Just a little question?

[FriendorFoe]

Basically I want to better know how communism would work,The trouble I see with communism is that it's an utopian view and near impossible to implement as Marx originally meant it.

Also, there's the problem with semantics or contradictions. Communism requires both a strong, economic state to survive and proletarians willing to step up to the capitalists. But in a strong, economic state the people are less stimulated to fight for their rights.

Capitalism promotes individualism, a 'fuck everyone else' mentality. So communism is less likely to gain ground in a striving capitalist nation while the striving capitalist nation is necessary for communism to work. A strong economical nation won't breed communism, a weak economical nation isn't strong enough to support communism.

I'm learning so take it easy, k thnx. :)

[trivas7]

Capitalism promotes individualism, a 'fuck everyone else' mentality. So communism is less likely to gain ground in a striving capitalist nation while the striving capitalist nation is necessary for communism to work. A strong economical nation won't breed communism, a weak economical nation isn't strong enough to support communism.

Go here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm) to read how Marx envisions socialism will emerge from capitalism.

Thanks for asking.

[Havet]

Capitalism promotes individualism, a 'fuck everyone else' mentality.

THE PENCIL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8)

The computer you are now using sure is proof of how everyone under a relatively free market have a "fuck everyone else" mentality.

Like communism proposes to 'not fuck everyone else'...:rolleyes:

[bellyscratch]

Well first of all, communism does not exist in a state. Communism is in fact a society when there are no states at all. So I'm guessing you mean a socialist state that would eventually wither away in a larger communist society.

A socialist state, from a Marxist point of view, can only come into existence from by the other throw of the existing powers by the working class people. This is only going to happen once the majority of them realise that capitalism is a system that does not work for them and therefore has to come at the time of capitalist economic crisis. This can potentially happen because the alternative is the working class being made to suffer the consequences of the crisis by the ruling class, in order to keep the capitalist system in place.

The working class people would then take over the means of production and take control over society in general. They do not have to adhere to the capitalist economic system and therefore things like debt created by the previous capitalist society would not have to apply to the new society. For this to work the revolution has to spread, so they can cooperate with other socialist nations and trade good etc.

[Decolonize The Left]

This should probably be moved to OI Learning.


Basically I want to better know how communism would work,The trouble I see with communism is that it's an utopian view and near impossible to implement as Marx originally meant it.

This is a common objection to communist thought. You may find the revleft dictionary (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionaryleft-dictionary-t18401/index.html) helpful - this definition is lifted directly from there:
Communism -
1. Any philosophy advocating a classless, stateless society without money or markets organized according to the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need” 2. In Orthodox Marxist theory it is stage of history coming after socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat) when the state has “withered away” and society is run according to the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need”

You may also find the following links helpful:
Communist Theory FAQ by Engels (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-theory-faq-t23569/index.html)
High School Commie's Guide (http://www.revleft.com/vb/high-school-commie-t22370/index.html)
Manifesto of the Communist Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm)


Also, there's the problem with semantics or contradictions. Communism requires both a strong, economic state to survive and proletarians willing to step up to the capitalists. But in a strong, economic state the people are less stimulated to fight for their rights.

Communism requires nothing more than class consciousness among the working class - that is, the working class identifying as a class and realizing that it holds interests as a class (interests which are opposed to the capitalist class).

This "state" you speak of is confusing. What do you mean?


Capitalism promotes individualism, a 'fuck everyone else' mentality. So communism is less likely to gain ground in a striving capitalist nation while the striving capitalist nation is necessary for communism to work. A strong economical nation won't breed communism, a weak economical nation isn't strong enough to support communism.

Your second claim doesn't follow from your first.


I'm learning so take it easy, k thnx. :)

Hope that helped. Keep asking questions - and read!

- August

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalism promotes individualism, a 'fuck everyone else' mentality. So communism is less likely to gain ground in a striving capitalist nation while the striving capitalist nation is necessary for communism to work. A strong economical nation won't breed communism, a weak economical nation isn't strong enough to support communism.


I'm not a Jehovah's Whitness or a Communist so I don't have any magazines or websites for you to read--but I think your post makes a good deal of sense.

So far nothing but Tsars or Emperiors have really bred Communism--and there are precious few of those guys these days to overthrow. :(

[RGacky3]

So far nothing but Tsars or Emperiors have really bred Communism--and there are precious few of those guys these days to overthrow.

No, it has'nt, you have the memory of a gold fish.


Like communism proposes to 'not fuck everyone else'...

... yeah, it does propose that.

[OneNamedNameLess]

So communism is less likely to gain ground in a striving capitalist nation while the striving capitalist nation is necessary for communism to work. A strong economical nation won't breed communism, a weak economical nation isn't strong enough to support communism.


Economic slumps are inevitable in a capitalist nation. Take Iceland for example, for a country of it's size it performed impressively. Now the recession has set Iceland back for years. It really can happen suddenly. An efficient capitalist economy will not always remain the way it is. Thus, I would say Communism can gain ground in an industrialised, capitalist nation. Are you forgetting the rise in support for Communism in Japan? However, our priority is to replace the global capitalist system with a global communist system.

As for your final point, that is why we desire to establish Communism on a global scale.

[redarmyfaction38]

THE PENCIL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8)

The computer you are now using sure is proof of how everyone under a relatively free market have a "fuck everyone else" mentality.

Like communism proposes to 'not fuck everyone else'...:rolleyes:
bullshit!
none of the workers involved in the production of that pencil does so through choice or my pc for that matter, they are compelled to do so by economic necessity, it's work for the capitalist companies or starve.
they are not paid the full value of their labour cos if they were, the capitalist companies couldn't make a profit.
the businessmen that introduced the rubber tree to malaysia did so in order to increase profitability.
at the same time depriving thousands of peasant land owners and workers of the means to support themselves and their families.
like all capitalist propaganda it ignores the consequences of international capitalist investment for the people involved in making that investment pay.
now i'll give you a question, how come, after capitalist companies sold us the idea of the computer age on a basis of the reduction in paperwork and paper usage, todays computer age consumes three times as much paper?
how come we're still using pencils, when for all practical reasons, given todays technology, they should be obsolete?
it is the failure of the capitalists computer age to deliver what it promised? or was it just a marketing technique in the first place?
questions and answers, honesty and lies.
the capitalists are good at lies and absolutely shit at answers, honest ones any way.

[Havet]

bullshit!
none of the workers involved in the production of that pencil does so through choice or my pc for that matter, they are compelled to do so by economic necessity, it's work for the capitalist companies or starve.
they are not paid the full value of their labour cos if they were, the capitalist companies couldn't make a profit.

You are compelled by the nature of the universe to supply for your self or starve. Are then you enslaved by Nature?

You argue that we are subject to a slavery of necessity. Basically you argue that since i need food to survive, and i need to work to get food, then i am *forced* to get food, where in reality i could just lie down and die.

You're turning the physical nature of reality into an oppressor, so then you can blame it for your own failings. "don't like working? not good at making money? don't have any talents? its not your fault"

life would be fine if you werent forced to work. if you enter the world of work, and you're a failure, you're going to be disatisfied, because you're going to have a shit job and you don't have the ability to get a better one.

but its easier to blame "the system" than to blame yourself

then again, you don't actively blame the universe, instead you project that onto capitalists. since rich capitalists are the ones who have alll the jobs to give, then "its their fault for making you work for food".

This is why for you nature itself is coercion, because you are the victim of the universe, because you have to supply for yourself, follow a specific path, to get food to survive.


the businessmen that introduced the rubber tree to malaysia did so in order to increase profitability.
at the same time depriving thousands of peasant land owners and workers of the means to support themselves and their families.

If the got that land through force, then it is wrong

if they did it buy BUYING the land, then there was no problem with that.

So which one was it?


now i'll give you a question, how come, after capitalist companies sold us the idea of the computer age on a basis of the reduction in paperwork and paper usage, todays computer age consumes three times as much paper?

Data on how we are consuming 3 times as much paper? Did you get that number off your ass?


how come we're still using pencils, when for all practical reasons, given todays technology, they should be obsolete?

Just because some people still prefer to use pencil doesn't mean we HAVEN'T reduced our consumption of trees. The advantage of having an analogue media is that in case there is a digital problem you have a physical backup.


it is the failure of the capitalists computer age to deliver what it promised? or was it just a marketing technique in the first place?
questions and answers, honesty and lies.
the capitalists are good at lies and absolutely shit at answers, honest ones any way.

The capitalists computer age has allowed THIS (revleft) to exist in the first place. It lowered the price of computers so you could afford one. It lowered the price of internet so you could afford to enter it. And now you are complaining about it? Maybe you wouldn't even be a Commie if they hadn't tried to make a profit on computer and internet.

[RGacky3]

You are compelled by the nature of the universe to supply for your self or starve. Are then you enslaved by Nature?

Sure, but thats because Nature is Nature, its a stupid argument. People are not Ownership, they HAVE ownership, which means extortion.


Basically you argue that since i need food to survive, and i need to work to get food, then i am *forced* to get food, where in reality i could just lie down and die.


Again a stupid argument, which could be applied to gunpoint rape as well, (You could just take the bullet).


You're turning the physical nature of reality into an oppressor, so then you can blame it for your own failings. "don't like working? not good at making money? don't have any talents? its not your fault"

life would be fine if you werent forced to work. if you enter the world of work, and you're a failure, you're going to be disatisfied, because you're going to have a shit job and you don't have the ability to get a better one.

It has nothing to do with not wanting to work, it has to do with extortion, a guy who runs a business and is extorted by the mafia, could just not work. That does'nt justify the extortion.


if they did it buy BUYING the land, then there was no problem with that.

So which one was it?


Buying land from WHO? The person he bought it from either had it by force or bought it from someone that did, or someone else who bought it from someone that did, the fact is, land ownership no matter what is based on force, and unjustified.


It lowered the price of internet so you could afford to enter it. And now you are complaining about it? Maybe you wouldn't even be a Commie if they hadn't tried to make a profit on computer and internet.

Wonderful, yet people still starve.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Basically I want to better know how communism would work,The trouble I see with communism is that it's an utopian view and near impossible to implement as Marx originally meant it.

Also, there's the problem with semantics or contradictions. Communism requires both a strong, economic state to survive and proletarians willing to step up to the capitalists. But in a strong, economic state the people are less stimulated to fight for their rights.

Capitalism promotes individualism, a 'fuck everyone else' mentality. So communism is less likely to gain ground in a striving capitalist nation while the striving capitalist nation is necessary for communism to work. A strong economical nation won't breed communism, a weak economical nation isn't strong enough to support communism.

I'm learning so take it easy, k thnx. :)

I think Marx meant it to be a small-scale thing; thats the only way it could ever work anyway. I dont know... fuck everyone else.

[Havet]

Sure, but thats because Nature is Nature, its a stupid argument. People are not Ownership, they HAVE ownership, which means extortion.

I never said people can be owned by others. Each one owns himself, and not anyone else. How is ownership extortion? Extortion from whom?



It has nothing to do with not wanting to work, it has to do with extortion, a guy who runs a business and is extorted by the mafia, could just not work. That does'nt justify the extortion.

There is no extortion...

"Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime) which occurs when a person unlawfully (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful) obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion). "

"Coercion (/ko(ʊ)ˈɝ.ʒ(ə)n/ or /ko(ʊ)ˈɝ.ʃ(ə)n/) is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation), trickery, or some other form of pressure or force."

The business owner does not use force on the worker. The worker agrees to trade his physical force doing a specific work in machines in return for a wage.



Buying land from WHO? The person he bought it from either had it by force or bought it from someone that did, or someone else who bought it from someone that did, the fact is, land ownership no matter what is based on force, and unjustified.

here i was assuming the land, initially, was owned by someone by mixing their labor with it (building a house, etc), and then the initial owners traded their house and the land it was on to someone else who bought it.

If land ownership is unjustified, can I come over your house and kick you out? You seem to acknowledge that you don't have a right to it.

How is land ownership based on force in the situation I described (someone mixed his labor with his land, by building a house, so now he owns the land his house is on)?

Sure he needs force to forbid anyone from stealing his property, but he is not using force on anybody except in self-defense. He mixed his labor with the land directly, so he has a right to keep the product of his labor.

In the case of workers in a factory, they are not making their labor directly. The machines, who are owned by those who bought them from the initial builders, are needed so the workers are useful to the owner. So the owner hires the workers who know how to use the machine to produce whatever the machine produces in return for a wage.




Wonderful, yet people still starve.

This has nothing to do with the argument I have raised. Either you debate one or the other, but there is no point in mixing them unless to cover the fact that my point was logical.

[Nwoye]

I never said people can be owned by others. Each one owns himself, and not anyone else. How is ownership extortion? Extortion from whom?
ownership necessitates transferability. that means if you "own" yourself then you must be able to transfer that ownership. that's not a big deal for a capitalist i'm just making the point.

also, using the term "ownership" is tricky, because ownership is a triadic relationship. person A owns object 1, and person B recognizes that. there are three parties involved - person A, person B, and the object. if object 1 and person A are the same, then it's not really property in its conventional usage. what i'm saying is, something being owned implies something outside of that entity being the owner.

but that's getting off track.

[Havet]

ownership necessitates transferability. that means if you "own" yourself then you must be able to transfer that ownership. that's not a big deal for a capitalist i'm just making the point.

also, using the term "ownership" is tricky, because ownership is a triadic relationship. person A owns object 1, and person B recognizes that. there are three parties involved - person A, person B, and the object. if object 1 and person A are the same, then it's not really property in its conventional usage. what i'm saying is, something being owned implies something outside of that entity being the owner.

but that's getting off track.

actually, if you're intersted, DejaVu posted a very interesting article on how the concept of self-ownership was meaningless. You can view it here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-ownership-meaningless-t102812/index.html?t=102812&highlight=ownership)

I understand your objections, but when i mean self-ownership i just mean that each person enjoys, over herself and her powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that she has not contracted to supply.

[Nwoye]

actually, if you're intersted, DejaVu posted a very interesting article on how the concept of self-ownership was meaningless. You can view it here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-ownership-meaningless-t102812/index.html?t=102812&highlight=ownership)
thanks i'll read through that.


I understand your objections, but when i mean self-ownership i just mean that each person enjoys, over herself and her powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that she has not contracted to supply.
oh yeah i know. and that's a totally reasonable proposition. what bothers me is that people take it to mean that they have property over themselves in the common sense of the word, and that by extension they have property rights and blah blah blah.

in my opinion it would be much better to base libertarian philosophy on the kantian ideal that people should be treated never as a means to an end but rather as an end in themselves.

[RGacky3]

How is ownership extortion? Extortion from whom?

Extortion from those who don't own. Really (no matter how you justify it) ownership comes from the threat of violence, nothing else, when resources and capital are owned, that means that your restricting use of it from other poeple, what happens is people who have nothing are forced to work for those who have capital and resources, so they can get what they need to live, and the reason they are not entitled to the fruits of their labor, is because of the ownership of resources and capital which only exists because its backed up by guns.

Its as legitimate, and as much extortion as a street gang "owning" a block and taxing businesses. Its actually moreso, because those businesses are only giving them a cut of their profits. Workers have no rights to any of their profits, only a wage negotiated on in compleatly unfair circumstances (by the fact one has ownership the other does'nt).


The business owner does not use force on the worker. The worker agrees to trade his physical force doing a specific work in machines in return for a wage.


See my street gang example. The business agrees to pay street gang protection money, the gang does'nt force the business to do business in "their area."


here i was assuming the land, initially, was owned by someone by mixing their labor with it (building a house, etc), and then the initial owners traded their house and the land it was on to someone else who bought it.

Historically mixing labor was never a prerequisite for ownership, second, if that was a legitimate theory, it should apply to everyone, meaning workers as well (which for some reason it does'nt).


If land ownership is unjustified, can I come over your house and kick you out? You seem to acknowledge that you don't have a right to it.

You could try, but I probably would'nt let you, chances are neither would my neighbors, plus why would you?

I live in my house, you don't need property laws for that, its a person possession like my toothbrush, now if I had a second home, that I was'nt living in, and the only reason I had it was property laws, so I could rent it out, that would be a different story.


He mixed his labor with the land directly, so he has a right to keep the product of his labor.

Which means farm workers occupying a farm have the right to keep the product of their labor too, and the "land owner" has no right to stop them, right?


In the case of workers in a factory, they are not making their labor directly. The machines, who are owned by those who bought them from the initial builders, are needed so the workers are useful to the owner. So the owner hires the workers who know how to use the machine to produce whatever the machine produces in return for a wage.


Your explaining all this from a Capitliast perspective. You could have the same explination for slavery, they guy "bought" his slave, it does'nt make it justified. the fact is, the man had the money (how he got it is irrelivent) which means he had Capital and workers did not, money and physical capital like factories and machines are the same thing as far as power is concerned.


This has nothing to do with the argument I have raised. Either you debate one or the other, but there is no point in mixing them unless to cover the fact that my point was logical.

it was'nt logical, you pointed to technelogical advancements, I was saying that it does'nt justify anything because those technelogical advancements mean absolutely nothing to the vast majority of those living under Capitalism.


I think Marx meant it to be a small-scale thing; thats the only way it could ever work anyway. I dont know... fuck everyone else.


Please don't post about things that you hav'nt a clue about, read about them first and understand them first, you just embarrass yourself.

[Nwoye]

I live in my house, you don't need property laws for that
wut? so what happens when you go out to eat and someone breaks into your house and takes all of your shit?

it's okay to believe in personal property if you're a communist. and it's also okay to support laws to protect that property.

[Havet]

Ownership only requires violence for the owner to protect that which he owns, which was a product of his labor (mental and physical, not including intellectual property in this). Just as you would defend yourself from physical agression so you would prevent others from removing that which you acquired justly and now own.

Of course everytime you own something you are restricting its use to other people. If i created a table using justly aquired materials , i am depriving others of the use of the table, since because it was a product of my labor, I own it, and only I can decide to share it, give it away or trade it, or even destroy it.

Just as man cannot exist without his body, so man cannot exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality: to think, to work and to keep the results, which means the right of property, property being that which you PRODUCE, and not what others produce. Nobody has a claim on what others produce simply because they need it.

Only a ghost can exist without material property. Only a slave can exist without the rights to his work.

You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner's terms: by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of men towards men property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers.

In the case of workers, or any other human being, if anyone desires to live, they must provide for themselves in order to survive. The only alternative to trade is slavery, murder or theft. This means that for someone to survive virtuously, one needs something to trade with others. Workers trade their physical strength. If they make hammers in a factory, they have agreed, by contract, that they will be paid for producing them. A business wouldn't exist and provide the factories, machines and jobs needed for workers to produce if it didn't make profit, which is why employers cannot pay the exact same value of what the hammer is worth to the worker who has produced it. However, there are other issues, which are whether the workers are being outrageously badly payed. In any case, they are free to leave at any time, according to the terms they have agreed to leave in the contract, and seek another way of sustaining themselves by means of trade: self-employment, isolation on a farm, or gathering of farms in communities.


The business agrees to pay street gang protection money, the gang does'nt force the business to do business in "their area."

I am assuming the street gang has claimed they own the street simply because they believe that threatening others not to use it will give them ownership of it, when in fact they would have needed to mix their labor to own it, and the street was already somebody else's probably, be it a community, government, or a private street.

Workers own the product of their labor in the form of money. That is what they have agreed to receive in exchange for working in the factory. Except in cases of inheritance or theft, honest businessmen had to create the capital needed, either by being workers as well and accumulating, or by self-employing themselves, in order to pay for other people to build the factory and to pay for the machines, before they could hire workers to work there.

Property laws are simply government laws that say nobody can steal from another person who has acquired their property justly. As always, government ends up twisting these laws to their benefit: taxes (stealing from citizens at gunpoint property(money), which citizens acquired justly).


now if I had a second home, that I was'nt living in, and the only reason I had it was property laws, so I could rent it out, that would be a different story.

Why would that be a different story? You had to create the money to build it, buy it, etc. Why is it less yours simply because you are not using it? I'm not using my toilet right now, does that mean is not mine? Ownership is timeless until I cease to exist and not give it away or give it as heritage, or trade it away or destroy it.




Which means farm workers BUILDING THEIR OWN farm have a right to keep the farm to themselves. The workers who built the capitalist farm agreed to build it in return for money. If they wanted to build one merely for the sake of building one to themselves, why couldnt they as well? However, they decided to make a business out of building farmers to those who are willing and able to afford it.

[QUOTE]You could have the same explination for slavery, they guy "bought" his slave, it does'nt make it justified. the fact is, the man had the money (how he got it is irrelivent) which means he had Capital and workers did not, money and physical capital like factories and machines are the same thing as far as power is concerned.

Nobody can buy another person. In the current day, you can only contract with a person, if the person agrees, that she will work for you, either for free or for money, to do a certain job.

You don't seem to understand the notion that ownership can be transfered between people if both parties agree to the exchange. The machine builder made a machine, which is his, and traded it for money to the capitalist, so now the capitalist owns the machine, and the machine builder owns the money which was owned previously by the builder. And lastly, the capitalist hires someone to OPERATE the machine, meaning the machine is still property of the capitalist, but he decides whom he lets use it or not.


I was saying that it does'nt justify anything because those technelogical advancements mean absolutely nothing to the vast majority of those living under Capitalism.

So the fact that people, nowadays, have access to a much wider range of information via internet is of no relevance to you? Would you rather enslave them into only watching the information you wanted? That is the birth of dictatorship. It has certainly changed a lot of people's lives, to the better, the fact that they were able to access to such a great web of information.


Please don't post about things that you hav'nt a clue about, read about them first and understand them first, you just embarrass yourself.

I believe this was adressed to Green Apostle, right?

[eyedrop]

What does mixing your labour have to do with aquiring property in the real world?

Let's take a recent example of how resources are divided

About 1,5 months ago Norway won rights to a sea-area about the size of GB in the north sea, which probably has large oil fields (maybe even 3 times as much as Norway has now. Now the politicians are eagerly working on sharing out rights to the oil industry. When the oil companies, among them state owned corporations, gain the rights to the oil fields how has any of the owners, or anyone for that matter mixed their labour into it?

Here is a map of the new areas.
Link (http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/Folkerett/sokkelkart_2.pdf)http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/Folkerett/sokkelkart_2.pdf

[Nwoye]

What does mixing your labour have to do with aquiring property in the real world?

Let's take a recent example of how resources are divided

About 1,5 months ago Norway won rights to a sea-area about the size of GB in the north sea, which probably has large oil fields (maybe even 3 times as much as Norway has now. Now the politicians are eagerly working on sharing out rights to the oil industry. When the oil companies, among them state owned corporations, gain the rights to the oil fields how has any of the owners, or anyone for that matter mixed their labour into it?

Here is a map of the new areas.
Link (http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/Folkerett/sokkelkart_2.pdf)http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/Folkerett/sokkelkart_2.pdf
two things:

1. i assume this was appropriated by the EU or something - state appropriated land is illegitimate

2. a capitalist could say that this is legitimate because it is an attempt to avoid the tragedy of the commons.

[RGacky3]

wut? so what happens when you go out to eat and someone breaks into your house and takes all of your shit?

it's okay to believe in personal property if you're a communist. and it's also okay to support laws to protect that property.

Without property laws why on earth would someone steal your house, if they have access to everything they nead?

BTW, I don't base my principles on whats ok for a communist to believe in or not.


Ownership only requires violence for the owner to protect that which he owns, which was a product of his labor (mental and physical, not including intellectual property in this). Just as you would defend yourself from physical agression so you would prevent others from removing that which you acquired justly and now own.

Ownership beyond your personal possessions requires violence from the State, which is why we have property laws.


property being that which you PRODUCE, and not what others produce. Nobody has a claim on what others produce simply because they need it.

EXACTLY, which is why property laws is a oxymoron, because it denies 95% of the people that right to have a right over what they produce.


A business wouldn't exist and provide the factories, machines and jobs needed for workers to produce if it didn't make profit, which is why employers cannot pay the exact same value of what the hammer is worth to the worker who has produced it.

Of coarse it would, if things are needed, things will get done, the profit motive is'nt the only motive in existance.


I am assuming the street gang has claimed they own the street simply because they believe that threatening others not to use it will give them ownership of it, when in fact they would have needed to mix their labor to own it

I'm willing to bet that over 90% of Capitalists have NEVER mixed their labor with what they own.


Workers own the product of their labor in the form of money.

Unless they are actually producing money, no they are not.


That is what they have agreed to receive in exchange for working in the factory. Except in cases of inheritance or theft, honest businessmen had to create the capital needed, either by being workers as well and accumulating, or by self-employing themselves, in order to pay for other people to build the factory and to pay for the machines, before they could hire workers to work there.


rags to riches stories are so rare they are barely worth mentioning. Also, the onyl reasons workers agreed to that, is because of property laws based on state violence.


Why would that be a different story? You had to create the money to build it, buy it, etc. Why is it less yours simply because you are not using it? I'm not using my toilet right now, does that mean is not mine? Ownership is timeless until I cease to exist and not give it away or give it as heritage, or trade it away or destroy it.

Because it requires property laws, first of all, without property laws you would'nt be building another house to begin with unless your helping out the community.

Common sense comes into it.


Which means farm workers BUILDING THEIR OWN farm have a right to keep the farm to themselves. The workers who built the capitalist farm agreed to build it in return for money. If they wanted to build one merely for the sake of building one to themselves, why couldnt they as well? However, they decided to make a business out of building farmers to those who are willing and able to afford it.


Every year farms are rebuilt by workers who never have any ownership.

Heres the thing, your defending Capitalism after the fact, the fact is, there is massiave unequal distribution of wealth (power) which means that none of these "agreements" are in a unequal, and really nonconcentual.


Nobody can buy another person. In the current day, you can only contract with a person, if the person agrees, that she will work for you, either for free or for money, to do a certain job.

I understand that, I use the slave example to show that your arguments can be applied compleatly to slavery, so they are rediculous, and really dont justify anything.


So the fact that people, nowadays, have access to a much wider range of information via internet is of no relevance to you? Would you rather enslave them into only watching the information you wanted? That is the birth of dictatorship. It has certainly changed a lot of people's lives, to the better, the fact that they were able to access to such a great web of information

What on earth are you talking about? Of caorse its positive, but the fact is, the vast majority of the world cant afford a computer.


I believe this was adressed to Green Apostle, right?

Yeah.

[Nwoye]

Without property laws why on earth would someone steal your house, if they have access to everything they nead?
because people do dumb shit. what if you had a bike that you personally modified - a bike that was totally unique and special. surely if it was left out in the open, and there were no property laws, then there's a good chance that someone would take it.


BTW, I don't base my principles on whats ok for a communist to believe in or not.
that's good.

[RGacky3]

BTW, I don't base my principles on whats ok for a communist to believe in or not. that's good.

and why I'm restricted :P.


because people do dumb shit. what if you had a bike that you personally modified - a bike that was totally unique and special. surely if it was left out in the open, and there were no property laws, then there's a good chance that someone would take it.

Maybe they do, but let me ask you something, in the real world, what are the reprocussions of stealing a bike? Are the cops gonna really go after a stolen bike? The worst case senario is the owner or an owners friend will see you take it and stop you. Also how many wealthy, or even well off people steal bikes? I'm willing to bet its not many.

So its not property laws that protect bikes at all, and bikes arn't stolen because "people do dumb shit" for the most part.

[ArrowLance]

Ownership only requires violence for the owner to protect that which he owns, which was a product of his labor (mental and physical, not including intellectual property in this). Just as you would defend yourself from physical agression so you would prevent others from removing that which you acquired justly and now own.

Of course everytime you own something you are restricting its use to other people. If i created a table using justly aquired materials , i am depriving others of the use of the table, since because it was a product of my labor, I own it, and only I can decide to share it, give it away or trade it, or even destroy it.

Just as man cannot exist without his body, so man cannot exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality: to think, to work and to keep the results, which means the right of property, property being that which you PRODUCE, and not what others produce. Nobody has a claim on what others produce simply because they need it.

The problem is if someone is given exclusive rights over what they produce then they can obviously withhold it for themselves exclusively. This leads to exploitation through trade. Say all farmers (or any significant number of farmers) group together to decide they will withhold all agricultural products from society unless traded for on their terms. They would essentially rule the world. If we take it by force we violate this supposed 'supreme right of property.' And this problem can not be solved by everyone creating their own farm, not only would this ruin the economy but the current farmers could essentially remove all access to any seed. Obviously we can not allow someone to hoard 'products of their own labour.'

[Havet]

The problem is if someone is given exclusive rights over what they produce then they can obviously withhold it for themselves exclusively. This leads to exploitation through trade. Say all farmers (or any significant number of farmers) group together to decide they will withhold all agricultural products from society unless traded for on their terms. They would essentially rule the world. If we take it by force we violate this supposed 'supreme right of property.' And this problem can not be solved by everyone creating their own farm, not only would this ruin the economy but the current farmers could essentially remove all access to any seed. Obviously we can not allow someone to hoard 'products of their own labour.'

I find it hard to believe that all farmers would do such a thing. History shows how cartels and monopolies that were not state-induced ended-up failing due to smaller but more-demanded competition. In any case, if such were to happen, i don't see why everyone creating their own farm, or dedicate a portion of their house/apartment to a farm would ruin the economy, and how would the farmers remove all access to any seeds. The fact they engage in such activity in order to demand higher prices makes it a lot more profitable for people, who happen to have some seeds with them and some land, to trade the food for lower prices, thus getting more customers.

I don't see whats the problem of someone keeping the products of their own labor. It is theirs, they earned it. Just because they own a lot doesn't mean they should be forced to give some away. Like i said, even though that extreme situation is not likely to happen, there is always the DIY alternative.

[ArrowLance]

I find it hard to believe that all farmers would do such a thing. History shows how cartels and monopolies that were not state-induced ended-up failing due to smaller but more-demanded competition. In any case, if such were to happen, i don't see why everyone creating their own farm, or dedicate a portion of their house/apartment to a farm would ruin the economy, and how would the farmers remove all access to any seeds. The fact they engage in such activity in order to demand higher prices makes it a lot more profitable for people, who happen to have some seeds with them and some land, to trade the food for lower prices, thus getting more customers.

I don't see whats the problem of someone keeping the products of their own labor. It is theirs, they earned it. Just because they own a lot doesn't mean they should be forced to give some away. Like i said, even though that extreme situation is not likely to happen, there is always the DIY alternative.

It seems to me hoarding is not uncommon. And the point is that the food is being traded, this means that exploitation happens through that trade since the food source is still completely controlled by a 'agricultural class' and the trading will not be fair, it never is. And not everyone can get the seeds, have the land and spend the time to produce their own food. Try telling the citizens of any famine produced by lack of crops to build their own farm. It just doesn't work that way.

There is NOT always a 'DIY alternative.'

[RGacky3]

History shows how cartels and monopolies that were not state-induced ended-up failing due to smaller but more-demanded competition.

Such as?

Also, just because there are 2 different farm owners, does'nt make a difference for everyone else, just that their might be competition between the 2. But they still make up the ruling class. Competition < Class warfare when it comes to Capitalists, Competition does'nt make this better for the ruled classes, infact sometimes it makes it worse, because they have to work more for less, so that their boss can compete.

[eyedrop]

two things:

1. i assume this was appropriated by the EU or something - state appropriated land is illegitimate
They won it by recommendation from the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Who cares if it is legitimate or not, as long as it's seen as legitimate by enough powers. Pretty much all control over the worlds natural resources are as little legitimate as this.

How would you propose that the ownership of the possible oil fields should be decided? First one to tow a an oil rig over there gains the property rights?




2. a capitalist could say that this is legitimate because it is an attempt to avoid the tragedy of the commons.Tradegy of the commons is dealt with here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/defending-devil-and-t106645/index.html?t=106645&highlight=tragedy+of+the+commons).

[Havet]

It seems to me hoarding is not uncommon
Such as? I would recommend you reading the chapter "Monopoly, how to lose your shirt" of the book "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman. It has a lot of information on how cartels weren't able to succeed in the late 19th - early 20th century without government intervention. I can quote some if you are interested.

In fact, friedman himself argues that the best historical refutation for the thesis that unregulated laissez-faire leads to monopoly is in a socialist historian Gabriel Kolko's books called "The triumph of Conservatism" and "Railroads and Regulation". He argues that at the end of the 19th century businessmen believed the future was with bigness, with conglomerates and cartels, but were wrong: the organizations they formed to control markets and reduce costs were almost invariably failures, returning lower profits than their smaller competitors, unable to fix prices, and controlling a steadily shrinking share of the market. The regulatory comissions supossedly were formed to restrain monopolistic businessmen. Actually, Kolko argues, they were formed at the request of unsuccessful monopolists to prevent the competition which had frustrated their efforts.


not everyone can get the seeds, have the land and spend the time to produce their own food. Try telling the citizens of any famine produced by lack of crops to build their own farm. It just doesn't work that way.Good point. However, on lack of a better alternative, people will find it more cost-effective to have to work to produce their own food rather than buy it from monopolies, if they existed in such quantities naturally.

Likely there would not be a great famine instantaneously; many people would foresee such monopoly as dangerous to their food source and start producing their own.

[RGacky3]

Good point. However, on lack of a better alternative, people will find it more cost-effective to have to work to produce their own food rather than buy it from monopolies, if they existed in such quantities naturally.

Likely there would not be a great famine instantaneously; many people would foresee such monopoly as dangerous to their food source and start producing their own.

Pure Utopian thinking, listen, ownership = power, the only way to have ownership is through threat of violence.

To assume that once a person or group of people become the ruling class through ownership that they will just let people do whatever they want even if it deminishes their power is utopian at best.

[Havet]

Pure Utopian thinking, listen, ownership = power, the only way to have ownership is through threat of violence.

To assume that once a person or group of people become the ruling class through ownership that they will just let people do whatever they want even if it deminishes their power is utopian at best.

i don't see how one inventing or making a product by their own labor and keeping it is done through the threat of violence.

I think the most important point is that whoever tried to impose something, or be a ruling class, in a free society, would not succeed due to imense costs, people's defense against such agressions through an armed populace.

In a way, the only thing that can defend one from agression is agression in self-defense.

[RGacky3]

i don't see how one inventing or making a product by their own labor and keeping it is done through the threat of violence.

The threat of violence comes in when your ownership goes over things that are not the product of your labor (such as inhereted or stuff made by hired labor), and absentee property, meaning stuff that is beyond your personal possessios (i.e. Capital).

your arguemtn about the product of their own labor is laughable, because you mix that with capitalist property rights and it falls on its head because it restricts the vast majority out of the product of THEIR labor.


I think the most important point is that whoever tried to impose something, or be a ruling class, in a free society, would not succeed due to imense costs, people's defense against such agressions through an armed populace.

What makes you think people would defend Capitalist property (absentee land and capital) rights, when its clearly not in their favor and leads to massiave unbalance of wealth and power?


In a way, the only thing that can defend one from agression is agression in self-defense.

If I take apples from a farm that someone 100 miles away from the farm claims is his because his great grandfather bought it from someone whos great grandfather used to farm on, and the owner attacks me to stop me from taking apples, the owner is the initiator of aggression. His claim to ownership is restricting my right to the fruits of my labor.

[Havet]

First of all, I like your new avatar better ^^


The threat of violence comes in when your ownership goes over things that are not the product of your labor (such as inhereted or stuff made by hired labor), and absentee property, meaning stuff that is beyond your personal possessios (i.e. Capital).

Well, I won't be threatening anyone over those types of property. If i am not there to protect them directly, which is not threat of force, because it is others that are claiming to use force in the first place to steal from me, so I am merely complying: using force back, then I can always ask someone to help protect me, or hire someone to look after my house if i'm gone, etc.


your arguemtn about the product of their own labor is laughable, because you mix that with capitalist property rights and it falls on its head because it restricts the vast majority out of the product of THEIR labor.

well please explain where do I mix the arguments precisely so I can understand where you are "attacking" from exactly.




What makes you think people would defend Capitalist property (absentee land and capital) rights, when its clearly not in their favor and leads to massiave unbalance of wealth and power?

Just as the same way they would defend their life: because it's theirs. How is a worker defending his house creating a massive unbalance of wealth and power? How is a worker who owns two houses and defending them by asking another person to look after the other or hiring a security company to install alarms leading to massive unbalances of wealth and power?

I personally think there is no point talking to you regarding these things unless we get the question of property rights sorted out, so we can have some common ground. So, in a nutshell, what are your ideas on property rights? When is someone owning a house legitimate? When is someone owning a factory justifiable? When is someone buying a factory others built justifiable?



If I take apples from a farm that someone 100 miles away from the farm claims is his because his great grandfather bought it from someone whos great grandfather used to farm on, and the owner attacks me to stop me from taking apples, the owner is the initiator of aggression. His claim to ownership is restricting my right to the fruits of my labor.

I'm not sure i'm following, how are the apples fruit of your labor? you mentioned someone owned the farm, and that another person used to farm on. Where do you fit in the situation?

In case you did farmed the land, what did you receive in exchange? If you agreed to be payed in money instead of apples then you have no claim on the apples.

In case you didn't farm the land, you are essentially stealing something that isn't yours, so it would be you who were initiating agression, not in the person directly, but on their property. However, one cannot account agression as only hurting somebody physically, because otherwise theft would not be regarded as agression, and would pose no reasonable opposition.

[ArrowLance]

Good point. However, on lack of a better alternative, people will find it more cost-effective to have to work to produce their own food rather than buy it from monopolies, if they existed in such quantities naturally.

Likely there would not be a great famine instantaneously; many people would foresee such monopoly as dangerous to their food source and start producing their own.

Did you read what I said? It is not a possible alternative. If everyone decided that they would produce their own food they would need the land and the seeds. The agricultural class could, regardless of if they are monopolized, restrict seed and land. As for if people would predict this, it's possible, but I don't think it would change anything. Look at current societies, obviously it is not profitable for everyone to grow their own food. It is actually more expensive to do so in many cases. The same could happen in the discussed society if the farmers are given exclusive rights over their crop.

[RGacky3]

Well, I won't be threatening anyone over those types of property. If i am not there to protect them directly, which is not threat of force, because it is others that are claiming to use force in the first place to steal from me, so I am merely complying: using force back, then I can always ask someone to help protect me, or hire someone to look after my house if i'm gone, etc.


They are not "stealing" from you, your assuming it IS your property, but that is what we are discussing first of all, if you have a right to it.

You can claim anything and then have say someone else started the violence by "stealing".

Also, collecting apples IS NOT violence.


well please explain where do I mix the arguments precisely so I can understand where you are "attacking" from exactly.


You say people have a right to their labor, to the fruits of their labor, thats what makes property.

However you also say that owning property is ok even if you never mix your labor with that property of that property is'nt the fruit of your labor, even though that means that it refuses others to the fruits of their labor. Which goes against your first principle.

What I'm saying is that your argument contradicts itself, and is Ahistorical and not in line with the real world and how property works.

You also ignore the fact that with property comes power.

Your argument refutes itself, its like saying, everyone with shoes deserves socks, however only those with socks should have shoes.


Just as the same way they would defend their life: because it's theirs. How is a worker defending his house creating a massive unbalance of wealth and power? How is a worker who owns two houses and defending them by asking another person to look after the other or hiring a security company to install alarms leading to massive unbalances of wealth and power?

I personally think there is no point talking to you regarding these things unless we get the question of property rights sorted out, so we can have some common ground. So, in a nutshell, what are your ideas on property rights? When is someone owning a house legitimate? When is someone owning a factory justifiable? When is someone buying a factory others built justifiable?

No no no, why you think that those WITHOUT property would protect those WITH property, right now property owners rely on the government for protection of their property. Who will they rely on in the future?

Themselves? In that case they can really only protect things that are in their direct possession.


In case you didn't farm the land, you are essentially stealing something that isn't yours, so it would be you who were initiating agression, not in the person directly, but on their property. However, one cannot account agression as only hurting somebody physically, because otherwise theft would not be regarded as agression, and would pose no reasonable opposition.

No I'n not, apples grow naturally on trees, that persons claim is as good as mine. He does'nt need apples. Why should I recognise his claim, if he's not even there, if he's never farmed the land and so on?

Your pretty much asking people to voluntarily accept a hiarchal system (private property always ends up in a hiarchal system) that is NOT in their benefit, simply because of some paradoxal ethical reasoning. Its rediculous, no one would ever voluntarily accept that.

This is why Capitalism NEEDS the state.

[ZeroNowhere]

1. Any philosophy advocating a classless, stateless society without money or markets organized according to the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need” 2. In Orthodox Marxist theory it is stage of history coming after socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat) when the state has “withered away” and society is run according to the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need”I must say, that is rather horrible.
Anyways, we should really sticky a thread on this subject here.