: So you do accept them as value adding. If you'll allow me to briefly undo the popular imagery of whip wielding 'bosses' who make workers work hard by threats, fraud or other such means.
Well, in part such discipline is a necessary function of bosses, because it means that the average necessary labour time is reduced, as otherwise slacking might increase it. but they are not adding value, they are getting the workers to add more value. A boss without workers would create no value, workers without a boss can create value.
:The point was that managing (whoever does it) , ie organising how, what, where, who and indeed why is part of the value creation process.
Only as much as teachers, and parents are- you could make a vague claim that management produce workers- but that would be pushing it. Managment doesn add value, in as much as a shoe shine boy doesn't add value. They are still workers though.
: This is major stumbling block of all coercive collectivism, people dont agree with what theyre directed to value, but with your voluntary collectivism I dont see it arising at all, and this must be incorporated.
No, people can see that having food produced is necessary, and they can see that their interests lie in more and better clothes, etc. Our values are not created indiviually, value is a transubjective process- try 'The Plague of Fantasies' by Slavoj Zizek.
:the one thing any societal change will not change with success is the fact that the vast majority of parents hugely value their own children over other peoples children, and seek to allocate resources accordingly.
Indeed, and the way they can increase the resources for their children is to increase the overall resources for their community. there is no 'Self interest' without a sommunal interest.
: If the tool shed would not have existed without you then anything you let out the door is a bonus, and anything you keep hidden is 'as before'.
Ah, but capitalists don't create factories, I take my big pile of money made on stock market speculation (Gambling), and buy a factory- I didn't make it, but then I can block teh workers from using it, and thus extort them.
: Im not convinced so many people would want to retire prior to 50 anyway. Also, it seems British stats are different to US in this regard.
Well, I'd like to not work in a shit job till I'm 65 cheers ;)
: Business pays all of it etc, weve done all this before - the end result is that 'workers' cannot spend because they are supporting a monopoly state which 'helps' them by directing when, how and on what they might retire among other choices decided for them.
No, because the workers couldn't spoend that tax money, because they'd never recieve it anyway.
: 'Fair' to whom - to the one who adds more value in than he gets out or the one who gets out more that he puts in, where the burden is increased upon the following generations dictating by the size of the retiring one? You do understand why its a Ponzi scheme dont you?
Yes, I do- however, as you keping hammering on about the necessity of all labour in production, surely even teh meesilliest worker ought to recieve a decent living in old age- ah, but then, such people are no longer useful.
: Id like to see the list which defines the "technical Bataillean sense ", presumably some attempt to objectively define 'needs'.
George Bataille- 'The Accursed Share' Volume 1.
:Then I would also like to see people who support such cease talking hash about 'relative wealth' in the context of needs. Incidently, "demonstrate wealth" to whom? Also, this means that living off investments for needs only is 'ok'
Its not 'OK' because it still replciates the class divisions, remember, its not a moral issue. Wealth is necessarilly relative, and the point of fluanting it is to have Others recognize you as wealthy.