Show of HandsShow of Hands

DerekWills May 28th, 2018 11:37pm

A $5 bar of iron can be turned into $12 worth of horseshoes. It can also be turned into $3,500 worth of needles, or $300,000 worth of balance springs for watches. Your own value is determined by what you are able to make of yourself.

28 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 7:38 am

This is misleading. You have to define what you mean by “your own value” but these numbers are revenue not profit. You can lose money making iron into a spring very easily

mfjd1948 rural johnson co iowa
05/30/18 7:50 am

Great analogy. Very good advice for young people.

Reply
4JC Christian Pastors Wife
05/29/18 12:31 am

I disagree. I don’t think your value has anything to do with how much money you do or do not make.

..

Reply
4JC Christian Pastors Wife
05/29/18 12:32 am

DerekWills asked:
05/28/2018
A $5 bar of iron can be turned into $12 worth of horseshoes. It can also be turned into $3,500 worth of needles, or $300,000 worth of balance springs for watches. Your own value is determined by what you are able to make of yourself.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
05/28/18 7:52 pm

What's the difference between all those listed items? Labor! Looks like Marx was right.

Reply
DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
05/28/18 8:39 pm

I fail to see how this shows that the government should completely control the marketplace and set the value of the individual regardless of they’re just the $5 bar or the $300,000 watch springs.....

NDAmerican WV Escapee
05/28/18 9:53 pm

Or the demand of watches, needles, and horseshoes versus just bars of iron.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 7:32 am

Derekwills, you never read Marx. He says absolutely nothing about the state or a government taking control.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 7:34 am

Also making a spring is hard. Takes some expensive machinery or a shit ton of time. And for watches?! That’s tiny as shit. Good luck. I’d take the profit margin on the horse shoe and try to reach as many customers as I can.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/03/18 9:07 am

I have read Marx. In order to do what he wants, you need State control.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 10:31 am

No you don’t. Marx was a critic of the employee/employer dichotomy. (The few controlling the masses) Worker cooperatives eliminate that dichotomy. The proletariat take back their means of production.
Right now we live in the most “capitalist” society and the state controls every aspect of our lives. Whether or not the state is involved is not determined by your economic system.

NDAmerican WV Escapee
06/03/18 11:31 am

Marx never did advocate for massive government control. However, since the minority will never voluntarily sacrifice property, revolutions are generally necessary, often times violent. And given the nature of humanity as described by Friedrich A. Hayek, the public will tend to shift towards government force to maintain the socialist society.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/03/18 11:40 am

How does the state control everything in a capitalist society? I’m not talking about crony capitalism (eg government bailouts), but true capitalism.

NDAmerican WV Escapee
06/03/18 12:03 pm

It's important to understand the difference between capitalism and the free market economy. Capitalism is just the private ownership of capital, as well as the other means of production (land and labor). This is in contrast to socialism, which is the collective ownership of the means of production. You can have state control with the private ownership of capital. Look at China and Russia. Both are State Capitalist societies. To a lesser degree so is the US, EU, and Arab Nations. A free market economy on the other hand is also unregulated. It cannot have state control of institutions either, much like Marxism. However, given that governments will always exist, and given the nature of Democratic institutions, the majority will always prey on the minority. Thus, for capitalist institutions, you will generally end up with a mixed economy like what most of the world has. And for socialist economies, you'll end up with a form of communism.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 12:08 pm

Derek, as soon as you walk out your front door in America you are regulated by laws. I️ can get a fine for walking across the street wrong. I️f we don’t pay our taxes people will come to your door, hand cuff you and put you in a cage.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 12:11 pm

You’re regulated inside your home too don’t get me wrong. That was just a figure of speech. We only rent our property from the government

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
06/03/18 12:11 pm

Irish, Marx wasn't an anarchist. That's what the feud between him and Bakunin was about at the first internationale.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 12:24 pm

Communism wasn’t suppose to be anarchism. It wasn’t suppose to be a government either. Marx mentioned a worker state as a means to achieving communism. He never specified how. That is where Lenin took his idea and made it socialism. Marx would argue against any state. You would know that if you actually read his writing but so many people just read about his writing. He talks about the withering away of the state to be full communism.
If the state can make an incentive for owners to sell their business to their workers then that would be lower communism. That and taxing Wall Street like property. Laws that make it so the proletariat can eventually take control of the means of production and then his theory is that the need for a state will “wither away”. That’s communism. Not anarchism or socialism. Marx would’ve called socialism the transition to communism.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
06/03/18 12:38 pm

Yeah but Marx and Lenin etc advocated for a workers state as a transitional period to communism. That means building a state. Aside from that general formulation, Marx didn't elaborate much about what the worker's state should look like (maybe check out the Critique of the Gotha program).

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
06/03/18 12:38 pm

Engels however suggested that the Paris Commune failed because it wasn't authoritarian enough.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 2:15 pm

Where in the Paris commune does Engels say it wasn’t “authoritarian” enough? If it didn’t succeed because the proletariates demands weren’t good enough then that can be rewritten as Engels didn’t think the commune was authoritarian enough. He just thought they were doing it wrong.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 2:15 pm

Engels talking about the bourgeois, “The state inevitably falls with them. The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong - into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.”

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
06/03/18 2:17 pm

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority? Therefore, one of two things: either that anti­ authoritarians down't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion. Or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve only reaction."

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 2:30 pm

He’s talking about revolution theory in a book about revolutionary theory. It’s not in the Paris commune or about the Paris commune. He defines authoritarian and then says this is why anti authoritarians are counter productive to the withering away of the state. Marx and Engels both clearly believe in a classless and stateless society

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 2:33 pm

He asks the question. If you believe in my definition of authority then wasn’t the Paris commune not authoritarian enough because it didn’t work. Any proletariat revolution could’ve took the place in that analogy

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
06/03/18 2:34 pm

I don't disagree. I disagree with the notion that Marx and Engels didn't want a strong, powerful workers state.

According to Engels, the state is an organ of "special coercive force." According to Marxist theory, as class is progressively destroyed, the state would lose its special coercive nature, and we'd be left with essentially just a democratic body which organized production. To say that Marx was opposed to government is anarchist revisionism.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 3:09 pm

His definition of authoritarian is more like what happened when the Bundy brothers took over the wild life refuge in Oregon. The bundy brothers were authoritarian in their take over

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 3:11 pm

No I️ think Marx was talking about worker cooperatives and syndicalism not a government at all.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 3:12 pm

I️ think that is communism

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 3:18 pm

A democratic body in the work place. One worker one vote. If you have the workers of a society running the means of production through one worker one vote then the need for a state withers away. The proletariat won’t over produce weapons for wars for the rich. They won’t pollute their own environment, they won’t send their jobs overseas, there wouldn’t be a huge wealth gap etc. Marx is clearly talking about democracy in the workplace. The feeling after the American revolution was that the workers ought to run the mills they work at. It was clear

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
06/03/18 7:36 pm

You don't have to agree with the Marxist view of the state (special coercive force), and you don't have to support the notion of the withering away of the state but maintaining the institutions, just without the special coercive force. I don't. Just be honest about what Marx and Engels actually believed. You're allowed to disagree with them.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 8:15 pm

I️ never said you had to agree with them. You’re misinterpreting the information and seems like you’ve read a lot about him rather than his actual work.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
06/03/18 8:21 pm

According to you, then, how did Marx and Engels define the state? What is the state? What does it mean for the state to wither away?

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 8:22 pm

Communism is still working to be achieved. There has been enough authoritarian take over (minimum wage, unions etc) for us to finally get rid of the state and implement worker cooperatives. We are going through lower communism right now, America being on the tail end. You don’t need a dictatorship to have lower communism.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 8:23 pm

Communism was a natural progression. Not a plan to conquer. Marx was a critic of capitalism and trying to lay bare the notion of the modern economic system.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 8:24 pm

Marx thought a state was the committee of bourgeoisie

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
06/03/18 8:25 pm

That's anti-Marxist. They supported violent revolution to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. (Not a dictatorship of the individual, but a class dictatorship over the bourgeoisie). Struggling against class would make class wither away and then the state in turn, because it would gradually lose its coercive function.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
06/03/18 8:26 pm

That's false though. With that definition of the state, it would make a worker's state a contradiction.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 8:28 pm

He didn’t believe in going out and committing violence. He said it would be likely to happen and self defense would be necessary. He’s just predicting what would happen and you have to take the time in account.
Marx never said worker state. People that write about him do

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 8:29 pm

And he was right. The violence has happened

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 8:33 pm

He didn’t hate capitalism. He saw it as the natural progression to something better. People finally had the right to strike. Marx was telling people they can do this pretty much. If the workers strike it is in a state of striking and then if it wins it takes over the business. Eventually this happens everywhere and the proletariate take over the means of production and the government withers away

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
06/03/18 8:35 pm

Ugh this anarchist revisionism of Marx is absurd.

Marx and Engels supported the Paris Commune. Engels said that they weren't authoritarian enough. Marx described the Paris Commune as a worker's government. I don't know how you can deny the view that Marx and Engels supported a transitory state. That's what the first international was all about. Read Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program.

IrishAlzheimers
06/03/18 8:43 pm

They supported the Paris commune by agreeing with it but ultimately they just wrote about the Paris commune and talked about its faults in theory band cause it was a popular proletariate rise. They were critics of what was naturally happening. They didn’t have a master plan for anything. I️ remember telling you this a long time ago and I️ told you to go read the critique of the gotha program. I’m not the one revising. You’re reading material that’s already been revised by power hungry leaders

Korosensei Maine
05/28/18 7:25 pm

But if all the bars of iron are turned into watch springs then horses will have nothing to put on their feet and sowing will be impossible. Acting like the lower price items don’t serve a purpose is a recipe for disaster.

Reply
AdamStephens West Virginia
05/29/18 4:28 am

Thats what happens when you get your thoughts from Facebook.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
05/29/18 7:58 am

There isn’t a 100% demand for watch springs and zero demand for horseshoes.... if there was, horseshoes would be worthless and watch springs would be a dime a dozen.

DanielWebb
05/28/18 7:10 pm

Nice! I like that.

Reply
shygal47 Florida east coast
05/28/18 6:38 pm

True - but I don't think iron needles would feel so great when you get a shot.

Reply
Korosensei Maine
05/28/18 7:25 pm

Sewing not hypodermic

Liberty Lets Use Logic
05/28/18 5:50 pm

Yes, that and whatever another party is willing to pay for it.

Reply
Okie1967 Defend the Police
05/28/18 5:39 pm

But.... I ...need......my......gubmint...check‼️

Reply
MrEdwin Mystery
05/28/18 8:10 pm

I hate mint.

FacePalm That Trick Never Works
05/28/18 5:13 pm

I disagree for one reason: without the right tools and some assistance - that $5 bar remains a $5 bar.

Reply
Zod Above Pugetropolis
05/28/18 6:13 pm

What I came here to say. That chunk of iron didn’t make squat out of itself, it didn’t even make a chunk of iron out of itself. Without someone else's effort, time, and investment, it would still be nothing but red dirt.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
05/28/18 7:32 pm

That’s kind of the point..... sitting on your fat ass at home will only yield the $5 bar.... until you put work into yourself, you won’t become anything else.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
05/28/18 7:42 pm

Actually, the point seems to be that if you apply yourself, you can turn yourself from a lump of iron into expensive watch springs, without any input or assistance from anyone else. Which is pretty much as dumb as thinking it would work that way with anything or anyone else. It works a lot better as an analogy, that without a little help, you’re likely to stay a lump.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
05/29/18 10:39 am

So you’re of the mindset that if you own a business “you didn’t build that. Someone else made that happen?”

Zod Above Pugetropolis
05/29/18 12:59 pm

I'm of the mindset that a raw commodity didn’t turn itself into manufactured goods, and that the analogy, while tortured, isn’t a complete failure because no one and nothing else turns itself into anything worthwhile without help either. You may have built a business, but you didn’t do it alone. Further, in line with this ridiculous analogy, is that you wouldn’t have even reached the point of being able to start building a business without having had a LOT of outside help along the way.

EarlyBird Portland
05/28/18 4:53 pm

Yes. Nice one, D.

Reply
DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
05/28/18 4:58 pm

Credit where it’s due.... stolen from a Facebook meme.... 😎