tyrants and bad leaders

[Harry Bosch]

I've been an owner, a member in a 4 person partnership that could be considered a pure socialist company, and now a worker in a huge corporation. I feel far less exploited in the blood thirsty corporation! I'm paid a fair wage. Have great health care. But I go to bed at night not worrying about the status of the company. I don't work weekends anymore. I love not being an owner. It's incredibly overrated. Making a lot of money is very overrated, especially when you have to work 80 hours a week to get there.

If you do the work, what is 'fair' about paying somebody who doesn't to steal part of the value of what you do?

The problem here is that you don't recognize that management and ownership is also work and they deserve to get paid. All companies require equity; and all companies have risk. If the investors don't get a cut, they won't invest in your company.

 

[iolo]

If you do the work, what is 'fair' about paying somebody who doesn't to steal part of the value of what you do?

The problem here is that you don't recognize that management and ownership is also work and they deserve to get paid. All companies require equity; and all companies have risk. If the investors don't get a cut, they won't invest in your company.

It is only 'work' in the way that a con-man puts considerable effort into confusing the mugs. These companies are only there as part of capitalism - it would be easier and cheaper just to invest in making what we need.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The problem here is that you don't recognize that management and ownership is also work and they deserve to get paid. All companies require equity; and all companies have risk. If the investors don't get a cut, they won't invest in your company.

It is only 'work' in the way that a con-man puts considerable effort into confusing the mugs. These companies are only there as part of capitalism - it would be easier and cheaper just to invest in making what we need.

I'm not following you. I need a job. Investors invest in my company, helping me keep my job. Do you have one of those companies that doesn't require equity? If so, what do you do?

 

[iolo]

It is only 'work' in the way that a con-man puts considerable effort into confusing the mugs. These companies are only there as part of capitalism - it would be easier and cheaper just to invest in making what we need.

I'm not following you. I need a job. Investors invest in my company, helping me keep my job. Do you have one of those companies that doesn't require equity? If so, what do you do?

You can't imagine a democratic organisation of society, can you? Where do the investors get their money, do you think, from trees? They steal it from us. All of these blathering bloats live off theft, and while we choose to finance them we shall never be happy.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm not following you. I need a job. Investors invest in my company, helping me keep my job. Do you have one of those companies that doesn't require equity? If so, what do you do?

You can't imagine a democratic organisation of society, can you? Where do the investors get their money, do you think, from trees? They steal it from us. All of these blathering bloats live off theft, and while we choose to finance them we shall never be happy.

I've worked in a democratic organization. I've lent to a couple. I know their strengths and weaknesses pretty well. You are correct, investors don't get their money from trees. I'm an investor. I invest my excess cash flow into companies. The excess cash flow comes from my salary - personal expenses. Excess funds are simply stored labor.

 

[iolo]

You can't imagine a democratic organisation of society, can you? Where do the investors get their money, do you think, from trees? They steal it from us. All of these blathering bloats live off theft, and while we choose to finance them we shall never be happy.

I've worked in a democratic organization. I've lent to a couple. I know their strengths and weaknesses pretty well. You are correct, investors don't get their money from trees. I'm an investor. I invest my excess cash flow into companies. The excess cash flow comes from my salary - personal expenses. Excess funds are simply stored labor.

Yes - OUR labour, which they steal. They needed you enough to give you a bit more of what you made them. Big deal!

 

[Harry Bosch]

I've worked in a democratic organization. I've lent to a couple. I know their strengths and weaknesses pretty well. You are correct, investors don't get their money from trees. I'm an investor. I invest my excess cash flow into companies. The excess cash flow comes from my salary - personal expenses. Excess funds are simply stored labor.

Yes - OUR labour, which they steal. They needed you enough to give you a bit more of what you made them. Big deal!

Negative kimosabe! I invest the money that I earn. I make a salary. I spend less than what I make. I invest the difference. You have zero claim in the capital that I invest. I, like many people, are an investor and a worker.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So it has nothing to do with private ownership of the means of production then. So if it exploits the workers, like Socialism under Stalin, then it is Capitalism. But if it doesn't exploit the workers, like the capitalism when it is not corrupted by corporatism, then it is Socialism. Anything that doesn't exploit, such as the free market, is socialism, while anything that does exploit, like collective control exercised by the government, is capitalism.

It has everything to do with the mode of production - we do the work, and they steal a considerable part of the value of the product, 'they' being whoever is in a position to do the stealing because - as capitalists or party members - they 'own' our industry, our army, our police and our law. There is no 'free market' that doesn't exist by stealing, obviously, so what on earth are you talking about?

Let me get this straight. If Two people, let's call them A & B each specialize in something and do stuff for each other leading to both A & B being better off than they would otherwise be. Are you saying that the mere fact that they're making a profit equates to them stealing from each other? I don't think it works logically.

Capital is called capital because it adds value to the market. Capital is just anything that does that. Everybody is worse off if capital is removed. The problem of capitalism is that the people who own and control that capital get a greater percentage of the profit than the people who don't own and control the capital. The mechanism is that this creates an incentive to produce capital. Without this mechanism we get less capital. Capitalists are just people who respond to an incentive and do so successfully. Who are they stealing from?

I'm not saying capitalism is all roses and daisies. There is genuine exploitation in a capitalist market. But I think you're painting with a much too broad a brush. You're missing the subtleties. Karl Marx's critique of capitalism is smarter than what you're making it out to be. Socialist critique can be smarter than what you're doing.

Marx had a problem with de-facto oligarchies and monopolies. He had no problem with capitalism and capitalists as such. He couldn't himself figure out a solution to the problem. He saw that capitalism will inevitably lead to oligarchies and monopolies. Which in his day was true. Then some 70 years after Marx somebody invented antitrust laws. And lots of other legal methods by which to counter-balance oligarchies forming. Without these Marx would have been right. It should also be said that Marx predicted that capitalists would manage to use their power to prevent these kinds of laws. He was wrong about that. Well... mostly wrong. There are countries where he was right even regarding this. Brazil being one good example.

Adam Smith in his "on the wealth of nations" pointed this out as well. So Marx wasn't the first one. Adam Smith didn't either have a solution.

 

[iolo]

Yes - OUR labour, which they steal. They needed you enough to give you a bit more of what you made them. Big deal!

Negative kimosabe! I invest the money that I earn. I make a salary. I spend less than what I make. I invest the difference. You have zero claim in the capital that I invest. I, like many people, are an investor and a worker.

You invest money you've got. Why does it give you the right to exploit anyone else?

 

[iolo]

It has everything to do with the mode of production - we do the work, and they steal a considerable part of the value of the product, 'they' being whoever is in a position to do the stealing because - as capitalists or party members - they 'own' our industry, our army, our police and our law. There is no 'free market' that doesn't exist by stealing, obviously, so what on earth are you talking about?

Let me get this straight. If Two people, let's call them A & B each specialize in something and do stuff for each other leading to both A & B being better off than they would otherwise be. Are you saying that the mere fact that they're making a profit equates to them stealing from each other? I don't think it works logically.

Capital is called capital because it adds value to the market. Capital is just anything that does that. Everybody is worse off if capital is removed. The problem of capitalism is that the people who own and control that capital get a greater percentage of the profit than the people who don't own and control the capital. The mechanism is that this creates an incentive to produce capital. Without this mechanism we get less capital. Capitalists are just people who respond to an incentive and do so successfully. Who are they stealing from?

I'm not saying capitalism is all roses and daisies. There is genuine exploitation in a capitalist market. But I think you're painting with a much too broad a brush. You're missing the subtleties. Karl Marx's critique of capitalism is smarter than what you're making it out to be. Socialist critique can be smarter than what you're doing.

Marx had a problem with de-facto oligarchies and monopolies. He had no problem with capitalism and capitalists as such. He couldn't himself figure out a solution to the problem. He saw that capitalism will inevitably lead to oligarchies and monopolies. Which in his day was true. Then some 70 years after Marx somebody invented antitrust laws. And lots of other legal methods by which to counter-balance oligarchies forming. Without these Marx would have been right. It should also be said that Marx predicted that capitalists would manage to use their power to prevent these kinds of laws. He was wrong about that. Well... mostly wrong. There are countries where he was right even regarding this. Brazil being one good example.

Adam Smith in his "on the wealth of nations" pointed this out as well. So Marx wasn't the first one. Adam Smith didn't either have a solution.

The value of a commodity is the socially necessary labour time taken to produce it, so how could anyone who never produced anything make a profit otherwise than by stealing? The solution, as always, is a democratic society where the means of production belong to everyone.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Negative kimosabe! I invest the money that I earn. I make a salary. I spend less than what I make. I invest the difference. You have zero claim in the capital that I invest. I, like many people, are an investor and a worker.

You invest money you've got. Why does it give you the right to exploit anyone else?

It's real simple. You work for the company that pays you the highest salary. I invest in companies that will give me the highest return. Are you exploiting your company by trying to maximize your salary?

 

[iolo]

You invest money you've got. Why does it give you the right to exploit anyone else?

It's real simple. You work for the company that pays you the highest salary. I invest in companies that will give me the highest return. Are you exploiting your company by trying to maximize your salary?

No - just being the usual brainwashed mug. Why do you ask? Even if you find life worthless, why inflict your ludicrous system on others?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The value of a commodity is the socially necessary labour time taken to produce it, so how could anyone who never produced anything make a profit otherwise than by stealing?

Ok, I get where you're coming from now. This is classical Marxist theory. This comes straight from Das Kapital by Karl Marx. Have you ever tried just googling critique of this? This is one of Marx's major blunders. It's a famous blunder.

Part of the value in a product comes from
1) market research
2) R&D
3) buying raw materials
4) actually producing it (that which you and Marx counted as the sum total of production cost)
5) storing it
6) informing other people about it. Convincing other people why they need it.
7) Transporting it.

He fucked up. It's as simple as that.

Marx's general critique is still valid. He just neglected to mention these other parts. No, just production of a commodity isn't enough. Also the other stuff.

It sure made Marx's calculations simpler. But it also made them wrong. Socialist writers after Marx have tried fixing his error. But Marxists tend to ignore them and keep just going back to the source. Like you have. And keep being made fun of in forums.

The solution, as always, is a democratic society where the means of production belong to everyone.

But you're acting as if we haven't tried this. We have. In a variety of ways. Hasn't really worked out. We need a better system than what you're proposing.

Are you really incapable of seeing the problem in this? Are you sure you can't formulate that in a way that will actually work?

 

[Harry Bosch]

It's real simple. You work for the company that pays you the highest salary. I invest in companies that will give me the highest return. Are you exploiting your company by trying to maximize your salary?

No - just being the usual brainwashed mug. Why do you ask? Even if you find life worthless, why inflict your ludicrous system on others?

My system is one that fits human behavior better than other systems. It arises naturally. Even when dictators dictate a different system and threaten with violence, capitalist black markets always arise. It is you who wishes to inflict your system on others.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Ok, I get where you're coming from now. This is classical Marxist theory. This comes straight from Das Kapital by Karl Marx. Have you ever tried just googling critique of this? This is one of Marx's major blunders. It's a famous blunder.

Part of the value in a product comes from
1) market research
2) R&D
3) buying raw materials
4) actually producing it (that which you and Marx counted as the sum total of production cost)
5) storing it
6) informing other people about it. Convincing other people why they need it.
7) Transporting it.

He fucked up. It's as simple as that.

Marx's general critique is still valid. He just neglected to mention these other parts. No, just production of a commodity isn't enough. Also the other stuff.

It sure made Marx's calculations simpler. But it also made them wrong. Socialist writers after Marx have tried fixing his error. But Marxists tend to ignore them and keep just going back to the source. Like you have. And keep being made fun of in forums.

The solution, as always, is a democratic society where the means of production belong to everyone.

But you're acting as if we haven't tried this. We have. In a variety of ways. Hasn't really worked out. We need a better system than what you're proposing.

Are you really incapable of seeing the problem in this? Are you sure you can't formulate that in a way that will actually work?

Good summary. You forgot tools necessary to do the work and buildings to do the work in, but people forget it's the whole system that makes it, not the individual parts.

Some people are born in the wrong decade, but I guess some people were born 10,000 years too late

 

[dismal]

Ok, I get where you're coming from now. This is classical Marxist theory. This comes straight from Das Kapital by Karl Marx. Have you ever tried just googling critique of this? This is one of Marx's major blunders. It's a famous blunder.

Part of the value in a product comes from
1) market research
2) R&D
3) buying raw materials
4) actually producing it (that which you and Marx counted as the sum total of production cost)
5) storing it
6) informing other people about it. Convincing other people why they need it.
7) Transporting it.

He fucked up. It's as simple as that.

Marx's general critique is still valid. He just neglected to mention these other parts. No, just production of a commodity isn't enough. Also the other stuff.

It sure made Marx's calculations simpler. But it also made them wrong. Socialist writers after Marx have tried fixing his error. But Marxists tend to ignore them and keep just going back to the source. Like you have. And keep being made fun of in forums.

The solution, as always, is a democratic society where the means of production belong to everyone.

But you're acting as if we haven't tried this. We have. In a variety of ways. Hasn't really worked out. We need a better system than what you're proposing.

Are you really incapable of seeing the problem in this? Are you sure you can't formulate that in a way that will actually work?

Well said, but you forgot to appropriately mock the idea of only "socially necessary" labor counting.

This is abject silliness required to reconcile Marx's preferred worldview with easily observable reality.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You invest money you've got. Why does it give you the right to exploit anyone else?

It's real simple. You work for the company that pays you the highest salary. I invest in companies that will give me the highest return. Are you exploiting your company by trying to maximize your salary?

What's wrong with a worker commanding a pay rise? If you invest in a company and it runs efficiently, the chances re that it is cost effective rather than economical.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've been an owner, a member in a 4 person partnership that could be considered a pure socialist company, and now a worker in a huge corporation. I feel far less exploited in the blood thirsty corporation! I'm paid a fair wage. Have great health care. But I go to bed at night not worrying about the status of the company. I don't work weekends anymore. I love not being an owner. It's incredibly overrated. Making a lot of money is very overrated, especially when you have to work 80 hours a week to get there.

If you do the work, what is 'fair' about paying somebody who doesn't to steal part of the value of what you do?

Just because you don't understand what a manager does doesn't mean they don't work. Thinking is work.

It's like driving a car--it's the engine that gets you there, does that mean a car doesn't need a driver?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is only 'work' in the way that a con-man puts considerable effort into confusing the mugs. These companies are only there as part of capitalism - it would be easier and cheaper just to invest in making what we need.

No. I've seen what happens when management isn't doing it's job. The result isn't pretty.

It's just that good management is close to invisible. A good manager nudges the business towards success. Most of their job is keeping an eye on things, ensuring that they're going in the right direction and looking for ways to make things go better.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not following you. I need a job. Investors invest in my company, helping me keep my job. Do you have one of those companies that doesn't require equity? If so, what do you do?

You can't imagine a democratic organisation of society, can you? Where do the investors get their money, do you think, from trees? They steal it from us. All of these blathering bloats live off theft, and while we choose to finance them we shall never be happy.

1) You are simply defining investment and management as theft.

2) You didn't answer the question anyway. Where do companies come from in your utopia? A unicorn gallops through, it's turds growing into new companies?

 

[Harry Bosch]

It's real simple. You work for the company that pays you the highest salary. I invest in companies that will give me the highest return. Are you exploiting your company by trying to maximize your salary?

What's wrong with a worker commanding a pay rise? If you invest in a company and it runs efficiently, the chances re that it is cost effective rather than economical.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following you. But maybe you misunderstood me. I'm capitalist son of a bitch. I believe in fully maximizing my salary (and my return on investments). My point is that Iolo seems surprised that an investor seeks to maximize his investment, just like a worker will maximize his labor, if possible.