in answering by blaming the questions. You are repeating the habits of the tardy non-thinkers here tao.

Unable to construct a reasoned answer, your default position is to decry the question.

As for “Workers need a historical perspective.”, you really should get over this “class” fixation.

Everyone, worker, master, gentleman or thief benefits from an historic perspective. That said, even prissy self-righteous wannabes need an historic perspective, I suggest you go get one.

“And the fact is that their exploitation benefits capitalists”

No, the point is, the economic enhancement and improving life style of Chinese workers has benefited through capitalism, in contrast to the way which the tyranny of “collectivism” failed and repressed them.

That is what really catches in your throat, capitalism has prevailed over the ashes of the “socialist workers states”, from Central Europe to the Pacific. All that is left is the retarded despots of Cuba and North Korea (plus a couple of minor despotic plutocrats in the remnants of the fragmented Russian Empire).

Tao, I am not sure but I would guess, you most likely younger than me but I can say, truly, you are an anachronistic testament to the failed policies and politics of socialism.

Get real and accept the truth.

“Capitalism is based on goods being produced on a large-scale by many people”

No, “capitalism” is based on allowing the market for any good or service to naturally balance, through forces of supply and demand, with free movement of participants, instead of them being controlled and manipulated by an inherently incompetent central planning bureaucracy.

That is why governments should not own production resources or services. Because the conflict of interest between being regulator, to ensure “free movement of participants” (= anti-monopoly laws) and participant with vested (usually monopolistic) interest.

TAO.. r u serious mate ?

{Why should someone else, who employs workers, be able to appropriate for themselves as private property part of the value of what those workers produce?}

Very simply....because he risked his total life savings to create a venture which could have seen him in the poor house till the end of his days..thats why. Retaining a portion of labor value/production value as private propety ...for goodness sake man..it depends on how big a portion, and it depends on how much can be done with the remaining, and how many job opportunities there are, workers can pick and choose where they work, Employers are stuck with, blessed, cursed with their own economic creations.

OF FARRRR greater importance than an employer/capitalist benefiting from each person working for him, (ps. they also benefit, feeding their families and buying homes and cars and wide screen TVs) is a VALUE SYSTEM which places the welfare of others over that of our selves.

BIBLE THUMP TIME. (Romans 12)
9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

This is addressed to the Church. But the Church is also a community.
Whether or not one is PART of that community, I don't think you can argue with the values it promotes above...... or can you ?

BD,

“{Why should someone else, who employs workers, be able to appropriate for themselves as private property part of the value of what those workers produce?}

Very simply....because he risked his total life savings to create a venture which could have seen him in the poor house till the end of his days..thats why.”

I thought it was Jesus who said words to the effect – store not up for yourselves treasures on earth … and … sell everything you have, give it to the poor and follow me.

Where in the Bible did he say risk the treasures you have stored up for yourselves on earth to create a venture, exploit your fellow man (e.g. poor people in China), take a portion of what he produces as reward for your risk, and accumulate more treasures?

Don’t answer, it is a rhetorical question. Any answer you give will be a hypocritical lie, excuse or apology for humans exploiting other humans – don't talk to me about “values”.

Col, you delude yourself about what capitalism is, as could be expected from an internally contradicted mind:

“No, “capitalism” is based on allowing the market for any good or service to naturally balance, through forces of supply and demand, with free movement of participants, instead of them being controlled and manipulated by an inherently incompetent central planning bureaucracy.

That is why governments should not own production resources or services. Because the conflict of interest between being regulator, to ensure “free movement of participants” (= anti-monopoly laws) and participant with vested (usually monopolistic) interest.”

If the market “allows” for any good or service to “naturally” balance through forces of supply and demand, why would it need regulating? Why does a government need to ENSURE free movement of participants if it is naturally balanced through forces of supply and demand? Why would anti-monopoly laws be required? If monopoly is a natural outcome of capitalism, isn’t that naturally good? Isn’t government regulation just another form of control and manipulation?

Marx's issue with the relationship to owning or not owning the means of production is interesting. Wherein, Hugo produces ten units and keeps only eight. Marx saw this as exploitation.

Just the same, if everyone just kept only what they produced personally, it would prove hard to develop more advanced economies. Moreover, progress, is related to having the capacity to produce a surplus, permitting an intelligensia to research, invent and innovate.

Since the 1950s, especially, we have been in an era of managerialism, where huge salaries are paid to often less knowledgeable but politically savy persons, whom are rewarded far in excess of technicians and scientists. It is Peter Drucker, I think, who said the specialist/expert should paid more than her/his manager. The manager actually has a lesser role in creating surplus value (and often the least accountable).

Oligopolies are often twigged to support massive salaries to senior executives, diverted from junior staff and customers. It is easier to maintain high margins and milk revenue, expense accounts.

The catch with massive is salaries is paying a million dollars on a painting is the same as investing a million dollars in production.

If spending on production stimulates invention, and, therefore, a worker can product thirty units and keep twenty-five units, he/she is better of than in a primitive economy, keeping (and perhaps latter bartering)ten out of ten units of production.

Expenditure on no productive luxury items is problematic, as often items have only virtual value. Also, trying to maintain sunset industries, after their expiry date is quetsionable, where subsidaries are required.

All-in-all, it seems a balancing act between stakeholders serving in general their own best interests. All will work better, if there is opportunity to share in a bigger pie created by higher production. Both Marx and the Capitalists do not fully realise this circumstance. Neither, works optimally to achieve the highest levels of productivity and surplus value

Tao “Col, you delude yourself about what capitalism is, as could be expected from an internally contradicted mind:”

Who cares what you think Tao, all I know is I have a firm grasp on what works and what does not.

Your incompetence laden drivel requires an over-regulated bureaucracy, with the state owning, planning, directing and stuffing up everything, does not work; all it does is ensure no one is allowed to aspire to anything more than mediocre.

“Why does a government need to ENSURE free movement of participants”

because monopolies can occur. To curb the negative influence of monopolies, government through anti-trust and anti monopoly legislation, helps ensure the “free” in “free-market”.

As history shows us, the worst monopolies are those owned by government

So, to reasonably exercise the role of arbiter, the government needs to divest itself of any “vested interest” which would create a conflict of interest, theredore “governments” should not own or manage productive resources or commercial undertakings.

Oliver “share in a bigger pie created by higher production.”

The “bigger pie” comes not from “higher production” but from “greater productivity”

The issue with greater productivity is the process is invariably facilitated through increased capitalization of the production process.

The problem is, a greater automated factory invariably requires fewer people to achieve the same output.

The good news is, those fewer people, usually have, overall, higher skills and can expect to benefit from better incomes.

Through those better incomes, comes the “sharing of the pie”.

Another “sharing of the pie” takes place through the nature of markets, which allow for free, competitive movement of prices.

The improved productivity results in cheaper production which results in lower consumer prices.

Lower consumer prices means more opportunities to spend on different things.

The people displaced from employment in the first factory are absorbed into different emerging industries, servicing the markets which have become viable from consumers spending on different things.

Along the way everyone ends up better off.

Those who have sought to stop improvements in productivity have, throughout history, failed

Oliver,

It is refreshing to come across someone who at least thinks about such issues.

You are right that progress is related to producing surplus which frees up a section of the population from manual labour for intellectual work. However there is no rational reason why the intelligentsia should be entitled to a better standard of living (i.e. a greater share of the productive wealth) than the most menial workers, whose manual work is what enables them to do ‘brainwork’. Nor is there any rational reason why that surplus should be privately owned, and used to accumulate more privately owned surplus. In fact, it seems entirely reasonable that the product of the collective labour of all people belongs to those who produce it, and that they ought to be the ones who decide to what ends any surplus is put.

The inevitable counter-argument to this is that the specialists/experts would not be motivated to do their thing without financial reward, however most people who have a deep interest in some creative/innovative/specialist pursuit would do it for free, for the love of it, and for the achievement itself.

The other side to this is the wasted potential of the millions of people who, through the circumstance of their birth, or otherwise, are limited in their own creative endeavours by lack of opportunity, and the necessity to work long hours at mind numbing tasks. Who knows what potential benefits and treasures to humankind lie atrophied in the minds and bodies of production line workers and menial labourers etc. who currently have no inherent value as humans to our society other than the profit they make for their employers. We are all the lesser for it.