How would you bring about your respective new systems of government?

[cappiej]

So, a guy has 10 or 15 houses, a lot of people in property do and in some cases thousands of properties, and there's a load of homeless. How would you reconcile this situation without being thugs and stealing someone else's property?

The SWP admitted they intend to steal people's second and third homes to solve the homelessness problem. Isn't that a coercive ideology, a bit like how the National Front want to send Black people to Jamaica? I'm suprised you're not all launching Anti-SWP groups, or is it okay to be a thug if you're doing it for the right reasons?

Also, surely if the SWP come to power and start demanding people sign over their houses then won't they give the deeds to their kids and use all sorts of blind trusts and other mechanisms to avoid giving them to the government and failing all else just burn them down, like in Russia during Collectivisation?

[Dervish]

So, a guy has 10 or 15 houses, a lot of people in property do and in some cases thousands of properties, and there's a load of homeless. How would you reconcile this situation without being thugs and stealing someone else's property?

The SWP admitted they intend to steal people's second and third homes to solve the homelessness problem. Isn't that a coercive ideology, a bit like how the National Front want to send Black people to Jamaica? I'm suprised you're not all launching Anti-SWP groups, or is it okay to be a thug if you're doing it for the right reasons?

Also, surely if the SWP come to power and start demanding people sign over their houses then won't they give the deeds to their kids and use all sorts of blind trusts and other mechanisms to avoid giving them to the government and failing all else just burn them down, like in Russia during Collectivisation?


The appropriators are the real 'thugs'!

[cappiej]

The appropriators are the real 'thugs'!

You know who you sound like? Nick Griffin, when he talks about how the anti racist people are the real fascists, it sounds ridiculous when he says it and when you defend thuggery by accusing someone else of thuggery it sounds just as ridiculous.

[scarletghoul]

Yes, we will steal all the spare houses from the rich people. Boo hoo.

[Kronos]

I wud bing abou powa wif barrel of my gun....

http://flumesday.com/images/Mao-Zedong.jpg

[Plagueround]

This is a loaded question because the conditions for the question assume that someone owning 15 houses is legitimate and that doing anything other than "respecting" that would be thuggery. Is there nothing wrong in your mind with owning that many houses while people are shivering (or, depending on your location, roasting) in the streets?

[Robert]

Kronos, must you, really?

[AnthArmo]

So, a guy has 10 or 15 houses, a lot of people in property do and in some cases thousands of properties, and there's a load of homeless. How would you reconcile this situation without being thugs and stealing someone else's property?

The SWP admitted they intend to steal people's second and third homes to solve the homelessness problem. Isn't that a coercive ideology, a bit like how the National Front want to send Black people to Jamaica? I'm suprised you're not all launching Anti-SWP groups, or is it okay to be a thug if you're doing it for the right reasons?

Give me a justification for a person to own more than one home when there are homeless? such an act shouldn't even be allowed, housing is a human right.

[trivas7]

Is there nothing wrong in your mind with owning that many houses while people are shivering (or, depending on your location, roasting) in the streets?
Even if I can't see myself acting in this manner, what's morally wrong w/ this? Why am I morally obliged to house my homeless neighbor?

[Plagueround]

Even if I can't see myself acting in this manner, what's morally wrong w/ this? Why am I morally obliged to house my homeless neighbor?

You've taken the premise of my question and turned it into an absolutist dilemma. At the moment, I personally don't have the resources to provide housing to the homeless. I also rent, and my landlord would evict me for doing so. So I'm not advocating a supreme moral position that says everyone must house the homeless until there are no homeless. I would, however, say that we should do everything in our power to create a system where there are no homeless.

To me, this means there shouldn't be people with 15 houses.

[cappiej]

This is a loaded question because the conditions for the question assume that someone owning 15 houses is legitimate and that doing anything other than "respecting" that would be thuggery. Is there nothing wrong in your mind with owning that many houses while people are shivering (or, depending on your location, roasting) in the streets?

No, they paid for them, they own them. A lot of people who aren't that rich have houses that are empty, you need to wait for the right time to sell.

[cappiej]

Give me a justification for a person to own more than one home when there are homeless? such an act shouldn't even be allowed, housing is a human right.

They bought it, if the homeless guy buys a house he will cease to be homeless.

The justification is they have the deed to the house and they acquired it with the consent of the guy who used to have the deed, and they mutually agreed on how much money should exchange hands to make it worth the previous owner's while to sell the house.

[NecroCommie]

A home is a human right, and anyone not respecting that right is a thug. Anyone daring to use violence to "protect" their "right" for a second house would be shot as an example to other recreationists.

What does property mean? When the first man who owned land, had to defend his absurd claim (no one else had owned land before), he could justify his ownership by the fact that he uses the land for farming and housing. However when he stopped farming an "bought labour" he ceased all society-helping work and simultaneously lost his right to the land he used to use.

Such is the situation of people with multiple houses. What they do not use, they do not own, and it is therefore not stealing to take their houses to those who need them. If such multi-owners would have to defend their claim on the land, they could not say: "I use it", or "I live in it". They could just say: "amm... I own it?" A homeless person uses the house much more actively than a person who would only keep it for occasional use, and therefore the homeless persons claim for the house is superior.

This is not to be contested the logic is infallible. If you have an issue on what I just wrote, you would be wise to defend your claim that buying labour is valid form of contributing to the society and not else. If you do such a thing however, I'd suggest you make yourself familiar with the concept of wage-slavery. Otherwise you will be argued right off the thread.

About the exact manner of the "rehousing": I do not especially care what the rich feel. They have had their sweet moments in life and it is about time they tasted the real life too. The same but reversed goes to the poor and the opressed.

[Plagueround]

No, they paid for them, they own them. A lot of people who aren't that rich have houses that are empty, you need to wait for the right time to sell.

Well then, it would appear we've come to a conflict in our ideals. The next step would be attempting to influence and persuade each other, or attempt to spread our ideas to others. I'm going to converse with people more likely to be receptive and not waste my time on someone like yourself. No offense.

[cappiej]

You've taken the premise of my question and turned it into an absolutist dilemma. At the moment, I personally don't have the resources to provide housing to the homeless. I also rent, and my landlord would evict me for doing so. So I'm not advocating a supreme moral position that says everyone must house the homeless until there are no homeless. I would, however, say that we should do everything in our power to create a system where there are no homeless.

To me, this means there shouldn't be people with 15 houses.

So you propose to steal, or take (it doesn't matter what you call it its still theft), the house to make sure there are no homeless people?

People would torch their houses rather than give them to the government, or leave bombs inside, like those jews getting kicked out of Palestine did a few years ago. And who can blame them, why not, what do they lose by burning down their house if they can't even use it any more?

I think you'll encounter a lot of resistance under this system, you'll get the homeless vote no doubt but I think people would make it impossible for you to implement this system.

[cappiej]

A home is a human right, and anyone not respecting that right is a thug. Anyone daring to use violence to "protect" their "right" for a second house would be shot as an example to other recreationists.

What does property mean? When the first man who owned land, had to defend his absurd claim (no one else had owned land before), he could justify his ownership by the fact that he uses the land for farming and housing. However when he stopped farming an "bought labour" he ceased all society-helping work and simultaneously lost his right to the land he used to use.

Such is the situation of people with multiple houses. What they do not use, they do not own, and it is therefore not stealing to take their houses to those who need them. If such multi-owners would have to defend their claim on the land, they could not say: "I use it", or "I live in it". They could just say: "amm... I own it?" A homeless person uses the house much more actively than a person who would only keep it for occasional use, and therefore the homeless persons claim for the house is superior.

Shooting people? Oh yeah that's civilised.

Well how about if they just burned the house and didn't hurt anyone, they just made a statement about not wanting to give it to the government?

[Plagueround]

So you propose to steal, or take (it doesn't matter what you call it its still theft), the house to make sure there are no homeless people?

The original theft occurred when these people were allowed to appropriate so much money on the backs of other people's work. Besides, following your line of thought to its logical conclusion would mean (in most cases) giving the property back to the indigenous people that lived on that land. In any event, reread my posts and show me where I advocated forced seizure. I did not.


People would torch their houses rather than give them to the government, or leave bombs inside, like those jews getting kicked out of Palestine did a few years ago.

Probably. But if you can show me one major reorganization of society in history that has been pretty and without bloodshed or conflict, I'll discuss it further, and perhaps share a few ideas I have that could prevent such things.


And who can blame them, why not, what do they lose by burning down their house if they can't even use it any more?

I'd first question how much a person with 15 houses is using them. I'd also blame them for causing destructive, deadly, and hazardous conditions. Even in our current system you don't get to burn houses to the ground with impunity simply because you own them.


I think you'll encounter a lot of resistance under this system, you'll get the homeless vote no doubt but I think people would make it impossible for you to implement this system.

The way I see it, if a mass movement is created and the majority wants such things, the government will either yield, or it will be acting against the interests of its people. Any government so blatantly acting against its people does not deserve its power. I'm not sure what you mean when discussing "voting" for these changes, as if we're going to put socialist candidates up against powerful elite political parties with millions of dollar in back and think it will work. I'd strongly suggest reading more of this site before posting further, you don't seem to have any idea what we're about.

[cappiej]

The original theft occurred when these people were allowed to appropriate so much money on the backs of other people's work. Besides, following your line of thought to its logical conclusion would mean (in most cases) giving the property back to the indigenous people that lived on that land. In any event, reread my posts and show me where I advocated forced seizure. I did not.



Probably. But if you can show me one major reorganization of society in history that has been pretty and without bloodshed or conflict, I'll discuss it further, and perhaps share a few ideas I have that could prevent such things.



I'd first question how much a person with 15 houses is using them. I'd also blame them for causing destructive, deadly, and hazardous conditions. Even in our current system you don't get to burn houses to the ground with impunity simply because you own them.



The way I see it, if a mass movement is created and the majority wants such things, the government will either yield, or it will be acting against the interests of its people. Any government so blatantly acting against its people does not deserve its power. I'm not sure what you mean when discussing "voting" for these changes, as if we're going to put socialist candidates up against powerful elite political parties with millions of dollar in back and think it will work. I'd strongly suggest reading more of this site before posting further, you don't seem to have any idea what we're about.

Well I assume you're not about a violent take over.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So, a guy has 10 or 15 houses, a lot of people in property do and in some cases thousands of properties, and there's a load of homeless. How would you reconcile this situation without being thugs and stealing someone else's property?
Private property over land and houses you do not occupy is illegitimate.

In other words, we would indeed take away houses that are not being used by their owners. If you own a house that you don't live in, and rent it out to someone else, then you're getting money for nothing. Rent money is acquired without any work on the part of the landlord. Do you want people to get money without working?

Why do you support laziness?


The SWP admitted they intend to steal people's second and third homes to solve the homelessness problem. Isn't that a coercive ideology, a bit like how the National Front want to send Black people to Jamaica?
Except black people haven't done anything wrong to deserve being sent to Jamaica. But capitalists have done something wrong - they've exploited the working class.

Don't you want criminals punished? So do we. We think capitalists are criminals. Wanting criminals punished does not make you a supporter of a "coercive ideology."


I'm suprised you're not all launching Anti-SWP groups, or is it okay to be a thug if you're doing it for the right reasons?
Actually, yes. Don't you support the police? Policemen are "thugs for the right reasons."


Also, surely if the SWP come to power and start demanding people sign over their houses then won't they give the deeds to their kids and use all sorts of blind trusts and other mechanisms to avoid giving them to the government and failing all else just burn them down, like in Russia during Collectivisation?
Unlikely, because the whole point is that the SWP would collectivize houses which are not occupied by their owners.

[Pogue]

You know who you sound like? Nick Griffin, when he talks about how the anti racist people are the real fascists, it sounds ridiculous when he says it and when you defend thuggery by accusing someone else of thuggery it sounds just as ridiculous.

Basically, guys, opposing selfishness and greed makes us fascists.

This argument sure seems watertight.

[NecroCommie]

Shooting people? Oh yeah that's civilised.

Well how about if they just burned the house and didn't hurt anyone, they just made a statement about not wanting to give it to the government?
I notice how you lack critizism on all my points except on the exact manner by which I would bring forth my reforms. Calling the manner barbaric hardly renders it ineffective.

As to the people who would halt progress in order to masturbate their individualistic fantasies, I would shoot them, and anyone who would dare to promote their kind of actions publicly. Besides, in socialism there is no government. There would be worker communes run not by any officials, but by workers themselves through direct democracy.


You know who you sound like? Nick Griffin, when he talks about how the anti racist people are the real fascists, it sounds ridiculous when he says it and when you defend thuggery by accusing someone else of thuggery it sounds just as ridiculous.
So, apparently fascism = forbidding anything? If not, please elaborate.

[Pogue]

Its not so much that we want to steal their houses, its that we want to put the rich fuckers to death then consume their corpse, just like they did back in Russia.

I felt obliged to clear that up.

[NecroCommie]

Its not so much that we want to steal their houses, its that we want to put the rich fuckers to death then consume their corpse, just like they did back in Russia.

I felt obliged to clear that up.
In addition I would like to point out how my deepest wish is to castrate every executive in the world with a spoon. Then I would proceed to rape their nostrils and mutilate their empty eye sockets. All this while forcing them to the anus of another, forming a train of dying capitalist scum. This train would then be inserted to a pit of molten magma. :rolleyes:

I so much love pointless violence.

[Nwoye]

Its not so much that we want to steal their houses, its that we want to put the rich fuckers to death then consume their corpse, just like they did back in Russia.

I felt obliged to clear that up.
that's cute

[AnthArmo]

Private property over land and houses you do not occupy is illegitimate.

In other words, we would indeed take away houses that are not being used by their owners. If you own a house that you don't live in, and rent it out to someone else, then you're getting money for nothing. Rent money is acquired without any work on the part of the landlord. Do you want people to get money without working?

Why do you support laziness?

Kwisatz, in all my lurking, I have thanked so many of your posts. But the sheer brilliance of that argument deserves more than an idle thanks.

You = Awesome

Expanding on this, I find it contradictory that cappiej criticizes welfare on the basis that it's "lazy people scabbing off of others"

But by supporting the free market, you support inheritance, labour exploitation, rents and interest.

all examples of getting money without any work or labour.

[NecroCommie]

Agreed! Afterwards these same capitalists continue to blaim poor people for their misery... and pretty much on everything else spanning from the eventual world's ending all the way to mondays. And thusly they wonder: "what is it with these communists and their agression?" :confused:

[Bud Struggle]

Its not so much that we want to steal their houses, its that we want to put the rich fuckers to death then consume their corpse, just like they did back in Russia.

I felt obliged to clear that up.

After the Revolution when I am "acclaimed" your Glorious Leader. I will treat you Old RevLefters in the same way that Stalin treated the Old Bosheviks.;)

Baz a shok!

[Bud Struggle]

You = Awesome


Kwisatz...Have to agree there. You and Demo are the best there is. Much thanks on your posts.

Tom

[Pogue]

After the Revolution when I am "acclaimed" your Glorious Leader. I will treat you Old RevLefters in the same way that Stalin treated the Old Bosheviks.;)

Baz a shok!

You can get fucked, chum. No glorious leaders!

[Bud Struggle]

You can get fucked, chum. No glorious leaders!

Wait and see, wait and see. ;) :)

[New Tet]

So, a guy has 10 or 15 houses, a lot of people in property do and in some cases thousands of properties, and there's a load of homeless. How would you reconcile this situation without being thugs and stealing someone else's property?

All revolutions make their own laws. The rebels who overthrew the rule of King George III "stole" his 13 colonies. The French king had his property taken by the bourgeois and lost his head in the process. An so on.


The SWP admitted they intend to steal people's second and third homes to solve the homelessness problem. Isn't that a coercive ideology, a bit like how the National Front want to send Black people to Jamaica? I'm suprised you're not all launching Anti-SWP groups, or is it okay to be a thug if you're doing it for the right reasons?You rely on the mistaken notion that private property is the same as personal possession. Sure, the capitalist sees his capital as personal possession, but reality is very different. If you frame the discussion in terms of houses you distort it because the bulk of capitalist property is not necessarily in houses but in machinery and facilities of production which are social in nature. Society produces them, society must own them.


Also, surely if the SWP come to power and start demanding people sign over their houses then won't they give the deeds to their kids and use all sorts of blind trusts and other mechanisms to avoid giving them to the government and failing all else just burn them down, like in Russia during Collectivisation?I can't speak for the SWP, but as a Marxian socialist I believe that all capital represents the crystallization of unpaid, uncompensated social labor.
Any revolution that aims to abolish capitalism and establish economic democracy must, by necessity take, hold and operate the machinery of production in the interest of ALL of society.

In broad strokes Marx and Engels addressed the question in the Communist Manifesto:

"We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)


"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

In fact, your "question" is an old and discredited one; it's been fully answered for all time.

In the SLP's pamphlet "Fifteen Questions", Daniel De Leon takes it on. No.12, under the heading of CONFISCATION solves your imaginary dilemma. Read it and learn:
http://www.slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/fif_ques.pdf

[Pogue]

Wait and see, wait and see. ;) :)

Theres a bullet in my pocket with your name on it Tom.

A shiny, silver bullet, just in case.

:sneaky:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Thank you, AnthArmo and Bud! (hmmm... "Bud?" You really should have remained TomK :) ).

Although I can take no credit for the observation that rent, interest and profit are forms of income earned without work. It used to be a very common socialist and communist argument in the first half of the 20th century. Somehow it got lost along the way. We really should start using it again, and use it as often as we can: Capitalists earn money without working. Capitalists are lazy.

[Havet]

Private property over land and houses you do not occupy is illegitimate.

In other words, we would indeed take away houses that are not being used by their owners. If you own a house that you don't live in, and rent it out to someone else, then you're getting money for nothing. Rent money is acquired without any work on the part of the landlord. Do you want people to get money without working?

Why do you support laziness?

The problem with your arguing is that it does not recognize that paying for tools today and waiting for years to get the money back is itself a productive activity, and that the interest earned by capital is the corresponding payment.

Consider a specific situation. A factory built during 1849 produces from 1850 to 1900. Having cost $1 million, it generates for its owner an income of 100 000$ a year. This, according to Marx, is either wealth produced by the workers who built the factory, which should go to them, or wealth stolen from the workers working in the factory, who in that case are being paid less than they really produce.

Assume that the workers who built the factory were paid $1 million, the total cost of building it. (For simplicity's sake I will ignore other costs of production. According to Marx, such costs ultimately can eb traced back to the cost of the labor of other workers at an earlier time). The money provided by the capitalist will be returned to him in the first 10 years. After that the income is, from Marxist standpoint, pure eexploitation.

This arguments depends on regarding the $1million paid in 1849, when the work was done, as being "equal" to $1million received over the next decade. The workers themselves would not agree with this. They would hardly have done the job if they expected to wait 10 years for their pay. If they had been willing and able to work on those terms, the capitalist would indeed have been superfluous; the workers could have built the factory themselves, working for free, received their pay over the next ten years, and continue to receive it for 40 years more. It is the function of the capitalist to pay them wages in advance. If he were not available to pay them, the factory would not be built and the goods would not be produced. He himself bears a cost, since he too would rather have the money to do as he wishes in 1850, instead of having it tied up and released slowly over a period of time. If is perfectly reasonable that he should receive something for his contribution.

Another way of making this point is to say that money representes a bundle of alternatives. If i have ten dollars now, I can either spend it taking my girlfriend to a restaurant, or use it as bus fare somewhere, or... Having additional alternatives is always desirable, since then i have a wider range from which to pick the most attractive. Money is easily stored, so i do not have to spend it when i get it; 10 dollars today can either be saved until tomorrow and spend on one of the alternatives possible for 10 dollars tomorrow, or it can be spent today if i see an alternative more atractive than any i expect to see later. Thus, ten dollars today is worth more than ten dollars tomorrow. This is why interest rates exist, why, if i borrow ten dollars from you today, i must give back a little more than ten dollars tomorrow.

The advantage of money today over money tomorrow is tiny, as is the interest accumulated by ten dollars one day. When the time involved is a substantial portion of a man's life, the difference in value is also substantial.

It is not a matter of indiference to me whther i can buy a house for my family today or ten years from now. Nor is the ten years insignificant to the man who lends me money now and expects to receive something in exchange. The Marxists are wrong to regard interest received by a capitalist or paid by a debtor to a creditor as stolen money. It is actually a payment for value received.

[Dervish]

When someone possesses more houses than he needs and rents the extra houses, these extra houses could perhaps be considered 'means of production' (though in a slightly unorthodox sense), since they allow their owner to profit without doing any work.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The problem with your arguing is that it does not recognize that paying for tools today and waiting for years to get the money back is itself a productive activity, and that the interest earned by capital is the corresponding payment.
Wait, so buying something today (like land), then doing nothing for a few years and eventually getting back more money than you spent...

...is a productive activity? Waiting is productive? We need a special class of people to do all our waiting for us?


Consider a specific situation. A factory built during 1849 produces from 1850 to 1900. Having cost $1 million, it generates for its owner an income of 100 000$ a year. This, according to Marx, is either wealth produced by the workers who built the factory, which should go to them, or wealth stolen from the workers working in the factory, who in that case are being paid less than they really produce.

Assume that the workers who built the factory were paid $1 million, the total cost of building it. (For simplicity's sake I will ignore other costs of production. According to Marx, such costs ultimately can eb traced back to the cost of the labor of other workers at an earlier time). The money provided by the capitalist will be returned to him in the first 10 years. After that the income is, from Marxist standpoint, pure eexploitation.

This arguments depends on regarding the $1million paid in 1849, when the work was done, as being "equal" to $1million received over the next decade. The workers themselves would not agree with this. They would hardly have done the job if they expected to wait 10 years for their pay. If they had been willing and able to work on those terms, the capitalist would indeed have been superfluous; the workers could have built the factory themselves, working for free, received their pay over the next ten years, and continue to receive it for 40 years more. It is the function of the capitalist to pay them wages in advance. If he were not available to pay them, the factory would not be built and the goods would not be produced. He himself bears a cost, since he too would rather have the money to do as he wishes in 1850, instead of having it tied up and released slowly over a period of time. If is perfectly reasonable that he should receive something for his contribution.
There are two problems with that argument: First, it does not explain why there needs to be a capitalist in the first place. As I said above, you're basically arguing that the capitalist does all the waiting for us. Ok. Why do we need someone to do our waiting for us? Why do the workers need to, essentially, pay someone to wait? Surely it would be cheaper to wait for themselves!

Why is the capitalist able to wait, and the workers are not? Because he owns capital. He can live for 10 years before making a positive return on his investment. The workers, however, cannot wait 10 years to receive their wages, because then they would starve. Perhaps they would like to wait, but they can't, because they don't have the capitalist's wealth.

The capitalist deserves to be paid because he waits, and he is capable of waiting because he has wealth. So the capitalist deserves to be paid because he has wealth. He gets money for the virtue of already having money. That is highly unjust, and, more importantly, unnecessary. The capitalist is not needed. We could distribute his money to the workers and then they could do the waiting if they wanted.

The second problem with your argument is that, whatever the ten year old $1 million might be worth in 1860, it is certainly a finite amount. More than $1 million, but still finite. The capitalist, however, receives a potentially infinite amount of money from his investment (the only thing that prevents it from being infinite in practice is the capitalist's death; but if you were immortal, you could easily get an infinite return on your investment; and if you count your children's inheritance of your property, the return really is infinite).

[Bud Struggle]

Theres a bullet in my pocket with your name on it Tom.

A shiny, silver bullet, just in case.

:sneaky:

The Soviet will speak Comrade--the Soviet will speak. Just so you know--no kidding aside, I and people like me will destroy your revolution and make it our own.

Really and truly.

Anyway--on with the festivities! :lol:

[Dervish]

The problem with your arguing is that it does not recognize that paying for tools today and waiting for years to get the money back is itself a productive activity, and that the interest earned by capital is the corresponding payment.

Consider a specific situation. A factory built during 1849 produces from 1850 to 1900. Having cost $1 million, it generates for its owner an income of 100 000$ a year. This, according to Marx, is either wealth produced by the workers who built the factory, which should go to them, or wealth stolen from the workers working in the factory, who in that case are being paid less than they really produce.

Assume that the workers who built the factory were paid $1 million, the total cost of building it. (For simplicity's sake I will ignore other costs of production. According to Marx, such costs ultimately can eb traced back to the cost of the labor of other workers at an earlier time). The money provided by the capitalist will be returned to him in the first 10 years. After that the income is, from Marxist standpoint, pure eexploitation.

This arguments depends on regarding the $1million paid in 1849, when the work was done, as being "equal" to $1million received over the next decade. The workers themselves would not agree with this. They would hardly have done the job if they expected to wait 10 years for their pay. If they had been willing and able to work on those terms, the capitalist would indeed have been superfluous; the workers could have built the factory themselves, working for free, received their pay over the next ten years, and continue to receive it for 40 years more. It is the function of the capitalist to pay them wages in advance. If he were not available to pay them, the factory would not be built and the goods would not be produced. He himself bears a cost, since he too would rather have the money to do as he wishes in 1850, instead of having it tied up and released slowly over a period of time. If is perfectly reasonable that he should receive something for his contribution.

Another way of making this point is to say that money representes a bundle of alternatives. If i have ten dollars now, I can either spend it taking my girlfriend to a restaurant, or use it as bus fare somewhere, or... Having additional alternatives is always desirable, since then i have a wider range from which to pick the most attractive. Money is easily stored, so i do not have to spend it when i get it; 10 dollars today can either be saved until tomorrow and spend on one of the alternatives possible for 10 dollars tomorrow, or it can be spent today if i see an alternative more atractive than any i expect to see later. Thus, ten dollars today is worth more than ten dollars tomorrow. This is why interest rates exist, why, if i borrow ten dollars from you today, i must give back a little more than ten dollars tomorrow.

The advantage of money today over money tomorrow is tiny, as is the interest accumulated by ten dollars one day. When the time involved is a substantial portion of a man's life, the difference in value is also substantial.

It is not a matter of indiference to me whther i can buy a house for my family today or ten years from now. Nor is the ten years insignificant to the man who lends me money now and expects to receive something in exchange. The Marxists are wrong to regard interest received by a capitalist or paid by a debtor to a creditor as stolen money. It is actually a payment for value received.

It's unethical to exploit, even if you worked to get the 'means' that allow the exploitation (private property).

[Pogue]

The Soviet will speak Comrade--the Soviet will speak. Just so you know--no kidding aside, I and people like me will destroy your revolution and make it our own.

Really and truly.

Anyway--on with the festivities! :lol:

How do you intend to do this oh cunning one.

[cappiej]

Private property over land and houses you do not occupy is illegitimate.

In other words, we would indeed take away houses that are not being used by their owners. If you own a house that you don't live in, and rent it out to someone else, then you're getting money for nothing. Rent money is acquired without any work on the part of the landlord. Do you want people to get money without working?

Why do you support laziness?


Except black people haven't done anything wrong to deserve being sent to Jamaica. But capitalists have done something wrong - they've exploited the working class.

Don't you want criminals punished? So do we. We think capitalists are criminals. Wanting criminals punished does not make you a supporter of a "coercive ideology."


Actually, yes. Don't you support the police? Policemen are "thugs for the right reasons."


Unlikely, because the whole point is that the SWP would collectivize houses which are not occupied by their owners.

Capitalists are not criminals.

Its not laziness, someone had to buy that house, they had to spend money, money acquired through entrepreunerial skill or hard work. If it was gifted to them then that's fine too because whoever did work for the house wanted them to have it.

Its okay to be a thug?

So basically you decide Blacks don't deserve being sent to Jamaica but capitalists deserve to be robbed? Basically its mob rule, if everyone decides Black people deserve to be sent to Jamaica then its okay is it?

How about if before your regime comes to power the owner happens to gift his/her 15 houses to 15 members of his family who then decide to occupy them? Or you have reverse-rent and pay a homeless person to live in your house to avoid having the government steal it, is that okay, everyone wins, no?

Or how about if its held in a blind trust and the executor of the trust is overseas and cannot be contacted, his mobile phone isn't working for some reason. Unfortunately the beneficiary of the trust doesn't know the contents of the trust, you can't take something from him you don't know he doesn't own.

What qualifies as lived in? If you spend 10 days a year at 35 different houses is that okay?

I see a lot of property lawyers becoming very wealthy under your system, let's face it, smart people don't go to work for the government, they go to work against the government and find loopholes in the laws the government passes. Do you REALLY think that will ever change?

[cappiej]

I notice how you lack critizism on all my points except on the exact manner by which I would bring forth my reforms. Calling the manner barbaric hardly renders it ineffective.

As to the people who would halt progress in order to masturbate their individualistic fantasies, I would shoot them, and anyone who would dare to promote their kind of actions publicly. Besides, in socialism there is no government. There would be worker communes run not by any officials, but by workers themselves through direct democracy.


So, apparently fascism = forbidding anything? If not, please elaborate.

No freedom of speech then?

You think you'll shoot them and they won't shoot back?

I think within a week of your 'government', or non government rather, coming to power it would be toppled. You'd be cut off by all civilsed nations, probably get the big companies and security services of various countries plotting your downfall.

[cappiej]

Its not so much that we want to steal their houses, its that we want to put the rich fuckers to death then consume their corpse, just like they did back in Russia.

I felt obliged to clear that up.

You sound like a nice person.

[Havet]

Wait, so buying something today (like land), then doing nothing for a few years and eventually getting back more money than you spent...

...is a productive activity? Waiting is productive? We need a special class of people to do all our waiting for us?


There are two problems with that argument: First, it does not explain why there needs to be a capitalist in the first place. As I said above, you're basically arguing that the capitalist does all the waiting for us. Ok. Why do we need someone to do our waiting for us? Why do the workers need to, essentially, pay someone to wait? Surely it would be cheaper to wait for themselves!

This arguments depends on regarding the $1million paid in 1849, when the work was done, as being "equal" to $1million received over the next decade. The workers themselves would not agree with this. They would hardly have done the job if they expected to wait 10 years for their pay. If they had been willing and able to work on those terms, the capitalist would indeed have been superfluous; the workers could have built the factory themselves, working for free, received their pay over the next ten years, and continue to receive it for 40 years more.

So basically what the capitalist does is PAY in advance. But yeah workers could do it themselves, like ive argued once:


why cannot a bunch of workers of a company save enough money for enough time so they can buy +50% share of the company that owns where they work? after that, the company would be theirs to do as they please. They could make a cooperative, a commune, whatever, and stop being bossed around by "capitalists".

How much would it cost workers to purchase their firms? the total value of the shares of all stocks listen on the new york stock exhange in 1965 was 537 billion dollars. the total wages and salaries of all private employees that year was 288.5 billion. state and federal income taxes totalled 75.2 billion. if the workers had chosen to live at the consumption standard of hippies, they could have gotten a majority share in every firm in 2 and a half years and bought the capitalists out, lock, stock, and barrel, in five. That is a substantial cost, but surely cheaper than organizing a revolution, where people can be killed.

Also less of a gamble, and unlike a revolution, it dosn't have to be all at once. the employees of one firm can buy it this decade, then use their profits to help fellow workers buy theirs later. when you buy stock, you pay not only for the capital assets-buildings, machines, inventory, and the like- but also for its experience,reputation, and organization. If workers can really run firms better, these are unnecessary; all they need are physical assets. Those assets-the net working capital of all corportations in the United States-in 1965-totalled 171.7billion dollars. The workers could buy that much and go into business for themselves with fourteen months worth of savings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Why is the capitalist able to wait, and the workers are not? Because he owns capital. He can live for 10 years before making a positive return on his investment. The workers, however, cannot wait 10 years to receive their wages, because then they would starve. Perhaps they would like to wait, but they can't, because they don't have the capitalist's wealth. answered above how the workers could do this if they disliked capitalists for whatever reason.


The capitalist deserves to be paid because he waits, and he is capable of waiting because he has wealth. So the capitalist deserves to be paid because he has wealth. He gets money for the virtue of already having money. That is highly unjust, and, more importantly, unnecessary. The capitalist is not needed. We could distribute his money to the workers and then they could do the waiting if they wanted.

A (free-market non-statist non-corporatist) Capitalist deserves to be paid because he allowed the whole action of building and maintaining a factory and paying wages in advance to occur in the first place.

"He himself bears a cost, since he too would rather have the money to do as he wishes in 1850, instead of having it tied up and released slowly over a period of time."


The second problem with your argument is that, whatever the ten year old $1 million might be worth in 1860, it is certainly a finite amount. More than $1 million, but still finite. The capitalist, however, receives a potentially infinite amount of money from his investment (the only thing that prevents it from being infinite in practice is the capitalist's death; but if you were immortal, you could easily get an infinite return on your investment; and if you count your children's inheritance of your property, the return really is infinite).

It is not "finite". I think you might have overlooked my other arguments about time:

Money is easily stored, so i do not have to spend it when i get it; 10 dollars today can either be saved until tomorrow and spend on one of the alternatives possible for 10 dollars tomorrow, or it can be spent today if i see an alternative more atractive than any i expect to see later. Thus, ten dollars today is worth more than ten dollars tomorrow. This is why interest rates exist, why, if i borrow ten dollars from you today, i must give back a little more than ten dollars tomorrow."


The money the capitalist gives is more valuable in that instant than in the future, because of the different choices available. And because the results are due only in 10 years, the percentage the capitalist receives must be higher than if they were only due in 5 years, for example.

[trivas7]

[...] I would, however, say that we should do everything in our power to create a system where there are no homeless.

To me, this means there shouldn't be people with 15 houses.
You've just move the goal posts w/out justifying the premise: why should we do everything in our power to insure homelessness? Many homeless people I know don't want to be housed and would consider it aggression to force them to be.

[danyboy27]

Theres a bullet in my pocket with your name on it Tom.

A shiny, silver bullet, just in case.

:sneaky:
http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/e-thug-white-demotivational-poster.jpg

[NecroCommie]

No freedom of speech then?

You think you'll shoot them and they won't shoot back?

I think within a week of your 'government', or non government rather, coming to power it would be toppled. You'd be cut off by all civilsed nations, probably get the big companies and security services of various countries plotting your downfall.
A-Ha!
You have just described me the theory of class-struggle. Ofcourse the owning class would oppose this! They would be mad not to. But here's the newsflash: the opressed outnumber the opressors with ridiculous margins! Your pathetic bourgeois uprising will be utterly crushed, as it was crushed by the red guards of Lenin in Russia. We have also just described the birth of every communist uprising in history.

Besides, did not your own original question assume socialist dominance? If the socialists were in power, how would they solve the situation?

And ofcourse there will be freedom of speech. It is unlikely however that any democratic commune after a revolution would allow hate speech and promotion of slavery. Because that is how we view nationalism, monetary system and private possession of means of production.

Ps. Now that the communists are gaining support in the third world, which faction would you think to outnumber the other there? The owner, or the owned?

[cappiej]

http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/e-thug-white-demotivational-poster.jpg

I was about to comment on the pleasant and refreshing absence of internet tough guys here, but then I heard someone's plan to shoot those who didn't want their homes to be stolen.

[Dervish]

Do you want to get money without working?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=7392&d=1247350538

[danyboy27]

I was about to comment on the pleasant and refreshing absence of internet tough guys here, but then I heard someone's plan to shoot those who didn't want their homes to be stolen.


you are on revleft man, what did you expect?

[trivas7]

The money the capitalist gives is more valuable in that instant than in the future, because of the different choices available. And because the results are due only in 10 years, the percentage the capitalist receives must be higher than if they were only due in 5 years, for example.
Indeed; lefties choose to forget that time is a most valuable factor of production.

[NecroCommie]

True enough that time contributes, yet capitalism in itself weakens the impact of time. One so called "market failure" is the flawed planning of products on purpose. The markets need consumption in the future too, so the different products of great companies are planned not to last forever, so there would be demand later on also.

Besides: Time does not disappear anywhere during socialism. Money is only an attempt on trying to monitor and measure production. It by no means create it, nor is its calculating a reliable tool when determining volumes of production.

[cappiej]

you are on revleft man, what did you expect?

I didn't expect people to be talking about shooting people.

[danyboy27]

I didn't expect people to be talking about shooting people.

http://nioutaik.free.fr/images/dossier13/lol1.jpg

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This arguments depends on regarding the $1million paid in 1849, when the work was done, as being "equal" to $1million received over the next decade. The workers themselves would not agree with this. They would hardly have done the job if they expected to wait 10 years for their pay.
Actually, the amount of time a person is willing to wait for his pay depends on the amount of money he already has. The more money you already have, the longer you can wait.

The workers may be as willing as the capitalist to wait for 10 years if they had the capitalist's wealth.

So, again, as I said before, the capitalist gets money because he already has money, and the workers lose money (by "paying" the capitalist in the form of profit) because they don't have enough money.


If they had been willing and able to work on those terms, the capitalist would indeed have been superfluous; the workers could have built the factory themselves, working for free, received their pay over the next ten years, and continue to receive it for 40 years more.
Except the workers would starve if they had no income for 10 years.


why cannot a bunch of workers of a company save enough money for enough time so they can buy +50% share of the company that owns where they work?
Because it requires a very large number of people to get together, agree on something, stick to that agreement for years, and trust that everyone else will stick to the agreement as well.

I don't have to tell you why such things are extremely difficult to pull off.


How much would it cost workers to purchase their firms? the total value of the shares of all stocks listen on the new york stock exhange in 1965 was 537 billion dollars. the total wages and salaries of all private employees that year was 288.5 billion. state and federal income taxes totalled 75.2 billion. if the workers had chosen to live at the consumption standard of hippies, they could have gotten a majority share in every firm in 2 and a half years and bought the capitalists out, lock, stock, and barrel, in five. That is a substantial cost, but surely cheaper than organizing a revolution, where people can be killed.
Yes, except it would require hundreds of millions of people to work together flawlessly towards this one goal.

If it were possible to achieve that level of unity, workers wouldn't even need to wait 5 years - they could destroy both capitalism and the state tomorrow, without firing a single shot, by telling the bosses and the politicians: "We hereby refuse to take any more orders from you. We outnumber you 100 to 1. We will not fight for you, we will not produce bullets for your guns, we will not transport fuel for your tanks. You are defeated. Surrender."


A (free-market non-statist non-corporatist) Capitalist deserves to be paid because he allowed the whole action of building and maintaining a factory and paying wages in advance to occur in the first place.
But we only need him to "allow" it because he controls the means of production. If we controlled the means of production, we would not need him to allow us to do things.


It is not "finite". I think you might have overlooked my other arguments about time:

"Money is easily stored, so i do not have to spend it when i get it; 10 dollars today can either be saved until tomorrow and spend on one of the alternatives possible for 10 dollars tomorrow, or it can be spent today if i see an alternative more atractive than any i expect to see later. Thus, ten dollars today is worth more than ten dollars tomorrow. This is why interest rates exist, why, if i borrow ten dollars from you today, i must give back a little more than ten dollars tomorrow."
First of all, you could borrow ten dollars from me today and I would never demand from you any interest above the rate of inflation. But that's beside the point.

There are two points here:

1. You are only able to save money because you have money. Thus, if you are saying that saving needs to be rewarded, you are saying that people need to get paid for having money. You deserve more money because you already have money? Ridiculous.

2. Profit and rent are not about lending someone money today and expecting them in return to give you a greater sum of money in the future. Profit and rent are about lending someone money today and expecting them in return to give you a certain percentage of what they earn, forever.


The money the capitalist gives is more valuable in that instant than in the future, because of the different choices available. And because the results are due only in 10 years, the percentage the capitalist receives must be higher than if they were only due in 5 years, for example.
Perhaps, but the capitalist does not receive a fixed percentage for a fixed amount of time. He can keep making a profit forever. How is it that you can keep making a profit forever from a finite investment?

[NecroCommie]

I was about to comment on the pleasant and refreshing absence of internet tough guys here, but then I heard someone's plan to shoot those who didn't want their homes to be stolen.
It is a political stance to be a revolutionary. Not a personal threath. Yours is no better. Your guards just happen to make up officially sounding names to their crimes. Stealing is "confescating", Beating up is "using measures of force" and a toll is... wait a second, police does not even bother hiding the true nature of its actions all the time?! . Oh yeah, and you call it "the police". The violence that the police and the army conduct is in no way different to the violence different gangs and mobs like to do. Not in volume, not in motives. It just happens that the army and the police are "legimate".

Our guards differ little either, but at least we admit it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Indeed; lefties choose to forget that time is a most valuable factor of production.
Time is also available in plentiful - and equal - supply to everyone. Everyone can wait. It's literally the easiest job in the world.

You're saying the capitalists deserve to be the richest people in the world for doing the easiest job in the world.

[NecroCommie]

Many homeless people I know don't want to be housed and would consider it aggression to force them to be.
Now this is more of a real point here. I have thought upon this many times, and by no means do we force people to have a house. A home is a right, not a duty. I do expect many homeless to want a home however, even if there exists a portion of population who is homeless by choice.

I there is no one to claim a house, then we might consider letting people have secondary houses. Even then we would be careful on who to give them, for such an action would break the balance of material equality. The spare houses and summer cottages would be no doubt distributed democratically to the most achieving members of society, and communes might even trade with spare housing. Also there would be differences between communes on who to give them and whether to give at all. After all, they are all democratic communes.

[NecroCommie]

A-Ha!
You have just described me the theory of class-struggle. Ofcourse the owning class would oppose this! They would be mad not to. But here's the newsflash: the opressed outnumber the opressors with ridiculous margins! Your pathetic bourgeois uprising will be utterly crushed, as it was crushed by the red guards of Lenin in Russia. We have also just described the birth of every communist uprising in history.

Besides, did not your own original question assume socialist dominance? If the socialists were in power, how would they solve the situation?

And ofcourse there will be freedom of speech. It is unlikely however that any democratic commune after a revolution would allow hate speech and promotion of slavery. Because that is how we view nationalism, monetary system and private possession of means of production.

Ps. Now that the communists are gaining support in the third world, which faction would you think to outnumber the other there? The owner, or the owned?

It is naive to think that I would not notice my arguments being ignored, nor does ignoring prove anything. I demand an answer!

That is, if you have one. :cool:
Or am I to assume my divine speechcraft has rendered you all speecheless, for my earlier arguments were partly ignored as well!?

[Havet]

Actually, the amount of time a person is willing to wait for his pay depends on the amount of money he already has. The more money you already have, the longer you can wait.

The workers may be as willing as the capitalist to wait for 10 years if they had the capitalist's wealth.

So, again, as I said before, the capitalist gets money because he already has money, and the workers lose money (by "paying" the capitalist in the form of profit) because they don't have enough money.

They can do something else, get another job or colaborate toguether in a project.



Except the workers would starve if they had no income for 10 years. they can organize themselves and support themselves without a capitalist



Because it requires a very large number of people to get together, agree on something, stick to that agreement for years, and trust that everyone else will stick to the agreement as well.

I don't have to tell you why such things are extremely difficult to pull off.

Its difficult but its doable

And that same objective is what you are trying to achieve by a collective society: requires very large number of people to get together, agree on that type of social organization, stick to that agreement for years and trust everyone else will stick to the agreement as well.



Yes, except it would require hundreds of millions of people to work together flawlessly towards this one goal.

If it were possible to achieve that level of unity, workers wouldn't even need to wait 5 years - they could destroy both capitalism and the state tomorrow, without firing a single shot, by telling the bosses and the politicians: "We hereby refuse to take any more orders from you. We outnumber you 100 to 1. We will not fight for you, we will not produce bullets for your guns, we will not transport fuel for your tanks. You are defeated. Surrender."

yes well in the example it was about all the workers buying up all the businesses. Surely some workers buying some businesses is much more doable.



But we only need him to "allow" it because he controls the means of production. If we controlled the means of production, we would not need him to allow us to do things.

and workers can control the means of production themselves and outsmart him, by the ways shown above.



First of all, you could borrow ten dollars from me today and I would never demand from you any interest above the rate of inflation. But that's beside the point. of course. thats always doable.


There are two points here:

1. You are only able to save money because you have money. Thus, if you are saying that saving needs to be rewarded, you are saying that people need to get paid for having money. You deserve more money because you already have money? Ridiculous.

im saying people who have money and INVEST it in PRODUCTIVE actions on other people, and the other people agree in the contract, then its perfectly LEGITIMATE the lender gets an extra for lending the money and allowing the business to have a chance.


2. Profit and rent are not about lending someone money today and expecting them in return to give you a greater sum of money in the future. Profit and rent are about lending someone money today and expecting them in return to give you a certain percentage of what they earn, forever.

depends on the contract. i can contract to only pay certain interest until X years. which is what most banks already do.



Perhaps, but the capitalist does not receive a fixed percentage for a fixed amount of time. He can keep making a profit forever. How is it that you can keep making a profit forever from a finite investment?

actually a factory is not a finite investment. theres always costs, but so long as the returns are greater, then tthe factory can survive. the owner has to buy new materials, make new deals, hire new workers, so on.

[danyboy27]

i think the best compromise would be, has the governement, to rent those house in exchange of taxes reduction and rent them at a really small fee to poor families stuck in verry small 3 room appartements.

a better environnement cam make the difference between a homeless kid and a educated kid that will become a scientist, or at least a worker.

[NecroCommie]

They can do something else, get another job or colaborate toguether in a project.
Clearly you have not been to the third world, where the majority of workers reside.




the owner has to buy new materials, make new deals, hire new workers, so on.
1. No he does not! The boss does the administrative job, while all the owner has to do is sit on his briefcase of shares.

2. All jobs that the workers can easily manage democratically. Tested and proven time and time again.

[cappiej]

Now this is more of a real point here. I have thought upon this many times, and by no means do we force people to have a house. A home is a right, not a duty. I do expect many homeless to want a home however, even if there exists a portion of population who is homeless by choice.

I there is no one to claim a house, then we might consider letting people have secondary houses. Even then we would be careful on who to give them, for such an action would break the balance of material equality. The spare houses and summer cottages would be no doubt distributed democratically to the most achieving members of society, and communes might even trade with spare housing. Also there would be differences between communes on who to give them and whether to give at all. After all, they are all democratic communes.

A home is a right, I agree.

[NecroCommie]

a better environnement cam make the difference between a homeless kid and a educated kid that will become a scientist, or at least a worker.
Come here and say that again! This was not a threath, but a reference to my position in a socialist democratic society, where there are homeless people and poor people. All this in society where 100% of the population can read and write (thats right, a round hundred), and where university level education is a prerequisite for most jobs, even those of mundane nature.

If huge portions of the population are educated, it does not increase the welfare, but it only increases the competition in the market of good jobs. Believe me, for I have experienced this many times.

[danyboy27]

Come here and say that again! This was not a threath, but a reference to my position in a socialist democratic society, where there are homeless people and poor people. All this in society where 100% of the population can read and write (thats right, a round hundred), and where university level education is a prerequisite for most jobs, even those of mundane nature.

If huge portions of the population are educated, it does not increase the welfare, but it only increases the competition in the market of good jobs. Believe me, for I have experienced this many times.

if you dont feel like competing at least a good education will make you more able to face life, more ressourcefull, more able to do something of your life.

also, people need to stop putting their trust in governements/organizations/buisness.

if you think that beccause you got a scolarship you will receive a job, you better think again.

the only person you can trust is yourself and a tiny number of individual belonging to your inner circle, the rest are more likely to deceive you.

a lot of people are in misery not beccause they are lazy but beccause they tend to believe in stuff, believe that the buisness that employed you for 10 year will keep you, believe that the governement will help you if you are in trouble, believe that the cops are gonna help you if you are in trouble, believe that guy who promosed you a job,believe that x political party will end your suffering.

after being deceived a lot of time, hope die, that why there is a lot of people in plain misery in this world.

i have hope, hope in myself, hope i can do better, that all i have, that really all people have at the end.

[Demogorgon]

Indeed; lefties choose to forget that time is a most valuable factor of production.
It isn't a factor of production. A capitalist is not supplying time no matter what metaphysical hoops you jump through. The crux of the Austrian argument is that you need capital up front to produce a good so you need finance before any rewards from creating it come about. In other words it takes time for workers to reap the reward from work, time they can't really afford, the capitalist is allowing the rewards to be experienced immediately as well as making production possible in the first place.

Okay, great. People need an "advance" on what they are doing, but that in no way explains why we need capitalists. The only reason they provide this "service" is because they monopolise the capital. If there was a collectively owned investment fund for instance that could be given to various different projects as was decided then precisely the same service could be provided by the workers themselves without any parasitical capitalist.

[trivas7]

A home is a right, I agree.
What right have you to force someone to provide them?

[Rosa Provokateur]

I'd say the homeless could squat it but since I dont advocate a government, I dont really know. Yeah, squat it:)

[cappiej]

What right have you to force someone to provide them?

A right, not an entitlement.

By right I mean you're free to go and buy yourself one, no-one else has to though.

[trivas7]

It isn't a factor of production. A capitalist is not supplying time no matter what metaphysical hoops you jump through.
Time is always scarce and a means to be economized. The concept of period of production and duration of serviceability are present in all human production.

[Demogorgon]

Time is always scarce and a means to be economized. The concept of period of production and duration of serviceability are present in all human production.
There is no shortage of it. What you mean, or at least what the theory you are alluding to means is that the future rewards of present work often have to be brought forward. It justifies the capitalist on the basis that it is the capitalist that does this, but there is no need for such an entity.

[trivas7]

There is no shortage of it. What you mean, or at least what the theory you are alluding to means is that the future rewards of present work often have to be brought forward. It justifies the capitalist on the basis that it is the capitalist that does this, but there is no need for such an entity.
I never mentioned capitalists.

Man prefers his end to be achieved in the shortest possible time. With any given production process, the shorter period of production, the more preferable to the producer. This universal factor of time preference has huge implications for the production process.

[Plagueround]

You've just move the goal posts w/out justifying the premise: why should we do everything in our power to insure homelessness? Many homeless people I know don't want to be housed and would consider it aggression to force them to be.

If it would help, what I mean is no one should be forced to be homeless. I've known many a person that enjoyed traveling and not having an established residence, but that is not what I'm talking about. As for the justification for such a system, I was discussing with my family earlier today how I don't really believe in moral absolution, so all I can say is I feel it would be beneficial to have a society that doesn't force people to live homeless in the streets. I don't feel it's good for them and I don't feel it's good for society as a whole. If you need a moral angle, build one around that I suppose.

[Havet]

if you dont feel like competing at least a good education will make you more able to face life, more ressourcefull, more able to do something of your life.

also, people need to stop putting their trust in governements/organizations/buisness.

if you think that beccause you got a scolarship you will receive a job, you better think again.

the only person you can trust is yourself and a tiny number of individual belonging to your inner circle, the rest are more likely to deceive you.

a lot of people are in misery not beccause they are lazy but beccause they tend to believe in stuff, believe that the buisness that employed you for 10 year will keep you, believe that the governement will help you if you are in trouble, believe that the cops are gonna help you if you are in trouble, believe that guy who promosed you a job,believe that x political party will end your suffering.

after being deceived a lot of time, hope die, that why there is a lot of people in plain misery in this world.

i have hope, hope in myself, hope i can do better, that all i have, that really all people have at the end.

well said. I also agree, people shouldnt be overly dependant of institutions: governments, businesses, charities, etc

With the explosion of internet THERE IS NO EXCUSE to not learn anything and to not do anything. The only scarce resource is now Time.

[Havet]

Clearly you have not been to the third world, where the majority of workers reside. they can still do something else:

1-Farm their own land (thats right, in most third world countries, especially in africa, almost everyone has land, although its teerribly hard to farm it)
2-engage in business activities by self-employment
3-immigrate and get another job
4-immigrate and become self-employed somewhere else
5-start a commune/collective with several other people and work ways to support one another through voluntary action.



1. No he does not! The boss does the administrative job, while all the owner has to do is sit on his briefcase of shares.

2. All jobs that the workers can easily manage democratically. Tested and proven time and time again.

and most owners are the ones that do the administrative job. Even if all owners hired someone else to do it, they made the whole thing POSSIBLE. They provided jobs, they provided product/services, they mightve allowed more businesses to appear by this new product/service, etc, so its only fair he gets something in return for his action.

If workers can do it well, then why don't they START their own factories by themselves? Or they want to STEAL them first so they dont have to go through the capitalist's troubles?

As argued in page 3, workers CAN buy up the companies OR start one themselves, although it would require a lot of trust and cooperation, but its still doable.

[trivas7]

If it would help, what I mean is no one should be forced to be homeless. I've known many a person that enjoyed traveling and not having an established residence, but that is not what I'm talking about. As for the justification for such a system, I was discussing with my family earlier today how I don't really believe in moral absolution, so all I can say is I feel it would be beneficial to have a society that doesn't force people to live homeless in the streets. I don't feel it's good for them and I don't feel it's good for society as a whole. If you need a moral angle, build one around that I suppose.
You just articulated the libertarian principle of non-aggression. No on should be forced to ______. To say everyone has the right to a home means: someone must be forced to provide them.

[cappiej]

To say everyone has the right to a home means: someone must be forced to provide them.

:thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1:

Maybe now they will understand what I'm saying, they won't agree with it but at least they will understand it.

Actually change right to entitlement and I agree entirely, I do believe everyone has a right to a home, but is not entitled to one.

[New Tet]

You just articulated the libertarian principle of non-aggression. No on should be forced to ______. To say everyone has the right to a home means: someone must be forced to provide them.

The operative word, I think, is involuntary, not "forced" Under capitalism, most, if not all poverty is involuntary.

[trivas7]

The operative word, I think, is involuntary, not "forced" Under capitalism, most, if not all poverty is involuntary.
But poverty is not an action; it isn't voluntary or involuntary at all.

[Havet]

But poverty is not an action; it isn't voluntary or involuntary at all.

it's not an action, but its the result of an action (or lack of the action) which can be voluntary or involuntary.

[NecroCommie]

if you dont feel like competing at least a good education will make you more able to face life, more ressourcefull, more able to do something of your life.
But this would prove that your ah, so perfect-solution would be no solution at all. Correct? Even you agreed that the increasing of education does not help a squat in having a good life if the same education is shared by all.

also, people need to stop putting their trust in governements/organizations/buisness.
People achieve nothing by themselves. Those who build strong communities have always been superior, and continue to be superior in the future. This is not even an argument, but a recorded fact. So feel free to linger in the illusion of western individualism, but the communities will always prevail.


if you think that beccause you got a scolarship you will receive a job, you better think again.
Ah, but it was not me who proposed such a ridiculous thing, aye? I actually tried to point that out.


the only person you can trust is yourself and a tiny number of individual belonging to your inner circle, the rest are more likely to deceive you.
If you are not treated well stop blaming other people and reflect. Perhaps the reason is you and not the others. Personally I am surrounded by people I can trust and who continue to help me through even the hardest of perils. The small margin of people I cannot seem to trust tends to be rather... conservatist.


a lot of people are in misery not beccause they are lazy but beccause they tend to believe in stuff, believe that the buisness that employed you for 10 year will keep you, believe that the governement will help you if you are in trouble, believe that the cops are gonna help you if you are in trouble, believe that guy who promosed you a job,believe that x political party will end your suffering.
Welcome to capitalism. In capitalism those all betrayers have an intrest in betraying. Socialism removes all material intrests, albeit the emotional intrests stay. Besides, yet again you would do wrong to be so stereotyping. If you have had experiences of betrayal, they have been no doubt due to you being a bad judge of character, or due to your own attitude. Those experiences should prove the futility of individualism.


after being deceived a lot of time, hope die, that why there is a lot of people in plain misery in this world.
"snicker"... EMO! "points finger"


i have hope, hope in myself, hope i can do better, that all i have, that really all people have at the end.
What a lie! Elitist romantic bullshit without a hint of science behind it. People are miserable because either their social skills and understanding of community life is zero, or they have somehow succeeded in surrounding themselves with such people.

Please stop pretending to know better what hopes I have and what I have in the end.

[trivas7]

it's not an action, but its the result of an action (or lack of the action) which can be voluntary or involuntary.
Insofar as poverty is a subjective experience I would agree w/ this. One can simply decide whether or not one is poor; there is no absolute criteria of wealth or poverty.

[New Tet]

But poverty is not an action; it isn't voluntary or involuntary at all.

Economic poverty is a social and individual condition that in most cases is involuntary. Most people do not choose to be poor; they are either born that way or made poor by circumstances beyond their control. Under capitalism that is the case. When workers are layed off or locked out of their jobs they are forced by the employer to accept new conditions that lead to increased insecurity and poverty.

You cannot reduce the tyranny of capitalism to a question of individual choice.

[danyboy27]

But this would prove that your ah, so perfect-solution would be no solution at all. Correct? Even you agreed that the increasing of education does not help a squat in having a good life if the same education is shared by all.

nobody have the same education, on a higher scolarship you choose what you study, your course and your specialisation. on the top of that some people are more skilled in certain stuff. nothing perfect man, you should know that.




People achieve nothing by themselves. Those who build strong communities have always been superior, and continue to be superior in the future. This is not even an argument, but a recorded fact. So feel free to linger in the illusion of western individualism, but the communities will always prevail.
.
well, strong communities are the result of people who trusted eachother and get their shit together to create something meaningful. Communities can be established with people who know well, and with people you dont have constant conflict with.

when i mentionned that people trust too much, i was trying to say blindfully trust.





Ah, but it was not me who proposed such a ridiculous thing, aye? I actually tried to point that out.

then we agree on that. better education was preferable but not something that necessarly prevail.




If you are not treated well stop blaming other people and reflect. Perhaps the reason is you and not the others. Personally I am surrounded by people I can trust and who continue to help me through even the hardest of perils. The small margin of people I cannot seem to trust tends to be rather... conservatist.
.
it work for you, dosnt mean it work for everyone. You have the luxury to be surrounded by a lot of people you can trust, i dont really have that chance, and most of the folks i know dosnt have that chance either. and its not beccause they didnt tried.



Welcome to capitalism. In capitalism those all betrayers have an intrest in betraying. Socialism removes all material intrests, albeit the emotional intrests stay. Besides, yet again you would do wrong to be so stereotyping. If you have had experiences of betrayal, they have been no doubt due to you being a bad judge of character, or due to your own attitude. Those experiences should prove the futility of individualism.


i dont have any problem with character judging, i can make people trust me without any real effort, but if they want to get trusted they have to give me some proof of that.
i dont think capitalism is the real issue here, opportunist and trickster will always exist to fuck you over if you dont stay careful, always been like that.



"snicker"... EMO! "points finger"



i am not sad, i live an happy life so far. i dont put myself in the mood of a victim and i fight my way trough it like i always did.




What a lie! Elitist romantic bullshit without a hint of science behind it. People are miserable because either their social skills and understanding of community life is zero, or they have somehow succeeded in surrounding themselves with such people.


this is an important factor too. i know its not based on science, its based on my own personnal knowledge of povrety and the way i say people who tried to get out of povrety putting all their trust in governement programs or x buddies who promised them a job. at the end, after a lot of unsuccesfull effort, they abandonned completly.

[Dr Mindbender]

Capitalists are not criminals.

That depends wether or not you subscribe to the bourgeioise definition of criminality i suppose.

I think allowing 19 000 children to die every day of preventable causes in a world where a single nation produces enough food to feed triple the global population is criminal.



Its not laziness, someone had to buy that house, they had to spend money, money acquired through entrepreunerial skill or hard work.
Or inherited, or loan sharked, or exappropriated by way of wage slavery... etc



If it was gifted to them then that's fine too because whoever did work for the house wanted them to have it.
Thats assuming that the terms were based on mutually beneficial and non-coercive circumstances and under capitalism, that is almost never the case.



Its okay to be a thug?

Thug is an emotive and unhelpful term. Force in spite of an equally brutal oppressor can be justified.



So basically you decide Blacks don't deserve being sent to Jamaica but capitalists deserve to be robbed?
For the most part, 'blacks' (whichever demographic you mean since that could also apply to non-carribean blacks) are not labour theives. The bourgeioise are.



Basically its mob rule,
If you want to use that term, we tend to prefer 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.



if everyone decides Black people deserve to be sent to Jamaica then its okay is it?
What is your obsession with sending black people to Jamaica?

No it wouldnt be alright because we strive to acheive socially just objectives. Removing people on the basis of their race is not one.



How about if before your regime comes to power the owner happens to gift his/her 15 houses to 15 members of his family who then decide to occupy them? Or you have reverse-rent and pay a homeless person to live in your house to avoid having the government steal it, is that okay, everyone wins, no?
You have to understand there is a difference between bourgeioise and proletarian property.

bourgeioise property is recieved by means of other people's labour. The reverse is true for the proletarians. Property would be redistributed on that basis.



Or how about if its held in a blind trust and the executor of the trust is overseas and cannot be contacted, his mobile phone isn't working for some reason. Unfortunately the beneficiary of the trust doesn't know the contents of the trust, you can't take something from him you don't know he doesn't own.
I dont care. If he didnt work for the money it isnt his.



What qualifies as lived in? If you spend 10 days a year at 35 different houses is that okay?
Again the point is moot. Property that you accumulate, through co-ercion or labour theft is never okay.



I see a lot of property lawyers becoming very wealthy under your system, let's face it, smart people don't go to work for the government, they go to work against the government and find loopholes in the laws the government passes. Do you REALLY think that will ever change?

There will be no property lawyers. Property in the capitalist convention will cease to be in an abundancy society. With no scarcity in force, there will be no need to steal and with no criminality there will be no laws to enforce ergo no lawyers.

[Plagueround]

You just articulated the libertarian principle of non-aggression. No on should be forced to ______. To say everyone has the right to a home means: someone must be forced to provide them.

I think that demonstrates how futile such black and white statements are. I could easily turn that statement around and say "no one should be forced to be without a home because the resources to get on have been withheld from them in some way". Although I did just see a few posts down people discussing how poverty was a voluntary action, as well as some laughable "suggestions for the third world", so this is probably where I walk away from this thread shaking my head.

[trivas7]

[...] "no one should be forced to be without a home because the resources to get on have been withheld from them in some way"
Only in Marxist mythology is this the case.

[Dr Mindbender]

Only in Marxist mythology is this the case.


I'd rather live in a marxist 'myth' than an objectivist dystopia.

[trivas7]

I'd rather live in a marxist 'myth' than an objectivist dystopia.
Agreed (I think) :(.

[danyboy27]

anyway, last message for necrocommie.

i dont pretend i know everything or that i am better or smarter than you, its my perceptions of things, you may disagree, and my preception might change in the future, i dodnt wanted to attack you in any way, even if it seemed that way in my past post.

just so you know.

[Marxist Madman]

I don't believe this is theft for the homeless need shelter too.
My father is in Real Estate; he buys a house, fixes it up, and sells it. Where we live we call this a flipper. What does this do for the economy? For the people who need a house? Nothing. Real estate therefore housing should be nationalized; lest people should exploit it, own 15 houses, or just keep buying and selling them.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't believe this is theft for the homeless need shelter too.
My father is in Real Estate; he buys a house, fixes it up, and sells it. Where we live we call this a flipper. What does this do for the economy? For the people who need a house? Nothing. Real estate therefore housing should be nationalized; lest people should exploit it, own 15 houses, or just keep buying and selling them.

If people need a house they can just work and buy one from your father. The problem with "nationalizing" housing is that everyone would have to live in similar housing--there are people out here that would rather work a bit and buy something a bit bigger or fancier. When you standardize thing you reduce them to their lowest denominator.

On the other hand there is nothing wrong with the state founding homeless shelters. Part of the reason for the state to begin with is to provide for the general welfare of its citizens.

[cappiej]

Economic poverty is a social and individual condition that in most cases is involuntary. Most people do not choose to be poor; they are either born that way or made poor by circumstances beyond their control. Under capitalism that is the case. When workers are layed off or locked out of their jobs they are forced by the employer to accept new conditions that lead to increased insecurity and poverty.

You cannot reduce the tyranny of capitalism to a question of individual choice.

'Their' jobs, now I disagree, if your employer doesn't want you then its not your job is it? Its only your job for as long as you hold it.

Once again, its a matter of people who support entitlements and those who don't.

[cappiej]

I don't believe this is theft for the homeless need shelter too.
My father is in Real Estate; he buys a house, fixes it up, and sells it. Where we live we call this a flipper. What does this do for the economy? For the people who need a house? Nothing. Real estate therefore housing should be nationalized; lest people should exploit it, own 15 houses, or just keep buying and selling them.

So I take it you're going to be donating what your father gives you when he dies to charity are you?

Well if he's fixing it up then he's adding value, its hardly like a purely speculative market that some people say it is. At least not if you alter a house, if you go in and buy 1000 houses and hope the market will go up and the value will double in two or three years and you'll sell them then I agree you're not contributing to anything (though you should still be free to do it in my opinion) but if you're adding value then that's fine.

Its like taking an old car, sticking in a new engine, giving it a paint job and re-selling it, should people not be able to do that?

[Dr Mindbender]

If people need a house they can just work and buy one from your father. The problem with "nationalizing" housing is that everyone would have to live in similar housing--there are people out here that would rather work a bit and buy something a bit bigger or fancier. When you standardize thing you reduce them to their lowest denominator.
.

Nationalising under socialism and under capitalism is not the same.

Reason being, nationalism under capitalism is operated on a hands-off basis by indifferent politicians and party cronies who only have the energy and care to run a one-size fits all system of nationalised management. For the most part, there is little incentive for them to go the extra mile for their constituents since for the most part, their actively voting, politically aware constituents can afford private housing.

Since socialist nationalisation incorporates the input of all, then changes can be made more quickly, allowing for greater flexibility and less bureaucracy in terms of need management, and yes, individualisation.

[cappiej]

Nationalising under socialism and under capitalism is not the same.

Reason being, nationalism under capitalism is operated on a hands-off basis by indifferent politicians and party cronies who only have the energy and care to run a one-size fits all system of nationalised management. For the most part, there is little incentive for them to go the extra mile for their constituents since for the most part, their actively voting, politically aware constituents can afford private housing.

Since socialist nationalisation incorporates the input of all, then changes can be made more quickly, allowing for greater flexibility and less bureaucracy in terms of need management, and yes, individualisation.

Individualisation?

Okay, under your system two people want the same house, does the guy who offers more get it, if not how do you work it out? Some utterly arbitrary basis like by name alphabetically?

[Nwoye]

Insofar as poverty is a subjective experience I would agree w/ this. One can simply decide whether or not one is poor; there is no absolute criteria of wealth or poverty.
:blink: