Means of Production

[Publius]

If the means of production are communally owned, and your body is a means of production, isn't it also collectively owned?

Why the distinction, if there is one?

[Bolshevist]

Your body is not considered to be a part of the "means of production", a factory is. What was private property under capitalism will become public property under socialism and communism.

[Publius]

Your body is not considered to be a part of the "means of production", a factory is. What was private property under capitalism will become public property under socialism and communism.

But why is this distinction made?

Is a shovel also a means of production?

[Bolshevist]

But why is this distinction made?

Because it would be insanity to put people's bodies under public property, what on earth made you think someone would do this?


Is a shovel also a means of production?

Since when does shovels starte to produce commodities?

[Publius]

Originally posted by Lenin i [email protected] 17 2005, 10:19 PM





Because it would be insanity to put people's bodies under public property, what on earth made you think someone would do this?

I think it's insane to make any means of production under public policy, so I see no real difference.


Since when does shovels starte to produce commodities?

Shovels are used to produce things. Your house, for example, was undoubtably aided by the use of a shovel.

Replace it with any machine though, the particulars are not important.

[Bolshevist]

I think it's insane to make any means of production under public policy, so I see no real difference.

It makes a workers state possible.


Shovels are used to produce things.

That is false. What did a shovel produce when it was used to dig soil from place A to B? Look at it this way: A shovel might be used in a factory, but it is not part of the means of production because putting a single shovel under public property would be insane. Similarily, a wrench might be used in a factory but there would exist no reason for putting a single wrench under public property.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Lenin i [email protected] 17 2005, 10:28 PM




It makes a workers state possible.

I mean, we know this is true because it happens so often...



That is false. What did a shovel produce when it was used to dig soil from place A to B? Look at it this way: A shovel might be used in a factory, but it is not part of the means of production because putting a single shovel under public property would be insane. Similarily, a wrench might be used in a factory but there would exist no reason for putting a single wrench under public property.

Alright. How about a bulldozer? All it does is move dirt. How about a crane? All it does is move things? How about a plastic injection molding machine? All it does is move (And melt) plastic pellets? How about a sowing machine? All it does is move fabric.

Moving is the only thing machines do.

Are raw materials also publically owned?

[Bolshevist]

Moving is the only thing machines do.

Yes, but we were talking about a single shovel? Not machines?


Are raw materials also publically owned?

Why not?

[Publius]

Originally posted by Lenin i [email protected] 17 2005, 10:39 PM







Yes, but we were talking about a single shovel? Not machines?

I'm trying to find the point at which a tool becomes a means of production.



Why not?

Why?

[Bolshevist]

I'm trying to find the point at which a tool becomes a means of production.

When it is used in mass production.


Why?

Private property and socialism & communism doesn't mix well.

[ComradeRed]

There is a difference between capital (viz. variable capital) and "the means of production". It is foolhardy to assume they are the same.

I know it's not in your nature as a fascist to read, but you may want to read this. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm#S1)

[Publius]

There is a difference between capital (viz. variable capital) and "the means of production". It is foolhardy to assume they are the same.

I know it's not in your nature as a fascist to read, but you may want to read this. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm#S1)

Fascist, hah!

And I enjoy reading, I'm actually reading the Wealth of Nations now (Or will be as soon as it arrives).

I'll get around to reading Marx at some point, I'm sure, but I absolutly loathe to read for long periods on my computer screen. It hurts my eyes.

[NovelGentry]

And I enjoy reading, I'm actually reading the Wealth of Nations now (Or will be as soon as it arrives).

I'll get around to reading Marx at some point, I'm sure, but I absolutly loathe to read for long periods on my computer screen. It hurts my eyes.


If you enjoy the type of writing that is Wealth of Nations you will probably enjoy Marx's writing. I can lend you paper copies of some books if you'd like.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 11:41 PM




If you enjoy the type of writing that is Wealth of Nations you will probably enjoy Marx's writing. I can lend you paper copies of some books if you'd like.

Perhaps. Don't doubt that I will get around to reading Marx, it's just that I have lot I would rather read.

Dostoevsky, Kafka, Joyce, Smith, the Austrian economists, and some history.

Marx and Smith had similar writing (Read: boring), that's for sure, but Smith was just a perceptive motherfucker, Marx less so. He was smart, no doubt, but Smith was absolutely brilliant.

[NovelGentry]

Marx and Smith had similar writing (Read: boring), that's for sure, but Smith was just a perceptive motherfucker, Marx less so. He was smart, no doubt, but Smith was absolutely brilliant.

Funny you have seemingly yet to have read either in any depth and you can assert this, yet I have read both. Smith and Marx are quite strangely on the exact same level. Smith's brilliance, much like Marx's was in studying the system itself, in depth, and understanding the nature of it as a whole. Although, Marx decided to broaden his perspective beyond a single realm of history and instead applied what he had found to history as a whole, both backwards and forwards. Smith is thus no more brilliant than the focus of his work, while Marx's brilliance extends across human history, and quite possibly, into the future.

The style itself is quite similar, and the nature of the work focuses on very much the same issues, although granted, Marx's critique of capitalism (though spanning 4 volumes *not all completed by him*) is seemingly less in depth than Smith's account of it.

Calling Marx "less so" is a stunning understatement, one which even his harshest contemporary critics would disagree with, particularly since you imply you've read so little.

[Publius]

Funny you have seemingly yet to have read either in any depth and you can assert this, yet I have read both. Smith and Marx are quite strangely on the exact same level. Smith's brilliance, much like Marx's was in studying the system itself, in depth, and understanding the nature of it as a whole. Although, Marx decided to broaden his perspective beyond a single realm of history and instead applied what he had found to history as a whole, both backwards and forwards. Smith is thus no more brilliant than the focus of his work, while Marx's brilliance extends across human history, and quite possibly, into the future.

The style itself is quite similar, and the nature of the work focuses on very much the same issues, although granted, Marx's critique of capitalism (though spanning 4 volumes *not all completed by him*) is seemingly less in depth than Smith's account of it.

Calling Marx "less so" is a stunning understatement, one which even his harshest contemporary critics would disagree with, particularly since you imply you've read so little.

I've read some of both.

I started the Communist Manifesto and got a few pages in before becoming bored, and have read many books and articles quoting Smith, and I even read a bit of Wealth of Nations on http://www.adamsmith.org/ that compelled me to buy the book.

I've read enough of both to know how they write.

And I've read a fair amount from Marx's harsher critics, such as the great Murray N. Rothbard, quoted in my sig.

I'm not saying Marx wasn't smart, merely that he made conclusions I don't agree with.

Tell me, if communism is essentially a forgone conclusion, why even discuss it? It's sort of like discussing death in-detail; morbid and pointless.

And how can we assume this next stage will be communism as we know it, and not some form of fuedalism or totalitarianism or nihilism or some new amalgamation not yet thought of?

Have you ever heard of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, by any chance?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1. Don't listen to anybody with "Stalin" in their name. :P
(Kidding, comrade)

2. It's not a question of specific items, but how they're used. While certainly, anything might be used in production, it is a question of the production itself, and allowing economic functioning to be subject to democratic, rather than authoritarian (Hobbesian-state-of-nature-ish) control. A shovel, for example, as a personal possession is perfectly reasonable . . . and one is welcome to dig and produce as one sees fit. A shovel, however, that is not the personal, actively used possession of an individual, however, would naturally be subject to the democratic will of the social-body (collective, commune, union, whatever - depending on circumstance). The crucial distinction is between what is actively possessed (I possess and use my toothbrush) and what is simply owned. Those things which are not possessed ought to be subject to democratic control.

3. If you are interested in the cut-and-dry economic questions, read Capital, not the Manifesto . . .

4. Discussion of communism, and the active work of creating a communist movement is crucial because it is not so much a forgone conclusion so much as a historical "necessity" in the same sense I need food, and water. Crisis in capitalism ultimately come down to a conflict between socialism or barbarism - in Germany, the failure of the proletariat to seize power saw the rise of Nazism . . . luckily, this was a limited phenomena. In a globalizing world, however, the next crisis becomes much more important - the question of "Socialism or Barbarism?" may be answered on a grand scale.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lenin i [email protected] 17 2005, 09:51 PM
Your body is not considered to be a part of the "means of production", a factory is. What was private property under capitalism will become public property under socialism and communism.
Hey commrade, that is not what some people are saying in the 'organ donation' thread. I think we need to keep any eye out for the anti-revolutionaries trying to enslave the masses by taking over thier bodies.