The Philosophy Now Forum

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2026 12:24 am North Korea has never been and never will be socialist.

This will come as a total surprise to everybody in Korea. They will be thrilled to hear it.

Good thing we also have the example of literally ever other Socialist regime in history. They're all miserable, cruel, deadly and economically moribund.

Aren't you impressed by a 100% record of disastrous failure? I would be.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2026 2:57 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 10:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 10:12 pm
I didn't know Marx knew Musk. What a surprise.

The question I ask of you is: am I fundamentally wrong? Is the math I used fundamentally wrong?

Your problem isn't mathematical. It's moral. It's the question, "Is it okay for me to envy others?"

And I think the answer is found in the tenth of the Ten Commandments.

So instead of arguing that it isn't exploitation for one man to make many times the income of his whole workforce (because you don't refute the math), you think it would be immoral for you to think Musk's workers ought to make more of the share of wealth generated by the companies they work for because you would then be "envying" Elon Musk? Is that correct? Yes or no?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2026 10:36 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2026 2:57 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 10:17 pm The question I ask of you is: am I fundamentally wrong? Is the math I used fundamentally wrong?

Your problem isn't mathematical. It's moral. It's the question, "Is it okay for me to envy others?"

And I think the answer is found in the tenth of the Ten Commandments.

...you think it would be immoral for you to think Musk's workers ought to make more of the share of wealth generated by the companies they work for because you would then be "envying" Elon Musk?

I'd take it even further. I'd say that envying anybody is wicked, just as exploiting people is. The tenth commandment covers that nicely.

Let me ask you this, Gary: no matter how much money Elon Musk or anybody else may have, what entitles Gary Childress to covet it or steal it? What claim does Gary Childress have on Bill Gates' money? What claim does he have against Bernie Sanders three houses? What gives Gary Childress the right even to envy his neighbour's swimming pool?

the right to be absent of certain feelings is available to all

the methods of gaining that absence are not

-Imp

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2026 3:14 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2026 10:36 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2026 2:57 am
Your problem isn't mathematical. It's moral. It's the question, "Is it okay for me to envy others?"

And I think the answer is found in the tenth of the Ten Commandments.

...you think it would be immoral for you to think Musk's workers ought to make more of the share of wealth generated by the companies they work for because you would then be "envying" Elon Musk?

I'd take it even further. I'd say that envying anybody is wicked, just as exploiting people is. The tenth commandment covers that nicely.

Let me ask you this, Gary: no matter how much money Elon Musk or anybody else may have, what entitles Gary Childress to covet it or steal it? What claim does Gary Childress have on Bill Gates' money? What claim does he have against Bernie Sanders three houses? What gives Gary Childress the right even to envy his neighbour's swimming pool?

I guess it must be envy. I should probably shape up and do the right thing and support Elon Musk's inalienable right to dominate the world. Not doing so is just envy and morally wrong according to the 10 Commandments. I hope it's not too late to change my tune. I don't want to go to Hell for opposing Elon Musk and other billionaires.

I give up. There's no point in arguing with IC. IC is on the side of God and billionaires.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 10:40 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2026 3:14 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2026 10:36 am
...you think it would be immoral for you to think Musk's workers ought to make more of the share of wealth generated by the companies they work for because you would then be "envying" Elon Musk?

I'd take it even further. I'd say that envying anybody is wicked, just as exploiting people is. The tenth commandment covers that nicely.

Let me ask you this, Gary: no matter how much money Elon Musk or anybody else may have, what entitles Gary Childress to covet it or steal it? What claim does Gary Childress have on Bill Gates' money? What claim does he have against Bernie Sanders three houses? What gives Gary Childress the right even to envy his neighbour's swimming pool?

I guess it must be envy.

Well, Gary...what else could it be? What else would you call looking at what somebody else has, and hating him for being better off than you are, in some way? That's envy, for sure.

Our first duty is not to look at others, but at ourselves. It's one thing to ask, "What kind of a man is Elon Musk?" But it's not a question you or I will ever answer for. That's between Elon Musk and God. But you know what IS our business? What kind of man we are being in response to the kind of man Elon Musk is being. Are we envious? Are we filled with spite? Do we hate because of what God has allowed him to have? Are we ungrateful and resentful because we have not been given the same? Do we think ourselves better than he, merely because we are full of self-righteous indignation? And do we forget that while he will answer for himself, it is we who will answer for ourselves?

If you find envy and spite in your heart, let it go. You and I are not God. It is not our job to dispense the benefits of this world as we see fit, but rather to steward what you and I have been given. And this, we should also remember: that below us, there are billions of even poorer folks who might look at you and me and grind their teeth in spite, since we enjoy all the privileges of Western affluence, while they do not. So that we might well look at those less fortunate than ourselves, and consider what we might share -- thereby being an example against greed and selfishness, and freeing ourselves from the condemnation of being hypocrites for being privileged and selfish while hating somebody we consider privileged and selfish.

That would be good.

I dunno what the fookin' problem is, people... it's an incredibly simple concept.

If you derive tangible tradable value from an object that you didn't labor to create yourself, you are a thief or a retailer, or a capitalist.

Selling a taco that your employer paid you five dollars to make for ten dollars is the same as stealing his bicycle. The additional five dollars derived from the sale of his product demonstrates that the actual value of the product, as the market priced ten dollars has shown, exceeds his experience of the product of his own labor; what he creates is robbed of its full tangible value in that he does not receive the value equivalence in spending power (his wage). Capitalism can't happen unless this particular situation happens. There's simply no incentive to be one unless you can pay someone less than the value of their labor.

It's a fundamentally problematic arrangement that is no more fundamental to the material relations of human beings than feudalism was.

Other than that, surplus isn't de facto theft. 'Pends on who produced and controls it.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 2:55 pm I dunno what the fookin' problem is, people... it's an incredibly simple concept.

"Value" is actually a very complex concept. If somebody actually thinks it's simple, all it means is they haven't the foggiest idea what it entails.

That's generally Marx's fault, of course. He was the one who foisted "the labour theory of value" on us, in which manual labour is practically the only thing supposed to produce value. Of course, that's ridiculous. How could anybody with a lick of sense forget things like inventiveness, invention, creativity, recombination, resources, marketing, investment, risk-taking, infrastructure-building, management, efficiency, expansion...all the ways value can be created and added, not merely found in the sweat of a prole.

Not only is there nothing wrong with a theory of value that includes these things, no sensible theory of value could possibly fail to take them into account. This is yet another evidence of how foolish Marx really was. He was no economist, that's for sure.

Selling a taco that your employer paid you five dollars to make for ten dollars is the same as stealing his bicycle.

It's not stealing at all, actually; because the buyer's under absolutely no obligation to buy. And if the taco truck down the street sells better ones for $5, then the $10 taco truck is going to go broke.

But where is the value in a taco located? Is it exclusively in the hands of the employee who put the meat in the shell? But where did he get the meat? Who made the shell, and where did the wheat for the shell come from? Who grew that? Who bought the seed for the wheat, and how much is wheat worth? Who had to pay for the taco truck? Who foots the gas bill? Who paid to have it painted with advertising? Who pays the taxes to the government, so it can waste half of the money, steal another quarter, and convert the remaining quarter into social programs? What about the employee's medical, retirement or insurance benefits? Who bought him his equipment, and who made that? How is all that to be factored into the price of a taco?

Moreover, the value of a taco is not merely the value of the cheese, the meat, the shell, the spices, the taco truck and the employee's work. A "taco," by definition, is a particular assemblage of the same, in which the final product tastes better and thus yields more value to the consumer than any of the ingredients or processes added up singly. There is a value produced by the combination. Then there's the value of the convenience of having the truck come to you, and deliver this assemblage of delights for your consumption.

Labour is actually one of the smaller investments. And value comes from many things...certainly not from anything so absurdly simple as "the labour."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 3:18 pm ...Labour is actually one of the smaller investments. And value comes from many things...certainly not from anything so absurdly simple as "the labour."

then again, that value may depend on the infant

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 3:52 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 3:18 pm ...Labour is actually one of the smaller investments. And value comes from many things...certainly not from anything so absurdly simple as "the labour."

then again, that value may depend on the infant

-Imp

Well, our society apparently believes infants have no value. Not only can you kill them at will in utero, you can strangle three of them later, and plead temporary insanity, and be proclaimed a hero by the Feminist Left. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KvHW_s6WSJU

"Value" is actually a very complex concept."

Not here it ain't. The value is stated by the market price, not how excited someone feels about something or how pretty it is.

"That's generally Marx's fault, of course. He was the one who foisted "the labour theory of value" on us, in which manual labour is practically the only thing supposed to produce value. Of course, that's ridiculous. How could anybody with a lick of sense forget things like inventiveness, invention, creativity, recombination, resources, marketing, investment, risk-taking, infrastructure-building, management, efficiency, expansion...all the ways value can be created and added, not merely found in the sweat of a prole."

Lol, all those things you mention are manual labor.

Lemme stop fer a second and aks are you sure you know what's going on here?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 5:17 pm

"Value" is actually a very complex concept."

Not here it ain't.

It's simple only to somebody who has no idea what "value" really consists of.

The value is stated by the market price,

Wait. I thought you said it was set by the labour involved. That's what Marx taught.

So if value is set by the purchaser, then a taco is worth what the market will pay for it. If it's a good taco, it's worth $7. If it's a bad taco, maybe only $4. But the labour in each is identical, so clearly the value's in the purchaser's power, not in the power of the employer.

You've just shot your own theory to pieces.

"That's generally Marx's fault, of course. He was the one who foisted "the labour theory of value" on us, in which manual labour is practically the only thing supposed to produce value. Of course, that's ridiculous. How could anybody with a lick of sense forget things like inventiveness, invention, creativity, recombination, resources, marketing, investment, risk-taking, infrastructure-building, management, efficiency, expansion...all the ways value can be created and added, not merely found in the sweat of a prole."

Lol, all those things you mention are manual labor.

I have no idea why you're "Lol-ing" at something that's obviously untrue. What's "manual" about invention, creativity, management, investment, or the market?

Lemme stop fer a second and aks are you sure you know what's going on here?

That's an excellent question. I have no idea how you could not know this, so I really can't tell "what's going on here." Maybe I'll "aks" you.

"so clearly the value's in the purchaser's power, not in the power of the employer."

Exactly, which is how we know the laborer is getting less than the value of his labor when he works for a wage. It's the purchaser's power that sets market prices, and that makes the taco worth $7. The worker's labor has no value until it is transformed into a taco, and it's worth whatever the taco is worth in the market. When the capitalist pays bro $5 to make the taco, he's robbing him of $2 if the taco is worth $7.

All the capitalist is is a third unnecessary party inserted into the chain of production and distribution, legally, on account of whack-ass centuries old property laws.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 5:54 pm

"so clearly the value's in the purchaser's power, not in the power of the employer."

Exactly, which is how we know the laborer is getting less than the value of his labor when he works for a wage.

AHA! So you're saying it's the fault of the wicked purchaser, not the employer.

When the capitalist pays bro $5 to make the taco, he's robbing him of $2 if the taco is worth $7.

So...you think cheese is free, meat is free, trucks are free, advertising is free, innovation is free, social taxation is free, medical and retirement programs are free...None of them can be counted into the price of the taco. But putting ingredients you didn't buy, in a truck you don't own, with marketing you didn't pay for, into a taco shell you didn't create is worth 100% of what that gets sold for?

The story's getting funnier by the minute.

If it wasn't the purchaser's power that determines prices and, therefore, labor value, and instead, what determined it was whatever the worker or capitalist decided it was worth, how would they decide on that number? The worker is obviously going to say his labor's value is $7. The capitalist, on the other hand, is gonna factor himself in to get $2 for free, so he'll call the laborer's labor value $5. But it's not worth $5. That's not what the market is showing.

For two points, which party in this group of people - consumer, producer, and capitalist - has no absolutely no business there?