I talk on the LARGE CORPORATION, but Yuberries confuses all. If you build a wooden shack next to your house, and rent, does not influence in none, is very small. You has conditions to build a wooden shack, but has not conditions to build a luxury house, therefore has not conditions to compete with a large capitalist that builds luxury house.
Okay, renting my shack for like $50 a month isn’t exploitation then. Good.
What about a bigger shack, for $100 a month?
$300 a month for a bedroom in my house?
$500 for a one-room appartment
$800 two-room
$2000 house
$5000 a multi-family house
$20,000 an aparment building
$100,000 office building?
At what point exactly does it become exploitation, and why? Assuming at every point, people voluntarily worked on the project by pay or interest. Hell, imagine a commune of construction workers went around making houses and renting them, splitting the money by themselves. Would that be exploitation too?
Not all land was acquired through fraud of coercion, if that is what you are implying.
I was not implying all, merely most, if not all.
Are you referring to the Rothschilds?
They are the poster boys, yes. But many people had their hand in the pot, and I am not just reffering to the english panic engineered by Rothschild.
How do we seem to forget this?
Perhaps whitewash was the word I was looking for.
Felipe, you really never read Marx, nor Bohm-Bawerk, nor Mises, and never studied History and Economy.
So your final argument is that you cant debate me and therefore you choose to indulge yourself in ad hominem attacks?.. Sad
The increase of productiveness of labor reduce the time labor to the production of commodity, what reduce the price of commodities.
Value and price are two different concepts.
Capital is a SOCIAL RELATION. On this, Bohm-Bawerk knew.
No, for marxists capital is a “social relation” but for real economists capital is a factor of production.
Silliness by who never read Marx and Engels.
Keep going big baby, the only one who is embarrasing himself here is you.
Answer what is the name of dictator of Paris Commune.
The Paris Commune leaders never read Marx and the commune lasted too little to form any meaninful political organization.
At contrary at your “brilliant man”, we never advocate a “dictatorship”
Except the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, now go ahead deny it.
Inferiority complex? Not. I live very well.
Who cares?
Your material conditions dont determine your conscience.
You asked: “is that easy to build condominiums for the “rich”?”. I know on capitalist that oust the renders to build luxury appartments to wealthy, I asked him: “The capitalists are all suckers.” You miseinterpreted again
You obviously dont know how to debate, it is not enought to bring anecdotic self-serving evidence and by the way you just admited to a generalization fallacy XD
Economic fredom to the capital in this country there much, but to the worker that there not.
This really doesnt mean anything in english.
If you “live so well” you could at least pay some english lessons.
You did so well until this line.
How do we whitewash this?
When assumptions are made that this is a capitalist nation, or that many business holdings in this nation are legitimate, it only leads me to think that you are just cruising over the native american (here), the native south americans, and africans as if they were not stolen from.
It’s one thing to theorize what capitalism would be like. It is a whole other thing to relate it to the corporatism practiced in this country.
Is exploitation. Because now refers to a mean of production: you is a owner of a mean of production. Your money play the role of capital, because you hire workers to build a multi-family house, an aparment, office building ($100,000 the price). Your money plays the role of capital. That’s what I try explain. If LIVE in your house, the house play the role of value in use. But if the your objective is rents, the house play the role of mean of production.
… okay.
The Felipe is without argument., only offends. Now wants correct my errors of english.
Teacher, price is exchangeable value expressed in money.
Will study on the Paris Commune, the representatives had revocable mandates at any time. Why you explain not on the remainder History? Reports the final History. On the thousands killed during the “La Semaine Sanglante”.
Factor of production is the your mother that produced a sucker that only wrotes silliness here. Capital is social relation. Böhm-Bawerk knew on this and wrote on this. You that read not nor yours masters.
The Felipe is without argument., only offends.
You had NO arguments except the repeated use of blattant assertions and the patethic attemp to win this debate by endurance.
Now wants correct my errors of english
I dont live in a english speaking country yet I know how to use some damn pronouns in a debate.
Teacher, price is exchangeable value expressed in money.
No, value is subjective to every individual and price is a statistic of the exchanges in the market
Will study on the Paris Commune, the representatives had revocable mandates at any time.
Please tell me you are not that naive to believe they had “free elections” in the comune.
And as I said before none of those undemocratic populist self-apointed leaders read Marx to begin with so your example of socialist society was bogus to begin with.
Why you explain not on the remainder History? Reports the final History. On the thousands killed during the “La Semaine Sanglante”.
Factor of production is the your mother that produced a sucker that only wrotes silliness here.
This is exactly was I was talking about, barely understandable pseudo-english nonsense.
Capital is social relation.
No, it doesnt matter how many times you repeat it.
Böhm-Bawerk knew on this and wrote on this.
No, he didnt and it is futile to keep going over this because is just not true.
You that read not nor yours masters.
Im sorry but unlike socialists we libertarians have no masters.
Ok, teacher of english, so you dont lives in a english speaking country, but wants give lesson of english.
This your last comment is only attack. Not says none.
Since the age of Aristotle, we know that the commotities has two value: value in use and value in exchange. Price is value in exchange expressed in money.
In Paris Commune had more that “free elections”. The mandates of representatives could to be revoked at any time. Was a direct democracy. On other hand, in “golden age of liberalism”, only the richs could vote. But comments on the remainder of History. Comments on “The Bloody Week”. How many killed? According to sources more modests, at less 20.000 killed in 7 days (1 September 11 attack at day).Slavery was factor of production?
Fief was factor of production? Was social relations. Capital also. Bohm-Bawerk said: “In political economy and in practical life, generally we have long been accustomed to treat of certain great social problems as problems of capital, and in doing so we have had in our minds, not a conception which embraced labour, but a conception that opposed capital to labour. Capital and Labour, Capitalism and Socialism, Interest on capital and Wages of labour, are certainly not harmless synonyms; they express the strongest conceivable social and economical contrasts.” Read?
But I thought you had no problem with me renting the shack…
So factory workers aren’t allowed to sell their factory products either, even if it’s syndicate-run? And construction workers can’t sell houses. In fact, no one can sell anything, right? Because they’re using money as capital, they’re exploiting the consumers. Or wait, they’re getting paid, so maybe they’re being exploited by the consumers. Uh, I don’t know.
Is a barter economy exploitation too? Could I rent my shack for some mexican bun at the cost of him mowing my lawn and gardening labor once a month? What CAN you do in marxism that allows specialization of labor? Does everyone have to go back to subsistance farming because they’re not allowed to sell or rent that which they build? Is it just the type of capital that you arbitrarly find exploitative?
I can’t rent my shack. Can I sell it?
Can I rent or sell a wardrobe that I made?
Rent or sell a bed?
A chair?
A pencil?
Is there a disctinction from a pencil to a house? If so why, if they’re all take the role of a means of production when I sell or rent them? And what is the difference between renting and selling if any?
Dear Yuberries.
Confuses not CAPITAL with EXCHANGE. If you has a wooden house, where lives, need not this house, but need rice, John plants rice, but needs house. You needs rice, John needs house. So you negotiates with John exchange the your house for 5 Kg of rice. This is a exchange. The capitalism created not the exchange. It already exists in Neolithic.
But here you refers to a man that starts renting a wooden house and after expands their business (builds a appartment and official building that is not cheap) and hire worker. This is capital. This is the cause of thousands of american live in huts while there many empty appartments. Who has not money, lives in hut in street or it indebtedness in credit, has happened in crisis.
What I’m explaining that capital is a social relation.
This your last comment is only attack. Not says none.
You provide no argument to refute besides lies, I challenged you to prove your affirmation which of course you couldnt do.
Since the age of Aristotle
Now I understand why you are so confused, you still believe in classical economics and dont know anything about modern economics.
In Paris Commune had more that “free elections”. The mandates of representatives could to be revoked at any time.
Sure and the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is “democracy in action”… please, the idea of open free elections in a state of civil war and social chaos is laughable.
Even more the commune barely lasted 2 months not enough to stablish a credible social organization and that is assuming that such “goverment” would have lasted another month considering the lack of economic kwnoledge of its “democraticaly elected” autocrats I higly doubt it.
Was a direct democracy.
No, it was a state of populist anarchy mantained by force and violence and supported by theft.
in “golden age of liberalism”, only the richs could vote.
Again you are missing the entire point, in liberalism individual liberty and economic freedom doesnt require votes, it already belongs to everybody.
Comments on “The Bloody Week”. How many killed? According to sources more modests, at less 20.000 killed in 7 days (1 September 11 attack at day).
Relevance?
Slavery was factor of production?
Labour is a factor of production, althogh for the 100th time there is no slavery in capitalism.
Fief was factor of production? Was social relations. Capital also.
No, again [INSULT DELETED] Capital is factor of production
Bohm-Bawerk said: “In political economy and in practical life, generally we have long been accustomed to treat of certain great social problems as problems of capital, and in doing so we have had in our minds, not a conception which embraced labour, but a conception that opposed capital to labour. Capital and Labour, Capitalism and Socialism, Interest on capital and Wages of labour, are certainly not harmless synonyms; they express the strongest conceivable social and economical contrasts.”
Oh my god you are hilarious!
You managed to draw some absurd conclussion from a passage of Bohm-Bawerk where he talks about the dichotomy of labour and capital in society and how they are interconnected in an economy, desperatly trying to reconcile his ideas with your absurd “bourgeois social relation dependent on the bourgeois society” marxist theory nonsense.
Its useless youberries, marlen will just continue to repeat the same nonsense he read in of “wage labour and capital” over and over again.
Confuses not CAPITAL with EXCHANGE. If you has a wooden house, where lives, need not this house, but need rice, John plants rice, but needs house. You needs rice, John needs house. So you negotiates with John exchange the your house for 5 Kg of rice. This is a exchange. The capitalism created not the exchange. It already exists in Neolithic.
Capitalism created the conditions for free exchange.
But here you refers to a man that starts renting a wooden house and after expands their business (builds a appartment and official building that is not cheap) and hire worker. This is capital.
No, capital is not dependent on the purchase of “labour power” but it is a complementary factor of production like labour.
This is the cause of thousands of american live in huts while there many empty appartments. Who has not money, lives in hut in street or it indebtedness in credit, has happened in crisis.
The biggest non sequitur I have ever read LMAO
You know it just hit me. The reason why none else is replying to marlen is because they realized that its just a waste of time.
The Felipe challenged me! And now? I will hide me! challenged not me in none. You argues not none.
Do not writes silliness on the Paris Commune. The was a direct democracy. You know not what is “dictatorship of the proletariat”. The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. Instead of continuing to be the agent of the Central Government, the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workman’s wage. The vested interests and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves.
Why the commune the commune barely lasted 2 months? Orhas not relevance the thousands of killed by liberals during “La Semaine Sanglante”?
Who are missing the entire point is you. Individual liberty to who? The 16 hors of labor at day was “individual liberty”? The worhouses was individual liberty? The enclosures was individual liberty?
Capital is a socia relation. Or will say that the Neanderthal Man was a capitalist, as said John Bates Clark?
Böhm-Bawerk refers to economists that counts labour as capital (has yours friends, here). He talked that according to economic science and pratical life, capital is a GREAT SOCIAL PROBLEM, that OPPOSES to LABOUR.
Was the capitalism that created the free exchange? This humor was good. Very previously of know the capitalism already existed the exchange. Since Neolithic existed. Will study.
You that only hit me. You arguments not none. Only use the “argumentum ad hominem”.
Oh I didn’t mean to imply exchange was strictly a capitalistic feature. But it does require the concept of private property, even if only for consumption goods. My question is, why do you aknowledge my right to exchange the goods that I produce for rice, but not for money?
If the shack or wardrobe is mine to do with it whatever I want, why do you not respect my choice of voluntarily trading it for fiat paper? Or plastic products from a far away country that I won’t ever use?
And how is that restriction of how I can use my own capital and labor supposed to make me wealthier? Convincing me that I’m better off not trading my hand-made furniture for pieces of paper is rather different than prohibiting me of doing it. Why would the proletariat be any better either? Apart from you know, stealing the bourgueois’ capital.
First thing I think is that, again, if you don’t allow factory owners to reap the profits of his factory, then no factories will be made… the proletariat may be short-term wealthier, at the expense of the bourgueois, but then no proletariat would have any incentive to build another factory again; because he would not be allowed to profit from it, duh. The other proletariats would steal it from him just as they stole from the capitalist. So the tempting would-be-factory owner simply conforms.
Pretty simply, if you don’t allow me to sell or rent all the things I listed before, then less of those things will be made. I’d be tempted to build only smaller things that I can get away with bartering, but no houses, shacks, or even wardrobes no more. (I’m not really a carpenter BTW.)
Also, in direct response to the thread title: the owners of capital may not need to work now, but they’ve worked to create the capital in the past, and are collecting the fruits now.
To say the capitalist doesn’t work is like saying the farmer doesn’t work, watching him harvest his crops efforlessly, while ignoring all he’s done in the past to make the crops grow.
The Felipe challenged me! And now? I will hide me!
I would recommend you run to a library and learn something about economics
Do not writes silliness on the Paris Commune. The was a direct democracy.
No it wasnt and by now you should at least provide some evidence on the matter instead of repeating the same thing over and over again.
You know not what is “dictatorship of the proletariat”.
Genocide, violence and coercion
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms.
So you say, yet you provide no evidence of this, even more I challenge your whole idea of a “democratic” regime when it is supported in violating the rights of the individual..
Instead of continuing to be the agent of the Central Government, the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable.
So you admit a central government is corrupt and evil? good
From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workman’s wage.
Populism and violence… nice combinacion
Why the commune the commune barely lasted 2 months?
My entire point is that your assumptions about the future of that regime are only that, assumptions.
Backward socialist policies would have destroyed the comune in due time, the french govenrment merely speeded thing up.
Orhas not relevance the thousands of killed by liberals during “La Semaine Sanglante”?
Honestly I really dont care.
Individual liberty to who?
Everyone
The 16 hors of labor at day was “individual liberty” The worhouses was individual liberty?
We already discussed this, I already explained how in voluntary social contracts individuals are free to act and yet you bring it up again.
The enclosures was individual liberty?
You are contradicting yourself again, you already stated in this debate that “enclosure acts never existed”
Capital is a socia relation.
No
Or will say that the Neanderthal Man was a capitalist, as said John Bates Clark?
Actually he was a communist since the most primitive societies were collective societies… thats why they were primitives.
Böhm-Bawerk refers to economists that counts labour as capital (has yours friends, here). He talked that according to economic science and pratical life, capital is a GREAT SOCIAL PROBLEM, that OPPOSES to LABOUR.
Actually you understood that backwards.
Bohm-Bawerk talks about how capital and labour are connected as opposed to the common misperception of that time considering capital in conflict with labour.
To consider capital a “social problem” is a mistake. You clearly never read Bohm-Bawerk or Mises.
Was the capitalism that created the free exchange? This humor was good. Very previously of know the capitalism already existed the exchange.
No, I said capitalism CREATED THE CONDITIONS FOR FREE EXCHANGE.