Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: political, economic, and ideological capitalism...

Expand Messages
  • David Searles
    Bill Green wrote: under perfect competition - price would be driven to cost, hence no surplus value. dave searles writes: Thus is expressed the complete and
    Message 1 of 125 , Apr 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill Green wrote:

      under perfect competition - price would be driven to cost, hence no
      surplus value.

      dave searles writes:

      Thus is expressed the complete and utter ignorance of one Bill Green
      on the exploitation of labor.

      Ignoring market fluctuations, all commodities sell at cost. Labor
      power is a commodity like all others. Where labor power is sold AT
      COST - that means that laborers are paid just enough to pay for the
      goods required to allow them to labor.

      If the goods and services required to produce labor can be produced
      with 20 hours labor per week, the wage is equivelent to the amount of
      money that can purchase 20 hours worth of goods and services.
      Therefore if a worker works 48 hours per week - the difference
      between 48 hours and 20 hours is surplus value.

      As I stated: Capitalism extracts
      > > surplus value in the normal operation of things. It doesn't need
      any
      > > special privileges to do this, simply ownership of the means of
      > > production.

      dave continues:

      That's the part the Bill assiduously avoids, becuase he advocates a
      continuation of the private ownership of the means of production.

      In other words capitalism.

      "Oh no no no. I don't advocate the nasty capitalism where
      capitalists, individually and collectively try to get additional
      privileges from the state; I advocate the good kind of capitalism,
      you know where there are FREE MARKETS."

      so bill is against every privilege except THE privilege which
      alienates the workers from the entire product of their labor,
      including the industries themselves.

      dave searles




      --- In worldincommon@yahoogroups.com, "BGreen" <erm4you@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In worldincommon@yahoogroups.com, "David Searles"
      > <davidasearles@> wrote:
      > >
      > > There is no VIOLATION of any cost principle. It is becuase labor
      > > value is paid for at its cost as opposed to labor keeping what it
      > > produces, the difference is surplus value. Capitlaism extacts
      > > surplus value in the normal operation of things. It doesn't need
      any
      > > special privildges to do this, simply ownership of the means of
      > > production.
      >
      > dave,
      >
      > under perfect competition - price would be driven to cost, hence no
      > surplus value.
      >
      > if everyone had free and clear access to fertile land and could
      > produce at a basic subsistence level without too much labor burden
      > then why would they sell their labor at below subsistence levels?
      >
      > think of the citizens dividend for all as free and clear access to
      > what we all have an individual equal birthright to produce a
      > subsistence level of sustenance from the land which is monetized by
      > the private enclosure of land.
      >
      > bg
      >
    • David Searles
      The word privledge (sorry for the repost) Bill green wrote: the distributists critique of capitalism and socialism is that capital is in too few hands...the
      Message 125 of 125 , Apr 13, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        The word privledge

        (sorry for the repost)

        Bill green wrote:

        the distributists critique of capitalism and socialism is that
        capital is in too few hands...the root cause being privi-lege (private
        legislation).

        dave writes:

        In no modern country that I know of is private ownership in and of
        itself technically a "privilege" (Even though I have described it
        before as the privilege of privileges.)

        "Privilege": Every particular right or favor granted by the law
        contrary to the common rule. (Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed.)

        For example in England there are estates owned by privilege grant
        from the sovereign or a hereditary entitlement to such, but ownership
        of property in and of itself is generally open to anyone with money
        to purchase.

        In the U.S. one would be hard pressed to find ANY land held under
        privledge.

        It is curious that even the ownership of chattel slaves in this
        country WAS NOT as a privilege. One may search and search through
        the laws of the slave states and one will find very little if any
        legislation establishing slavery. There was no grant of privledge,
        just the common law allowed the institution of and development of the
        chattel slave system. It is of significance to note that there are
        even instances of Afro Americans and Native Americans owning chattel
        slaves.

        Just as chattel slavery was not as a result of privilege, neither was
        the private ownership of the means of
        production by privledge. Private ownership of the means of production
        and of land has been recognized as a right and in practice as
        available to all who can and are willing to pay.

        the 14th 15 and 16th amendments outlawed chattel slavery outright -
        not through the extinguishing of any privilege.

        So it is with the private ownership of the means of production. And
        Bill recognizes this ownership is not as a result of privilege but
        of natural operation of the common law applicable to everyone. When
        he supposedly proposes the end of privilege - guess what remains
        under common law?? PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

        No Bill, you have not shown at all how capital would not concentrate
        into fewer and fewer hands with privledge abolished. You merely
        assert it that it would.

        That's what I call showing a lack of intellectual integrity.

        dave


        --- In worldincommon@yahoogroups.com, "David Searles"
        <davidasearles@...> wrote:
        >
        > Bill green wrote:
        >
        > the distributists critique of capitalism and socialism is that
        > capital is in too few hands...the root cause being privi-lege
        (private
        > legislation).
        >
        > dave writes:
        >
        > In no modern country that I know of is private ownership in and of
        > itself technically a "privilege" (Even though I have described it
        as
        > the privilege of privileges.)
        >
        > Privilege: Every particular right or favor granted by the law
        > contrary to the common rule. (Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed.)
        >
        > For example in England there are estates owned by privilege grant
        > from the sovereign or a hereditary entitlement to such, but
        ownership
        > in and of itself is generally open to anyone with money to purchase.
        >
        > In the U.S. one would be hard pressed to find ANY land held under
        > such circumstances.
        >
        > It is curious that even the ownership of chattel slaves in this
        > country WAS NOT as a privilege. One may search and search through
        > the laws of the slave states and one will find very little on the
        > subject. NO law but the common law allowed the institution of and
        > development of the chattel slave system in this country.
        >
        > Just as chattel slavery was not as a result of privilege, not was
        the
        > institution and development of private ownership of the means of
        > production. Private ownership has been recognized as a right
        > available to all who can and are willing to pay.
        >
        > the 14th 15 and 16th amendments outlawed chattel slavery outright,
        > not through the extinguishing of any privilege.
        >
        > So it is with the private ownership of the means of production. As
        > Bill recognizes - this ownership is not as a result of privilege
        but
        > of natural operation of the common law applicable to everyone.
        When
        > he supposedly proposes the end of privilege - guess what remains
        > under the law - PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
        >
        > No Bill you have not at all shown how capial would not concentrate
        > into fewer and fewer hands with no privilege. You merely assert it.
        >
        > That's what I call showing a lack of intellectual integrity.
        >
        > dave
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.