Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice"

[ARomanCandle]

Has anyone read this? It's very short and the introduction is phenomenal.

Paine notes that the Native American tribes are on "continual holiday" while the majority living in civilized society are living in poverty.

He states that poverty is inherently a problem of capitalism and then seeks to understand why poverty exists.

He concludes that in nature, man was born into common property, and in civilization, man was born into a world of man-made claims to land, causing them to be dispossessed of what would otherwise be a natural right.

Obviously his solution (money paid to everyone at 21 and over 50) is not what I would suggest, but I find his exploration into the existence of poverty to be very much in line with socialist thought.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

To be honest, I don't see how either the proposed solution - which implies the continuation of private property and market relations - or the analysis, which (perhaps understandably for Paine's day, but still incorrectly) confuses all "natives" into one gelatinous lump of noble savagery, and posits "civilisation" instead of the current mode of production - not to mention that it doesn't recognise the progressive nature of previous modes of production at different points of time - could be called "socialist".

[Rafiq]

I don't see any reason to be fascinated by such cliche humanism. Thomas Paine in the end supported the Girondins, such a political gesture speaks volumes infinitely louder than such romantic dribble.

[bropasaran]

Being that the topic is about Paine, excuse the pun, but Libertarian Socialist ideas are just crystallized common sense. There are recorded instances of people having glimpes of such ideas throughout history, e.g. Cicero saying that working for a wage degrades a person to the rank of slaves, Musonius Rufus saying that able people should work off their own labor, and not use slaves and servants and throughout history and cultures there appear ideas of egalitarianism and communalism, in the Englightenment it just becomes exponentially more numerous, perhaps only because the simple exponantial increase in words that are recorded. Slave and peasant rebellions suggest that maybe the earlier working classes maybe had similar views, and in the early modern workers' movement with it's labor press in America and Britain at the start of the 19th centrury, we know that they then did.

So for example- fourty and thirty years before Paine, Roussau also talked about the common ownership of land, saying that the only real property one can have of it is one based on labor and use. Simon Linguet twenty years before Paine talked about wage labor as a type of slavery. A little later, Lincoln had the same view. Also twenty years before Paine, Adam Smith in the Wealth of nations wrote that the people (he is clear that he's talking about the vast majority of people) spending their work-life doing "few simple operations" will destroy their intellectual, moral, social and physical capacites and that a civilized society should prevent such a division of labor. Perhaps the most interesting of these views was by Wilhelm von Humboldt, a couple of years before this pamphlet of Paine's, when he wrote that working under a master is wrong because it degrades humans on the level of tools and animals, and that the worker is a truer sense an owner of that on which he works on then the rich proprietor that reaps benefits of that work.

Formation of (Libertarian) Socialism as a coherent ideology is just those intuitional, common sence notions (that almost all people have and practice daily with their friends and loved one's) reaching a reflective equilibrium, to use the Rawlsian term.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Being that the topic is about Paine, excuse the pun, but Libertarian Socialist ideas are just crystallized common sense. There are recorded instances of people having glimpes of such ideas throughout history, e.g. Cicero saying that working for a wage degrades a person to the rank of slaves, Musonius Rufus saying that able people should work off their own labor, and not use slaves and servants and throughout history and cultures there appear ideas of egalitarianism and communalism, in the Englightenment it just becomes exponentially more numerous, perhaps only because the simple exponantial increase in words that are recorded. Slave and peasant rebellions suggest that maybe the earlier working classes maybe had similar views, and in the early modern workers' movement with it's labor press in America and Britain at the start of the 19th centrury, we know that they then did.

So for example- fourty and thirty years before Paine, Roussau also talked about the common ownership of land, saying that the only real property one can have of it is one based on labor and use. Simon Linguet twenty years before Paine talked about wage labor as a type of slavery. A little later, Lincoln had the same view. Also twenty years before Paine, Adam Smith in the Wealth of nations wrote that the people (he is clear that he's talking about the vast majority of people) spending their work-life doing "few simple operations" will destroy their intellectual, moral, social and physical capacites and that a civilized society should prevent such a division of labor. Perhaps the most interesting of these views was by Wilhelm von Humboldt, a couple of years before this pamphlet of Paine's, when he wrote that working under a master is wrong because it degrades humans on the level of tools and animals, and that the worker is a truer sense an owner of that on which he works on then the rich proprietor that reaps benefits of that work.

Formation of (Libertarian) Socialism as a coherent ideology is just those intuitional, common sence notions (that almost all people have and practice daily with their friends and loved one's) reaching a reflective equilibrium, to use the Rawlsian term.

That is quite an interesting collection of "common sense socialists". Cicero was, of course, an extreme conservative, close to the Optimates, Musonius Rufus a Stoic, a cosmopolitan but nonetheless a firm supporter of the existing Roman society, Linguet an advocate of absolutism, von Humboldt a minister to the King of Prussia. Of your "socialists", only Rousseau and Smith could be called progressive - albeit bourgeois-progressives, ideologues of the great bourgeois revolutions.

The problem is that you take pious statements about the poor lot of workers and communalist tendencies (both very prominent in extreme conservatives) to be socialism, when they are nothing of the sort.

As for the slave and peasant rebellions, these certainly existed - and their goal was usually redistribution of the existing social surplus. Socialism - the proletarian movement for the socialisation of the means of production - came into being shortly before the formation of the First International, and that is not an accident. It was only then that the means of production had developed to an extent that socialism became a viable option.

And this is one of the greatest flaws of this "common sense" "socialism" - by portraying socialism as something ahistorical, you turn it into some kind of moral imperative, a Platonic form instead of a phase of social development that becomes possible only after previous phases have developed the means of production to an adequate extent.

[bropasaran]

That is quite an interesting collection of "common sense socialists". Cicero was, of course, an extreme conservative, close to the Optimates, Musonius Rufus a Stoic, a cosmopolitan but nonetheless a firm supporter of the existing Roman society, Linguet an advocate of absolutism, von Humboldt a minister to the King of Prussia. Of your "socialists", only Rousseau and Smith could be called progressive - albeit bourgeois-progressives, ideologues of the great bourgeois revolutions.

The problem is that you take pious statements about the poor lot of workers and communalist tendencies (both very prominent in extreme conservatives) to be socialism, when they are nothing of the sort.
"There are recorded instances of people having glimpes of such ideas". That's all I said. All you said was just a big straw man.


As for the slave and peasant rebellions, these certainly existed - and their goal was usually redistribution of the existing social surplus.
Or liberation of the workers from the masters, we can speculate.


Socialism - the proletarian movement for the socialisation of the means of production
Workers' movement. Not proletarian, being that there are workers who are not proletarian, and there are proletarians who are not workers.


- came into being shortly before the formation of the First International
There were two instances that we know of where ideas foreshadowing socialism were expressed. First was in the 17th century by the Diggers and some Levellers, and that's probably the first we know of because that's the first time in history that the printing press became somewhat available to the people. I am not so sure that e.g. the peasants in the Great Rebellion of the 14th century that fought to abolish feudalism wanted to establish capitalism or something like that, they probably had egalitarian ideas, likewise with earlier uprisings, as I said, we can speculate. The second instance was in the French revolution by the Equals and Enrages. After that, socialism itself was articulated in the 1820s in the workers movement in England, which was also called the cooperative movement, and the people inside that movement that wanted worker control over production to be established as a general practice in society in the already existing workplaces (not just as a measure against unemployment and poverty) were called socialists, the term first appearing in print in 1827, the etymology having to do with "socius"- colleague, coworker, comrade, as illustrating the basic idea of work being under control of workers as equals. It was not until a few decades later that the term was kidnapped by the Saint-Simonian advocates of technocracy.


It was only then that the means of production had developed to an extent that socialism became a viable option.
An arbitrary assumption. No reason to think that socialism (a general societal system where workers control production) wasn't viable throughout history.


And this is one of the greatest flaws of this "common sense" "socialism" - by portraying socialism as something ahistorical, you turn it into some kind of moral imperative, a Platonic form instead of a phase of social development that becomes possible only after previous phases have developed the means of production to an adequate extent.
Everything is morality- every discussion of human action that is prescriptive instead of descriptive is discussion of morality. Something being a moral imperative basically just means it being something that we should do, so socialism being a moral imperative is not in any way a flaw.

On the other hand, seeing it as a phase in some imaginary natural historical progression is not only flawed but very dangerous, because it can be easily used to justify destruction of socialism and instituting harsh oppression and exploitation on those who try or succeed in establishing it, under the pretense that it is not yet possible to establish it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"There are recorded instances of people having glimpes of such ideas". That's all I said. All you said was just a big straw man.

Again, it doesn't make any sense for a conservative member of the equites or a Prussian royal minister to have "glimpses of socialism". That you ascribe socialist ideas to such people means that you either don't understand the historical context of their statements, or that you don't understand what socialism is.


Or liberation of the workers from the masters, we can speculate.

No, we really can't, not if we want to be consistent with historical fact. Consider the Aventine secession, or the movement under the Gracchi, the rebellions that resulted in the formation of the Han or Ming states, or the peasant war in Germany - the slogan of socialisation of the means of production did not figure in any of these movements. How could it, given that neither the forces of production nor ideology had developed to the required level?


Workers' movement. Not proletarian, being that there are workers who are not proletarian, and there are proletarians who are not workers.

Of course there are workers who are not proletarian - I wonder who these "non-worker" proletarians are - but to these socialism has nothing to offer, and in fact it threatens their material situation, since much of it derives from their participation in the extraction of surplus value from the proletariat, domestically and in neo-colonies.


There were two instances that we know of where ideas foreshadowing socialism were expressed. First was in the 17th century by the Diggers and some Levellers, and that's probably the first we know of because that's the first time in history that the printing press became somewhat available to the people.

The Levellers were agitators fighting for a parliamentary government on the basis of universal suffrage, and explicitly sought to maintain the private ownership of the means of production. Diggers were a semi-religious group that sought land reform and farming on commonly-owned land. These were about as socialist as the later "Georgists".


I am not so sure that e.g. the peasants in the Great Rebellion of the 14th century that fought to abolish feudalism wanted to establish capitalism or something like that, they probably had egalitarian ideas, likewise with earlier uprisings, as I said, we can speculate.

No, we can't. Read the Twelve Articles of the Upper Swabian Association, for example. Not a word about the socialisation of the means of production.


The second instance was in the French revolution by the Equals and Enrages.

The Conspiracy of Equals was a later development; as for the Enrages, the Hebertists etc., these were all bourgeois or petit-bourgeois groups at the forefront of the great bourgeois revolution in France.


After that, socialism itself was articulated in the 1820s in the workers movement in England, which was also called the cooperative movement, and the people inside that movement that wanted worker control over production to be established as a general practice in society in the already existing workplaces (not just as a measure against unemployment and poverty) were called socialists, the term first appearing in print in 1827, the etymology having to do with "socius"- colleague, coworker, comrade, as illustrating the basic idea of work being under control of workers as equals. It was not until a few decades later that the term was kidnapped by the Saint-Simonian advocates of technocracy.

This is already the period immediately before the formation of the First International. But these early "socialists" are only tangentially connected to the socialist movement - in particular, cooperatives aren't socialist, they're just another form of private property.


An arbitrary assumption. No reason to think that socialism (a general societal system where workers control production) wasn't viable throughout history.

Well, you're more than welcome to explain how socialism might have worked in the Ur III period. The point is that the socialisation of the means of production requires, first, that the means of production have developed to a certain extent so that there exists a global circulation of goods, that material abundance is possible, and that the administrative tasks involved in the continuing operation of the economy have become so simplified that they can be preformed by anyone.


Everything is morality- every discussion of human action that is prescriptive instead of descriptive is discussion of morality. Something being a moral imperative basically just means it being something that we should do, so socialism being a moral imperative is not in any way a flaw.

Socialism isn't prescriptive, though - it's instrumental. Given that the class interest is such and such, socialism emerges as the best - as the only - possible strategy for attaining them. We certainly don't think landowners or the bourgeoisie "should" struggle for socialism.


On the other hand, seeing it as a phase in some imaginary natural historical progression is not only flawed but very dangerous, because it can be easily used to justify destruction of socialism and instituting harsh oppression and exploitation on those who try or succeed in establishing it, under the pretense that it is not yet possible to establish it.

This is nonsense. If something is impossible, you can't crush it.

[bropasaran]

Again, it doesn't make any sense for a conservative member of the equites or a Prussian royal minister to have "glimpses of socialism". That you ascribe socialist ideas to such people means that you either don't understand the historical context of their statements, or that you don't understand what socialism is.Notion of wage labor being degrading, harmful, illegitimate is a central notion of socialism, and the centrality of labor for legitimate property/possession is too, so yes, those people did have glimpses of socialism.


No, we really can't, not if we want to be consistent with historical fact.We don't have the historical fact relevant to what I'm talking about. You're talking about what the results of rebellion were, or what the recorded views are that appeared in those rebellion, and that has very little to do with the views of the workers of those ages, that is- those who actually conducted those rebellion. As I said, the English civil war is the first instance where we have different groups voicing their views where the printing press is largely available to the working people, and there we have the first record of workers talking about controlling production or about abolishing hierarchy among people. Yes, it's in religious language, as in 'god gave land to man as a common heritage so we all have equal right to it' (which in a agricultural society means worker control of production) and how 'the new testament doesn't allow division of people into masters and servants' (meaning anarchism), but nevertheless, those are proto-socialist views.


I wonder who these "non-worker" proletarians areManagers, bureaucrats, intelligentsia, so basically- technocrats, which all work for wages (and are thus proletariat in marxist terminology), but are not part of the working class, they are a strata of society separated from the working people (with interests in different degree antithetical to socialism, certainly technocrats in the economic sphere have interest that are necessarily antithetical to socialism, those in the political and cultural sphere not by necessity, but by derivation), they are a part of the ruling class.


Of course there are workers who are not proletarian - I wonder who these "non-worker" proletarians are - but to these socialism has nothing to offer, and in fact it threatens their material situationI don't see how it does. Socialism is the movement of all workers, not only wage-workers. One doesn't need to be a wage-worker to be a worker or to want socialism. If fact one doesn't even need to be a worker of any kind to want socialism, one can be a part of the ruling class and want socialism, just like one can be a worker and oppose it.


in particular, cooperatives aren't socialist, they're just another form of private property.Depends what we mean by cooperatives. What I see as worker cooperatives are a form of collective property that is worker controlled. If it's something else, e.g. a shareholder employee owned firm where employees can have different number of shares (or some can have even zero) and receive dividends based on those shares, now that's a form of private property, and that's in no way a worker coop, even though it's employee owned. Even if all the employees owned it, or even in the case if there is no employee without shares and all employees have equal shares- I would still consider that private property. Also, if it's collective property, but manager controlled, I don't see that as a true worker coop, maybe something like a half-coop. So, when I say coops I mean a form of collective, worker controlled, property.


Well, you're more than welcome to explain how socialism might have worked in the Ur III period.Just like in any period- working people organizing democratically and controlling the means of production, nothing impossible about it. In fact it was simpler (maybe not easier, but that's debatable) to do then, with far less number of specialized professions that people would need to train for so that this or that could be produced, making collective labor much more practical, thus making more then enough time available for everyone to participate in political affairs, and if need be (to fend off some attackers) to train as a soldier, and have a people's militia.


The point is that the socialisation of the means of production requires, first, that the means of production have developed to a certain extent so that there exists a global circulation of goodsWhy would it require that? Note that I don't accept the assumption that Marx said it therefore it's true, I could accept this idea only if real arguments are given in it's favor.


that material abundance is possibleSuch abundance is possible throughout history. Such abundance was possible both in hunter-gatherer and in peasant-artisan societies, both had the perfect ability to produce everything necessary to satisfy basic needs of every person, with three disruptions to that possibility. The first disruption to that possibility were natural disasters, which were in theory fairly easily overcomable, and would be in practice if the second and third disruption were dealt with. The second disruption were wars, which were minimizable, especially if the third one didn't exist. The third disruption to the possibility of abundance, and the only major one was the existence of class (same thing today when we have increased productive capabilities). Now, that's not a law of nature, or some law of history, that's just a human institution, and where and when humans establish and maintain, they can likewise abolish it. There is nothing in agriculture that necessitates slavery or feudalism, and there is nothing in industrial technology that necessitate capitalism, those are ludicrous assumptions on the level of religious belief, worker control over production was and is possible everywhere.


This is nonsense. If something is impossible, you can't crush it. That's what I keep saying to defenders of bolshevism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Notion of wage labor being degrading, harmful, illegitimate is a central notion of socialism, and the centrality of labor for legitimate property/possession is too, so yes, those people did have glimpses of socialism.

That is simply not the case - socialism, as the term is used by revolutionary Marxists and class-struggle anarchists, means the socialisation of the means of production. Moral notions like "illegitimacy" or "legitimate property" (!) simply aren't relevant.

Or course, it might be the case that you're using the term "socialism" in another way, that you think people like Blanc or Strasser were "socialists" for example. But then we're talking past each other.


We don't have the historical fact relevant to what I'm talking about. You're talking about what the results of rebellion were, or what the recorded views are that appeared in those rebellion, and that has very little to do with the views of the workers of those ages, that is- those who actually conducted those rebellion.

So the "views that appeared in those rebellions" aren't the "views of those who actually conducted those rebellions"? Well whose are they, then, those of the Holy Ghost or the Devil? Did the reports about the activity and the ideology of the peasants during the peasant war in Germany, for example, immaculately write themselves?


As I said, the English civil war is the first instance where we have different groups voicing their views where the printing press is largely available to the working people, and there we have the first record of workers talking about controlling production or about abolishing hierarchy among people. Yes, it's in religious language, as in 'god gave land to man as a common heritage so we all have equal right to it' (which in a agricultural society means worker control of production) and how 'the new testament doesn't allow division of people into masters and servants' (meaning anarchism), but nevertheless, those are proto-socialist views.

Again, the Diggers agitated against enclosures, for land reform, and the formation of what we might call agrarian cooperatives on commonly-owned land. This isn't "workers' control of [the means of] production", but a reaction to the great land enclosures.


Managers, bureaucrats, intelligentsia, so basically- technocrats, which all work for wages (and are thus proletariat in marxist terminology)[...]

This is simply not true. Marx himself distinguishes the "officers and sergeants" of the bourgeoisie from the proletariat. It is mistaken - and to be honest, some Marxists make this mistake as well - to reduce the Marxist view of the proletariat to a one-sentence definition. The proletariat is distinguished from other classes by its functional role in the economy, its relation to the means of production, its relation to the extraction of surplus value, and its social power.


[T]hey are a strata of society separated from the working people (with interests in different degree antithetical to socialism, certainly technocrats in the economic sphere have interest that are necessarily antithetical to socialism, those in the political and cultural sphere not by necessity, but by derivation), they are a part of the ruling class.

Unless they own the means of production, they aren't.


I don't see how it does. Socialism is the movement of all workers, not only wage-workers.

I refer you to my previous comments about the usage of the term "socialism". Marxist and class-struggle anarchist socialism is not a "movement of all workers". If your "socialism" includes the petite bourgeoisie, it is not a type of socialism most people on this site would recognise.


Depends what we mean by cooperatives. What I see as worker cooperatives are a form of collective property that is worker controlled. If it's something else, e.g. a shareholder employee owned firm where employees can have different number of shares (or some can have even zero) and receive dividends based on those shares, now that's a form of private property, and that's in no way a worker coop, even though it's employee owned. Even if all the employees owned it, or even in the case if there is no employee without shares and all employees have equal shares- I would still consider that private property. Also, if it's collective property, but manager controlled, I don't see that as a true worker coop, maybe something like a half-coop. So, when I say coops I mean a form of collective, worker controlled, property.

Collective property is still private property, because a section of society, the "worker"-owners of the cooperative, have exclusive control over the means of production employed by the cooperative, which necessitates market exchange etc.


Just like in any period- working people organizing democratically and controlling the means of production, nothing impossible about it. In fact it was simpler (maybe not easier, but that's debatable) to do then, with far less number of specialized professions that people would need to train for so that this or that could be produced, making collective labor much more practical, thus making more then enough time available for everyone to participate in political affairs, and if need be (to fend off some attackers) to train as a soldier, and have a people's militia.

I don't think you appreciate how complex the economy of the period was. There weren't less specialised professions; if anything there were more, since the development of the means of production resulted in many professions being merged, and becoming available to an unskilled labourer. Not to mention the enormous bureaucratic apparatus that was required to keep track of the economy.

Of course, the majority of people in the Ur III period weren't literate. Administrative tasks that were necessary for the functioning of the economy, which are available to the vast majority of skilled workers today, were not available to the labourers of the Ur III empire. This alone would have produced class division, as a special group would have had to make most decisions about how the means of production are to be employed.


Why would it require that? Note that I don't accept the assumption that Marx said it therefore it's true, I would accept that assumption only if real arguments are given in it's favor.

Because regions can break through the limits imposed by their natural resources etc. only if there exists a global circulation of goods (and not simply sporadic trade) and because separate, near-autarchic "communist" societies would have to resort to market mechanisms to exchange goods.


Such abundance is possible throughout history. Such abundance was possible both in hunter-gatherer and in peasant-artisan societies, both had the perfect ability to produce everything necessary to satisfy basic needs of every person, with three disruptions to that possibility.

Even if this were the case - and I don't think an argument about historical econometrics would be appropriate at this moment - abundance is more than "everyone's basic needs being met".

[bropasaran]

Moral notions like "illegitimacy" or "legitimate property" (!) simply aren't relevant.
Such a notion, of illegitmate and legitimate property (which is based on labor theory, that is- labor theory of property or it's illogical cousin, labor theory of value) is central to the theory of exploiation. Without the labor theory, which says that capitalist notion of property is illegitimate because it allows property and revenue to acquired based on position of priviledge or based on previous property instead based on labor, one cannot claim that capitalism per se is illegitimate and should be abolished, and if one doesn't claim that, he is not properly speaking an anti-capitalist.


So the "views that appeared in those rebellions" aren't the "views of those who actually conducted those rebellions"?
That's true even today, the only views that get recorded in official history are the views of the leaders, which as a rule are part of the ruling class using the tide of worker dissatisfaction to fights against other parts of the ruling class, which isn't supprising being that that's the part of the ruling class that determines what is official history. E.g. you get the history of the worker rebellions in USA in the 19th century and only the reformist demands are mentioned, but the workers (both farmers and urban wokrers) wanted worker control over production. We know that because from the time of the proliferation of the printing press working people views do stay recorded somewhere.


Again, the Diggers agitated against enclosures, for land reform
Enclosure movement is the first capitalism, the new land owners didn't have serfs, but wage-workers; and what we call land reform ("land to the peasants") is a socialist idea.


This is simply not true. Marx himself distinguishes the "officers and sergeants" of the bourgeoisie from the proletariat. It is mistaken - and to be honest, some Marxists make this mistake as well - to reduce the Marxist view of the proletariat to a one-sentence definition. The proletariat is distinguished from other classes by its functional role in the economy, its relation to the means of production, its relation to the extraction of surplus value, and its social power.
One can use the term in the Bakuninist way, as refering to all workers, but I see it as a Marxist term, and, afaik, the Marxist definition of the proletariat is people who sell their labor power, wage-workers, e.g. in the Principles of Communism.


Unless they own the means of production, they aren't.
Nice to see how quickly the distinction between officers and sargeants and the workers disappeared. Exactly why I'm not a Marxist, the notion of socialism having as it's base worker control of production is totally incompatible with the Marxist notion of classes being based solely on ownership of the means of production. As I said, technocrats are not capitalist, they are wage-workers, but are not part of the working class according to (libertarian) socialism (which is, in my view the only socialism).


If your "socialism" includes the petite bourgeoisie, it is not a type of socialism most people on this site would recognise.
First you have to define what you mean by petite bourgeois- do you mean emploteys whose enterprise is small and they have a small number of employees, or do you mean people who own their means of production and don't have any employees.


Collective property is still private property, because a section of society, the "worker"-owners of the cooperative, have exclusive control over the means of production employed by the cooperative, which necessitates market exchange etc.
Of course they exclusive control. Even in a communist society workers in a particular workplace would have exclusive control over their workplace, they couldn't be thrown out from there by someone else, or be bossed around by someone else, otherwise that wouldn't be communism, but some kind of a class society.


Administrative tasks that were necessary for the functioning of the economy
Administrative functions don't necessitate bureaucracy, the can be done collectivelly, rotationally, or be delegeted, all horizontally, there is never a necessity to introduce vertical organization.


Because regions can break through the limits imposed by their natural resources etc. only if there exists a global circulation of goods (and not simply sporadic trade) and because separate, near-autarchic "communist" societies would have to resort to market mechanisms to exchange goods.
I would ask you explain what you mean with the first part- what do you mean by breaking through the limits, what why is that relevant.
As far as the second part is concerned, that's just not true, the don't wouldn't have to resort to market mechanisms, but could use gift economy or barter, if it was even necessary to interact with them.

Even in the modern age, e.g. Kropotkin's idea is of local/regional economic units (federations of communes that have coordinated production) which would barter with each other, and in general, afaik, anarchist ideas of production are all like that, that is- they are always of somewhat local character (as oppossed to global), e.g. an anarcho-syndicalist society wouldn't have a single branch of industry, e.g the textile syndicate, spanning accross the world, and likewise all other syndicates in the federation, instead, the federation of syndicates that conducts a coordinated production would be of regional kind, of this or that scale, and that federation of syndicates would interact with others like it by some sort of gift economy or barter. I don't think any e.g. anarcho-syndicalist advocates a sinlge global federation of syndicates, where e.g. textile workers in America would be in one syndicate with textile workers in Australia, and would coordinate production quotas with them, it's simply ludicrous to want to integrate things to such a degree. This was true in previous ages to far higher degree.


abundance is more than "everyone's basic needs being met".
Even if we add "a fair amount of people's wants" to the "people's basic needs", it was still perfectly possible in pre-industrial societies in themselves, it was only very difficult in pre-industrial class societies, which is just a type of pre-industrial societies, not the necessarily only type. But if you think even that isn't satisfactory, I don't know what kind of abundance you're talking about- like Star Trek post-scarcity?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I will respond to the rest later, but for now, answer these questions: do you think Blanc and Strasser were socialists? Do you support market socialism?

[Fakeblock]

Such a notion, of illegitmate and legitimate property (which is based on labor theory, that is- labor theory of property or it's illogical cousin, labor theory of value) is central to the theory of exploiation.


How so?

[bropasaran]

I will respond to the rest later, but for now, answer these questions: do you think Blanc and Strasser were socialists
All I know about Blanc is that he supported some nationalizations and making of coops, I don't know what we had in mind as next steps or how he thought that nationalized units should be managed, etc, so I can't really say. About Strasser brothers, I don't know about their economic views, but being that they were part of the Nazi movement, I think it's pretty safe to assume they weren't socialist.


Do you support market socialism?
I suppose you mean a society made of coops, like anarcho-individualism and mutualism. This is one of few questions where I have a view somewhat similar to views of Marx, and his treatment of the property of the artisan and peasant as something that doesn't need to be opposed because it will vanish by itself. Namely, I don't support market socialism, but I don't oppose it because I think it's in a sense obsolete, it would vanish without there being any opposition to it. I say similar, not same view as Marx, so I accept it as theoretically being socialism being that it has worker control over production, I just think that practically it's in itself a pointless system, not because of the historical progression of technology but because of it's practicability, my opinion is that if it were to be established as a system anywhere or at any epoch, it would most probably either colapse into a class system or morf into anarcho-collectivism/ anarcho-communism, depending on the level of consciousness of the workers.


How so?
Well, think about what's exploitation, and why should it be abolished? Any answer to that question that is to be reasonable must come to some form of labor theory (of property or of value).

[Fakeblock]

Well, think about what's exploitation, and why should it be abolished? Any answer to that question that is to be reasonable must come to some form of labor theory (of property or of value).

No it isn't. Yes, the theory of exploitation doesn't work without the law of value. However, a "notion of illegitmate and legitimate property" isn't at all inherent in the theory.

One can easily be anti-capitalist without such a notion. We approach the question from the standpoint of class interest. We do not agree that one has a moral/natural/divine claim to property just because it's a product of one's labour. So unless communists have suddenly become secret capitalists in your mind, I don't see how your idea that the labour theory of property is a precondition for socialist thought holds water.

[bropasaran]

No it isn't. Yes, the theory of exploitation doesn't work without the law of value.
Firstly, it does, in fact the first theory of exploiation, and also the first formal document of anti-capitalism was about legitimate and illegitimate property and the labor theory of property- by Thomas Hodgskin in 1825, his work Labour defended against the claims of capital. Proudhon in the 40's had a similar theory, which could maybe be called labor theory of possession. Secondly, I would argue that "law of value" cannot account for a theory of exploiation, you need to attack the capitalist notion of property which alows the alienation of labor, not talk about some imaginary intrisic values of products or irrelevant exchange values of commodities, which is the only things that labor theory of value can really talk. When exponents of LTV talk about alienation of labor and the illegitimate taking of products of labor from the laborers, they are actually talking about LTP.


One can easily be anti-capitalist without such a notion.
I will argue that one cannot. One can maybe be anti-inequality, anti-poverty, but not anti-capitalist unless one attacks in itself that which is intrinsically fundamental to capitalism, namely, it's definition of property.


We approach the question from the standpoint of class interest. We do not agree that one has a moral/natural/divine claim to property just because it's a product of one's labour.
Then why is it wrong for a capitalist to take products that his employees make? Note that if you don't think it to be wrong, you are not really an anti-capitalist.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well rehearsed, Fabian.


Such a notion, of illegitmate and legitimate property (which is based on labor theory, that is- labor theory of property or it's illogical cousin, labor theory of value) is central to the theory of exploiation.

Seeing as how there are theories of exploitation - most prominently the theory due to Marx - that don't rely on "legitimate property" (!), this is obviously false.

Of course, it might well be the case that no theory of exploitation as a moral category is possible without the notion of legitimate property. That's neither here nor there, though, since the socialist notion of exploitation is not moral. Morality is no less nonsensical than legitimacy.


Without the labor theory, which says that capitalist notion of property is illegitimate because it allows property and revenue to acquired based on position of priviledge or based on previous property instead based on labor, one cannot claim that capitalism per se is illegitimate [...]

Which is fine, since the notion that capitalism is illegitimate is mystifying nonsense. Socialists oppose capitalism not because it is illegitimate, but because it is opposed to the class interest of the proletariat. Several centuries ago, the opposite was the case - the development of capitalist relations, the expansion of the productive forces, the replacement of old social relations with the "cash nexus", all of these were in the class interest of the proletariat. Those who opposed capitalism then weren't socialists or proto-socialists but lazzaroni, peasants desperately trying to save the last miserable remnants of feudalism. Your "socialism in one Ur III empire" is substantially the same, although it makes even less sense, which is an accomplishment in itself.


[...] and should be abolished, and if one doesn't claim that, he is not properly speaking an anti-capitalist.

Again, socialists don't aim to abolish capitalism because it's "illegitimate". As for "anti-capitalism", well, one can be opposed to capitalism from the right as well as from the left. "Anti-capitalism" has become quite a sinister turn, since almost everyone can be an "anti-capitalist", from a member of a coffee cooperative to the Supreme Ruler of Iran. Ostensible leftists use this ambiguity to get in bed with priests and mullahs.


That's true even today, the only views that get recorded in official history are the views of the leaders, which as a rule are part of the ruling class using the tide of worker dissatisfaction to fights against other parts of the ruling class, which isn't supprising being that that's the part of the ruling class that determines what is official history.

Again, the historical facts belie this notion. But perhaps before the invention of the printing press, the countless barons who had led the German peasant associations could be hidden more effectively - no matter that everyone who is familiar with socialism, Germany or peasant wars knows the names of at least two individuals involved! And of course the peasants followed their leaders although they disagreed with the fundamentals of their programme, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim some secret socialist element to all social disturbances. This is beyond ridiculous.


Enclosure movement is the first capitalism, the new land owners didn't have serfs, but wage-workers; and what we call land reform ("land to the peasants") is a socialist idea.

"Land to the peasants" is meaningless without proper context. Unless we are talking about the socialisation of the means of production, it isn't socialist. And opposing capitalist development isn't necessarily socialist.


One can use the term in the Bakuninist way, as refering to all workers [...]

Except that Bakunin used the term in almost the same way as Marx, the only difference being the inclusion of the lumpenproletariat. I think it's clear that you haven't read much Bakunin. That's one of the chief problems with you, Fabian, you make things up and misinterpret historical figures because you're desperately trying to find some anti-Marxist socialist theory that would prop up your petit-bourgeois "horizontalism". It's good that you haven't discovered Bombacci and his "socialisation" yet.


[B]ut I see it as a Marxist term, and, afaik, the Marxist definition of the proletariat is people who sell their labor power, wage-workers, e.g. in the Principles of Communism.

Again, one needs to pay attention to the way in which the term is used in the works of Marx, Engels and others, if you're serious about approaching the problem of how the proletariat is understood in Marxist theory. A one-sentence definition is almost necessarily imprecise when dealing with social issues, and can't substitute for serious engagement with the relevant theory.


Nice to see how quickly the distinction between officers and sargeants and the workers disappeared.

It hasn't disappeared, you're just not paying attention. Of course, if you treat society as a morality play, it needs to have the Good Guys (your "workers" who are mostly the petite-bourgeoisie) and Bad Guys (the ruling class - at least you get points for not using the obnoxious term "the elites"). But to those who analyse society in a materialist manner - the "officers and sergeants" are an intermediary layer, in the middle of class society, so to speak.


Exactly why I'm not a Marxist, the notion of socialism having as it's base worker control of production is totally incompatible with the Marxist notion of classes being based solely on ownership of the means of production. As I said, technocrats are not capitalist, they are wage-workers, but are not part of the working class according to (libertarian) socialism (which is, in my view the only socialism).

Once again, you can't simply redefine terms. Most libertarian socialists - unless you count Democrats like Chomsky - don't accept your peculiar definition of class, which conflates the petite bourgeoisie with the proletariat.


First you have to define what you mean by petite bourgeois- do you mean emploteys whose enterprise is small and they have a small number of employees, or do you mean people who own their means of production and don't have any employees.

Yes.


Of course they exclusive control. Even in a communist society workers in a particular workplace would have exclusive control over their workplace, they couldn't be thrown out from there by someone else, or be bossed around by someone else, otherwise that wouldn't be communism, but some kind of a class society.

Of course they could be thrown out if they refuse to cooperate with the rest of society. If they can't be thrown out, society doesn't control the means of production, small groups of "worker" capitalists do, and capitalism hasn't been overthrown.


Administrative functions don't necessitate bureaucracy, the can be done collectivelly, rotationally, or be delegeted, all horizontally, there is never a necessity to introduce vertical organization.

Most people in the Ur III period were, once again, illiterate. They couldn't have preformed administrative functions no matter how "horizontalist" your rhetoric becomes.


I would ask you explain what you mean with the first part- what do you mean by breaking through the limits, what why is that relevant.

Things like the availability of certain materials, the suitability of terrain etc. In fact, certain things - like bronze objects - can only be manufactured using materials that aren't usually found in the same region in significant quantities. Your autarchic Ur III "socialist" empire couldn't have even made bronze without trade.


As far as the second part is concerned, that's just not true, the don't wouldn't have to resort to market mechanisms, but could use gift economy or barter, if it was even necessary to interact with them.

Barter is a market mechanism. So is gift-giving with fixed reciprocity.


Even if we add "a fair amount of people's wants" to the "people's basic needs", it was still perfectly possible in pre-industrial societies in themselves, it was only very difficult in pre-industrial class societies, which is just a type of pre-industrial societies, not the necessarily only type. But if you think even that isn't satisfactory, I don't know what kind of abundance you're talking about- like Star Trek post-scarcity?

I am talking about the possibility of effectively fulfilling any realistic want - i.e. providing any amount of goods that can actually be used.

[bropasaran]

Well rehearsed, Fabian.
Fabian?


Seeing as how there are theories of exploitation - most prominently the theory due to Marx - that don't rely on "legitimate property" (!), this is obviously false.
Marx has a fairly confused theory of exploitation (he himself admits it's contradictory), and in the part where he talkes about exploiation on the workplace, he is in fact talking about LTP.


Morality is no less nonsensical than legitimacy.
Legitimacy is a notion of morality, and morality is every imperative statement. Unless talk about economy is purely descriptive, but instead has some suggestions, that is- perscriptive parts, it's a moral statement. It's the famous is-ought notion, every "ought" statement is a statement that falls in the sphere of morality.


since the notion that capitalism is illegitimate is mystifying nonsense.
Capitalism being illegitimate simply means- capitalism should be abolish. Nothing nonsensical or mystical about it. As oppossed to LTV which is either mysticism or nonsense, as is much of Marxism.


Socialists oppose capitalism not because it is illegitimate, but because it is opposed to the class interest of the proletariat.
What are class interests of the proletariat, who defines them, why, and why should anyone accept that?


Those who opposed capitalism then weren't socialists or proto-socialists but lazzaroni, peasants desperately trying to save the last miserable remnants of feudalism.
I can play that game, too, and go with that the bolshevik opposition to capitalism is because they want to establish feudalism with themselves as the new aristocracy. Which is fairly acurate.


Again, socialists don't aim to abolish capitalism because it's "illegitimate".
Acutally, that's a contradiction in terms. The very fact that someone (/anyone) wants to abolish something (/anything) means that he finds it illegitimate.


nd of course the peasants followed their leaders although they disagreed with the fundamentals of their programme, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim some secret socialist element to all social disturbances.
Majority of workers in the largely peasant society in Russia wanted socialism. Bolsheviks came, said that they were for socialism, workers both urban and rural rallied to support them, the bolsheviks took power, destroyed anything that looked like socialism, and instituded a brutal class system with themselves as tyrants over the working people. If it happened in 20th century, I don't see why couldn't it happen in earlier times, the difference being that in earlier timer the views of the people didn't get recorded.


"Land to the peasants" is meaningless without proper context. Unless we are talking about the socialisation of the means of production, it isn't socialist.
Land to the peasants is (partial) socialization of the means of production. Land to the peasants, workshops to the artisans would be socialism in pre-industrial societies.


And opposing capitalist development isn't necessarily socialist.
Bolsheviks prove that.


Except that Bakunin used the term in almost the same way as Marx, the only difference being the inclusion of the lumpenproletariat.
"We revolutionary anarchists who sincerely want full popular emancipation view with repugnance another expression in this program: it is the designation of the proletariat, the workers, as a class and not a mass. Do you know what this signifies? It is no more nor less than the aristocratic rule of the factory workers and of the cities over the millions who constitute the rural proletariat".

As far the lumpenproletariat is concerned, Bakunin there protested against what he saw was Marx' treatment of majority of the workers as rabble, and used "lumpenproletariat" as designating the the mass of the working people, as oppossed to the small minority of well-educated, urban workers, who are according to Bakunin "semi-bourgeois", and "the least socialist". Those are the managers, intelligentsia, the technocrats, part of the ruling class which of which Marxism (at least right-marxism, excluding libertarian strands) is the ideology.

Also, you're again use petite bourgeois without defining it.


A one-sentence definition is almost necessarily imprecise when dealing with social issues
Principles of Communism has a multiple passage explanation of what the proletariat is, and it boils down to: wage-workers.


But to those who analyse society in a materialist manner - the "officers and sergeants" are an intermediary layer, in the middle of class society, so to speak.
Afaik, Marx explicitly obscured such a notion by saying how capitalism simplifies the complelixities of past class societies with their bureaucratic levels of social stratification by reducing class division on just two classes- the bourgeoise and the proletariat.

Anarchist theory also recognizes just two classes- the ruling and the working class, but notes that the ruling class doesn't inglude just the top decision makers, but also the chain of bureaucracy that transmits their authority to those who are the bottom of it, which do the real work.


Yes.
Did you just answer a question in the form of "do you define X as A or B" with yes? Please get serious.


Of course they could be thrown out if they refuse to cooperate with the rest of society.
That's then just another class society, with the majority being the ruling class, and disidents being opressed.


If they can't be thrown out, society doesn't control the means of production, small groups of "worker" capitalists do
Society isn't an organic entity, it's just a set, a group of people, and the only way for the society to control the means of production is for the individuals constituting such a society to control them, and by necessity they have to do that separately, because it's phyisically impossible for every person to exert control over every workplace.


Barter is a market mechanism. So is gift-giving with fixed reciprocity.
Sure, if you redefine market in a way no one uses it. Even if one accepts that, that those are market mechanisms, yeah, sure, I'm a market anarchist, just like Bakunin and Kropotkin.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Fabian?

Fabian was a self-proclaimed "horizontalist" who posted some time before I joined, and was banned for, among other things, Strasserism, support for Milošević, market "socialism" and homophobia. He then returned as Sotionov, got himself restricted for market "socialism" again, and then went quiet. Your politics are identical to those of Fabian-Sotionov, and you have the same verbal tics - talking about the "libertarian socialist" theory of class, etc.


Marx has a fairly confused theory of exploitation (he himself admits it's contradictory), and in the part where he talkes about exploiation on the workplace, he is in fact talking about LTP.

No, he isn't. At this point, I really can't tell if you simply haven't bothered to read Marx, or if you're outright trolling, or both. For Marx, exploitation is not a moral category. It denotes the extraction of surplus value by capital. In the present period, Marxist socialists oppose capitalism, because it is no longer progressive. But in the feudal period, nascent capitalism was extremely progressive - although the nature of exploitation of labour-power by capital hasn't changed.


Legitimacy is a notion of morality, and morality is every imperative statement. Unless talk about economy is purely descriptive, but instead has some suggestions, that is- perscriptive parts, it's a moral statement. It's the famous is-ought notion, every "ought" statement is a statement that falls in the sphere of morality.

Except the is-ought divide only applies to moral statements and other decontextualised "ought" statements. There are also instrumental "ought" statements - "if you want your clothes to be clean, you ought to wash them". These can be recast so that they don't use "ought" constructions, whereas moral statements can't.

Socialism, at least Marxist socialism, is instrumental. It's not that the smashing of capitalism is something all humans should have been doing since the beginning of time, but it is something that is, in the present era, conductive to our interest as proletarians and members of oppressed groups. The capitalist who fights for socialism isn't a great sage, he's a god's fool. A useful fool, perhaps, but a fool nonetheless.


Capitalism being illegitimate simply means- capitalism should be abolish. Nothing nonsensical or mystical about it. As oppossed to LTV which is either mysticism or nonsense, as is much of Marxism.

Well, as I said, it seems to be the case that you haven't even read Marx, or a decent work on Marx. If I asked you to summarise the labour theory of value, you probably wouldn't know where to begin.


What are class interests of the proletariat, who defines them, why, and why should anyone accept that?

The class interest of the proletariat isn't defined but discovered - and it's not exactly the most subtle inference in the history of humanity. If there is no reason for the bourgeoisie to keep most of the social product, it is in the interest of the proletariat, who only receive as much of the social product as is necessary to maintain them as the labour force (or a reserve army of the unemployed), to smash the bourgeoisie and take the social product for themselves. You don't have to accept is - I mean, "you" in abstract, I am quite sure you're an intellectual or member of the petite bourgeoisie - if you want to starve, be an idiot and starve. But most people in fact don't want to starve.


I can play that game, too, and go with that the bolshevik opposition to capitalism is because they want to establish feudalism with themselves as the new aristocracy. Which is fairly acurate.

About as accurate as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was in its depiction of mediaeval Germany. This is a good example of coming up with slogans before bothering with the theory behind the slogans. Feudalism is bad (except when it's good because it's anti-capitalist), Bolshevism is bad, according to the Fabians, Sotionovs and impossibles of the world, therefore Bolshevism is feudalism. Since the Bolsheviks weren't landowners who owned the obligatory labour and services of serfs, as well as a portion of the agricultural product the serfs produced, this "theory" quickly runs into problems. But a little faith and a lot of self-righteous morality can vanquish any inconvenient fact, or so our moralists think.


Acutally, that's a contradiction in terms. The very fact that someone (/anyone) wants to abolish something (/anything) means that he finds it illegitimate.

No, it doesn't. I've explained this several times already, and at this point you're just repeating slogans.


Majority of workers in the largely peasant society in Russia wanted socialism. Bolsheviks came, said that they were for socialism, workers both urban and rural rallied to support them, the bolsheviks took power, destroyed anything that looked like socialism, and instituded a brutal class system with themselves as tyrants over the working people. If it happened in 20th century, I don't see why couldn't it happen in earlier times, the difference being that in earlier timer the views of the people didn't get recorded.

"It might have happened this way, which happens to be convenient for my position, and the fact that there is no evidence is simply a trick of the Devil due to the absence of printing." Using this sort of "logic", you can "prove" everything, from the good Christian God to Austrian economics.

Not to mention how your account of the October Revolution is incompatible with the historical events.


Land to the peasants is (partial) socialization of the means of production. Land to the peasants, workshops to the artisans would be socialism in pre-industrial societies.

Not socialism as any Marxist, except perhaps Pablo and the pretender King of Spain, understands it. This is tedious; we don't accept your petit-bourgeois "libertarian socialism" (I imagine that if I considered myself a libertarian socialist, I would be offended), and that's that.


"We revolutionary anarchists who sincerely want full popular emancipation view with repugnance another expression in this program: it is the designation of the proletariat, the workers, as a class and not a mass. Do you know what this signifies? It is no more nor less than the aristocratic rule of the factory workers and of the cities over the millions who constitute the rural proletariat".

The rural proletariat isn't the petite bourgeoisie. Try again.


As far the lumpenproletariat is concerned, Bakunin there protested against what he saw was Marx' treatment of majority of the workers as rabble, and used "lumpenproletariat" as designating the the mass of the working people, as oppossed to the small minority of well-educated, urban workers, who are according to Bakunin "semi-bourgeois", and "the least socialist". Those are the managers, intelligentsia, the technocrats, part of the ruling class which of which Marxism (at least right-marxism, excluding libertarian strands) is the ideology.

Did I mention you haven't read any Marx? I might have, but it needs to be said again. You're talking about things you have no clue about. Marx clearly distinguishes the managers and the intelligentsia from the proletariat.


Principles of Communism has a multiple passage explanation of what the proletariat is, and it boils down to: wage-workers.

You're missing the point. Even a multi-passage explanation is not a substitute for serious engagement with the text. What you're trying to do is equivalent to arguing about evolutionary theory on the basis of having read a few paragraphs in an introductory course once.


Afaik, Marx explicitly obscured such a notion by saying how capitalism simplifies the complelixities of past class societies with their bureaucratic levels of social stratification by reducing class division on just two classes- the bourgeoise and the proletariat.

Again, you're not placing the text in its context. Marx was pointing out that, in contrast to the feudal society with its primary contradictions between landowners and serfs on one hand and between patricians and journeymen and apprentices on the other, capitalism contains one primary class contradiction. This doesn't mean there aren't other strata in society (Marx himself mentions at least three).


Anarchist theory also recognizes just two classes- the ruling and the working class, but notes that the ruling class doesn't inglude just the top decision makers, but also the chain of bureaucracy that transmits their authority to those who are the bottom of it, which do the real work.

It's really not my department, but perhaps you should stop trying to speak for all anarchists.


Did you just answer a question in the form of "do you define X as A or B" with yes? Please get serious.

What can I say, I spend too much time at the Department of Mathematics. Of course, as you're well aware, Marxists consider both groups to be members of the petite bourgeoisie.


That's then just another class society, with the majority being the ruling class, and disidents being opressed.

That would be the most peculiar ruling class ever, since it would change depending on the decision being voted on. The subordination of the minority to the majority is simply what democracy is - no society can be called democratic if the minority can simply throw a tantrum and refuse to carry out decisions that were arrived at through democratic means. Of course the petite bourgeoisie is allergic to discipline, which is why to them the notion of not controlling their petty coffee shop seems worse than death.


Society isn't an organic entity, it's just a set, a group of people, and the only way for the society to control the means of production is for the individuals constituting such a society to control them, and by necessity they have to do that separately, because it's phyisically impossible for every person to exert control over every workplace.

What an utterly bizarre notion. According to you, every time a member of the bourgeoisie leaves the workplace he owns, he stops controlling the means of production employed in that workplace.


Sure, if you redefine market in a way no one uses it.

So what's the difference between large-scale barter or the giving of "gifts" with the expectation of reciprocity (not to mention how absurd the notion is - sending the neighbouring autarchy five tonnes of copper they might not have any need for) is different from market exchange.

[bropasaran]

you have the same verbal tics - talking about the "libertarian socialist" theory of class, etc.
Yes, there must be only one person who accepts anarchist view of class.


It denotes the extraction of surplus value by capital.
Which is, when we get to the bottom of it, based on the LTP, not LTV, because LTV is neither perscriptive nor descriptive, it's simply nonsensical.


There are also instrumental "ought" statements - "if you want your clothes to be clean, you ought to wash them".
That's also a moral statement, when you ask- why should I want my clothes clean, and then when you get an answer you ask "why" on that too, and continue with such questions, you get to an obvious moral theory pretty quickly.


It's not that the smashing of capitalism is something all humans should have been doing since the beginning of time, but it is something that is, in the present era, conductive to our interest as proletarians and members of oppressed groups.
When you ask "why", we have to come to some moral notion.


If I asked you to summarise the labour theory of value, you probably wouldn't know where to begin.
Because the theory is nonsensical. First of all we have to say are we talking about intrisic value or exchange value and then we can talk about it.


Since the Bolsheviks weren't landowners who owned the obligatory labour and services of serfs, as well as a portion of the agricultural product the serfs produced, this "theory" quickly runs into problems.
Land was nationalized, so Bolsheviks were landowners, they did force obligatory labor onto peasants and the rest of the workers, and did treat them all like serfs and slaves, and yes, a large portion of the agricultural product was confiscated from the rural workers by the red aristocracy.


Not socialism as any Marxist
Marxist opinions about socialism are irrelelvant, being that they (at least most of them, the authoritarian kinds) are not socialists, but state capitalists (to give the most mild name for it).


no society can be called democratic if the minority can simply throw a tantrum and refuse to carry out decisions that were arrived at through democratic means.[quote]
It's called anarchy.

[quote]Of course the petite bourgeoisie is allergic to discipline,
There is no such thing as petite bourgeoise, and Libertarian Socialists are not alergic to discipline, but to oppression. Socialism and communism must be based on free association or it's neither socialism nor communism, but just another tyranny.


ccording to you, every time a member of the bourgeoisie leaves the workplace he owns, he stops controlling the means of production employed in that workplace.
That's what hierarchy and bureaucracy are for. In a society where the working people is emancipated from all masters and exploitators there's not going to be such a thing.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yes, there must be only one person who accepts anarchist view of class.

I think most people, at the very least, know better than to ascribe the same views about class to Nechayev, Malatesta, Kropotkin and Proudhon. But it is this particular phrase - "libertarian socialist theory of class" - and its variations that was very peculiar to Fabian-Sotionov, alongside other stylistic similarities - the slightly dodgy grammar, for example, more horizons than there were in Khrushchev-era Soviet propaganda etc. - and numerous political ones, such as a prurient insistence on morality (using the same arguments even), the description of Bolsheviks as both state capitalist and feudal (try to wrap your head around that one!) etc.


Which is, when we get to the bottom of it, based on the LTP, not LTV, because LTV is neither perscriptive nor descriptive, it's simply nonsensical.

Oh, well, since you asserted your claims with such certainty and such a blatant disregard for the burden of proof, they must be true.


That's also a moral statement [...]

No, to put it mildly it isn't, and one would have to have had their brain replaced with a catechism to even begin to suspect that "if you want your clothes to be clean, you ought to wash them" is a moral statement.


when you ask- why should I want my clothes clean

Because I like clean clothes. Or because that's the dress code. Whatever. Morality is besides the point.


Because the theory is nonsensical. First of all we have to say are we talking about intrisic value or exchange value and then we can talk about it.

But as we've already established, you don't understand the theory - if you did, for example, you would know the difference between a use value and an exchange value.


Land was nationalized

No, it wasn't. And once again it's obvious that you haven't the slightest clue about the historical facts pertaining to the things you talk about.


Marxist opinions about socialism are irrelelvant, being that they (at least most of them, the authoritarian kinds) are not socialists, but state capitalists (to give the most mild name for it).

Oh, cry us a river.


It's called anarchy.

"Oligarchy" might be a more appropriate name.


There is no such thing as petite bourgeoise

Really now? Did someone take them all out back and shoot them? Good for that someone, then.


That's what hierarchy and bureaucracy are for. In a society where the working people is emancipated from all masters and exploitators there's not going to be such a thing.

Look, no amount of "horizontalist" sloganeering is going to change the fact that according to your theory of class control, the bourgeoisie cease to control the means of production when they leave the room. This is just one example of your long-distance relationship with reality.

[bropasaran]

uch as a prurient insistence on morality (using the same arguments even)
It's simple knowledge of what morality is. I've even seen a clip where Frank Zappa uses it, when he opposses laws that legislate according to Christian morality, and get's an objection that all law in based on morality, he simply says something like- "yes, but morality as behaviour, not morality as a part of a particular theology". And it seems to me that most people who call themselves leftist confuse the two and thus see morality as something that politics doesn't have to do anything with, which is just wrong. Any statement about economy and politics that is not just descriptive (is) but is perscriptive (ought) is a moral statment.


Because I like clean clothes. Or because that's the dress code. Whatever. Morality is besides the point.
Why should I like clean clothes? Why should that be that dress code? Any imperative (should/ ought) statement must eventually boil down to a clear moral notion, it's the nature of ought statements.


if you did, for example, you would know the difference between a use value and an exchange value.
I virtually just now acknowledge the difference between the two by asking about which one are we talking about, that is- on which one does LTV have bearing, so we talk about how nonsensical it is.


"Oligarchy" might be a more appropriate name.
Emancipation of the working class.


Really now?
Yep. There's the ruling class and the working class.


the bourgeoisie cease to control the means of production when they leave the room.
Unless they have bureacracy that enforces it and (/ or just) an established hierarchical relation that stays in authority no matter their temporary absence.


This is just one example of your long-distance relationship with reality.
You perfectly describe yourself.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's simple knowledge of what morality is.

It's amazing, then, that most people do not parrot the rhetoric of Fabian-Sotionov like you do.


Why should I like clean clothes?

Well, you don't need to. I happen to like clean clothes, but if you don't, whatever.


Why should that be that dress code?

No reason. It just is.


I virtually just now acknowledge the difference between the two by asking about which one are we talking about, that is- on which one does LTV have bearing, so we talk about how nonsensical it is.

The exchange value, which you would know if you've ever bothered to read Marx - use values can't even be quantified.


Emancipation of the working class.

No, it isn't. Your "emancipated" working class would live in terror of small groups of self-important workers ruining the social plan by throwing a tantrum, which would necessitate that resources be spent to placate those childish workers, leading to a de facto market economy etc.


Yep. There's the ruling class and the working class.

That's not going to become true no matter how many times you say it.


Unless they have bureacracy that enforces it and (/ or just) an established hierarchical relation that stays in authority no matter their temporary absence.

No. Following your statement to its logical conclusion, when the bourgeois leaves the workplace he transfers ownership of the workplace to the highest-ranking manager.


You perfectly describe yourself.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here, Fabian. Your national-"horizontalism" has been designated an opposing ideology two times already.

[bropasaran]

It's amazing, then, that most people do not parrot
Nothing amazing about peopel not knowing basic stuff, e.g. most people, including those who call themselves leftist, not knowing that leninism of any king is not socialist, and is in fact anti-socialism both in theory and practice.


Well, you don't need to. I happen to like clean clothes, but if you don't, whatever.
Well, then you're opting out from "ought" statments, and thus cannot advocate that one should want one's clothes to be clean. Saying that if one wants clean clothes one should want one's clothes clean is redundant, one saying such things is not really making any point.

It's interesting how this anti-morality attitude is conductive to sectarianism, and how it's a convenient exuse to stay safe in your already accepted views.

What you're doing in your talk about politics and economy is pressupose that all of those who you're talking to already agree with all the assumptions you have, and then you discuss with them instrumentality- how those assuptions can be put into practice, you just assume away any opinon that differs from the one of the group you identify with, and when anyone ask- why should I accept those assumptions, being that any "should" statement is a statement of morality, you can just dismiss that question by "don't talk morality, socialism doesn't have anything to do with morality".


The exchange value, which you would know if you've ever bothered to read Marx - use values can't even be quantified.
Sure, exchange value, but the question is what is the point of the theory of value? There are two options as far as I can see- to tell use what the exchange value is to suppossed to be with having in mind use value, which is nonsensical because as you yourself say use value cannot be quantified; or to tell us to whom the achieved exchange value should belong to, based on the investigation of where the value comes from, in which case we're just talking about LTP, not LTV.


That's not going to become true no matter how many times you say it.
And bourgeoise, petite-bougeoise, proletariat is?


when the bourgeois leaves the workplace he transfers ownership of the workplace to the highest-ranking manager.
You don't seem to grasp ownership is at all.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Nothing amazing about peopel not knowing basic stuff, e.g. most people, including those who call themselves leftist, not knowing that leninism of any king is not socialist, and is in fact anti-socialism both in theory and practice.

Well, you can shout "horizontalist" slogans as much as you want, that won't change the fact that your politics, your rhetoric and your style are all identical to those of Fabian-Sotionov.


Well, then you're opting out from "ought" statments, and thus cannot advocate that one should want one's clothes to be clean.

And I wasn't "advocating" anything in the first place. I just said that, if you want your clothes to be clean, you should clean them. I think everyone that hasn't had their brain surgically swapped for the Summa Theologica knows what a conditional sentence is.


Saying that if one wants clean clothes one should want one's clothes clean is redundant, one saying such things is not really making any point.

That's not really true. In the future, we might have self-cleaning clothes. Before the discovery of natural soaps and similar substances, there was presumably no way to clean most stains. But in the meantime, if you want your clothes to be clean, you should expend some of your labour-power cleaning your clothes.


What you're doing in your talk about politics and economy is pressupose that all of those who you're talking to already agree with all the assumptions you have, and then you discuss with them instrumentality- how those assuptions can be put into practice, you just assume away any opinon that differs from the one of the group you identify with, and when anyone ask- why should I accept those assumptions, being that any "should" statement is a statement of morality, you can just dismiss that question by "don't talk morality, socialism doesn't have anything to do with morality".

More or less. Of course, it isn't really necessary for someone to accept all of my assumptions - I can talk to people from the LRP, for example, just fine, because we share certain core standpoints. But debating an American Democrat, for example, a Strasserite or Proudhonian is a waste of time.

Moral statements are nonsensical in any case, as well as dangerous. No one knows what the truth conditions for such statements might be. And socialism isn't a theory of morality but a hammer to crush the class enemy with.


Sure, exchange value, but the question is what is the point of the theory of value? There are two options as far as I can see- to tell use what the exchange value is to suppossed to be with having in mind use value, which is nonsensical because as you yourself say use value cannot be quantified; or to tell us to whom the achieved exchange value should belong to, based on the investigation of where the value comes from, in which case we're just talking about LTP, not LTV.

No, the labour theory of value links the socially necessary labour time expended in order to manufacture a commodity with its exchange value, around which prices fluctuate.


And bourgeoise, petite-bougeoise, proletariat is?

The bourgeoisie is the ruling class, the proletariat their immediate subjects and eventual undertakers. The petite bourgeoisie is a middle layer, a doomed and reactionary group with no real place in the modern economy or socialism.


You don't seem to grasp ownership is at all.

I'm just drawing the logical conclusion from your own statements.

[bropasaran]

Moral statements are nonsensical in any case, as well as dangerous. ... And socialism isn't a theory of morality but a hammer to crush the class enemy with.
Why should one crush the class enemy?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Why should one crush the class enemy?

There is no should. It is in our interest to do so. If you don't want to, if you want to place yourself on the side of the bourgeoisie, fair enough. The class struggle isn't a debate, it's a war. You take a stand and do your best to crush the people who took another stand.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Why should one crush the class enemy?

How else would you emancipate of the working class?

[bropasaran]

There is no should.
So you're saying that one shouldn't?


It is in our interest to do so.Why?


The class struggle isn't a debate, it's a war. Unless you convince a large majority of people to support your position, it's going to be a losing war. So you have to tell then why should they. You can't just assume that already want to. I mean, you can, but it's a pointless position, much more dangerous than any of mine positions.


How else would you emancipate of the working class?
Why should want to emancipate the working class?

(Don't know if you followed the discussion, but I do think that we should want that, and I'm a clear about what my view about is, I'm just asking why you think that we should want that.)

[Zukunftsmusik]

Why should want to emancipate the working class?

(Don't know if you followed the discussion, but I do think that we should want that, and I'm a clear about what my view about is, I'm just asking why you think that we should want that.)

What?

[bropasaran]

What?
Can you give a reason as to why should one want to emancipate the working class?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So you're saying that one shouldn't?

No, I'm saying "should" statements are nonsensical in this context - and so are their negations.


Why?

Because the bourgeoisie is no longer necessary for the functioning of the economy, which means they can be smashed and the social product that usually goes to them divided among the (former) proletariat.


Unless you convince a large majority of people to support your position, it's going to be a losing war.

No, not really. The Bolsheviks had a minority of committed supporters, after all.


So you have to tell then why should they. You can't just assume that already want to. I mean, you can, but it's a pointless position, much more dangerous than any of mine positions.

I don't have to tell the proletariat that they are exploited and that they receive much less than the bourgeoisie. Their social position produces the conditions that are necessary for class consciousness.

[bropasaran]

No, I'm saying "should" statements are nonsensical in this context - and so are their negations.
So, when asked- should the working class fight against the ruling class, you say- I don't know, or- they should if they want to.


Because the bourgeoisie is no longer necessary for the functioning of the economy, which means they can be smashed and the social product that usually goes to them divided among the (former) proletariat.So, you're argument as to why we should abolish capitalism rests on a notion that everything in the economy that is not necessary for the economy to function should be abolished?


No, not really. The Bolsheviks had a minority of committed supporters, after all.And established a class society worse then capitalism, bravo for them.


I don't have to tell the proletariat that they are exploited and that they receive much less than the bourgeoisie. Their social position produces the conditions that are necessary for class consciousness.Then you can just sit back and relax, don't talk about the revolution, don't do anything having anything to do with politics or economy, just enjoy life and the revolution is going to come as an inevitable result of the laws of history.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Can you give a reason as to why should one want to emancipate the working class?

This seems self-evident. You even said yourself you support this (even though a few things imply otherwise). Why do I need to explain something that is part of the most basic communist ABC, that you even say you support? The reason I asked the question to begin with, was that you seemed to deny that it's necessary to "crush the ruling class". If this is so, how do you picture working class self-emancipation will happen?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So, when asked- should the working class fight against the ruling class, you say- I don't know, or- they should if they want to.

No, I would say "stop talking nonsense". If you're a member of the proletariat, it's in your interest to do so. I can't force you to act in accordance with your own interest, but most people aren't god's fools who are going to ignore their own interest in order to make life easier for the bourgeoisie.


So, you're argument as to why we should abolish capitalism rests on a notion that everything in the economy that is not necessary for the economy to function should be abolished?

No, Fabian, that the bourgeoisie is no longer necessary means it can be smashed. And smashing the bourgeoisie is beneficial to the proletariat because it removes wage-labour, poverty, bourgeois dictatorship and the market.


And established a class society worse then capitalism, bravo for them.

I love it when Strasserites, supporters of Milošević and homophobes complain about how mean the Bolsheviks were.


Then you can just sit back and relax, don't talk about the revolution, don't do anything having anything to do with politics or economy, just enjoy life and the revolution is going to come as an inevitable result of the laws of history.

Well, that would be nice - but objective interest is merely the starting point. It is the task of communist propaganda to explain that the bourgeoisie can be smashed, and how. There's nothing moral about that, though.

[bropasaran]

This seems self-evident. You even said yourself you support this (even though a few things imply otherwise). Why do I need to explain something that is part of the most basic communist ABC, that you even say you support? The reason I asked the question to begin with, was that you seemed to deny that it's necessary to "crush the ruling class". If this is so, how do you picture working class self-emancipation will happen?
I do support it, and I say that it should happen. The discussion is about V. W. claiming that socialism doesn't have to do anything with morality, and that moral views are not socialism and are dangerous to socialism; whereas I'm saying that equating morality with some religious aura is incorrect, and that morality is actually every idea that we should do something- and I can prove that by simply asking "why" on every imperative (ought/ should) statement, and every such inquiry into causal chain of ANY such statment must come to some moral theory, e.g. egoism, utilitariatism, golden rule, libertarianism, egalitarianism, etc. etc. there is a bunch of them, with a buch of sub-types to each. Basically, what I'm saying is two things- that every statement that is perscriptive ("ought") instead of purely descriptive ("is") must boil down to a proposition of morality; and that socialism is moral view, a view that we should abolish capitalism and accomplish emancipation of the working class.



If you're a member of the proletariat, it's in your interest to do so.
Yet you can't explain what are my interests as part of proletariat, which includes explaining why are those my interests.


And smashing the bourgeoisie is beneficial to the proletariat because it removes wage-labour, poverty, bourgeois dictatorship and the market.Seems like we could be geting somewhere, let's test it with two questions. So, we should do things that are benefitial to the proletariat? We should fight against wage-labour, poverty, bougreois dictatorship and the market?


I love it when Strasserites, supporters of Milošević and homophobes complain about how mean the Bolsheviks were.
Which one- doesn't have anything to do with me, and two- is ad hominem and thus an error in thinking, it doesn't bear in any way to what it said.



It is the task of communist propaganda to explain that the bourgeoisie can be smashed, and how.But not explaining that it should be smashed?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

[M]orality is actually every idea that we should do something- and I can prove that by simply asking "why" on every imperative (ought/ should) statement, and every such inquiry into causal chain of ANY such statment must come to some moral theory, e.g. egoism, utilitariatism, golden rule, libertarianism, egalitarianism, etc. etc. there is a bunch of them, with a buch of sub-types to each.

Obviously that's not the case. If you ask someone why they are eating an apple, and they reply that they like apples, any further "why" questions will be met with a blank stare. The only think you achieve by acting like a parody of Socrates from Plato's dialogues is making yourself a nuisance.


Yet you can't explain what are my interests as part of proletariat, which includes explaining why are those my interests.

I already did; this is on the minimal assumption that you acknowledge that things like being fed and having a shelter are in your interest. And, well, that's just how we use the term "interest".


Seems like we could be geting somewhere, let's test it with two questions. So, we should do things that are benefitial to the proletariat? We should fight against wage-labour, poverty, bougreois dictatorship and the market?

No, we're not getting somewhere since you insist that I state some moral "ought", which is nonsensical. If you want to act in accordance with your self-interest as a proletarian or member of an oppressed group (again, "you" in general, I have no doubt that you are neither), then yes, you should (and this is an instrumental "should") fight to smash class society etc. etc. If not, good for you! Go home, play with your kids, write that novel you always wanted to write, if the revolution comes, better pack up and move to Karaganda.


Which one- doesn't have anything to do with me, and two- is ad hominem and thus an error in thinking, it doesn't bear in any way to what it said.

Of course it doesn't have anything to do with you, you're not Fabian-Sotionov, you just happen to have the same politics, rhetoric, writing style, same arguments and examples and so on.


But not explaining that it should be smashed?

Explaining that it is in the interest of the proletariat to do so, but not in the sense of inventing some new morality and going around preaching.

[bropasaran]

Obviously that's not the case. If you ask someone why they are eating an apple, and they reply that they like apples, any further "why" questions will be met with a blank stare.
"Because I take pleasure in eating apples" = hedonism- an ethical theory, a proposition of morality.


this is on the minimal assumption that you acknowledge that things like being fed and having a shelter are in your interest.
A capitalist (both laissezfaire and social-democrat) is going to put forth a bunch of theories of why should a worker wanting basic necessities want capitalism, not some other system. You don't have an answer to that. You say to such a man- I can't tell why you should reject capitalism and why you should accept that capitalism should be abolished, but when you accept that, get in touch we me and I'm gonna explain to you how we can abolish capitalism.

According to you socialism is suppossed to be a sectarian club which doesn't advocate it's own ideology, but says to people- when you accept our ideology, join our club.


Explaining that it is in the interest of the proletariat to do so
Then explain- why is it in the interest of the proletariat to do so?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As I said in another thread, I haven't been able to keep up with most threads I've posted in. And since your replies are getting more and more insubstantial - an accomplishment in itself, given how little content was in your first replies - I thought I'd just skip this. But then I saw this gem:


"Because I take pleasure in eating apples" = hedonism- an ethical theory, a proposition of morality.

Now, most moralists want to ban certain "harmful" substances, books, sexual acts, whatever. But the above sentence demonstrates that moral philosophy is much more harmful than any of those. It causes horrible delusions - it makes the victims think that anyone who eats apples because they like them is advocating hedonism. And since certain non-human, non-linguistic animals also eat apples, because they take pleasure in eating apples, it must follow that they, too, hold the ethical theory of hedonism. How non-linguistic animals might hold any theory at all is a mystery best resolved, as most ethical disputes are, by reference to the Holy Ghost or an equivalent entity.


A capitalist (both laissezfaire and social-democrat) is going to put forth a bunch of theories of why should a worker wanting basic necessities want capitalism, not some other system.

Yes, but what sort of theories? If they claim that capitalism can provide for a high quality of life for the worker, that is something that can be debated - but that's a factual question. Likewise if they claim that the bourgeoisie is necessary for the continued functioning of the economy. But if they pull some kind of "non-aggression principle" out of their arse, the only thing you can really do is ignore them. They aren't actually saying anything. And no worker is going to be swindled by moral fables, although a lot of the petite bourgeoisie will.


Then explain- why is it in the interest of the proletariat to do so?

I already did, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

[Sabot Cat]

Now, most moralists want to ban certain "harmful" substances, books, sexual acts, whatever.

[citation needed]


But the above sentence demonstrates that moral philosophy is much more harmful than any of those. It causes horrible delusions - it makes the victims think that anyone who eats apples because they like them is advocating hedonism.

First of all: I strongly urge you to not paint the opposition as mentally ill for holding positions counter to yours, because it suggests a failure of imagination on your part in understanding what they're saying and why, while inhibiting further debate (among other problems).

Secondly, you're not addressing the heart of the matter. What was being demonstrated was that if one were to ask the person, "Why should I eat apples?" the response would be one of a prescriptive character with reference to morality: "You should eat apples because you derive pleasure from them, and your pleasure is the desired end to all actions (egoist hedonism)/because it makes you happy without making any one else suffer more, thus increasing total utility (utilitarianism)." (I would argue that egoist hedonism is untenable in its foundational epistemology, and it thus collapses into utilitarianism, but that's beside the point).


And since certain non-human, non-linguistic animals also eat apples, because they take pleasure in eating apples, it must follow that they, too, hold the ethical theory of hedonism.

No, but we can justify actions towards beings that don't talk yet have consciousness through application of ethical theory. "Should we beat up this puppy?" "Yes, we should beat up this puppy because it would make me laugh (egoist hedonism)./No, we should not beat up this puppy, as it would cause it to suffer and encourage a type of pleasure that can only be derived from the suffering of others when other less destructive means of attaining happiness exist, thus leading to less happiness than what otherwise have existed. (utilitarianism)"


How non-linguistic animals might hold any theory at all is a mystery best resolved, as most ethical disputes are, by reference to the Holy Ghost or an equivalent entity.

When was this suggested?


Yes, but what sort of theories? If they claim that capitalism can provide for a high quality of life for the worker, that is something that can be debated - but that's a factual question. Likewise if they claim that the bourgeoisie is necessary for the continued functioning of the economy. But if they pull some kind of "non-aggression principle" out of their arse, the only thing you can really do is ignore them. They aren't actually saying anything. And no worker is going to be swindled by moral fables, although a lot of the petite bourgeoisie will.

Morality is a factual matter, because whether or not something produces more happiness than suffering is an empirical question.


I already did, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

I don't think you have.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

[citation needed]

It should be enough to consider the historical and current prohibitions on alcohol, drugs, homosexuality - one of the many reasons why no revolutionary socialist should touch morality with the proverbial ten-foot pole - "heretical" books etc.


First of all: I strongly urge you to not paint the opposition as mentally ill for holding positions counter to yours, because it suggests a failure of imagination on your part in understanding what they're saying and why, while inhibiting further debate (among other problems).

I wasn't suggesting Fabian is mentally ill - I've no doubt he isn't - I was making light of his ridiculous claims. And for the record, delusions are usually symptoms of conditions that are called "mental illnesses", but not every delusion implies a mental illness.


Secondly, you're not addressing the heart of the matter. What was being demonstrated was that if one were to ask the person, "Why should I eat apples?" the response would be one of a prescriptive character with reference to morality: "You should eat apples because you derive pleasure from them, and your pleasure is the desired end to all actions (egoist hedonism)/because it makes you happy without making any one else suffer more, thus increasing total utility (utilitarianism)." (I would argue that egoist hedonism is untenable in its foundational epistemology, and it thus collapses into utilitarianism, but that's beside the point).

What Fabian actually claimed was:



Obviously that's not the case. If you ask someone why they are eating an apple, and they reply that they like apples, any further "why" questions will be met with a blank stare.

"Because I take pleasure in eating apples" = hedonism- an ethical theory, a proposition of morality.

And, once again, this is nonsense of the worst kind. As for "should" questions, again, there are two ways to use the word "should" - instrumental and prescriptive. Instrumental "ought" statements aren't based on some prescriptive moral nonsense, but on existing goals. So I can say that if you want to kill someone you should probably dispose of the body afterwards, without saying that it's moral (or immoral) to kill someone. I think this is all fairly basic. Like I said, instrumental "ought" statements can be recast as explicitly factual statements - "if X wants to kill someone, disposing of the body afterwards would be the most prudent course of action, i.e. the course of action that results in the outcome they will find the most acceptable".

Socialism is instrumental. There is no supra-historical, supra-class universal reason for someone to act in accordance with their class interest - but in fact, most people at least try to. That is what socialism is based on - the concrete struggles of the workers and the oppressed. Not some "morality" that transcends time, class and matter.


No, but we can justify actions towards beings that don't talk yet have consciousness through application of ethical theory. "Should we beat up this puppy?" "Yes, we should beat up this puppy because it would make me laugh (egoist hedonism)./No, we should not beat up this puppy, as it would cause it to suffer and encourage a type of pleasure that can only be derived from the suffering of others when other less destructive means of attaining happiness exist, thus leading to less happiness than what otherwise have existed. (utilitarianism)"

You've gone off on a tangent. Fabian said that people who eat apples because it is pleasant to them are advocating hedonism. It follows, therefore, that non-human animals that find eating apples pleasant, and correspondingly eat them, also advocate hedonism, which is, since most animals don't have a language, a mystery on par with the Holy Trinity.


When was this suggested?

When was what suggested?


Morality is a factual matter, because whether or not something produces more happiness than suffering is an empirical question.

Only if you define morality as the maximisation of happiness - in some sense. But I can equally define morality as the course of action that produces the whitest walls in Karaganda. In both cases, we aren't using the term in the common sense - since many if not most people don't accept utilitarianism as an ethical theory (in fact most people follow no clearly-defined ethical theory at all).


I don't think you have.

I have - in the present system the proletariat receives only a minor portion of the social product, with most going to the bourgeoisie, a class that is no longer necessary for the continued functioning of the economy. So we kill the bourgeoisie and take their cake, it's embarrassingly simple really.

[bropasaran]

Now, most moralists want to ban certain "harmful" substances, books, sexual acts, whatever. But the above sentence demonstrates that moral philosophy is much more harmful than any of those.
Stuart Mill is one of the most famous moral philosophers, and he didn't want to ban any of that. Meaning- you don't have a clue what you're talking about, you're just babbling nonsense not wanting to admit you're just simply wrong.


it makes the victims think that anyone who eats apples because they like them is advocating hedonism.
First question was: "If you ask someone why they are eating an apple, and they reply that they like apples". I'm not saying that everyone devotes themselves to analitical systematization of ethical theories, and they consciously uphold some of them, but when someone aswers that they do something because they pleasure in it, they are in effect espousing the ethical theory of hedonism.


But if they pull some kind of "non-aggression principle" out of their arse, the only thing you can really do is ignore them.
This attitude is exactly why "libertarian" "philosophy" has more and more supporters, because they're basically the only one offering people ideas about what the prinicles of social organization should be, and they have arguments for them. They're faulty arguments, but no one knows that, because the people who advocate ideas of just society have the ignorant irrational attitude that you're espousing here.


I already did, and I'm not going to repeat myself.
You not only are unable to articulate rationally your position, but even you espouse it informally, you have literally zero arguments in it's favour. You are basically the epitome of why anti-capitalism has been a failure for so long.