Socialism is stealing, says the thief...

[GreatAugustus]

I've taken into account some arguments against socialism. One in particular I would like to discuss is the claim that redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor is "Stealing" from the various victims who have earned their wealth through blood sweat and tears. Therefore, they believe the government has no right to take your money and give it to strangers, who apparently are not entitled to it.

However in my opinion, This argument is invalid.

In capitalism, the proletariat is expected to work to create a surplus of production. This production is transferred to the bourgeois, who "steal" the these assets and own them, rather than giving back to the proletariat. Obviously the bourgeois need to profit from this enterprise hence why they "steal".

So as you can see, there now is a "cycle". The bourgeois steal from the proletariat and the proletariat steal from the bourgeois. The more socialism there is, the less exploitation there is.

Am I not right?

[Menelik_I]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I've taken into account some arguments against socialism. One in particular I would like to discuss is the claim that redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor is "Stealing" from the various victims who have earned their wealth through blood sweat and tears. Therefore, they believe the government has no right to take your money and give it to strangers, who apparently are not entitled to it.

However in my opinion, This argument is invalid.

In capitalism, the proletariat is expected to work to create a surplus of production. This production is transferred to the bourgeois, who "steal" the these assets and own them, rather than giving back to the proletariat. Obviously the bourgeois need to profit from this enterprise hence why they "steal".

So as you can see, there now is a "cycle". The bourgeois steal from the proletariat and the proletariat steal from the bourgeois. The more socialism there is, the less exploitation there is.

Am I not right?

You are wrong.

Here are some questions:

1- You, GreatAugustus, could you build a shovel with your bare hands ?

2- Who tells you that work is the biggest input in a economic activity ?

3- Would it be exploitation if you saved money for some years, bough a taxi and then Hired a Indian chap to drive people around town for a fee ?

[Claudius Gothicus]

3- Would it be exploitation if you saved money for some years, bough a taxi and then Hired a Indian chap to drive people around town for a fee ?

Under the Labor Theory of Value the money you make out of exploiting the Indian's Workforce still counts as Surplus Value.

The Surplus Value equals that amount of money that is left after deducing the taxes, the driver's salary and the necessary materials to keep the car running(repairments and fuel).

The problem of Marxist Theory of Value is not in the ''explanation'' of surplus, the problem lies in another part: the historical necessities Marx names as fundamental to understand the value of Labor. he throws around that term and then goes on to explain a series of dimensions to it that do not really fit a consistent definition of necessity.

[Menelik_I]

Under the Labor Theory of Value the money you make out of exploiting the Indian's Workforce still counts as Surplus Value.

Am I simply exploiting or Am I exploiting according to the Labor Value theory ?

Under the Labor Theory of Value the money you make out of exploiting the Indian's Workforce still counts as Surplus Value.

The Surplus Value equals that amount of money that is left after deducing the taxes, the driver's salary and the necessary materials to keep the car running(repairments and fuel).

1- So if the car was computer driven there wouldn't be a any value in it ?

2- Would it be still valuable or even exploitation if I made the driver run a route that didn't make any money because people don't want to travel to the graveyard at midnight.

There is no wealth redistribution without taxation, that's what I was getting at. I know that taxation can serve other purposes.

Actually you have redistribution by nationalization and state ownership.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Am I simply exploiting or Am I exploiting according to the Labor Value theory ?

The concept of ''Exploitation''(as an appropiation of the Worker's product) doesn't exist in Neoclassical Economics of Stratification Models of Social Class. Yeah, we are moving on the purely ''Marxist'' realm in here.

1- So if the car was computer driven there wouldn't be a any value in it ?

A discussion of sorts appeared in Marxist Circles during the later years of the 1890's. The increasing levels of mechanization and automatization of the Taylor Managment Model drove many Marxist Economists to the conclusion that the systematic rationalization of the productive process and an increasing ''separation'' of workers from Capital might even make Surplus Value dissapear altogheter. Others argued that Surplus Value wouldn't dissappear because in the end Capitalism is a Social System, and like all Social Systems, it still needs laborers that perform tasks(work) in arrangement to the modified technological enviroment, a new level of automatization would create a new form of laborer.

The discussion then ended because Neoclassical Economics(Alfred Marshall especifically) came along with a much more explanatory and predictive model and once again threw Economic Marxism into the garbage can.

2- Would it be still valuable or even exploitation if I made the driver run a route that didn't make any money because people don't want to travel to the graveyard at midnight.

The Labor theory of value recognizes that in order to be ''valuable'' all goods and services need to perform a certain use in the market(in other words, posses certain utility). That's one of the shaky areas of Marxist Economics, they can't explain the subject's role in the formation of Value.

[Blaze86420]

Actually you have redistribution by nationalization and state ownership.

Yes you are right, but is nationalization an issue in the Western world currently?

[chilon]

Both these conceptions are wrong.

Capitalist profiting is not stealing. Taxation is not stealing.

[GreatAugustus]

No you are not right.

When I pay my workers I am stealing their assets?

You would be right if slavery were still in vogue, but it is not in most of the world these days.

I make a contract with my workers, "You do this I give you this much money." My patients make a contract with me "I do this they give this much money." When I take out what my overhead is, which includes my workers pay as well as everything else that goes into it, I get whats left over.

Sometimes that is a LOT, sometimes I have to write a check to cover the difference.

When I was running at a loss (which I did for three years) were my workers stealing from me? No, they were paid to do a job. The fact that I wasn't making any money doing my job doesn't matter. Now that I am making a profit am I stealing from them? No they are still paid to do the same job, the profit would not exist without me, my risk, my capital. If I failed they would owe me nothing, if I succeed I owe them nothing but what they agreed to work for.

When government tries to interfere with this system it runs the risk of putting one of these forces out of wack. Socialism is one of those types of interference which doesn't just upset the balance, it destroys it and replaces it with vacuous crap.

Show me a socialist, and I mean a true socialist not one who plays one at charity events they host while their private jet waits for them, and I will show you someone who couldn't run a hotdog stand.

So what happens when workers go off sick?

You are wrong.

Here are some questions:

1- You, GreatAugustus, could you build a shovel with your bare hands ?

2- Who tells you that work is the biggest input in a economic activity ?

1 - The division of labour lead to tribal farming communities exchanging goods and services. Now things are different - people start dealing with unequal ratio of exchange; bargaining and negotiation. Can't you see a problem with that? (Phier's dilemma)

2 - Could you elaborate please?

[Menelik_I]

1 - The division of labour lead to tribal farming communities exchanging goods and services. Now things are different - people start dealing with unequal ratio of exchange; bargaining and negotiation. Can't you see a problem with that? (Phier's dilemma)

Why would the ratio be equal in a primitive or tribal society ?

2 - Could you elaborate please?

Can you create a shovel with your bare hands, ie without a hammer, a Oven and a pick Axe ?

What makes you think that workers are the biggest input in production.

But don't focus on me, read Phier and think about what He said :

[QUOTE]

No you are not right.

When I pay my workers I am stealing their assets?

You would be right if slavery were still in vogue, but it is not in most of the world these days.

I make a contract with my workers, "You do this I give you this much money." My patients make a contract with me "I do this they give this much money." When I take out what my overhead is, which includes my workers pay as well as everything else that goes into it, I get whats left over.

Sometimes that is a LOT, sometimes I have to write a check to cover the difference.

When I was running at a loss (which I did for three years) were my workers stealing from me? No, they were paid to do a job. The fact that I wasn't making any money doing my job doesn't matter. Now that I am making a profit am I stealing from them? No they are still paid to do the same job, the profit would not exist without me, my risk, my capital. If I failed they would owe me nothing, if I succeed I owe them nothing but what they agreed to work for.

When government tries to interfere with this system it runs the risk of putting one of these forces out of wack. Socialism is one of those types of interference which doesn't just upset the balance, it destroys it and replaces it with vacuous crap.

Show me a socialist, and I mean a true socialist not one who plays one at charity events they host while their private jet waits for them, and I will show you someone who couldn't run a hotdog stand.

[GreatAugustus]

Why would the ratio be equal in a primitive or tribal society ?

Economies were a lot simpler then. People produced what they needed. Anything that was left lying around could be stolen, traded or weathered away.

Can you create a shovel with your bare hands, ie without a hammer, a Oven and a pick Axe ?

What makes you think that workers are the biggest input in production.

Everything that was ever made was made by worker input - am I missing the point?

But don't focus on me, read Phier and think about what He said :

Theoretically, Phier's workers should have worked just as hard as they do every other day. Whenever patients visit or not is not their problem as they have no influence over. Why then, does pheir receive an extra part of the wealth on top of what he gets from management, overheads and investment into new wealth? What happens when random events negatively effect the workers?

@ Kesa:
Very Interesting. I shall think about this.

[Menelik_I]

Everything that was ever made was made by worker input - am I missing the point?

You, salary 20 000$ pcm, working at a oil right that cost 50 millions Dollars to build and 500 000$ running cost pcm, is your input still the lion share ?

Economies were a lot simpler then. People produced what they needed. Anything that was left lying around could be stolen, traded or weathered away.

You still don't answer why you think the ratio was more equal by then.

[Enemy of the State]

Firstly, value is subjective. This should be blatantly obvious. Would you pay 1000 dollars for a glass of water? Probably not, but if you were dying of thirst in a desert you very likely would. Do you care how much work went into bringing this water to you? No, you care for the utility you get from the water.

Have you ever asked yourself why people actually agree to work for capitalists? It's because of time. People prefer goods sooner rather than later. Capitalists pay workers wages in advance of any profit . They are paid for the present value of future output. You could, if you wanted to, produce goods independently, and sell them yourself. But it would take far longer to earn money, and you would have to take on the element of risk. Nobody might not want to buy what you produce. As a wage worker, that would not be your concern. That risk is taken by the capitalist. People work for capitalists so they can satisfy their ends quicker, while capitalists put off their reward further into the future for more gain. Both parties benefit. Otherwise they would not make such a trade in the first place.

What is wealth anyway? It is the ability to satisfy your desires. We all have very different desires. It may have nothing to do with physical goods. A miserable billionaire may consider himself unwealthy if he most values what money can't buy.

[justicar5]

Can you create a shovel with your bare hands, ie without a hammer, a Oven and a pick Axe ?

yes, it wouldn't be metal, and wouldn't be that great, but yes I could, and have (the weird things you learn in army cadets ;p)

[Menelik_I]

yes, it wouldn't be metal, and wouldn't be that great, but yes I could, and have (the weird things you learn in army cadets ;p)

I guess you have a point ...

I bet they made you dig trenches with them too

[Blaze86420]

Throw ideology and philosophy out the window for a second here and talk real terms: What exactly is wealth redistribution? Taxation. Can a government survive without taxation? Nope, therefore we need taxation. Right, wrong, fair, unfair, doesn't matter, we need taxation.

Unless you're an anarchist who believes that we don't need a government, I don't see how you can argue your way around it. We need wealth redistribution, because happens and you need to fall back on people once in a while until you can pull yourself together.

[Menelik_I]

Throw ideology and philosophy out the window for a second here and talk real terms: What exactly is wealth redistribution? Taxation. Can a government survive without taxation? Nope, therefore we need taxation. Right, wrong, fair, unfair, doesn't matter, we need taxation.

You threw English in your simplification.

Taxation is a means, and a government don't survive, it does things and the question is what should it do, being that wealth redistribution is something it can do.

[Blaze86420]

You threw English in your simplification.

Taxation is a means, and a government don't survive, it does things and the question is what should it do, being that wealth redistribution is something it can do.

There is no wealth redistribution without taxation, that's what I was getting at. I know that taxation can serve other purposes.

[Phier]

No you are not right.

When I pay my workers I am stealing their assets?

You would be right if slavery were still in vogue, but it is not in most of the world these days.

I make a contract with my workers, "You do this I give you this much money." My patients make a contract with me "I do this they give this much money." When I take out what my overhead is, which includes my workers pay as well as everything else that goes into it, I get whats left over.

Sometimes that is a LOT, sometimes I have to write a check to cover the difference.

When I was running at a loss (which I did for three years) were my workers stealing from me? No, they were paid to do a job. The fact that I wasn't making any money doing my job doesn't matter. Now that I am making a profit am I stealing from them? No they are still paid to do the same job, the profit would not exist without me, my risk, my capital. If I failed they would owe me nothing, if I succeed I owe them nothing but what they agreed to work for.

When government tries to interfere with this system it runs the risk of putting one of these forces out of wack. Socialism is one of those types of interference which doesn't just upset the balance, it destroys it and replaces it with vacuous crap.

Show me a socialist, and I mean a true socialist not one who plays one at charity events they host while their private jet waits for them, and I will show you someone who couldn't run a hotdog stand.

[Whukid]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No you are not right.

When I pay my workers I am stealing their assets?

You would be right if slavery were still in vogue, but it is not in most of the world these days.

I make a contract with my workers, "You do this I give you this much money." My patients make a contract with me "I do this they give this much money." When I take out what my overhead is, which includes my workers pay as well as everything else that goes into it, I get whats left over.

Sometimes that is a LOT, sometimes I have to write a check to cover the difference.

When I was running at a loss (which I did for three years) were my workers stealing from me? No, they were paid to do a job. The fact that I wasn't making any money doing my job doesn't matter. Now that I am making a profit am I stealing from them? No they are still paid to do the same job, the profit would not exist without me, my risk, my capital. If I failed they would owe me nothing, if I succeed I owe them nothing but what they agreed to work for.

When government tries to interfere with this system it runs the risk of putting one of these forces out of wack. Socialism is one of those types of interference which doesn't just upset the balance, it destroys it and replaces it with vacuous crap.

Show me a socialist, and I mean a true socialist not one who plays one at charity events they host while their private jet waits for them, and I will show you someone who couldn't run a hotdog stand.

^this^

Since you're talking about material production though, if you make something with my tools, using my raw materials, and being paid by me to do so, the "something" would rightfully belong to me. Why? because I paid someone for the materials to make it, the tools to refine it, and the worker to put it together. Therefore it is mine.

My question is, what happens when there is no more rich? Eventually, they will run out of money, die, or quit their job and retire peacefully in a non-socialist country, and you will run out of the rich and wealthy. People will no longer want to become rich or wealthy for two reasons;
1. The Government will steal all your money to give wherever they decide to give
2. Life is far too good on the bottom. If you can enjoy the exploits of being rich when you're poor, why advance?

So after this happens, then what? Where do you get you're money from, the next bracket down?

[Matthias]

When government tries to interfere with this system it runs the risk of putting one of these forces out of wack. Socialism is one of those types of interference which doesn't just upset the balance, it destroys it and replaces it with vacuous crap.

Show me a socialist, and I mean a true socialist not one who plays one at charity events they host while their private jet waits for them, and I will show you someone who couldn't run a hotdog stand.

Without government, you have an unstable society of sorts, hardly a "balance" of anything. I mean, government enforces contracts, government educated your workers, government made the infrastructure your and every business depends on, government makes laws that your business abides by in order to keep a stable market economy where trust can be put into the system... all of this is government "interfering" with the system, and for the system to be in any way effective or efficient, interference of a sort is necessary.

As for your comment about a socialist that can't run a hotdog stand? More partisan crap. Socialists are capitalists, and vice versa. You yourself are socialist in many ways, and rely and contribute to socialism. These are silly labels to a degree, the main difference being how much regulation/interference is best, not going all one way (anarchy) or the other (communism).