«

[_r.u.s.s.]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Elon Yariv @ Jun 2 2006, 09:07 AM) [snapback]233737[/snapback]</div>

If a country doesn't have enough money to do these things it shouldn't raise the taxes for the poor but for the richer ones. They should raise it maybe as high as half of the rich ones salary: If you get 20,000$ per month then why can't you say good bye to half of that fortune and have only 10,000$ per month?(which is still a tidy sum)
[/b]

sure, why not. but i have worked for the 20k (let's give example 8 hours a day). then someone else gets his 10k for 4 hours of works per day and spent rest 4 hours for his kids and wife(or something else=) ) while i was tearing my knees.
sure i would be glad to help the state, but other people might abuse my zeal for helping

actually

stalin enslaved the russian people[/b]

*people from all the satellite states of CCCP, behind the iron curtain

[Mighty Midget]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(plix @ Jun 2 2006, 04:21 AM) [snapback]233717[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Jun 1 2006, 04:52 PM) [snapback]233683[/snapback]

The point is: Nothing is set, fixed or static exept the need for labour itself. No need to go all ancient about it and sacrifice a wallet to Neptune just to cath a fish. Get yourself a net, or pole, and get the sucker. Labour. See? Now, how do we want to organize this? Should each and every one of us enjoy the fruits of our own labour (single, off line computer), or should everybody enjoy the fruits of the total sum of labour (online, network computer)?[/b]

You're talking about what is required for production, though you seem to have forgotten the other factors: land and capital. Labor alone doesn't accomplish anything in the absence of the other two. Communism simply shifts control of the unmentioned two to the public (by abolishing private ownership).
[/b][/quote]

No, I didn't forget. Land ownership and capital are exactly the issues. As long as you cling to the concept of capital, you also oppose a change towards a more 'red' society. Land ownership? Who says any human has to own the land. The land is there, regardless of who owns it. True? Do the cods and herrings give a shrimps kidney about which human owns the sea? I don't think so. Do the gold, coal, rubber trees, wheat, wild game, pineapples or cows disappear if noone owns the land? I don't think so. Will we be physically unable to harvest the resources if noone owns the land? I don't think so. Is capital as important as arms and fingers for us to harvest these resources? I certainly don't think so. Ask yourself this:
Q: How did pre-historic tribes gather what they needed?
A: Labour
Q: Did they have currency and economy?
A: No.
Q: How can that be?
A: You don't actually need this. All you need is land with resources (which is already there) and labour (which we will have to provide).

No, we don't have to go back to the caves. Why? Because we have the knowledge and know-how needed for a technologically advanced society. Does this know-how magically disappear when we let go of capital and ownership? Of course not. It will only disappear when we forget.

[rlbell]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Jun 2 2006, 01:12 PM) [snapback]233783[/snapback]</div>

No, I didn't forget. Land ownership and capital are exactly the issues. As long as you cling to the concept of capital, you also oppose a change towards a more 'red' society. Land ownership? Who says any human has to own the land. The land is there, regardless of who owns it. True? Do the cods and herrings give a shrimps kidney about which human owns the sea? I don't think so. Do the gold, coal, rubber trees, wheat, wild game, pineapples or cows disappear if noone owns the land? I don't think so. Will we be physically unable to harvest the resources if noone owns the land? I don't think so. Is capital as important as arms and fingers for us to harvest these resources? I certainly don't think so. Ask yourself this:
Q: How did pre-historic tribes gather what they needed?
A: Labour
Q: Did they have currency and economy?
A: No.
Q: How can that be?
A: You don't actually need this. All you need is land with resources (which is already there) and labour (which we will have to provide).

No, we don't have to go back to the caves. Why? Because we have the knowledge and know-how needed for a technologically advanced society. Does this know-how magically disappear when we let go of capital and ownership? Of course not. It will only disappear when we forget.
[/b]

Civilization rose up from the plains when there was enough productivity for somebody to do something besides subsitence farming. Specialization meant that you could eat without farming, and farmers could concentrate on their crops while other people looked after food storage, housing, defence, and anything else that a farmer would trade his surplus for.

Capitalism arose from the problem that there were ventures that were too expensive for a single man's wealth and/or too risky. The Hudson's Bay Company is a prime example, as it combined and solved both capital and specialization problems. The people that had the ability to trade with the indians for furs did not have the means to finance shipping the furs back to europe, and each expedition was risky. Finally, one bad storm and the whole investment founders. The Hudson's Bay company paid to outfit the expeditions and for the shipping. It divided the risk of all the expeditions and shipping amongst all of the investors and shared the spoils amongst all of the backers, in accordance to their contribution. The only loser in this grand scheme (outside of individual tragedies) was the beaver.

In many ways, we cannot go back. While I can get the money to buy a used car, I could never manufacture one from my own resources if I had to mine and smelt the iron. A communist society is a capitalist society, but it is not a free market society. To much of society depends on things that require specialists and more capital than any one individual could provide.

[Mighty Midget]

Basically: Yes, but you're still talking about investments, capital and economy. The risk you mention is purely a financial risk.

While finance is not the 'trademark', so to speak, of capitalism alone, it is an integrated part of capitalism.

I get the feeling you propose that 'money was always there', but that simply isn't true. Currency came along with early civilizations, sure, but it did not come first. Anyway, the existence of 'trading vouches'/money by itself is irrelevant. It's the distribution of the power and the fact that money (in our society) allow piling-up of power that is the question here, I think.

As I pointed out in one of the previous posts, a 'local' outside-capitalism society is a utopia, because you will, as you also point out, need goods and services not provided in your neighbourhood. You can certainly survive, but you cannot have the society evolve technologically. For this, you need a similar society everywhere those needed goods and services are produced -> internationalism.

(digression: ) Chronologically: Civilization rose when agriculture became efficient enough to support non-farmers. Then, and only then, could the specialization begin.

To swap occurences' place in time leads to the absurd.

How could humans evolve technologically when advanced agriculture happened in 'the wrong time'? They did evolve, that's for sure.

Social evolution does not move in a steady pace or in leaps and bounds. It moves in both ways, alternating then simultanously, backwards and forward. It's a mess.

But it is a fact that humans had evolved socially and tecnologically before anyone thought of classes/power/money.

And they did great, too.
(/digression)

You're right. We cannot go back, neither do we want to. But that was never an issue. Points are:
1. There is land. Check.
2. Nature has no concience, thus is unable to demand a sacrifice for us using the land. Check.
3. There are resources. Check
4. See 2 applied to resources. .....Check
5. There is knowledge. Check
6. We are physically capable of harvesting/providing both goods and services. Check
7. We know how to get what we need. Check
8. Our numbers exploded when we got together and worked together to reach our goals. Check.
9. No out-of-this-world/divine obstacle to prevent us from getting what we want. Check

I don't see why we would cease to exist as a technologically advanced species if we abolished money as a means of power and a means to get more money (see the pointless circle here).

[Elon Yariv]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(_r.u.s.s. @ Jun 2 2006, 12:09 PM) [snapback]233770[/snapback]</div>

[sure, why not. but i have worked for the 20k (let's give example 8 hours a day). then someone else gets his 10k for 4 hours of works per day and spent rest 4 hours for his kids and wife(or something else=) ) while i was tearing my knees.
[/b]

Who said that the guy who earns less works for a shorter time? Usally they work for longer times and work much harder! Many managers usally do nothing and risk nothing.

[_r.u.s.s.]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Elon Yariv @ Jun 2 2006, 05:32 PM) [snapback]233870[/snapback]</div>

Who said that the guy who earns less works for a shorter time?
[/b]

nor he doesn't have to work more and earn less..

the post wasnt about work time, but about how hard you try and not ALL succesfull people earned their money by being manager and by their passivity..

[Juni Ori]

Would be interesting to take part into the discussion, but unfortunately I believe my views wouldn't be tolerated. Anyways, nice topic, keep on posting, I'd like to read more!

[plix]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Jun 2 2006, 09:12 AM) [snapback]233783[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(plix @ Jun 2 2006, 04:21 AM) [snapback]233717[/snapback]

You're talking about what is required for production, though you seem to have forgotten the other factors: land and capital. Labor alone doesn't accomplish anything in the absence of the other two. Communism simply shifts control of the unmentioned two to the public (by abolishing private ownership).
[/b]

No, I didn't forget. Land ownership and capital are exactly the issues. As long as you cling to the concept of capital, you also oppose a change towards a more 'red' society. Land ownership? Who says any human has to own the land. The land is there, regardless of who owns it. True? Do the cods and herrings give a shrimps kidney about which human owns the sea? I don't think so. Do the gold, coal, rubber trees, wheat, wild game, pineapples or cows disappear if noone owns the land? I don't think so. Will we be physically unable to harvest the resources if noone owns the land? I don't think so. Is capital as important as arms and fingers for us to harvest these resources? I certainly don't think so.[/b][/quote]
I said nothing of ownership beyond commenting on the differences in it between two economic systems. What I did say is that labor is only part of the equation and that land and capital are also integral to production. Contradicting this is contradicting the core of economics -- something I think you're a bit unqualified to do (I'm not also entirely sure you were trying to do so).

Brief aside: capital != money. Money is only a type of capital. At least learn what the term actually means before telling me I'm wrong.

Now, what I did say is that labor alone is useless in a wholistic view of production. Land is required as you noted yourself. In a capitalistic society land ownership is privitized whereas in a communistic society it's not. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that land is a required factor of production. You can yell and scream all you want but you change that simple fact. The same is true for capital.

[Havell]

Money is not a kind of capital, capital is things like machines and tools. Things used to produce other things, be they more capital or consumer goods and services.
Money is a means of distributing resources, in itself, it is useless; a coin isn't worth anything beyond the base value of it's metal, but it can be used to purchase things that have value in other ways (ie, they are actually useful).

And Midget does have a point about the relationship between labour and capital. Different levels of capital are possible but labour is necessary in all cases. And labour was around long before even the most primitive of capital (eg flint tools).

Remember that labour is necessary for the production and operation of capital, not the other way around. Any economy is based upon labour, as such, to shift the focus onto capital is a mistake.

[plix]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Havell @ Jun 5 2006, 06:43 PM) [snapback]234587[/snapback]</div>

Money is not a kind of capital, capital is things like machines and tools. Things used to produce other things, be they more capital or consumer goods and services.
Money is a means of distributing resources, in itself, it is useless; a coin isn't worth anything beyond the base value of it's metal, but it can be used to purchase things that have value in other ways (ie, they are actually useful).[/b]

Money is also known as financial capital. To put it in a very modern perspective: how many processes can you name in which money isn't a factor of production? I'll bet it's a very slim few (if any).

From another angle: free-float currency (what we're talking about here; gold/silver standard is a separate issue) has value because other people back it (in the case of the US dollar -- the current international standard -- it's backed by the US government). Labor is actually quite the same: my labor is dependent on other forms of capital (such as my technical knowledge, physical condition, etc). Labor has a defined value with respect to production in the exact same way that currency does, and that value is relative to the other factors.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Havell @ Jun 5 2006, 06:43 PM) [snapback]234587[/snapback]</div>

And Midget does have a point about the relationship between labour and capital. Different levels of capital are possible but labour is necessary in all cases. And labour was around long before even the most primitive of capital (eg flint tools).

Remember that labour is necessary for the production and operation of capital, not the other way around. Any economy is based upon labour, as such, to shift the focus onto capital is a mistake.[/b]

I call BS. Assuming that the process in question is completely independent of capital, it's still bound by land (which includes natural resources). Labor without the other factors accomplishes nothing. The only possible exception to this rule which I'd find even plausable are the arts, and even then it's only true of oral-tradition and music (which arguably are predicated upon the availability of air, which is a natural resource). Try basing an economy on that (it might work -- that is, until you starve).

Labor may possibly predate capital (depending on how you define capital; I certainly don't subscribe to any such definitions myself), but it certainly doesn't predate land. Show me an autonomous economy based solely around labor and I'll show you an economy which will fail nearly immediately.