What is private property?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

What is private property?

Is my furniture in my home private? Is my own clothes private? How about my house and the land it sits on? Of course check out the thread on organ donation.

[NovelGentry]

Private property is a social condition.

[Loknar]

Is there a moral right to the land you're on>??

what if your ancestors have owned a farm for 1,000 years . morally speaking (not offically from any sort of deed) isnt that land yours?

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Private property, in marxist terminoligy, are the means of production & distribution (Factory's, Trucks, Office-buildings etc.). So we won't take away your little toys if that is what you mean. :rolleyes:

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:40 AM
Is there a moral right to the land you're on>??

what if your ancestors have owned a farm for 1,000 years . morally speaking (not offically from any sort of deed) isnt that land yours?
Ok. Thanks. That is a 'no' for the land your home is on.

But for the other stuff? I can still have 'mine'? That's great. I want the best stuff, you know just all the essentials: transport, kitchen aids, furniture, and home entertainment.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by ErikuSz -sXe-@May 29 2005, 09:05 AM
Private property, in marxist terminoligy, are the means of production & distribution (Factory's, Trucks, Office-buildings etc.). So we won't take away your little toys if that is what you mean. :rolleyes:
How about the land my home is on? This other guys thinks it is 'no'.

[synthesis]

You misunderstand the usage of the term "private property." The possessions of an individual are considered to be personal property and most likely there will be total propriety in personal property.

Private property describes those means of production organized, controlled, and benefitting only a small portion of the population. Think factories and harbors, not toothbrushes and sewing machines. It is simply an easily misinterpreted translation from the Manifesto, like the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Professor Moneybags]

Where is the line drawn between "means of production" and "personal posessions" and why ?

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 29 2005, 08:18 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 29 2005, 08:18 AM)
ErikuSz -sXe-@May 29 2005, 09:05 AM
Private property, in marxist terminoligy, are the means of production & distribution (Factory's, Trucks, Office-buildings etc.). So we won't take away your little toys if that is what you mean. :rolleyes:
How about the land my home is on? This other guys thinks it is 'no'. [/b]
You can't own land. Land is collective property... like water.

[NovelGentry]

Private property, in marxist terminoligy, are the means of production & distribution (Factory's, Trucks, Office-buildings etc.). So we won't take away your little toys if that is what you mean.

This is a bad interpretation of Marxism... I'm sorry, but it just is. Marx was very keen on not associating it to specific objects, but instead using the term capital, which any form of wealth or property can be (depending completely on the nature of it).

By claiming that private property is specific things, you extract from the term what it is. You make Private property a definite, that must be overcome as private property because even you respect it as private property. You may see it as just semantics, but it is very important to understand this. If you say "Private property is Factories, trucks, office-buildings... then you presume this is private property, no matter what, and yet under communism it will be collective.


Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. -- Karl Marx

That antagonism is a class antagonism and is a social condition, not some static label.


Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power.
When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses it's class character. -- Karl Marx

Please try to understand the differentiation.

[NovelGentry]

Is there a moral right to the land you're on>??

what if your ancestors have owned a farm for 1,000 years . morally speaking (not offically from any sort of deed) isnt that land yours?

How did they acquire it? Killed the natives who's land it was?

I fail to see how there is any "moral right" to land. Even if you were to inhabit a place no one else was in, it is you who inhabits it, your great great great great grandchildren probably live in a city somewhere miles and miles away... and yet they will still own it?

"Great Great Great Great Grandpa Wuz Here" spraypainted on the trees and stones?

[NovelGentry]

Where is the line drawn between "means of production" and "personal posessions" and why ?

There is no line drawn. Under capitalism the "means of production" is a personal possession. If you read the quote I copied above from the Manifesto, Marx uses the term "capital" (what we frequently understand as the means of production and means of advancing more capital) along with the term "personal property."

No differentiation must be made in communist theory because the nature of the property itself is not inherent. Anyone here who believes Marx labeled capital as private property and, for example, a tooth brush as personal property, seems to have a failed understanding of the way Marx looked at things. To do this... to imply there is some inherent nature to the material product itself that must be overcome as such, is pure superstition.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by NovelGentry+May 29 2005, 02:33 PM--> (NovelGentry @ May 29 2005, 02:33 PM) This is a bad interpretation of Marxism... I'm sorry, but it just is. [/b]
No, its just trying to explain it in a easy way.


[email protected] 29 2005, 02:33 PM
You may see it as just semantics, but it is very important to understand this. If you say "Private property is Factories, trucks, office-buildings... then you presume this is private property, no matter what, and yet under communism it will be collective.


So... it's not called 'collective' property then?

:rolleyes:

[NovelGentry]

No, its just trying to explain it in a easy way.

The problem with trying to explain it the easy way is that they can make all kinds of statements about the horror of this. This is clarified in the surrounding context of the quotes I gave previously in the communist manifesto.

The primary distinction, which has somehow "evolved" into communists adopting the idea of bourgeois private property and personal property, and differentiating between them is where Marx points out that we merely seek to ensure ones labor is not subjugated by it. Practically speaking this would be most applicable to the means of production... for example if someone acquired a car, so long as the means of production is available to all, no one has any claim that their labor is forced to be subjugated for that car. They could always "make their own."

Essentially this is "OK" -- so long as those means of production are always in existence and always available. This is why, as a society, I argued so heavily in the division of labor thread that control cannot be maintained by factories alone, or trades alone, or even by limited unification of trades alone. To do this maintains that social condition, no matter how much we'd like to pretend it doesn't.


So... it's not called 'collective' property then?

Again.


...is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed

[The Grapes of Wrath]

What is private property?

Is my furniture in my home private? Is my own clothes private? How about my house and the land it sits on?

Well, to be honest, and I could be wrong, but I don't think that Marx ever really addresses such issues as private homes, clothes, etc in his dealings with private property. If he does, then not very satisfactorily. That has to be left to address by some other means, Marx was not infallible and his ideas can only be heeded to so much. But this is coming from someone who is not an advocate of Marx.

In communist theory, it would seem that all property would be pointless, as everything would supposedly be commonly owned. I'm sure clothing and so forth would, I don't really know, but who really wants to wear someone else's clothes? So Although I will admit that this is a very slippery argument from me for a very slippery question by you.

Besides that, this is theory in question, so who knows what the reality will be.


Where is the line drawn between "means of production" and "personal posessions" and why ?

Well, "means of production" is forms of producing goods and services which require others to work for someone for a wage, for their livelihood. "Personal possessions" sounds to me like clothes, lamps, guitar, PC, stapler, clock, toothbrush, etc. These don't really look like means of production to me.

If you want to take a car or instance, and say you want to act as a taxi, giving people rides and dropping them off for a price. Is your car really a means of production? You could make the argument yes, and the argument no. This requires some form of law, edicts, or whatever ... which requires government and so forth to decide upon this issue.

Many on here would contend what Marx says and that the "state will whither away" and communism is much like Anarchism. But appears to me that communism is complete change in mindset which will obviously not be realized for centuries.

Again, as you can see by this slippery argument, "communism" is a very abstract term. It is "pie in the sky" as Yeltsin had put it. Free transportation, no money, no state, infinite goods and services, mutual support, communal living and communal ownership of the means of production ... these are a few things that communism is supposedly is to be like, but again, this is theory. We don't know, we can only guess. We think entirely in terms of our own time, not some abstract time in which our worries supposedly do not exist ... this is a mistake when thinking on communism. Besides that, I don't think that someone will be reading the sports section of the paper and suddenly come to the conclusion that society has reached communism ... this demonstrates its abstractness.

Now, if you wish to talk of socialism then I will ablidge you. Socialist theory is still theory, but grounded much more in modern and contemporary thinking as opposed to absract "what ifs."

So, to answer your question from a socialist standpoint (which I'm sure many on this site will bash me for):


Is my furniture in my home private? Is my own clothes private? How about my house and the land it sits on?

Sure, yes to all. I don't see why not. I think that one can own those things, however, it would be up to some form of representative government to define the exact parameters (more lilely for the house and the land than the clothes and so forht), and I'm sure that they will be changing, just as laws and regulations change today.


But for the other stuff? I can still have 'mine'? That's great. I want the best stuff, you know just all the essentials: transport, kitchen aids, furniture, and home entertainment.

Yea dude, why not? If you work for money, and you have the ultimate choice to purchase what you want to purchase ... you can have those (although I wouldn't call them "essentials," haha), that is what I want too, that is what many people want.

The goal of socialism is to bring the wants of people within their reach (and eventually lead to that abstract of communism) ... but of course, all of this needs to be within reason. Scarcity of resources exists and needs to be realized, not everyone is going to have a car for example, but nor will there be the need for all to own one if public transportation in many countries is a sign.

I don't see a problem with owning a house, the land it is on or even a farm. Initially these will be so, it is up to future generations, in their (hopefully) cautious quest towards communism to decide the limits or liberties of property.

Debate will surely exist on these subjects, someone will be pissed off, someone will be happy. But no one is going to get everything they want. so is life.

It is much easier for both sides to make arguments for and against something that is much closer to our ideas today than the abstract term that is communism. So, just a request that I am sure you will not heed, but when you make questions such as this, please ground them in reality of today's thinking, as opposed to in a future abstract where the differences in thinking are fundamental.

Socialism is based in part on today's thinking and issues ... communism will be based upon how well that socialist society dealt with and solved those issues of today.

TGOW

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 05:18 PM

No, its just trying to explain it in a easy way.

The problem with trying to explain it the easy way is that they can make all kinds of statements about the horror of this. This is clarified in the surrounding context of the quotes I gave previously in the communist manifesto.

The primary distinction, which has somehow "evolved" into communists adopting the idea of bourgeois private property and personal property, and differentiating between them is where Marx points out that we merely seek to ensure ones labor is not subjugated by it. Practically speaking this would be most applicable to the means of production... for example if someone acquired a car, so long as the means of production is available to all, no one has any claim that their labor is forced to be subjugated for that car. They could always "make their own."

Essentially this is "OK" -- so long as those means of production are always in existence and always available. This is why, as a society, I argued so heavily in the division of labor thread that control cannot be maintained by factories alone, or trades alone, or even by limited unification of trades alone. To do this maintains that social condition, no matter how much we'd like to pretend it doesn't.


So... it's not called 'collective' property then?

Again.


...is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed
It is a good thing we have people like you at out side.
What terrible mistakes we could have made...

[NovelGentry]

What terrible mistakes we could have made...

What terrible mistakes you have already made.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:19 AM
You misunderstand the usage of the term "private property." The possessions of an individual are considered to be personal property and most likely there will be total propriety in personal property.

Private property describes those means of production organized, controlled, and benefitting only a small portion of the population. Think factories and harbors, not toothbrushes and sewing machines. It is simply an easily misinterpreted translation from the Manifesto, like the dictatorship of the proletariat.
No sweat chief. I got it. I don't want nor ever did want the means of production. I just what what is mine, which is furniture, entertainment systems, clothes, and transportl; and I want the best.

[Why did Benerji kill him?]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:20 AM
What is private property?


Private property, undoubtedly, is theft

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Why did Benerji kill him?+May 29 2005, 10:07 PM--> (Why did Benerji kill him? @ May 29 2005, 10:07 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 02:20 AM
What is private property?


Private property, undoubtedly, is theft [/b]
Wait a minute. You need some re-education. These fellas here just pretty much said I have stuff that is 'mine'.

[Black Dagger]

He said private property, not personal property.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:39 PM
There is no line drawn.
Then there's going to be no line drawn as to what can be siezed come the revolution.

[Professor Moneybags]

Well, "means of production" is forms of producing goods and services which require others to work for someone for a wage, for their livelihood. "Personal possessions" sounds to me like...guitar,

A guitar is a potential means of production.


PC,

A PC is definitely a potential means of production.


If you want to take a car or instance, and say you want to act as a taxi, giving people rides and dropping them off for a price. Is your car really a means of production?

Potentially, yes. I guess you'll be saying goodbye to your car, too.

Even a pen is a potential means of production.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Why did Benerji kill [email protected] 29 2005, 09:07 PM
Private property, undoubtedly, is theft
Theft presupposes private property.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 30 2005, 06:58 AM
He said private property, not personal property.
Personal is:

The shaker furniture, leather jackets, plasma TV, 210 hp Acura Integra, and it is all MINE.

If you want you can have my tooth brush. I can consider that collective property if you want me to share it with you.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by Why did Benerji kill him?+May 29 2005, 09:07 PM--> (Why did Benerji kill him? @ May 29 2005, 09:07 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 02:20 AM
What is private property?


Private property, undoubtedly, is theft [/b]
Here here! Everyone could use a little more Proudhon :D

[NovelGentry]

Theft presupposes private property.

Indeed.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 05:24 PM

Theft presupposes private property.

Indeed.
Whether it came before is irrelevant. Property is still theft.

[NovelGentry]

Whether it came before is irrelevant. Property is still theft.

Well no, it's not irrelevent. It's fundamental to understanding where private property comes from. Common logic would have one believe that private property presupposes theft, afterall, if there is no private property, it is difficult to steal it from someone.

However, in understanding that theft presupposes private property, that is to say that private property is theft, or rather, the result of theft we achieve objective understanding of it's nature, and the groundwork for understanding the true social relation of the products of man to man.

[Why did Benerji kill him?]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 30 2005, 01:04 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 30 2005, 01:04 AM)
Originally posted by Why did Benerji kill [email protected] 29 2005, 10:07 PM

[email protected] 29 2005, 02:20 AM
What is private property?


Private property, undoubtedly, is theft
Wait a minute. You need some re-education. These fellas here just pretty much said I have stuff that is 'mine'. [/b]
The term "private property" is abstract, or rather an abstraction. Now that it is so, it does not point out object(s) of some person, nor point out, -one by one -, objects of all people. Belongings, for example, are the result of private property or the reflection of it, but certainly not private property itself. In this respect, your land, house, furniture, clothes might be common, and thus shared by others if, some day, the practice of private property is abrogated. There is, then, only one thing, or rather person that is able to be private proverty(!) in question, namely your lover (or your wife or your husband), whether private property is in force or not. (On no account can one's lover be shared with third person as the lover is unique.)

Thus private property may be theft, but you cannot be a thief unless your furniture, clothes, house create economic inequality, namely, capital. All else may merely be "possesion" in order to express things and/or situations as in "my imbecility, yourideas, one's eyes".

*It should be your kindness regarding me!

[Why did Benerji kill him?]

Originally posted by KptnKrill+May 30 2005, 04:47 PM--> (KptnKrill @ May 30 2005, 04:47 PM)
Originally posted by Why did Benerji kill [email protected] 29 2005, 09:07 PM

[email protected] 29 2005, 02:20 AM
What is private property?


Private property, undoubtedly, is theft
Here here! Everyone could use a little more Proudhon :D [/b]
It should have been just "property" as in "property is theft", but I think, I used "private poverty"!

:)

[Why did Benerji kill him?]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 30 2005, 08:52 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 30 2005, 08:52 AM)
Why did Benerji kill [email protected] 29 2005, 09:07 PM
Private property, undoubtedly, is theft
Theft presupposes private property. [/b]
Granted! But it, as KptnKrill said, is still theft!

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Why did Benerji kill him?+May 30 2005, 08:10 PM--> (Why did Benerji kill him? @ May 30 2005, 08:10 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Why did Benerji kill [email protected] 29 2005, 10:07 PM

[email protected] 29 2005, 02:20 AM
What is private property?


Private property, undoubtedly, is theft
Wait a minute. You need some re-education. These fellas here just pretty much said I have stuff that is 'mine'.
The term "private property" is abstract, or rather an abstraction. Now that it is so, it does not point out object(s) of some person, nor point out, -one by one -, objects of all people. Belongings, for example, are the result of private property or the reflection of it, but certainly not private property itself. In this respect, your land, house, furniture, clothes might be common, and thus shared by others if, some day, the practice of private property is abrogated. There is, then, only one thing, or rather person that is able to be private proverty(!) in question, namely your lover (or your wife or your husband), whether private property is in force or not. (On no account can one's lover be shared with third person as the lover is unique.)

Thus private property may be theft, but you cannot be a thief unless your furniture, clothes, house create economic inequality, namely, capital. All else may merely be "possesion" in order to express things and/or situations as in "my imbecility, yourideas, one's eyes".

*It should be your kindness regarding me! [/b]
I have no idea what you just said.

[NovelGentry]

I have no idea what you just said.

Fuck, me and ahhh_money_is_comfort just agreed on something.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 12:08 AM

I have no idea what you just said.

Fuck, me and ahhh_money_is_comfort just agreed on something.
Would you call this person an intellectual in need of re-education? He obviously doesn't have it right, so he needs to be MADE right.

[NovelGentry]

Would you call this person an intellectual in need of re-education? He obviously doesn't have it right, so he needs to be MADE right.

No, I would probably guess that English is not his first language.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by Why did Benerji kill [email protected] 30 2005, 07:10 PM
The term "private property" is abstract, or rather an abstraction. Now that it is so, it does not point out object(s) of some person, nor point out, -one by one -, objects of all people. Belongings, for example, are the result of private property or the reflection of it, but certainly not private property itself. In this respect, your land, house, furniture, clothes might be common, and thus shared by others if, some day, the practice of private property is abrogated. There is, then, only one thing, or rather person that is able to be private proverty(!) in question, namely your lover (or your wife or your husband), whether private property is in force or not. (On no account can one's lover be shared with third person as the lover is unique.)

Thus private property may be theft, but you cannot be a thief unless your furniture, clothes, house create economic inequality, namely, capital. All else may merely be "possesion" in order to express things and/or situations as in "my imbecility, yourideas, one's eyes".

*It should be your kindness regarding me!
English is my native and I still had trouble figuring out what all that mumbo-jumbo meant ;)

[t_wolves_fan]

Here's my biggest problem with communism.

With property rights, you have the basis for individual freedom.

When that is taken away, your life is ruled by the whims of society, with no chance for refuge.

:o

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 11:43 AM
Here's my biggest problem with communism.

With property rights, you have the basis for individual freedom.

When that is taken away, your life is ruled by the whims of society, with no chance for refuge.

:o
Nonsense. That's only true if your a leninist or something icky like that. I'd recommend that you investigate the anarchist side of things.
Besides you still have personal property, only stuff that can be used as a means of production is communally owned.
Your clothes, toothbrush, house, etc and all your other things than can't be used as production are all yours. If *everything* was owned by society at large I think this would have an undesireable effect on the mind.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 05:45 PM
Whether it came before is irrelevant. Property is still theft.
Logic not your strong point, I take it.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 31 2005, 01:43 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 31 2005, 01:43 PM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 05:45 PM
Whether it came before is irrelevant. Property is still theft.
Logic not your strong point, I take it. [/b]
Why that statement is true. Of course if you are not familiar with Proudhon then you wouldn't realise that by "property" he meant "private property". His whole essay is written with that assumption as there wasn't really the concept of "personal property" back in his day.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by KptnKrill+May 31 2005, 01:16 PM--> (KptnKrill @ May 31 2005, 01:16 PM)
[email protected] 31 2005, 11:43 AM
Here's my biggest problem with communism.

With property rights, you have the basis for individual freedom.

When that is taken away, your life is ruled by the whims of society, with no chance for refuge.

:o
Nonsense. That's only true if your a leninist or something icky like that. I'd recommend that you investigate the anarchist side of things.
Besides you still have personal property, only stuff that can be used as a means of production is communally owned.
Your clothes, toothbrush, house, etc and all your other things than can't be used as production are all yours. If *everything* was owned by society at large I think this would have an undesireable effect on the mind. [/b]
This is not what some of your friends are arguing.

[NovelGentry]

This is not what some of your friends are arguing.

If you mean me, I don't think you have the mental capacity to understand what I'm arguing.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

QUOTE
Well, "means of production" is forms of producing goods and services which require others to work for someone for a wage, for their livelihood. "Personal possessions" sounds to me like...guitar,



A guitar is a potential means of production.



PC,



A PC is definitely a potential means of production.



If you want to take a car or instance, and say you want to act as a taxi, giving people rides and dropping them off for a price. Is your car really a means of production?



Potentially, yes. I guess you'll be saying goodbye to your car, too.

Even a pen is a potential means of production.

Professor Moneybags, these may be, however, you misread the sentence I had before which stated “’means of production’ is forms of producing goods and services which require others to work for someone for a wage, for their livelihood.”

A car is a form of service, not a means of production as I have defined it, as many others are also defining it (yes, I know some are not but take my argument when dealing with me). If you were acting as an individual taxi service, YOU are the one working; you are not using someone else’s labor, so you are not a "means of production." You may be "producing" money for yourself by providing a service, but you are not employing others for a wage/salary/beans/seashells/corn/bananas or whatever.

I don’t think you can discount my argument. I believe it to be valid and logical because it is based in today’s thinking. I’m not talking of some abstract term of communism, believing that takes time and complete mindset change … so don’t even talk about communism, it is too abstract!!

Do me a favor, and read what I say, don’t pull out some little bit out of context and expect it to fly, you are not a pundit on TV and nor am I.


If you mean me, I don't think you have the mental capacity to understand what I'm arguing.

This personal name calling and so forth is ridiculous and only makes it easier to alienate each other, work harder at making better and well thought out points rather than childish name calling; make them think instead. But, I’m sure I’ll catch hell for that.

TGOW

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 06:17 PM
If you mean me, I don't think you have the mental capacity to understand what I'm arguing.
Play nicely ;)

@t_wolves_fan
So we have a difference in opinion, I'm glad. If we all had the same ideas it would be like school :)

[NovelGentry]

This personal name calling and so forth is ridiculous and only makes it easier to alienate each other, work harder at making better and well thought out points rather than childish name calling; make them think instead. But, I’m sure I’ll catch hell for that.

I doubt you'll catch hell. But I did not mean it as an insult. I seriously don't think he does.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:04 AM

This personal name calling and so forth is ridiculous and only makes it easier to alienate each other, work harder at making better and well thought out points rather than childish name calling; make them think instead. But, I’m sure I’ll catch hell for that.

I doubt you'll catch hell. But I did not mean it as an insult. I seriously don't think he does.
Well well well. Think you better than me?

Then what class do you belong to that makes you so great?

[NovelGentry]

Well well well. Think you better than me?

Then what class do you belong to that makes you so great?

First off, it wasn't about you, second off, I have no problem being realistic about the intelligence of other people. Does it make me a better man? No. Does it mean he will never have the mental capacity to understand it? No. As I said, I just don't think he does. I'd love to be proven wrong.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by The Grapes of [email protected] 31 2005, 08:20 PM
Professor Moneybags, these may be, however, you misread the sentence I had before which stated “’means of production’ is forms of producing goods and services which require others to work for someone for a wage, for their livelihood.”


Are those goal posts I hear moving ? Anyway, I don't see how this makes any difference. Whether people work for you or not doesn't matter; you're just paying them what they will work for. By doing so, they value the money you're offering them over their labor. The transaction is mutual and without bias.

[NovelGentry]

Are those goal posts I hear moving ? Anyway, I don't see how this makes any difference. Whether people work for you or not doesn't matter; you're just paying them what they will work for.

There's a subtle means by which you undermine the nature of the transaction. Certainly it doesn't sound so bad when "you're just paying them what they will work for." But that's not really the case. We don't really decide what we work for... the capitalists do.

It that sense it's more like, we work for what they will pay. The follow up question to that is, do we have any other choice?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 04:11 PM

Well well well. Think you better than me?

Then what class do you belong to that makes you so great?

First off, it wasn't about you, second off, I have no problem being realistic about the intelligence of other people. Does it make me a better man? No. Does it mean he will never have the mental capacity to understand it? No. As I said, I just don't think he does. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Communist theory says your wrong. We are all equal.

[NovelGentry]

Communist theory says your wrong. We are all equal.

You don't have any idea what Communist theory says. I challenge you to find where Marx says we are all equal.

EDIT: and just so you know, I'm not implying Marx's ideas is the whole of communist theory, but they are where I derive my ideology.

[Professor Moneybags]

There's a subtle means by which you undermine the nature of the transaction. Certainly it doesn't sound so bad when "you're just paying them what they will work for." But that's not really the case. We don't really decide what we work for... the capitalists do.

Here we go again with the claim of a "capitalist bias".

Jude obscure posted a article (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5843) detailing the absurdity of the "expoitation" argument.

"But just who’s enslaving whom in "wage slavery"? Am I the consumer controlling the kid behind the counter through "deprivation" by withholding my money if he doesn’t "take my order"? Or is he controlling me through "deprivation" by withholding the burger (which I need for food) if I don’t obey his demand for a specific sum of money (for which I had to work)? Is my physician coercing me into working (for wages) by denying me medical care if I don’t pay him, or am I coercing him into working (as a physician) by denying him money (for food, clothing, etc.) if he doesn’t treat me? The very logic of "wage slavery" casts each man as both slave and master."


It that sense it's more like, we work for what they will pay. The follow up question to that is, do we have any other choice?

Does your employer ?

[NovelGentry]

"But just who’s enslaving whom in "wage slavery"? Am I the consumer controlling the kid behind the counter through "deprivation" by withholding my money if he doesn’t "take my order"? Or is he controlling me through "deprivation" by withholding the burger (which I need for food) if I don’t obey his demand for a specific sum of money (for which I had to work)? Is my physician coercing me into working (for wages) by denying me medical care if I don’t pay him, or am I coercing him into working (as a physician) by denying him money (for food, clothing, etc.) if he doesn’t treat me? The very logic of "wage slavery" casts each man as both slave and master."

This is why classes are structured around relation to the means of production, as opposed to simply "money." No doubt you'd find some here who would like to argue wealth classes with you.


Does your employer ?

I hate to quote this one part of my book so often but here you are:


Capitalism is indeed an infringement on the freedom of all men. It is first and foremost an infringement on the freedom of the working class, who must recognize wage-slavery as an order of survival. It is too, however, an infringement on the freedoms of the ruling class who are forced to uphold the mechanisms of capitalism or face the same fate as the working class. Subsequently the infringement on the freedom of the ruling class looks to extend the infringement on the freedom of the working class, i.e., the members of the ruling class are no more free to stop exploiting those of the working class than those of the working class are to be free from that exploitation, by chance that if they did, they too would be subjected to such exploitation. -- Gent

I've bolded the applicable part.

[Professor Moneybags]

I hate to quote this one part of my book so often but here you are:


Capitalism is indeed an infringement on the freedom of all men. It is first and foremost an infringement on the freedom of the working class, who must recognize wage-slavery as an order of survival. It is too, however, an infringement on the freedoms of the ruling class who are forced to uphold the mechanisms of capitalism or face the same fate as the working class. Subsequently the infringement on the freedom of the ruling class looks to extend the infringement on the freedom of the working class, i.e., the members of the ruling class are no more free to stop exploiting those of the working class than those of the working class are to be free from that exploitation, by chance that if they did, they too would be subjected to such exploitation. -- Gent

I've bolded the applicable part.

Forced ? :lol:

[NovelGentry]

Yes, forced.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:07 AM

Communist theory says your wrong. We are all equal.

You don't have any idea what Communist theory says. I challenge you to find where Marx says we are all equal.

EDIT: and just so you know, I'm not implying Marx's ideas is the whole of communist theory, but they are where I derive my ideology.
We HAVE to be equal. There is no way around it or else you have two or more classes of people.

[NovelGentry]

We HAVE to be equal. There is no way around it or else you have two or more classes of people.

You can't say we HAVE to be something and then present an option where we are not. We aren't equal under capitalism.

Marx present a society where we have equal relation to the means of production and thus a prevailing social equality. He does not present a society where we are all the same hight, have all the same eye color, think all the same thoughts, etc. Thus he does not present a society where we all have the same IQ, merely a society where whether or not you have equal IQ does not determine whether or not you have the means to survive.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:55 AM

We HAVE to be equal. There is no way around it or else you have two or more classes of people.

You can't say we HAVE to be something and then present an option where we are not. We aren't equal under capitalism.

Marx present a society where we have equal relation to the means of production and thus a prevailing social equality. He does not present a society where we are all the same hight, have all the same eye color, think all the same thoughts, etc. Thus he does not present a society where we all have the same IQ, merely a society where whether or not you have equal IQ does not determine whether or not you have the means to survive.
Don't you agree what ever is wrong with capitalism, does not prove communism right?

Oh equality? I got it. Not to worry.

How does someone measure 'equal access to production'? I want to be sure I get my equal access to production. I want to make sure no one has more production than I have, because that would not be right, right?

No one should have more production that I have or else that is inequality. Not to worry I got it. I just want to make sure we all have equality and how to assure it.

[NovelGentry]

Don't you agree what ever is wrong with capitalism, does not prove communism right?

I've already addressed you on this point before... I don't think there is any need to repeat myself.


How does someone measure 'equal access to production'? I want to be sure I get my equal access to production. I want to make sure no one has more production than I have, because that would not be right, right?

Well you could objectively do it with time. I have a feeling such things won't be necessary.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:04 AM

Don't you agree what ever is wrong with capitalism, does not prove communism right?

I've already addressed you on this point before... I don't think there is any need to repeat myself.


How does someone measure 'equal access to production'? I want to be sure I get my equal access to production. I want to make sure no one has more production than I have, because that would not be right, right?

Well you could objectively do it with time. I have a feeling such things won't be necessary.
But wait? You repeated yourself again by using what is wrong with capitialism to prove communism right.

"Well you could objectively do it with time. I have a feeling such things won't be necessary."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I have no idea what this means. Can someone who speaks english please translate?

[NovelGentry]

But wait? You repeated yourself again by using what is wrong with capitialism to prove communism right.

Well no, I really didn't say that it made communism "right" -- they're certainly different.

This thread, if I'm nost mistaken, is about private property and what it is in communist theory. Well in communist theory private property is something that only exists in capitalism. So in order to set the ground for what private property is in communist theory, one has to look at it within the context of capitalism and not only what it does so directly, but also indirectly.

If you'd like to know what private property is in communism without the context of any previous system, the very simple answer is: it isn't.


I have no idea what this means. Can someone who speaks english please translate?

You may learn English (capital E) one day! I would translate it for you, but unfortunately I don't speak your language.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 04:56 PM

But wait? You repeated yourself again by using what is wrong with capitialism to prove communism right.

Well no, I really didn't say that it made communism "right" -- they're certainly different.

This thread, if I'm nost mistaken, is about private property and what it is in communist theory. Well in communist theory private property is something that only exists in capitalism. So in order to set the ground for what private property is in communist theory, one has to look at it within the context of capitalism and not only what it does so directly, but also indirectly.

If you'd like to know what private property is in communism without the context of any previous system, the very simple answer is: it isn't.


I have no idea what this means. Can someone who speaks english please translate?

You may learn English (capital E) one day! I would translate it for you, but unfortunately I don't speak your language.
If a smart person says big words that no one understands, is that person really smart? Or just faking big words to look smart?

"Well you could objectively do it with time. I have a feeling such things won't be necessary."

So what does that mean?

[NovelGentry]

If a smart person says big words that no one understands, is that person really smart? Or just faking big words to look smart?

"Well you could objectively do it with time. I have a feeling such things won't be necessary."

So what does that mean?

I don't really see what you're getting at here. Do you want me to define every word? I don't really see how the statement can get much simpler. Would you mind pointing out the "big words I'm faking that no one understand"?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:22 AM

If a smart person says big words that no one understands, is that person really smart? Or just faking big words to look smart?

"Well you could objectively do it with time. I have a feeling such things won't be necessary."

So what does that mean?

I don't really see what you're getting at here. Do you want me to define every word? I don't really see how the statement can get much simpler. Would you mind pointing out the "big words I'm faking that no one understand"?
OK does anyone else understand this?

I don't. Can some explain : "Well you could objectively do it with time. I have a feeling such things won't be necessary."

What if I say: the construct of the neo-classicalism says your wrong? Why don't you get it? It is so obvious.

[Jawnnyh]

Listen, under a communistic rule, private proprety is abolished. So yes EVRYTHING is shared (if not it comes back to simple socialism with a monetary system). But since those "private" belongings are accecible to everyone, there is no problem. This is why communism isint making so much progress. Everyone is so attached to their proprety. Everyone is stuck with this capitalist ideas and state of mind. This fear and tension is finaly gone under a communist system and this takes away much theft, violence etc... because there is no point to it.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:36 AM

I don't. Can some explain : "Well you could objectively do it with time. I have a feeling such things won't be necessary."
Objectivism: Philosophy. One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.

In other words, to look at something independant of your own view.

[Jawnnyh]

Ugh i dont understand why the simple meaning of proprety exists. Its so unnatural, noboty can have the right "Own" something because bottom line is it comes from the earth. It is for everyone to share and use. I can see why people will argue that it is the effort done to transpher these materials into a product but still... it just doesent make any sense...

[RedAnarchist]

What on earth is your avatar, Jawnnyh?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:26 PM

Ugh i dont understand why the simple meaning of proprety exists. Its so unnatural, noboty can have the right "Own" something because bottom line is it comes from the earth.
What, do cars grown on trees ? Or do they grow underground like carrots ?


It is for everyone to share and use.

Does that mean your body is for everyone to share and use too ? It did come from the earth after all.


I can see why people will argue that it is the effort done to transpher these materials into a product but still... it just doesent make any sense...

If you own yourself, then you are entitled to whatever you create from the earth, or whatever you agree to trade with what others have created. To say otherwise is to say that you do not own your own labor.

Edit : It looks like a sock-puppet.

[Jawnnyh]

... Yes cars grow on trees... dude your arguments are ridiculous. All im trying to say is that what makes it right to own sumthing over someone else? Even if u did assemble it u still used materials that comes from the earth and therefore it isint (moraly anyways) entirely yours. Sry if i wasent clear on that last post.

And yes its a sock puppet lol. :P

[Professor Moneybags]

All im trying to say is that what makes it right to own sumthing over someone else?

The fact that your labor made it or you traded your labor for it.


Even if u did assemble it u still used materials that comes from the earth and therefore it isint (moraly anyways) entirely yours.

How come ? By what moral standard ?

[comrade_mufasa]

If ones does lets say 90% or more of the work by them selves to create a car then they should have ownership. This would also mean using machines that dont belong to someone else. ex: If I use my friends plasma welder the whole build then he would have to have some ownership in the car becouse the car would not have gotten done with out it.

[Jawnnyh]

Yes but it comes from the earth and you shouldent have ownership of the earth just as ownership of other beings.

[Led Zeppelin]

Private property is the property which is in the hands of a few, or one, person.