Re: [ox-en] Robinsonades (was: Re: Role of markets)
- From: "Patrick Anderson" <agnucius gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:19:43 -0600
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Franz Nahrada <f.nahrada reflex.at> wrote:
The state is an institution that is needed by society because society has
not reached a level to regulate itself.
I agree "the state" is a terrible thing right now, but that is only
because the state is being used as a tool by corporations that are
working against us, and the corporations are working against us
because keeping price above cost requires vicious, dangerous,
destructive, behavior meant to keep the citizens/consumers dependent
on those owners.
But society doesn't *need* to keep price above cost. All we need is
product. So if we (the consumers) will invest collectively toward
production, then we can pay ourselves with product instead of profit.
The way it is shaped now, the state tends to become too large and step
on individuals. This is partially caused by standard policy that
disallows subgroups from seceeding from the majority.
In very small societies the state really is "we the people" because
extremely small states are just the collective decisions of a group of
humans where the inverted goals of Capitalism have not yet poisoned
the soup.
But as those groups grow, the individual participants inevitably begin
to take a stance against the others through private Capital ownership
intending to keep price above cost unless each subgroup wanting each
product organizes to own that Capital for themselves.
The estate can act as a state within a state, and in that micro-state
we can enforce whatever constraints we find would help us cooperate.
Treating profit as a reward incents the destruction of all other
sources of that product because profit is actually "price above cost",
and price only stays above cost while competition is imperfect. When
each actor owns as much Capital required for the production of that
which he consumes, then price meets cost and profit hits zero.
Thats what Marx has shown in the comparison of Commodity - Money -
Commodity versus Money - Commodity - More Money. But he also clearly
states that as soon as you accept the Money - Commodity Form, you have the
germ form of M-C-M'.
Maximum competition implies maximum division of ownership.
Competition is highest when the consumers own the Capital.
If the people that happen to have the skills to operate the Capital
are the owners, then competition would almost certainly be lower since
there are usually more consumers of a product than the workers needed
to produce it.
One of a myriad reasons why this is inevitable: no producer knows exactly
if his production will be "realized" as value on the market.
By 'producer' do you mean 'owner', or do you mean 'worker'?
By 'value' do you mean 'profit' or 'product'?
So producing
more and producing cheaper as others is a logical step. For this you need
capital, and you pay the price to capital - which is profit.
The only people that ever pay profit are consumers.
The only consumers that ever pay profit are those with insufficient
ownership in the means of that production.
Consumers with sufficient ownership pay Cost only.
Owning Consumers cannot pay profit, for who would they pay it to?
2. Altruism and Egoism
Of course no human
being wants to be wasted away simply for the sake of others that dont
care.
Could you help me understand what you mean here?
I mean that in a voluntary agreement people will only cooperate if one
side is not abusing cooperation.
I voluntarily pay pay price above cost (profit) to Capitalists every
day, yet they are abusing that cooperation by not treating my payment
as MY investment toward future production.
It is our fault that we are being taken advantage of because we
haven't yet purchased Capital and organized in a manner that insures
consumers are the initial investors and remain the full owners over
time so that price approaches cost and profit approaches zero while
democracy becomes direct.
---------------------------------
3. Value theory (Quantity)
But its absolutely different to the system where basically every
economic transaction can only happen when in the SAME transaction an
"equal value" changes hand the other direction.
When are you saying "equal value" change hands? During Trade?
Yes. thats the "law of value": if you look behind the eternal oscillation
of supply and demand, the point around which they oscillate is the amount
of labourtime which is needed to produce the commodity. Labourtime is
value, and it can only be expressed as quantity of another substance
representing labourtime. They are equivalent.
Let me see if I've got this straight:
"Value" means "Exchange Value".
"Exchange Value" means "Profit".
"Profit" means "Price above Cost".
"Price above Cost" occurs when workers input more or better labortime?
This seems to be part of the faulty reasoning for claiming ownership
should be in the hands of those that happen to have the skills to
operate it instead of in the hands of those that need the products
thereof.
Price above Cost occurs when the consumer is "in a bind" because he
has no ownership to protect him from gouging prices. If he owned
Capital that he could not operate, he could still fulfill his goals
"at cost", without paying profit, by hiring a skilled worker.
If "During Trade", then what about your argument some months ago that
price should optimally never be reduced to cost.
I did not talk about optimally. I say that the price of a commodity equals
cost plus profit. See the other thread.
How can the exchange be equal during Trade when Consumer Price is
different from Owner Costs?
I said that the marxist solution (which I still find correct) for that is
that the cost of labour is one thing, the "fresh" value that labour
produces in the production process is another thing. I simply say: you do
not have to assume that things are not exchanged for their value. The
value is normaly higher than the costs BECAUSE the product is a capitalist
commodity where costs of labour are compensated by HIGHER "fresh-value"
originated in the production process. Thus trade is still exchange of
equivalents .
You and Marx seem to be saying the exploitation occurs at the point of
Work instead of at the point of Trade.
It also sounds like you and Marx think the worker 'deserves' the
difference between price and cost because his wage was not full, fair
compensation.
A consumer pays profit ONLY when he has insufficient ownership.
Imagine I own a grill and some raw meat and I hire someone to cook it for me.
I have paid "at cost" for that production.
Now imagine you come along and I charge you more for that food than
what it cost to produce.
You are saying I am able to charge a higher price because I underpaid
the worker?
What if I don't sell any of the produce, but eat it all myself. Have
I still underpaid the worker? By how much?
Wouldn't the exchange be equal only when profit == 0?
No. The "fresh value" is reflected in the costs of labour plus surplus
value. The surplus value is not a violation of the equivalent exchange,
because value is the sum of transferred value (of machines, raw materials,
energy costs etc.) plus "fresh value" created by labour. On the market you
as capitalist do not buy labour, but labour-force. Labour force costs is
equal the reproduction costs of the worker. Labour has the potential to
create more value than the value of reproduction costs of the worker.
Thats the crucial point. And it all works with equal exchange, isn't that
crazy?
Crazy may be about right.
When an owner overcharges me for a good or service, it is not the
workers who deserve the difference, but the consumer who paid it - for
he is causing the corporation to grow.
As a consumer, I could hire those same workers at that same wage if
only I had "at cost" access to the Capital required for that
production. I DO have "at cost" access when I am an owner, so clearly
consumers should own Capital to eliminate the difference between price
and cost.
Profit is exploitation on the consuming side, not on the working side.
Patrick
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de