General Discussion

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)

25. No, people could just work for free

Reply to efhmc (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:52 AM

Sep 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

98 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Does Labor need capital to exist? [View all] efhmc Sep 2012 OP

Labor is the source of capital. Labor existed before it and can exist without it Vincardog Sep 2012 #1

Then why are we in their control and not visa versa? efhmc Sep 2012 #5

We are brain washed into believing we need a job to get $ to buy the crap we see on TV. Vincardog Sep 2012 #6

I think that is only part of the answer. efhmc Sep 2012 #8

Financial transactions that create capital are financial masturbation. They do not create Vincardog Sep 2012 #10

So true. efhmc Sep 2012 #14

"Financial transactions that create capital are financial masturbation." annabanana Sep 2012 #42

Because PD Turk Sep 2012 #15

Sadly so many of us have never felt that wonderful efhmc Sep 2012 #20

We've taken it on the chin for the last 30 years PD Turk Sep 2012 #23

Can't do violence. What else you got? efhmc Sep 2012 #49

dunno PD Turk Sep 2012 #53

I have a deep unshakable faith in the desire of many people to do right and to help efhmc Sep 2012 #54

Because we're not unified. When workers compete with each other for jobs, wages plunge. reformist2 Sep 2012 #51

Nope htuttle Sep 2012 #2

Of course madville Sep 2012 #3

How Did Labor Fare Before 1800? On the Road Sep 2012 #4

By that statement, I think you mean people who are without salaried jobs. efhmc Sep 2012 #7

What is labor going to labor on SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #9

Bartering labor or self sustaining work don't need capital. efhmc Sep 2012 #11

Excellent point, thank you n/t SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #17

Take a stick, carve it into an ax handle. You have created "Wealth". Take capital what does it Vincardog Sep 2012 #12

Fair enough SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #16

"Capital" is accumulated LABOR. I was demonstrating the difference between creating wealth Vincardog Sep 2012 #26

Then why have we become so divorced from the power of efhmc Sep 2012 #18

The capitalists have rigged the game. We can take our power back. Just do it. Vincardog Sep 2012 #24

Tried and failed many places but should still keep going. efhmc Sep 2012 #34

They are the only ones who can win when you play their game by their rules. Vincardog Sep 2012 #39

What exactly does that entail? efhmc Sep 2012 #46

Where did you get the knife to carve the stick? eom yawnmaster Sep 2012 #58

From another laborer. ronnie624 Sep 2012 #60

how was the foundry for the knife's steel built without capital? yawnmaster Sep 2012 #62

Are you unwilling or unable to see the point? Vincardog Sep 2012 #63

No I am trying to either support or not support the point with my example... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #64

It is an iron/stone/onyx knife. What is your point? Vincardog Sep 2012 #65

The point is, that it takes capital to move beyond stone knives and bearskins... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #66

Your point is that civilization is built on the work of previous generations? Thank Vincardog Sep 2012 #67

No, that it takes capital to build infrastructure, it has nothing to do with previous generations... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #68

Snark won't feed the baby, The OP asked if Labor needed Capital to exist. It takes LABOR Vincardog Sep 2012 #69

and you need capital to build any infrastructure to build anything beyond a stone knife... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #70

Does Labor need Capital to exist? No it does not. You seem to be arguing that YES- Labor only Vincardog Sep 2012 #72

where would the money come to pay the labor to rebuild more capital? yawnmaster Sep 2012 #75

You are not arguing anything. Have fun down the rabbit hole by your self. Vincardog Sep 2012 #80

not surprising... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #83

Capital is just a medium of exchange. It's stored labor. lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #71

But with your own reply here, without capital the fisherman would never get a boat... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #77

No, it only simplifies what would otherwise be a complex barter transaction. nt lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #78

It is complex to the point of being virtually impossible in any general sense... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #79

If by "capital" you mean land & resources, nothing. If by "capital" you mean "wealthy investors," HiPointDem Sep 2012 #56

By capital, I mean money. efhmc Sep 2012 #74

No, do you need crabs? rug Sep 2012 #13

Labor is the process of transforming a world into the usable and the pleasurable alcibiades_mystery Sep 2012 #19

A powerful and enlightening answer. efhmc Sep 2012 #21

Or as Balzac famously put it: "Behind every great fortune lies a great coalition_unwilling Sep 2012 #22

+1 HiPointDem Sep 2012 #57

if you are talking capitalism, okay, but if you are talking about capital then a question... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #86

No, people could just work for free slackmaster Sep 2012 #25

My question is if one can exist without the other and history efhmc Sep 2012 #29

They feed each other. Without both it wouldn't be possible to manufacture complex machines. slackmaster Sep 2012 #38

Interesting but without labor, none of these machines would even need to exist. efhmc Sep 2012 #50

Without capital we'd be in an agricultural economy. Without labor there would be no economy. slackmaster Sep 2012 #59

I am going to quote a Republican to answer this standingtall Sep 2012 #27

Welcome and thanks for the very pertinent quote. efhmc Sep 2012 #33

+1 - nicely done. nt TBF Sep 2012 #61

All capital comes from labor. bemildred Sep 2012 #28

Standingtall's quote from Lincoln says it very well. efhmc Sep 2012 #30

All of society is a social construct, so to speak. "We built it." bemildred Sep 2012 #35

But the repukes' idea is the Ayn Rand ideal, with reality nowhere to be seen. efhmc Sep 2012 #36

Indeed. bemildred Sep 2012 #37

Except the poster left off the next sentences. former9thward Sep 2012 #81

Not really necessary. Zalatix Sep 2012 #93

Lincoln thought they were necessary. former9thward Sep 2012 #94

Listen to what I really said. Zalatix Sep 2012 #95

I understand what you said. former9thward Sep 2012 #96

Let's ask honest Abe! lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #31

Thanks for the quote. efhmc Sep 2012 #32

I like this Lincoln quote as well: just1voice Sep 2012 #40

+1 n/t lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #41

If you are going to be accurate you should add the two sentences that he followed your quote. former9thward Sep 2012 #87

I do like the rest of his address to congress, particularly this... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #88

No. Starry Messenger Sep 2012 #43

This thread NEEDS recs! Very informative. annabanana Sep 2012 #44

it helps arely staircase Sep 2012 #45

Labor exists outside of capital mythology Sep 2012 #47

Well said. efhmc Sep 2012 #48

In the modern world, Labor does need Capital. reformist2 Sep 2012 #52

Of course, but that does not mean that labor needs capitalism. David__77 Sep 2012 #55

No. Capital is the stored value of labor, and is only necessary to facilitate transactions. lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #73

K&R Most of the reasons it doesn't have already been written above. n/t Egalitarian Thug Sep 2012 #76

Labor is real. Capital is imaginary. hunter Sep 2012 #82

capital isn't quite imaginary. It is, though, an abstract concept. yawnmaster Sep 2012 #84

Let me show you where your model fails... hunter Sep 2012 #89

They are capital even when not used... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #90

Capital is useless without labor. Labor does not need capital to exist, but... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #85

Money is a marker, it is not a "fruit of labor." hunter Sep 2012 #91

Fruits of labor are converted to money so that the fruits can be accumulated... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #92

I disagree. hunter Sep 2012 #97

society is created by humans by their very human nature... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #98