Re: Hunting with Mark Monson

royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On 18 May 2005 08:52:49 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >The owner of the spear may also use the privilege of ownership

> Ownership of the products of one's labor is a right, not a privilege.

Yet using that right to subjugate others is a privilege. Without
somekind of authority granting that privilege, the Owner would have no
way of collecting his spear back from the Hunter, nor any of the
Hunter's yield.

The right of property is only inherently valid when it is possessed and
used, the right to "own" that which is used and possessed by others,
and the right to appropriate their product as a consequence, is a
privilege granted by social convention.

> Stop lying.

I am not lying, I am stating my beliefs. Stop bullying. No one is
forcing you to have a conversation about this, especially as my post
was a response to Mark's, not your's. In anycase, you should have
noticed by now I wont take the bait, as I prefer to have a respectfull
discusion with you, I appreciate your contributions here and am not
interested in agitating you.

> >to demand the entire hunt as his property, and then offer the hunter
> >nothing more than his subsistence in meat.

> He can only "demand" the entire proceeds of the hunt if the hunter
> agrees to that price.

And if the Hunter's alternative is starvation, he can not refuse.

> >For what reason would the spear _owner_ give the hunter any more
than
> >his subsistence?

> Competition from other spear owners, who also want to eat.

Why would any of them give the Hunters a better deal as long as the
supply of Hunter's is sufficient?

As long as there are other, unemployed and hungry Hunters, why would
any spear owner pay them more than any other?

As both Malthus and Ricardo explained at length, any wage increases
that results from a shortfall of labour supply, will be retrenched by
an increase in supply.

Also, as we all know, Capital ownership tends to centralize in to fewer
hands with each business cycle as insolvent Capital is absorbed by
Capital owners that have survived the downturn.

> >What leverage does the Hunter have by which to get a
> >better deal?

> The facts that he is a better hunter, and that others, including him,
> are free to make spears, too.

"Spear" is figurative here and not just anybody can make Capital, you
first have to accumulate enough wealth, which is where the problem
starts.

It is better for your personal and class interests to pay subsistense
to an average Hunter, then allow a "better" hunter to accumulate
wealth, and perhaps enter your class.

> >Further, by accepting this deal, by allowing the owner of the spear
to
> >appropriate the entire product,

> He is not appropriating anything. It is a voluntary trade. Stop
> lying.

The word appropriation means "to take exclusive possession of," check
your dictionary, and is often used in the scholarally discusion on this
topic, for example David Ellerman in his essay "Capitalism and Worker's
Self-Management" says "What is the moral basis of property? How is
property to be rightfully appropriated?" My usage of the word is thus
influenced by Ellerman and others.

The owner of the spear, in my example, is appropriating the product,
that is not in dispute here. It is wether the appropriation is
rightfull that is being discussed, your comment serves no function
except to distract from the point.

And if the Hunter's alternative to accepting the trade is starvation, I
would not consider that voluntary, any more than giving a mugger your
money when offered "your money or your life" is voluntary.

> >less his subsistence, the hunter has no
> >means by which to accumulate wealth with which to become an owner of
a
> >spear,

> Stop lying. He can make his own spear. Then what will the spear
> owner do, hmmmm? The hunter may have no use for two spears.

The use of spear is figurative, as was explained along with the other
assumptions, not just anybody can make Capital, you first need to
acquire wealth, that puts the Hunter in an exploitable situation, as he
can not command enough for his labour to accumulate wealth.

> >yet his own labour contributes to the wealth of his oppressor.

> The spear owner is not an oppressor. He is contributing to
> production. Stop lying.

In the example stated, he is an oppressor, because whether he
contributed to production or not, his ability to appropriate the
product doesn't come from this contribution, but rather comes from his
ability to force the Hunter into starvation.

> >And also, your simple example ignores the fact the _owner_ of the
> >spear, is not necessarily the _maker_ of the spear, as having
surplus
> >product from the exploited Hunter

> He is not exploited. He is trading voluntarily and his rights are
> being respected. Stop lying.

You ignore the point here about the owner not being the maker in order
to merely repeat your already stated contention that the hunter is not
exploited, thus your statement is a non sequitur.

> >gives the _owner_ wealth to use to
> >hire spear makers as well,
>
> Becoming a deal maker....

He can hire deal makers too. In fact he can be in a coma and outsource
the management of his entire estate.

> >and if making spears for the owner is also
> >an alternative to to starvation for these spear makers, they too
would
> >accept subsistence as their wage, and the Owner would have no reason
to
> >give them any more.

> Other than the fact that the spear makers and hunters are quite free
> to cut out the middle man. Duh.

Only if they have sufficient accumulation of wealth, which is what you
are consistently ignoring or minimalizing.

> >It is this situation that more accurately describes the Capitalist
mode
> >of production than the one you present.

> And as long as everyone's rights to own and trade the products of
> their labor are respected, where is the problem?

The problem is when they do not trade, but use the privilege of
ownership to exploit others.

The Hunter is entitled to his entire yield, and owes the spear owner
only the market value of the spear, nothing more.

The exploitation begins when the yield is appropriated by the Spear
owner, who then only pays the Hunter the market value of his labour.

> >The worker must, in the
> >end, own the Capital that their labour is applied to, individually
or
> >collectively,

> Why, if they are willing to pay for use of capital others own?

Because doing so will drive their wage towards subsistense.

> >and the product must, in the end, be retained by the worker.

> Why, if they are willing to trade some of it for use of others'
> capital?

Trading some of it is fine, as long as that some represents the market
value of the Capital. Allowing the Capitalist to appropriate the whole
thing, and in turn merely pay them wages, will make sure that they are
forever subjugated by the Capitalist.

> >The capital/interest contract is not the only possible contract, and
> >not one that is a good deal for labour, as the owner has no motive
to
> >pay the Hunter any more than his subsistense,

> Sure he does: competition from other spear owners and potential spear
> owners, including the hunter. Stop lying.

I wont accuse you of lying, as I see no point in that, however you need
to explain why any of the spear owners would offer the Hunters more
than subsistence when doing so would be against their personal and
class interests, and is unnecessary.

> >and in such a condition,
> >the Hunter has no means of accumulating wealth to become an owner.

> Sure he does: make his own spear. Stop lying.

Again, I wont accuse you of lying, but the belief that all workers have
the ability to accumulate Capital is an obvious falsehood.

> >And the _owner_, meaning the Capitalist that collects the Interest,
is
> >_neither_ hunter nor spear maker,

> A deal maker, then? That can also contribute to production.

Nope, being a "deal maker" is also not being a Capitalist, deal makers
can also be hired for wages.

> >but rather somebody with surplus
> >wealth, wealth that more often than not, was acquired by the
> >exploitation of others.
>
> Nope. Given the hypothetical example, where has anyone been
> exploited?

The hunter has been exploited as the Owner is using the privilege of
ownership of the spear to appropriate the product and retain more of it
than is the market value of the spear.

> >Even so, one with surplus wealth who chooses to invest in Capital
> >rather than consume must be rewarded, however Interest can easily be
> >divided into two easily distinguishable forms: Money Interest and
> >Capital Yield.

> Nope. Money interest is just the portion of capital yield left to
> owners as a result of the competition between them increasing wages.

Competition is not a strong force when there is excess supply, as their
is whenever you have unemployment. Which in the Capitalist mode of
production is always.

Further, negotiating for greater money wage increases does not
guarantee a larger share of the product, as this increase can simply be
lost to price increases.

> >Capital yield is the legitimate property of labour, the natural wage
of
> >labour is its entire product, including the extra portion of product
> >that exists because of the use of Capital.
>
> A claim with zero fact or logic to support it.

My comment is a statement of belief, which is then followed (below) by
the logic that this premature response ignores. What is the point of
that?

> >If I use a spade to plant a garden, all the yield of that garden is
> >mine, the spade maker is not entitled to any of it,
>
> Only as long as you have bought the spade from him. If you are
> borrowing it, it must be on agreed terms.

And inorder to agree to the terms, the worker can not be forced in an
offer they can not refuse, as when the withholding of Capital can force
them into starvation.

> >despite the fact
> >that my garden would likely have produced a smaller yield without
the
> >spade. It would have produced no yield at all without my labour.

> The difference is to be divied between you, on agreed terms.

Yet, agreement on terms is hard to conduct when starvation is the
consequence of refusal. Only organized workers can undertake this
negotiation effectively.

> >However, as the spade itself is the product of the labour of others,
> >then in order to acquire it, if I can not make it myself, I must
trade
> >something that is mine for it, and if I have nothing to trade, then
I
> >must loan money for the trade,

> Or borrow it on whatever terms are agreed by you and the owner.

Only if the agreement is made between relative equals, which it isn't
unless the workers are organized.

> >and thus, need to provide an incentive
> >to the lender to abstain from consumption, thus I offer to include
some
> >Money Interest in the repayment.
>
> Money interest is just the capital yield that is left to owners after
> the workers' wages are increased above subsistence by the competition
> amongst owners.

Onwers compete to drive their costs DOWN not UP. Allowing me to keep a
greater share of the yield of my Garden, or letting the Hunter retain
more of the yield of the hunt will make them less, not more
competitive.

> >However, the worker (individually or collectively) borrowing money
to
> >buy the capital still leaves the final product with the worker.

> >When the Capitalist instead hires the worker, the final product is
> >retained by the Capitalist and the woker's labour becomes a mere
> >alienated commodity.
>
> Marxist claptrap.

Unreasoned fallacy.

Regards.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hunting with Mark Monson
    ... >>>The owner of the spear may also use the privilege of ownership ... Stop lying. ... >somekind of authority granting that privilege, the Owner would have no ... >>>to demand the entire hunt as his property, and then offer the hunter ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Hunting with Mark Monson
    ... He can only "demand" the entire proceeds of the hunt if the hunter ... >For what reason would the spear _owner_ give the hunter any more than ... >> capital/interest contract. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Hunting with Mark Monson
    ... assuming that the choice of a spear as the example of Capital is ... the hunter may come out ahead by contracting ... For what reason would the spear _owner_ give the hunter any more than ... > capital/interest contract. ...
    (sci.econ)