Q&A with AugustWest: General Questions Regarding the Revolutionary Left

[Decolonize The Left]

In this thread I will attempt to answer any general questions about revolutionary leftism.

Why this thread and not the OI Learning forum in general? Several reasons:
- Less stress and attention making a post as opposed to making a thread.
- I will answer/discuss all topics with respect, always keeping the dignity of the other in mind.
- If I can't help you, I'll guide you to someone who can.
- I am primarily concerned with aiding the development of a basic understanding of leftism, as opposed to one partisan line or another.

You may ask any question you wish so long as it pertains to general outline of the OI Learning forum. I will respond as often as possible.

- August

[Nwoye]

i've asked this several times and haven't gotten an answer: when does capital stop being a mutually beneficial contract between two people and become labor exploitation?

[Communist Theory]

why doesn't Malte post?

[trivas7]

i've asked this several times and haven't gotten an answer: when does capital stop being a mutually beneficial contract between two people and become labor exploitation?
Never; capitalism is a socio-economic formation or social system, not a contractual agreement bt two people.

[Nwoye]

Never; capitalism is a socio-economic formation or social system, not a contractual agreement bt two people.
so the very concept of capital is oppressive and illegitimate? in all situations?

[Kronos]

when does capital stop being a mutually beneficial contract between two people and become labor exploitation?

Capital can be a mutually beneficial exchange between capitalists when regarding investments. For instance, capitalist A may pay capitalist B an amount of money exceeding capitalist B's overheard expenses for a machine which capitalist A will use to manufacture products. Capitalist B makes a profit from the sale and capitalist A will make a profit by selling the products made by the machine. In this case, both profit in the exchange, and without the workers they exploited (to build the machine for capitalist B and operate the machine for capitalist A), they couldn't have done so.

But never is capital not accumulated from exploitation in the first place...unless it was generated by the work of a laborer who becomes a capitalist by investing that earned money.

[Nwoye]

Capital can be a mutually beneficial exchange between capitalists when regarding investments. For instance, capitalist A may pay capitalist B an amount of money exceeding capitalist B's overheard expenses for a machine which capitalist A will use to manufacture products. Capitalist B makes a profit from the sale and capitalist A will make a profit by selling the products made by the machine. In this case, both profit in the exchange, and without the workers they exploited (to build the machine for capitalist B and operate the machine for capitalist A), they couldn't have done so.
so if both are made more materially well off from the exchange than it's legitimate?

[Decolonize The Left]

i've asked this several times and haven't gotten an answer: when does capital stop being a mutually beneficial contract between two people and become labor exploitation?

Trivas7 is correct with "capitalism is a socio-economic formation or social system, not a contractual agreement bt two people."


so the very concept of capital is oppressive and illegitimate? in all situations?

I believe a better definition of the term "capital" is in order. When we speak of capital, we are referring to the economic use of the term. I will paste the basics, which can easily be found in this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28economics%29) wikipedia article:

In classical economics, capital is one of three (or four, in some formulations) factors of production. The others are land, labor and (in some versions) organization, entrepreneurship, or management. Goods with the following features are capital:


It can be used in the production of other goods (this is what makes it a factor of production).
It was produced, in contrast to "land," which refers to naturally occurring resources such as geographical locations and minerals.
It is not used up immediately in the process of production unlike raw materials or intermediate goods. (The significant exception to this is depreciation allowance, which like intermediate goods, is treated as a business expense.)



This definition, while not explicitly from a Marxist and/or leftist perspective, sums up the term quite well. You can see now that capital is quite a wide range of things. If you seek a Marxist perspective on the accumulation of capital, you may find a very simplified but clear explanation here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=619266&postcount=12) - it is a reproduction of Marx's Kapital for Beginners, the link I have provided is chapter 10 dealing with capital.

I hope that helps.

- August

[Nwoye]

thank you for the links. i've read through KC's summary of Kapital for Beginners before actually. it's very interesting.

anyway, let's take the definition of capital as "wealth devoted to creating more wealth".

now i understand the concept of surplus value and of the M-C-M cycle. however, this doesn't necessarily answer my question. to put it bluntly: why is capital bad?

i understand that this is simplistic, but i want to make sure i'm not misrepresenting your position.

[Kronos]

so if both are made more materially well off from the exchange than it's legitimate?

Depends on what you mean by "legitimate". If you mean "both capitalists are happy with the exchange", then yes, it is legitimate in that it worked. If you mean "according to the rules", yeah, it is legal.

Also, there is no objective definition for "materially well off" because "value" is a matter of quality...and this is a subjective preference which differs between people. This is one of the problems facing communist theory: how does one determine how "welfare" is measured. Communism must level the playing in field and establish a minimal quality of living, which is used to base degrees of welfare on. They would have to mean by "well off" that one has the absolutely necessary bare minimum. Additionally, the maxim "each according to his need" remains vague, since there is a fine line between need and want....which can very well be blurred.

[Nwoye]

Depends on what you mean by "legitimate". If you mean "both capitalists are happy with the exchange", then yes, it is legitimate in that it worked. If you mean "according to the rules", yeah, it is legal.
legitimate as in morally/ethically acceptable.

so if two people are both benefited from the use o capital, then it's morally/ethically acceptable?


Also, there is no objective definition for "materially well off" because "value" is a matter of quality...and this is a subjective preference which differs between people. This is one of the problems facing communist theory: how does one determine how "welfare" is measured. Communism must level the playing in field and establish a minimal quality of living, which is used to base degrees of welfare on. They would have to mean by "well off" that one has the absolutely necessary bare minimum. Additionally, the maxim "each according to his need" remains vague, since there is a fine line between need and want....which can very well be blurred.
agreed on all points. you run into the same problem when utlitarians try to aggregate happiness. but i digress...

[Kronos]

legitimate as in morally/ethically acceptable.

Impossible to answer. I'm more of a social darwinist who believes it is obvious that "might is right". Mind you, I do not take this position because it is effortless or the easy way out. I take it because I have spent almost seven years examining moral philosophies and I find flaws in all of them.

I cannot honestly say I oppose capitalism because it is "immoral". I oppose it because it is an inefficient and wasteful system that compromises the quality of life for many people. Again, I can't say that compromising the quality of life is immoral....but I can say it isn't necessary to achieve what can otherwise be achieved without capitalism. More people would enjoy their lives if we got rid of the capitalists and replaced them with a single, working class government.

I don't know if that will work....but there is no loss in trying to revolutionize the world.

[Nwoye]

Impossible to answer. I'm more of a social darwinist who believes it is obvious that "might is right". Mind you, I do not take this position because it is effortless or the easy way out. I take it because I have spent almost seven years examining moral philosophies and I find flaws in all of them.

I cannot honestly say I oppose capitalism because it is "immoral". I oppose it because it is an inefficient and wasteful system that compromises the quality of life for many people. Again, I can't say that compromising the quality of life is immoral....but I can say it isn't necessary to achieve what can otherwise be achieved without capitalism. More people would enjoy their lives if we got rid of the capitalists and replaced them with a single, working class government.

I don't know if that will work....but there is no loss in trying to revolutionize the world.
dammit you... i actually agree with you but i'm asking questions pertaining to the ethical/philosophical objections to capital/private property/capitalism. thanks though.

[Decolonize The Left]

legitimate as in morally/ethically acceptable.

so if two people are both benefited from the use o capital, then it's morally/ethically acceptable?

The situation is never so simple. The two capitalists will certainly agree that it's morally/ethically acceptable since both of them are benefiting. They conveniently ignore their exploitation and oppression of the working class, an exploitation and oppression which is engaged in order to secure their benefits.

From this perspective, most would agree that it's not morally/ethically acceptable.

- August

[Nwoye]

The situation is never so simple. The two capitalists will certainly agree that it's morally/ethically acceptable since both of them are benefiting. They conveniently ignore their exploitation and oppression of the working class, an exploitation and oppression which is engaged in order to secure their benefits.

From this perspective, most would agree that it's not morally/ethically acceptable.

- August
i would never deny that the working class is screwed into submission, i just see glaring inconsistencies in a complete opposition to capital. i mean with the "surplus value" argument the assumption is made (along with the labor theory of value) that workers own their own labor, and therefore the products of it correct?

[Decolonize The Left]

i would never deny that the working class is screwed into submission, i just see glaring inconsistencies in a complete opposition to capital. i mean with the "surplus value" argument the assumption is made (along with the labor theory of value) that workers own their own labor, and therefore the products of it correct?

Yes.

- August

[Communist Theory]

What does Dialectic and Historical Materialism mean?
I'm too lazy to research it.

[Decolonize The Left]

What does Dialectic and Historical Materialism mean?
I'm too lazy to research it.

Historical Materialism:
Simple Diagram (http://filer.case.edu/%7Engb2/Pages/Marx_HistMater.html)
Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism)
Detailed Essay (http://www.marxist.com/History-old/historicalMaterialism.htm) by Mick Brooks

Dialectical Materialism is much harder to explain. I suggest you check out these two user-groups: Dialectical Materialists (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=62) and Anti-Dialectics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=63).

I also suggest you speak to Random Precision (pro) and Rosa Lichtenstein (anti) for a further explanation. Both are highly articulate and will be able to expound on their relative positions.

- August

[Nwoye]

Yes.

- August
so if i own the product of my labor (say, a machine that produces widgets), then i can do whatever i want with it (use it, sell it, destroy it, etc).

if someone else owns their labor, then they can do whatever the want with it (use it, sell it, etc).

so where is the injustice of me renting the use of my machine in exchange for labor?

[Decolonize The Left]

so if i own the product of my labor (say, a machine that produces widgets), then i can do whatever i want with it (use it, sell it, destroy it, etc).

if someone else owns their labor, then they can do whatever the want with it (use it, sell it, etc).

so where is the injustice of me renting the use of my machine in exchange for labor?

Because you, alone, cannot create a machine which produces widgets. Hence it is not your machine to rent or sell. It is only with the combined labor of the working class that our society functions as it does - we cannot subsist on our own in such an industrial society. Hence any claims to private property (regarding the means of production especially) are theft.

- August

[Bud Struggle]

Impossible to answer. I'm more of a social darwinist who believes it is obvious that "might is right". Mind you, I do not take this position because it is effortless or the easy way out. I take it because I have spent almost seven years examining moral philosophies and I find flaws in all of them.

I cannot honestly say I oppose capitalism because it is "immoral". I oppose it because it is an inefficient and wasteful system that compromises the quality of life for many people. Again, I can't say that compromising the quality of life is immoral....but I can say it isn't necessary to achieve what can otherwise be achieved without capitalism. More people would enjoy their lives if we got rid of the capitalists and replaced them with a single, working class government.

I don't know if that will work....but there is no loss in trying to revolutionize the world.

My apologies to August for interupting his thread--but that was one great post Kronos.

[Kronos]

i'm asking questions pertaining to the ethical/philosophical objections to capital/private property/capitalism.

Sure there are moral/ethical philosophies that communism is founded on. Utilitarianism and egalitarianism are two, for example. But despite whatever philosophies develop, none can produce an epistemologically sound system of ethics, for basically one reason: there would have to be something other than a human being to prove that there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong". God, for example. But since there is no God, moral/ethical propositions are always subject to human rationale. And because the fact that billions of people might agree to call such and such "right" or "wrong" only proves that they agree.....not that, in fact, such and such is "right" or "wrong".

Through history there have been many clever attempts to prove morals are "objective". Kant's deontological "duty based imperative" argument is one. Other philosophies try to prove the objectivity of morals by exposing logically contradicting statements about morals, as in the case of relativism. For instance, the "self referential paradox" of the statement "there is no right or wrong" or "all morals are relative". These, according to such philosophers, if correct, prove that they are incorrect...and therefore there is such a thing as absolute "right" and "wrong".

But this is only to scrutinize the logical form of the proposition and show that it contradictes itself. It says nothing about what "right" and "wrong" may or may not be.

The gist of the problem here is in trying to speak about evaluations as if they are capable of being objectively true.

That aside, communists may understand or not understand this point, but that doesn't stop them...nor should it. Communism as a political ideal has as much right to assert its ends as does any other political system. The world is a battle of political will to power. Always was and always will be.

[Nwoye]

Because you, alone, cannot create a machine which produces widgets.
sure i can. it would take me a hell of a long time but you could theoretically do it. sure the division of labor and cooperation makes it easier, but it's not like it's impossible to create anything outside of social cooperation.


Hence it is not your machine to rent or sell. It is only with the combined labor of the working class that our society functions as it does - we cannot subsist on our own in such an industrial society. Hence any claims to private property (regarding the means of production especially) are theft.

- August
so this is basically taking a communitarian approach to property and asserting that society as a whole has more of a right to the fruits of your labor than you do. eesh.

i mean sure we are social creatures, but the thought that i owe a portion of my labor to you just because you exist is pretty much slavery.

[Decolonize The Left]

sure i can. it would take me a hell of a long time but you could theoretically do it. sure the division of labor and cooperation makes it easier, but it's not like it's impossible to create anything outside of social cooperation.

Could you? You know where to mine the ore? You know how to convert the ore to metal? You could make the machinery capable of both these tasks? Then you know how to mold this metal into various forms (again using machinery you have created)? You also know how to connect these various forms of metal using further products of your own labor? You could do all of this in a lifetime?

I doubt it. You do not possess the knowledge, understanding, or sheer physical force to construct a machine large enough to produce goods on a massive scale.

It is pure delusion to think otherwise.

It's possible to create lot's of things on your own, outside of social cooperation. But these things are weak and inefficient. Think about a shoe you made all on your own, without the help of anyone. Where will you collect the rubber to make the sole? Will you pick the cotton and bail it on your own? Then will you weave it to form a fabric? Do you know how to weave?

See what I'm saying? We are entirely dependent upon the working class for everything we use and consume.


i mean sure we are social creatures, but the thought that i owe a portion of my labor to you just because you exist is pretty much slavery.

You don't owe me anything. Here's how our discussion evolved:
Workers own their labor. Yes.
Hence workers own the product of their labor. Yes.
Hence they are free to do whatever they wish with these products. Yes - but this was not well understood, or perhaps not well explained.

Workers do not exist in isolation. Hence, collectively workers are free to do whatever they wish with the products of their labor. I believe I have explained why this must be collective and not individual above.

Now, to the question which follows from my claim:

so this is basically taking a communitarian approach to property and asserting that society as a whole has more of a right to the fruits of your labor than you do. eesh.

"Society as a whole" is a meaningless phrase. Also, I never said anything about "right to the fruits of your labor." Basically, since we all work in common to produce everything we need, it makes sense to engage the working class as a whole in the decision making process as to the production/distribution of all goods.

- August

[Nwoye]

Could you? You know where to mine the ore? You know how to convert the ore to metal? You could make the machinery capable of both these tasks? Then you know how to mold this metal into various forms (again using machinery you have created)? You also know how to connect these various forms of metal using further products of your own labor? You could do all of this in a lifetime?

I doubt it. You do not possess the knowledge, understanding, or sheer physical force to construct a machine large enough to produce goods on a massive scale.

It is pure delusion to think otherwise.

It's possible to create lot's of things on your own, outside of social cooperation. But these things are weak and inefficient. Think about a shoe you made all on your own, without the help of anyone. Where will you collect the rubber to make the sole? Will you pick the cotton and bail it on your own? Then will you weave it to form a fabric? Do you know how to weave?
okay so the whole "standing on the shoulders of giants" argument applies to labor. that being said, if i own a farm, and produce wheat/tomatoes/soy beans, does society have a just claim to those goods? and if so why?


See what I'm saying? We are entirely dependent upon the working class for everything we use and consume.but this is just a result of the division of labor, not necessarily any universal law of social labor. and people are reimbursed for this process anyway, even if it's in the context of a market.


You don't owe me anything. Here's how our discussion evolved:
Workers own their labor. Yes.
Hence workers own the product of their labor. Yes.
Hence they are free to do whatever they wish with these products. Yes - but this was not well understood, or perhaps not well explained.well i was going off of this:
Hence any claims to private property (regarding the means of production especially) are theft.
and Marx's argument in Critique of the Gotha Programme about rewarding someone for their labor.

what your statement suggests, and what marx's argument pretty much explicitly states, is that we owe our labor and the fruits of it to the rest of society, and we only deserve what remains after the collective has fulfilled its needs. this is essentially saying that society has the right to the apple i picked off the tree earlier today, or the cheese i made with my cows milk (hypothetical). and if society has a right to the fruits of my labor, then the have the right to my labor, and if they have the rights to my labor, then they essentially have the right to my own body and all of its exertions.


Workers do not exist in isolation.
sure they do. it's more common to see people working in cooperation, but you can work individually.


"Society as a whole" is a meaningless phrase. Also, I never said anything about "right to the fruits of your labor." Basically, since we all work in common to produce everything we need, it makes sense to engage the working class as a whole in the decision making process as to the production/distribution of all goods.see my response to this above.

[Decolonize The Left]

okay so the whole "standing on the shoulders of giants" argument applies to labor. that being said, if i own a farm, and produce wheat/tomatoes/soy beans, does society have a just claim to those goods? and if so why?

What do you use to produce those vegetables? Tools? Did you make them? Fertilizer? Did you synthesize and package it? Electricity? Do you produce that as well? Water? Where does it come from?

Note that I'm not trying to rag on you personally, I think it's great that you farm, I'm trying to get you to think about how dependent you are upon the labor of thousands/millions/billions of people.

But to answer your question, society does not have a "claim" on anything, because society is an abstract concept. Do you employ workers on your farm? If so, they have a claim to those vegetables.


but this is just a result of the division of labor, not necessarily any universal law of social labor. and people are reimbursed for this process anyway, even if it's in the context of a market.

And this is where you're wrong. Individuals are not reimbursed for their labor - in fact, they are exploited. This is what we call "profit." Profit is nothing more than value withheld from laborers and kept by the capitalist class.

Furthermore, the division of labor (I assume you are referring to the industrial revolution) is a part of our society. We cannot 'turn back' to pre-industrial forms of social organization and operation, for our social organization is dependent upon the economic conditions which facilitate and perpetuate these social actions.


well i was going off of this:
Hence any claims to private property (regarding the means of production especially) are theft.
and Marx's argument in Critique of the Gotha Programme about rewarding someone for their labor.

what your statement suggests, and what marx's argument pretty much explicitly states, is that we owe our labor and the fruits of it to the rest of society, and we only deserve what remains after the collective has fulfilled its needs. this is essentially saying that society has the right to the apple i picked off the tree earlier today, or the cheese i made with my cows milk (hypothetical). and if society has a right to the fruits of my labor, then the have the right to my labor, and if they have the rights to my labor, then they essentially have the right to my own body and all of its exertions.

Your statement is nonsensical. You write: "we only deserve what remains after the collective has fulfilled its needs." Are you not a part of the collective? If so, then this makes no sense.

Furthermore, society has no right to anything because "rights" are theoretical liberal constructions. The reality of our situation is that we are all entirely dependent upon everyone else - hence it is in our interest to work together for the betterment of all.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

why doesn't Malte post?

Sorry I missed this one. A simple visit to his profile reveals that he's made 5,374 posts - 1.87 posts a day. Not bad.

This is a large forum, and there are a lot of people posting - perhaps you missed him? His last post was over a month ago, so I imagine he's busy. All-in-all, it's of little importance.

- August

[Nwoye]

What do you use to produce those vegetables? Tools? Did you make them? Fertilizer? Did you synthesize and package it? Electricity? Do you produce that as well? Water? Where does it come from?
well i paid for all of those things. is that not reimbursement?


But to answer your question, society does not have a "claim" on anything, because society is an abstract concept. Do you employ workers on your farm? If so, they have a claim to those vegetables.the collective, the state, the workplace what have you. what i'm saying is that whatever force or organization develops to represent the collective population (the state, in a marxist sense) has a claim to the fruits of my labor.


And this is where you're wrong. Individuals are not reimbursed for their labor - in fact, they are exploited. This is what we call "profit." Profit is nothing more than value withheld from laborers and kept by the capitalist class.alright i apologize i simply meant that people can be reimbursed without collectivizing the distribution/production of goods.

but you're right that people aren't reimbursed for labor.


Furthermore, the division of labor (I assume you are referring to the industrial revolution) is a part of our society. We cannot 'turn back' to pre-industrial forms of social organization and operation, for our social organization is dependent upon the economic conditions which facilitate and perpetuate these social actions.all true.


Your statement is nonsensical. You write: "we only deserve what remains after the collective has fulfilled its needs." Are you not a part of the collective? If so, then this makes no sense.
If useful labor is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong to society -- and only so much therefrom accrues to the individual worker as is not required to maintain the "condition" of labor, society.
That's Marx. so according to him, my labor belongs to society, not me.


Furthermore, society has no right to anything because "rights" are theoretical liberal constructions.well that's just a semantics argument really but okay.


The reality of our situation is that we are all entirely dependent upon everyone else - hence it is in our interest to work together for the betterment of all.but we already pay for this dependence, in the form of exchanging goods and currency in a market (i'm not a fan of markets but this still holds true).

[Decolonize The Left]

well i paid for all of those things. is that not reimbursement?

As I have already noted, no, this is not reimbursement. For your "payment" is not directly related to the labor involved in the production of the good, rather, it is indirectly related in the sense that profit is extracted.


the collective, the state, the workplace what have you. what i'm saying is that whatever force or organization develops to represent the collective population (the state, in a marxist sense) has a claim to the fruits of my labor.

Only in-so-far as you have claims to all other labor. As I have already noted, you do.


alright i apologize i simply meant that people can be reimbursed without collectivizing the distribution/production of goods.

How?


but we already pay for this dependence, in the form of exchanging goods and currency in a market (i'm not a fan of markets but this still holds true).

We do not pay for this dependence. We pay for labor and for the superfluous profit of the capitalist class. Currency, money, prices, can never be equal to the value of labor in a capitalist society - this is why the two classes become more and more polarized through time.

Also, I repped you for this conversation and I shall applaud you again. You are engaging yourself responsibly and respectfully and I acknowledge your contribution to this discussion.

- August

[RGacky3]

But since there is no God, moral/ethical propositions are always subject to human rationale. And because the fact that billions of people might agree to call such and such "right" or "wrong" only proves that they agree.....not that, in fact, such and such is "right" or "wrong".


I take it, if you COULD get away with rape you would gladly do it. I'm sure you think slavery is absolutely acceptable as long as your the slave owner right? And so on and so forth.

Also, since you post addmitetly does'nt change anything, whats your point?

[Nwoye]

As I have already noted, no, this is not reimbursement. For your "payment" is not directly related to the labor involved in the production of the good, rather, it is indirectly related in the sense that profit is extracted.
let's reduce an economy down to its simplest denominator to examine it.

suppose there are two people in the whole economy: one makes bread, and the other makes milk. every day, they exchange the products of their labor. both have milk and bread, and both are reimbursed for their labor. now add a couple of other people - one who makes tools, one who builds houses. they continue to exchange, so that every person has milk, bread, tools, and a house. they are all completely dependent on one another, and they are all reimbursed accordingly. now this process naturally expands and multiplies, and becomes more and more complex over time. eventually, you end up with an enormous,competitive market economy. now this original state of things was still a market - just one on a smaller scale and with more direct human interaction. in an expanding market (like the United States) this process is simply amplified.

now let's go back to the original state of things. that guy making tools, he doesn't have to trade his tools right? i mean if he wants to keep them all by himself then he can - they're his. it certainly does not behoove him to do so, but he can. similarly, can he not rent out those tools to other people? thereby making them capital? both parties are made better off because of the exchange, and no one is necessarily exploited. they are just exchanging tools for labor.

now certainly, our economy is not that simple, and it does not provide an equal playing field for all classes. keep in mind, i'm not promoting American capitalism, i'm just critiquing Marx's social labor theory and defending the basic theory of capital.


Only in-so-far as you have claims to all other labor. As I have already noted, you do.mmk. see above.


How?i think it could be achieved through a more equitable distribution of property, and govermental policies which don't screw the working class out of opportunities. i don't know if this could be best acheived through proudhonian mutualist ventures (where capital is not neccessarily suppressed, but rather individual labor is promoted, along with labor cooperatives), or through more radically socialist, collectivist systems, like syndicalism. the issue i have is that i see no difference in having individual autonomy infringed upon by capitalist firms or by the state/society.


We do not pay for this dependence. We pay for labor and for the superfluous profit of the capitalist class. Currency, money, prices, can never be equal to the value of labor in a capitalist society - this is why the two classes become more and more polarized through time.i would say that capitalism as a distinct socio-economic system (as it is applied in the world today) promotes such a thing, but the notion of property or capital doesn't.


Also, I repped you for this conversation and I shall applaud you again. You are engaging yourself responsibly and respectfully and I acknowledge your contribution to this discussion.thank you. i appreciate the discussion.

[Decolonize The Left]

My sincere apologies for the lengthy delay of my reply - I was away for a bit and the server was down when I returned. None-the-less, below:


let's reduce an economy down to its simplest denominator to examine it.

suppose there are two people in the whole economy: one makes bread, and the other makes milk. every day, they exchange the products of their labor. both have milk and bread, and both are reimbursed for their labor. now add a couple of other people - one who makes tools, one who builds houses. they continue to exchange, so that every person has milk, bread, tools, and a house. they are all completely dependent on one another, and they are all reimbursed accordingly. now this process naturally expands and multiplies, and becomes more and more complex over time. eventually, you end up with an enormous,competitive market economy. now this original state of things was still a market - just one on a smaller scale and with more direct human interaction. in an expanding market (like the United States) this process is simply amplified.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree that there is any sort of 'state of nature' / 'original state' related to human economics. I do not believe that our current capitalist economy can be reduced to a two/three person relationship.


now let's go back to the original state of things. that guy making tools, he doesn't have to trade his tools right? i mean if he wants to keep them all by himself then he can - they're his. it certainly does not behoove him to do so, but he can. similarly, can he not rent out those tools to other people? thereby making them capital? both parties are made better off because of the exchange, and no one is necessarily exploited. they are just exchanging tools for labor.

No. If he 'kept' those tools in such a society, the other people would probably take them from him. "Private property" is not a universal concept - it is a concept which arose under specific historical conditions. Furthermore, you scenario is nonsensical. For one cannot accumulate "capital" in the economic relationship you have outlined. There is no monetary medium of trade present to serve as 'wealth,' and there is no means of production in private possession (capital). In other words, your analogy is not apt.


i think it could be achieved through a more equitable distribution of property, and govermental policies which don't screw the working class out of opportunities. i don't know if this could be best acheived through proudhonian mutualist ventures (where capital is not neccessarily suppressed, but rather individual labor is promoted, along with labor cooperatives), or through more radically socialist, collectivist systems, like syndicalism. the issue i have is that i see no difference in having individual autonomy infringed upon by capitalist firms or by the state/society.

I understand. The reality is that there is a difference. Theoretically speaking, the state (composed of a democratic government) is responsible to and representative of the interests of the people. Hence in such a 'pristine' democracy, infringements upon individual liberty are enacted on the basis of that very individual.
Under capitalism, even 'ideal libertarian' capitalism, these infringements are being conducted through a systematic class warfare. The cannot be in the interest of the working class, as these interests are fundamentally opposed to the interests of the capitalist class.

Now, you may claim that the state is a tool of the capitalist class. You would be correct. The point I was attempting to make in the first place, was that the state need not always be the tool of the capitalist class - it could, theoretically, be the tool of the working class or the monarchy, etc...


i would say that capitalism as a distinct socio-economic system (as it is applied in the world today) promotes such a thing, but the notion of property or capital doesn't.

But where did the notion of "private property" come from? And where did the notion of "capital" arise?

- August

[Nwoye]

My sincere apologies for the lengthy delay of my reply - I was away for a bit and the server was down when I returned. None-the-less, below:
that's fine. I tried to reply last night but the server was acting up and I lost my post.


I understand what you're saying, but I disagree that there is any sort of 'state of nature' / 'original state' related to human economics. I do not believe that our current capitalist economy can be reduced to a two/three person relationship.well yes a complex capitalist economy cannot be reduced to a few common denominators, but the point I was trying to make was that markets recognize human interdependence and reliance on one another.


No. If he 'kept' those tools in such a society, the other people would probably take them from him. "Private property" is not a universal concept - it is a concept which arose under specific historical conditions. Furthermore, you scenario is nonsensical. For one cannot accumulate "capital" in the economic relationship you have outlined. There is no monetary medium of trade present to serve as 'wealth,' and there is no means of production in private possession (capital). In other words, your analogy is not apt.Going by the definition of capital accumulation as the M-C-M' cycle then yes my analogy was not capital accumulation. However, it would still be an example of capital, or the Marxist definition of private property. If I rent out tools in exchange for labor or for goods, even if there is no capital accumulation per se, I am utilizing capital.


I understand. The reality is that there is a difference. Theoretically speaking, the state (composed of a democratic government) is responsible to and representative of the interests of the people. Hence in such a 'pristine' democracy, infringements upon individual liberty are enacted on the basis of that very individual.but problems obviously arise when we are willing to circumvent one persons will or self interest to satisfy those of others, at his expense.

I mean, how far are we willing to take this? Does it justify the state forcefully taking property? Does it justify the state restricting one's personal choices? Does it justify sending someone off to war? Does it justify sacrificing one person for another? If you believe that simply the act of voting or the opportunity to vote is essentially consent, then what's wrong with those things listed above?


Under capitalism, even 'ideal libertarian' capitalism, these infringements are being conducted through a systematic class warfare. The cannot be in the interest of the working class, as these interests are fundamentally opposed to the interests of the capitalist class.agreed.


Now, you may claim that the state is a tool of the capitalist class. You would be correct. again, agreed.


The point I was attempting to make in the first place, was that the state need not always be the tool of the capitalist class - it could, theoretically, be the tool of the working class or the monarchy, etc...theoretically. This is really just the Anarchism vs. Marxism debate all over again. At the very least, I think the state would have to lose its status as a political entity, and become purely a defense agency, responsible for only the protection of those it represents from violence and oppression.


But where did the notion of "private property" come from? And where did the notion of "capital" arise?correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it was during the Industrial Revolution where large landowners started buying up new production technology and renting it out to the working class, who were too poor to buy the technology themselves.

[Decolonize The Left]

well yes a complex capitalist economy cannot be reduced to a few common denominators, but the point I was trying to make was that markets recognize human interdependence and reliance on one another.

Of course they do - "market" is merely a term which refers to a trading place (i.e. it implies interdependence and reliance).


Going by the definition of capital accumulation as the M-C-M' cycle then yes my analogy was not capital accumulation. However, it would still be an example of capital, or the Marxist definition of private property. If I rent out tools in exchange for labor or for goods, even if there is no capital accumulation per se, I am utilizing capital.

Hmm.. ok. In the situation posited, that could reasonably occur. I guess I just take issue with the idea that this person actually made the tools all on his/her own.


but problems obviously arise when we are willing to circumvent one persons will or self interest to satisfy those of others, at his expense.

Well that's the paradox of representative democracy. The politicians are supposedly representatives, yet upon entering office their primary interest is to remain in office and hence not representing the interests of their constituents. This fundamental flaw in the system forbids an indirect democracy as it separates the interests of the governmental officials from those of the constituents at the level of occupation of office.


I mean, how far are we willing to take this? Does it justify the state forcefully taking property? Does it justify the state restricting one's personal choices? Does it justify sending someone off to war? Does it justify sacrificing one person for another? If you believe that simply the act of voting or the opportunity to vote is essentially consent, then what's wrong with those things listed above?

Depends on your definition of the state. An anarchist defines the state as 'an institution possessing the legitimate use of force.' A Marxist defines the state as 'the organ of class oppression.' Hence for a Marxist the state can be used by the proletariat to oppress the capitalist class upon enacting a revolution. An anarchist would naturally oppose this idea, yet they are speaking of different terms.

For the anarchist, the state is concrete: an institution. It has walls, rules, etc.. and can be destroyed ('smash the state').
For the Marxist, the state is relative: the organ. It could have walls, it could be de-centralized. Hence it is pliable, and capable of servicing whoever possesses the means of production.


theoretically. This is really just the Anarchism vs. Marxism debate all over again. At the very least, I think the state would have to lose its status as a political entity, and become purely a defense agency, responsible for only the protection of those it represents from violence and oppression.

As an anarchist-communist, I see no debate.


correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it was during the Industrial Revolution where large landowners started buying up new production technology and renting it out to the working class, who were too poor to buy the technology themselves.

This is when property (specifically private property) became an overt political issue, yes.

- August

[Nwoye]

Hmm.. ok. In the situation posited, that could reasonably occur. I guess I just take issue with the idea that this person actually made the tools all on his/her own.
fair enough. I think I have a much better understanding of your position.


Well that's the paradox of representative democracy. The politicians are supposedly representatives, yet upon entering office their primary interest is to remain in office and hence not representing the interests of their constituents. This fundamental flaw in the system forbids an indirect democracy as it separates the interests of the governmental officials from those of the constituents at the level of occupation of office.I think it's present in forms of direct democracy as well. If 51% (or 60% or 70%) vote to execute someone then it doesn't make it right. And just because that person had the opportunity to vote doesn't mean he consented to the results of the vote.

the point is, there has to be some barrier for the state or commune or whatever on what is and is not an acceptable action. Even if that action is supported by 99% of the population.


Depends on your definition of the state. An anarchist defines the state as 'an institution possessing the legitimate use of force.' A Marxist defines the state as 'the organ of class oppression.' Hence for a Marxist the state can be used by the proletariat to oppress the capitalist class upon enacting a revolution. An anarchist would naturally oppose this idea, yet they are speaking of different terms.

For the anarchist, the state is concrete: an institution. It has walls, rules, etc.. and can be destroyed ('smash the state').
For the Marxist, the state is relative: the organ. It could have walls, it could be de-centralized. Hence it is pliable, and capable of servicing whoever possesses the means of production.Personally, I think the Marxist definition makes more sense, or is at the least more applicable, simply because I find that most anarchists tend to support organizations that are for all intents and purposes states - just worker states as envisioned by marxists.

anywho, i think the question still remains over what we permit the state to do. what authority and powers we give it, and how much emphasis we put on individual autonomy.

[Decolonize The Left]

I think it's present in forms of direct democracy as well. If 51% (or 60% or 70%) vote to execute someone then it doesn't make it right. And just because that person had the opportunity to vote doesn't mean he consented to the results of the vote.

Who's talking about morality? I'm confused. I was speaking about the contradiction between any definition of democracy and it's reality.


the point is, there has to be some barrier for the state or commune or whatever on what is and is not an acceptable action. Even if that action is supported by 99% of the population.

Unfortunately, such a 'barrier' will never exist. What you speak of is an eternal law which transcends human beings. Such a law is illusory.


Personally, I think the Marxist definition makes more sense, or is at the least more applicable, simply because I find that most anarchists tend to support organizations that are for all intents and purposes states - just worker states as envisioned by marxists.

I find both definitions to be adequate depending upon the context used.


anywho, i think the question still remains over what we permit the state to do. what authority and powers we give it, and how much emphasis we put on individual autonomy.

Perhaps, yet as far as I understand, it's a pretty open playing field. Basically, anarchists are arguing for a society organized around the principles of freedom and equality - for everyone. That is to say that everyone is equal in their freedom.
Communists are working towards a society generally organized around the principle of 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.'

I see the latter as the material realization of the former's ideals (i.e. they are the same).

- August

[Nwoye]

Who's talking about morality? I'm confused. I was speaking about the contradiction between any definition of democracy and it's reality.

Unfortunately, such a 'barrier' will never exist. What you speak of is an eternal law which transcends human beings. Such a law is illusory.
well i think the original debate was whether or not there was a difference in being exploited by a private entity or by a state (even a democratic one).

in my opinion, the opportunity to vote on the proposition does not mean the result is acceptable. my example, was that if the members of the state vote democratically to send someone off to war - whether he wants to or not - then it is still exploitation, or treating someone as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves.


I find both definitions to be adequate depending upon the context used.
that's probably true.


Perhaps, yet as far as I understand, it's a pretty open playing field. Basically, anarchists are arguing for a society organized around the principles of freedom and equality - for everyone. That is to say that everyone is equal in their freedom.
Communists are working towards a society generally organized around the principle of 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.'

I see the latter as the material realization of the former's ideals (i.e. they are the same).
I guess if you perceive freedom to be positive in nature (which I generally do) then that is true. I think the optimal solution would be equal access to property and to the means of production, rather than a distribution based purely on need.

[RGacky3]

in my opinion, the opportunity to vote on the proposition does not mean the result is acceptable. my example, was that if the members of the state vote democratically to send someone off to war - whether he wants to or not - then it is still exploitation, or treating someone as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves.


I agree, however there is a distinction between things that are acceptable to vote on and things that are not. For example, voting on a public road, or in a socialist society production, would be acceptable, voting whether or not to force someone to do something would'nt be.

I think voting should be tool in collective desicion making, however I don't think it should ever be coercive, or have innate authority (meaning if its voted thus, it must be thus no matter what, aka replacing the kings omnipotence with the majorities).

[Kronos]

I take it, if you COULD get away with rape you would gladly do it.This is a difficult question to answer. I would have to answer it like this: I would only commit rape if I existed during a time when it was customary, a time when it was not yet considered "immoral" by an authority which had the power to punish. It would likely be the case that during such a time, rape would actually be a beneficial function of the social dynamics of the group.

Today, however, I would never commit rape. Not because it is "bad", or because I would consider a victim's experience of trauma to be more unpleasant than my own unfulfilled sex drive, but because I do not have sufficient power to defend myself from the opposing authority- the law. But, at the same time, if I did have sufficient power, I would probably not have to rape anyone...because I would have hotties offering themselves to me.

Meanwhile, if I can't get sex when I want it....I use PALMela HANDerson to hold me over.

[Nwoye]

I agree, however there is a distinction between things that are acceptable to vote on and things that are not. For example, voting on a public road, or in a socialist society production, would be acceptable, voting whether or not to force someone to do something would'nt be.

I think voting should be tool in collective desicion making, however I don't think it should ever be coercive, or have innate authority (meaning if its voted thus, it must be thus no matter what, aka replacing the kings omnipotence with the majorities).
i agree. but this still leaves the question of what is appropriate to vote on and what is not.

but the original point was to illustrate that exploitation via the state is no different then exploitation by a capitalist.

[mikelepore]

when does capital stop being a mutually beneficial contract between two people and become labor exploitation?

Compare the usual employment process with an incidental employment of labor. I hired someone to install my kitchen cabinets. That was incidental, hello and goodbye. Compare that to the environment where employment is systematic and unidirectional, where one demographic group owns all of the means of life, does none of the work, and does all of the hiring, and another demographic group owns no tools of survival and always gets hired to perform all of the work. For those who can't see what's wrong with making it systematic and unidirectional, perhaps it will be clearer if they substitute the idea of another demographic partition. Suppose all dark-skin people inherited the ownership of all of the means of life, and all light-skin people were required in order to survive to seek and find employment by the dark-skin people, or tall and short, fat and thin, or any other kind of demarcation of population groups. Would that make it clearer to see what's wrong with the situation?

[RGacky3]

i agree. but this still leaves the question of what is appropriate to vote on and what is not.

but the original point was to illustrate that exploitation via the state is no different then exploitation by a capitalist.

Ok, I dont' want to hijack the thread, and I agree that state exploitation is pretty much the same as Capitalist exploitation. However when it comes to democracy (withouu the State), in my opinion thats a different issue, in that case democracy would be a collective desiscion making tool rather than an absolute authority.


Compare the usual employment process with an incidental employment of labor. I hired someone to install my kitchen cabinets. That was incidental, hello and goodbye. Compare that to the environment where employment is systematic and unidirectional, where one demographic group owns all of the means of life, does none of the work, and does all of the hiring, and another demographic group owns no tools of survival and always gets hired to perform all of the work. For those who can't see what's wrong with making it systematic and unidirectional, perhaps it will be clearer if they substitute the idea of another demographic partition. Suppose all dark-skin people inherited the ownership of all of the means of life, and all light-skin people were required in order to survive to seek and find employment by the dark-skin people, or tall and short, fat and thin, or any other kind of demarcation of population groups. Would that make it clearer to see what's wrong with the situation?

A Capitalist would argue, that you cannot change the color of your skin, whereas it is possible to change your class.

I think the Fat, thin is much better. Because it is possible for a fat person can become thin, and a thin person can become fat, but those 2 qualities have nothing to do with what your relation to Capital should be, and does not justify the ownership of Capital. The same with Capitalism.


but because I do not have sufficient power to defend myself from the opposing authority- the law. But, at the same time, if I did have sufficient power, I would probably not have to rape anyone...because I would have hotties offering themselves to me.


So essencially the answer is yes, because one of the conditions was "if you could get away with it." Meaning no one would find out. Also the "hotties offering themselves" is not part of the equation.

So your essencially saying that you have no personal eversion (moral) to harming others or taking away their freedom for personal benefit, which I find very hard to believe.

[Nwoye]

Compare the usual employment process with an incidental employment of labor. I hired someone to install my kitchen cabinets. That was incidental, hello and goodbye. Compare that to the environment where employment is systematic and unidirectional, where one demographic group owns all of the means of life, does none of the work, and does all of the hiring, and another demographic group owns no tools of survival and always gets hired to perform all of the work. For those who can't see what's wrong with making it systematic and unidirectional, perhaps it will be clearer if they substitute the idea of another demographic partition. Suppose all dark-skin people inherited the ownership of all of the means of life, and all light-skin people were required in order to survive to seek and find employment by the dark-skin people, or tall and short, fat and thin, or any other kind of demarcation of population groups. Would that make it clearer to see what's wrong with the situation?
the general answer I'm getting here is that capital in and of itself is not oppressive, while capitalism as a socio-economic system is. I think that's a much more reasonable proposition.

[mikelepore]

the general answer I'm getting here is that capital in and of itself is not oppressive, while capitalism as a socio-economic system is. I think that's a much more reasonable proposition.

The oppressive aspect is connected with historical decline of an earlier situation where more people were self-employed, and the appearance of a newer situation where most people don't own tools of production and must be dependent on others for their survival.

Explained well in this 1956 video of a candidate of the Socialist Labor Party:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CictEaNr_o

[Nwoye]

The oppressive aspect is connected with historical decline of an earlier situation where more people were self-employed, and the appearance of a newer situation where most people don't own tools of production and must be dependent on others for their survival.
well yes i understand that.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I'm not sure if this thread is still open, but I have a question.

If you reimburse someone for providing you with a service, such as in the example Organised Confusion gave, where he paid his employees to work his farm, paid for his fertilizer etc, how can we say this is theft?

You could argue that you wouldn't be paying the workers the full value of their labour, or doing so when you buy fertilizer, etc, but what evidence do you have for this aside from the labour theory of value? Which, while definatly superior to any alternative (namely the subjective theory of value) is hardly the most robust of things?

Thanks

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm not sure if this thread is still open, but I have a question.

It is still open and thank you for posting in it.


If you reimburse someone for providing you with a service, such as in the example Organised Confusion gave, where he paid his employees to work his farm, paid for his fertilizer etc, how can we say this is theft?

"Theft" may not be the best word to use, but the idea behind the word is the same. If OC (the person who owns the farm) isn't exploiting his/her workers in some manner, why would s/he need to:
a) own the farm
b) pay his/her workers
c) have workers at all

You see that if OC was not in a position of class warfare via his/her workers (whereby when s/he pays them s/he does so while withholding part of their created value as profit) then the whole situation would change.


You could argue that you wouldn't be paying the workers the full value of their labour, or doing so when you buy fertilizer, etc, but what evidence do you have for this aside from the labour theory of value? Which, while definatly superior to any alternative (namely the subjective theory of value) is hardly the most robust of things?

Thanks

The labor theory of value is merely an elaborated form of simple common sense. If I work for an hour and I get a wage, but my boss is making profit none-the-less, then some of my labor isn't coming back to me in the form of the wage (my boss is taking it in the form of profit).

I hope that helps and please keep posting.

- August

[RGacky3]

If you reimburse someone for providing you with a service, such as in the example Organised Confusion gave, where he paid his employees to work his farm, paid for his fertilizer etc, how can we say this is theft?

Unless you are giving the person full value of their labor it is exploitation (theft imo), but if you DO give someone the full value of their labor, and thus equal say over it, its not an empoyee employer relationship, its a partenership and there is no profit taken. The thing is it all starts out with the idea of land ownership.

Land ownership in the mind of socialists just does'nt hold up, and along with that comes capital ownership. you take away that and one guy has no more right over the land than the other, so if they are going to work together they must cooperate as equals.


You could argue that you wouldn't be paying the workers the full value of their labour, or doing so when you buy fertilizer, etc, but what evidence do you have for this aside from the labour theory of value? Which, while definatly superior to any alternative (namely the subjective theory of value) is hardly the most robust of things?

If you make fertilizer in your own time, and then contribute it toward work, I'm sure the rest of the people at the farm would give you a little more say, thats democracy.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Okay, thanks for the response, both of you :).

How would you (we) respond to the claim that even if workers were robbed of the full value of their labour, they are voluntarily robbed, because they consent to work? Obviously you could argue that the workers have no real choice but work or starve, and that would work for about 95 percent of humanity, but for libertarians, alas, no.

Secondly, how does the Marxist demand that we own the products of our labour not validate "self ownership" or any other idea like that? If the LTV does tacitly accept self ownership, will it not be hard to argue that capitalism is unjust because it is exploitative (as workers will of had to enter in a voluntary contract to be "exploited?")

Thirdly, if we own the product of our labour, doesn't this imply that intervention for "sensible" reasons is unjust? For example, I make a roll of bandages out of the only avaiable material, there is someone nearby bleeding to death, but I refuse to use my bandages to save them. Wouldn't your ideas imply I wouldn't be acting immorally here? Or that someone who took the bandages from me by force would be? Or that if a commune wanted to build a stockpile of weapons, and had the facilities, it could do so and other communes would be unjustified in stopping them?

Obviously thats a far out example, but you can imagine cases where this might be relavant to real life.

(And in case anyone was worried, I don't believe in any of the "critisisms" I posted above, but I'd like a clearer explanation of why they are wrong!)

Thanks!

[Decolonize The Left]

Okay, thanks for the response, both of you :).

No problem.


How would you (we) respond to the claim that even if workers were robbed of the full value of their labour, they are voluntarily robbed, because they consent to work? Obviously you could argue that the workers have no real choice but work or starve, and that would work for about 95 percent of humanity, but for libertarians, alas, no.

You effectively answered your own question - workers are not offered an alternative to working for the capitalist class. Libertarians often neglect socio-cultural systems and the vast networks of privilege and discrimination which exist in all societies. They systems and networks create an inherently 'unequal playing field' which the libertarian requires to make most arguments.


Secondly, how does the Marxist demand that we own the products of our labour not validate "self ownership" or any other idea like that? If the LTV does tacitly accept self ownership, will it not be hard to argue that capitalism is unjust because it is exploitative (as workers will of had to enter in a voluntary contract to be "exploited?")

Marxists are generally accepting of personal property yet reject the notion of private property. See below.


Thirdly, if we own the product of our labour, doesn't this imply that intervention for "sensible" reasons is unjust? For example, I make a roll of bandages out of the only avaiable material, there is someone nearby bleeding to death, but I refuse to use my bandages to save them. Wouldn't your ideas imply I wouldn't be acting immorally here? Or that someone who took the bandages from me by force would be? Or that if a commune wanted to build a stockpile of weapons, and had the facilities, it could do so and other communes would be unjustified in stopping them?

Obviously thats a far out example, but you can imagine cases where this might be relavant to real life.

In this case, the bandage is your personal property and you are free to do what you wish with it. Marxism is an economic theory, not a moral code. It is standard morality which would say that your keeping that bandage was 'wrong.'


(And in case anyone was worried, I don't believe in any of the "critisisms" I posted above, but I'd like a clearer explanation of why they are wrong!)

Thanks!

It's ok - no one is 'worried.' All that would happen if you were not a revolutionary leftist is that you would be restricted in your access to the forum. You could only post in Opposing Ideologies and it's subforums.

- August

[9K116]

1. It is stated, that `From each according to his ability, to each according to his need`. How to define NEED - where is limit when need transforms into a caprice or luxury?
2. In case of revolution wins, what is intended to do with capitalists, which will not agree with nationalization of their property in benefit of society?
3. Is there difference, who exploits a working class - capitalists or governmental bureaucracy?

[Decolonize The Left]

1. It is stated, that `From each according to his ability, to each according to his need`. How to define NEED - where is limit when need transforms into a caprice or luxury?

That phrase is the basis for much of leftism - what is demanded above and beyond one's need is fine, just so long as the needs of everyone are met.


2. In case of revolution wins, what is intended to do with capitalists, which will not agree with nationalization of their property in benefit of society?

It depends on who you ask. Generally speaking, the capitalist class will be excluded from economic and political decision-making processes.

Extremes could be that the capitalist class would eventually be re-integrated into the proletariat after property has been re-distributed to they all would be shot.


3. Is there difference, who exploits a working class - capitalists or governmental bureaucracy?

Governmental bureaucracy is absent in many forms of leftism (ex: anarchism).

- August

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

No problem.


In this case, the bandage is your personal property and you are free to do what you wish with it. Marxism is an economic theory, not a moral code. It is standard morality which would say that your keeping that bandage was 'wrong.'


- August


Okay, could you explain to me the difference between personal property and private property in greater detail please?

[Decolonize The Left]

Okay, could you explain to me the difference between personal property and private property in greater detail please?

Sure - it's an important difference.

Both personal and private property are relationships between subjects (people) and objects (things, stuff). For this explanation, let's think of two different things, a small thing: a hammer, and a large thing: a house.

The hammer. Under capitalism, a company moves into a forest with a permit to log X number of trees, they do so. These trees are the 'private property' of the company because they have a piece of paper from the government which says so - but really, it's the wood of the trees which is their private property. Anyway, they take the wood and process it into small pieces of wood to make lots of hammers.
Who's wood is it? The company's? Actually it's the workers wood since they labored to get it and process it. But they will do this work for a wage and the company will then sell this processed wood to another company who makes hammers.
The same process will happen with the metal for the hammer-head, and inevitably the metal and the wood will end up in a plant where the two parts are assembled by more workers and the hammers are then sold to distributors and only then to cutsomers.

Now, you walk into a hardware store and buy a hammer for $10.99. You take it off the rack, pay for it with your card, and go home and hammer in those pesky nails on your grandpa's old fence - whew. Is it your hammer? I would say yes, but why?
A capitalist says because you paid for it - it's your private property. But you did not make the hammer in any sense at all, in fact, so many people made the hammer when (according to capitalism) it wasn't even their stuff they were making!
A leftist says it's your hammer because you labored with it (remember those nails in the fence?), maybe not a whole lot, but there are a lot of hammers and no one else really needs one. It's your personal property because you personally applied human labor to its existence.

The house. It's a hammer except on a much larger scale and with many smaller parts.

Make sense?

- August

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=AugustWest;1621112]Sure - it's an important difference.

Both personal and private property are relationships between subjects (people) and objects (things, stuff). For this explanation, let's think of two different things, a small thing: a hammer, and a large thing: a house.

The hammer. Under capitalism, a company moves into a forest with a permit to log X number of trees, they do so. These trees are the 'private property' of the company because they have a piece of paper from the government which says so - but really, it's the wood of the trees which is their private property.


No, the land is the property. The company may want the land for the wood, but the pocket of natural gas which is discovered under it, also belongs to the company.


Who's wood is it? The company's? Actually it's the workers wood since they labored to get it and process it.

No. It remains the company's wood.




Now, you walk into a hardware store and buy a hammer for $10.99. You take it off the rack, pay for it with your card, and go home and hammer in those pesky nails on your grandpa's old fence - whew. Is it your hammer? I would say yes, but why?
A capitalist says because you paid for it - it's your private property. But you did not make the hammer in any sense at all, in fact, so many people made the hammer when (according to capitalism) it wasn't even their stuff they were making!
A leftist says it's your hammer because you labored with it (remember those nails in the fence?), maybe not a whole lot, but there are a lot of hammers and no one else really needs one. It's your personal property because you personally applied human labor to its existence.


Then why bother spending $10.99 for the hammer in the first place? Just take it off the rack and walk out the door.

[Plagueround]

No, the land is the property. The company may want the land for the wood, but the pocket of natural gas which is discovered under it, also belongs to the company.Why? I don't recall consenting to any company owning the land, and unless there is a higher power which can open the sky with a bright, ominous flash and proclaim I must let that company have that land, then any claim to that land on the part of an abstract thing like a company can be disputed.


No. It remains the company's wood.What are they going to do if I take it? Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever met a company. I've met people, but not a company. What is a company in the first place and why must I bow to their wishes?


Then why bother spending $10.99 for the hammer in the first place? Just take it off the rack and walk out the door.Good idea. Doesn't sound like anyone was using it.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Sure - it's an important difference.

Both personal and private property are relationships between subjects (people) and objects (things, stuff). For this explanation, let's think of two different things, a small thing: a hammer, and a large thing: a house.

The hammer. Under capitalism, a company moves into a forest with a permit to log X number of trees, they do so. These trees are the 'private property' of the company because they have a piece of paper from the government which says so - but really, it's the wood of the trees which is their private property. Anyway, they take the wood and process it into small pieces of wood to make lots of hammers.
Who's wood is it? The company's? Actually it's the workers wood since they labored to get it and process it. But they will do this work for a wage and the company will then sell this processed wood to another company who makes hammers.
The same process will happen with the metal for the hammer-head, and inevitably the metal and the wood will end up in a plant where the two parts are assembled by more workers and the hammers are then sold to distributors and only then to cutsomers.

Now, you walk into a hardware store and buy a hammer for $10.99. You take it off the rack, pay for it with your card, and go home and hammer in those pesky nails on your grandpa's old fence - whew. Is it your hammer? I would say yes, but why?
A capitalist says because you paid for it - it's your private property. But you did not make the hammer in any sense at all, in fact, so many people made the hammer when (according to capitalism) it wasn't even their stuff they were making!
A leftist says it's your hammer because you labored with it (remember those nails in the fence?), maybe not a whole lot, but there are a lot of hammers and no one else really needs one. It's your personal property because you personally applied human labor to its existence.

The house. It's a hammer except on a much larger scale and with many smaller parts.

Make sense?

- August

So if you laboured on land - that would mean you own it?

Wouldn't it be possible to justify capitalism in this way, then? As we couldn't oppose workers being forced to sell their labour power due to the capitalist monopoly on the means of production - providing the capitalists were had orginally used the land?

Or does ownership change hands to whoever is using an object - so land/factories would always belong to those who work it etc? Wouldn't this justify "stealing" anything - so long as it isn't in use? Drinking somebodys tea after he left it to cool down etc...Jesus Christ, this would never take off in my home country.

[9K116]

Just few remarks.

That phrase is the basis for much of leftism - what is demanded above and beyond one's need is fine, just so long as the needs of everyone are met.
People always want more than they have ;)

Governmental bureaucracy is absent in many forms of leftism (ex: anarchism).
Well, actually I don't see how anarchistic society will launch great projects such as nuclear powerplants or space ship launch, or maintain infrastructure of large city. Imho, without specialized and hierarchial organiztion it is impossible in long terms.

[Decolonize The Left]

So if you laboured on land - that would mean you own it?

No. Land, i.e. the planet Earth, is not an 'object' in the sense that a chunk of steel is. So in this sense, no you do not own land just because you labored on it. Land is the base for all objects and subjects, it cannot be owned by any individual.


Wouldn't it be possible to justify capitalism in this way, then? As we couldn't oppose workers being forced to sell their labour power due to the capitalist monopoly on the means of production - providing the capitalists were had orginally used the land?

But capitalists do not use anything in the sense that they labor. This is why they are the capitalist class and not the working class.


Or does ownership change hands to whoever is using an object - so land/factories would always belong to those who work it etc? Wouldn't this justify "stealing" anything - so long as it isn't in use? Drinking somebodys tea after he left it to cool down etc...Jesus Christ, this would never take off in my home country.

Yes, the factories are owned by those who work it. But there is a serious difference between a means of production (a factory) and a personal item (a cup of tea). Communism states that the workers ought to collectively own the means of production.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Just few remarks.

People always want more than they have ;)

You miss my point. I'll repost what I said:

what is demanded above and beyond one's need is fine, just so long as the needs of everyone are met.

See? I'm not saying no one will want more than they have, that's fine. The point is that everyone will have what they need, which is currently not the case.


Well, actually I don't see how anarchistic society will launch great projects such as nuclear powerplants or space ship launch, or maintain infrastructure of large city. Imho, without specialized and hierarchial organiztion it is impossible in long terms.

Specialized organization is often a cornerstone of anarchist theory and thinking. Hierarchical organization may be as well, so long as that hierarchy is legitimate: i.e. completely transparent and accountable at all times. Some anarchists will claim that a completely non-hierarchical organization is the only way, others may differ to small respective degrees.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Bump.

[Havet]

Why is mutualism/individualist anarchism not considered revolutionary left in RevLeft, despite An Anarchist FAQ's (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG) contrary belief?

[Decolonize The Left]

Why is mutualism/individualist anarchism not considered revolutionary left in RevLeft, despite An Anarchist FAQ's (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG) contrary belief?

Well the short answer is that revleft is not affiliated with, nor subject to, the opinions expressed in your link. Hence the rules of revleft are unique to this site alone and deem mutualism/individualist anarchism relatively incompatible with revolutionary leftism.

The long answer is that according to the mod/admin team, mutualism/individualist anarchism does not meet the following criteria: revolutionary, and/or leftism. I'm sure you've debated many people on this issue and have received many different responses as to whether or not your ideas of mutualism/individualist anarchism are the same as others, are revolutionary, are genuinely leftist, etc...

So with that said, are you being serious here or just trolling? I mean to say are you willing to have a calm, and productive discussion on this issue or were you simply throwing another line out to sea hoping that someone will bite? I'm willing, perhaps (I think we've gone over this before?), to debate this with you, but only if you'll meet me with respect and dignity.

- August

[Havet]

I mean to say are you willing to have a calm, and productive discussion on this issue

Yes


I'm willing, perhaps (I think we've gone over this before?), to debate this with you, but only if you'll meet me with respect and dignity.

Only if you do the same.

---

So first let's clear semantics. How do you define an ideology as "revolutionary" and how do you define an ideology as "leftist"?

[Decolonize The Left]

So first let's clear semantics. How do you define an ideology as "revolutionary" and how do you define an ideology as "leftist"?

I'm not particularly concerned with ideologies, more-so with people themselves.

That said, a person is a revolutionary if they actively support the overthrow of a current economic/social system via revolutionary methods (as opposed to reformist).
This person is a leftist if they support the instatement of an economic system whereby each person works what they can and provides these goods/services to all, and in exchange receives what they need from all, as well as a social system which supports the freedom of all individuals to be/act as they please while maintaining the equality of all in the eyes of the law which be determined by the community itself with respect to the previously mentioned economic system.

- August

[Havet]

I'm not particularly concerned with ideologies, more-so with people themselves.

That said, a person is a revolutionary if they actively support the overthrow of a current economic/social system via revolutionary methods (as opposed to reformist).
This person is a leftist if they support the instatement of an economic system whereby each person works what they can and provides these goods/services to all, and in exchange receives what they need from all, as well as a social system which supports the freedom of all individuals to be/act as they please while maintaining the equality of all in the eyes of the law which be determined by the community itself with respect to the previously mentioned economic system.

- August

So let's see...I support the overthrow of the current economical/social system via revolutionary methods, and I support an economic system whereby each person works what they can and want and provides these good/services to all who desire them, receiving in exchange what other people could work and wanted to work, as well as a social system which supports the freedom of all individuals to be/act as they please while maintaining the equality of all in the eyes of the which be determined by the community itself.

I didn't know that a leftist necessarily implied agreeing with the communist slogan of "to each accordig to... etc". Otherwise Communism = Leftism and then, why the hell are there two labels to name the same thing?

[Decolonize The Left]

So let's see...I support the overthrow of the current economical/social system via revolutionary methods, and I support an economic system whereby each person works what they can and want and provides these good/services to all who desire them, receiving in exchange what other people could work and wanted to work, as well as a social system which supports the freedom of all individuals to be/act as they please while maintaining the equality of all in the eyes of the which be determined by the community itself.

I didn't know that a leftist necessarily implied agreeing with the communist slogan of "to each accordig to... etc". Otherwise Communism = Leftism and then, why the hell are there two labels to name the same thing?

I am not a spokesperson for all leftists, nor do I speak for any group/ideology/current/party other than myself. Furthermore, I cannot be held responsible for the way in which other people interpret words and meanings, I am only providing you with my understanding.

Communism =/= Leftism in an absolute sense, though it certainly does in a general sense. To be an anarchist is to be a leftist, as anarchism fits the definition I provided above as well. What is completely contrary to the definition I provided would be capitalism, fascism, representative democracy, monarchy, feudalism, etc...

That said, I'm not clear as to the point of your post.

- August

[Havet]

I am not a spokesperson for all leftists, nor do I speak for any group/ideology/current/party other than myself. Furthermore, I cannot be held responsible for the way in which other people interpret words and meanings, I am only providing you with my understanding.

Communism =/= Leftism in an absolute sense, though it certainly does in a general sense. To be an anarchist is to be a leftist, as anarchism fits the definition I provided above as well. What is completely contrary to the definition I provided would be capitalism, fascism, representative democracy, monarchy, feudalism, etc...

That said, I'm not clear as to the point of your post.

- August

The point of my post is to explain why i'm a revolutionary leftist in an absolute sense and a general sense.

[Decolonize The Left]

The point of my post is to explain why i'm a revolutionary leftist in an absolute sense and a general sense.

As far as I understand, and you are free to correct me and/or clarify for me, is that you support a market system of economic distribution. I'm almost certain we see this notion differently, so perhaps you wish to clarify your perspective?

- August

[Havet]

As far as I understand, and you are free to correct me and/or clarify for me, is that you support a market system of economic distribution. I'm almost certain we see this notion differently, so perhaps you wish to clarify your perspective?

- August

Yes, I support a market system of economic distribution, which is radically different than the one existent today, as it prevents economic accumulation and therefore centralization of power and resources.

If you wish to read some of my previous arguments on the subject, these couple of threads would be where to start:

Why free-markets don't degenerate back into capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-free-markets-t132366/index.html?t=132366)

Capitalism versus free-enterprise (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-vs-free-t122671/index.html?t=122671)

[trivas7]

Yes, I support a market system of economic distribution, which is radically different than the one existent today, as it prevents economic accumulation and therefore centralization of power and resources.

Indeed what we now call free-market libertarianism was originally a left-wing position. Frédéric Bastiat sat on the left side of the French national assembly with the anarcho-socialist Proudhon. Feminism, antiracism, antimilitarism, the defense of laborers and consumers against big business were traditionally embraced and promoted specifically by free-market radicals.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes, I support a market system of economic distribution, which is radically different than the one existent today, as it prevents economic accumulation and therefore centralization of power and resources.

If you wish to read some of my previous arguments on the subject, these couple of threads would be where to start:

Why free-markets don't degenerate back into capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-free-markets-t132366/index.html?t=132366)

Capitalism versus free-enterprise (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-vs-free-t122671/index.html?t=122671)

I've read your points, and I think Dean dealt with them best in the first link you provided. I'm not sure what else to say...

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Bump.