Private property and workers rights

[ThatGuy]

This is something, that has puzzled me since always. If workers have the right to the full fruit of their labour, doesn't that entail private property?

For example if I produce a field, isn't that field now exclusively mine forever, since somebody else growing something on my field means I can't use the whole field I've produced and am thus unable to enjoy part of the fruits of my labour?

Another pretty similar example is if I build a machine and somebody uses it while I'm asleep to produce goods for himself. Machines are worn down by use, so that means that if someone else is using my machine, I'll be left with less operating time for the machine than if he didn't. Doesn't that mean that person is robbing me of my labour?

The way I see it, people owning the full product of their labour means they have the right to exclude everybody else from what they have created, and that is basically what private property does.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Marxists (and most anarchists, as far as I'm aware) do not think that workers have a "right to the full fruit of their labor". Marx wrote against the notion at length in the "Critique of the Gotha Program". And in any case, trying to base socialism on "rights" is misguided.

Marxists fight for a society in which workers, as a group, will have free access to the full social product, but this does not translate into an individual "right".

[ThatGuy]

Interesting, I always thought that marxists considered workers entitled to what they produce. It's something that I always encountered when debating about the exploitation of workers.

What is the marxist stance on property then? Do people own their body? Their personal property? And what philosophical argument are those beliefs based on?

[Comrade #138672]

This is something, that has puzzled me since always. If workers have the right to the full fruit of their labour, doesn't that entail private property?There is a difference between personal property and private property. In this case, there would be personal property (consumption goods) but no private property (capital).


For example if I produce a field, isn't that field now exclusively mine forever, since somebody else growing something on my field means I can't use the whole field I've produced and am thus unable to enjoy part of the fruits of my labour?

Another pretty similar example is if I build a machine and somebody uses it while I'm asleep to produce goods for himself. Machines are worn down by use, so that means that if someone else is using my machine, I'll be left with less operating time for the machine than if he didn't. Doesn't that mean that person is robbing me of my labour?

The way I see it, people owning the full product of their labour means they have the right to exclude everybody else from what they have created, and that is basically what private property does.This post by Blake's Baby explains this beautifully: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694813&postcount=11

[Axiomasher]

...

For example if I produce a field, isn't that field now exclusively mine forever...

You have an argument to claim that you should enjoy the specific fruits of your labour on the earth but the existence of the earth (or its resources) isn't itself a result of your labour, so no.

[ThatGuy]

You have an argument to claim that you should enjoy the specific fruits of your labour on the earth but the existence of the earth (or its resources) isn't itself a result of your labour, so no.

But what's the difference, really? The apple you harvested from your tree and the tree itself are made of the resources of the earth, so why can you own them? Hell, even "your" body is made of resources from the earth.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

There is a difference between personal property and private property.

To make the distinction even more clear we might speak of private property and personal belongings (like inhereted jewelry, photoalbums and your toothbrush).


About private property and expropriation, i think Kropotkin said it best when he wrote:


We do not want to rob any one of his coat, but we wish to give to the workers all those things that lack of which makes them fall an easy prey to the exploiter, and we will do our utmost that none shall lack aught, that not a single man shall be forced to sell the strength of his right arm to obtain a bare subsistence for himself and his babes. That is what we mean when we talk of expropriation; that will be our duty during the revolution...

[Axiomasher]

But what's the difference, really? The apple you harvested from your tree and the tree itself are made of the resources of the earth, so why can you own them? Hell, even "your" body is made of resources from the earth.

Land isn't reproducible but the fruits of the land are. Moreover the land, and the earth's resources, do not exist as a result of labour, even if fruits derived therefrom are so. So there's a qualitative difference. As soon as you, and your fellow 'owners', put fences around portions of the earth for your exclusive benefit, you are depriving the remainder of opportunity to participate in production from the earth on equitable terms. hence the alienation and exploitation which results.

As an aside I don't think it makes much sense to talk of 'owning' your body, you have rights, or should have rights, but you're not, or should not be, thought of as merely 'goods'.

[Baseball]

There is a difference between personal property and private property. In this case, there would be personal property (consumption goods) but no private property (capital).

This post by Blake's Baby explains this beautifully: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694813&postcount=11

Blake's Baby explanation means there is no such thing as personal property; that "trowel" cannot belong anyone either.
Neither can that diamond necklace which somebody else mentioned could be considered personal property.

[Baseball]

Land isn't reproducible but the fruits of the land are. Moreover the land, and the earth's resources, do not exist as a result of labour, even if fruits derived therefrom are so. So there's a qualitative difference. As soon as you, and your fellow 'owners', put fences around portions of the earth for your exclusive benefit, you are depriving the remainder of opportunity to participate in production from the earth on equitable terms. hence the alienation and exploitation which results.

Not really-- somebody wishes to work there I suppose could apply for a job. But not everyone who wants to work there would be able to do. This is true in the socialist community as well.

[ThatGuy]

Land isn't reproducible but the fruits of the land are. Moreover the land, and the earth's resources, do not exist as a result of labour, even if fruits derived therefrom are so. So there's a qualitative difference. As soon as you, and your fellow 'owners', put fences around portions of the earth for your exclusive benefit, you are depriving the remainder of opportunity to participate in production from the earth on equitable terms. hence the alienation and exploitation which results.

As an aside I don't think it makes much sense to talk of 'owning' your body, you have rights, or should have rights, but you're not, or should not be, thought of as merely 'goods'.

Ownership of something doesn't really mean it's a good, it's the right to exclude others from using what you own. So unless other people can do things to you without your consent, you do own your body.

I don't understand what the qualitative difference between a field and an apple is. Aren't they both things you find useful and are produced by mixing labour with natural resources? When you put a fence around a field you're excluding others from using something you made from the earth and when you put that apple in a locked container, you do the same, don't you?

Also I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the fruits of the land are reproducible. You can't grow more than X apples per orchard and you can't mine more than X tons of iron from a mine. Land is limited and its resources are limited.

[Axiomasher]

Not really-- somebody wishes to work there I suppose could apply for a job. But not everyone who wants to work there would be able to do. This is true in the socialist community as well.

Yes really, private property is coercive monopolisation which alienates wider society and sets the ground for their consequent exploitation.

[Axiomasher]

Ownership of something doesn't really mean it's a good, it's the right to exclude others from using what you own. So unless other people can do things to you without your consent, you do own your body.

I don't understand what the qualitative difference between a field and an apple is. Aren't they both things you find useful and are produced by mixing labour with natural resources? When you put a fence around a field you're excluding others from using something you made from the earth and when you put that apple in a locked container, you do the same, don't you?

Also I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the fruits of the land are reproducible. You can't grow more than X apples per orchard and you can't mine more than X tons of iron from a mine. Land is limited and its resources are limited.

Ownership implies that something can be bought and sold and I don't think it is right that people can be bought and sold.

I appreciate that you 'don't understand' the difference between the land and an apple produced from that land but that's not really my fault, I've used plain language. Land is not reproducable in that if you have an acre you can't grow two acres from it, if you have a tree you have the potential to grow a multiplicity of apples and further trees. This is why monopolisation of land alienates in a substantive way but claiming the fruits of your labour, the apple, doesn't. You could be pedantic and claim that there is, ultimately, only a finite number of apples that can be grown, but I'm not really interested in pedantry, it's only evidence that you've lost your argument.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Interesting, I always thought that marxists considered workers entitled to what they produce. It's something that I always encountered when debating about the exploitation of workers.

Capitalist exploitation entails the appropriation of most of the value produced by the workers by the bourgeoisie. But this does not mean, one, that the value produced by any individual laborer can be calculated (in most cases only the aggregate value produced by an economic operation is tractable, if that), and two, that the workers have a right to "the undiminished proceeds of their labor" (Lassalle's phrase, that Marx ridiculed extensively).

Marxism, in general, doesn't entail a moral evaluation of exploitation - there was a time when capitalism was progressive, after all. Marx aimed to show, not that capitalism was unjust, but that it was unstable.


What is the marxist stance on property then? Do people own their body? Their personal property? And what philosophical argument are those beliefs based on?

Again, Marxism doesn't start from a normative theory of property like certain right-"libertarian" philosophies, but from a descriptive account of society.

[helot]

Marxists (and most anarchists, as far as I'm aware) do not think that workers have a "right to the full fruit of their labor".


i'd pretty much agree with this. It's a red herring.




It is impossible to calculate an individual's share in the production of the world's wealth because not only is production social but it's also based upon the work of millions of workers in the past. Millions of workers have cleared the forests, drained the marches, opened up highways by land and water, improved the soil, selectively bred vegetation to produce succulent fruits and vegetables, have built settlements, made coasts and rivers navigable, have built harbours, dug mines etc etc. That's not even mentioning the thousands upon thousands of inventors, known and unknown, or the generations of unnamed workers who have added these partial improvements to the original invention without which even the most fertile of ideas would remain fruitless. It's more than that though as every new invention is a synthesis: the result of tons of inventions that have preceeded it. The same holds true for all of the productive capabilities of Man.

[ThatGuy]

Ownership implies that something can be bought and sold and I don't think it is right that people can be bought and sold.

I appreciate that you 'don't understand' the difference between the land and an apple produced from that land but that's not really my fault, I've used plain language. Land is not reproducable in that if you have an acre you can't grow two acres from it, if you have a tree you have the potential to grow a multiplicity of apples and further trees. This is why monopolisation of land alienates in a substantive way but claiming the fruits of your labour, the apple, doesn't. You could be pedantic and claim that there is, ultimately, only a finite number of apples that can be grown, but I'm not really interested in pedantry, it's only evidence that you've lost your argument.

As obvious a crime that slavery has been historically, I believe people have the right to sell themselves if they wish to do so, even though I don't know why anyone would actually ever do that. On the other hand I also don't understand people who kill themselves(except when terminally ill), but I still think they have the right do do it.

Sorry, but your argument is flawed. If you have an acre, you can't grow another one out of it, but you can homestead another acre. There is, ultimately, only a finite number of acres of land that can be homesteaded, but that doesn't seem to bother you with apples, so I don't see the big deal with land. All material resources are scarce, without exception. Waving that away when it doesn't suit you is not consistent philosophy. If inconsistency doesn't bother you, you just won all the arguments.

[helot]

As obvious a crime that slavery has been historically, I believe people have the right to sell themselves if they wish to do so, even though I don't know why anyone would actually ever do that.

As we know from previously existing slave societies such as the more well-known ones that existed in Classical Antiquity people sold themselves into slavery because of poverty. It was generally due to debt. Although usually the first port of call was selling your children into slavery.


Here's a question though, what if the slave no longer wanted to be a slave? I'd imagine you'd side with the slave owner.


The difference is of course that your proclaimations of "liberty" is not liberty at all but a shallow justification for oppression.

[ThatGuy]

As we know from previously existing slave societies such as the more well-known ones that existed in Classical Antiquity people sold themselves into slavery because of poverty. It was generally due to debt. Although usually the first port of call was selling your children into slavery.


Here's a question though, what if the slave no longer wanted to be a slave? I'd imagine you'd side with the slave owner.


The difference is of course that your proclaimations of "liberty" is not liberty at all but a shallow justification for oppression.

I know it happened, but there are so many other options, that I simply can't see why someone would actually choose slavery. If he'd no longer want to be a slave, and he permanently sold himself into slavery, he wouldn't have a say in it according to my beliefs, true. That's why you DON'T want to be a slave, there's no turning back. However from what I know, when people sold themselves into slavery, they usually kept some of their rights and had a limit on the duration of their servitude, or ways out of it. It's just like with any other contract really. If you sign something you regret later, you're usually screwed, so it's a good idea to really think things through and have a way to opt out of it.

That's the main point about contracts though, you choose to enter them. You can always pretend they simply aren't an option and you can ignore that they even exist.

Well, I could say what you're promoting is oppression just as easily. How can you be free when others have the right to take away from you what you devoted your scarce time on earth to make? How can you be free, when you're coerced into relationships you don't wish to be part of?

[helot]

I know it happened, but there are so many other options, that I simply can't see why someone would actually choose slavery. If he'd no longer want to be a slave, and he permanently sold himself into slavery, he wouldn't have a say in it according to my beliefs, true. That's why you DON'T want to be a slave, there's no turning back. However from what I know, when people sold themselves into slavery, they usually kept some of their rights and had a limit on the duration of their servitude, or ways out of it. It's just like with any other contract really. If you sign something you regret later, you're usually screwed, so it's a good idea to really think things through and have a way to opt out of it.

That's the main point about contracts though, you choose to enter them. You can always pretend they simply aren't an option and you can ignore that they even exist.

It was usually buy yourself out of slavery. However, this generally didn't occur.


You keep going on about choice but a choice between being a slave and death is not a meaningful choice.




Well, I could say what you're promoting is oppression just as easily.

How can you? I always side with the slave.



How can you be free when others have the right to take away from you what you devoted your scarce time on earth to make? How can you be free, when you're coerced into relationships you don't wish to be part of?


This is quite ironic considering we've all been telling you that the product of the workers' labour is taken by the capitalist and that the worker is coerced into it while you've been saying it's not a problem.

[Tim Cornelis]

I can't comprehend the obvious cognitive dissonance displayed by right-libertarians when they justify slavery in the name of freedom. That should be a pretty big indication that your logic may be flawed.

Saying you don't understand why someone would choose to be a slave ignores that it's a common form of slavery. It also diverts from that you are justifying it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Workers don't have 'rights.' We don't need them either.

The idea of a 'right' implies some kind of institution that is endowed with the authority to give out privileges and securities. What is this authority? It also implies the existence of a permanent strata of humans whose problems and concerns can be mediated by the introduction of some kind of code.

Our historical task is to abolish capitalism, and in so doing abolish ourselves as proletarians. We don't want to codify the existence of the "worker," we want to abolish the worker and smash the social relationship that creates us.

[argeiphontes]

The idea of a 'right' implies some kind of institution that is endowed with the authority to give out privileges and securities.

Not necessarily. That's not how I think of rights. Rights just naturally inhere in you because of certain qualities you have. For example, Peter Singer thinks that animals have a right not to be made to suffer by virtue of the fact that they can suffer. I agree.

I don't think anyone can grant rights, they can only recognize them. So, the rights in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights aren't granted by the U.N. They are natural rights that have been recognized by the U.N. but that people naturally have for other reasons, like just being people.

[The Feral Underclass]

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily.


That's not how I think of rights. Rights just naturally inhere in you because of certain qualities you have. For example, Peter Singer thinks that animals have a right not to be made to suffer by virtue of the fact that they can suffer. I agree.

That is a human construct. You have done nothing but apply your arbitrary standards as a human in a position of authority over an non-human animal.


I don't think anyone can grant rights, they can only recognize them. So, the rights in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights aren't granted by the U.N. They are natural rights that have been recognized by the U.N. but that people naturally have for other reasons, like just being people.

The idea that a right is 'inherent' is an anti-materialist view point and implies the existence of some kind of mystical force. The concept of rights is a human made invention; it is a social construct, and one that is used to legitimate the authority of rulings classes.

[argeiphontes]

The idea that a right is 'inherent' is an anti-materialist view point and implies the existence of some kind of mystical force.


Are you sure? An animal's desire not to suffer looks pretty concrete to me.



The concept of rights is a human made invention; it is a social construct, and one that is used to legitimate the authority of rulings classes.

That's not necessarily true. The concept could be a discovery rather than an invention. You can't say that all rights exist to legitimate some authority? What about the rights that remove authority? Like the woman's right to choose an abortion? Or anyone's right to bodily integrity? Neither of those make you less free as I can see.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

So where do rights come from? What part of material nature obliges people to act in a certain manner towards other people?

The problem with framing the abortion debate in terms of a "right to choose" is that this "right" then becomes relative, competing with other rights (indeed, someone could invent a "right" of the fetus to this and that). It is better to avoid rights and ethics altogether.

[The Feral Underclass]

Are you sure? An animal's desire not to suffer looks pretty concrete to me.


Animals don't have desires.


That's not necessarily true. The concept could be a discovery rather than an invention. You can't say that all rights exist to legitimate some authority? What about the rights that remove authority? Like the woman's right to choose an abortion? Or anyone's right to bodily integrity? Neither of those make you less free as I can see.

You keep operating within the paradigm of 'rights.' There is no such thing as "women's rights," that is a liberal construct. Women don't need 'rights' to determine what to do with their bodies unless we accept the assumption that there is an authority that exists that determines that there are alternating views that need to be codified. The "right" of women to have abortion only exists because patriarchal society is based on the assumption that women don't have control of their body. Women don't need a "right" to know that their bodies are theirs.

[ThatGuy]

It was usually buy yourself out of slavery. However, this generally didn't occur.


You keep going on about choice but a choice between being a slave and death is not a meaningful choice.

But it is a meaningful choice if people tend to choose slavery instead of death. If I was stranded on a desert island with no drinking water, I would make up some god and pray to it, that a ship comes along willing to buy me as a slave. I would prefer other options, but that doesn't mean that they'll magically appear.


How can you? I always side with the slave.

If the slave sold himself voluntarily and then chose to break his contract, he committed fraud. You can help desperate people without violating legitimate contracts.


This is quite ironic considering we've all been telling you that the product of the workers' labour is taken by the capitalist and that the worker is coerced into it while you've been saying it's not a problem.

If private property is a just principle, which I believe it is, the capitalist exchanges remuneration for labour, and the worker is not being coerced into anything. Your whole argument depends on private property not being a legitimate right, without demonstrating that it truly isn't.

[ThatGuy]

So where do rights come from? What part of material nature obliges people to act in a certain manner towards other people?

The problem with framing the abortion debate in terms of a "right to choose" is that this "right" then becomes relative, competing with other rights (indeed, someone could invent a "right" of the fetus to this and that). It is better to avoid rights and ethics altogether.

Nothing obliges anyone to act in any manner towards other people. There is no objective way to prove that rape is wrong, but you can still believe it's wrong and be prepared to defend that belief with force.

But if you avoid rights and ethics altogether, what are you left with? What can you base a claim that something is just or that it isn't on? Might makes right? That is of course what human relations boil down to in the end, but codes of conduct have great power, in that they unify people and allow for greater groups to work together in a coordinated manner. I don't see how you can avoid ethics and still be able to talk about what society should look like.

[Axiomasher]

But it is a meaningful choice if people tend to choose slavery instead of death...

In what sense do you think it is 'meaningful'? Are you suggesting that all choices are of the same order, qualitatively? A choice between slavery or death is no different from a choice between, say, which flavour ice-cream you're gonna have at the movies?

[Axiomasher]

...

If private property is a just principle, which I believe it is, the capitalist exchanges remuneration for labour, and the worker is not being coerced into anything. Your whole argument depends on private property not being a legitimate right, without demonstrating that it truly isn't.

Seriously? You can't see how back-to-front this is? The monopolisers, by virtue of their monopolies, force the remainder to exchange labour for wages. Work for X or starve is a blatantly coercive force by any reasonable standards though I'm seriously doubting your openness to reasonableness tbh.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Nothing obliges anyone to act in any manner towards other people. There is no objective way to prove that rape is wrong, but you can still believe it's wrong and be prepared to defend that belief with force.

Or, one can oppose rape without resorting to frankly degrading "discussion" about whether structural violation of women is "wrong" or "right", to what degree it is wrong etc. etc.


But if you avoid rights and ethics altogether, what are you left with?

Class interest.


What can you base a claim that something is just or that it isn't on?

Nothing. Who cares if something is just?


Might makes right? That is of course what human relations boil down to in the end, but codes of conduct have great power, in that they unify people and allow for greater groups to work together in a coordinated manner. I don't see how you can avoid ethics and still be able to talk about what society should look like.

Again, class interest. And not what it should look like - that's idealism - but what we want it to look like.

That's not even mentioning the inherently bourgeois, racist, misogynist, homophobic and transphobic character of ethics.

[Tim Cornelis]

Or, one can oppose rape without resorting to frankly degrading "discussion" about whether structural violation of women is "wrong" or "right", to what degree it is wrong etc. etc.

How?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

How?

How what? How one can oppose rape? That is a question of tactics. Why one should oppose rape? There is no "why". Rape is part of the class structure of society that is against our interest as proletarians and members of specially oppressed groups. Nothing is going to force someone to look after their interest - but then they shouldn't be surprised when the class-conscious proletariat turns against them.

There are no rights, no wrongs, just struggling social groups. Communists are those who take a stand for one of the groups. Liberals pretend that they are above the struggle and make up "objective" moralities and similar trash.

[Philosophos]

I know it happened, but there are so many other options, that I simply can't see why someone would actually choose slavery. If he'd no longer want to be a slave, and he permanently sold himself into slavery, he wouldn't have a say in it according to my beliefs, true. That's why you DON'T want to be a slave, there's no turning back. However from what I know, when people sold themselves into slavery, they usually kept some of their rights and had a limit on the duration of their servitude, or ways out of it. It's just like with any other contract really. If you sign something you regret later, you're usually screwed, so it's a good idea to really think things through and have a way to opt out of it.

That's the main point about contracts though, you choose to enter them. You can always pretend they simply aren't an option and you can ignore that they even exist.

Well, I could say what you're promoting is oppression just as easily. How can you be free when others have the right to take away from you what you devoted your scarce time on earth to make? How can you be free, when you're coerced into relationships you don't wish to be part of?

you really don't know about slavery do you? Just imagine a boss in your , let's say, office. He does almost anything he wants with you, he makes you feel like shit because he "owns" the right to fire you at any time.

Now let's just imagine a lord that has slaves. He's x100 times a boss and he owns your life, do you really think that you are gonna have any 'rights' or anything close to this?

At the same time I suppose you don't really know that people that 'chose' to become slaves, were forced to because of dept or because they basically had nothing and they couldn't survive. I can't imagine any lords being kind and giving options to people that owed them money just like I can't imagine a good mafiozo that will give you plenty of time to pay back the money that he gave you.

[Tim Cornelis]

How what? How one can oppose rape? That is a question of tactics. Why one should oppose rape? There is no "why". Rape is part of the class structure of society that is against our interest as proletarians and members of specially oppressed groups. Nothing is going to force someone to look after their interest - but then they shouldn't be surprised when the class-conscious proletariat turns against them.

There are no rights, no wrongs, just struggling social groups. Communists are those who take a stand for one of the groups. Liberals pretend that they are above the struggle and make up "objective" moralities and similar trash.

I object to rape because it is horrendous, not because it is in my self-interest, because I'm not a psychopath. By that logic, rape is no longer objectionable when communism exists.

[Per Levy]

For example if I produce a field, isn't that field now exclusively mine forever, since somebody else growing something on my field means I can't use the whole field I've produced and am thus unable to enjoy part of the fruits of my labour?

how can you produce a field? and who gave you the field in the first place?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I object to rape because it is horrendous, not because it is in my self-interest, because I'm not a psychopath.

Alright, but some people find homosexuality to be horrendous. (Quite a few of them in fact.) Basing social policy on feelings is very dangerous.


By that logic, rape is no longer objectionable when communism exists.

When communism exists, rape will not exist.

[Tim Cornelis]

Alright, but some people find homosexuality to be horrendous. (Quite a few of them in fact.) Basing social policy on feelings is very dangerous.

Right. I do not purport that my objection is based on an objective morality, it is empathy-based, which I deem synonymous for morality (and is subjective).


When communism exists, rape will not exist.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, you're wrong. You would not object to rape. Or let's say a cryogenically frozen person, conditioned by class society, awakes in communism and rapes. You would not object.

[The Feral Underclass]

Alright, but some people find homosexuality to be horrendous. (Quite a few of them in fact.) Basing social policy on feelings is very dangerous.

But rape isn't a sexuality. The sexuality of gay people and rape are not comparable.


When communism exists, rape will not exist.

That is a ridiculous statement. Not least of all because you have absolutely no idea what will happen in a communist society.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Right. I do not purport that my objection is based on an objective morality, it is empathy-based, which I deem synonymous for morality (and is subjective).

My point still stands: basing public policy on any sort of subjective attitude or emotion is dangerous, particularly to specially oppressed groups. "Pro-life" fascists are supposedly guided by empathy toward fetuses.


Let's say, for the sake of argument, you're wrong. You would not object to rape. Or let's say a cryogenically frozen person, conditioned by class society, awakes in communism and rapes. You would not object.

But to assume otherwise doesn't make any sense - it would be analogous to assuming that currency and M-C-M' will continue to exist in communism. Rape isn't just physical assault, it's physical assault in conditions of structural oppression of women, young people, sexual minorities etc. If these conditions still persist, communism has not been achieved. If they do not, rape as such is impossible.

Of course, physical assault is still something that we should oppose, and in a communist society, mechanisms will exist to prevent such occurrences. And of course, I do very much abhor rape and other forms of physical assault of innocent people. But my abhorrence is not sufficient to determine the communist attitude toward these phenomena - we need a firmer basis. I would also highly dislike sleeping with my brother, but I don't think that my abhorrence of that needs to be made binding, in fact I think consensual adult incest should not be prosecuted at all, and the participants in such relationships should not be discriminated against.


But rape isn't a sexuality. The sexuality of gay people and rape are not comparable.

I never said that they were. I am merely saying that attempts to base some kind of morality on feelings, even "moral" feelings, are dangerous. They can lead, and historically have led, to the murderous persecution of gay people, of women etc. etc. I mentioned gay people, not because I think gay sex is comparable to rape (if anything, heterosexual sex is much more "suspicious" as far as its relation to rape goes), but because everyone mentions the things that bother them first.

As for the rest, see my reply to TC.

[The Feral Underclass]

I never said that they were. I am merely saying that attempts to base some kind of morality on feelings, even "moral" feelings, are dangerous...I mentioned gay people, not because I think gay sex is comparable to rape (if anything, heterosexual sex is much more "suspicious" as far as its relation to rape goes), but because everyone mentions the things that bother them first.

The way you articulated your opinion was very poor. In future you should probably take better care of how you express that view.

[Tim Cornelis]

My point still stands: basing public policy on any sort of subjective attitude or emotion is dangerous, particularly to specially oppressed groups. "Pro-life" fascists are supposedly guided by empathy toward fetuses.

Because it's the only basis. Policy is a product of the aggregate of subjective evaluations, or social sentiment and attitudes.


But to assume otherwise doesn't make any sense - it would be analogous to assuming that currency and M-C-M' will continue to exist in communism. Rape isn't just physical assault, it's physical assault in conditions of structural oppression of women, young people, sexual minorities etc. If these conditions still persist, communism has not been achieved. If they do not, rape as such is impossible.

I'm skeptical of the claim that rape is exclusively a feature of the structural oppression of women. I also don't buy that communism can be defined by these standards.
You do and cannot object to rape, which is not limited to adult women, but also includes a woman raping a child (which I doubt is a product of the structural oppression of women).


Of course, physical assault is still something that we should oppose, and in a communist society, mechanisms will exist to prevent such occurrences.

Based on social attitudes toward assault.


And of course, I do very much abhor rape and other forms of physical assault of innocent people. But my abhorrence is not sufficient to determine the communist attitude toward these phenomena - we need a firmer basis. I would also highly dislike sleeping with my brother, but I don't think that my abhorrence of that needs to be made binding, in fact I think consensual adult incest should not be prosecuted at all, and the participants in such relationships should not be discriminated against.

What would "a firmer basis" be on which to oppose physical assault then? I also don't understand your point about consensual incest.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The way you articulated your opinion was very poor. In future you should probably take better care of how you express that view.

Fair enough.


Because it's the only basis. Policy is a product of the aggregate of subjective evaluations, or social sentiment and attitudes.

Then, would you say that Bolshevik authorities had a positive attitude toward the German War Office, NEPmen, concessionary capitalists etc.? That sounds, well, suspicious to say the least.

Policy has, up to now, always been an expression of class interest, even when the class interest is presented as "objective", "common" morality etc., and will continue to be an expression of class interest until classes are no more, at which point policy will become an expression of global community interest.


I'm skeptical of the claim that rape is exclusively a feature of the structural oppression of women.

[...]

You do and cannot object to rape, which is not limited to adult women, but also includes a woman raping a child (which I doubt is a product of the structural oppression of women).

Perhaps you should re-read my post, since I explicitly mentioned the special oppression of young people (which leads to child abuse etc.), sexual minorities (leading to "corrective" rape) etc., in addition to the special oppression of women. But yes, I don't think rape is somehow "blind" to the realities of economic, women's, gender, age and sexual oppression.


I also don't buy that communism can be defined by these standards.

Communism implies a stateless, classless society - and the forms of special oppression I have listed are tied to the class structure of society.


Based on social attitudes toward assault.

So if prevailing social attitudes sanction or condemn something, that should be the basis of public policy?


What would "a firmer basis" be on which to oppose physical assault then?

The material interest of the proletariat and oppressed groups (in the present society and in the dictatorship of the proletariat - of course this does not mean that physical assault on cops, the bourgeoisie etc. is "bad", quite the contrary), and of the free workers in the communist society.


I also don't understand your point about consensual incest.

Many people have strong negative feelings about consensual adult incest, which does not mean that people who engage in such acts should be persecuted (as they are at present).

[argeiphontes]

So where do rights come from? What part of material nature obliges people to act in a certain manner towards other people?


I'm a Kantian when it comes to ethics. I'm not going to get anywhere arguing that position on this board, though. Ultimately, it doesn't matter where the notion of rights comes from. If I conducted a survey of 1000 people, 995 of them would probably profess a belief in rights.



The problem with framing the abortion debate in terms of a "right to choose" is that this "right" then becomes relative, competing with other rights (indeed, someone could invent a "right" of the fetus to this and that). It is better to avoid rights and ethics altogether.

Absolutely, not all rights are equal. The right to your personal possessions doesn't outweigh somebody else's right to eat, for example. There's always an ethical calculus going on. Just because it's impractical doesn't mean it should be discarded altogether.


Animals don't have desires.


Sure they do. Turn on Animal Planet. Or run them through a functional MRI.



You keep operating within the paradigm of 'rights.' There is no such thing as "women's rights," that is a liberal construct.

Just because something originated out of Classical Liberalism doesn't make it wrong. I sure do keep operating within the paradigm of rights, and I have no intention of stopping. :D



But if you avoid rights and ethics altogether, what are you left with? What can you base a claim that something is just or that it isn't on? Might makes right? That is of course what human relations boil down to in the end, but codes of conduct have great power, in that they unify people and allow for greater groups to work together in a coordinated manner. I don't see how you can avoid ethics and still be able to talk about what society should look like.

Me neither, but that is something a lot of people seem to want. Why is it wrong to extract surplus labor from people, without the idea of ethics or rights? If it just comes down to power, then we are back with one of Plato's shill characters who proclaimed, "Why, Justice is simply the might of the stronger, Socrates." I don't believe that.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I'm a Kantian when it comes to ethics. I'm not going to get anywhere arguing that position on this board, though.

Well, at least you admit that there's no basis for any sort of normative ethics in materialism.


Ultimately, it doesn't matter where the notion of rights comes from. If I conducted a survey of 1000 people, 995 of them would probably profess a belief in rights.

Possibly. But then, most people are not communists, and in any case many of them would also profess a belief in ghosts, gods, or the "belief" that women need to be chained down and forced to give birth in certain circumstances.


Absolutely, not all rights are equal. The right to your personal possessions doesn't outweigh somebody else's right to eat, for example. There's always an ethical calculus going on. Just because it's impractical doesn't mean it should be discarded altogether.

No, it should be discarded because it is not in the interest of the proletariat and the oppressed that women ever be forced to give birth.


Me neither, but that is something a lot of people seem to want. Why is it wrong to extract surplus labor from people, without the idea of ethics or rights? If it just comes down to power, then we are back with one of Plato's shill characters who proclaimed, "Why, Justice is simply the might of the stronger, Socrates." I don't believe that.

Or rather, there is no justice, justice is nonsense - there is only the class struggle and class power. That is all communists need.

[argeiphontes]

Well, at least you admit that there's no basis for any sort of normative ethics in materialism.


If you're right, then how do you deal with the obvious problems this causes? And why do most people on this board, communists, behave as if there were ethical considerations to their behaviors?



the "belief" that women need to be chained down and forced to give birth in certain circumstances.
For example, reactions to this. Most people--it seems like both you and me, at least--are going to behave as if this were unethical. Yet, you claim that this is perfectly fine because there's no normative basis for claiming otherwise.



No, it should be discarded because it is not in the interest of the proletariat and the oppressed that women ever be forced to give birth.
It could be in the interest of the proletariat in some circumstances. Would it become OK then? edit: It creates more proletarians, thus shifting the balance of power, for one thing. edit2: And what do you mean, "the oppressed"? Isn't that just a normative term?



Or rather, there is no justice, justice is nonsense - there is only the class struggle and class power. That is all communists need.What's the point? Why not go to business school and be happy? The calculus of self-interest is clearly on the side of not engaging in radical politics. Or cooperating with others when you could just benefit yourself at the expense of others.

[Baseball]

Yes really, private property is coercive monopolisation which alienates wider society and sets the ground for their consequent exploitation.

A nice chant, which has no basis in reality.

A socialist community will also need to "wall off" or "fence-off" areas of production. ALL people can't work wherever one wishes, nor can all people take whatever they wish from production. At least not in an rational community or one professes to produce for "need."

[The Feral Underclass]

Sure they do.

No they don't. Now either you think non-human animals are able to self-conceptualise or you don't understand what desire is. Either way, non-human animals do not have desires.


Turn on Animal Planet. Or run them through a functional MRI.

You have no idea what you're talking about. What do you imagine I will learn from watching Animal Planet or scanning a non-human animal's brain?


Just because something originated out of Classical Liberalism doesn't make it wrong.

Actually it most likely does, since ideology tends to be self-affirming. The concepts of 'rights' developed specifically to reinforce the paradigms of prevailing systems. They are a mediating tool designed to de-escalate conflict within societies. By embracing those concepts and refusing to look upon them critically, you simply serve the interests of those attempting to maintain that framework.


I sure do keep operating within the paradigm of rights, and I have no intention of stopping. :D

Then you are no use to proletarian struggle.

[argeiphontes]

No they don't. Now either you think non-human animals are able to self-conceptualise


Yes, I do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_intelligence

edit: But "desire" may be different than knowledge of that desire in the abstract, in reference to a temporally continuous being known thru the experience "I".

I'm not going to fall for some kind of human exceptionalism. It's been a long time since Des Cartes. Where would such a sudden difference between human and non-human animals originate? The brains of animals are similar to one another in many ways. There's no evidence that animals don't have desires.

edit: I think animals have rights, too, by the way (https://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/).



Then you are no use to proletarian struggle.I don't believe you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, I do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_intelligence

Name one animal that is able to understand what existence is other than humans.


edit: But "desire" may be different than knowledge of that desire in the abstract, in reference to a temporally continuous being known thru the experience "I".

Desire is a human concept articulated by human language. Applying human characteristics onto non-human animals simply reinforces the anthropocentric world view, which, while not being at all surprising, since you are a massive liberal, has fundamental problems associated with it, for obvious reasons.


I'm not going to fall for some kind of human exceptionalism.

Good, because I'm not presenting any.


It's been a long time since Des Cartes. Where would such a sudden difference between human and non-human animals originate?

Human beings are the only self-conceptualising animals on the planet.


The brains of animals are similar to one another in many ways.

But their cultural, social and physiological responses to their existences are fundamentally different. You cannot apply human concepts to animal behaviour because they are not humans. Your attempt to do so betrays your underlying anthropocentric framework.


There's no evidence that animals don't have desires.

As I say, desire is a human concept, and in any case requires self-awareness.


edit: I think animals have rights, too, by the way (https://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/).

That's because you're a liberal.


I don't believe you.

It's not a question of belief.

[argeiphontes]

That's because you're a liberal.


It's your right to say that.

[Tim Cornelis]

Then, would you say that Bolshevik authorities had a positive attitude toward the German War Office, NEPmen, concessionary capitalists etc.? That sounds, well, suspicious to say the least.

I don't get your point.


Policy has, up to now, always been an expression of class interest, even when the class interest is presented as "objective", "common" morality etc., and will continue to be an expression of class interest until classes are no more, at which point policy will become an expression of global community interest.

Agreed, mostly, with the first. Disagree with the last part. There is no global community interest.


Perhaps you should re-read my post, since I explicitly mentioned the special oppression of young people (which leads to child abuse etc.), sexual minorities (leading to "corrective" rape) etc., in addition to the special oppression of women. But yes, I don't think rape is somehow "blind" to the realities of economic, women's, gender, age and sexual oppression.

Child abuse is not connected to oppression of young people. Child abuse is the product of the sexual pursuit of pedophilia. Rape, on the other hand, is assault, and so the argument that is a component or effect of structural oppression of women can be made. The same cannot be said for child abuse. Moreover, rape does not always target women. To me, then, rape is partially a facet of oppressive social structures and norms, which are deconstructed through social revolution, but not completely.


Communism implies a stateless, classless society - and the forms of special oppression I have listed are tied to the class structure of society.

I disagree.


So if prevailing social attitudes sanction or condemn something, that should be the basis of public policy?

Not necessarily but it is inescapable, and communism breeds new social attitudes.


The material interest of the proletariat and oppressed groups (in the present society and in the dictatorship of the proletariat - of course this does not mean that physical assault on cops, the bourgeoisie etc. is "bad", quite the contrary), and of the free workers in the communist society.

"The material interests of free workers in a communist society" is nonsensical. How is opposing child abuse to take shape in communism? By arguing that it impairs the productivity of the child in the future or takes up resources in counseling, unnecessarily, apparently. What you advocate, disguisedly, is ethical egoism.


Many people have strong negative feelings about consensual adult incest, which does not mean that people who engage in such acts should be persecuted (as they are at present).

Agreed. But that non-persecution has no basis in your axiom that "the material interests of the free workers in the communist society" should be the basis for custom, norms, or customary law.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

To make the distinction even more clear we might speak of private property and personal belongings (like inhereted jewelry, photoalbums and your toothbrush).


About private property and expropriation, i think Kropotkin said it best when he wrote:


Fixed

[Sabot Cat]

Name one animal that is able to understand what existence is other than humans.



Desire is a human concept articulated by human language. Applying human characteristics onto non-human animals simply reinforces the anthropocentric world view, which, while not being at all surprising, since you are a massive liberal, has fundamental problems associated with it, for obvious reasons.

Why does it matter if animals are able to self-conceptualize or have self-awareness? All humans don't possess these abilities as newborns, yet it would be morally wrong to kill or seriously injure a newborn.

I don't believe all animals have rights, or anyone else; these are convenient fictions. But I do find it evident that there is something it is like to be a mammal*, and that they have lived experience of pleasure and pain, and as such they are applicable subjects for felicific calculus.

*It would be implausible for myself to be a human if there was something it is like to be an insect, bird, fish, etc. because of their disproportionately sizable numbers. Humans, however, are one of the most populous mammals in all of known history, especially in this current age. However, this kind of self-sampling statistical analysis is controversial for numerous reasons and I acknowledge these difficulties. There is some correspondence with neurological research that suggests consciousness, understood to be the ability to experience qualia, is grounded in broadly ranged cortical-to-cortical responses in the context of a well organized thalamo-cortical system (endemic to mammals).

[The Feral Underclass]

Why does it matter if animals are able to self-conceptualize or have self-awareness?

Well because desire is a human concept and requires self-awareness and since non-human animals are unable to achieve that level of sapience they can not have 'desires.'


All humans don't possess these abilities as newborns, yet it would be morally wrong to kill or seriously injure a newborn.

I have no interest in your morality.


I don't believe all animals have rights, or anyone else; these are convenient fictions. But I do find it evident that there is something it is like to be a mammal*, and that they have lived experience of pleasure and pain, and as such are applicable as subjects in felicific calculus.

*It would be implausible for myself to be a human if there was something it is like to be an insect, bird, fish, etc. because of their disproportionately sizable numbers. Humans, however, are one of the most populous mammals in all of known history, especially in this current age. However, this kind of self-sampling statistical analysis is controversial for numerous reasons and I acknowledge these difficulties. There is some correspondence with neurological research that suggests consciousness, understood to be the ability to experience qualia, is grounded in broadly ranged cortical-to-cortical responses in the context of a well organized thalamo-cortical system (endemic to mammals).

I have no idea why you're telling me this.

[Sabot Cat]

Well because desire is a human concept and requires self-awareness and since non-human animals are unable to achieve that level of sapience they can not have 'desires.'


I have no interest in your morality.


I have no idea why you're telling me this.

argeiphontes appears to be arguing that (nearly?) all animals should be considered as moral agents, those we should be concerned about when making decisions. You appear to be arguing against that on the grounds that almost all animals but humans have no self-awareness and self-perception, which somehow disqualifies them from that status. Unless you generally agree with argeiphontes' point, but are disagreeing with the way with it was arrived at (namely through 'rights', which isn't really a necessary concept to make argeiphontes' point).

[The Feral Underclass]

argeiphontes appears to be arguing that (nearly?) all animals should be considered as moral agents, those we should be concerned about when making decisions. You appear to be arguing against that on the grounds that almost all animals but humans have no self-awareness and self-perception, which somehow disqualifies them from that status. Unless you generally agree with argeiphontes' point, but are disagreeing with the way with it was arrived at (namely through 'rights', which isn't really a necessary concept to make argeiphontes' point).

My argument is three fold: A) animals don't have desires because desires are a human concept and requires self-awareness, which no non-human animal possesses. B) rights are a liberal construct that specifically reinforce the paradigms of prevailing systems. They are a mediating tool designed to de-escalate conflict within societies. By embracing those concepts and refusing to look upon them critically, you simply serve the interests of those attempting to maintain that framework, and C) that argeiphontes liberal animal rights views are actually covert anthropocentrism.

[Sabot Cat]

My argument is three fold: A) animals don't have desires because desires are a human concept and requires self-awareness, which no non-human animal possesses.

I don't know if desires require self-awareness, but if you believe desire to mean the wish for a certain outcome it does require complex conceptualization of the future that some animals may be incapable of. However, if you equate it to the general feeling of longing for something, animals can definitely experience that. In terms of feeling, animals desire to live, to eat, etc. If one has a dog, you can usually tell they want the food and thus, desire it. I'm not sure why the capacity to have desires is relevant though.


B) rights are a liberal construct that specifically reinforce the paradigms of prevailing systems. They are a mediating tool designed to de-escalate conflict within societies. By embracing those concepts and refusing to look upon them critically, you simply serve the interests of those attempting to maintain that framework,

I have no disagreements here, and I think your analysis is spot-on. Property "rights" are particularly insidious.


and C) that argeiphontes liberal animal rights views are actually covert anthropocentrism.

But this argument relies upon the notion that only humans should be moral agents, which is a premise argeiphontes fundamentally disagrees with. Therefore, I don't think argeiphontes can be justifiably attributed with a anthropocentric perspective, because of their disagreement with that premise, and because any 'covert' viewpoint is functionally unfalsifiable.

Furthermore, what is the premise common to these three arguments? What are these points intended to prove, aside from refuting argeiphontes? I find all three points superfluous to the central question of whether or not we should consider certain animals in our ethical decisions, but I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to assess at all.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't know if desires require self-awareness, but if you believe desire to mean the wish for a certain outcome it does require complex conceptualization of the future that some animals may be incapable of. However, if you equate it to the general feeling of longing for something, animals can definitely experience that. In terms of feeling, animals desire to live, to eat, etc. If one has a dog, you can usually tell they want the food and thus, desire it. I'm not sure why the capacity to have desires is relevant though.

Desire is a human concept, applied to various aspects of human behaviour in all instances of its definition. Trying to apply human characteristics and concepts to animals is precisely the anthropocentrism.

The social, cultural and physiological experiences that non-human animals have cannot be understood in the framework of human experiences and language.


But this argument relies upon the notion that only humans should be moral agents, which is a premise argeiphontes fundamentally disagrees with.

No, the anthropocentric framework relies upon the understanding that human beings are central to the world and the most significant species on the planet. While I'm sure argeiphontes has 'moral' views about non-human animals and supports their 'rights', he does so within the framework that human concepts and language should form the basis for understanding how non-human animals operate and how they should be treated. The issue of desire being one example and the idea of morals being another.

In my experience this view is ultimately defended on the basis that non-human animals cannot "speak for themselves", as if speaking were so profound and significant and central to everything it endowed us with primacy over the existence of other species; since humans have sapience we are somehow the automatic guardians of non-human animals, a view which further reinforces the anthropocentric world view.

On the specific issue of rights, it is the arrogance of humans to assume a non-human animal requires this concept to be privileged with its own existence. Animals do not require human concepts to legitimate their lives. Even if these so-called 'rights' exist solely to manage human behaviour towards non-human animals, it fundamentally fails to address the fact that there is a world view that states humans are the most significant species in the first place. It does nothing to address these intra-human dynamics or the human assumptions about ourselves (that we are somehow better than animals and more capable of defending them because we can make tools and speak) and merely attempts to codify human concepts and understandings.


Furthermore, what is the premise common to these three arguments? What are these points intended to prove, aside from refuting argeiphontes? I find all three points superfluous to the central question of whether or not we should consider certain animals in our decisions, but I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to assess at all.

This discussion developed from an intervention by argeiphontes in which he disagreed with my assessment on the nature of 'rights.' It had nothing to do with non-human animals as 'moral agents' or how we consider them, these are things you have introduced into this discussion. I have simply followed argeiphontes's train of thought and rejected his liberal and anthropocentric views.

[argeiphontes]

argeiphontes appears to be arguing that (nearly?) all animals should be considered as moral agents, those we should be concerned about when making decisions.

Actually, I would argue that we are moral agents, who should consider the well-being of animals based on their ability to suffer or other qualities by virtue of which they have rights. Basically, I agree with Peter Singer that the capacity to suffer confers a right not to be made to suffer (unnecessarily). He bases rights in capacities, which sounds good to me.

As for desire, I don't see why the kind of self-understanding that's present in humans, chimps, dolphins, and other animals is necessary for desire. Desire is the feeling of wanting something. My cat has plenty of desire. When he wants food, he comes and plays on my emotions to get it. If he's unsuccessful, he changes tactics, like changing the tone of his meows to be more kitten-like and plaintive. If he's unsuccessful for too long, he becomes frustrated and may even attack me out of frustration. That's emotional desire if I've ever seen it.

I threw out the article about animal intelligence to show that some mammals and birds do have an idea of themselves and are able to take up a 3rd person view of themselves, like in the mirror test. So even if desire did require self-consciousness, it's present in at least some animals. Gorillas that have been taught sign language are able to make complex statements. Birds use tools and show creativity. Etc.

The reason I said "It's been a long time since Descartes" (who thought animals were just biological robots and conducted live dissections in front of audiences) is because I think that human exceptionalism in terms of consciousness and emotion could just be due to historical and religious baggage, e.g. the notion that only humans have souls, and maybe an ideology of justification of animal slaughter and abuse. Just because an animal is less intelligent, does not mean that it has less emotion or even, *gasp*, consciousness. Not all cultures across time have assumed that animals don't have consciousness, and I don't see that ours was actually based on science rather than conjecture. So I'm willing to give some animals the benefit of the doubt.

edit: Just saw the anthropocentrism comments. How is the above anthropocentrism? It's the opposite.

[argeiphontes]

As for rights, just because I believe in the concept of rights doesn't mean I accept anything somebody says is their right, like property rights. I don't think there's such a thing as a right to property you can't use yourself, like capital.

I don't see what's inherent about rights that defends the status quo. That is how rights and the concept of rights are *used* by some people.

[The Feral Underclass]

As for desire, I don't see why the kind of self-understanding that's present in humans, chimps, dolphins, and other animals is necessary for desire. Desire is the feeling of wanting something.

Desire is a human concept, emotive in nature, used to describe apparent physiological, cultural and social longings. 'Desire' is a concept constructed from human language to describe a human emotion. It is completely arrogant of you to apply this human understanding to non-human animals. In order to accept your argument, we must accept that if non-human animals were sapient they would think and feel the same as humans, indeed it implies they do so now, without being sapient. That is an anthropocentric attitude, cleverly disguised as animal 'rights.'


How is the above anthropocentrism? It's the opposite.

I explained my position in this thread already. I don't see why you are still confused, unless you don't understand what I'm saying.


I don't see what's inherent about rights that defends the status quo.

Of course you don't see, that's the whole problem.

[argeiphontes]

Desire is a human concept, emotive in nature, used to describe apparent physiological, cultural and social longings. 'Desire' is a concept constructed from human language to describe a human emotion. It is completely arrogant of you to apply this human understanding to non-human animals. In order to accept your argument, we must accept that if non-human animals were sapient they would think and feel the same as humans, indeed it implies they do so now, without being sapient. That is an anthropocentric attitude, cleverly disguised as animal 'rights.'



I explained my position in this thread already. I don't see why you are still confused, unless you don't understand what I'm saying.

Actually, it looks like you don't understand what I'm saying. (Not that I'm blaming you, you don't hear this kind of argument a lot on here I suppose.)

I'm not saying that animals have human qualities. I'm saying that there is no such thing as a "human quality". A human is just another kind of animal. There is no reason for me to think that other animals aren't similar to me.

And also I think you meant 'anthropomorphic' (ascribing human qualities to inanimate objects) not 'anthropocentric' (human-centered).

[The Feral Underclass]

Actually, it looks like you don't understand what I'm saying. (Not that I'm blaming you, you don't hear this kind of argument a lot on here I suppose.)

Since you are applying a human concept to non-human animals then I understand you perfectly. If your defence of that position is to reject "human qualities" then fine, but that is absurd.


I'm saying that there is no such thing as a "human quality". A human is just another kind of animal. There is no reason for me to think that other animals aren't similar to me.

That is a nonsense collection of sentences. Of course there are human qualities. If we follow your argument that animals are similar, they are not the same, ergo there must be something that differentiates us...What you're saying is nonsensical.


And also I think you meant 'anthropomorphic' (ascribing human qualities to inanimate objects) not 'anthropocentric' (human-centered).

No, I meant anthropocentric.

[Axiomasher]

A nice chant, which has no basis in reality.

...

It's a pretty obvious reality that the constructed system of private property, in which some private individuals and organisations own hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of acres, coercively excludes the remainder and which forms a basis for alienation and exploitation.

Presumably your reference to my opinion as a 'chant' is evidence of you flagging and wishing to reduce exchanges to sarcasm.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

If you're right, then how do you deal with the obvious problems this causes?

What "obvious" problems does "this" (rejection of normative statements? the inability of materialism to provide some sort of "objective" norms?) cause?


And why do most people on this board, communists, behave as if there were ethical considerations to their behaviors?

Whether most people on this board are communists is, ah, an open question. Nonetheless, even communists are constrained by the social context they find themselves occupying, and are influenced by ruling-class ideology.

That said, I am not convinced that ethical considerations are as prominent as you allege.


For example, reactions to this. Most people--it seems like both you and me, at least--are going to behave as if this were unethical. Yet, you claim that this is perfectly fine because there's no normative basis for claiming otherwise.

That simply doesn't follow. If I say that normative statements are idealist nonsense, it doesn't follow that "everything is allowed" - in fact, it follows that that sentence, too, is idealist nonsense.

Of course I oppose restrictions on abortion. But the point is that this is not an ethical opposition - if it were, I would have to sit down with every fascist who wants to restrict women and make up silly stories about universal rights in order to convince them that, no really, women shouldn't be restricted. That is pointless, degrading, and reinforces ruling-class ideology (women's freedom is problematic and needs to be debated) instead of challenging it.

Instead, communists should organize to smash misogynists.


It could be in the interest of the proletariat in some circumstances. Would it become OK then? edit: It creates more proletarians, thus shifting the balance of power, for one thing.

It enslaves more than half of the proletariat, and in any case the "balance of power" doesn't depend on numbers (if it did, we would all be living in socialism) but on militant class-consciousness. The thought experiment is nonsensical - the equivalent of saying "let us suppose that enslaving about a half of black people is in the interest of black people". If you assume something that doesn't make sense, you will reach conclusions that don't make sense, naturally.


edit2: And what do you mean, "the oppressed"? Isn't that just a normative term?

I don't see how. The existence of special oppression is a material fact.


What's the point? Why not go to business school and be happy? The calculus of self-interest is clearly on the side of not engaging in radical politics. Or cooperating with others when you could just benefit yourself at the expense of others.

If you're petit-bourgeois, white, straight and cis-male enough that merely going to business school would make you happy, well, good for you. Most of us don't have that luxury.


I don't get your point.

Earlier, you said that "[p]olicy is a product of the aggregate of subjective evaluations, or social sentiment and attitudes". The policies of the Bolsheviks favored the German army, the NEPmen, concessionary capitalists etc., in different stages of the revolution. So it would follow that either the Bolshevik sentiment toward the German army, NEPmen etc. was positive, or that your statement is incorrect.


Agreed, mostly, with the first. Disagree with the last part. There is no global community interest.

There is no such interest at present - but after the elimination of classes and the construction of a global, consciously-planned economy, that is the only group interest that could possibly remain - unless your notion of "communism" is some Proudhonian confederated mess.


Child abuse is not connected to oppression of young people. Child abuse is the product of the sexual pursuit of pedophilia.

So why are so many child abusers not pedophiles? It is sheer idealism to suppose that the structural violence against children and young people is unconnected to child abuse.


Moreover, rape does not always target women.

Homophobic attitudes don't always target gay people, but it would be idealist to say that they aren't connected to structural violence against gay people.


I disagree.

Well, you are more than welcome to explain how structural violence again women, for example, could persist in a classless society.


"The material interests of free workers in a communist society" is nonsensical. How is opposing child abuse to take shape in communism? By arguing that it impairs the productivity of the child in the future or takes up resources in counseling, unnecessarily, apparently. What you advocate, disguisedly, is ethical egoism.

This is very confused - you are treating the members of a communist society as wage-slaves to be assessed by their productivity, as if wage-labor will still exist in communism. The members of a communist society would be the ruling group of that (necessarily global) society - their interests would determine social policy. And it is certainly not in the interest of any member that they be abused (in the sense of unwanted sexual contact).

[Tim Cornelis]

Earlier, you said that "[p]olicy is a product of the aggregate of subjective evaluations, or social sentiment and attitudes". The policies of the Bolsheviks favored the German army, the NEPmen, concessionary capitalists etc., in different stages of the revolution. So it would follow that either the Bolshevik sentiment toward the German army, NEPmen etc. was positive, or that your statement is incorrect.

That's a non-sequitur.
A monarchy's existence is enabled by social attitudes toward that monarchy being durable. The same goes for any subject of social policy. If you export or import Ugandan legislation concerning homosexual activity to the Netherlands people would set fire to the streets. Social attitudes enable or disable policy, and, there is a reciprocal relationship as well.
What enabled the NEP was its acceptance by the population, what enabled the Bolshevik position toward the German Army or anything you mentioned was acceptance by the population (support, indifference, or tolerance). My point has nothing to do with whether the Bolsheviks had a positive view or not, my point is that policy is based on social attitude. If policies contradict social attitudes prevailing in society the policy maker loses legitimacy, and as this diminishing legitimacy accumulates it leads to a replacement of the policy maker.


There is no such interest at present - but after the elimination of classes and the construction of a global, consciously-planned economy, that is the only group interest that could possibly remain - unless your notion of "communism" is some Proudhonian confederated mess.

These are hollow phrases, not an argument. Communism does not solve conflicts of interests. If the community of free workers assesses it is in their material interests (which you apparently advocate) to build a railway through my backyard it is still contrary to my interests. There is no general will ever, not in class society, not in a classless society.


So why are so many child abusers not pedophiles? It is sheer idealism to suppose that the structural violence against children and young people is unconnected to child abuse.

Sexual abuse of children -- I should have been more specific -- is done by pedophiles and is not a product structural oppression of young people.


Well, you are more than welcome to explain how structural violence again women, for example, could persist in a classless society.

I disagree that assault ceases because structural oppression is eliminated.


This is very confused - you are treating the members of a communist society as wage-slaves to be assessed by their productivity, as if wage-labor will still exist in communism. The members of a communist society would be the ruling group of that (necessarily global) society - their interests would determine social policy. And it is certainly not in the interest of any member that they be abused (in the sense of unwanted sexual contact).

I was writing from your perspective. You said the material interests of free workers is a firm basis for decision-making, custom, norms, etc. And indeed "it is certainly not in the interest of any member that they be abused (in the sense of unwanted sexual contact)," which is why you do not propose the absence of ethics, you propose ethical egoism. Why should I care though that someone is abused? It does not concern me, it is not contrary to my individual interests. Unless you make the argument that it would unnecessarily waste resources on counseling, which could potentially be used to my benefit -- in which case it reinforces that you propose ethical egoism.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

That's a non-sequitur.
A monarchy's existence is enabled by social attitudes toward that monarchy being durable. The same goes for any subject of social policy. If you export or import Ugandan legislation concerning homosexual activity to the Netherlands people would set fire to the streets.

Yet your immigration apparatus had no problems deporting gay asylum-seekers to countries where they face death. It's curious that you would accuse me of talking about "the general will", when you apparently think that policy is determined, not by the ruling class, but by some sort of supra-class "social attitudes".


Social attitudes enable or disable policy, and, there is a reciprocal relationship as well.

What enabled the NEP was its acceptance by the population, what enabled the Bolshevik position toward the German Army or anything you mentioned was acceptance by the population (support, indifference, or tolerance). My point has nothing to do with whether the Bolsheviks had a positive view or not, my point is that policy is based on social attitude. If policies contradict social attitudes prevailing in society the policy maker loses legitimacy, and as this diminishing legitimacy accumulates it leads to a replacement of the policy maker.

In fact the NEPmen were despised by most strata of Soviet society, as were concessionary capitalists, specialists, the food dictatorship etc... "legitimacy" is a moral notion that has no place in a materialist analysis. What enabled the Bolshevik government to stay in power was not its "legitimacy" but its firm class basis and its ability to project power when this was necessary - especially in opposition to peasant uprisings.


These are hollow phrases, not an argument. Communism does not solve conflicts of interests. If the community of free workers assesses it is in their material interests (which you apparently advocate) to build a railway through my backyard it is still contrary to my interests. There is no general will ever, not in class society, not in a classless society.

There is no "general will" - although as per above you seem to think there is - but there is general interest. E.g. an increase in the availability of medical facilities etc. If that requires building a railroad on the spot where your esteemed house was - well, living in society requires compromise (more on this later).


Sexual abuse of children -- I should have been more specific -- is done by pedophiles and is not a product structural oppression of young people.

But that's just the thing, sexual abuse is often done by people who are otherwise not attracted to children - and mostly by family members rather than the stereotypical evil predator hiding in the bushes. And let's not even talk about how sexualized much of "non-sexual" violence toward children is.


I disagree that assault ceases because structural oppression is eliminated.

It changes character, just as in present society a female assaulting a cis-male of the dominant nationality is not equivalent to rape.


I was writing from your perspective. You said the material interests of free workers is a firm basis for decision-making, custom, norms, etc. And indeed "it is certainly not in the interest of any member that they be abused (in the sense of unwanted sexual contact)," which is why you do not propose the absence of ethics, you propose ethical egoism. Why should I care though that someone is abused? It does not concern me, it is not contrary to my individual interests. Unless you make the argument that it would unnecessarily waste resources on counseling, which could potentially be used to my benefit -- in which case it reinforces that you propose ethical egoism.

Well, I am not in the business of selling "shoulds" and "oughts". Nonetheless, you are mistaken if you think that you can protect your individual interests without involving other people, in any society more complex than hunter-gatherer bands (if that). Therefore, public concerns are also your concerns.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yet your immigration apparatus had no problems deporting gay asylum-seekers to countries where they face death.

What I'm saying has to do with social attitudes. Dutch society wouldn't accept anti-gay legislation, but would deporting immigrants to dangerous countries, as it has. These are two completely different things. One accepted, another would not. Just because it involves homosexuality in either case does not mean you can conflate the two.


It's curious that you would accuse me of talking about "the general will", when you apparently think that policy is determined, not by the ruling class, but by some sort of supra-class "social attitudes".

These are also two very different things. Yes, the ruling class has the power to make decisions, but it cannot make any decision if it is contrary to popular social attitudes, which would mean it would have no legitimacy. An absurd example, if there was an Islamist coup in the Netherlands today it would not survive beyond today. Or, if a regime made wearing clown's noses obligatory, it would lose legitimacy.


In fact the NEPmen were despised by most strata of Soviet society, as were concessionary capitalists, specialists, the food dictatorship etc...

*sigh*
If something is undesired popularly, it does not mean it has no legitimacy. What matters is that a decision, even if you disagree with it, you abide by it nonetheless because you accept the legitimacy of a whatever regime has enacted those rules, or the reason for the existence of that regime is acknowledged and accepted.


"legitimacy" is a moral notion

No it's not, it's descriptive not prescriptive. Legitimacy is not the same as justified. I can say that Fascist Italy and Nazi-Germany were legitimate dictatorships without contradicting my political views because political legitimacy is when the state's authority and rules are accepted popularly (not by consensus), which they were. Fascism and para-fascism derived their legitimacy from opposing socialism, the Bolsheviks from fighting the Czar.


that has no place in a materialist analysis. What enabled the Bolshevik government to stay in power was not its "legitimacy" but its firm class basis

In other words, it has legitimacy as its rule, leadership, and such was accepted (proletariat) -- and alternatively, tolerated by peasants.


and its ability to project power when this was necessary - especially in opposition to peasant uprisings.

Look up what legitimacy means:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)


There is no "general will" - although as per above you seem to think there is -

Which is literally in reply to me saying "There is no general will ever, not in class society, not in a classless society."


but there is general interest. E.g. an increase in the availability of medical facilities etc.

I don't accept that, firstly. Secondly, that is what general will means. If I have a proper medical facility nearby and I'm a very healthy person I can certainly be said to have no particular interest, individually, in expanding the availability of medical facilities. I do not benefit from it, and it goes at the expense of other investments from which I may possible benefit.


If that requires building a railroad on the spot where your esteemed house was - well, living in society requires compromise (more on this later).

Which contradicts what you're saying. If I'm the same person, I have a particularly fierce interest against this for two reasons: I already have a medical facility near me, and a railway would disrupt my living conditions.
Compromise is the mediation of conflicting interests.


But that's just the thing, sexual abuse is often done by people who are otherwise not attracted to children - and mostly by family members rather than the stereotypical evil predator hiding in the bushes. And let's not even talk about how sexualized much of "non-sexual" violence toward children is.

Even so (I'm skeptical), communism will have pedophiles whom have no other means to express their sexuality with another person than by abusing or raping a child. You have no basis on which you can reject this, because you say empathy, morality, and social attitudes are insufficient. So what's left? Material self-interest, according to you. It, again, comes down to ethical egoism.


It changes character, just as in present society a female assaulting a cis-male of the dominant nationality is not equivalent to rape.

Either way, you do not have a basis for which to reject or oppose assault or abuse on, unless you concede that you will, on the basis of subjective evaluations, derived from empathy, denounce it as abhorrent. I very much doubt that if someone you know is assaulted or abused you will have no compassion beyond proletarian class interest.


Well, I am not in the business of selling "shoulds" and "oughts". Nonetheless, you are mistaken if you think that you can protect your individual interests without involving other people, in any society more complex than hunter-gatherer bands (if that). Therefore, public concerns are also your concerns.

I never suggested otherwise.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Since you are applying a human concept to non-human animals then I understand you perfectly. If your defence of that position is to reject "human qualities" then fine, but that is absurd.

Do not animals (especially mammals) display behaviours that are entirely consistent with an internal state corresponding to wanting something, i.e. desire? Do animals not seek out things like food, companionship etc. and furthermore display certain reactions when such seeking is frustrated?

What we call "human qualities" are a subset of a more generalised class of properties that most mammals and a lot of other animals share. This is a natural consequence of sharing a common evolutionary ancestor.

[The Feral Underclass]

Do not animals (especially mammals) display behaviours that are entirely consistent with an internal state corresponding to wanting something, i.e. desire? Do animals not seek out things like food, companionship etc. and furthermore display certain reactions when such seeking is frustrated?

Desire isn't a synonym for 'want' or 'need', it is a human emotion, characterised by self-awareness. Desire is a human concept constructed from our language to understand our self-aware feelings. You cannot apply that to non-human animals, none of whom are self-aware. You cannot desire something if you are not even aware of what desire is. They may instinctively want something, but that is not the same as desire.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Desire isn't a synonym for 'want' or 'need', it is a human emotion, characterised by self-awareness. Desire is a human concept constructed from our language to understand our self-aware feelings. You cannot apply that to non-human animals, none of whom are self-aware. You cannot desire something if you are not even aware of what desire is. They may instinctively want something, but that is not the same as desire.

How does desire necessitate self-awareness?

Also, some animals apart from humans display behaviour consistent with self-awareness. Are they capable of desire as you have defined it?

[The Feral Underclass]

How does desire necessitate self-awareness?

What is unclear about the explanation I have already provided?




Also, some animals apart from humans display behaviour consistent with self-awareness. Are they capable of desire as you have defined it?


I have no idea, but since desire is a human concept of a human emotion it seems unlikely. Which animals are you referring to and how would you know if they had the emotion of desire?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[argeiphontes]

Whether most people on this board are communists is, ah, an open question. Nonetheless, even communists are constrained by the social context they find themselves occupying, and are influenced by ruling-class ideology.


So it's just going along with prevailing norms, so as not to get punished in some way by other members of one's peer group. Purely practical. What does that make communism? Just a peer group, like a fraternity? Or is it a behavior-based group, like Alcoholics Anonymous or the circus?



That simply doesn't follow. If I say that normative statements are idealist nonsense, it doesn't follow that "everything is allowed" - in fact, it follows that that sentence, too, is idealist nonsense.
Sure, it doesn't follow that "everything is allowed" in practice, as in, "currently, you can just go around doing anything you want." But that's only because others will stop you, or stare at you and elicit bad feeling that cause you to stop. I.e. constrain you in some practical way, based on their misguided belief in their idealist nonsense. The fact remains, that apart from bad consequences, there is no principled reason for anyone to act in a certain way. Nothing is unethical (there is no ethics in your view), and the same action can be convenient in one context and inconvenient in another.

So, if there are no principles on which to base one's conduct, and there is no reason why anything is wrong, then anything is allowed--as long as you can get away with it. You shouldn't waterboard terror suspects if the press is watching, but otherwise, go for it. The only thing stopping you is society and their vapid "opinions". Some things are just more or less beneficial than others, more or less practical. The Delphic maxim "Benefit yourself" becomes the guide to action.

(Suit yourself, I guess, I've already claimed my idealism.)



Of course I oppose restrictions on abortion. But the point is that this is not an ethical opposition - if it were, I would have to sit down with every fascist who wants to restrict women and make up silly stories about universal rights in order to convince them that, no really, women shouldn't be restricted. That is pointless, degrading, and reinforces ruling-class ideology (women's freedom is problematic and needs to be debated) instead of challenging it.

Instead, communists should organize to smash misogynists.


It enslaves more than half of the proletariat, and in any case the "balance of power" doesn't depend on numbers (if it did, we would all be living in socialism) but on militant class-consciousness. The thought experiment is nonsensical - the equivalent of saying "let us suppose that enslaving about a half of black people is in the interest of black people". If you assume something that doesn't make sense, you will reach conclusions that don't make sense, naturally.
In this thread, and in the Diamat one, you've been really good at deflecting and distracting, without addressing the substantive points people make. The question is: WHY should communists smash misogynists? If it's just a matter of convenience and benefit, then just say so and we can move on to conducting a calculation about which actions are objectively more beneficial than others.

As it stands, you're begging the question about all these things: misogyny, enslavement, oppression, and abortion rights. You haven't said anything about WHY those things are wrong, yet you carry on as if they were. Is it just desire not to be punished by your peer group that makes you opposed to misogyny? Or are you making some sort of mistaken calculation about what you should do? Worse still, are you trying to trick us into smashing those things for you, because it doesn't benefit you to devote your own energies to it? We can't really criticize you for it, since it's not 'wrong' to trick others. On the contrary, I congratulate you on your efficiency.

In your system of material benefits, all those women fighting for abortion 'rights' are well-meaning but misguided, I take it. They're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, since they misguidedly believe in their 'right' to make choices about their bodies. OOOPS! There is no 'right' thing. They're just trying to benefit themselves using a meaningless rhetoric. If they don't win, then "aww, too bad" but no outrage has been committed. The stronger party won, that's all.

As for oppression, if you'd like we can redefine 'Oppression' as stronger people interfering with the goals of weaker people in a way that causes the weaker people some material detriment. In any case, it's not wrong, so they should just get over it until they can muster up enough support to revolt.



If you're petit-bourgeois, white, straight and cis-male enough that merely going to business school would make you happy, well, good for you. Most of us don't have that luxury.
Really? The likelihood of most of us going to business school is much greater than the likelihood that we'll live in a socialist society. You need to maximize your pleasure in a finite lifetime, and you're going to waste it all on a future possibility that may or may not come true, and might involve the rest of your life? A rational self-interested materialist would never fight for revolution. If I were you, I'd recalculate my odds, you appear to be mistaken about your chances.

[argeiphontes]

That is a nonsense collection of sentences. Of course there are human qualities. If we follow your argument that animals are similar, they are not the same, ergo there must be something that differentiates us...What you're saying is nonsensical.


What differentiates us? Desire? Consciousness? You don't have any proof of that. Since we are all animals, and all related through evolution, until you can prove that only some animals have consciousness I have to assume, based on appearance, behavior, and evolution, that all animals have consciousness. Until I'm convinced by the science, I have no empirical basis for claiming that animals have no consciousness, or desires.

The burden of proof is on the person who claims that there was some magical "jump" between animals and humans. When did this jump to desire and consciousness occur? In Homo sapiens? In the Neanderthals, Denisovans, Red Deer People, or floresiensis that we happily interbred with? Maybe you draw the line at Australopithecines? The Homo-Pan common ancestor? Which of those beings are "animals" and which are "humans" worthy of having their wants be called "desires"? Where did this jump occur? It's all just arbitrary. I don't see why humans are so exceptional. Maybe you do, but then we'll have to just agree to disagree.

[argeiphontes]

No, the anthropocentric framework relies upon the understanding that human beings are central to the world and the most significant species on the planet.

I believe the exact opposite of this, as you can see by the content of my posts. Just calling me anthropocentric over and over will only work if you're a Maoist ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

Someone who has to ask what separates different species of animals is clearly insane. I'm not going to participate in such a ridiculous conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Feral Underclass]

I believe the exact opposite of this, as you can see by the content of my posts. Just calling me anthropocentric over and over will only work if you're a Maoist ;)


I have explained several times why what you think you believe means something else. You have a choice: Either accept what I say or provide a refutation. Simply repeating that you believe your opinion is not a response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[argeiphontes]

I have explained several times why what you think you believe means something else. You have a choice: Either accept what I say or provide a refutation. Simply repeating that you believe your opinion is not a response.


First of all, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

But here goes. Your claim is that I think that humans are central to the world and the most significant thing that ever lived. Yet, the content of my posts is precisely the opposite. I repeatedly claim that there is no essential difference between animals and humans, and state that humans are just another kind of animal. I claim that it is impossible to draw a line between humans and animals.

So, if it is impossible to draw a line between humans and animals, then how are humans central to the world and the most significant thing that the ever lived?

(In fact, it is you who thinks that there is some essential difference between humans and animals. So, it is actually you who is anthropocentric.)

But yeah, I don't think any further discussion of this is going to be fruitful.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What is unclear about the explanation I have already provided?

It doesn't explain how desire requires self-awareness - you just say that it does.


I have no idea, but since desire is a human concept of a human emotion it seems unlikely. Which animals are you referring to and how would you know if they had the emotion of desire?

Well among the mammals there are chimpanzees (http://youtu.be/vJFo3trMuD8?t=2m1s), hardly surprising given they're our closest relatives, and outside of the great apes there are elephants (http://www.livescience.com/4272-elephant-awareness-mirrors-humans.html). A good non-mammalian example would be crows (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1209_041209_crows_apes.html).

As to how we would know, that can be reasonably inferred from their problem-solving capabilities, which are sufficiently sophisticated to involve the abstract conceptualisation necessary to divide subject from object. A human, chimp or crow can actually apply some thinking (although not necessarily to the same degree) to a problem that's getting in between them and what they want.

[Future]

Just to clear up some misconceptions for the non-socialists what we anarchists and left socialists mean by "private property" and "personal property/possession", I think this (quite long) exerpt from "An Anarchist FAQ" could be very valuable to this discussion.

B.3.1 What is the difference between private property and possession?

Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used.

To summarise, anarchists are in favour of the kind of property which "cannot be used to exploit another -- those kinds of personal possessions which we accumulate from childhood and which become part of our lives." We are opposed to the kind of property "which can be used only to exploit people -- land and buildings, instruments of production and distribution, raw materials and manufactured articles, money and capital." [Nicholas Walter, About Anarchism, p. 40] As a rule of thumb, anarchists oppose those forms of property which are owned by a few people but which are used by others. This leads to the former controlling the latter and using them to produce a surplus for them (either directly, as in the case of a employee, or indirectly, in the case of a tenant).

The key is that "possession" is rooted in the concept of "use rights" or "usufruct" while "private property" is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property. Needless to say, a capitalist workplace, where the workers are ordered about by a boss, is an example of "property" while a co-operative, where the workers manage their own work, is an example of "possession." To quote Proudhon:

"The proprietor is a man who, having absolute control of an instrument of production, claims the right to enjoy the product of the instrument without using it himself. To this end he lends it." [Op. Cit., p. 293]
While it may initially be confusing to make this distinction, it is very useful to understand the nature of capitalist society. Capitalists tend to use the word "property" to mean anything from a toothbrush to a transnational corporation -- two very different things, with very different impacts upon society. Hence Proudhon:

"Originally the word property was synonymous with proper or individual possession. It designated each individual's special right to the use of a thing. But when this right of use . . . became active and paramount -- that is, when the usufructuary converted his right to personally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbour's labour -- then property changed its nature and this idea became complex." [Op. Cit., pp. 395-6]
Proudhon graphically illustrated the distinction by comparing a lover as a possessor, and a husband as a proprietor! As he stressed, the "double definition of property -- domain and possession -- is of highest importance; and must be clearly understood, in order to comprehend" what anarchism is really about. So while some may question why we make this distinction, the reason is clear. As Proudhon argued, "it is proper to call different things by different names, if we keep the name 'property' for the former [possession], we must call the latter [the domain of property] robbery, repine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we reserve the name 'property' for the latter, we must designate the former by the term possession or some other equivalent; otherwise we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonym." [Op. Cit., p. 65 and p. 373]

The difference between property and possession can be seen from the types of authority relations each generates. Taking the example of a capitalist workplace, its clear that those who own the workplace determine how it is used, not those who do the actual work. This leads to an almost totalitarian system. As Noam Chomsky points out, "the term 'totalitarian' is quite accurate. There is no human institution that approaches totalitarianism as closely as a business corporation. I mean, power is completely top-down. You can be inside it somewhere and you take orders from above and hand 'em down. Ultimately, it's in the hands of owners and investors." Thus the actual producer does not control their own activity, the product of their labour nor the means of production they use. In modern class societies, the producer is in a position of subordination to those who actually do own or manage the productive process.

In an anarchist society, as noted, actual use is considered the only title. This means that a workplace is organised and run by those who work within it, thus reducing hierarchy and increasing freedom and equality within society. Hence anarchist opposition to private property and capitalism flows naturally from anarchism's basic principles and ideas. Hence all anarchists agree with Proudhon:

"Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property while maintaining possession." [Op. Cit., p. 271]
As Alexander Berkman frames this distinction, anarchism "abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title -- not to ownership but to possession." [What is Anarchism?, p. 217]

This analysis of different forms of property is at the heart of both social and individualist anarchism. This means that all anarchists seek to change people's opinions on what is to be considered as valid forms of property, aiming to see that "the Anarchistic view that occupancy and use should condition and limit landholding becomes the prevailing view" and so ensure that "individuals should no longer be protected by their fellows in anything but personal occupation and cultivation [i.e. use] of land." The Individualist Anarchists, p. 159 and p. 85] The key differences, as we noted in section A.3.1 (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA3.html#seca31), is how they apply this principle.

This anarchist support for possession does not imply the break up of large scale organisations such as factories or other workplaces which require large numbers of people to operate. Far from it. Anarchists argue for association as the complement of possession. This means applying "occupancy and use" to property which is worked by more than one person results in associated labour, i.e. those who collectively work together (i.e. use a given property) manage it and their own labour as a self-governing, directly democratic, association of equals (usually called "self-management" for short).

This logically flows from the theory of possession, of "occupancy and use." For if production is carried on in groups who is the legal occupier of the land? The employer or their manager? Obviously not, as they are by definition occupying more than they can use by themselves. Clearly, the association of those engaged in the work can be the only rational answer. Hence Proudhon's comment that "all accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive proprietor." "In order to destroy despotism and inequality of conditions, men must . . . become associates" and this implies workers' self-management -- "leaders, instructors, superintendents . . . must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers themselves." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 130, p. 372 and p. 137]

In this way, anarchists seek, in Proudhon's words, "abolition of the proletariat" and consider a key idea of our ideas that "Industrial Democracy must. . . succeed Industrial Feudalism." [Proudhon, Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 179 and p. 167] Thus an anarchist society would be based on possession, with workers' self-management being practised at all levels from the smallest one person workplace or farm to large scale industry (see section I.3 (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI3.html) for more discussion).

Clearly, then, all anarchists seek to transform and limit property rights. Capitalist property rights would be ended and a new system introduced rooted in the concept of possession and use. While the exact nature of that new system differs between schools of anarchist thought, the basic principles are the same as they flow from the same anarchist theory of property to be found in Proudhon's, What is Property?.

Significantly, William Godwin in his Enquiry Concerning Political Justice makes the same point concerning the difference between property and possession (although not in the same language) fifty years before Proudhon, which indicates its central place in anarchist thought. For Godwin, there were different kinds of property. One kind was "the empire to which every [person] is entitled over the produce of his [or her] own industry." However, another kind was "a system, in whatever manner established, by which one man enters into the faculty of disposing of the produce of another man's industry." This "species of property is in direct contradiction" to the former kind (he similarities with subsequent anarchist ideas is striking). For Godwin, inequality produces a "servile" spirit in the poor and, moreover, a person who "is born to poverty, may be said, under a another name, to be born a slave." [The Anarchist Writings of William Godwin, p. 133, p. 134, p. 125 and p. 126]

Needless to say, anarchists have not be totally consistent in using this terminology. Some, for example, have referred to the capitalist and landlord classes as being the "possessing classes." Others prefer to use the term "personal property" rather than "possession" or "capital" rather than "private property." Some, like many individualist anarchists, use the term "property" in a general sense and qualify it with "occupancy and use" in the case of land, housing and workplaces. However, no matter the specific words used, the key idea is the same.

[Sabot Cat]

I have explained several times why what you think you believe means something else. You have a choice: Either accept what I say or provide a refutation. Simply repeating that you believe your opinion is not a response.


An attempt at a syllogistic response:

1. The definition of a word is its use, the aggregate of the contexts that it occurs in.
2. The best heuristic of a word's popular usage is a dictionary.
3. Merriam Webster defines desire as "to want or wish for (something) : to feel desire for (something)".
4. Animals want things*.
5. Therefore, animals have desires.

(*That is, any being can have a state of mind where they are disquieted by the absence of something, and implicitly, go to seek out that thing; if they didn't, animals wouldn't eat because they wouldn't want food).

[A Revolutionary Tool]

OP I think you would have a problem turning this theory into practice because it's just not how modern capitalist production works. Production is socialized for the most part. When you go to McDonalds I might be dropping the burgers, you might be putting the burgers together, someone else took the order, another person bagged it up and gave it to the customer, etc, etc. Whats the product of my labor? Some cooked meat. Yours? A finished Big Mac. The order taker? A order that pops up on a screen, etc. There are a ton of workers who don't actually produce anything but are vital to the health of capitalism. Like what is the product of a truckers labor? If I'm a roofer and I fix your roof what do I get in return if I'm just providing maintenance for your house? And in capitalism the product of the worker is never their's anyways. Sure Steve Jobs may have built the first Mac in his garage but I'm pretty sure the millions of iPhones produced were not built by Steve or by machines built by Steve.

In communism the means of production are held in common, neither yours nor mine, but the community and it's the community which makes a plan for the use of the tools and of the land that is held in common too. With mass, socialized, production why would I want to have a bunch of car doors? To sell it to the guy that puts it on the car? It's ridiculous.

[The Feral Underclass]

It doesn't explain how desire requires self-awareness - you just say that it does.

You cannot understand a concept that relates to your own emotions and feelings without it. You cannot understand that you have desire if you cannot even conceptualise your emotions or feelings in the first place. That's assuming animals even share this emotion with us or would articulate themselves in the same way if they could articulate themselves.


Well among the mammals there are chimpanzees (http://youtu.be/vJFo3trMuD8?t=2m1s), hardly surprising given they're our closest relatives, and outside of the great apes there are elephants (http://www.livescience.com/4272-elephant-awareness-mirrors-humans.html). A good non-mammalian example would be crows (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1209_041209_crows_apes.html).

This is certainly interesting information and when proven that this self-awareness permits them to conceptualise and articulate an emotional longing or craving as 'desire', I will be happy to concede. That is, of course, making the massive assumption that if they were able to conceptualise and articulate that emotion, they would want/choose to understand it in the same way as humans.


As to how we would know, that can be reasonably inferred from their problem-solving capabilities, which are sufficiently sophisticated to involve the abstract conceptualisation necessary to divide subject from object

Explain how this inference is reasonable.

[The Feral Underclass]

An attempt at a syllogistic response:

1. The definition of a word is its use, the aggregate of the contexts that it occurs in.
2. The best heuristic of a word's popular usage is a dictionary.
3. Merriam Webster defines desire as "to want or wish for (something) : to feel desire for (something)".
4. Animals want things*.
5. Therefore, animals have desires.

(*That is, any being can have a state of mind where they are disquieted by the absence of something, and implicitly, go to seek out that thing; if they didn't, animals wouldn't eat because they wouldn't want food).

I fundamentally reject the premise of your assertion. The dictionary is not way of understanding or learning about human emotion. Desire is not a synonym for want, irrespective of what Merriam Webster's has to say on the matter.

[The Feral Underclass]

First of all, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

I'm not making a claim.


Your claim is that I think that humans are central to the world and the most significant thing that ever lived.

No, that is not my claim, nor does it form the thesis of my criticism of you.


Yet, the content of my posts is precisely the opposite. I repeatedly claim that there is no essential difference between animals and humans, and state that humans are just another kind of animal. I claim that it is impossible to draw a line between humans and animals.

So, if it is impossible to draw a line between humans and animals, then how are humans central to the world and the most significant thing that the ever lived?

(In fact, it is you who thinks that there is some essential difference between humans and animals. So, it is actually you who is anthropocentric.)

But yeah, I don't think any further discussion of this is going to be fruitful.

I cannot articulate my criticism of your views any clearer than I have already.

[argeiphontes]

I'm not making a claim.

No, that is not my claim, nor does it form the thesis of my criticism of you.


No, of course not.



No, the anthropocentric framework relies upon the understanding that human beings are central to the world and the most significant species on the planet. While I'm sure argeiphontes has 'moral' views about non-human animals and supports their 'rights', he does so within the framework that human concepts and language should form the basis for understanding how non-human animals operate and how they should be treated. The issue of desire being one example and the idea of morals being another.

In my experience this view is ultimately defended on the basis that non-human animals cannot "speak for themselves", as if speaking were so profound and significant and central to everything it endowed us with primacy over the existence of other species; since humans have sapience we are somehow the automatic guardians of non-human animals, a view which further reinforces the anthropocentric world view.


Straw man didn't burn, huh?

[Sabot Cat]

I fundamentally reject the premise of your assertion. The dictionary is not way of understanding or learning about human emotion. Desire is not a synonym for want, irrespective of what Merriam Webster's has to say on the matter.

Or any other dictionary, or most people. Desire is a synonym for want, and your exclusive definition of it doesn't cohere with any delineation of the concept that exists elsewhere.

[The Feral Underclass]

No where in my argument have I said that I believe you "think that humans are central to the world and the most significant thing that ever lived." I am certain that is not what you think. Nevertheless, the views you exhibit are anthropocentric, for the reasons I have stated.

[Sabot Cat]

No where in my argument have I said that I believe you "think that humans are central to the world and the most significant thing that ever lived." I am certain that is not what you think. Nevertheless, the views you exhibit are anthropocentric, for the reasons I have stated.

The bold text is what anthropocentric means, so you're contradicting yourself here.

[argeiphontes]

No where in my argument have I said that I believe you "think that humans are central to the world and the most significant thing that ever lived." I am certain that is not what you think. Nevertheless, the views you exhibit are anthropocentric, for the reasons I have stated.

Are you nitpicking because I said "thing that ever lived" instead of "species on the planet"? Otherwise, it's a direct quote from you about what anthropocentricism is. I just posted both of the paragraphs you wrote about it on page one of the thread, up above.

And you just said, again, that I'm anthropocentric. So unless you've changed your definition of anthropocentric, you must be claiming I believe "that human beings are central to the world and the most significant species on the planet." Which I showed to be false in the post at 16:52 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2712720&postcount=79).

Keep trying, I guess. But I give up.

[The Feral Underclass]

Or any other dictionary, or most people. Desire is a synonym for want, and your exclusive definition of it doesn't cohere with any delineation of the concept that exists elsewhere.

Yes, let's talk about the views of "most people" shall we. If you are comfortable taking your views on concepts and understandings from dictionaries and from what "most people" think, then so be it.

[Sabot Cat]

Yes, let's talk about the views of "most people" shall we. If you are comfortable taking your views on concepts and understandings from dictionaries and from what "most people" think, then so be it.

You're misunderstanding my point, because this isn't about my views or interpretations of certain concepts, but the definitions of terms. You're saying that desire doesn't mean want, which makes this a conversation about words, and thus dictionaries and the practices of most people become relevant, as meaning is determined by use.

[The Feral Underclass]

This is turning into some Kafkaesque pantomime.


The bold text is what anthropocentric means, so you're contradicting yourself here.

There is a difference between saying that someone thinks something and saying that what they say means something they didn't realise. I do not believe that argeiphontes "thinks that humans are central to the world." What I am saying is that there is a subtext to the ideas he is expressing which operates within that framework.

I am not criticising argeiphontes, I am analysing the words he is writing and providing a critique of them.


You're misunderstanding my point, because this isn't about my views or understandings of certain concepts, but the definitions of terms.

Have you ever consulted a dictionary over the definition of the word 'communism'? Here is a definition from dictionary.com: "a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party."


You're saying that desire doesn't mean want

No, I'm not saying that. What I have said is that 'desire' is not a synonym for 'want'. You use the word desire to mean 'want', but the word desire is not just a word you can use to replace the word want. They don't mean the same thing. That's not to say that 'want' is not part of desire, of course it is, but, as I said (more than once), desire is not a synonym for 'want.'

A dog may 'want' a treat because it scintillates the taste buds or fulfils an instinctive need to eat, but does it 'desire' the treat? No, because desire is a a human concept for a human emotion, characterised by self-awareness.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You cannot understand a concept that relates to your own emotions and feelings without it. You cannot understand that you have desire if you cannot even conceptualise your emotions or feelings in the first place. That's assuming animals even share this emotion with us or would articulate themselves in the same way if they could articulate themselves.

Understanding of concepts is not a necessary component of desire, no more than an understanding of friction is necessary for locomotion. Clearly you think desire has an emotional component, but I'm unclear as to what you think the conceptional component of desire is, because you insist on using an idiosyncratic definition of term that apparently nobody holds to but you.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’


This is certainly interesting information and when proven that this self-awareness permits them to conceptualise and articulate an emotional longing or craving as 'desire', I will be happy to concede. That is, of course, making the massive assumption that if they were able to conceptualise and articulate that emotion, they would want/choose to understand it in the same way as humans.

Why does it have to be exactly the same? Evolution abounds with examples of convergent development and functionally homologous traits. It's hardly a great leap to suppose then that the differences between humans and other animals (mammals especially) are quantitative, not qualitative.


Explain how this inference is reasonable.

Because sophisticated problem-solving requires planning, and an entity that can plan must necessarily be able to think beyond it's immediate situation, and since all the examples of animals I've listed have social capacities this would also include having a theory of mind; crows have been observed to practice deception, pretending to stash food if they can see other crows in order to throw them off.

[Ele'ill]

What's the difference between why a human may desire a food item and a cat or wolf or dog may desire to lick a toad to trip, seek out and eat certain plants for digestion

[The Feral Underclass]

Understanding of concepts is not a necessary component of desire no more than an understanding of friction is necessary for locomotion.

Then in your view it is possible for someone to have a longing for something without knowing that they are longing for it or what longing even is?


Clearly you think desire has an emotional component, but I'm unclear as to what you think the conceptional component of desire is, because you insist on using an idiosyncratic definition of term that apparently nobody holds to but you.

The emotion of love has an evolutionary and physiological component. It serves our species a specific instinctive function, whether that is to ensure we nurture our young or whether it's to form social groups so that we can stay safe etc. The concept of love, however, is a construction of our language and our society. It is the consequence of prevailing norms and dominant ideology. The idea of marriage and of family for example. Love, as defined by our language and of our understanding of ourselves, is a conceptual response to evolutionary and physiological facts within our species.

I use love as an illustration of the differences between instinctive, physiological and evolutionary facts, and the conceptualisation of those facts, based on human language and human evaluations of ourselves as 'the self' and of reality.


Why does it have to be exactly the same? Evolution abounds with examples of convergent development and functionally homologous traits. It's hardly a great leap to suppose then that the differences between humans and other animals (mammals especially) are quantitative, not qualitative.

And as I said, I would be happy to concede when it is proven that this self-awareness that you describe permits them to conceptualise and articulate an emotional longing or craving as 'desire'.


Because sophisticated problem-solving requires planning, and an entity that can plan must necessarily be able to think beyond it's immediate situation, and since all the examples of animals I've listed have social capacities this would also include having a theory of mind; crows have been observed to practice deception, pretending to stash food if they can see other crows in order to throw them off.

My question was really to try and understand why it is reasonable to infer from what you are saying that because of these facts it follows that animals have desires. You call it an act of deception, but a crow would probably see it very differently -- assuming it accepted the premise presented by our language.

[Sabot Cat]

Have you ever consulted a dictionary over the definition of the word 'communism'? Here is a definition from dictionary.com: "a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party."


From Merriam-Webster:

Full Definition of COMMUNISM

1
a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2
capitalized
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively

From the free dictionary:

com·mu·nism (kŏm′yə-nĭz′əm)
n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

And from the source you deliberately manipulated to suit your argument:

com·mu·nism [kom-yuh-niz-uhm]
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.



No, I'm not saying that. What I have said is that 'desire' is not a synonym for 'want'. You use the word desire to mean 'want', but the word desire is not just a word you can use to replace the word want. They don't mean the same thing. That's not to say that 'want' is not part of desire, of course it is, but, as I said (more than once), desire is not a synonym for 'want.'


At least three thesauruses I own suggest otherwise.


A dog may 'want' a treat because it scintillates the taste buds or fulfils an instinctive need to eat, but does it 'desire' the treat? No, because desire is a a human concept for a human emotion, characterised by self-awareness.

Who else uses this definition? Where did you get it from?

[The Feral Underclass]

At least three thesauruses I own suggest otherwise.

Then I guess you will have no problem continuing to have your views.


Who else uses this definition?

Are you asking for scholarly examples or do you literally want me to provide a list of people?


Where did you get it from?

It is a decision I have arrived at through discourse, learning and investigation.

[Sabot Cat]

Then I guess you will have no problem continuing to have your views.

Yes, which is the correct one, and I don't say that out of arrogance or smugness, but frustration at these pluralistic frameworks of understanding that belie the exclusive nature of truth.


Are you asking for scholarly examples or do you literally want me to provide a list of people?


The first one, I suppose.


It is a decision I have arrived at through discourse, learning and investigation.

If I told you that "me gusta" means "I want" in Spanish, and you ask me how I know this, I can only tell you that those series of sounds happens to be associated with that meaning because of its usage, reflected in dictionaries. The same is true of all words, including desire.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, which is the correct one, and I don't say that out of arrogance or smugness, but frustration at these pluralistic frameworks of understanding that belie the exclusive nature of truth.

I do not agree with you. You are going to have to come to terms with that.


The first one, I suppose.

You can just Google Hegel. His book The Phenomenology of Mind isn't online, but there are online texts that address his concept of desire, although I think you will require academic credentials to be able to access some of them.

That's not to say that Hegel's view is the same as mine, but his discussions on self-consciousness and desire are helpful to me in understanding my own views.


If I told you that "me gusta" means "I want" in Spanish, and you ask me how I know this, I can only tell you that those series of sounds happens to be associated with that meaning because of its usage, reflected in dictionaries. The same is true of all words, including desire.

I no longer understand the function of your intervention. You have presented your views, I do not share them, as I have explained. There really is no need to repeat yourself.

[ThatGuy]

Me neither, but that is something a lot of people seem to want. Why is it wrong to extract surplus labor from people, without the idea of ethics or rights? If it just comes down to power, then we are back with one of Plato's shill characters who proclaimed, "Why, Justice is simply the might of the stronger, Socrates." I don't believe that.

Well, that is how the world actually works, but it doesn't exclude the possibility of rights. As long as people have empathy and want to do well by themselves without anyone else getting hurt in the process, they are going to support social constructs that guarantee there are limits to what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. Rights seem to be the perfect way to formalize those concepts.

[Alan OldStudent]

This is something, that has puzzled me since always. If workers have the right to the full fruit of their labour, doesn't that entail private property?

For example if I produce a field, isn't that field now exclusively mine forever, since somebody else growing something on my field means I can't use the whole field I've produced and am thus unable to enjoy part of the fruits of my labour?

Another pretty similar example is if I build a machine and somebody uses it while I'm asleep to produce goods for himself. Machines are worn down by use, so that means that if someone else is using my machine, I'll be left with less operating time for the machine than if he didn't. Doesn't that mean that person is robbing me of my labour?

The way I see it, people owning the full product of their labour means they have the right to exclude everybody else from what they have created, and that is basically what private property does.

Hello Citizen ThatGuy,

You ask some interesting and provocative questions. I just discovered this thread so I’m posting a few days after you ask them.

Let’s look at a few basic concepts here:


LABOR: This is the application of brain and/or muscle power to something to create something else of value. That “something else” could be either a material item or a service. For example, if I use wood, glue, nails, rattan, and leather to make a chair, that chair has a value that the original materials did not have. I have applied brain and muscle power to raw materials to create the chair which has a new use value. If I am a barber and I cut your hair, I have performed a service using brain and muscle power to create a new value.
PROPERTY: This is a social relationship between individuals that defines ownership. If you own something, you may use it, consume it, or even destroy it, and you may bar others from using, consuming, or destroying it. You can transfer this right of ownership to someone else under law. Note the property is above all a social relationship between individuals that determines who may or may not use a particular item.


Please note that this explanation of property is somewhat different than the conception of property that your question seems to imply. Your conception of property more closely resembles that of John Locke, an important philosopher of the Scottish Enlightenment who had a great influence on the ideology of the founders of the United States. John Locke thought of an individual as owning himself or herself and therefore, any product of labor from an individual belongs to the individual himself or herself.

This interesting insight lacks in certain fundamental respects. For one thing, as other posters have said, labor is never a strictly individual activity. Labor has a profoundly social character. All the things in your life which labor produces comes from the efforts of tens of thousands and probably millions of people over the course of many centuries in the most ultimate sense. No one’s labor produces anything without the involvement of many other individuals. One of the most salient features of labor is its social character. This is one of Marx’s most brilliant insights.

http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/divide4.gif

In light of what is above, let’s look into your questions a little more carefully. You ask that if people have a right to the full product of their labor, wouldn’t that entail private property?

But what exactly do you mean by having the right to the full product of your labor? Is that really self-evident? It is impossible for you to produce something solely by your own labor. For example, let’s use your apple example. The labor involved is in the growing and harvesting of the apple. Presumably, you watered the tree. You probably didn’t schlep the water from the stream. It came in a pipe or other irrigation system, likely made by others. You wore shoes when you went out to your tree. You probably didn’t make them. Others made them. You probably bought fertilizer, another product of others’ labor. You probably used tools like a hoe. Those tools were manufactured. Not only that, but those tools were most likely not made from entirely raw materials. Somebody processed the steel. Someone harvested and milled the wood, using manufactured tools from which the hoe was made.

I could go on and on, but you strike me as a reasonably bright person, and I’m sure you can get the picture. Our species, homo sapiens, require social effort to exist. That’s how humans have evolved to survive over millions of years. We are social beings. Nobody can live completely independently.

You ask, “[F]or example, if I produce a field, isn’t that field now exclusively mine forever…?”

Nothing is forever, including property. When the human race becomes extinct, property goes with it, even if the things owned survive for a while.

Moreover, you did not produce the field. The field is not the product of you applying your muscle and/or brainpower to something. The field exists in nature. The field is useless unless human labor is involved in doing something with it, like growing apples on it, building houses on it, and so on.

You also use the example of a machine. You ask that if you build a machine and someone else uses it, aren’t you deprived of the wear and tear on that machine? You ask if that person is robbing you of the usefulness of the machine because of that wear and tear.

The answer depends on the circumstance. Did the person use the machine without your permission? Then yes, if you hold legal title to the machine, somebody robbed you of part of the use of the machine. But if you agreed to let that person use the machine, either as a favor or as the consequence of it business deal, no, you were not robbed of the usefulness of that machine.

Being robbed means being deprived of something you own in a manner contrary to law. That ties into the idea of property, which (remember) is a social relationship between individuals that regulates who gets use of something of value.

Further on, you state "The way I see it, people owning the full product of their labour means they have the right to exclude everybody else from what they have created, and that is basically what private property does."

Once again, one must ask the question what do you mean by "the full product" of labor? Remember, labor is the application of brain and/or muscle power to something to create something else of new value. But what was the original substance that you applied your brain and muscle power to? Most likely the raw materials were not "raw" in the sense that you personally gathered those materials from nature.

But even if you had personally gathered those raw materials, that was only possible because you are able to wear clothes and shoes, figure out a way of transporting them back, and then building whatever it was from the raw materials that you had gathered.

Property is not some unchanging force in the universe. The institution of property evolves as society evolves and as technology evolves. For example, at one point, owning a slave was common. The slave was a form of property. Now, slavery is illegal. Until several hundred years ago, much land in Europe was held in common. Now, very little land in Europe is held in common.

This explanation is getting kind of long. So I’ll stop here, and I may add more later on in another contribution. Thank you for challenging me to put on my thinking cap. I quite enjoyed attempting to respond to your questions.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

[argeiphontes]

Once again, one must ask the question what do you mean by "the full product" of labor? Remember, labor is the application of brain and/or muscle power to something to create something else of new value. But what was the original substance that you applied your brain and muscle power to? Most likely the raw materials were not "raw" in the sense that you personally gathered those materials from nature.

But even if you had personally gathered those raw materials, that was only possible because you are able to wear clothes and shoes, figure out a way of transporting them back, and then building whatever it was from the raw materials that you had gathered.


Does the fact that all labor is social somehow negate property rights, though? If the chain of custody is legitimate, then why is it problematic? I know how to make rope. If I go to the flax farm next door, and agree to help the farmer harvest the crop in exchange for a few sheaves of flax, then is the rope I make somehow not 'mine'? He got his seeds and tools by voluntary, legitimate means, too. (Let's assume we're in an anarchist collective and not capitalism, where objects really are produced illegitimately via organized theft of surplus labor.)

Personally I agree with the anarchist idea of 'usufruct rights' to possessions posted from the Anarchist FAQ above. I don't think it comes from not being able say exactly who made something, though. There has to be another principle at work, and I think the difference between possessions and capital holds the key. You can use possessions yourself, but capital requires a social relationship. If that social relationship is coercive, then the property is theft.

[Alan OldStudent]

Does the fact that all labor is social somehow negate property rights, though? If the chain of custody is legitimate, then why is it problematic? I know how to make rope. If I go to the flax farm next door, and agree to help the farmer harvest the crop in exchange for a few sheaves of flax, then is the rope I make somehow not 'mine'? He got his seeds and tools by voluntary, legitimate means, too. (Let's assume we're in an anarchist collective and not capitalism, where objects really are produced illegitimately via organized theft of surplus labor.)

Personally I agree with the anarchist idea of 'usufruct rights' to possessions posted from the Anarchist FAQ above. I don't think it comes from not being able say exactly who made something, though. There has to be another principle at work, and I think the difference between possessions and capital holds the key. You can use possessions yourself, but capital requires a social relationship. If that social relationship is coercive, then the property is theft.
Hello Comrade Argeiphontes

You ask "Does the fact that all labor is social somehow negate property rights, though? If the chain of custody is legitimate, then why is it problematic?"

Once again, to answer that question, we have to ask "What are property rights?" In reality, a right is nothing more-or-less than a limitation on the power of someone else to control your actions or even your existence. For example, the right of free speech defines the limits that authorities have to determine what you can or cannot say.

Property implies ownership. If you own the flax rope, then you have the right to use it as you see fit, limit others from using it. You can transfer that right. The coercive power of the social authorities will guarantee that right.

Your post posits that the neighbor gets your help in harvesting his/her flax and gives you a percentage of it in exchange. You further posit that this deal occurs in an "anarchist" society. But you imply that this neighbor owns a piece of real estate. Could that happen in a truly anarchist society?

I think in a truly anarchist society, that flax would be grown on a commons, no?

I'm no expert on anarchism and haven't read the anarchist FAQ, and so you probably know more about it than I. I didn't see the link to the FAQ you referenced, and if you provided it, I'd be happy to read it and welcome the opportunity to see what I can learn.

So let's assume for a moment that this property did, indeed, belong to the neighbor and was his/her property, that he/she did the labor of planting, cultivating, weeding, fertilizing, and watering this flax. We can also assume he/she gives you a percentage of this harvest for your help.

In that case, I would imagine that the social character of your labor may well not negate your property right to the rope. The rules of that society would determine the legitimacy of your claim. Whatever those rules are, they would not be based on some kind of divine or transcendent definition of property. The property relations would grow organically out of the way that society evolved, came in to existence.

Remember this interesting fact: Our present species of the human race has been in existence for around 180,000 years. We entered the new stone age about 10,000 years ago. Before the new stone age (Neolithic revolution), we were hunters and gatherers, and nobody owned land. We moved around in small bands, relying on what we could capture or find for food, built fires to heat us and keep the hungry predators at bay. When the food ran out or if it became too dangerous, we moved on. We slept rough or in caves or temporary shelters. There was no real estate, no title deeds, no fences, no concept of "my land," or "my property."

That describes the state of affairs until about 10,000 years ago. Then, quite suddenly, we started farming, creating settlements, the urban lifestyle. Instead of mainly hunting game, we domesticated and raised animals. Instead of mainly relying on gathering nuts, berries, fruits, insects, grubs, we started growing crops. Instead of huddling around fires in caves, we built more permanent shelters.

This means that for an astonishing 94% of our existence, we did not have property, and we did not have property rights. These came about only when we stopped being nomads, started raising crops, put up fences to keep the animals in and keep out those unenlightened old-stone-age miscreants who did not appreciate the newfangled notions of property. That's also when we started having a military and a police force to enforce respect for these institutions when the power of ideology and religion weren't sufficient to keep the "barbarians" at bay.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

[argeiphontes]

Your post posits that the neighbor gets your help in harvesting his/her flax and gives you a percentage of it in exchange. You further posit that this deal occurs in an "anarchist" society. But you imply that this neighbor owns a piece of real estate. Could that happen in a truly anarchist society?

I think in a truly anarchist society, that flax would be grown on a commons, no?


Sorry, it was the first example that came to mind. Maybe he has a personal space that's allowed him because nobody else wants flax ;)

Here's a link to the relevant section of the FAQ: Why Are Anarchists Against Private Property (B.3) (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-03-17#toc16). There's a lot of reading on the FAQ and I'm embarassed to admit that that's one of the few sections I've read. I think it makes sense.

Anyway, I have no disagreement with your historical view of property 'rights'. I just think that if we separate "property" as it's usually conceived (i.e. capital) vs. "possessions" then during all of that history, people probably felt entitled to possessions they were using. I'm against private property in the means of production, obviously, else I wouldn't be on this site :) I don't think there's any such right. I was more interested in tracing a reasonable argument to sustain that belief. (That is, my questions were rhetorical not argumentative.)

Peace, Alan.

[Alan OldStudent]

Sorry, it was the first example that came to mind. Maybe he has a personal space that's allowed him because nobody else wants flax ;)

Here's a link to the relevant section of the FAQ: Why Are Anarchists Against Private Property (B.3) (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-03-17#toc16). There's a lot of reading on the FAQ and I'm embarassed to admit that that's one of the few sections I've read. I think it makes sense.

Anyway, I have no disagreement with your historical view of property 'rights'. I just think that if we separate "property" as it's usually conceived (i.e. capital) vs. "possessions" then during all of that history, people probably felt entitled to possessions they were using. I'm against private property in the means of production, obviously, else I wouldn't be on this site :) I don't think there's any such right. I was more interested in tracing a reasonable argument to sustain that belief. (That is, my questions were rhetorical not argumentative.)

Peace, Alan.

Hi Comrade Argeiphontes,

Thanks for the link. I'll be perusing it to see what I can learn. Unfortunately, I don't know a lot about anarchism, just a few basics. I happen to be a Marxist and have some difference of opinion with anarchism as I understand it. Nevertheless, we are on the same side of the barricades. That's more important than our differences.

Please don't be embarrassed about not having read the entire FAQ. At least you have obviously thought deeply and critically about the part you did read. That's much more important than reading the whole bloody thing but not absorbing its meaning or using your critical facilities.

I see from your profile that you have a very busy life and lots of responsibilities. You'll get around to reading more of it as time goes by. You probably have read a lot of other anarchist literature.

Besides reading anarchist classics, it's good to read things that have a different point of view. In my case, reading stuff from a different point of view might be Proudhon, Henry George, and for you, that might be Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Bordiga, Croce, etc.

http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/redbutterfly.gif

By the way, your handle Argeiphontes is interesting. Are you into Greek mythology? Why did you choose it? As you probably know, Argeiphontes was the nickname of Hermes, son of Zeus, who in certain respects somewhat resembles the god of the Abrahamic religions, God, Yahwe, or Allah. The nickname Argeiphontes means "slayer of Argus," who was an all-seeing monster god, possessing 100 eyes. While some eyes slept, others stayed awake.

Zeus, Hermes father, assigned Argus to guard over a certain young female cow. This cow had been a nymph, but Argeiphontes father (Zeus) seduced her and then turned her into a young cow to hide his misdeed. That's why Zeus assigned Argus, the all-seeing, 100-eyed monster, the task of guarding this cow. Eventually, Argeiphontes killed Argus. I'm not sure what happened to the nymph afterwards. Maybe you do.

I'm kind of curious why you chose this name for your handle. I bet there's an interesting story behind it.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Fixed

What did you really fix?
All you did is strike the word "inhereted".

From the point of expropriation you might look real noble now, but "just jewelry" might just as well be private property, so why not strike that too?

Or might i've been talking about jewelry which has been passed on by my great grandmother to my grandmother to my mother to me?
How would you call that then?

We are not talking about capital-by-inheretence here. Just some family-pieces.