We criticise the capitalist system for the scope for capitalists to take more than their fair share of their labourers’ products (i.e. a larger sum than the goods/materials required to make the product plus money for their own effort to organise all this). Socialists and communists alike would prefer it if the worker’s owned the means of production so they could elect managers (if they wanted them) and recall them at any time.
I am not sure what the hell this even means! What would you guys say?
It’s more of a labor theory of profit, than value. And not even so much a theory as an ethical argument.
It means that he (I as well) would prefer it if workers were shareholders in their own companies, so there’s almost no difference between an employee meeting and a shareholders meeting. Also workers would recieve dividends and no longer would be subject to sell their labor just to survive. They can sell their labor solely for luxuries.
Economically ignorant, labor theory of value crankery.
In a capitalist economy, socialists and communists can do that. In most western democracies socialists and communists can do that. There is very little if not nothing stopping employee owned businesses. They don’t want to invest their capital though. They want to use someone else’s capital then confiscate it if the business is profitable.
I’m referring from the fact that they seem to think that workers are doing “work”, so they deserve “fruits”, while entrepreneurs and investers do no work, and therefore deserve no fruits.
Value does beget profits. But it’s an argument of how profits are to be distributed.
His argument, it appears to me, is not dealing with how prices or profits are created. It seems to be an ethical argument on the distribution of profits.
I think it’s worthwhile to mention Reisman’s attack of the primacy of wages framework, which persists even amongst mainstream neoclassical economists (and even Austrians, including Böhm-Bawerk). The primacy of wages doctrine holds that all income was originally in the form of wages, and therefore profits are deducted from wages. Reisman, rightfully, critiques this, and instead advocates a primacy of profits doctrine, which argues that all income is originally profits (including that of “precapitalist” laborers—indeed, they were being paid for the finished product, not for their labor, and as such their income was purely profit), and as such wages are paid out of accumulated capital, not out of profits.
EDIT: On the uniqueness of this insight, see Tabarrok’s article here. It is a criticism of Reisman.
In a capitalist economy, socialists and communists can do that. In most western democracies socialists and communists can do that. There is very little if not nothing stopping employee owned businesses. They don’t want to invest their capital though.
And many do. There are quite a few worker self-managed companies out there. It’s not that they don’t want to invest their own capital, it’s that they don’t have any (or at least any that they feel is disposable). (Also, some of them actually do want things for free, but that’s true in most cases on anything)
They want to use someone else’s capital then confiscate it if the business is profitable.
Right, I was just cutting to the philosophical chase. In the end, it depends on the Labor Theory of Value.
That’s the whole point of the LTV, isn’t it? Marx tried to jump the shark of the is-ought problem with it. After all, if value is determined by labor, and capitalists sell laborers’ products for more than their value, then EXPLOITATION!!!
Right, I was just cutting to the philosophical chase. In the end, it depends on the Labor Theory of Value
Not exactly. The LTV says that prices are/should be formed based on the labor involved in their creation. This is more of an argument on how/who should recieve the profits from such prices.
After all, if value is determined by labor, and capitalists sell laborers’ products for more than their value, then EXPLOITATION!!!
Once again, this argument does not appear to be in any way based on the LTV. It is more of an ethical argument on the LTDoP (Labor Theory of Distribution of Profits). The LTV states that capital should recieve very low dividends if at all. This argument seems to be at least saying they should be paid for their investments and orginization.
Altho, it seems to say we can avoid this whole issue by turning labor into capitalists as well (ya, I know, labor is capitalist. Try convincing someone struggling paycheck to payched of that)
Some of them would rather live pay check to pay check. Some rich people would too (its just a lot easier for them to live harvest to harvest). Many have to live paycheck to paycheck, not only for their own obligations, but for social ones too (family, community, etc).
