[Subversive Rob]

This is such a riiculous poll. This is like saying "What's more important: a sandwich or two pieces of bread?"

You need the two pieces of bread to make the sandwich, but without the sandwich, you won't have the energy to go out and get the two pieces of bread. It's a Catch-22.

Both are important, and you can't have one without the other. You can't have labor without the capital to pay for it, and you can't have capital without the labor to provide the services that generate it.

Depends what you define capital as. I don't look upon capital as a thing in itself but rather a thing determined by social relations. Thus, in the last analysis capital is a social relation:

"A negro is a negro. In certain circumstances he becomes a slave. A mule is a machine for spinning cotton. Only under certain circumstances does it become capital. Outside these circumstances, it is no more capital than gold is intrinsically money, or sugar is the price of sugar.... Capital is a social relation of production. It is a historical relation of production."
--Marx

Thus although in the present society capital is essential for the production of value it is a historically transient value, which finds its ultimate origin in labour. Thus this poll is in my opinion flawed in two ways:

1. I am not sure whether it speaks of the whole of history or merely this epoch.

2. Labour and capital cannot be generalised into "what has more value" rather "which creates value"

[Comrade Ogilvy]

It is a fact that you need labor to create the wealth and capital so how is this debateable?

Because there are still "evil cappy exploiters" that defend the myth that capital has more value than labor. And by capital, I did not merely mean wealth, I also meant machines.

By the way, the question is not asking merely whether labor is dependent on capital or capital on labor, or both being symbiotic, it is asking which has more value.

I stated in me earlier post that machines were also capital. Factories, computers ect. are capital but, labor is needed to run these things.

The thing is that capital, in the form of monetary currency has the value to buy labour at inflated prices and otherwise.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Labour and capital cannot be generalised into "what has more value" rather "which creates value"

Do you at least understand how labour and capital can both be creators of value? By the way in the book by Karl Marx titled "Poverty of Philosophy" he exposes the flaws in the labour theory of Proudhon, one of the most apparent and succinct statements in the book is: "Capital is unpaid labor."

Whether you take the definition of capital to be monetary profit or profit from ownership of the machinery; still this makes sense. Do you agree?

[fastspawn]

Could someone explain why capital is unpaid labour? I don't understand why that is.

[Seán Himmelb(L)au]

NDS has a really strange, arrogant way of writing that pisses me off more than even Ix.

Labour and capital- they're both needed to certain extents in different circumstances. I don't even think they're accurate catergories to lump stuff into either.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Could someone explain why capital is unpaid labour? I don't understand why that is.

In what sense of the word capital? In the sense of capital being profit, machine, or just money?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Labour and capital- they're both needed to certain extents in different circumstances.

Please elaborate on why you think that both capital and labor are "needed to certain extents in different circumstances".

What circumstances? Like give examples and supportive statements to support your assertions.

I don't even think they're accurate catergories to lump stuff into either.

Why not?

[fastspawn]

Could someone explain why capital is unpaid labour? I don't understand why that is.

In what sense of the word capital? In the sense of capital being profit, machine, or just money?

In whatever sense Marx meant it in poverty of philosophy.

[quote=NDS]
Do you at least understand how labour and capital can both be creators of value? By the way in the book by Karl Marx titled "Poverty of Philosophy" he exposes the flaws in the labour theory of Proudhon, one of the most apparent and succinct statements in the book is: "Capital is unpaid labor."
[/quote]

[Garibaldi]

Both Labor and Capital are factors of production, and thus inexpendible. However, since Entrapaneurship is intellectual labor, labor itself can be considered confined to physical labor as NDS stated, and I learned capital to cover machinery and bought items for refinement. The four factors of production being Entrapaneurship, Labor, Capital, and Land, I'd have to say Entrapaneurship is the first most important; with it, you can gain the other three factors of production. Then I would have to say capital, with it you can cgain the other two and also it's becoming more important as physical labor becomes less necessary. Then land and labor, depending on how labor intensive the feild is.

Now, if you're refering to the question not from an economic viewpoint but a humanist one, then without a doubt the labor(human) would be more important.

[Subversive Rob]

Capital, after primitive accumulation is based on an accumulation of labour. This labour is surplus labour, i.e. labour that the worker is not paid for. So the worker works for 8 hours and produces X value, however so as to make a profit the capitalist gives the worker X/2. Thus capital is the accumulation of stolen labour, whether it be produced by this labour or exchanged with the money made in production and exchange.

capital, with it you can cgain the other two and also it's becoming more important as physical labor becomes less necessary

But it still requires labour, viz. intellectual labour. Labour as a general category is simply a mediator between work and product, or the expenditure of human energy. "Pushing a switch" is still labour.

Then land and labor, depending on how labor intensive the feild is.

But land includes natural resources and space for offices, buildings etc. thus surely it has primary importance.

labor itself can be considered confined to physical labor as NDS stated

Where? And how do you draw the line. If someone uses a pencil for their work is it physical? Because technically it is. Talking? That expends some physical energy too. And if we refer just to "hard", manual labour where does the qualitative leap occur?

[Childlike Complexion]

Capital is the result of labor in the first place. My answer is labor.

[Tex]

Capital, after primitive accumulation is based on an accumulation of labour. This labour is surplus labour, i.e. labour that the worker is not paid for.

Somebody please educate an ignorant capitalist on these definitions. Since I don’t begin to develop my own logic by assuming that Marx’s definitions of labor and capital are sound, this all appears to be an argument that was flawed from the very beginning.

Using the analogy I created in my first post on this subject, about the wheat farmer and the cattle herder, I assumed that the idea of labor came about because a man accidentally discovered somehow that bread could be made from wheat, which naturally grew in a certain region, and that by harvesting it and converting it to bread, he could store it to be eaten when the wheat was out of season. This enabled him to change from being a nomadic forager with a high susceptibility to starvation, to a farmer, who, by expending a certain amount of physical labor was able to spend less of his time merely trying to survive…instead developing other ideas to improve his standard of living.

Was this man a laborer when he spent all his daylight hours foraging for his daily sustenance?

After using his own intelligence to invent bread, is he still a laborer, or has he now become a capitalist, because he has created a product from his labor, that has value and can be consumed by others, if he so chooses? Can he be said to be exploiting his fellow laborers because he can now choose who to share his surplus bread with? At what point does this man stop being a laborer and start being a capitalist?

It makes no sense to leap from this simple example to a discussion of ideology, if the opposing sides cannot agree on the most basic definitions of what constitutes labor and capital…or is this the entire argument for Marxism? Does Marxism derive from economic “facts of life,” or does it rely on moral “opinions” …of what is fair and unfair?

[Subversive Rob]

At what point does this man stop being a laborer and start being a capitalist?

As soon as he owns the means of production and employs labourers who do the work.

It makes no sense to leap from this simple example to a discussion of ideology, if the opposing sides cannot agree on the most basic definitions of what constitutes labor and capital…or is this the entire argument for Marxism? Does Marxism derive from economic “facts of life,” or does it rely on moral “opinions” …of what is fair and unfair?

All I was doing was briefly outlining why Marx said capital was unpaid labour, that is all.

But Marxism is more than just surplus value. However, surplus value and unpaid labour help to explain the antagonism and dynamic between employer and employee that forms the heart of the capitalist system.

Also your example is flawed. Capitalists come into being under certain economic conditions, when the productive forces have reached a certain level of development. In the time period you speak abot "capitalists" didn't exist, and if they did they were not large or unified enough to constitute a proper class.

[Tex]

Also your example is flawed. Capitalists come into being under certain economic conditions, when the productive forces have reached a certain level of development. In the time period you speak abot "capitalists" didn't exist, and if they did they were not large or unified enough to constitute a proper class.

Herein lies the difference that makes this debate futile. I contend that a natural inclination towards capitalism begins as soon as the laborer discovers that the surplus he has stored can be converted into other commodities that will make him more prosperous.

It seems that Marxist principles ignore or reject this basic idea, in favor of "skipping ahead" to the moral argument, in which corruption becomes a factor. The degree of corruption cannot be objectively measured because it exists in every human endeavor, including government.

If a capitalist system was pure and uncorrupted, who is to say it would not be equal or superior to Marxism? In a capitalist system, the surplus is controlled by many separate and competing entities, whereas surplus that is controlled by the state ultimately falls into the hands of a single non-competing entity.

You cannot assume that capitalists will be corrupt, and that government will not be corrupt. Such an assumption will only appeal to a person who is predisposed to such a subjective idea. An idea that is built by ignoring the most basic natural tendencies of human beings cannot win converts from those who favor realism over rationalization.

[jaakko]

Tex,

Rob wasn't talking of any "corruption", and if you think you're replying to his points you must've missed something. This is not a discussion on morals and I hope you're not trying to turn it into one.

Capitalist class ie. the bourgeoisie hasn't always existed. The evolution of society has gone through several other stages and social systems (primitive society, slavery, feudalism) before the appearance of the mentioned class and the capitalist ie. bourgeois mode of production.

The separation of monad tribes from others was the first great division of labour. This happened well before the society's division into classes, not to mention the division to proletarians and capitalists which took place thousands of years later.

[Tex]

Tex,

Rob wasn't talking of any "corruption", and if you think you're replying to his points you must've missed something. This is not a discussion on morals and I hope you're not trying to turn it into one.

I was actually trying to get his definition of labor and capital, on its most fundamental level. It seems pointless to argue which is more important, if the definitions and origins cannot even be agreed upon. To simply state categorically that capitalism did not exist until class distinctions began to appear is not adequate, without an explanation. If I must accept the Marxist labeling system to have an intelligent discussion, I don't think it is asking too much to have those definitions applied to a scenario I am capable of understanding.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I am surprised that Jaakko did not answer such an objective reply. By the way, to some people capital and labor are symbiotic, while to others capital has more value since it calls forth an abundance of labor that gets more and more degraded and rendered less valueable per person in comparison to capital. Such as in the case of economic deflation, where money is worth much more than labor, in the sense that the value of labor keeps decreasing and the value of capital keeps increasing. So it is not a self-evident issue to discuss whether capital or labor is more valueable. However, labor in itself can increase its value, by simply those that own labor, denying to allow it to be exploited by cheap capital, and hence challenging the tradition of the promotion of capital at the expense of degradation of labor. In the end, it is labor that is much more productive and valueable, in my opinion. I am not sure if this is fact, only in the theoretical sense if the laborers of the world unite and deny their labor to be exploited by capitalists in exchange for meager capital in the form of pittance.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Capital. Because in a sense it's a point system. The more points you have, the better off you are.

How you obtain these points is differant, some prefer blue collar work while others study hard for those white collar cushy jobs. This is not to say unfair capitalsm has been drought, but this is the basis of a money-enviorment.

Labor is but one form of work. All basic animals can do labor for the needed requirement to survive. But in capitalism, labor simply becomes less important as it's easier to obtain through these points. Hence why sweat-shops are so gosh darn cheap.

Now I do believe alot of coporations abuse the labor-laws and underestimate it's innitiate value, but the fact of the matter is a computer expert will be worth more points then a janitor ever could. Get it?

Capital also forces the masses to work, labor simply instills the idea that those that don't work don't survive. That doesn't phase some people and then we have the problem of common sense joes like myself who would let thier lazy asses starve versus the good intentioned but self inflicting compassiontism of some really good folk. Capitalsm enforces the common sense rule.

[Agent Orange]

Labor produces goods in an economy, without the production of goods, there would be no goods to sell, with no goods to sell, than capital is worthless.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Labor produces goods in an economy, without the production of goods, there would be no goods to sell, with no goods to sell, than capital is worthless.

But capital is the incentive for labor, thats the point of those that preach the value of capital as being higher than that of labor. Capital in itself has the power to call forth labor, and labor in itself is getting replaced by capital in the form of machinery. So in a sense capital has the ability to liquidate man's labor through replacing him and his labor with machinery. Machinery is not the epitome of progress, it is rather the epitome of all poverty, misery, oppression, war, and unemployment on Earth. And money in itself is the greatest bondage-producing material, all human relations become doubtful in the face of the temptation of monetary profit for betraying any human social relation, this is naother reason why capital and capitalists must be defeated for the liberation of labor and society (laborers).