Why is America trading with a communistic country?

[Minarchist States]

I, as a labourer, am making a financial profit by selling my labour to my employer. Employment is a trade agreement in its own right. I wouldn't bother getting a job if it didn't benefit me in some way, the fact that I am engaged in selling something when I go to work makes me a capitalist. I'm not seeing any internal inconsistency here.

Calling Joe Schmoe a 'labourer' and his boss a 'capitalist' doesn't actually explain any inherent difference between those two things.

That's a contradiction in terms. Labor is value. Anything another person gets in profit from a worker's labor is a net loss to the worker, and thus the opposite of profit from the worker's perspective. You can't make a profit from your own labor any more than you can steal your own food from yourself.

I go outside and pick apples from an apple tree.

I have profit from my labor.

[Resora]

That's a contradiction in terms. Labor is value. Anything another person gets in profit from a worker's labor is a net loss to the worker, and thus the opposite of profit from the worker's perspective. You can't make a profit from your own labor any more than you can steal your own food from yourself.

I go outside and pick apples from an apple tree.

I have profit from my labor.

You have just created value. If a capitalist then gives you a wage for picking those apples, and sells them for a profit, that surplus value the capitalist just received, that profit, was taken from the worker, who actually created the value the capitalist, well, capitalized on.

[Kapellen]

Here is a strange thing: most of us are saying that China, North Korea etc. aren't communist countries, of course, but most of us are also saying, in the poll, that we should trade with communist countries.
So, when we hear 'communist countries', we still do think about China, North Korea? (Because there's nothing else to think of when they say 'communist countries'?)

Can we make this a bit more academical? Suppose there still is a communist country. They think they are Paradise, everybody there is a perfectly happy nobody, like everybody else, etc. But they don't have any wood, it's all rock there. Are we willing to give them wood, in exchange for... well, something, anything?

Do they want our wood?

Well, yes, and we will make at lot of money from it. But suppose their political and economical system will collapse if we don't give it to them, proving to them that capitlalism is the only way. ( I said it was academical.)

[Keronians]

I go outside and pick apples from an apple tree.

I have profit from my labor.

You have just created value. If a capitalist then gives you a wage for picking those apples, and sells them for a profit, that surplus value the capitalist just received, that profit, was taken from the worker, who actually created the value the capitalist, well, capitalized on.

A labour theory of value person, are we?

[Resora]

You have just created value. If a capitalist then gives you a wage for picking those apples, and sells them for a profit, that surplus value the capitalist just received, that profit, was taken from the worker, who actually created the value the capitalist, well, capitalized on.

A labour theory of value person, are we?

But of course.

[Minarchist States]

I go outside and pick apples from an apple tree.

I have profit from my labor.

You have just created value. If a capitalist then gives you a wage for picking those apples, and sells them for a profit, that surplus value the capitalist just received, that profit, was taken from the worker, who actually created the value the capitalist, well, capitalized on.

It's a contract.

If I own the tree, then everything on that tree is mine to begin with. The workers don't own the tree. I am willing to pay people to pick from my apple tree, as you just described, as not everyone has an apple tree in their backyard.

Now if the tree was publically owned, it would be different. But in order for everyone in the community tree to profit well from that tree, it'd have to be a pretty big tree.

[Resora]

You have just created value. If a capitalist then gives you a wage for picking those apples, and sells them for a profit, that surplus value the capitalist just received, that profit, was taken from the worker, who actually created the value the capitalist, well, capitalized on.

It's a contract.

If I own the tree, then everything on that tree is mine to begin with. The workers don't own the tree. I am willing to pay people to pick from my apple tree, as you just described, as not everyone has an apple tree in their backyard.

Now if the tree was publically owned, it would be different. But in order for everyone in the community tree to profit well from that tree, it'd have to be a pretty big tree.

Contracts and ownership have no intrinsic meaning or substance and are pretty much irrelevant from an economic perspective. Despite their usefulness, the apples have no value beyond the labor value required to obtain them or plant them or otherwise prepare them for harvesting. The value of an apple is dependent on the amount of labor required to produce/harvest/obtain one.

[Pagan Hungary]

Still looking for my pig reparations from Russia.

[Kapellen]

You have just created value. If a capitalist then gives you a wage for picking those apples, and sells them for a profit, that surplus value the capitalist just received, that profit, was taken from the worker, who actually created the value the capitalist, well, capitalized on.

It's a contract.

If I own the tree, then everything on that tree is mine to begin with. The workers don't own the tree. I am willing to pay people to pick from my apple tree, as you just described, as not everyone has an apple tree in their backyard.

Now if the tree was publically owned, it would be different. But in order for everyone in the community tree to profit well from that tree, it'd have to be a pretty big tree.

How can you own a tree???

[Newzie]

China is a dictatorship. They don't have free elections and joining labor unions is only allowed if they are state sanctioned.

Theoratically, a communist nation doesn't have to be totalitarian. But China clearly is.

Theoretically, a communist nation can't be totalitarian.

(hard to say as there is no generally accepted definition of communist)

Yeah there is.

[Llamalandia]

It's a contract.

If I own the tree, then everything on that tree is mine to begin with. The workers don't own the tree. I am willing to pay people to pick from my apple tree, as you just described, as not everyone has an apple tree in their backyard.

Now if the tree was publically owned, it would be different. But in order for everyone in the community tree to profit well from that tree, it'd have to be a pretty big tree.

Contracts and ownership have no intrinsic meaning or substance and are pretty much irrelevant from an economic perspective. Despite their usefulness, the apples have no value beyond the labor value required to obtain them or plant them or otherwise prepare them for harvesting. The value of an apple is dependent on the amount of labor required to produce/harvest/obtain one.

Ok well by that logic an apple that is easier to harvest is less valuable than one that was grown on the moon. Difficulty or intensity of labor =/= economic value.

And when you say labor i assume you are strictly referring to human labor because in that case many things now done by machine may be grossly overvalued.

[Sibirsky]

China along with several other countries are Communistic. The major (if only) country we trade often with is China.
My question is, why are we trading with them? After WWII we, along with the other allied nations, try to stop communism and help form more Capitalistic countries. Do you agree that we should technically be trading with them, or do you support it, or is it unrealiliatic to stop? Questions, comments, concerns and prayers all welcome here

My vote is "no but in certain cases yes"

China is not a communist country.

We benefit from this trade. There is no good reason to not trade with them. Trading partners, should not be selected based on ideology.

[Llamalandia]

It's a contract.

If I own the tree, then everything on that tree is mine to begin with. The workers don't own the tree. I am willing to pay people to pick from my apple tree, as you just described, as not everyone has an apple tree in their backyard.

Now if the tree was publically owned, it would be different. But in order for everyone in the community tree to profit well from that tree, it'd have to be a pretty big tree.

Contracts and ownership have no intrinsic meaning or substance and are pretty much irrelevant from an economic perspective. Despite their usefulness, the apples have no value beyond the labor value required to obtain them or plant them or otherwise prepare them for harvesting. The value of an apple is dependent on the amount of labor required to produce/harvest/obtain one.

Also apples very much do have more value than that because they are theoretically capable of growing more apple trees from the seeds. The seeds are themselves very much a form of capital (an often unrealized form but none the less).

[Resora]

Contracts and ownership have no intrinsic meaning or substance and are pretty much irrelevant from an economic perspective. Despite their usefulness, the apples have no value beyond the labor value required to obtain them or plant them or otherwise prepare them for harvesting. The value of an apple is dependent on the amount of labor required to produce/harvest/obtain one.

Ok well by that logic an apple that is easier to harvest is less valuable than one that was grown on the moon. Difficulty or intensity of labor =/= economic value.

And when you say labor i assume you are strictly referring to human labor because in that case many things now done by machine may be grossly overvalued.

If you grew an apple tree on the moon, you expended a lot of accumulated capital to do so, so the moon-apple is going to have a much higher exchange-value than the one grown on earth.

This is pretty basic LTV 101 stuff here.

[4years]

1. China along with several other countries are Communistic. 2. The major (if only) country we trade often with is China.
3. My question is, why are we trading with them? 4. After WWII we, along with 5. the other allied nations, try to stop communism and help form more Capitalistic countries. 6. Do you agree that we should technically be trading with them, or do you support it, or is it unrealiliatic to stop? Questions, comments, concerns and prayers all welcome here

My vote is "no but in certain cases yes"

1. China isn't communistic.
2. That would be because China has a very cheap labour supply.
3. See above. America business have like to much lots of money.
4. We didn't confront communism after WW2.
5. The USSR was an allied nation.
6. It is unrealistic to suddenly stop trading with China completely. However humanitarian, environmental, and economic considerations suggest that trade with China should be much more strictly regulated and should be decreased.

[Llamalandia]

China along with several other countries are Communistic. The major (if only) country we trade often with is China.
My question is, why are we trading with them? After WWII we, along with the other allied nations, try to stop communism and help form more Capitalistic countries. Do you agree that we should technically be trading with them, or do you support it, or is it unrealiliatic to stop? Questions, comments, concerns and prayers all welcome here

My vote is "no but in certain cases yes"

China is not a communist country.

We benefit from this trade. There is no good reason to not trade with them. Trading partners, should not be selected based on ideology.

Ok, then we should trade with cuba Iran, DPRK Syria etc if ideology doesn't matter.

[Sibirsky]

China is not a communist country.

We benefit from this trade. There is no good reason to not trade with them. Trading partners, should not be selected based on ideology.

Ok, then we should trade with cuba Iran, DPRK Syria etc if ideology doesn't matter.

Yes, we should.

[Novislavia]

China is not a communist country.

We benefit from this trade. There is no good reason to not trade with them. Trading partners, should not be selected based on ideology.

Ok, then we should trade with cuba Iran, DPRK Syria etc if ideology doesn't matter.

Yeah, actually, we should. It would benefit everyone

EDIT: Dammit, Sibirsky. You're too quick for me.

[Resora]

Contracts and ownership have no intrinsic meaning or substance and are pretty much irrelevant from an economic perspective. Despite their usefulness, the apples have no value beyond the labor value required to obtain them or plant them or otherwise prepare them for harvesting. The value of an apple is dependent on the amount of labor required to produce/harvest/obtain one.

Also apples very much do have more value than that because they are theoretically capable of growing more apple trees from the seeds. The seeds are themselves very much a form of capital (an often unrealized form but none the less).

No, the seeds don't have an exchange value until someone invests labor into them. "Unrealized" capital (or use-value, which is what you really mean) only obtains an exchange value (and thus value as known in the capitalist sense) when labor is invested into it so it may be used.

[Genivaria]

Ok, then we should trade with cuba Iran, DPRK Syria etc if ideology doesn't matter.

Yes, we should.

Especially North Korea. Once we start trading they'll see how hard it is keeping our culture out.

[Regnum Dominae]

Ok, then we should trade with cuba Iran, DPRK Syria etc if ideology doesn't matter.

Yes, we should.

And by doing so we could maybe get them to accept some capitalist reforms, resulting in increased quality of life for the country's people.

Sanctions can still be a very useful tool though.

[Luveria]

China is not a communist country.

We benefit from this trade. There is no good reason to not trade with them. Trading partners, should not be selected based on ideology.

Ok, then we should trade with cuba Iran, DPRK Syria etc if ideology doesn't matter.

Are you expecting anyone to disagree with that?

[Novislavia]

Yes, we should.

Especially North Korea. Once we start trading they'll see how hard it is keeping our culture out.

Oh noes. I change my mind.

[4years]

China is not a communist country.

We benefit from this trade. There is no good reason to not trade with them. Trading partners, should not be selected based on ideology.

Ok, then we should trade with 1. cuba 2. Iran, 3. DPRK 4. Syria etc if ideology doesn't matter.

1. Definitely.
2. Yup, but we should still embargo military goods. We can get oil and have leverage over them in certain areas.
3. Sure, but not weapons or war materials, we need way way more leverage over North Korea.
4. Which side? Sending medicine and food is a good idea regardless.

[Ainin]

China is not a communist country.

We benefit from this trade. There is no good reason to not trade with them. Trading partners, should not be selected based on ideology.

Ok, then we should trade with cuba Iran, DPRK Syria etc if ideology doesn't matter. :)

Duh.

Were you expecting a negation of this?