: Not without organisation. if they organise themselves as well or better than a specific manager then fine - the management role is still making value possible. If someone is takling on that role they are adding value by making it possible.
But thats restating a totality of production, an obvious fact, yes, its a totality, everyone s necessary, however, only some actually create, that is add,value, we are looking at where in the system value is added. Its not that important, because the Management are working class (mostly, the very top aren't). Capitalists don't do *any* work within the socialised system of production.
: And i better cars according to Johnny, but better boats according to Simon, but better airplanes according to Sally etc etc etc etc etc etc
And so we vote on it, but simple choices such as that do not express your own interests- and the only way any of you is getting a car, boat, plane, is if they are built communally.
: A simple model. If a parent has 100 units to dispose of and the village contains 10 children, one of which is his he will choose to give 100 units to his child sooner than 10 to each one so as to favor his childs chances. the only way in which the parent would feel equitable is if everyone put 100 in for each child to get 100. that doesnt happen.
No, because the parent would add 100 units to communal production, thus ensuring that their, and their childrens take, can increase, along with everyone one elses- the way to get more for thee and thine is to get more for everyone.
: Who organised, designed the factory - who made it possible first - its his created wealth that is floating around and growing that gets later used to buy or employ others to make more factories.
Organised and built by workers, who were paid to do so for a capitalist- and its creation is irrelevent, the current owner had no part.
: What greater right do some workers have to this factory than some other workers, some squatters, some rabbits or some others? Someone will use the property.
Indeed, but the community needs the factory. And you're skipping the point- where in my model, was the Capitalist Contributing Value? No-where is the answer. How much was he keeping? most of the value is the answer.
: I'd love to work at a great job until im 75. if my current job isnt great, ill seek out a better one.
I'd agree with that one, but I'm loooking forwards forty years to my Allotment... ;)
: I referred to their imposed choices in how they should retire. We could go into a lengthy debate about how unshackled free trade produces such wealth that $100 buys what $500 does now. We could look at what an average wage gets now to what it got 50 years ago.
We could, and I would counter that as prices fall wages fall as well. I would also demonstrate falling employment, and increasing use in certain well known countries of the ever brutal food stamps.
: Ill see if its netted.
Doubt it, accademic text book.
: You mean a person buys a ferrari, not because he enjoys driving it, but in order to say "look at me"? you really believe all 'luxuries' are for the benefit of being seen to have more rather than for the utlity of having more?
But the utility is only utility on the part of a gaze of an Other, If I want a fast car, that is because in my eyes, I see myself in an Other's gaze as one who owns a flash car- the only people with a utility justification for a farrari are racing drivers on the track.