Marx even recognized that his system can't produce capital--because he said societies should wait for industrialization before going communist. That only makes sense if he understood the workers couldn't build the means of production.
So, what, the CEO goes out and does the digging? Sure...
The problem is things too big for one person to build.
Which is why we have....
a working class.
That produces all the things the wealthy ... class has neither the capacity nor the knowledge to produce.
And you have evidence that a working class has the capacity and the knowledge to produce all those things, do you?
Obviously, or we wouldn't have them.
That's a circular argument -- you're de facto saying the wealthy class are parasites and the evidence for this is that the wealthy class are parasites. How do you know we wouldn't have those things if a working class didn't have the capacity and the knowledge to produce them?
Workers do not typically choose to produce all that stuff by themselves without the help of the wealthy class;
So you admit that the workers are the party that produces all the stuff? If so, you are now agreeing with my point that you originally objected to.
That's a non sequitur. So you're not an economic creationist merely because you're resistant to thinking scientifically, but also because you're resistant to thinking logically. How the bejesus do you figure what I wrote implies they're the party that produces all the stuff? When Alice and Bob dig a hole together you wouldn't claim Alice dug all the hole; why the devil would you claim when I say the workers and the wealthy class produce stuff together it means I "admit" the workers produce all the stuff? All the stuff is produced by all the participants together -- the workers, the wealthy class, the customers, the suppliers, the police, and more you can add to the list. Cutting any of those out of the process suppresses production; claiming any subset produces all the stuff is reality avoidance.
(In case you fixated on the word "choose" and took it as an indication that I was saying getting help from the wealthy class was a choice on the part of the workers, "do not typically choose to" does not mean the same thing as "typically choose not to". People who can't jump a hundred feet do not choose to jump a hundred feet; but that doesn't imply they choose not to. I was pointing out that if your claim was correct then it would be a choice, so you'd need to explain why they don't choose to do it without people you're claiming they don't need.)
Whatever the aristocracy provides to the equation, it is not the knowledge or the labor to produce valuable commodities.
The labor, true, since you appear to be defining all who labor as non-"aristocracy". The knowledge, show your work.
But let's suppose for the sake of discussion that you're right that it's not the knowledge or the labor. Well then, why don't the workers produce stuff without making deals with "the aristocracy"? If your claim is correct, it's just more evidence that production takes more than knowledge and labor -- it also takes some third factor that the wealthy class has the capacity to provide and the working class doesn't. So on what basis do you deduce that a working class has the capacity "to produce all those things".
Bomb#20 said:
That's a circular argument -- you're de facto saying the wealthy class are parasites and the evidence for this is that the wealthy class are parasites.
Made no such claim, and wouldn't do.
Oh please. What you wrote was:
And you have evidence that a working class has the capacity and the knowledge to produce all those things, do you?
Obviously, or we wouldn't have them.
Well, suppose Alice and Bob dug a hole together, and you claimed Alice has the capacity and knowledge to produce the entire hole all by herself. Suppose I asked how you know, and you said "Obviously, or we wouldn't have the hole." That could not possibly be a correct explanation for how you know
unless whatever Bob did wasn't any help. We could perfectly well have the hole even if Alice couldn't do it on her own, provided Bob carried out the steps Alice lacked the capacity or knowledge for. Your answer "Obviously, or we wouldn't have them." implicitly relied on the tacit premise
that the wealthy class was no help in the production process. That premise amounts to classifying them as parasitical. This is not rocket science.
Simply having money is not what makes someone a member of the dipsh... well, the dumbo-head class. All dumbo-heads are wealthy, not all wealth is the result of dumboheadedness.
Nice try. "Dumbohead" is not a fair translation. "Dumbohead" impugns its targets' intelligence, not their character. The fact that you called them the dipsh... class would not lead a reasonable reader to infer that you regard them as stupid; it would lead a reasonable reader to infer that you hate them.
But, this system that keeps the super-wealthy classes fat and happy beyond any reasonable definition of need must be redesigned if our nation-state is going to have any hope of keeping up with the other advanced polities and corporations of the world.
By "advanced polities", are you referring to North Korea?
No, I had Germany and China in mind.
On what planet do you think there is a Germany and a China that don't have a "system that keeps the super-wealthy classes fat and happy beyond any reasonable definition of need"? Germany has almost as many billionaires as the U.S. per capita; China may be way behind per capita but it still has the second most billionaires in the world. Keeping the super-wealthy classes happy beyond any reasonable definition of need is something every other advanced polity of the world does too. There is no reason to think keeping the super-wealthy classes happy beyond any reasonable definition of need means the system must be redesigned in order to keep up, unless the countries you want us to keep up with are
countries like North Korea that don't do that.
I know this is very hard for you to understand, but not everyone who is willing to critique the American economic system is a communist.
Oh for the love of god! I do not treat you like a communist because you are "willing to critique the American economic system". I treat you like a communist because
you keep spouting communist canards! Why the bejesus is your critique of the American economic system specifically that it "keeps the super-wealthy classes fat and happy beyond any reasonable definition of need" if you wish not to be perceived as advocating "To each according to his need"?!?
The steps socialists most often neglect when they're envisioning their noncapitalist utopias are the motivational steps.
The perception (especially if correct) that a worker's labor is severely under-valued, and their rights not guaranteed by the state, is not very motivating in fact.
Well, the capitalists who do the motivational production for the Acme corporation are not trying to motivate workers in general. They're trying to motivate Acme workers, as well as suppliers, customers and so forth. Capitalists do their motivating at the microeconomic level -- that's what they tend to be good at and those are the motivations they have their own motive to produce. It's not reasonable to expect Acme shareholders to optimize the motives of Zamboni workers. So if some state-level perception about overall valuation of labor and overall state guarantee of rights would be more motivating for labor in general, that's just yet another of the many macroeconomic effects that state intervention is the appropriate level to deal with. Macroeconomics is why God gave us Keynes -- it's not a reason to claim microeconomic motive generation doesn't help produce widgets.
In short: it is only a "win-win situation", as you say, if both parties agree that they are winning. Not just the party in power.
The "party in power" is whichever party has the power to end the deal. That's both parties. The objective measure of whether a worker "agrees" he is winning is not whether he
says he's winning. It's whether he agrees
to do the job -- whether he prefers working and getting paid to not working and not getting paid. He may
call that "losing", because he subjectively measures winningness by comparing with arbitrary goalposts; but if he sincerely thought he didn't benefit from the deal then he'd quit.
www.businessinsider.com
