Inheritance

[lots of laughs]

I think most socialists are against any sort of meaningful inheritance (not mentioning sentimental items or the like). Yet, in the current system, the only way I can see inheritance being done away with, is if the property goes to the state. But aren't most socialists here wanting to go to a communist system without a state? How do you propose inheritance work before the revolution? For those who are not socialists, what do you think of inheritance? Do you support it or not? What are the arguments for inheritance from your perspective?

[danyboy27]

I think most socialists are against any sort of meaningful inheritance (not mentioning sentimental items or the like). Yet, in the current system, the only way I can see inheritance being done away with, is if the property goes to the state. But aren't most socialists here wanting to go to a communist system without a state? How do you propose inheritance work before the revolution? For those who are not socialists, what do you think of inheritance? Do you support it or not? What are the arguments for inheritance from your perspective?

Inheritance only matter concerning the mean of production.

a house isnt a mean of production.

[Thug Lessons]

If society is transformed so radically that we no longer require a state, then it would also be transformed such that the family as we understand it would no longer exist. Inheritance along 'family' lines would make no sense.

[danyboy27]

If society is transformed so radically that we no longer require a state, then it would also be transformed such that the family as we understand it would no longer exist. Inheritance along 'family' lines would make no sense.

keep deluding yourself.

[Thug Lessons]

keep deluding yourself.

This was a really useful post, so I hit the "Thanks !" button. But you might be interested in Engels's Origin of the Family, which details how family structures have changed with changing modes of production, or some of the works of Margaret Mead, an anthropologist who studied societies where family structures were radically different than our own. Maybe they will inspire you to start thinking about how our conception of the family could improve in the future.

[Bud Struggle]

If I own a hat and want to give it to my kid--it's my hat, what business is it of your what I do with it?

If I own a factory and want to give it to my kid--it's my factory, what business is it of your what I do with it?

[Bud Struggle]

If society is transformed so radically that we no longer require a state, then it would also be transformed such that the family as we understand it would no longer exist. Inheritance along 'family' lines would make no sense.

Yes I understand what you are saying--and no, no thanks to the idea. Families with or without inheritance are quite a wonderful idea. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[danyboy27]

This was a really useful post, so I hit the "Thanks !" button. But you might be interested in Engels's Origin of the Family, which details how family structures have changed with changing modes of production, or some of the works of Margaret Mead, an anthropologist who studied societies where family structures were radically different than our own. Maybe they will inspire you to start thinking about how our conception of the family could improve in the future.

i do aknowledge that family relation change every time.

but to think that family will ''disapear'' anytime soon is folly.

[#FF0000]

Yes I understand what you are saying--and no, no thanks to the idea. Families with or without inheritance are quite a wonderful idea. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

No one is throwing out anything. We are saying that families will probably look different with a different mode of production. Which, thus far, has proven to be pretty much true.

[Thug Lessons]

Yes I understand what you are saying--and no, no thanks to the idea. Families with or without inheritance are quite a wonderful idea. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Families, as they exist now, serve the same purpose as national, racial and class distinctions -- to divide people from their real brothers and sisters. Communists should, do and will work to minimize these divisions and encourage people to work toward common rather than arbitrarily narrow interests.

[Bud Struggle]

Families, as they exist now, serve the same purpose as national, racial and class distinctions -- to divide people from their real brothers and sisters. Communists should, do and will work to minimize these divisions and encourage people to work toward common rather than arbitrarily narrow interests.

The hive. Hmmm. I'm not liking this... :cool:

I may be a bit Reactionary on occasion.

[Revolution starts with U]

If I own a hat and want to give it to my kid--it's my hat, what business is it of your what I do with it?

If I own a factory and want to give it to my kid--it's my factory, what business is it of your what I do with it?

Because nobody uses your hat as their means of subsistence (barring hat cleaners, who can still clean the hat).

[Rafiq]

If I own a hat and want to give it to my kid--it's my hat, what business is it of your what I do with it?

Go ahead :thumbup1:



If I own a factory and want to give it to my kid--it's my factory, what business is it of your what I do with it?

See, no one is entitled to the means of production. You can have a factory but you can't have workers do anything for you.

It's not 'your factory' in that sense. Or are you talking in a capitalist sense? Oh, well in Capitalism, whatever. But in Socialism, no one will be able to 'have factory's'. Since these will be owned by the community.

But you'll prolly be dead by then anyway, so will I.

[hatzel]

Families, as they exist now, serve the same purpose as national, racial and class distinctions -- to divide people from their real brothers and sisters. Communists should, do and will work to minimize these divisions and encourage people to work toward common rather than arbitrarily narrow interests.

I'll just point out that I'm not particularly happy with that thing they used to do in some of the old kibbutzim and stuff when all the kids would be put in the kid-house and raised without parents, as shared children of the community or something like that, because I don't feel that's particularly good for a child's mental and emotional development. On the other hand, as the Bedouin say: me and my brothers against my cousins, me and my cousins against the world! Just look at the divisions!

(Incidentally I find it rather ironic than a third worldist would feel obliged to complain about families acting to 'divide people from their real brothers and sisters' and sing the praises of minimizing divisions and 'working toward common rather than arbitrarily narrow interests' :rolleyes:)

[Jalapeno Enema]

Inheritance perpetuates class divisions within society and limits class mobility in society. Capitalism already divides people into a "have" and "have not" class, but inheritance ensures that not only individuals, but lineages maintain their current position within society. Worse still, inheritance allots vital resources through heirs, rather then any real accomplishment or merit.

In a modern world where ruling dynasties based upon accident of birth and justified by divine right are the exception rather then the norm, isn't it about time to do away with inheritance?

I would even go as far as to say I feel the entire concept is unnatural. When a solitary animal grows old and dies, their territory is not alloted for family members. If a descendant obtains said territory, it is because they won it from the competition. The concept of personal territory doesn't even come into play for social animals; their territory belongs to the pack, not the alpha.

Humans are sort of a warped social animal in that regard.

As for the original questions:

Yet, in the current system, the only way I can see inheritance being done away with, is if the property goes to the state. But aren't most socialists here wanting to go to a communist system without a state? Yes, but remember the road to communism does not happen over-night. Patience is essential.

If initially inheritance is banned because property goes to the state, so be it (indeed, that is sort of the plan).

Socialism, as the post-capitalist, pre-communist economic system initially utilizes the state for the benefit of the working classes. The means of production is seized by the state and run for the benefit of the people in a post-commodity economic system. Then the role of the state apparatus is administration and direction of production as an economic entity, rather then a political one.

After the the state has controlled production for a while, rather then individuals, that will eventually eliminate class distinctions. After classes are deteriorated, the state can be dissolved, and lo and behold, a stateless, classless society.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

If I own a factory and want to give it to my kid--it's my factory, what business is it of your what I do with it?
You own a factory without any workers? Or are there workers who work there? If there are, why the fuck would you own it under Communism? It would belong to the workers. That's kinda...uuuuhhh....the point.

[Thug Lessons]

I'll just point out that I'm not particularly happy with that thing they used to do in some of the old kibbutzim and stuff when all the kids would be put in the kid-house and raised without parents, as shared children of the community or something like that, because I don't feel that's particularly good for a child's mental and emotional development. On the other hand, as the Bedouin say: me and my brothers against my cousins, me and my cousins against the world! Just look at the divisions!

That is not what happened in the kibbutzim, you do not know anything about the kibbutzim or the children raised there, and you do not know what you're talking about. End of story.


(Incidentally I find it rather ironic than a third worldist would feel obliged to complain about families acting to 'divide people from their real brothers and sisters' and sing the praises of minimizing divisions and 'working toward common rather than arbitrarily narrow interests' :rolleyes:)Indeed.

[9]

Originally Posted by Krimskrams http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2025220#post2025220)
I'll just point out that I'm not particularly happy with that thing they used to do in some of the old kibbutzim and stuff when all the kids would be put in the kid-house and raised without parents, as shared children of the community or something like that, because I don't feel that's particularly good for a child's mental and emotional development. On the other hand, as the Bedouin say: me and my brothers against my cousins, me and my cousins against the world! Just look at the divisions!That is not what happened in the kibbutzim, you do not know anything about the kibbutzim or the children raised there, and you do not know what you're talking about. End of story.
qft

[RGacky3]

If I own a hat and want to give it to my kid--it's my hat, what business is it of your what I do with it?

If I own a factory and want to give it to my kid--it's my factory, what business is it of your what I do with it?


Except you don't legitimately own a factory, ownership is a societal construct, not part of nature.

[hatzel]

That is not what happened in the kibbutzim, you do not know anything about the kibbutzim or the children raised there, and you do not know what you're talking about. End of story.

I know plenty. The difference is that I'm referring to isolated examples (hence words like 'some of the old kibbutzim') as a starting point. It is, of course, a well-known empirical fact that children were often raised by communal...child-rearers, rather than their own parents, and that this method of child-rearing has its critics, as well as its supporters, for its good and bad elements. Of course it depends on the extent to which this was followed, with some kibbutzim going really OTT with it, and some just having a somewhat more sensible (one could argue) system not unlike today's nursery schools. Of course one shouldn't go around claiming that they were all the same, or that they all operated by the same rules. And I'm sure we know that there are various studies which are critical of the child-rearing techniques employed on some kibbutzim, as there are studies which are very supportive of child-rearing techniques on others. If you've going to pretend that no study has ever been remotely critical of the child-rearing technique on any individual kibbutz, then I think you're living in a dream world :) I am personally of the belief that having a strong bond with one's parents, particularly mother, is entirely natural to us as a species, and of pretty paramount importance for the psychological development of a child. Whilst one could appoint one person to be the collective mother of all the children, and this would effectively work, I don't think somebody who is constantly 'mother' to a rotating quota of 30 kids can necessarily provide the needed care to them all, and have that bond. The vast majority of kibbutzim, therefore, maintained this connection between parents and child, even if just for a few hours a day. This is perfectly fair, and this is what we actually do today, with child-minders and day-care centres. That is a good thing, that is productive, that is good for the children socially and emotionally. But some of the old kibbutzim didn't quite manage that system well enough, and left some children in a bit of a confused state whereby they didn't necessarily have a strong connection to their mother or any other mother figure, but just to a whole bunch of women. The balance was quickly found, but in the early stage in particular, when people had just taken to a totally new system, there were inevitably some creases to iron out. As far as I'm concerned, it proved the absolute necessity of some kind of family setting.

Some of us like talking about society, that being the first few letters in 'socialism', and consider society to be made up of various bricks. The building blocks that make up society, let's just say. I may even argue that the family is a pretty vital building block, without which much of society would collapse. People are raised, their family constitutes a unit...the second group they are in, the first being the self. They would do anything to protect themselves, and they would do anything to protect their family against any external threat, and they would work hard to feed their families. But then these families, together, constitute another group, the third level. To use a kibbutz example, it might be a kibbutz or other commune, a group of families, which you, again, will defend, and work for, because it's part of your network of family friends, and you, the self, and your family are reliant on the community, and your fortunes and those of your family are tied in with those of the community. And then what's to keep individual communes from cooperating, working together, exchanging goods and defending each other against external threat? Nothing. Nothing at all. Is there some problem with people being involved in these unavoidable groupings? Even if those groupings are just 'self > friends > people I've actually met > people I've never met', without involving families, without involving geographical location. It's foolish to think that people might never feel more connection with one individual than they would with another, whatever the reasons. Even if that connection is just more to themselves than anybody else.

All this talk of the divisive nature of the family unit seemingly resulting in the need for the family to be abolished, so that there will be no family strikes me as hitting out at the results, rather than the causes. Much like if we decided that the best way to fight racism would be through some eugenic system, whereby we have black people reproduce with white people, and have their offspring pair up in such a way that we will eventually be left with a totally monotone nation. That doesn't tackle racism, that just makes racism impossible to be realised, with everybody the same colour. Tackling some kind of issue of division or conflict by merely leveling the two sides, so that the difference that previously divided them is overcome, rather than actually addressing the reasons for their division, isn't really the most effective path, if you ask me...

Still, what does any of this have to do inheritance? Whether or not there exists a family unit has little if anything to do with inheritance. I can write a will right now and give all my shit to whoever the hell I want, whether they're related to me or not. If you want, I will appoint you as my heir, and you can have my guitar, my laptop and the hat I'll steal off of Bud. He's just made it sounds so appealing! :tt1: So what, really, does family have to do with this?

[Amphictyonis]

The goal is to stop wealth accumulation. Concentrated wealth ends up controlling society no matter which epoch it is. It all started with one family having more control over agriculture and then total control of agricultural surplus and on and on. Primitive accumulation couldn't have happened without inheritance and abolishing inheritance post revolution is done so to keep primitive accumulation from happening again. I don't think giving possessions would be a problem only land and the means of production. I think abolishing private property would pretty much take care of it.

[lots of laughs]

If I own a hat and want to give it to my kid--it's my hat, what business is it of your what I do with it?

If I own a factory and want to give it to my kid--it's my factory, what business is it of your what I do with it?

When you die you give up the right to vote (unless you live in Chicago), and many other "rights" that are granted to you by the state. Why should the "right" to own property also not be given up when you die? When you die, you can't say that you want to continue to vote for the Democrats for the next three elections, and then switch to the Republicans. Why should you get to decide that your property should go to this person, or that person? Or that it should sit in trust until your children are all "of age", and then be divided amongst them. What makes the "right" to property (as pointed out before, something that is not a natural right, but very much a societal granted right) any different from voting?

[Bud Struggle]

When you die you give up the right to vote (unless you live in Chicago), and many other "rights" that are granted to you by the state. Why should the "right" to own property also not be given up when you die? When you die, you can't say that you want to continue to vote for the Democrats for the next three elections, and then switch to the Republicans. Why should you get to decide that your property should go to this person, or that person? Or that it should sit in trust until your children are all "of age", and then be divided amongst them. What makes the "right" to property (as pointed out before, something that is not a natural right, but very much a societal granted right) any different from voting?

All rights are societal. A society decides among itself on what the principals of that society will be and then more or less follows those rules.

About 99% of the societies of particular planet we are living on have decided that the ownership of property is simething desirable. Once you own something it belongs to you--not the state, not other people. The state has no rights in telling you what you can do with your property and no ownership in the property--now they can TAX the property--but that's not the same ahs having ownership rights.

So you can do anything you want to with your property--and if you die your property belongs to whomever you choose. Simple as that.

[RGacky3]

All rights are societal. A society decides among itself on what the principals of that society will be and then more or less follows those rules.


Bud do YOU actually believe that? Do you belive that there are actually NO basic human rights?

Also that philosophy (which I know you don't actually believe in), does'nt make an difference in the real world, considering you always support basic human rights.


About 99% of the societies of particular planet we are living on have decided that the ownership of property is simething desirable. Once you own something it belongs to you--not the state, not other people. The state has no rights in telling you what you can do with your property and no ownership in the property--now they can TAX the property--but that's not the same ahs having ownership rights.


Did we have a vote on that? And your wrong, 99% of the societies on the planet have limits on property rights and they have taxes and the such, so no, property rights are not considered basic human rights.


So you can do anything you want to with your property--and if you die your property belongs to whomever you choose. Simple as that.

Well, thats something that is destructive to society, so we want to change it.

[Bud Struggle]

Bud do YOU actually believe that? Do you belive that there are actually NO basic human rights? No but the Communists do--when you have no basic human nature you have no basic human rights. And for practical reasons that how the world actually works.


Also that philosophy (which I know you don't actually believe in), does'nt make an difference in the real world, considering you always support basic human rights. I do, but we operate on a system of laws. Here in America you have no rights except those that are granted to you by law. You have the right to bear arms, because that's in the Constiution. Bue you don't have the right to shoot people indiscriminately--that's not in the Constitution. That's just how it works. You can't go to court and say "X" is my basic human right. You need a law.


Did we have a vote on that? And your wrong, 99% of the societies on the planet have limits on property rights and they have taxes and the such, so no, property rights are not considered basic human rights. As I said there are LIMITS on the property rights but they don't revoke those rights. Society can tax a property until the amount of the tax is greater than the worth of the property, and society can BUY a piece of property by eminent domain--paying it's just worth. But society can't take away that property.


Well, thats something that is destructive to society, so we want to change it. You are welcome to try. Others, to be sure, will oppose you.

[RGacky3]

No but the Communists do--when you have no basic human nature you have no basic human rights. And for practical reasons that how the world actually works.


You don't actually believe that, and in practice communists don't actually believe that (only philisophically), so considering YOU don't believe that, its not really a defence of your world view is it???


Here in America you have no rights except those that are granted to you by law. You have the right to bear arms, because that's in the Consitiution. Bue you don't have the right to shoot people indiscriminately--that's not in the Constitution. That's just how it works. You can't go to court and say "X" is my basic human right. You need a law.


ok .... but thats really irrelivant to what we are talking about is'nt it.


As I said there are LIMITS on the property rights but they don't revoke those rights. Society can tax a property until the amount of the tax is greater than the worth of the property, and society can BUY a piece of property be emenient domain--paying it's just worth. But society can't take away that property.


If you are obliged by law to pay a tax then property is not a fundemental right, if you block people from some political speech then yo udon't have free speach.

But actually society CAN take away that property, it happens all the time.


You are welcome to try. Others, to be sure, will oppose you.

But what do YOU believe, its clearly destructive to society .. But do you not care because it fits your world view? So you make innane statements like the ones above (saying that is the law is not an argument)? Or whats your actual belief.

Make an argument for what you actually believe in.

[ComradeMan]

Property is 9/10 of the law.

The problem here is that we need to define what is meant by property and what is not meant by property.

Property is usually inherited by means of a will- that is a will written whilst alive and witnessed that gives the property of this still living person to whomseoever he or she decides. I don't know about how it works in different countries but in many places if someone dies intestate, i.e. without a will, then his or her property defaults to the state- so technically the concept already exists.

I don't think the problem is the a posteriori inheritance of accumulated property rather than the prior accumulation of such property and wealth.

[RGacky3]

Saying "Because its my right in the constitution" is not an arguement, unless your trying to argue its a fundemental human right, in which you have to make that argument, if not you have to make an argument about WHY it SHOULD BE your right.

Its the right of the state of Venezuela to redistribute land, but I'm guessing you don't agree with that right, and would not accept "But its in the law" as an argument.

I'm tyring to help you out Bud, make an actual argument, so people will take you seriously.

[Bud Struggle]

You don't actually believe that, and in practice communists don't actually believe that (only philisophically), so considering YOU don't believe that, its not really a defence of your world view is it??? I believe there are basic human rights--and one of those rights is the right to own property. But you on the other hand can believe otherwise. So what my belief is isn't really important. Only the law is important.


ok .... but thats really irrelivant to what we are talking about is'nt it. But that the reality of the situation. Your belief and my belief don't count. We have built up a society of laws. Human laws--and those human laws don't take into account any rights granted to us by God. (And God would be the ony source of inate human rights.) Now your understading of what God says may be different than my understanding and moneone like Noxion would think were both crazy--so we can't rely on that line of thinking. We have to settle on a system of laws that isn't dependant on any inate rights. So we have things like the Constitution and similar documents in other countries that express societal rights. That's all we have.


If you are obliged by law to pay a tax then property is not a fundemental right, if you block people from some political speech then yo udon't have free speach. There are limits on rights--but that doesn't remove those rights. And society can and does change rights all of the time--that's why we have legislatures and courts--to change rights
appropriately. That's the system.



But actually society CAN take away that property, it happens all the time. I explained how that is possible. Societ can take away property--but it has to be paid for by a fair amount of equal proerty. Im most cases--money. Which is the "other" property.


But what do YOU believe, its clearly destructive to society .. But do you not care because it fits your world view? So you make innane statements like the ones above (saying that is the law is not an argument)? Or whats your actual belief. It isn't inane. It is a compromise that you and I and they guy down the street who all have different core beliefs can agree on. I'd be more than happy if the everyone in the world was a good Catholic but that isn't going to happen. So we have to settle on what we have to work with in the temporal world.


Make an argument for what you actually believe in. I'd be banned in a second. :D

[Bud Struggle]

Saying "Because its my right in the constitution" is not an arguement, unless your trying to argue its a fundemental human right, in which you have to make that argument, if not you have to make an argument about WHY it SHOULD BE your right. It is my right because we all agreed as a society that it is my right. Another society would and could think differently.


Its the right of the state of Venezuela to redistribute land, but I'm guessing you don't agree with that right, and would not accept "But its in the law" as an argument. Certainly I would. If the people in Cuba say, "we want to live this way" who am I to say they shouldn't. I may think it's stupid--but I would never stop them from living the way they want.


I'm tyring to help you out Bud, make an actual argument, so people will take you seriously.Thanks Gack--you do mean well.

[RGacky3]

I'd be banned in a second. :D

Your a racist?


I'd be more than happy if the everyone in the world was a good Catholic but that isn't going to happen. So we have to settle on what we have to work with in the temporal world.


its innane because your not making an argument about how the power distribution should be. No one is talking about how people should live their lifes, we are talking about power institutions. Thats another innane arguement.


I explained how that is possible. Societ can take away property--but it has to be paid for by a fair amount of equal proerty. Im most cases--money. Which is the "other" property.


Nope thats not the case, the government CAN take away property without equal compensation, and it does happen all the time.


There are limits on rights--but that doesn't remove those rights. And society can and does change rights all of the time--that's why we have legislatures and courts--to change rights
appropriately. That's the system.


Theres a difference between fundemental rights and law, this is'nt an arugment.


But that the reality of the situation. Your belief and my belief don't count.

This is'nt wikipedia, this is revleft, if you dont believe in anything then why are you posting here? We want to better society, what are you doing here?

If you don't have an opinion then go away, if you do then state it and defend it with an argument.


I believe there are basic human rights--and one of those rights is the right to own property. But you on the other hand can believe otherwise. So what my belief is isn't really important. Only the law is important.


Why is the right to own property a basic human right.

Becuase its the law is not an arugment, it used to be in the law the right own slaves.

Do you have any arguments here???

[RGacky3]

It is my right because we all agreed as a society that it is my right. Another society would and could think differently.


First of all, no we did'nt, a couple rich guys did. Second of all thats not an argument as to why YOU Think its your right.


Certainly I would. If the people in Cuba say, "we want to live this way" who am I to say they shouldn't. I may think it's stupid--but I would never stop them from living the way they want.


Yeah, but why do YOU think YOUR idea of what is beter is actually better? Why is the right to owne property actually beneficial to society??

For gods sake bud its not that damn hard.

[Bud Struggle]

Your a racist? Preaching!



its innane because your not making an argument about how the power distribution should be. No one is talking about how people should live their lifes, we are talking about power institutions. Thats another innane arguement. Power is distributed just fine. The people have all of the power (we're talking the US here.) They can do anything they want. Now, I'll grant you, they don't. They choose to leave things the way they are--and I don't blame the system--I blame the people for being apathetic. You seem to think it's the system. If people don't want to accept the way things are for them they can either change the system (which they are not doing) or they can work within the system and make things better for themselves (which I did.)


Nope thats not the case, the government CAN take away property without equal compensation, and it does happen all the time. OK, how is that? An example please.


Theres a difference between fundemental rights and law, this is'nt an arugment. In a practical workd there are no fundamental rights. You may BELIEVE there are. I certainly do. But we have no way to enforce our beliefs--we only have agreed upon laws. If we all went by our beliefs we be like those Fundamentalist Islamic states or like Spain during the Inquisition.


This is'nt wikipedia, this is revleft, if you dont believe in anything then why are you posting here? We want to better society, what are you doing here? Oh, I believe in the American compromise. Everyone here may BELIEVE differently, but w eput together a system that keeps us from fighting and killing each other over our beliefs.


If you don't have an opinion then go away, if you do then state it and defend it with an argument. I believe in the America system because it gives the best results in a real world. I do think that what you saw in the the USSR was as good as Communism gets. I'm not saying that it doesn't look wonderful on paper--and in little groups. But on a large scale it been tried 50 times and it always keeps looking the same.


Why is the right to own property a basic human right.IT ISN'T a basic human right. There are no basic human rights. There is only the law.


Becuase its the law is not an arugment, it used to be in the law the right own slaves. It was the law--and then people changed it.


Do you have any arguments here??? If you want to creat Communism--then go and do it. I PERSONALLY don't like it, so I'll try and stop you. But I certainly don't believe it is a human right to live in a Communist society. I don't believe it is a basic human right to live in a Capitalist society. I believe we all choose what we want to do--you may choose by your beliefs or what you thing God says or by your own reason but once we choose then we have to decide on a compromise--and that compromise here where I'm sitting is the United States of America. And that works for me.

[Bud Struggle]

First of all, no we did'nt, a couple rich guys did. Second of all thats not an argument as to why YOU Think its your right. Then the trick is to become one of those rich guys, isn't it?


Yeah, but why do YOU think YOUR idea of what is beter is actually better? Why is the right to owne property actually beneficial to society??

For gods sake bud its not that damn hard.It's not just owning roperty it is also the democratic system that goes along with it. It's a very workable system if you actually make an effort to use it. It ceates a good way of life for a lot (though not everybody) of people. I don't think all those attempts at Communism actually did that. If you could have seen it--it was actually pretty nasty. Now don't get me wrong--it's still pretty nasty in those former Soviet countries. And that's because they have property rights without democracy.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

The best way for me to understand it comes down to land, the means of production and labour power.

From what I gather, none of these things can be 'owned' or considered 'private property'. From this principle, a factory, that was built on a piece of land, by a selection of wage-labourers, that is manned by a selection of wage-labourers, which then turns out a selection on commodities, can not be owned by any one person. For this reason, the notion that they can be inherited seems even more ludicrous than the notion that they can be owned in the first place.

The principles of capitalism mean that a person can buy all of these things with money, using loans if need be, and thereafter 'own' their factory, the tools inside it and essentially, the labour force that creates the commodities. This is private property, which seems to come from, in Britain, times where a piece of land was given to someone through an act of parliament (with regards to enclosures in agriculture, just for arguments sake). From these origins of the capitalist structure, we saw lots of land being 'owned', then passed down through inheritance, to people who did nothing but oversee a top-down exploitation of workers and their labour power. In the mean time, during the process of inheritance, the existence of the property is only true thanks to the work force that operate it and make the profits that the inheriter enjoys.

The most simple counter argument really is that it is foolish to assume that these private properties can be privately owned at all, seeing as they exist on land that can't actually be 'owned', were built by labourers who see no profit from the existence of the property (not the 'owners' of the 'property', as they didn't even pick up a hammer in most cases), and that these properties function thanks to a labour-force. From this, we say that private property should be abolished, and should be run communally by those who actually build and man the property, or in shorter terms, the community that works in the 'property' or requires the commodities it produces. One factory owner is responsible for exploiting a labour force on the false pretense that he has the right to own the building, tools and labourers that create 'his' products, and as a result this system makes no sense and is exploititative.

Homes are a different matter. A home is just somewhere that a person lives, and I would say that everybody should be entitled to have one. I live in a house, it is not mine, and is not private property. Its merely a building that keeps me sheltered. By private property, I think we essentially are talking about capital, bits of land and the means of production. Inheritance actually seems quite bizzare in the context of the means of production, but is justified in capitalism and its individualistic, heirarchical and exploititative nature.

[RGacky3]

Preaching!

Its not preaching to say what you think is the best way for society to be structured, even if they are based on catholic principles.

Much of my socialist ideology is based on christian principles, no ones accused me of preaching, terrible cop out.


Power is distributed just fine. The people have all of the power (we're talking the US here.) They can do anything they want. Now, I'll grant you, they don't. They choose to leave things the way they are--and I don't blame the system--I blame the people for being apathetic. You seem to think it's the system. If people don't want to accept the way things are for them they can either change the system (which they are not doing) or they can work within the system and make things better for themselves (which I did.)


Finally an argument, a shitt one, but still its a start. Let me addess that.

The funders of elections are major corporations, the people that run the TV stations are major corporations, now sure, people have the vote, but ultimately the corporations are the ones who the government answers too.

For the people of the US to be heard they need to damn near start a revolution, for them to get THEIR public policy they damn near need to start a revolution.

What do the rich and corporate executive need to do to get THEIR policy? A phone call .... maybe a couple.

So saying that the people have half the effective power is misleading, they have the potential to TAKE the power, but they don't have it in the citizens united America.

BTW, wealth is power, and the top 1% control more than the bottom 90%. Thats the real power dynamic.

Techically in the Soviet Union the poeple could have voted in a new government, but hte system was so corrupt a revolt was needed, its the same way here in the US.


OK, how is that? An example please.


Venezuela, Bolivia, Alaska oil, taxes are taking away property without compensation, there are many examples of the state taking property.


In a practical workd there are no fundamental rights. You may BELIEVE there are. I certainly do. But we have no way to enforce our beliefs--we only have agreed upon laws. If we all went by our beliefs we be like those Fundamentalist Islamic states or like Spain during the Inquisition.


hte idea of fundemental rights is a matter of ethics, and ethics effect your behavior which has an effect in the practical world, so if YOU consider property rights to be fundemental, it will effect your actions.

If we all went by our beliefs, as in the rights in the US were ACTUALLY democratically accountable, healthcare would be a right in the United States.


Everyone here may BELIEVE differently, but w eput together a system that keeps us from fighting and killing each other over our beliefs.


So how is inheritance rights keeping ups from fighting and killing each other???

I'm not talking about religious beliefs here btw, or personal morality, I'm talking about how YOU THINK SOCIETY SHOULD BE STRUCTURED!!!

ITS NOT THAT DIFFICULT.

I am a christian, but that has absolutely nothing to do with how I think society should be structure, it should be structured democratically.


I believe in the America system because it gives the best results in a real world. I do think that what you saw in the the USSR was as good as Communism gets. I'm not saying that it doesn't look wonderful on paper--and in little groups. But on a large scale it been tried 50 times and it always keeps looking the same.


You've tried that before, and its a moot arguement, come up with a different one, that ones been debunked a million times, your being lazy.


There is only the law.


Then defend the law.


It was the law--and then people changed it.


Because they had an idea of how society should be structure i.e. freedom. Stating facst is'nt defending a law.


and that compromise here where I'm sitting is the United States of America. And that works for me.

Who was the compromise between? The United States never asked the people how they wanted it to be set up. I never got a letter.

[RGacky3]

Then the trick is to become one of those rich guys, isn't it?


Ahhh, so, you are perfectly fine with a tyranny of the rich, ok then.


It's not just owning roperty it is also the democratic system that goes along with it. It's a very workable system if you actually make an effort to use it. It ceates a good way of life for a lot (though not everybody) of people. I don't think all those attempts at Communism actually did that. If you could have seen it--it was actually pretty nasty. Now don't get me wrong--it's still pretty nasty in those former Soviet countries. And that's because they have property rights without democracy.

There is no corrolation between capitalist property and democracy, infact, they are opposites and they get in conflict with each other, as we can see in for example the citizens united case.

BTW, enough with the USSR arguments, its a strawman, and one thats been blown down over and over again, your making yourself look stupid by continuing to try and use it.

[Bud Struggle]

Its not preaching to say what you think is the best way for society to be structured, even if they are based on catholic principles.

Much of my socialist ideology is based on christian principles, no ones accused me of preaching, terrible cop out. If you put it that was--I base my beliefs on Catholic Social teaching from Rerum Novarum on down. I just don't discuss the particulars of how I do that. I don't think it's within the guide lins of RevLeft.




The funders of elections are major corporations, the people that run the TV stations are major corporations, now sure, people have the vote, but ultimately the corporations are the ones who the government answers too. I could care less about corporations. Ithis isn't DRNK--you could turn off your radio or TV--you can get any news you want. You personally are the best example of that. If people were unhappy enough with the US government they would do something abut it.


For the people of the US to be heard they need to damn near start a revolution, for them to get THEIR public policy they damn near need to start a revolution. But if the people waqnt to listen to Glen Beck or Bill O'Reilly they HAVE THAT RIGHT to do that, too. If O'Reilly doesn't get rating--hell be off the air. But he gets HUGE ratings. So does Rush Limbaugh. On the ither hand Air America wen't bankrupt 2 times already--Actually I think they're gone. People don't listen.


What do the rich and corporate executive need to do to get THEIR policy? A phone call .... maybe a couple. And they have one vote just like anyone else.


So saying that the people have half the effective power is misleading, they have the potential to TAKE the power, but they don't have it in the citizens united America. They have to do it. You can't give it to them--that would make you the same as the Corporations.


BTW, wealth is power, and the top 1% control more than the bottom 90%. Thats the real power dynamic. Votes trump all. And if people organized outside the political parties or within the political parties they would see that could do anything they want. It's funny but I have more faith in people than you do.


Techically in the Soviet Union the poeple could have voted in a new government, but hte system was so corrupt a revolt was needed, its the same way here in the US. They coun't vote. They coun't organize. It was a much more rigid system. Americans could hold a Constitutional Convention is they so want.


Venezuela, Bolivia, True--I was speaking with America.


Alaska oil, taxes are taking away property without compensation, there are many examples of the state taking property. Taxes take away property for money owed. It all comes down to money--not land.


hte idea of fundemental rights is a matter of ethics, and ethics effect your behavior which has an effect in the practical world, so if YOU consider property rights to be fundemental, it will effect your actions. I don't see property right as a fundaqmental right at all. It is a legal right agreed on by society. This particular society that I am in has agreed to this. I really have no problem with this arrangement.


If we all went by our beliefs, as in the rights in the US were ACTUALLY democratically accountable, healthcare would be a right in the United States. I think heathcare should be given. BUT it's something that ALL americans have to agree on theough their elected representitives. That isn't quite happening. They are plenty of candidates out there that would vote for healthcare if elected.


So how is inheritance rights keeping ups from fighting and killing each other??? Not directly--but it's part of the system that we have in America. There's no armed Revolution here.


I'm not talking about religious beliefs here btw, or personal morality, I'm talking about how YOU THINK SOCIETY SHOULD BE STRUCTURED!!!

ITS NOT THAT DIFFICULT. I like it the way it is. I also would like people to take more responsibility for their government and their lives. If people aren't going to take charge of things now--I don't see them doing it in some "other" system either. Sooner or later that "other" system will turn out just like this one.


I am a christian, but that has absolutely nothing to do with how I think society should be structure, it should be structured democratically. I think so, too.




You've tried that before, and its a moot arguement, come up with a different one, that ones been debunked a million times, your being lazy. It's a good argument. Communism looks good on paper-but it isn't practical in real life. Capitalism doesn't look like ot could work at all on paper--but it's like the Enegizer Bunny--it keeps going and going and going.


Then defend the law. It is something that Americans have agreed on. That's it. If they want to change it they can. If they want to leave it they can.


Who was the compromise between? The United States never asked the people how they wanted it to be set up. I never got a letter. You or your parents or grand parents ow whom ever came here. People are comming over the boarder every day. And you have a roght to change thing every two years at the ballot box or in in forming a political party. Unfortunately it's a lot of work to change things--and most people aren't that interested.

[RGacky3]

I could care less about corporations. Ithis isn't DRNK--you could turn off your radio or TV--you can get any news you want. You personally are the best example of that. If people were unhappy enough with the US government they would do something abut it.


It does'nt matter, the politicians respond to the people that pay them.


But if the people waqnt to listen to Glen Beck or Bill O'Reilly they HAVE THAT RIGHT to do that, too. If O'Reilly doesn't get rating--hell be off the air. But he gets HUGE ratings. So does Rush Limbaugh. On the ither hand Air America wen't bankrupt 2 times already--Actually I think they're gone. People don't listen.


Bud ... What I said was ..

"For the people of the US to be heard they need to damn near start a revolution, for them to get THEIR public policy they damn near need to start a revolution. "

Respond to that, what you wrote out has nothing to do with what I said.


And they have one vote just like anyone else.


In the United States money speaks louder than votes.


They have to do it. You can't give it to them--that would make you the same as the Corporations.


I'm saying they should take it, and I hope they do, no one can give it to them, I can't give it to them.

But voting is not the way they can take it, its the worst possible way they can try to take it ... Remember Obama???


Votes trump all. And if people organized outside the political parties or within the political parties they would see that could do anything they want. It's funny but I have more faith in people than you do.


Obama ... Obama.

voting does'nt trump all, ORANIZING does, organizing communities, work places.

People once voted in power, will only respond to pressure, and that pressure comes from money.


They coun't vote. They coun't organize. It was a much more rigid system. Americans could hold a Constitutional Convention is they so want.


They could vote, it was a democratic system, they could form factions and different organizations.

Now ... It was set up to where those elections were meaningless, and working within the system was meaningless, but thats how it is here in the US too.


Taxes take away property for money owed. It all comes down to money--not land.


MONEY AND LAND ARE PROPERTY, for money owed???? What does that mean?


It is a legal right agreed on by society. This particular society that I am in has agreed to this. I really have no problem with this arrangement.


So them we also have a right to heavily tax inheretance, you got no problem with that either if it becomes law, correct? You gonna support it? Why or why not?


I think heathcare should be given. BUT it's something that ALL americans have to agree on theough their elected representitives. That isn't quite happening. They are plenty of candidates out there that would vote for healthcare if elected.


Most Americans agree with it, and their elected representatives, however, due to the fact that America is not democratic, answer to the insurance industry.

btw, no one voted for property rights, when was that vote?


I also would like people to take more responsibility for their government and their lives. If people aren't going to take charge of things now--I don't see them doing it in some "other" system either. Sooner or later that "other" system will turn out just like this one.


Then order Pizza for the protesters in Wisconsin because thats exactly what they are doing, grass roots, not corporate funded and benefiting the poeple, you can afford it, buy them 20 pizzas :).


I think so, too.


So I take it you support public financing of elections?


It's a good argument. Communism looks good on paper-but it isn't practical in real life. Capitalism doesn't look like ot could work at all on paper--but it's like the Enegizer Bunny--it keeps going and going and going.


Communism in real life was not the USSR, not by a long shot, in name only, so thats not an argument, Capitalism works on paper (thats what economics 101 classes are for) but look at the world, we produce enough food for everyone but people starve by the millions, most of the world economy is waste, we have massiave growth but terrible poverty, Capitalism is a giant failure.

Any time a country has socialized seriously they've done better, (socialized as in made the economy more democratically accontable, which is not what the USSR did), any time a country has introduced more Capitalism it did worse.

So thats a bad arguement, the USSR style non democratic economy is not what anyone is arguing for, and you know that, its been pointed out over and over agian, but you ignore it and then repeat it later. THIS IS WHY no one here takes you seriously.


It is something that Americans have agreed on. That's it. If they want to change it they can. If they want to leave it they can.


Thats not a defence of the law, you can't defend it because you don't have any defence, you don't have an arguement about why its better for society, your a joke.


You or your parents or grand parents ow whom ever came here. People are comming over the boarder every day. And you have a roght to change thing every two years at the ballot box or in in forming a political party. Unfortunately it's a lot of work to change things--and most people aren't that interested.

The ballot box is a sham.

[RGacky3]

Ok, now for the last time Bud.

Why do you think that having less inheritance tax is beneficial for society, how does it benefit society and/or the economy.

Heres the chance to proove your not a joke and make an argument defending your position.

GO!!!

[Jalapeno Enema]

http://www.cnet.com/i/bto/20080908/Thread-Offtopic-Derailed.jpg

[RGacky3]

Sorry man, I'm just trying to get Bud to make an honest argument, which he refuses to do.

[Bud Struggle]

Ok, now for the last time Bud.

Why do you think that having less inheritance tax is beneficial for society, how does it benefit society and/or the economy.

Heres the chance to proove your not a joke and make an argument defending your position.

GO!!!

I have no problem with any particular tax. Property rights here in the United States have created a safe and stable society. It works well for most (but not all) people. So I think it is a workable way to run a society.

I like it because it works. When you own property you have a right to dispose of the porperty any way you choose. Handing it down to a kid or relative or giving it away to charity or whatever--it's yours and you could do with it what you will. It dosen't belong to society--it belongs to YOU.

Now with the present law--that property isn't taxed at all. Bill Gates could give 50 billion to his kid without pating a cent. THAT is a bad idea. It keeps wealth too concentrated. So there has to be a trade off between the ownership of personal property and the good of society. So I think maybe a 50% tax on anything more than a million dollars might work just fine. It would prevent 100 year dynasties, it would also build up the public coffers and it wouldn't interfear with the general running of most people's lives. (So you could have that 20 grand your old man saved all his life for you and blow it all chasing blondes in Norway.)

Actually if you want the tax to to to 75% I don't think I'd mind that either.

Personally I'm a bit torn. As a guy that made his own money--I'm no fan of people just inheriting it. (An aside--in real life I don't even associate with inherited money people. And it's not just me--self made guys look down on people that inherit and they look down on us. If you think there's segregation between Blacks and whites--you should go to a country club between different kinds of millionaires.)

BUT as a father I'd like to give what I've made to my kids. Either way, though--I wouldn't mind paying tax.

[RGacky3]

Thats all I wanted :).

I agree with you for the most part.

Heres where I do not agree with you, Capitalist property, owning a house, owning nice furnature, owning a car and so on, even having a good amount of wealth so your kids get a good education and live comfortable, thats fine, that does not has a giant social consequence, however, Capitalist property, huge pieces of land, corporations, huge amounts of capital, huge amounts of wealth which is beyond personal use and into market control, buisinesses (I don't mean mom and pop shops, I mean large industries), should first of all not be included in any sort of property rights, and second not be inheretable, those things should be in the public domain.

Now the argument of "well I build up a company," after a certain size, no you did'nt, the workers did, you may have started it, but the major wealth came from the workers, so sure your kids can get some inheretance, but Capitalist property, should be in the public domain because Capitalist property effects the public directly, and is run by the workers.

[Bud Struggle]

Now the argument of "well I build up a company," after a certain size, no you did'nt, the workers did, you may have started it, but the major wealth came from the workers, so sure your kids can get some inheretance, but Capitalist property, should be in the public domain because Capitalist property effects the public directly, and is run by the workers.

I built the company. But I fully concede that the workers had a part in it. that's why I believe in profit shairing. The workers should have a piece of every dollar that is made by the company. But different people have different contributions. And different people have a different part of the profit. I also believe there should be an individual deistribution of income--so worker "A" gets X amount of the profit--and there also should be a general disbursment of funds for the general welfare of the workers.

FWIW: All this is very Catholic.

Now lets say someday my great great grandkids inherit the company. They did nothing to build it--and if they don't work there even less than their contempory workers. So THERE you may have a case for public ownership. I'm not sure.

[Dr Mindbender]

If I own a hat and want to give it to my kid--it's my hat, what business is it of your what I do with it?

If I own a factory and want to give it to my kid--it's my factory, what business is it of your what I do with it?

I'd put to you its the business of the workers in that factory.

[RGacky3]

The workers should have a piece of every dollar that is made by the company. But different people have different contributions. And different people have a different part of the profit. I also believe there should be an individual deistribution of income--so worker "A" gets X amount of the profit--and there also should be a general disbursment of funds for the general welfare of the workers.


There has to be a way to enforce that, which is why I support work place democracy. The German law on unions being part of hte board of directors of a company is a good start.