- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Er.. self-contradiction again, perhaps?

Posted by: Kweassa ( the Great March ) on November 05, 1999 at 16:03:33:

In Reply to: talk about filtered 'hearing' posted by Gee on November 04, 1999 at 18:43:48:

: : SDF: That's only so under the capitalist model of industry, and people think that way only because the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is keeping the investors in power. Remove the capitalists, and industry keeps working, its surplus-value socialized...

: Investment - the building of factory etc is still necessary. The factory isnt 'eaten', its the product that is - so somewhere along the line investment decisions are still going to be made and investment will still enable production.

Yeah. But 'enabling production' IS NOT 'working', is it.

We call those things - factories, machines, etc. - productive goods. We spend it in order to produce. It is a "MEANS OF PRODUCTION". Since tose things are privatized under capitalism, we tend to give credit for the investors. The constant capital investment needed in maintaining those things do come from their pockets. The thing is, Marxism emphasizes on socialization of the means of production.

Notice the difference?

Somewhere in the line, investment still exists. But, in that case,the money is in Socialism no longer "capital". It's not capital investment. It becomes social investment. The commodities which were aquired in order to enable production, through those investments, belong to the workers. So the credit for it goes to the workers.

Buying productive goods do not produce goods. Buying and offering these goods is not the same with 'working' and actually 'producing' something. These things were not offered to the workers for their own good, but for the capitalist himself - to make money, and with it, more money. Now this is something which pisses the workers off, because the top-dog takes off some of the total value created for himself, taking credit for investment, when this accumulation of capital itself, which enabled the investment in productive goods, was actually derived from the workers themselves. That's what the LTV was trying to prove.

: : SDF: Look, I have you down as saying that all desires were merely subjective.

: Peoples desires are subjective, the value of bread to a starving man can be argued OBJECTIVELY hence the comment I made by looking at reality - he is starving. If the starving man has only the same vote under socialism as the one who votes for his 10th yacht then how does that sit with "self defined needs" - answer; It doesnt and in order to overcome said problem authority will be applied.

But that's only playing games with words.

The only thing that is "objective" there is that the man is starving(even this is subjective, come to think of it). But to what extent is his starvation at? Does the starving guy write that down on his forehead? Is there a "starv-o-meter" which figures how much he is starved? Is there an American Standard on measuring starvation levels? Can two starving people be compared?

Imagine there is a lunatic who thinks he is starving to death, but his physical conditions are prime. Now between a "really" starving man, and this lunatic, who is MORE starving and by HOW MUCH? Can we say it in objective point of view that the pain of starvation is greater in the "really" starving man, than the lunatic? I think not. Unless we are telepaths or something(if we were all telepathic, THEN we would be able to experience both of these people's emotions. THEN it would be objective).

"Subjective" and "objective" are mutually incompatible words. As SDF says, once you admit desires are subjective, then that's like getting caught with your pants down. Hands in the cookie jar of "self-contradiction". I don't think you have to invent a linguistic process of confusion which seems only someone like Wittgenstein can figure out.

: Or are you avoiding what is very difficult - showing objectively why Man A should have bread rather than man B should have another yacht - without being subjective.

Yeah. That's difficult. Why? Because, there ARE NO OBJECTIVE, CALCULABLE GROUNDS on proving those things, when they are left on a subjective level of desire - A needs bread more than B needs a yacht. We're not telepathic. We don't know how deep A's desire for bread is. We can't write down B's desire for a yacht on a spreadsheet. The only objectiveness in this comparison is that both obviously want something. That's as objective as it gets, no more.

And THAT'S EXACTLY THE REASON WHY people have placed an objective means of exchange - free from one's emotions and whims.(I'm quite confused. The last paragraph you wrote, Gee, is something that SUPPORTS, not REFUTES, the validity of the LTV. Why did you write down something that is self-contradictory?).

Follow Ups:

  • Er.. Gee si November 08 1999 (0)

The Debating Room Post a Followup