Labor has become dependent on capital because we no longer have the combined power that workers use to have to control their lives. Money or wealth has become labor for the ultra rich and is used to create more capital. That wealth was begun from the work of labor but now has an individual power separate from labor.

wealth. They destroy productivity.
The situation you describe is where the financial segment of society is destroying the rest of society
much as any other cancer would.

Truer words, Vincardog, were never spoken!

Because too many of us have turned into a bunch of sniveling cowards that lack the spine to do anything about it. Once we were united and strong...not anymore

sense of empowerment that uniting to make things better can give. And sometimes it just does not seem to be worth the effort.

My grandfather was in the labor movement in the 30s. It was violent, messy and bloody at times out of necessity.

I abhor violence but I won't rule it out as a very last resort. Our modern day robber barons continue to pillage at a dizzying pace and will not hear anything that smacks of them sharing the wealth with those that created it for them. I pray it can be turned around without violence, but, I'm afraid it won't be.

Nothing else seems to work with these people. They own almost everything and they're on their way to having it all. They've bought the democratic process out from under us and they seem determined to take us back to slavery or some form of it. They seem to have no conscience, no sense of right and wrong whatsoever. I guess my first choice would be to emigrate to a civilized nation but that's easier said than done.

I think one's perspective might be shaped by the amount of economic violence a person has been subjected to. I've been subjected to a shitload of it over the last 30 years

others. While I have seen many people who have no understanding of the hurt and evil their greedy ways affect others, I cannot become like them. I want to do the best I can with what I have and to pass along a hope for the future of our country to my children and gchildren.

It's been a long time since I studied any of this in school but I believe that Capitalism emerged around 1400-1500, and didn't really get anywhere until after 1600, but guilds of various types of workers began appearing a few hundred years earlier in the 1200's or so.

Both are dependent on the other

that was largely Fernand Braudel's question in The Structure of Everyday Life.

You have a huge amount of labor right now in many areas without access to capital. How does it work out in those cases?

if there is no capital?

produce?

And if the "wealth" of that one axe handle can feed you and your family, then I agree, no capital is necessary. If not, you're going to need lots of axe handles, all the time to create them, since without capital, it will be difficult to hire more labor.

and generating a financial outcome.
When all a company does is move digits around it may seem to generate capital but it does nothing to generate wealth.
If you can't grok the difference, maybe it is above your pay grade.

labor and so dependent on capital. I know we love "stuff" but why can't we work, unite and still have enough power to be treated like the necessary entity we are and still get our stuff. Too hard? Too anti-rugged individualism?

Money is very powerful.

The value of the knife comes from the labor and raw materials used in its manufacture. The raw materials also exist through labor. The initial investment that built the factory and employed the workers is a debt that must be payed back through labor. Nothing happens without labor.

was it volunteer work?

now is there an answer to the question on how the steel foundry comes into existence?

if one would like to carve that stick with a steel knife, someone has to build the infrastructure.
And although built with labor, labor does not spontaneously build the infrastructure.
Capital is generally required.
What comes first, labor or capital? probably labor.
Put to progress, capital is needed.
I am interested in opposing arguments.
One should not be afraid to answer a question if one is secure with one's stance.

you Captain Obvious.

or building civilizations.
Labor does not get together and decide to build a milling machine.
They build the milling machine when paid to build it (requiring the purchaser to have capital).
Then the run the milling machine.
Labor can exist on its own in a sustenance mode.
To grow labor requires capital.
They work best hand in hand.

Sarcasm is a poor substitute for logical argument.
One may find that logical argument is much more satisfying in the long term.

to build any real thing.
Labor does get together and decide to build things, have you ever watched a building going up?
To grow labor you grow babies.
To grow better labor you educate the babies, which is more labor.

Labor can exist without capital.

Capital is meaningless without labor.

a building going up requires huge capital expense...
unless we are talking about a mud hut building, but I think we aren't.
Where do the cranes come from? who pays for them so that labor can use them?
Why are they building the building in the first place?
if you have nothing but labor you better have an agrarian society where all are farmers, and even there you have a limit to how much labor can be supported.

having a large labor force does not mean that things are built spontaneously.

exists to the extent that it serves CAPITAL.

I believe that POV is pure unadulterated Bull shit.

If all the labor disappeared tonight what use would all the capital in the world be?

If all the capital in the world disappeared over night LABOR could and would rebuild all the capital.

Are you really arguing that CAPITAL is superior to LABOR?

oh btw, one other question...
has anyone actually ever adulterated bull shit? ...excuse me Bull shit, with a capital B.

you do realize that shit itself is very important to the circle of life so to speak.

but I digress...the question...where would the pay for the labor come from?


(and I'm not arguing that either is superior)

I have found that with those that use insults and name calling in their, so called, discussion, are not really up for discussion or even logical argument and when it comes down to it...well...whatever.

The fisherman needs a boat and is willing to trade fish for it. The problem is that the boatbuilder only needs so much fish. Without a medium to store and exchange the value of your labor, the transactions become problematic. "Trade 5 fish to the smithy for nails and another 10 fish to the sawyer for lumber then bring 20 fish to me, plus the boards plus the nails and I'll build you a boat."

Labor builds everthing; goods, means of production and infrastructure. Capital is a byproduct of labor and is unnecessary.

And I tend to agree with you that capital is just the medium of exchange and is stored labor.
the fisherman needs this medium of exchange to get his boat.
Without it he either fishes from the shore or builds his own boat, which means that he has to have knowledge to do both.

Without the medium of exchange (capital) he can't save up fish to pay for the boat.

I do agree that one can have labor without capital, as long as we are fine fishing from the shore.

yes a "fisherman" or two may be able to complete the transaction (he'd have to take time away from fishing), but most would be fishing from the shore.

Capital is necessary to allow fishermen to get boats, to work faster, to grow at any significant pace.

It is not absolutely necessary, but by your own explanation it is necessary for those who need (or want) more complex tools.

labor has never "needed" capital.

The crabs need your pubis but you don't need the crabs.

Capital is the theft and accumulation of the surplus generated by that process. Of course labor doesn't need capital to exist. Labor exists in itself and for itself. Capital is parasitic on labor in the first and last instance.

Now, capital presents the illusion of being necessary for the labor process, especially when it has developed to the point of full (real) subsumption, as in our current social configuration. One appears to be unable to transform the world without the influx of "capital" or "risk," which also masquerades as "organization" (where organization and leadership are only the form of the the theft of labor power in any given historical instance). But capital is nothing but the surplus that has already been stolen from the workers and accumulated in the hands of the capitalists. This little illusion is belied by every child who makes a makeshift tool for some purpose in a field, alley, or backyard. Labor needs capital only insofar as capital currently holds all of humanity in a stranglehold, as a hostage to its own drive for accumulation.

crime" (loosely translated from memory).

how is labor able to create a complex tool without capital.
And by capital I do mean the fruits of labor that has been accumulated and saved, so that the labor needed to create a tool can be paid.

for instance, how does a fisherman pay for a boat? he needs to accumulate capital.
those who labor to create the boat require pay.
The boatbuilders need the axes and the planes to create the boat and need to accumulate capital to purchase these tools.
the toolmakers are in turn paid.
Capital, in part, is the ability to store, and yes accumulate what labor creates (in a real or abstract form such as money).

I think, though, that you are talking capitalism, as capital does not require "capitalists" (unless the fisherman is the capitalist because he accumulates capital to purchase a boat).

plainly shows us that labor can exist without capital. However, capital is the result of labor.

Without machines such as bulldozers and backhoes, digging holes in the ground would be a whole lot slower and less efficient. It could still be done with bare hands, or with simple tools that can be made by hand such as picks and shovels.

If there is no money to pay them, people will work for food.

Labor definitely came first.

"Labor is the superior of capital. Without labor capital could not exist." Abraham Lincoln

Money is just an arbitrary medium of exchange, material assets always originate by labor (somebody makes them, or the machine that makes them, or ...). Only people make it all work.

"Labor is the superior of capital. Without labor capital could not exist." Abraham Lincoln

Obvious once you look at it.

Which is the fundamental reason why "I built it all by myself." is such bullshit. It is one thing to be proud of your own accomplishments, and another entirely to claim sovereign creative power. We all need somebody to wipe our butts at the beginning and at the end.

Edit: yeah, that is a good quote.

Easily recognized as your basic adolescent power fantasy.

Capital has rights; but Abraham Lincoln's first sentence establishes that capital has less rights than labor because it is less essential.

And he is the one being quoted.

"Abraham Lincoln's first sentence establishes that capital has less rights than labor because it is less essential."

Please understand what this means. Capital is necessary but LESS NECESSARY than labor.

This is not the same as saying capital is not necessary. Please understand the difference.

But judging from your other posts in general you seem to adopt a socialist viewpoint. I don't agree with that. Also Lincoln, of course, did not live in the corporate era for better or worse. How he would respond to that I don't know.

[font color="green" size="5"]Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration[/font] - Abraham Lincoln

"The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same name---liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable names---liberty and tyranny."

"The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. "

the surplus that beginner is collecting is capital.

because of corruption and greed of some capitalists, capital has a bad reputation.
but capital is only a tool.

And for people saying "How will people work without it?"--there are several systems in place in the US that people work at that are not capitalistic. Like public education and other government entities. Several of our "commanding heights" like mining and steel, etc. and other resources that everyone uses could easily be nationalized and the surplus could go to other things we want instead of to shareholders and CEOs.

Capital is, right now, sitting on a surplus of trillions of dollars and has been for months in a capital strike. Labor could use that money, in a heartbeat. The top 400 people who would suffer from having their trillions taken can get stuffed.

Those of us who are economic idiots can "get it"..

but no, i can design a society without money (it may be a confused and crappy one, but i can do it.) but the other way around, not at all. money is a worthless inanimate object until someone gets out a shovel or a hammer or whatever and starts doing some work.

But labor can be enhanced by capital, typically by providing the opportunity to either produce or distribute more efficiently. Usually capital today works to serve its own ends in the short term rather than in a cooperative effort with labor (or Labor for that matter).

I know that is what you meant, but I had to point out that capital is merely the non-labor, "manufactured" productive forces. Capital represents an expenditure of past labor, in that sense. Labor alienates human beings from their own labor, but moving past it is not a historically determined certainty. Humanity will transcend capitalism when it grows up.

The value of plow-smith's wares is greater than his need for grain, so the farmer gives the smithy the stored value of the last few years harvest (e.g. money).

Doesn't mean people wont do things for "capital." Look at any religion... People will kill for "capital," people will kill for "gods." Same thing really.

Now, how do we organize labor? I can think of quite a few ways, even a few ways that are not socialist, communist, or capitalist.

It's time for a 21st century economy that creates and distributes wealth fairly while safeguarding our inalienable rights as human beings.

On the surface such a system might look to us like a "mixed economy," socialist and capitalist, but the underlying foundations and mechanisms would not be based on any kind of faith, tradition, or voodoo magic...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence

Labor actually does create capital.
Unless, of course, you are talking about capital goods.
Capital goods definitely exist (and are created by labor since they are not magically produced).
A milling machine, a boat, a fine tool...all are capital used to create (or help catch) other things.

I have a bunch of tools in my garage. I own them, I control them.

If I don't use them they are nothing.

If I use them, if I lend them to my neighbors to use... suddenly they are "capital."

The short circuit in our current economy is that I might take out loans against them, but magically they then become capital, even when no one is using them!

I look at the empty shops, offices, and homes in my own neighborhood, the unemployed people, and the homeless people, and I've just got to shake my head.

It ain't right.

you might say that capital is a storage of labor's fruits.
once one has the capital it has potential to aid further labor.
Potential.

to thrive, in my opinion, it does need capital.
Labor does create capital and can start to exist immediately.

But storage and collection of the fruits of labor (such as money) is necessary if complex tools are needed, as the labor must be paid to build these tools (boats, mills, steel foundries, etc.), which in turn requires more labor to run.

on edit; be aware that I am talking capital here, not capitalism.

It's possible to design an economy without a single currency.

Compared to language, a dollar or any other currency is a cave-man's "Ugh."

"Ugh" can mean "Mine!" it can mean "Here, I give to you!" it can mean "I don't care if you die!" it can mean at it's most noble, "We share."

I'd like to design an economy with a rich language of currencies, many, many ways of saying "We share!"

In this economy there would be a firm rich earth which provides a place for every human to grow -- food, shelter, medical care, education, freedom of travel and association... Beyond that everyone could live in an economic system of their own choosing, maybe of their own creation.

Sometimes I imagine a Star Trek Next Generation universe. I don't think there's any single currency in this universe except among people like the Ferengi (this would include some human communities too.) Instead the greater STNG economy would be built upon a very complex system of trade involving many variables which were never reduced to or measured against a single currency.

For example, you join Star Fleet and never think about money except for shore leave in places that use money, and then there's an officer who hands you what you might need before you beam down, and you give back what's left when you return. But most Star Fleet people would never think about where this "money" comes from, nor would they ever imagine hoarding coins or bills for themselves except as souvenirs; a peso or a dollar note for the scrap book, to give to a nephew or niece perhaps. Otherwise they are confident Star Fleet will provide for them in a fair and equitable fashion. The money of some primitive backwater simply doesn't matter to them.

Or maybe, back on earth, someone is a laborer on the Piccard family farm. It's not called the Piccard Estate because the land belongs to the Piccards, it's called that because the Piccard family has been working this land for centuries, growing grapes and making fine wines. Everyone who lives on the Piccard estate seems happy, visitors are happy, the wines have a following throughout the galaxy, therefore by the multi-variable metrics of the modern economic system this entity, this community, is making a positive contribution to human society. No restructuring required, we encourage this practice of the art.

And the economic system works well with those individuals who, on the surface, have not yet demonstrated a positive contribution to society. The Vincent Van Gogh's of this world live in comfortable rooms, they do not starve, and they paint.

as one cannot accumulate goods that spoil, for instance.

many would love the STNG universe.

I do have some thoughts on that though and they may be cynical...

To design an economy like that, the society must be designed too, but there is more...
before you can do any of that you need to do some genetic design and find a vector to get it into humans.

And with that I am speaking of human nature.
When things are great and energy is unlimited - as it essentially is in the STNG universe, nurture can drive humans, and we can learn to treat others well.
As soon as resources are limited, nature (human nature) takes on a larger role.
Genetic manipulation of the populace may be necessary.

We've created a society where avarice is rewarded. It's not the "natural" consequence of anything; it is a system imposed upon us by the most greedy among us

We might start changing this ugly state of affairs by the implementation of a steeply progressive tax rate such that it would be impossible for anyone to amass great wealth and the political power that comes with it.

The "captains" of our industry are just another twisted royalty. Some of these very wealthy people are real stinkers and harmful to the general welfare of both our nation and humanity itself.

you can implement a tax plan and it may help some things but it isn't going to create a Utopian society.
again, you will need to change genetics or humans will have to evolve from their present state.