The problem with Marxism [Archive]

CommunityBeliever

21st February 2012, 02:07

The problem with Marxism is that it is based on atheism. We Marxists believe in the evolutionary viewpoint. We explain how societies got to be the way they are today through Marxist evolution and we explain how lifeforms got the way they are today through Darwinian evolution.

This is opposed to the creationist viewpoint which uses "god did it" to explain natural phenomena, but it isn't necessarily opposed to the idea that gods only action was to start the universe and then to let evolution run its course. In this sense, you could be a Marxist deist, so although most Marxists are atheists some of us are deists.

But we all have seen the horrors of materialism in the 20th century.I haven't seen the "horrors of materialism" in the 20th century, so clearly that statement isn't true. Please tell us about these so called horrors.

Azraella

21st February 2012, 02:11

The problem with Marxism is that it is based on atheism.

No it isn't. Historical materialism is not the same as metaphyisical materialism.

It demands atheism and a materialist view of the world. This method of rationalizing socialism is the problem.

No it doesn't. This website is proof. Look at all the religious Marxists here on this website.

It's as mechanical as production lines. It is why I argue that Marxism has failed. It is not because of a calculation problem, but a matter of spirituality.

Marxism is a method of looking at the world. That's all it is. There are some ideologies built from this analysis but nontheless there are some religious Marxists. Hell, most Christian communist texts I have read use Marx's criticism's of capitalism.

Marx based his work on this atheist philosophy of Hegel, assuming that it is correct.

Hegel was not an materialist for one. He was certainly an idealist.

But we all have seen the horrors of materialism in the 20th century. It is materialism that is alienating.

Puh-lease. A philosophical position is not the cause of the horrors of the 20th century. It's people for the gods' sakes.

Vyacheslav Brolotov

21st February 2012, 03:30

The problem with Marxism is that it is based on atheism. It demands atheism and a materialist view of the world. This method of rationalizing socialism is the problem. It's as mechanical as production lines. It is why I argue that Marxism has failed. It is not because of a calculation problem, but a matter of spirituality. Marx based his work on this atheist philosophy of Hegel, assuming that it is correct. But we all have seen the horrors of materialism in the 20th century. It is materialism that is alienating. Please convince me that I am wrong.

Shit. I just wrote something really cool, but then RevLeft went down on my Internet and I lost it all :(:(:(:(:(:(. UGHHH. Anyways.

I can see that everyone is convinced you are an anti-leftist (and a troll):thumbdown:
I'll be kind and still explain Marxism:
Materialism=material. God is not material or even a manifestation of it (like economics and class struggle). Thus, materialism=no God. Since Marxism is based on materialism: Marxism also=no God.

Here's a video that pretty much explains everything I wrote about:
http://youtu.be/A7rbQHJ9b3o

Kassad

21st February 2012, 03:40

Marxism doesn't demand shit except for a scientific analysis in regards to religious matters. Religion, in all aspects, will boil down to faith in a scientific debate of its merits and if faith can be used as logical conclusion, then I could say I have "faith" that fairies shit in my mouth at night and that gives me the power to get through the day. Such a notion is ridiculous.

If every working person in the world realized that the concept of "heaven" is not a distant or unreachable aim, the merits of capitalism would stand on the foundations of jello.

KurtFF8

21st February 2012, 03:50

If every working person in the world realized that the concept of "heaven" is not a distant or unreachable aim, the merits of capitalism would stand on the foundations of jello.

This makes as little sense as the OP. Liberal ideology (in its various forms), while having some relationship with Christian theology considering the overall lineage of Western philosophy, is not equal to said theology.

Ostrinski

21st February 2012, 03:51

The problem with Marxism is that it is based on atheism.Yet you didn't explain how this in itself establishes an objective contradiction within Marxist thought.

It demands atheism and a materialist view of the world. This method of rationalizing socialism is the problem. It's as mechanical as production lines. It is why I argue that Marxism has failed. It is not because of a calculation problem, but a matter of spirituality.You're not arguing, though. You're asserting without the qualification of supporting arguments and evidence. We say materialism is what makes Marxism a legitimate system of analysis, because the dialectic of historical materialism is the most scientific method of understanding history. With the employment of the materialist conception of history, one can explain the reasons, significance, rise, and decline for and behind each historical development through analyzing the context of each development. This differs from the creationist and idealist analytical methods in that it explains why, beyond the assertion of something, which is as far as creationism and idealism go.

Inthisfar, Marxism cannot "fail" because it is not a blueprint, not a plan, not even a prediction. It's simply a method of analysis. Marxists analyze historical developments, and how each aspect of society is an outgrowth of the economic mode of production within a given point in time. We don't try to predict the future or plan for the future.

We leave that to the creationists and the idealists and laugh at them when they're wrong.

Marx based his work on this atheist philosophy of Hegel, assuming that it is correct.As has been said, Hegel had an idealist reasoning for understanding history, completely opposite of Marx. Marx was influenced by the Hegelian dialectic, but developed his own dialectical method on an opposite foundation of that of Hegel's (materialism vs. idealism).

But we all have seen the horrors of materialism in the 20th century. It is materialism that is alienating. Please convince me that I am wrong.What horrors? Materialism is a philosophical method of understanding things. It is not a proposition, or a set of propositions, for an action.

Ostrinski

21st February 2012, 03:53

If every working person in the world realized that the concept of "heaven" is not a distant or unreachable aim, the merits of capitalism would stand on the foundations of jello.Capitalism stands on the foundations of jello because of its inner contradictions, not because of the workers' perception of heaven.

Kassad

21st February 2012, 04:01

This makes as little sense as the OP. Liberal ideology (in its various forms), while having some relationship with Christian theology considering the overall lineage of Western philosophy, is not equal to said theology.

The entire concept of heaven is conceived of because economic and political society are awful, broadly speaking, across the globe. Marx called it the opiate of the masses because it gives workers a reason to keep trudging through the trenches of inane workplace mentality. The problem with your and Brospierre's analysis is that it suggests that every worker in the world knows that capitalism isn't the best of all possible worlds.

Religion is a widespread phenomenon and believing that socialist construction will eradicate it is pretty naive.

#FF0000

21st February 2012, 05:20

you might have a point with the "its mechanistic" but lol at literally everything else

Prometeo liberado

21st February 2012, 05:33

To be very simplistic I would argue that the marxist Sandinistas were also fervent believers of Liberation theology. The catholic priests were open marxism based on this new theology, as marx simply stated that all religions and superstitions would wither away as man is freed to immerse himself in science and not the hither world.

KurtFF8

21st February 2012, 05:59

The entire concept of heaven is conceived of because economic and political society are awful, broadly speaking, across the globe. Marx called it the opiate of the masses because it gives workers a reason to keep trudging through the trenches of inane workplace mentality. The problem with your and Brospierre's analysis is that it suggests that every worker in the world knows that capitalism isn't the best of all possible worlds.

Religion is a widespread phenomenon and believing that socialist construction will eradicate it is pretty naive.

I'm familiar with the concept of heaven and religion as a "distracting" or "false conscious promoting" force in society. But such a reduction, as you're making right here, makes little sense considering the conception of heaven that you're referring to predates capitalism and the working class (that you claim is high off of this opiate) by centuries.

False consciousness is much more complex than the simple idea of heaven or religion and has to do with many factors (e.g. culture, state apparatuses , etc.). On top of this, not ever religion is focused on the after life like Christianity, which makes your reduction even more problematic.

"My analysis" makes no such assumption about the working class but instead recognizes that "false consciousness" is much more complex than you are making it out to be. There are clearly other ways to lead workers (or for them to come to on their own) conclusions that are supportive of capital that are not based on conceptions of Christian heaven.

RGacky3

21st February 2012, 09:38

As was said before.

Marxian historical materialism has nothing to do with ontological materialism.

Also Marxian economics has nothing to do with religion.

I'm not adding much, just reiterating.

I'm religious and I use Marxian economics all the time, apples and oranges.

RedAtheist

22nd February 2012, 12:35

The problem with Marxism is that it is based on atheism. It demands atheism and a materialist view of the world.

Is it just me or is nobody bothering to question the notion that basing an idea on atheism is a bad thing? I'm not necessarily saying that Marxism is based on atheism (though I do believe that everybody uses rationalist, materialist epistology the vast majority of the time.) It is based on attempting to understand capitalism, how it is changing and what the changes will lead to, by looking at reality rather than coming up with abstract ideals. But if it were based on atheism, why would that be a bad thing? This is simply bigotry against atheists and yet it's too often viewed as acceptable and not challenged.

This method of rationalizing socialism is the problem. It's as mechanical as production lines.

This statement confuses me. Why would a theory is socialism that was less 'rational' (i.e. less realistic) be better?

It is why I argue that Marxism has failed. It is not because of a calculation problem, but a matter of spirituality.

What is 'spirituality' and how will it help us get to communism?

But we all have seen the horrors of materialism in the 20th century. It is materialism that is alienating. Please convince me that I am wrong

Please tell why you think that the genocides committed by Hitler, Stalin and the like were the result of 'materialism'. Can you find me one historian who thinks that the problem with such figures is that they acted too rationally and that if they had just been more willing to believe claims that did not make sense were not supported by evidence they would not have committed mass genocide.

If Stalin (or somebody under him) accused someone you knew of being a fascist traitor and threatened to send that person to a labour camp, you would probably demand that he not send that person away unless he had solid evidence that the person really was a fascist collaborator. If he said, the person should be sent to the labour camp because he had 'faith' the person was a Nazi, you would probably be justifiably outraged. This is an application of the materialist worldview that people so despise. Whether or not this worldview is an essential part of Marxism, we should not be afraid of promoting it.

daft punk

22nd February 2012, 13:04

The problem with Marxism is that it is based on atheism. It demands atheism and a materialist view of the world. This method of rationalizing socialism is the problem. It's as mechanical as production lines. It is why I argue that Marxism has failed. It is not because of a calculation problem, but a matter of spirituality. Marx based his work on this atheist philosophy of Hegel, assuming that it is correct. But we all have seen the horrors of materialism in the 20th century. It is materialism that is alienating. Please convince me that I am wrong.

Yeah, there is loads wrong with this post.

1. Marx wasnt strictly speaking an atheist. He would see trying to prove there is no god as pointless.

2. Marx talked a lot about man's spirituality (not in a supernatural sense).

3. Materialism is a form of philosophy which states that our thoughts and ideas come from the world around us.

4. The horrors of the USSR, China etc are no bad reflection on Marxism, but I cant explain all that in one short bullet point. No country has ever been socialist. Only one has actually attempted it, and the reason it failed is predicted by Marxism - socialism is impossible in a backward country in isolation.

5. Hegel was an idealist, not a materialist, and believed in god. Marx took dialectics from Hegel and combined it with the other philosophy, materialism.

Thirsty Crow

22nd February 2012, 13:47

Marx based his work on this atheist philosophy of Hegel, assuming that it is correct. But we all have seen the horrors of materialism in the 20th century. It is materialism that is alienating. Please convince me that I am wrong.
Oh what the fuck. Two mindfuck moments, congratulations!

First of all, it is too vague to say that Marx based his work on Hegel. That could mean anything, from saying that Marx employed the same method and built the same system or that he arrived at certain methodological and sociological positions by means of criticism of Hegel.

And it is a blunder to conclude that Hegel's philosophy was atheist. In fact, it's the opposite, as Hegel railed against the implicit agnosticism of French materialism and Kant in particular, if memory serves me well. In other words, the entirety of Hegel's work represents not only an active belief in the transcendent, but also the derivation of philosophy from it. It's not atheist.

thriller

22nd February 2012, 14:29

The problem with Marxism is that it is based on atheism. It demands atheism and a materialist view of the world. This method of rationalizing socialism is the problem. It's as mechanical as production lines. It is why I argue that Marxism has failed. It is not because of a calculation problem, but a matter of spirituality. Marx based his work on this atheist philosophy of Hegel, assuming that it is correct. But we all have seen the horrors of materialism in the 20th century. It is materialism that is alienating. Please convince me that I am wrong.

Again, inquiring minds need to read a book. Marxism =/= atheism. If by pointing to "the horrors of materialism" in 20th century, you mean the USSR most people here believe it was not socialist (at least after 1953). And you should know Stalin allowed the opening of the Orthodox church in WW2. So no matter how you look at it, you don't know what you are talking about, and are trolling.
Also, Engels was more influenced by Hegel than Marx IIRC.

Ocean Seal

22nd February 2012, 15:38

Materialism is a simple outline to understanding how history has worked. I've personally never read Feuerbach so I don't know enough about his philosophical materialism to accept it.
Materialism has a few exceptions, but generally looking at the macros of human existence through the lens of the mode of production it works quite fine.

Franz Fanonipants

22nd February 2012, 15:43

lawl

Deicide

22nd February 2012, 15:54

The problem with marxism is usually the marxists.

Igor

22nd February 2012, 15:56

this is the best thread

Franz Fanonipants

22nd February 2012, 15:58

The problem with marxism is usually the marxists.

mostly ultralefts

Thirsty Crow

22nd February 2012, 15:59

mostly ultralefts
You forgot the cross-lickers ;)

Franz Fanonipants

22nd February 2012, 16:04

You forgot the cross-lickers ;)

i mostly just believe cus i know that you'll suffer eternal punishment and that thought is rad

Deicide

22nd February 2012, 16:08

mostly ultralefts

I personally think it's the Stalinists/Marxist-leninists/Maoists.

Franz Fanonipants

22nd February 2012, 16:08

I personally think it's the Stalinists and Marxist-leninists.

well you would

Thirsty Crow

22nd February 2012, 16:15

i mostly just believe cus i know that you'll suffer eternal punishment and that thought is rad
You know, the other day I thought about the perfect eternal punishment in hell.
I came up with this: combine Tantalus, can't eat can't drink, with sexual arousal by a viciously good looking demon (shapeshifter, to please all sexual orientations) who teases and does not please. Plus branding of the forehead and tearing off your ears and nose and inserting cow dung in the holes that are left.

Like it?

hatzel

22nd February 2012, 16:16

Franz Fanonipants

22nd February 2012, 16:17

tbh i think that the non-pagan hell is worse. eternal physical pain and all that is bad, but being dead and existence-less for eternity is way worse.

well, i mean, you won't know it. so there's that for God's eternal mercy but you know what i mean.

Franz Fanonipants

22nd February 2012, 16:18

There are plenty of problems with Marxism. Or, with certain Marxisms. None of them are even partially addressed by the OP, though. Something tells me there was never any intention to engage with anything in a productive manner...

(Just pretending to try to salvage the thread, don't mind me)

i mean of course, but saying "hey you know whats wrong w/material determinism!? MATERIAL DETERMINISM" is just plain dumb and doesn't really deserve any kind of substantive refutation imo.

danyboy27

22nd February 2012, 17:24

The problem with Marxism is that it is based on atheism. It demands atheism and a materialist view of the world. This method of rationalizing socialism is the problem. It's as mechanical as production lines. It is why I argue that Marxism has failed. It is not because of a calculation problem, but a matter of spirituality. Marx based his work on this atheist philosophy of Hegel, assuming that it is correct. But we all have seen the horrors of materialism in the 20th century. It is materialism that is alienating. Please convince me that I am wrong.
Marx was not an atheist and neither was hegel.
Materialism is Hardly something that marx invented(it goes back a long way from the axial age), he only pointed out that the only things that have a real influence on out lives are the material conditions(standard of living, education, climate) in wich we evolve.

Its hardly up to debate, unless of course you can demonstrate without the shadow of a doubt that god or some other higher power dirrectly change the course of history.

that being said, you can be a religious person and be a materialist. The only prerequiste for this is to accept that god gave us freewill and that the fate of this world will be determined by our actions.

Thirsty Crow

22nd February 2012, 17:32

Marx was not an atheist and neither was hegel.

Okay, then show me where Marx makes his belief in a higher being explicit (or implicit, for that matter).
And I don't think I have to remind you of the passage where he discussed religious alienation and concluded with the famous expression of the opium of the people.

trivas7

22nd February 2012, 19:43

The problem with Marxism, like all stripes of libertarian socialism, is that it sees as morally acceptable the use of force to counter the accumulation of capital, or to forcibly redistribute capital. But this amounts to institutionalized interference with or aggression against private property claims and the marketplace, so in practice socialist governments never butt out. Inevitably the human spirit wants to assert itself, and thus capital accumulation begins anew, viz. what has happened in Eastern Europe, India and even China.

Azraella

22nd February 2012, 19:49

Okay, then show me where Marx makes his belief in a higher being explicit (or implicit, for that matter).
And I don't think I have to remind you of the passage where he discussed religious alienation and concluded with the famous expression of the opium of the people.

I always thought Marx was agnostic though I have heard claims that he was a 'gnostic atheist'. Also, I'm pretty confident that Engels was a convinced atheist, but I don't think it is as clear with Marx.

The problem with Marxism, like all stripes of libertarian socialism, is that it sees as morally acceptable the use of force to counter the accumulation of capital, or to forcibly redistribute capital. But this amounts to institutionalized interference with or aggression against private property claims and the marketplace, so in practice socialist governments never butt out. Inevitably the human spirit wants to assert itself, and thus capital accumulation begins anew, viz. what has happened in Eastern Europe, India and even China.

Property itself is enforced with force. Think about that. Without the state, capitalism would collapse.

Deicide

22nd February 2012, 19:57

Property itself is enforced with force. Think about that. Without the state, capitalism would collapse.

Tell that to the Anarcho-Capitalists. They think utopia will begin when government and the mediocrity it causes, is torn down.

Ilyich

22nd February 2012, 19:57

NGNM85

22nd February 2012, 22:17

But we all have seen the horrors of materialism in the 20th century.

Utter nonsense. Of all the numerous deficits of the Third Reich, etc., an excess of rationality is not among them. The atrocities perpetrated by said regimes were largely the product of what were, essentially, secular religions; Nazism, etc.

Franz Fanonipants

22nd February 2012, 22:19

Utter nonsense. Of all the numerous deficits of the Third Reich, etc., an excess of rationality is not among them. The atrocities perpetrated by said regimes were largely the product of what were, essentially, secular religions; Nazism, etc.

yes this is what happened not the persistence of capitalism

bro you are the best waste of bandwith on revleft

black magick hustla

22nd February 2012, 22:44

people who believe in "ontological materialism" are museum artifacts anyway. materialism comes from the view that the world was made up of hard balls colliding each other, like some giant machine or something. it made sense to be in the 19th century a materialist, not anymore imho. the physical world is much more complex than billiard balls.

KurtFF8

23rd February 2012, 03:53

While that may be one antiquated version of ontological materialism, to equate all materialism (in the ontological sense) to that view is simply false and a straw man (e.g. "physicalism" is the result of materialism)

trivas7

23rd February 2012, 14:11

Property itself is enforced with force.
Indeed, only a fool does not attempt to secure his property.

Franz Fanonipants

23rd February 2012, 16:17

Indeed, only a fool does not attempt to secure his property.

what really is the point of letting these fuckers post?

like i mean basically we keep rgacky around because he's addicted to putting everything into market terms to appeal to people like this, but he's ALSO restricted because he only works in that framework.

#FF0000

23rd February 2012, 18:15

Indeed, only a fool does not attempt to secure his property.

no but you see property is literally theft

eric922

23rd February 2012, 19:13

what really is the point of letting these fuckers post?

like i mean basically we keep rgacky around because he's addicted to putting everything into market terms to appeal to people like this, but he's ALSO restricted because he only works in that framework.
I thought Rgacky was only restrcited due to his stance on abortion. I don't see anything wrong with his economic views, he consistently attacks capitalism and he has a better understanding of economics and how capitalism works than a lot of posters on this board.

Ned Kelly

23rd February 2012, 22:01

Wow mr Social Justice Activist, you have convinced me with your clearly superior intellect.

Materialism is wrong and religion, which has proven so good for the working class throughout history, will deliver 'social justice'.

Righto

trivas7

24th February 2012, 05:25

what really is the point of letting these fuckers post?

Wow -- is this how you earned your 1227 rep points?

trivas7

24th February 2012, 05:26

no but you see property is literally theft
Theft implies property stolen, my friend.

Tenka

24th February 2012, 05:56

Theft implies property stolen, my friend.
Indeed, property is stolen from the commons; but before then, it's not exactly "property".

#FF0000

24th February 2012, 05:58

Theft implies property stolen, my friend.

there is a lake.

nobody owns it

everyone can use it

a guy comes along and says he owns it

no one can use it except for this guy now.

how can one justify that without going against literally everything libertarians believe about non-aggression and agency

black magick hustla

24th February 2012, 07:33

trivas7

24th February 2012, 14:44

there is a lake.

nobody owns it

everyone can use it

a guy comes along and says he owns it

no one can use it except for this guy now.

how can one justify that without going against literally everything libertarians believe about non-aggression and agency
Declarations of ownership do not establish ownership; neither do I aggress against anyone by the mere fact that I own a lake.

RGacky3

24th February 2012, 14:53

Declarations of ownership do not establish ownership; neither do I aggress against anyone by the mere fact that I own a lake.

Basically, because every premis of ownership is just arbitrary.

Lanky Wanker

24th February 2012, 15:44

Declarations of ownership do not establish ownership

I'm pretty sure that's how private ownership started. How did early humans build their homes? Buy the raw materials from nature? We're so far past things like this that we automatically see someone's name written in invisible ink on every object we come across.

KurtFF8

24th February 2012, 16:13

physicalism is not the same as materialism.

They aren't equal, this is correct. But physicalism is a kind of materialism.

(like Catholicism is a type of Christianity)

Franz Fanonipants

24th February 2012, 16:18

Wow -- is this how you earned your 1227 rep points?

harsh bro

Franz Fanonipants

24th February 2012, 16:19

I thought Rgacky was only restrcited due to his stance on abortion. I don't see anything wrong with his economic views, he consistently attacks capitalism and he has a better understanding of economics and how capitalism works than a lot of posters on this board.

he consistently attacks capitalism by validating it because he's basically a market socialist

#FF0000

24th February 2012, 19:16

Declarations of ownership do not establish ownership; neither do I aggress against anyone by the mere fact that I own a lake.

But this is the basis of all property ownership. That is literally how it all began.

trivas7

25th February 2012, 00:28

Basically, because every premis of ownership is just arbitrary.
What do you mean that "every premise of ownership is just arbitrary"?

For a concept of property to arise, there must be a scarcity of goods. Should there be no scarcity, and should all goods be so-called “free goods” whose use by any one person for any one purpose would not in any way exclude (or interfere with or restrict) its use by any other person or for any other purpose, then there would be no need for property. It is the function of property rights to avoid such possible clashes over the use of scarce resources by assigning rights of exclusive ownership. Property is thus a normative concept designed to make a conflict-free interaction possible by stipulating mutually binding rules of conduct (norms) regarding scarce resources. Nothing "arbitrary" about it.

Yuppie Grinder

25th February 2012, 00:30

trivas7

25th February 2012, 00:36

harsh bro
No; calling those who post here 'fuckers" is harsh. Disagree with me, but keep your potty mouth at home, bro.

Night Ripper

25th February 2012, 01:36

there is a lake.

nobody owns it

everyone can use it

They can use it but are they using it? If not then when I come in and build my lake resort, it's mine now.

Lanky Wanker

25th February 2012, 01:39

For a concept of property to arise, there must be a scarcity of goods. Should there be no scarcity, and should all goods be so-called “free goods” whose use by any one person for any one purpose would not in any way exclude (or interfere with or restrict) its use by any other person or for any other purpose, then there would be no need for property.

So is there a scarcity of the means of production? "I claim the rights to own this factory because there aren't enough factories to give to everyone." Maybe I'm missing your point here, so enlighten me.

They can use it but are they using it? If not then when I come in and build my lake resort, it's mine now.

I claim ownership of the fruit in your kitchen when you're not using it then.

#FF0000

25th February 2012, 08:56

They can use it but are they using it? If not then when I come in and build my lake resort, it's mine now.

i use the machines at my job more than my bosses (at any level) do. Do I own those now?

How long is this grace period, btw. Is the lake up for grabs as soon as I step out of it, or is it after a couple of weeks or months or years? if you want to claim ownership is it enough to see the treeline on the horizon or can you only claim what you've actually seen of the entire forest?

That shit is weak, bro.

Rafiq

25th February 2012, 14:28

physicalism is not the same as materialism.

You don't know what Materialism is.

To rail against materialism (the foundational basis of ALL Marxist thought) because you have qualms with mechanical materialism (antithetical to marxism) is absurdity.

Materialism is not "Billard balls hitting each other". That's an oversimplification of a very important scientific advancement.

Physicians can try and explain metaphysics (what the world is made of), but when it comes to socioloyy and human behavior, culture, human interaction, this is a dead end.

Rafiq

25th February 2012, 14:40

Plus, BMH, perhaps your qualms with materialism lie within the unfortunate circumstance that you are overestimating things like "Human creativity" and "Human behavior" (Something the miseans rally around, that using mathematics and scientific models to understanding economies is impossible because "Humans are too complex").

Humans aren't a very complex species at all, or at least no more complex than any other animal. The "Complex" humans are mentally impaired ones, (I.e. , the ones that behave through spontaneous outbursts of emotional, or plain apathetic thoughts), and even those types can probably be cured eventually, or understood.

As a matter of fact, the human brain and a computer aren't too far off in terms of complexity, eventually, we'll have the capability to alter the brain in the same way.

If you're going to ditch Materialism, you may very well ditch Marxism, as without materialism, Marxism crumbles to pieces and makes absolutely no sense.

RGacky3

25th February 2012, 14:58

Humans aren't a very complex species at all, or at least no more complex than any other animal. The "Complex" humans are mentally impaired ones, (I.e. , the ones that behave through spontaneous outbursts of emotional, or plain apathetic thoughts), and even those types can probably be cured eventually, or understood.

As a matter of fact, the human brain and a computer aren't too far off in terms of complexity, eventually, we'll have the capability to alter the brain in the same way.

We hav'nt even touched the surface of explaining human behavior completely, or even brain activity.

All econonomics can do is predict based on incentives and a good economic theory will overall be correct based on those incentives, thats what all economics does, from Marxism, to austrian economics.

Ditching historical materialism ditches some aspects of marxism, but not any other type of materialism, infact you can not even get INTO philisophical materialism at all and completely understand marxian economics.

Franz Fanonipants

25th February 2012, 15:51

No; calling those who post here 'fuckers" is harsh. Disagree with me, but keep your potty mouth at home, bro.

fuck you

fucker

trivas7

25th February 2012, 17:12

So is there a scarcity of the means of production? "I claim the rights to own this factory because there aren't enough factories to give to everyone." Maybe I'm missing your point here, so enlighten me.

Declarations of ownership don't establish ownership.

Are you saying we live in a world of abundance where there is no scarcity of goods and resources? What exactly don't you understand?

Lanky Wanker

26th February 2012, 01:12

Declarations of ownership don't establish ownership.

For a concept of property to arise, there must be a scarcity of goods.

But how does this concept of property arise? How does one establish ownership at the very origin of property? Animals are not born with private property, nor are humans. We cannot buy a cabin from the forest we use to make it. One must collect the raw materials and manipulate them to build the cabin, then declare it as his. If I make a spear from a stick and a rock I find on the floor, how does it become my property? Does the face of mother nature appear in the sky and say "I am giving you this stick and rock so it is now your property"?

Are you saying we live in a world of abundance where there is no scarcity of goods and resources? What exactly don't you understand?

There is a scarcity of certain goods and resources, I'm not saying there isn't. What I don't understand is how you think the concept of property and ownership started. I can't really learn anything from your arguments until you explain this to me. And in regards to a scarcity of goods:

Should there be no scarcity, and should all goods be so-called “free goods” whose use by any one person for any one purpose would not in any way exclude (or interfere with or restrict) its use by any other person or for any other purpose, then there would be no need for property.

Are you saying private property defends people's freedom and rights? Are we supposed to feel sorry for the bourgeoisie because letting the workers who pay for their Bentleys own the means of production would interfere with or restrict their use of the workplace? Or are you simply trying to communicate that if there is a scarcity of condoms, my right to "own" a Durex extra sensitive will stop someone from pulling it off my knob? The fact that, under communism, your house will not be your private property does not mean everyone will be allowed a set of keys to enter it whenever they wish, nor does it mean that the apple in your hand can be taken from you without question. Private property crushes more rights than it defends.

hatzel

26th February 2012, 01:20

Declarations of ownership don't establish ownership.

The issue with saying this, though, is that you haven't put forward any other firm basis for the establishment of ownership. At least not in this thread. As far as I can see. You seem to accept it as a given, before lamenting the horror if it were to be interfered with...but how exactly does it come about? Do I have to mix my labour in with it somehow? How can property then be transferred? Can mixing my labour in the established property of another secure it for me? This is more than a mere declaration of ownership, but an act of seizure...is this what is required to establish ownership?

Rafiq

26th February 2012, 01:27

We hav'nt even touched the surface of explaining human behavior completely, or even brain activity.

But eventually we will.

All econonomics can do is predict based on incentives and a good economic theory will overall be correct based on those incentives, thats what all economics does, from Marxism, to austrian economics.

Yes, all forms of culture and language (Ideology too) have absolutely nothing to do with economics :rolleyes: because the same culture we have now would be exactly the same if we were living in Feudalism. We'd have all the same Ideology, slang, culture, views on religion, etc. Right? It's just incentives? :laugh: give me a fucking break.

Ditching historical materialism ditches some aspects of marxism, but not any other type of materialism, infact you can not even get INTO philisophical materialism at all and completely understand marxian economics.

Historical Materialism ditches all aspects of Marxism. Metaphysical Materialism, on the other hand, you can live without.

If you don't understand Historical Materialism, you can never understand Marxian economics. Destroy that, and Marxian economics all flushes down the shitter.

Ostrinski

26th February 2012, 01:59

They can use it but are they using it? If not then when I come in and build my lake resort, it's mine now.So I can come to your house and turn it into halfway house because I'm putting it to better use?

Klaatu

26th February 2012, 02:48

"The problem with Marxism is that it is based on atheism."

That's like saying that golf is based on God, because The Pope likes to play golf.

While it is true that Marx was Atheist, the tenets of Marxism have to do with economics and social order, not theology.

Adam Smith-ism was not based on religion either... and Capitalism is not based upon Christianity (surprise!)

In fact, no economic thinker has ever based his idea upon religion... so why should Marx?

and furthermore...

Albert Einstein was atheist... do you deny the law of relativity?
Thomas Edison was atheist... do you refuse to use light bulbs?
Gene Roddenberry was atheist... do you refuse to watch StarTrek?

Minima

26th February 2012, 02:51

@ rafiq I think you're abusing alot of words, like metaphysics, i don't even know what mechanical materialism means i assume you mean something like physicalism.

"If you're going to ditch Materialism, you may very well ditch Marxism, as without materialism, Marxism crumbles to pieces and makes absolutely no sense."

I don't think (early) 19th century materialism is really an integral part of Marxist theory, and historical materialism is an interesting part of marx's theory that has a lot of ideas and analysis, that a lot of later marxist theorists disagree and vary widely on.

alot of people talk more generally about historical materialism as being like a deterministic idea that society/the world will eventually change towards communism because of the objective forces of history or whatever, and ya it's an over simplification (billiard balls) because you can come away from that and still retain the majority (productive forces, stage to stage of revolutions, superstructure etc.) of that theory as useful tools of analysis. You probably understand that, I just don't really agree with how you're arguing it.

...it does leave you rather depressed.

Rafiq

26th February 2012, 03:23

Metaphysics is the topic of what the world is "made of", no?

Historical materialism NEVER comes to the conclusion history is Linear and that it all leads up to communism. It is a determinism, but a dynamic determinism, i.e. Marxists reject the concept of history being linear but understand that human culture and behavior are determined by the mode of production they unintentionally brought about.

Even things like behavior-altering genes were in fact produced by the earliest forms of human organization.

Historical materialism isn't a weapon of communist ideology. Rather, it's a scientific model that UNDERSTOOD communist ideology, or all other ideology as reflections of class relations.

Azraella

26th February 2012, 03:29

Albert Einstein was atheist... do you deny the law of relativity?

No he wasn't. He was a pandeist. His god was Spinoza's god.

Rafiq

26th February 2012, 04:13

Pantheism is postreligious desperation. It's the most pathetic concept ever.

Azraella

26th February 2012, 04:18

Western pantheism usually is just sexed up atheism. Though there are exceptions, for example Stoicism is practice is pantheistic, and Norse Heathenry tends to emphasize it's pantheistic aspects in practice. Eastern pantheism usually tends towards mystical explanations and belief such as belief in reincarnation.

thriller

26th February 2012, 04:30

"The problem with Marxism is that it is based on atheism."
Gene Roddenberry was atheist... do you refuse to watch StarTrek?

Fuck yeah, that shit sucks.

Klaatu

26th February 2012, 05:10

Fuck yeah, that shit sucks.

now now. I am positive that you use light bulbs.:lol:

#FF0000

26th February 2012, 08:14

The issue with saying this, though, is that you haven't put forward any other firm basis for the establishment of ownership.

lol remember how robert nozick spent his entire life trying to do just this and now whenever people use his name in a scholarly context it is always paired with a disclaimer about how wrong his entire life's work was

Zav

26th February 2012, 08:41

trivas7

26th February 2012, 15:04

If you don't understand Historical Materialism, you can never understand Marxian economics. Destroy that, and Marxian economics all flushes down the shitter.
How? How does historical materialism establish Marxian economics?

Rafiq

26th February 2012, 15:37

How? How does historical materialism establish Marxian economics?

Marxian economics is an understanding of the capitalist mode of production, without an understanding of materialism and dialectics than an understanding of class becomes a bourgeois rationalist one (that class is defined by income), and a belief that capitalism is not a constant process, but a mere state of affairs. With such an analysis, we can never truly understand how capital works, how production goes about, etc.

One cannot be a Marxist without understanding Historical Materialism.

If you take away HM, jt becomes an Idealist analysis of capitalism as well, and one can simply come to the conclusion that "If people all just act moral our problems are solved" (Thought before matter).

trivas7

26th February 2012, 16:28

Rafiq

26th February 2012, 21:54

This doesn't answer my question (and you seem to be conflating dialectics and HM).

No, as I said, we are to assume without historical materialism, we are stuck within the mindset of bourgeois rationalism, which is antithetical to Marxian economics. If we presuppose the validity of Idealism and Bourgeois Rationalism, Marxian economics flushes down the shitter.

TheRedAnarchist23

26th February 2012, 22:04

I could have summarised the several problems of marxism a lot better, but I don't feel like it now.

Rafiq

26th February 2012, 23:29

I could have summarised the several problems of marxism a lot better, but I don't feel like it now.

I'll do the honors:

"Authoritah is bad, and Marxists love Authoritah. They are robots that hate liberty. Stalin was bad and marxists make stalins. Also bakunin predicted marksism wer gonna tuen into dictaturship look wr happen. Paris commhne and anarchist catalonia are perfext utopias which I mausterbate to evary day"

hatzel

26th February 2012, 23:33

I'll do the honors:

"Authoritah is bad, and Marxists love Authoritah. They are robots that hate liberty. Stalin was bad and marxists make stalins. Also bakunin predicted marksism wer gonna tuen into dictaturship look wr happen. Paris commhne and anarchist catalonia are perfext utopias which I mausterbate to evary day"

...point of this post?

EDIT: a perfectly viable criticism of most(?) post and present Marxisms could very easily be forwarded by attacking their dastardly shaky philosophical foundations but whatevs

Revolution starts with U

26th February 2012, 23:54

RGacky3

27th February 2012, 10:18

Marxian economics is an understanding of the capitalist mode of production, without an understanding of materialism and dialectics than an understanding of class becomes a bourgeois rationalist one (that class is defined by income), and a belief that capitalism is not a constant process, but a mere state of affairs. With such an analysis, we can never truly understand how capital works, how production goes about, etc.

YOu don't need materialism and dialectics at all to think of class as a social relation.

Also process economics is not at all tied to a dialectical materialist analysis.

Many marxists have approached marxism from a purely analytical tradition, many have done it without ANY phylisophical traditions attached and done it purely on an economic basis.

No, as I said, we are to assume without historical materialism, we are stuck within the mindset of bourgeois rationalism, which is antithetical to Marxian economics. If we presuppose the validity of Idealism and Bourgeois Rationalism, Marxian economics flushes down the shitter.

Rationalism is part of epistemology that is opposed to empiricism, it has'nt got to do with historical materialism.

YOu don't need to presuppose idealism, or materialism, in any form, (obviously your not talking about ontology), nor do you need dialectics.

Rafiq

27th February 2012, 11:51

Gacky, you cannot be outside the realm of idealist/materialist thought. There is no neutral mode of thinking here. It's one or the other.

black magick hustla

27th February 2012, 11:58

No he wasn't. He was a pandeist. His god was Spinoza's god.

spinosa's god is not a real god, seriously. by all intents and purposes spinoza was an atheist philosopher.

RGacky3

27th February 2012, 12:12

Gacky, you cannot be outside the realm of idealist/materialist thought. There is no neutral mode of thinking here. It's one or the other.

Idealism and materialism mean different things in different contexts, none of them are fixed, so its totally different in different aspects.

When you have historical materialism, thats one thing, but to have a historical materialist outlook on economics does'nt require overall materialism.

Lanky Wanker

27th February 2012, 16:17

I see trivas7 had problems getting back to those of us who were on the topic of property.

Azraella

27th February 2012, 17:42

spinosa's god is not a real god, seriously. by all intents and purposes spinoza was an atheist philosopher.

It's debateable. We could argue all day on what Spinoza intended, but Spinoza's conception of God is pantheistic(or pandeistic or panentheist) depending on your interpretation of his works. Frankly I lean towards the idea that Spinoza was a pandeist. But I digress, still, western pantheism is generally sexed up atheism with some exceptions. So in the end I guess you have a point.

MotherCossack

27th February 2012, 18:17

hi everyone!
i'm dumb... no i mean really, really dense....
and getting dumber with each passing post....
i have sat reading this thread ... for whole minutes... several of them....
and my brain has done a runner...
so we are talking about... marxism being no good cos...he didnt believe in god and the the twentieth century was awfully materialistic and... marx was an materialistic athiest...
and property is an ancient birth rite of dubious origins and aquiring it involves praying that the property fairy will either produce the goods or at least squash the folk who stand between you and the glorious, fandabbydozy property.

yeah?.... hmmmm...

1/ the only horror of the twentieth century that i think is relevant is the horror of capitalism!
oh... and the rampant worship of consumer durables that it [capitalism] so relentlessly promoted.
2/ i think it is obvious
that property ....it is... like...i want it...
dont want to share ... not fair..
its all mine... you cant have any... cos it's all mine ..
i know i own it all and i dont need that much...
i know that you lot dont have enough....
but i dont care !
cos it my private property!

that is the basic philosophy of property.
hey... you know what.... its a lot like theft...
why... own it... why?
use it ... utilise it... take what you need ...but why the need to accumulate extra?
and extra... suggests you take more than you need ...
which implies you steal someone else's share!

3/ pretend you are trying to explain historical and dialectical materialism to a young child.... no long words, difficult concepts or references to other reading material or existing respected theories that rely on background knowledge and a computer like ability to process facts.

a challenge for you clever lot...
i would be very grateful.
remember for a young child.... simple stuff!!!

Rafiq

27th February 2012, 22:13

Idealism and materialism mean different things in different contexts, none of them are fixed, so its totally different in different aspects.

I'm not talking about metaphysical materialism (What the world is made of) I'm talking about Materialism and Idealism in the sense of the Materialism/Idealism of analyzing human interaction, or, history as a whole (modern times as well) and the origin of culture, etc.

When you have historical materialism, thats one thing, but to have a historical materialist outlook on economics does'nt require overall materialism.

If by "Overall" materialism, you mean metaphysical materialism (The whole world is made of matter, etc.) than yes, that's correct. What's your point?

RGacky3

28th February 2012, 08:30

I think we were talking over each other.

Anyway, you can still understand class conflict, marxian class analysis, internal contradictions of capitalism, the processs of capital accumulation, without understanding the underlying principles of historical materialism.

The same way one can understand classical economics without understanding their underlying philosophies.

"Authoritah is bad, and Marxists love Authoritah. They are robots that hate liberty. Stalin was bad and marxists make stalins. Also bakunin predicted marksism wer gonna tuen into dictaturship look wr happen. Paris commhne and anarchist catalonia are perfext utopias which I mausterbate to evary day"

I don't understand why taking the predictable outcome of authoritarian systems, taking into account conflicts of interests and incentive structures is utopian???

trivas7

28th February 2012, 21:08

The issue with saying this, though, is that you haven't put forward any other firm basis for the establishment of ownership. At least not in this thread. As far as I can see. You seem to accept it as a given, before lamenting the horror if it were to be interfered with...but how exactly does it come about? Do I have to mix my labour in with it somehow? How can property then be transferred? Can mixing my labour in the established property of another secure it for me? This is more than a mere declaration of ownership, but an act of seizure...is this what is required to establish ownership?
My own research point to the division of labor and something called "original accumulation" as the historical introduction of private property. What's stopping you from doing your own historical research?

I would love to believe that there exists a possible economic system that is equitable in sharing the goods that society provides. But everything I've learned from history (and the philosophy of classical liberalism) demonstrates that this is a chimera. The choice is between a society of volunteer association (capitalism) or a society based on violence and political pull (collectivism). All utopian schemes entail the redistribution of individuals wealth and therefore violates the non-aggression principle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)

If communists could provide a blueprint of how such a system could actually work -- like the classical liberals did for capitalism -- I would wholeheartedly love to get on board, but no one has ever done this and AFAIK it can't be done.

#FF0000

28th February 2012, 21:15

like the classical liberals did for capitalism

when did they ever do this?

trivas7

28th February 2012, 22:05

when did they ever do this?
You've never heard of Adam Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations', Montesquieu's 'The Spirit of the Laws', Quesnay's 'Tableau Economique', Bastiate's 'Economic Harmonies' and 'The Law', John Locke, J. B. Say, and into the modern era Mises ('Liberalism') and Rothbard ('For a New Liberty')?

Lanky Wanker

28th February 2012, 22:26

My own research point to the division of labor and something called "original accumulation" as the historical introduction of private property. What's stopping you from doing your own historical research?

Well we can't research the ideas running through your mind until you tell us what they are. Are we supposed to Google "how do non-communists believe private property started?" and hope you follow that idea? Thank you for the answer, which I will look into soon, but it sounded like you were holding it off.

Thought I'd avoid bringing this up as I can't be bothered with such never ending arguments, but you're totally asking for it here:

The choice is between a society of volunteer association (capitalism) or a society based on violence and political pull (collectivism). All utopian schemes entail the redistribution of individuals wealth and therefore violates the non-aggression principle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)

Azraella

28th February 2012, 23:07

You've never heard of Adam Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations', Montesquieu's 'The Spirit of the Laws', Quesnay's 'Tableau Economique', Bastiate's 'Economic Harmonies' and 'The Law', John Locke, J. B. Say, and into the modern era Mises ('Liberalism') and Rothbard ('For a New Liberty')?

The only one I haven't read is Liberalism by Mises but I've read all of the others.

The choice is between a society of volunteer association (capitalism) or a society based on violence and political pull (collectivism). All utopian schemes entail the redistribution of individuals wealth and therefore violates the non-aggression principle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)

The non-aggression principle is for cowards.

Revolution starts with U

28th February 2012, 23:23

I like how its capitalism v collectivism, not cap v Comm or ind v Coll... what?

Its especially funny when considering most of the earliest "individualist" philosophers were strict anticapitalists.

#FF0000

29th February 2012, 01:19

trivas7

29th February 2012, 15:14

The non-aggression principle is for cowards.
Indeed, peal back a true communist and one inevitably finds an authoritarian.

I like how its capitalism v collectivism, not cap v Comm or ind v Coll... what?

Its especially funny when considering most of the earliest "individualist" philosophers were strict anticapitalists.
How about the irony that Marx -- purportedly the espouser of communism -- was obsessed with understanding capitalism.

RGacky3

29th February 2012, 15:18

No shit, because Capitalism is the system NOW in the real world.

Rafiq

29th February 2012, 17:00

How about the irony that Marx -- purportedly the espouser of communism -- was obsessed with understanding capitalism.

Marx was fascinated by capitalism. He didn't "put forward communism". He merely recognized it as the movement which represented the interests of the proletariat, and that, eventually, the proletariat's interests would become antithetical to the present state of things i.e., the limitations of the system to satisfy their class interest would be visible, and overthrow it's class enemy.

trivas7

29th February 2012, 17:18

Marx was fascinated by capitalism. He didn't "put forward communism". He merely recognized it as the movement which represented the interests of the proletariat, and that, eventually, the proletariat's interests would become antithetical to the present state of things i.e., the limitations of the system to satisfy their class interest would be visible, and overthrow it's class enemy.
Terrific -- how did that work out in practice for the proletariat historically? Disasterously, IMO, because socialist regimes never understood how wealth is created in the first place.

Lucretia

29th February 2012, 17:56

Terrific -- how did that work out in practice for the proletariat historically? Disasterously, IMO, because socialist regimes never understood how wealth is created in the first place.

Oh? And how is "wealth" created? By rolex-wearing trust fund babies readjusting their stock portfolios?

RGacky3

29th February 2012, 18:07

Revolution starts with U

29th February 2012, 18:09

Indeed, peal back a true communist and one inevitably finds an authoritarian.
That's right. Now shutup or I'll beat you up :rolleyes:

How about the irony that Marx -- purportedly the espouser of communism -- was obsessed with understanding capitalism.

Ya, well it would make sense... since those are actually diametrically opposed to each other :rolleyes:

Revolution starts with U

29th February 2012, 18:10

Terrific -- how did that work out in practice for the proletariat historically? Disasterously, IMO, because socialist regimes never understood how wealth is created in the first place.

You mean the worldwide massive rise in living standards that can almost exclusively be attributed to class struggle and the threat of communism?

... worked out quite well, actually.

trivas7

29th February 2012, 19:46

Actually Capitalism is following exactly how marx would predict.

You mean the worldwide massive rise in living standards that can almost exclusively be attributed to class struggle and the threat of communism? ... worked out quite well, actually.
LOL. :lol:

Revolution starts with U

29th February 2012, 19:50

Apparantly someone didn't understand the first thing about capitalism and class strugle in his brief stint as a leftist.

Night Ripper

29th February 2012, 20:09

The non-aggression principle is for cowards.

So you're cool with being gang raped?

Azraella

29th February 2012, 20:23

Indeed, peal back a true communist and one inevitably finds an authoritarian.

No. The NAP is a flawed basis for any ideology. The NAP is inconsistent and immoral which is why I oppose it. Almost every patch of land on Earth was stolen (i.e. obtained through initiation of force) at some point in its history. The stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners. Thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force. Also consider that it legitimizes non-physical violence such as verbal defamation, discrimination, and mental abuse. Finally, it doesn't contribute to the total sum of human happiness for those reasons. Since property was obtained by force and it allows for other kinds of violence, it is simply an inconsistent basis for any ideology that supposedly extols non-aggression.

It is not authoritarian to oppose an immoral justification for theft, violence, and abuse.

Azraella

29th February 2012, 20:24

So you're cool with being gang raped?

Cool strawman bro.

Revolution starts with U

29th February 2012, 20:37

Strannik

29th February 2012, 20:54

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I have recently come to believe that Marx seems sometimes... vague because he did not intend oppose the bourgeois concepts of property, morality, value etc. with similar, neatly packed "socialist" concepts of property, morality and value. Instead he had in mind a society that is constantly evolving memetic concepts as the objective situation demands. A society that becomes "militaristic" when attacked and "liberal" when at peace. A society that is constantly redistributing capital (or "power over nature") in order to maximize the social value - whether it demans distribution from individual to society or from society to individual. I don't know if I subscribe to everything that has been said about dialectical materialism, but it seems to me, that Marx belived capitalism can be overcome only by a society that is both more dynamic and at the same time more unified than capitalism.

As such, I think it is a bit complex to say whether Marx was "for" or "against" any particular thing or concept. Perhaps he would say - being for or against something is a process determined by objective conditions. When I support (or oppose) religion right now - what does it bring about in the future?

trivas7

29th February 2012, 20:58

No. The NAP is a flawed basis for any ideology. The NAP is inconsistent and immoral which is why I oppose it. Almost every patch of land on Earth was stolen (i.e. obtained through initiation of force) at some point in its history. The stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners. Thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force. Also consider that it legitimizes non-physical violence such as verbal defamation, discrimination, and mental abuse. Finally, it doesn't contribute to the total sum of human happiness for those reasons. Since property was obtained by force and it allows for other kinds of violence, it is simply an inconsistent basis for any ideology that supposedly extols non-aggression.

It is not authoritarian to oppose an immoral justification for theft, violence, and abuse.
Land, stolen? Stolen from whom? From the kings and lords who expropriated the labor of serfs who lived at subsistent levels of poverty we would find unimaginable? Do you recognise the incredible advances in longevity and wealth afforded to previous serfs by becoming proletariat? Stolen presupposes the legitimacy of property. Point me to that modern society that doesn't recognise the legitimacy of private property and lives unencumbered by the violence of the idea of property.

I grant you that property is a moral principle, however. What is the moral principle that sanctions its destruction?

trivas7

29th February 2012, 21:04

Are you prepared to justify that statement?

You mean the worldwide massive rise in living standards that can almost exclusively be attributed to class struggle and the threat of communism?

Azraella

29th February 2012, 21:42

As such, I think it is a bit complex to say whether Marx was "for" or "against" any particular thing or concept. Perhaps he would say - being for or against something is a process determined by objective conditions. When I support (or oppose) religion right now - what does it bring about in the future?

I'm not even a Marxist, I just happen to use Marxian analysis and economics. Edited : fixed my sentence.

Land, stolen? Stolen from whom? From the kings and lords who expropriated the labor of serfs who lived at subsistent levels of poverty we would find unimaginable?

When property was institutionalized as a thing it was stolen from communities and gave a select few access to a monopoly on natural resources. A prime example of this was when the Spanish and French appropriated land from Native Americans

Point me to that modern society that doesn't recognise the legitimacy of private property and lives unencumbered by the violence of the idea of property.

This is a red herring. What modern society believes about property is irrelevant when discussing the morality of the institution/practice/whatever itself.

I grant you that property is a moral principle, however. What is the moral principle that sanctions its destruction?

My entire reasoning for opposing the institution of private property is precisely because it is a system that can only be reinforced with violence, is built upon violence, and restricts the freedom of all.

eric922

29th February 2012, 22:13

Azraella

29th February 2012, 22:59

lady catherine just the won the thread and quite the possibly the entire internet.

butt guise! itz viulant 2 tak mah proprtea! D:

But seriously, right libertarian ideology devolves into authoritarianism without the illusion of freedom granted by the NAP. Which is why I tried asking that question about the NAP here on revleft to the libertarians who lurk here and I didn't get a satisfactory answer.

Rafiq

29th February 2012, 23:27

Terrific -- how did that work out in practice for the proletariat historically? Disasterously, IMO, because socialist regimes never understood how wealth is created in the first place.

Or, maybe, because the only proletarian revolution to exist was in Russia, which was an economically backward country and there was a minority of proletarians to begin with?

Or can you name me another PROLETARIAN revolution?

Revolution starts with U

1st March 2012, 02:55

Are you prepared to justify that statement?

Jobs that pay a living wage in sn 8hr workday, with weekends off, worker and consumer protections as law, state subsidized food distribution, welfare and unemployment protection, union organizers don't get shot at or burned to death (at least in the developed world)

... Ya, I'm prepared to defend that statement. Which of those do you think would have come about without class struggle and the threat of communism?

Revolution starts with U

1st March 2012, 03:00

Land, stolen? Stolen from whom? From the kings and lords who expropriated the labor of serfs who lived at subsistent levels of poverty we would find unimaginable? Do you recognise the incredible advances in longevity and wealth afforded to previous serfs by becoming proletariat? Stolen presupposes the legitimacy of property. Point me to that modern society that doesn't recognise the legitimacy of private property and lives unencumbered by the violence of the idea of property.

I grant you that property is a moral principle, however. What is the moral principle that sanctions its destruction?

Did those kings and nobles just show up with their property claims the day the world was created? Or... did they gain it from being descended from the original expropriators?

Do you realize none of those living standards "trickled down" until those former serfs unionized and demanded it?

RGacky3

1st March 2012, 08:21

LOL. http://www.revleft.com/vb/problem-marxism-t168123/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

How is that an Lol???

Capitalism STILL followed Marx's coarse

Rate of profit to fall, financialization, and ever growing crisis.

trivas7

1st March 2012, 14:51

When property was institutionalized as a thing it was stolen from communities and gave a select few access to a monopoly on natural resources. A prime example of this was when the Spanish and French appropriated land from Native Americans

I'm certainly not defending the rapaciousness of Western powers that stole land from native Americans. Property, however, began in prehistoric times and no one can really prove what actually happened; it is merely presumption on your part to believe that everywhere and in all cases private property entailed violence.

My entire reasoning for opposing the institution of private property is precisely because it is a system that can only be reinforced with violence, is built upon violence, and restricts the freedom of all.What freedom is left to one who does not have the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values?

trivas7

1st March 2012, 15:41

Or, maybe, because the only proletarian revolution to exist was in Russia, which was an economically backward country and there was a minority of proletarians to begin with?

Or can you name me another PROLETARIAN revolution?
The Communist movement means much more than the Russian Revolution of 1917; at some point in the 50s socialist regimes dominated half the world's population. How do you think the proletariat did materially under those regimes?

trivas7

1st March 2012, 16:04

Did those kings and nobles just show up with their property claims the day the world was created? Or... did they gain it from being descended from the original expropriators?

Who were the original "expropriators"?

Do you realize none of those living standards "trickled down" until those former serfs unionized and demanded it?
There were no unions at the inception of capitalism.

Revolution starts with U

1st March 2012, 17:56

Who were the original "expropriators"?

There were no unions at the inception of capitalism.

Spontaneous organizing of unionized labor developed pretty much at the same time as the industrialized age began.
In fact, unionization and collective bargaining were outlawed in England in the 14th century. No surprise that a rightist doesn't know what hes talking about :rolleyes:

And the system of landed nobility goes back millennia. Its hard to say who first did it, you're correct. But its almost certain they did it with spears, arrows, and swords.

Rafiq

1st March 2012, 19:47

The Communist movement means much more than the Russian Revolution of 1917; at some point in the 50s socialist regimes dominated half the world's population. How do you think the proletariat did materially under those regimes?

All had exact conditions as Russia did, minus the proletarian revolution. Again, Russia's was only a PROLETARIAN revolution, the others, were not. They had to CREATE a proletariat.

Rafiq

1st March 2012, 19:50

The Communist movement means much more than the Russian Revolution of 1917; at some point in the 50s socialist regimes dominated half the world's population. How do you think the proletariat did materially under those regimes?

More than 80% of the world isn't in NATO yet they'd all be crushed in a heart beat and are still victims of Imperialism. "half the world being socialist" means nothing, if even 1% is industrialized( before socialism )and is capitalist

RGacky3

2nd March 2012, 08:52

All had exact conditions as Russia did, minus the proletarian revolution. Again, Russia's was only a PROLETARIAN revolution, the others, were not. They had to CREATE a proletariat.

Is'nt that just semantics???

Why would you need to create proletarians (i.e. workers exploited by capitalists) before you can emancipate them???

If you needed industrialization (which makes a lot more sense), you could easily industrialize in a socialist and democratic way more slowly, without resorting to the capitalist methods.

The Communist movement means much more than the Russian Revolution of 1917; at some point in the 50s socialist regimes dominated half the world's population. How do you think the proletariat did materially under those regimes?

Thats rediculous, you have to look at the actual conditions before and after, its as dumb as arguing against bolivias evo morales by comparing bolivia to the United States.

#FF0000

2nd March 2012, 09:37

So you're cool with being gang raped?

hurp durp you think the nap is a dumb and inconsistent thing u must like rape hgugubgubgugbgubhubgubg

#FF0000

2nd March 2012, 09:39

Who were the original "expropriators"?

the folks who first gathered dudes with weapons and laid claim to land that was once owned by no one and available to all.

There were no unions at the inception of capitalism.

Guilds, dogg.

Night Ripper

3rd March 2012, 14:24

No. The NAP is a flawed basis for any ideology. The NAP is inconsistent and immoral which is why I oppose it. Almost every patch of land on Earth was stolen (i.e. obtained through initiation of force) at some point in its history. The stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners. Thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force.

1. Your argument is self-defeating. You presuppose the NAP is valid by declaring that all property is stolen and complaining about it. If we disregard the NAP then those stolen lands aren't an issue. You clearly agree with the NAP, you just think that it can't or isn't being applied currently.

2. Not every patch of land was stolen. That's highly unlikely. However, a lot of land was stolen and according to the NAP, which you agree with, it should be returned to whoever has a rightful claim. If we can't figure that out because there's no evidence or if no claim is made then we have to assume that the current owner is the rightful owner. Some American Indian can't come up to me and say "my ancestors used to live around here". That's not good enough. Did they live here exactly and how can this be corroborated? How do we know you are the actual heir? Obviously, we can't go all the way back to when humans were living in caves to establish property rights.

Also consider that it legitimizes non-physical violence such as verbal defamation, discrimination, and mental abuse.

So, you oppose free speech and free association. I bet you'd outlaw racism and sexism if you could. You're clearly an authoritarian.

Rafiq

3rd March 2012, 17:41

Is'nt that just semantics???

No, it's not. Saying "But dey were not socialist" is semantics.

Why would you need to create proletarians (i.e. workers exploited by capitalists) before you can emancipate them???

The process of creating proletarians is antithetical to emancipating them. They very process of doing so that existed in the non industrialized countries inevitably resulted in the retaining of the capitalist mode of production.

If the revolution spread to countries with already existing proletarians in large numbers, than industrialization with the capitalist mode of production would be unnecessary in Neo-Feudal countries (Due to Imperialism and competition with other Imperialist states being non existent, also, brute secuirity measures would not be as necessary as well).

If you needed industrialization (which makes a lot more sense), you could easily industrialize in a socialist and democratic way more slowly, without resorting to the capitalist methods.

Such an assumption is naive and Utopian. Industrialization under socialism is impossible. Lenin recognized this, which is why he changed the definition of socialism, i.e., the retaining of the capitalist mode of production with state monopoly. This was the only way to industrialize Russia.

And can you shut it with this "democratic" nonsense. Democracy is a non-existent concept. As rhetoric, it was merely a means of the bourgeois class retaining Ideological hegemony. All bourgeois states hide themselves under some sort of mystified ideological status quo, be it democracy, nationalism, or religious values. It saddens me fools like you cannot escape such mystification, so you plug in such a disastrous formula into revolutionary politics.

Bordiga was right when he said using democracy as rhetoric is inherently bourgeois.

What do you mean by democracy? Look deep into yourself, do you think a country like Russia, with all the factions at hand, could have been completely organized by supreme exectuvie power being handled to democracy (I.e. The Soviets?). This was disastrous and would have resulted in the revolution being completely destroyed by the counter revolution. There is a reason the Bolsheviks did away with them (Hint: it's not because "power corrupts"). Petty "democratic" organization in the work place was in existence in the Soviet Union, even up to Stalin.

Thats rediculous, you have to look at the actual conditions before and after, its as dumb as arguing against bolivias evo morales by comparing bolivia to the United States.

Well isn't this a weak argument. The cataclysmic change that the capitalist mode of production created before and after feudalism far surpassed the "socialist" one, before and after feudalism, if you want to look statistically.

Rafiq

3rd March 2012, 17:44

There were no unions at the inception of capitalism.

And living standards at the inception of Capitalism vs. Capitalism after Unions and worker's organization had quite a difference.

Prinskaj

3rd March 2012, 23:50

The rise in standard of living did not accelerate with your elitist unions prick.
Have you even read the slightest bit about working conditions pre-unions?
And secondly it was the state that turned the semi-radical unions into the more bourgeoisie obedient unions that we have today.

Revolution starts with U

4th March 2012, 02:10

1. Your argument is self-defeating. You presuppose the NAP is valid by declaring that all property is stolen and complaining about it. If we disregard the NAP then those stolen lands aren't an issue. You clearly agree with the NAP, you just think that it can't or isn't being applied currently.

2. Not every patch of land was stolen. That's highly unlikely. However, a lot of land was stolen and according to the NAP, which you agree with, it should be returned to whoever has a rightful claim. If we can't figure that out because there's no evidence or if no claim is made then we have to assume that the current owner is the rightful owner. Some American Indian can't come up to me and say "my ancestors used to live around here". That's not good enough. Did they live here exactly and how can this be corroborated? How do we know you are the actual heir? Obviously, we can't go all the way back to when humans were living in caves to establish property rights.
.

If you realize this is as arbitrary and contrived ss a thing can be, and nobody is under any obligation to really give a shit, then what's the point? Its just a naive ethical choice based in negative liberty.

To the comment below: you might want to check your data, comrade.

The rise in standard of living did not accelerate with your elitist unions prick.

Revolution starts with U

4th March 2012, 02:13

Btw "before unions" is a misnomer. Its more like "before unionizing was a capital offense" :rolleyes:

Rafiq

4th March 2012, 03:12

The rise in standard of living did not accelerate with your elitist unions prick.

Yeah, working 18 hrs a day, slave wages and child labor were the same standard of living as what we have now.

#FF0000

4th March 2012, 05:32

The rise in standard of living did not accelerate with your elitist unions prick.

lol wow

RGacky3

4th March 2012, 15:57

The rise in standard of living did not accelerate with your elitist unions prick.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/unionincome.jpg

Prick.

Rafiq

4th March 2012, 19:02

What is this measuring? Household income?

You've been living in a hole for your whole life.

If you honestly think life for workers in capitalism was better before Unions, your head is so far up your ass I don't think anyone should waste their time with you.

NewLeft

4th March 2012, 19:06

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/unionincome.jpg

Prick.

In fairness, the scales on this graph are misleading.

o well this is ok I guess

4th March 2012, 19:19

Declarations of ownership don't establish ownership.

Are you saying we live in a world of abundance where there is no scarcity of goods and resources? What exactly don't you understand? You're right, a simple declaration does not establish ownership.

But we all know what does.

Force.

trivas7

6th March 2012, 17:43

You're right, a simple declaration does not establish ownership.

But we all know what does.

Force.
You misunderstand the meaning of property. Property is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context, not a right to an object.

KurtFF8

6th March 2012, 17:51

You misunderstand the meaning of property. Property is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context, not a right to an object.

Huh, I don't think this is accurate even in terms of a liberal understanding of property. I'm not sure that too many pro-capitalist thinkers would agree with you here.

Revolution starts with U

6th March 2012, 17:56

So... those with the property have the freedom? No, that sounds about right to me.

Dark Matter

6th March 2012, 18:03

What an idiot you leave the forum as soon you read my post
communism, as originally laid out by marx and engelys required the destruction of all religion in order to reach its ideal end-state.
And Marx considered the contributions of religion over the centuries to be unimportant and irrelevant to the future of humanity.
Atheistic philosophy had, in his view, liberated human beings from suppressing their natural potential and allowed for people to realize that they, rather than any supernatural force that required obedience, were the masters of reality. Marx’s hatred for religion was based especially upon this view in that he believed religion alienated humans from reality and held them back from their true potential. He therefore considered that religion needed to be absolutely eliminated from society.

Here you go this is why Socialism,Communism,....Marxsism is without religion,now stop *****ing and LIVE YOUR LIFE CUZ GOD DOESN'T EXIST

Azraella

6th March 2012, 18:25

Garbage

No I don't agree with the NAP. I think it's an illegitimate ethical principle based around fuzzy pre(and mis-)conceptions around self-ownership and private property.

So, you oppose free speech and free association. I bet you'd outlaw racism and sexism if you could. You're clearly an authoritarian.Actually, I support free speech and free association. I just don't think those rights are axioms. When your rights override my rights not to be abused or treated like shit, then your rights to be an ass are invalid.

Also: Mind telling me how racism and sexism aren't authoritarian structures?

trivas7

6th March 2012, 18:46

No I don't agree with the NAP. I think it's an illegitimate ethical principle based around fuzzy pre(and mis-)conceptions around self-ownership and private property.

What are those misconceptions exactly?

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The right to property is a right to action, it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it.

Azraella

6th March 2012, 20:19

What the fuck are you talking about? Rights, far from being fixed, are the product of social evolution and human action, thought and emotions. What is acceptable now may become unacceptable in the future. Really, natural rights simply don't exist at all. Rights are a product of a society.

Grenzer

6th March 2012, 20:31

What are those misconceptions exactly?

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The right to property is a right to action, it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it.

Sorry, but this is just shit.

There are no such thing as rights, only a liberal would be naive enough to think otherwise. The "right" of property is a novel innovation, and has only been around for an infinitesimally small fraction of human history. There have been "rights" in a legalistic framework long before property rights.

One key thing that all workers must realize is that rights are an illusion, and exist solely at the leisure of the ruling class to perpetuate their power. The rule of law is just a bunch of bullshit to coerce people into behaving in a manner consistent with the rule of class in power. It seems like you are just a flaming liberal though.

What kind of altruistic jerk are you? Why the hell would you sacrifice your own interests for that of the rich? Next you will probably be claiming that "capitalism has existed for thousands of years" or some other absurd shit like that.

trivas7

6th March 2012, 21:35

Hit The North

6th March 2012, 21:52

A bit late for this intervention but anyways...

For a concept of property to arise, there must be a scarcity of goods. Well this is patently false. Historically it appears to be the creation of a surplus (ie an excess of usable goods above and beyond that required for immediate consumption) that provides the basis for the rise of private property.

Meanwhile, as an example, the enforced privatisation of the Western territories of the United States, through the violent expropriation of the local population, was fuelled by an abundance of land not a scarcity.

Private property is a relation between people and other people, not a relation between people and things.

trivas7

6th March 2012, 22:05

Private property is a relation between people and other people, not a relation between people and things.
Yes, property is a moral sanction between people that defines the action and the consequences of producing or earning an object.

Hit The North

6th March 2012, 22:10

Yes, but the fact that it is a moral sanction does not make it an ethical reality that is underpinned by some natural right.

If you think it is, go tell it to the native-Americans.

Night Ripper

7th March 2012, 00:24

No I don't agree with the NAP. I think it's an illegitimate ethical principle based around fuzzy pre(and mis-)conceptions around self-ownership and private property.

Actually, I support free speech and free association. I just don't think those rights are axioms. When your rights override my rights not to be abused or treated like shit, then your rights to be an ass are invalid.

Also: Mind telling me how racism and sexism aren't authoritarian structures?

You failed to respond to this.

2. Not every patch of land was stolen. That's highly unlikely. However, a lot of land was stolen and according to the NAP, which you agree with, it should be returned to whoever has a rightful claim. If we can't figure that out because there's no evidence or if no claim is made then we have to assume that the current owner is the rightful owner. Some American Indian can't come up to me and say "my ancestors used to live around here". That's not good enough. Did they live here exactly and how can this be corroborated? How do we know you are the actual heir? Obviously, we can't go all the way back to when humans were living in caves to establish property rights.

I'm going to assume you agree since you were silent about it. If you disagree, why?

trivas7

7th March 2012, 00:29

Yes, but the fact that it is a moral sanction does not make it an ethical reality that is underpinned by some natural right.
I never mentioned natural rights.

seventeethdecember2016

7th March 2012, 07:20

The problem with Marxism is that it is based on atheism.
Oh yeah! Dammit! Marxism's biggest problem, even though it is mostly an economic ideology, is that it has an Athiest tendency. Wow! How could we be so wrong.
Marxism should be based on religion!
Long live Jim Jones!

^ Sarcasm

To be honest, your nothing but a troll.

RGacky3

7th March 2012, 08:40

Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The right to property is a right to action, it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it.

The right to the product of your labor is not at all property rights, those are 2 differnet AND conflicting things.

Hit The North

7th March 2012, 11:42

I never mentioned natural rights.

That doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about the origin of private property.

Dark Matter

7th March 2012, 11:45

The only problem here is you so what are you going to do?

Oh yea im sorry your IQ is to low to understand the greatness of Marxism and atheism

Azraella

7th March 2012, 16:09

Night Ripper: No, I don't think there is ever a rightful claim to property. I don't think it's right for a select few to monopolize on the means of production or land. Workplaces, machinery, land, credit, housing, products under patent; all owned by a select few inevitably leads to violence and force. As Proudhon said more than a 100 years ago:

"The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign -- for all these titles are synonymous -- imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once . . . [and so] property engenders despotism . . . That is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse . . . if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings -- kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?"

Don't get me wrong I like to own stuff(I am an avid collector of Magic the Gathering cards for example) but I don't think it is morally right for anyone to have a claim or monopoly on land, homes, and workplaces. I simply cannot conceive as an anarchist why anyone can support an authoritarian relationship between a property owner and anyone else.

trivas7

7th March 2012, 17:08

Workplaces, machinery, land, credit, housing, products under patent; all owned by a select few inevitably leads to violence and force. As Proudhon said more than a 100 years ago:

What makes you think this? How does private property lead to violence and force exactly? If force and violence is not the abrogation of the non-aggression principle (I still await why the NAP is "an illegitimate ethical principle based around fuzzy pre(and mis-)conceptions around self-ownership and private property"), what is force and violence? How is owning Magic the Gathering cards any different than owning workplaces, machinery, land, etc. in principle?

Yefim Zverev

7th March 2012, 17:10

RGacky3

7th March 2012, 18:49

year 2012 u still believe in god ?

I do.

What makes you think this? How does private property lead to violence and force exactly?

It does'nt LEAD to force it requires force, the same way monarchy requires force or at least the threat of force, and not only the threat of force, but institutional threat of force, i.e. systematic.

But ultimately she is right, it leads to violence because as capitalism progresses and the gap between the rich and the poor grows, and the more peopel end up in the desperately poor, your gonna end up with violence, either in the extracting of more profits (already hapening) or from the desperation of the exploited and dispossessed.

(I still await why the NAP is "an illegitimate ethical principle based around fuzzy pre(and mis-)conceptions around self-ownership and private property"), what is force and violence? How is owning Magic the Gathering cards any different than owning workplaces, machinery, land, etc. in principle?

Because owning Magic Cards does not require an institution of force to uphold ownership.

Azraella

7th March 2012, 19:06

year 2012 u still believe in god ?

Yeppers.

What makes you think this? How does private property lead to violence and force exactly? If force and violence is not the abrogation of the non-aggression principle (I still await why the NAP is "an illegitimate ethical principle based around fuzzy pre(and mis-)conceptions around self-ownership and private property"), what is force and violence? How is owning Magic the Gathering cards any different than owning workplaces, machinery, land, etc. in principle?

1. The NAP relies on the idea of natural rights.

2. The NAP relies on the idea of self-ownership(which has all the same issues as Cartesian dualism. I can't own myself as I am myself.)

3. Rgacky said it better than I could.

trivas7

7th March 2012, 20:22

Yeppers.

1. The NAP relies on the idea of natural rights.

2. The NAP relies on the idea of self-ownership(which has all the same issues as Cartesian dualism. I can't own myself as I am myself.)

3. Rgacky said it better than I could.
Relies on natural rights or self-ownership (which is it)?

Prove it. In fact you have no clue what rights, property and violence are (at least none that I can discern).

eric922

8th March 2012, 04:01

What makes you think this? How does private property lead to violence and force exactly? If force and violence is not the abrogation of the non-aggression principle (I still await why the NAP is "an illegitimate ethical principle based around fuzzy pre(and mis-)conceptions around self-ownership and private property"), what is force and violence? How is owning Magic the Gathering cards any different than owning workplaces, machinery, land, etc. in principle?
You aren't really asking this are you? You must have shelter and food to live, you must work to obtain those things. If I'm a factory owner and you're a worker I get have authority over you because you need access to the factory to live, whereas you don't need access to Magic the Gathering cards to live. Ownership of the means of production, the only form of property socialists want to abolish, grants authority of one man over another. That is authoritarianism.

RGacky3

8th March 2012, 08:24

Relies on natural rights or self-ownership (which is it)?

Self-Ownership is an incoherant thought, like wet water.

it relies on both of them, both the idea of natural rights and the incoherant bumbling that is "self-ownership."

Anyway, Trivas, why not address actual points that have been brought up.

trivas7

8th March 2012, 13:57

Ownership of the means of production, the only form of property socialists want to abolish, grants authority of one man over another.
Nonsense. In a free society what authority does someone who owns land, tools or a business have over anyone else (who also might likewise own those things)?

Night Ripper

8th March 2012, 14:43

In a free society what authority does someone who owns land, tools or a business have over anyone else (who also might likewise own those things)?

Those people have things I want. Unless I can just take things by force, I have to do whatever those people want. For example, when I want a girl's affection, I am forced to do whatever she wants for it, take her out to dinner, a movie, listen to her opinions, etc, unless I can just force her to have sex with me. I'm basically a slave to her. That's not freedom.

RGacky3

8th March 2012, 14:55

Veovis

8th March 2012, 14:55

RGacky3

8th March 2012, 14:55

Nonsense. In a free society what authority does someone who owns land, tools or a business have over anyone else (who also might likewise own those things)?

The authority to with hold things necessary for a comfortable life and push people into an exploited situation.

trivas7

8th March 2012, 16:02

The authority to with hold things necessary for a comfortable life and push people into an exploited situation.
Nonsense. No one has the power to guarantee you a comfortable life nor freedom from fraud or theft.

RGacky3

8th March 2012, 18:27

When I say comfortable life, I mean basic livelyhood in society, when I talk about exploitation I mean a situation where you don't have control over the fruits of your labor.

trivas7

8th March 2012, 18:43

When I say comfortable life, I mean basic livelyhood in society, when I talk about exploitation I mean a situation where you don't have control over the fruits of your labor.
In a free society everyone has control over the fruits of his labor. This defines a free society.

RGacky3

8th March 2012, 18:45

In a free society everyone has control over the fruits of his labor. This defines a free society.

Not when you have capitalism, infact that is basically what capitalism IS, by definition, thats what the capitalist/labor institution is.

Night Ripper

8th March 2012, 19:15

Her sex organs are part of her body. Are the means of production (and I'm not talking labor power) part of your body?

Ad hoc and arbitrary. Property is property.

hatzel

8th March 2012, 19:34

Those people have things I want. Unless I can just take things by force, I have to do whatever those people want. For example, when I want a girl's affection, I am forced to do whatever she wants for it, take her out to dinner, a movie, listen to her opinions, etc, unless I can just force her to have sex with me. I'm basically a slave to her. That's not freedom.

...hold up wait what's your point here? That having to acquire a girl's intent before having sex with her makes you a slave to her...but then isn't your big problem with socialism something to do with how it makes everybody reliant on others letting them do stuff...so your ideal of freedom in this analogy is...raping people? :confused: Or have I misunderstood? Maybe even that isn't freedom, as it relies on her being weak enough for you to overpower. Is the point of this analogy then that individual freedom is impossible? Because if that's the case we might well be in agreement, though I don't think I'd choose to use a rape analogy to get that point across...

trivas7

8th March 2012, 19:56

Not when you have capitalism, infact that is basically what capitalism IS, by definition, thats what the capitalist/labor institution is.
OTC, capitalism is exactly that free society.

Night Ripper

8th March 2012, 20:02

...hold up wait what's your point here? That having to acquire a girl's intent before having sex with her makes you a slave to her...but then isn't your big problem with socialism something to do with how it makes everybody reliant on others letting them do stuff...so your ideal of freedom in this analogy is...raping people? :confused: Or have I misunderstood? Maybe even that isn't freedom, as it relies on her being weak enough for you to overpower. Is the point of this analogy then that individual freedom is impossible? Because if that's the case we might well be in agreement, though I don't think I'd choose to use a rape analogy to get that point across...

My point is that people can deny you things that you want and therefore are able to control you if you want those things bad enough. If you object to people lording food over you then you must also object to people lording sexual favors over you. If you take food by force, why not sex by force? The fact that you or whoever doesn't do that, tells me that they don't really believe what they claim.

Grenzer

8th March 2012, 20:05

Trivas is just a troll. However, it is amusing to watch Night Ripper go on his moralistic diatribes about why taking away property is evil.

RGacky3

8th March 2012, 21:02

Ad hoc and arbitrary. Property is property.

Except you can't OWN your body because you ARE your body.

Its an incoherant thought.

OTC, capitalism is exactly that free society.

Ok, your obviosuly just trolling here.

CommunityBeliever

8th March 2012, 21:26

Unless I can just take things by force, I have to do whatever those people want. For example, when I want a girl's affection, I am forced to do whatever she wants for it, take her out to dinner, a movie, listen to her opinions, etc, unless I can just force her to have sex with me. I'm basically a slave to her. That's not freedom. Why don't you explore the Internet a bit more? There are plenty of websites out there to help you satiate your sexual apetite.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/500px-Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png
Everyone has a right to their physiological and safety needs. Beyond that, if you need friendship, intimacy, and other social relations you might have to work for it. There are social networking systems to help you with that these days. On the other hand, rape isn't going to help at all.

Ad hoc and arbitrary. Property is property. No its not. Your body isn't a part of the means of production. Our goal as communists is to equalise social relations to production.

Night Ripper

8th March 2012, 22:18

Everyone has a right to their physiological and safety needs. Beyond that, if you need friendship, intimacy, and other social relations you might have to work for it.

What makes your view of rights correct and mine incorrect or is this just a case of differing opinions?

CommunityBeliever

9th March 2012, 03:13

What makes your view of rights correct and mine incorrect or is this just a case of differing opinions?

There is an abundance of food, water, land, and other natural resources available today. I think these resources should be distributed in an egalitarian manner in order to satisfy everyone's basic needs and you don't because you are of the elitist persuasion. This is a simple case of differing opinions on elitism vs egalitarianism.

RGacky3

9th March 2012, 08:48

What makes your view of rights correct and mine incorrect or is this just a case of differing opinions?

Yours lead to self contradiction.

hatzel

9th March 2012, 15:35

By
There is an abundance of food, water, land, and other natural resources available today. I think these resources should be distributed in an egalitarian manner in order to satisfy everyone's basic needs and you don't because you are of the elitist persuasion. This is a simple case of differing opinions on elitism vs egalitarianism.

By which you mean to say 'indeed, it is just difference of opinion and my view of rights is no more correct than yours.' Which greatly undermines any argument premised on the assertion that everybody has rights to...a limited array of things, as opposed to another limited array of things...this applies equally to both sides of the argument, with their 'everybody has X, Y and Z rights'-type justifications.