Possessions and Property:

[wtfm8lol]

Possessions are "personal" things one owns, whereas property is "impersonal". Where, exactly, is the line splitting the two?

[Demogorgon]

The standard definition is that property is immovable. In other words a house is property, a car a possession.

I guess I would also add that capital, even of the movable variety is property.

See the difference between Real Property and Personal Property.

[wtfm8lol]

What I'm asking, and I apologize for being unclear, is which parts of everything I own would be confiscated by the state or my neighbors. I am under the impression that possessions will remain mine whereas property will be taken from me, and I would like to know how the distinction is made.

[RedCeltic]

This is a common misconception of Marx’s ideas of abolishing private property. What the primary concern here is landlordism and ownership of industry. During Marx’s time he observed large masses of people being forced off lands they had worked for generations due to only being tenant farmers, only to end up in overcrowded cities, again renting property and working in factories where the fruits of their labor were property of the factory owner.

Anthropologically, you could take a look at hunter gatherer societies, past and present to get a clear picture of the concept of property held in common. (the Kung! For example)

In addition, Engels had pointed out domestic labor and how in the hunter gatherer groups, domestic labor was done in benefit of the whole group, and therefore a valuable contribution to society, while under private property, domestic labor had no value in society (produces no capital.) Therefore starts the whole cycle of the subjugation of women.

A good book to read that will help you understand this concept is “Origins of Family, Private Property and the State” By Engels Full text can be found online:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...amily/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm)

Oh, and don’t worry, nobody wants your private possessions hehe… even the hunter gatherers had that.

[wtfm8lol]

I don't even almost have the time to read that book. I just want to know what of mine will be taken from me and what I'll be allowed to keep.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:31 pm
I don't even almost have the time to read that book. I just want to know what of mine will be taken from me and what I'll be allowed to keep.
I suppose that depends on how many factories and steel mills you own.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:31 pm
I don't even almost have the time to read that book. I just want to know what of mine will be taken from me and what I'll be allowed to keep.
Well you can at least rest easy in that I doubt anyone wants your brain

[RGacky3]

You can't make a clear cut distinction, let me put it to you this way, Personal Computers in the first world would pretty much be a possession, its your's you use it for personal good, you don't use it to exploit others, you having it is'nt withholding something important from someone else. However in a much poorer society, say where there is one or 2 computers for the whole community, perhaps that would be considered property, as one would charge for its use, and it would be important for the rest of the community as far as communication goes and things of that sort, so perhaps in that instance that would need to be communal property.

People have this misconception of the concept of property like people will ask "Under a communist society do you get your own toothbrush?" Of coarse, no one wants your toothbrush, your toothbrush is'nt stopping other people from brushing their teeth, you arn't having other people brush your teeth for you, the most problem a toothbrush can cause is if someone uses it before you, and you think its nasty.

[RedCeltic]

However in a much poorer society, say where there is one or 2 computers for the whole community, perhaps that would be considered property, as one would charge for its use, and it would be important for the rest of the community as far as communication goes and things of that sort, so perhaps in that instance that would need to be communal property.

That's a damn' good point! You explained it much better than I did.

In addition, the notion that one would be forced out of their home, or worse… forced to share it with a group of strangers is silly. In the United States anyway, there are numerous abandoned properties, that remain abandoned due to the notion of “private property.” Meanwhile there are less homeless people than there is available land and abandoned structures. I suppose people from former East Germany could relate, seeing that many homes and buildings remain abandoned because they are waiting for some person or family that owned it prior to the second world war come and claim them.

This is just an example of how wasteful private property really is. Socialists don’t want to waste resources in such a manner. As I see it, the only thing that would affect the individual middle class home owner, is inheritance. Now, if mom and dad pass away, and they have a son or daughter living with them, nobody would kick them out into the street! But if the home becomes vacant, there’s no point in the kids who already have homes to fight over who gets it, nor for it to lay dormant.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:03 pm
You can't make a clear cut distinction, let me put it to you this way, Personal Computers in the first world would pretty much be a possession, its your's you use it for personal good, you don't use it to exploit others, you having it is'nt withholding something important from someone else. However in a much poorer society, say where there is one or 2 computers for the whole community, perhaps that would be considered property, as one would charge for its use, and it would be important for the rest of the community as far as communication goes and things of that sort, so perhaps in that instance that would need to be communal property.

People have this misconception of the concept of property like people will ask "Under a communist society do you get your own toothbrush?" Of coarse, no one wants your toothbrush, your toothbrush is'nt stopping other people from brushing their teeth, you arn't having other people brush your teeth for you, the most problem a toothbrush can cause is if someone uses it before you, and you think its nasty.
Of course, if the community was truly poor and only had one or two toothbrushes... well then.

But I think the answer demonstrates that there is no real distinction between the two. It would be subject to whatever the majority wishes it to be, by standards whatever the majority so dictates.

[wtfm8lol]

I suppose that depends on how many factories and steel mills you own.

None.


Well you can at least rest easy in that I doubt anyone wants your brain

I wouldn't be so sure of that.


You can't make a clear cut distinction, let me put it to you this way, Personal Computers in the first world would pretty much be a possession, its your's you use it for personal good, you don't use it to exploit others, you having it is'nt withholding something important from someone else. However in a much poorer society, say where there is one or 2 computers for the whole community, perhaps that would be considered property, as one would charge for its use, and it would be important for the rest of the community as far as communication goes and things of that sort, so perhaps in that instance that would need to be communal property.

At what point does it switch over to being communal property? Technically, as long as there are a limited number of computers and that number is less than the total number of people, me having one stops someone else from having one.

[RGacky3]

At what point does it switch over to being communal property? Technically, as long as there are a limited number of computers and that number is less than the total number of people, me having one stops someone else from having one.

Thats what Democracy is all about, if its not clear cut (which I'm sure most of the time it will be), the Community will decide, if he needs a computer for something perhaps the community will decide that maybe one or two computers will be communal, perhaps all of them, perhaps its not such a big deal and the guy can do without a computer for a while, again it all depends. I'm not (and I believe I can speak for most Socialists when I say this) in the business of making clear cut black and white standards, and try and plan out a Society, the Utoptians tried this long ago. I work with principles, situations will be different in different areas.


Of course, if the community was truly poor and only had one or two toothbrushes... well then.

If the COmmunity only had one or two toothbrushes, if they were THAT desporately poor, (which I'm sure will not be the case), well then its better that they all share it than if one guy owned the one or two and no one else could use it, unless they paid him.

[RNK]

It depends on what you have.

If you live in an urban neighbourhood in an average-sized apartment, nothing would be taken from you.

If you live in a gigantic mansion-estate, and have several acres of land, and numerous expensive cars, etc... then I'd guess that your property would be taken, appropriated to society as a whole, and during the administrative process a decision would be made on what your property should accomodate, be it more housing, or factories, etc.

Generally, if you don't have very much, not very much will be taken. If you're a rich fuck with lots of property and capital, then more will be taken. ;)

[RedCeltic]

If the COmmunity only had one or two toothbrushes, if they were THAT desporately poor, (which I'm sure will not be the case), well then its better that they all share it than if one guy owned the one or two and no one else could use it, unless they paid him.

You guys do realize how silly this toothbrush thing is right? :lol:

Did the toothbrush factory burn down or something? :rolleyes:

Seriously, the big difference in the production of goods under a planned economy vs. capitalism is that while there is much waste in capitalism due to over production since goods are only produced by what is most profitable... a planned economy produces what is needed.

Therefore, it is unlikely people would be sharing toothbrushes.

[Pilar]

First of all, Real Property is the land and what is attached to it.

Personal Property is everything that is not Real Property.

Technically speaking (using California Property law), your home IS also your possession. In fact, the courts even use the expression, "Mr. and Mrs. Smith have a possessory interest in the estate."

The main question, from my point of view, is whether an individual's ownership of something interfers with each person's enjoyment of life.

We know that if someone owns a steel mill, their ownership controls others. It shall be the state's, and therefore the community's steel mill.

When it comes to whether that "special" thing you own would become state property, again the answer is a lot easier than you may think. Here's where I disagree with the "There are only 50 computers in the community, so they're community property."

What really matters is what one can do with the computers. If the society has no real technology available to the computer, who cares? You may be the only person with an ancient tool collection. If you can't build with them, no one needs them, so keep them for all they're worth. If you've collected snuff boxes of the 18th Century, some here on the board will tag you as a negative infulence on society, as it would be evidence you are clinging to the aristocracy. (I wouldn't but there are those who would.) Re: the snuff boxes, they would only be valuable to a museum (presuming you didn't use them for snuff), and let's say you didn't want to turn them over.

This is the REAL problem I think you're dwelling on" when does something intimate to you that makes you laugh, cry, remember, become of interest to the State.

Good question.

No one here has any kind of answer. You might as well ask how many buttons what post Revolutionary army guard will have, or whether the White House will be used for political or touring purposes. Anyone who says they know the answer to this one has a crystal ball.

[wtfm8lol]

I love how whenever I ask a specific question that's crucial to the operation of your society you give the old "we don't know, we just assume it will end up working out" answer

[RGacky3]

I just told you how it would work out, I just gave you some criterea, if your asking specifically how it will be specifically done, that would be like me asking you exactly what walmart will do over the next 10 years. Your answer would be something along the lines of "well it would work in accordince with Supply and Demand, meaning it will work in accordince with what the consumer wants and what can afford them a large profit, in competition with other companies, and so on and so forth," obviously you don't know the specific conditions so you can't comment on them, you can only comment on the principles of Capitalism. Its the same with us Socialists, we can talk about principles, and general concepts and how they would be applied, but we cannot talk about specifics and make things black and white because thats impossible, the world does'nt work that way.


You guys do realize how silly this toothbrush thing is right?

Did the toothbrush factory burn down or something?

RedCeltic, your right it is rediculous, but Capitalists expect us to explain away stupid things that will never happen, so we have to oblige them. I find it funny how Capitalists always talk about Socialism being good on theory but bad in practise, but when they talk about Capitalism, its always the theory part, its always compleatly philisophical, but in practise ... well just look. Whereas Socialists (anarchists especailly) go through great pains to explain things practically and give examples of past societies that worked according to these principles, but yet they still say we have our heads in the sky ... yet seeing how they cling to ideologies that so far arnt working, yet saying that they must work because of the Capitalist theories of supply and demand and so on, it seams like their heads are in the sky.

[yippie666]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:52 pm
The standard definition is that property is immovable. In other words a house is property, a car a possession.

I guess I would also add that capital, even of the movable variety is property.

See the difference between Real Property and Personal Property.
where dose a trailor fit in??? hahaha....i made a funny:P

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:36 pm

If the COmmunity only had one or two toothbrushes, if they were THAT desporately poor, (which I'm sure will not be the case), well then its better that they all share it than if one guy owned the one or two and no one else could use it, unless they paid him.

You guys do realize how silly this toothbrush thing is right? :lol:

Did the toothbrush factory burn down or something? :rolleyes:

Seriously, the big difference in the production of goods under a planned economy vs. capitalism is that while there is much waste in capitalism due to over production since goods are only produced by what is most profitable... a planned economy produces what is needed.

Therefore, it is unlikely people would be sharing toothbrushes.

Since profit can only accrue if consumers wish the product produced, production for profit and production for need are the same thing.

The question originally asked was pertaining between distinguishing between possessions and property. Rgacky summed it up quite nicely when he admitted that the real principle involved is whatever commands majority support. The distiction between the two, so painfully attempted to be made, does not in fact exist. So the real conclusion is that ALL property and possession are subject to seizure by the socialist community, providing that the decision to do so commands majority support of the population.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 02:58 am
I just told you how it would work out, I just gave you some criterea, if your asking specifically how it will be specifically done, that would be like me asking you exactly what walmart will do over the next 10 years. Your answer would be something along the lines of "well it would work in accordince with Supply and Demand, meaning it will work in accordince with what the consumer wants and what can afford them a large profit, in competition with other companies, and so on and so forth," obviously you don't know the specific conditions so you can't comment on them, you can only comment on the principles of Capitalism. Its the same with us Socialists, we can talk about principles, and general concepts and how they would be applied, but we cannot talk about specifics and make things black and white because thats impossible, the world does'nt work that way.



At least it is a principle. No, nobody can say what Wal-Mart will be doing in March 2017. And nobody is asking what a socialist department store will do in March 2027.

But the only principles the socialists have (thus far) enumerated to give us a clue as to what that socialist department store might be doing in 2027 , have been along the lines of "It all depends." Obviosly it doesn't, because it is highly doubtful that that department store will seek to conduct its operations along the lines that wal-Mart would. THAT is what is being asked of the socialist

[RedCeltic]

Since profit can only accrue if consumers wish the product produced, production for profit and production for need are the same thing.

Wrong. Production for profit as we see in capitalism, often overproduces many goods. Food for example, often goes to waste in order to keep the prices up. Have you ever gone by a shoe store when they are getting in a new stock and seen what they do with shoes they can't get a rebate on from the wholesaler? They slash them and toss the in the dumpster. This is largely wasteful.

Production for human need as opposed to profit, would not waste resources nor goods in such a way. Shortages of things like toothbrushes is quite unlikely since there is no profit motive to create a demand, thereby driving up the price.

As for possessions being taken by some state or common council... I think you are being too theoretical here and not really taking into account human nature.

People like to have their own things. There's nothing wrong with that. The answer to any sort of shortage of goods is an increased production. Not two people sharing a toothbrush!!!

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:01 am

Since profit can only accrue if consumers wish the product produced, production for profit and production for need are the same thing.

Wrong. Production for profit as we see in capitalism, often overproduces many goods. Food for example, often goes to waste in order to keep the prices up. Have you ever gone by a shoe store when they are getting in a new stock and seen what they do with shoes they can't get a rebate on from the wholesaler? They slash them and toss the in the dumpster. This is largely wasteful.

Production for human need as opposed to profit, would not waste resources nor goods in such a way. Shortages of things like toothbrushes is quite unlikely since there is no profit motive to create a demand, thereby driving up the price.

As for possessions being taken by some state or common council... I think you are being too theoretical here and not really taking into account human nature.

People like to have their own things. There's nothing wrong with that. The answer to any sort of shortage of goods is an increased production. Not two people sharing a toothbrush!!!
What's the demand for plastic? How is plastic allocated between the toothbrush manufacturer and the food storage folks in a socialist community?

What you are doing is looking at only one aspect of production- the final endpoint when the finished good goes to the store. You are forgetting about the processes beforehand. Its easy to see what can be seen. How does the community KNOW to distinguish between allocating sufficient resources to produce toothbrushes over some other needed item?

[RedCeltic]

Plastic is a material which properties break down so slowly that it is questionable as to how much more plastic needs to be made at this point. Much of the plastic needed could be recycled, and we do that even now.

Considering that we are talking about the question of what the difference is between possession and property, it is perfectly understandable why I am talking about end use here. There may be a need in some cases for continual possessing of raw materials. In end use however, if there are 40 people out of 100 without toothbrushes, production would be increased to reflect this deficit.

Put it this way, Say you are part of some revolutionary government and your job is to organize farmers into collective farming. You go to some rural area and find that while some farmers there have modern farming equipment, others are working with oxen, or tilling and harvesting by hand. It would make sense, in organizing the labor collectively to also organize the tools into collective ownership. In such a case, it makes little sense for every farmer to have his/her own tractor, hopper, tiller, harvester, etc.

But, are you going to tell me that if in a village, there is only one reading lamp, while everyone else reads by candle light… that you are going to assign collective use of it? Why not make more lamps?

My point is, that if there is a desire for personal use of something, be it a computer, toothbrush, reading lamp, car or what have you… there is absolutely no reason people could not have such things since we possess the technology to make more of these things.

[wtfm8lol]

There may be a need in some cases for continual possessing of raw materials. In end use however, if there are 40 people out of 100 without toothbrushes, production would be increased to reflect this deficit.

Well, sort of. The commune would take a vote to find out exactly how many toothbrushes it would need, debate whether it really needs them or not, debate the materials these toothbrushes should be made out of, debate who should make them and every other minute detail. meanwhile, everyone's teeth are getting yellower and falling out.


In such a case, it makes little sense for every farmer to have his/her own tractor, hopper, tiller, harvester, etc.

unless, of course, you notice that the farmers who have the modern tools are better farmers and that's why they have the better tools in the first place.


Why not make more lamps?

Well, in a communist society I would assume it's because you're either too busy debating the need for toothbrushes or you're too busy collecting food because the commune didn't assign enough people to food-making duty.


there is absolutely no reason people could not have such things since we possess the technology to make more of these things.

sure there is: the majority of your neighbors don't think you need them.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:03 pm
Plastic is a material which properties break down so slowly that it is questionable as to how much more plastic needs to be made at this point. Much of the plastic needed could be recycled, and we do that even now.

Considering that we are talking about the question of what the difference is between possession and property, it is perfectly understandable why I am talking about end use here. There may be a need in some cases for continual possessing of raw materials. In end use however, if there are 40 people out of 100 without toothbrushes, production would be increased to reflect this deficit.

Put it this way, Say you are part of some revolutionary government and your job is to organize farmers into collective farming. You go to some rural area and find that while some farmers there have modern farming equipment, others are working with oxen, or tilling and harvesting by hand. It would make sense, in organizing the labor collectively to also organize the tools into collective ownership. In such a case, it makes little sense for every farmer to have his/her own tractor, hopper, tiller, harvester, etc.

But, are you going to tell me that if in a village, there is only one reading lamp, while everyone else reads by candle light… that you are going to assign collective use of it? Why not make more lamps?

My point is, that if there is a desire for personal use of something, be it a computer, toothbrush, reading lamp, car or what have you… there is absolutely no reason people could not have such things since we possess the technology to make more of these things.

You are still looking at it from the end point of production, and what is seen as opposed to the middle ground and what is unseen. Reading lamps require metal, plastic, wiring, ect to be built. All these things need to be constructed. How does the community determinbe that the need for electrical wiring for the lamp is greater than the need for the electrical wiring for the TV? Hoepfully, the idea is that an economy would not be so irrational as to have a situation where everyone has one of one thing and not enough of another.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:20 am
You are still looking at it from the end point of production, and what is seen as opposed to the middle ground and what is unseen. Reading lamps require metal, plastic, wiring, ect to be built. All these things need to be constructed. How does the community determinbe that the need for electrical wiring for the lamp is greater than the need for the electrical wiring for the TV? Hoepfully, the idea is that an economy would not be so irrational as to have a situation where everyone has one of one thing and not enough of another.
People can be very smart, and can figure things out.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RGacky3+March 15, 2007 11:24 pm--> (RGacky3 @ March 15, 2007 11:24 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 10:20 am
You are still looking at it from the end point of production, and what is seen as opposed to the middle ground and what is unseen. Reading lamps require metal, plastic, wiring, ect to be built. All these things need to be constructed. How does the community determinbe that the need for electrical wiring for the lamp is greater than the need for the electrical wiring for the TV? Hoepfully, the idea is that an economy would not be so irrational as to have a situation where everyone has one of one thing and not enough of another.
People can be very smart, and can figure things out. [/b]
Certainly people can "figure things out." Capitalists in fact have figured these things out. Critics of capitalism, however, do not like the way capitalists have figured these things out. Unfortunately, the critics of the capitalist have not figured out themselves how to "figure things out." They have also not figured out how their failure to "figure things out" presents a bit of a problem for their theories of what socialism/communism,anarchism (the "revolution") will bring to the world.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:24 am

People can be very smart, and can figure things out.
A majority of the world's population believes in the sky wizard, a good chunk drink the same water they and their animals bathe in, a good chunk routinely kill each other in a cycle of never-ending violence over conflicts thousands of years old. Even in the United States, people routinely cut their arms off, make themselves sick, eat themselves to death, drive slow in the left lane, enjoy listening to shitty music, and root for the Los Angeles Lakers.

So don't hold your breath that people are smart enough to make your candyland fantasy come true anytime soon.

[Red Tung]

So don't hold your breath that people are smart enough to make your candyland fantasy come true anytime soon.

True, but they would be forced to make a choice for a different type of system after a catastrophic system collapse in which wheel-barrows of cash would be needed to buy a loaf of bread. In a situation like that things could be very dynamic. Perhaps another dark ages is what people need to finally wake them up to the unsustainability of the system they're living in. The Rome of empires past was rich and powerful, but it's decline and collapse took more than a day.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+March 16, 2007 11:09 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ March 16, 2007 11:09 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 04:24 am

People can be very smart, and can figure things out.
A majority of the world's population believes in the sky wizard, a good chunk drink the same water they and their animals bathe in, a good chunk routinely kill each other in a cycle of never-ending violence over conflicts thousands of years old. Even in the United States, people routinely cut their arms off, make themselves sick, eat themselves to death, drive slow in the left lane, enjoy listening to shitty music, and root for the Los Angeles Lakers.

So don't hold your breath that people are smart enough to make your candyland fantasy come true anytime soon. [/b]
So pretty much your saying that because people are stupid in General (both rich and poor from the Capitalist and Working class) we should give the power and control of wealth to the few idiots? Why not make it democratic?

You'd be suprised how many intelligent working class people there are, intelligence is'nt dominated by the upper class, niether should social decision making.

[freakazoid]

True, but they would be forced to make a choice for a different type of system after a catastrophic system collapse in which wheel-barrows of cash would be needed to buy a loaf of bread. In a situation like that things could be very dynamic. Perhaps another dark ages is what people need to finally wake them up to the unsustainability of the system they're living in. The Rome of empires past was rich and powerful, but it's decline and collapse took more than a day.


True. Look at how the depression had made some people wake up, and that was nothing compared to what I believe is coming, and fast.

[wtfm8lol]

I still haven't been told what types of things will be taken away from me after your glorious worker's revolution.

[RNK]

Positions of authority in companies and corporations (if you are a manager or executive or something similar you will be removed as your workplace adopts collective organization. If you are the owner of a business or factory or corporation, your business/factory/corporation will be confiscated by the people and the same collective organization will be adopted). Your property (if you own any houses -- real estate will be democratically reformed so that some single rich fuck doesn't live in a gigantic 5 bedroom house while a 10-member family lives in a single bedroom house. It will be organized so that families and individuals will leave in what they need). Large sums of capital (though usually not -- you'll simply be heavily taxed. When society is restructured so that all have equal rights to aquire society's commodities, your money will be meaningless). Intellectual property, patents, and other "rights to monopolize an invented or discovered technology", or however you want to put it. Not much else.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[wtfm8lol]

Not much else.

This list can't be complete, as you've at least forgotten that my children will be taken away.

[RGacky3]

Your children will be taken away? Why? Are you high?


I still haven't been told what types of things will be taken away from me after your glorious worker's revolution.

I don't think anything will be taken away from you, I doubt it. If you legally own a factory, us Socialists would probably consider that ownership illigitimate and that it belongs to those who work it, so that would'nt be taken away from you, rather given to those who work it, but don't worry no ones going to go in your house and start taking stuff.

[wtfm8lol]

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

according to your beloved manifesto, my children will be raised socially and not by me.



I don't think anything will be taken away from you, I doubt it. If you legally own a factory, us Socialists would probably consider that ownership illigitimate and that it belongs to those who work it, so that would'nt be taken away from you, rather given to those who work it, but don't worry no ones going to go in your house and start taking stuff

How does that make sense? It's not taken away from me, but it is originally mine and it ends up in the hands of some mob. And no, they may not go into my house and take stuff, but if I put the effort into making my house nice and big, the entire thing will be taken away from me apparently.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:28 pm
according to your beloved manifesto, my children will be raised socially and not by me.


How does that make sense? It's not taken away from me, but it is originally mine and it ends up in the hands of some mob. And no, they may not go into my house and take stuff, but if I put the effort into making my house nice and big, the entire thing will be taken away from me apparently.
First of all I'm not a Marxist, nor have I ever claimed to support Marx's theory. Alos if you read it a little better and took into context what Marx was talking about, he was talking about the Capitalization of the Family, not actually taking children away from their parents.

For your second Statement. Let me make an example if there is a King rulling over a land, if the peasants revolt and take over the land they have been working for Generations is that stealing? Sure the King legally owned it, but most people would'nt consider the Kings ownership legitimate (at least right now), so the question is do you have a right to it, technically Kim Jong Ill is the head of State of North Korea legally, but if the people revolted are they taking away something that is his? Technically yes, but if I don't think his being head of State is Morally legitimate they no, they are taking something that is theirs and that Kim Jong Ill has stolen.

If you made your house, and put time into making it nice and big, I don't see why people would take it away, unless of coarse your having a hosue is somehow causing poverty for other people, which I don't see how it could.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RGacky3+March 17, 2007 03:08 pm--> (RGacky3 @ March 17, 2007 03:08 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:09 am

[email protected] 16, 2007 04:24 am

People can be very smart, and can figure things out.
A majority of the world's population believes in the sky wizard, a good chunk drink the same water they and their animals bathe in, a good chunk routinely kill each other in a cycle of never-ending violence over conflicts thousands of years old. Even in the United States, people routinely cut their arms off, make themselves sick, eat themselves to death, drive slow in the left lane, enjoy listening to shitty music, and root for the Los Angeles Lakers.

So don't hold your breath that people are smart enough to make your candyland fantasy come true anytime soon.
So pretty much your saying that because people are stupid in General (both rich and poor from the Capitalist and Working class) we should give the power and control of wealth to the few idiots? Why not make it democratic?

You'd be suprised how many intelligent working class people there are, intelligence is'nt dominated by the upper class, niether should social decision making. [/b]
Smart in doing what? intelligence to what purpose?

Socialism says that as a result of its victory, the lives of humanity will be improved, or at the very minimum, the opportunity for people to improve their lives will be far greater than what exists under capitalism. That is what the end game is, what all their theories about capitalism, what all their internal disputes, is all about.

So it would seem appropriate for the socialists to actually PROVE that socialism will result in the bettering of humanity. Indeed, its the entire foundation of socialism.

If socialists cannot prove that people will be better off as a result of socialism, then socialism cannot be. It is that simple. All the talk about the "ruling classes," all the theories of "wage slavery," all of it, is disproven. Being asked by "cappies" how socialism will allocate resources more efficiently than capitalism is not some idle problem or some small detail that people can "figure out" at a later date- its the entire foundation of socialism. Nothing else can stand if socialism is unable to "figure out" how to allocate resources more efficiently than capitalism.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:34 pm

If you made your house, and put time into making it nice and big, I don't see why people would take it away, unless of coarse your having a hosue is somehow causing poverty for other people, which I don't see how it could.
"Cappies" would agree that one man's wealth is not the cause of another man's poverty. But obviously socialists dissagree. Indeed, a note in this very thread talks about taking approvingly about socialism taking away private homes. So one ought to suspend the incredulity that critics of socialism could believe that socialism could possibly target personal possession.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 19, 2007 11:14 pm--> (ZX3 @ March 19, 2007 11:14 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 02:34 pm

If you made your house, and put time into making it nice and big, I don't see why people would take it away, unless of coarse your having a hosue is somehow causing poverty for other people, which I don't see how it could.
"Cappies" would agree that one man's wealth is not the cause of another man's poverty. But obviously socialists dissagree. Indeed, a note in this very thread talks about taking approvingly about socialism taking away private homes. So one ought to suspend the incredulity that critics of socialism could believe that socialism could possibly target personal possession. [/b]
First of all, Socialism is'nt a 'Thing' its a word to describe a wide range of ideas, that pretty much have in common the idea that people have a right to what they produce.

As to needing to Proove Socialism, I'll do it right now.
People work in their own interest? Correct
If Production was held communally if would work to the Communities interest? Correct
If Production was help Privately it would work to Private Interests? Correct

Does Democracy Benefit Citizens in a state more than a Dictatorship? Yes, Why?
Because in a Democracy the people making the decisions are the ones the decisions impact. Same concept for Socialism.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RGacky3+March 19, 2007 11:13 pm--> (RGacky3 @ March 19, 2007 11:13 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:14 pm

[email protected] 18, 2007 02:34 pm

If you made your house, and put time into making it nice and big, I don't see why people would take it away, unless of coarse your having a hosue is somehow causing poverty for other people, which I don't see how it could.
"Cappies" would agree that one man's wealth is not the cause of another man's poverty. But obviously socialists dissagree. Indeed, a note in this very thread talks about taking approvingly about socialism taking away private homes. So one ought to suspend the incredulity that critics of socialism could believe that socialism could possibly target personal possession.
First of all, Socialism is'nt a 'Thing' its a word to describe a wide range of ideas, that pretty much have in common the idea that people have a right to what they produce.

As to needing to Proove Socialism, I'll do it right now.
People work in their own interest? Correct
If Production was held communally if would work to the Communities interest? Correct
If Production was help Privately it would work to Private Interests? Correct

Does Democracy Benefit Citizens in a state more than a Dictatorship? Yes, Why?
Because in a Democracy the people making the decisions are the ones the decisions impact. Same concept for Socialism. [/b]
great. the one page the server will not allow me to reply to, and it is the one page when an argument is made on behalf of socialism.

[RNK]

according to your beloved manifesto, my children will be raised socially and not by me.


How in the name of hell did you read that and come to this conclusion?

For one thing, your children are already being raised socially -- it's called the education system. Y'know, that big building where your kids go every weekday for about 7 hours a day? That's called a school.

The Manifesto says nothing about taking your kids away. In actuality the modern education system is a socialist endeavour (although brutalized by capitalism). If you actually took the time to read the entire Manifesto in context you would see that Marx called for children to be educated in these social education systems, instead of in homes by their parents.

So remember, every time you send your kids off to school in the morning, you're sending them to be socially raised by a socialist principle.

Oh, and also, if you live in an apartment building, guess what? You're living out another socialist principle ("communal palaces").


"Cappies" would agree that one man's wealth is not the cause of another man's poverty.

"Cappies" have absolutely no evidence to back this belief up. To the contrary, that is undeniable fact, no matter which way you try to skew it, twist it, angle it, or otherwise butcher it's unavoidable accuracy.

Unless you're going to try to make me believe that everyone can be a billionaire (something even the most right-wing conservatives don't bother trying to claim).

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:56 am

"Cappies" would agree that one man's wealth is not the cause of another man's poverty.

"Cappies" have absolutely no evidence to back this belief up. To the contrary, that is undeniable fact, no matter which way you try to skew it, twist it, angle it, or otherwise butcher it's unavoidable accuracy.

Unless you're going to try to make me believe that everyone can be a billionaire (something even the most right-wing conservatives don't bother trying to claim).
Sure we do. "cappies" are correct when they deny that the economy is perpetually static. Conceiving an economy as perptually static, as socialists seem to do to, is the ONLY way to claim that someone's else's larger slice comes at the expense of someone else's smaller slice. The economy grows, the pie gets larger.

[pusher robot]

"Cappies" have absolutely no evidence to back this belief up.

But over any significant period of time of human history, overall wealth has increased. If any increase in wealth was offset by a corresponding decrease in wealth, then this wouldn't be possible. Instead, there is more wealth in the world than ever before, and at the same time the world average standard of living is higher than ever before.

[RNK]

You're failing to consider the fact that it is only the capital of corporations already in existance, who have already monopolized the pie, which grows. Yes, there is the odd case of some rags-to-riches story, but for the vast percentage, all economic growth (and thus capital growth) belongs to the rich. Since you're so heavy on "proof", here's some:

- Working-class families have had to work, on average, 200 hours more than 10 years ago.
- Rich families work the same.
- Over the past 30 years, lower-income families have been steadily losing their earnings.
- Over the past 30 years, middle-class families have remained unchanged.
- Over the past 30 years, upper-class families are earning more.

Feel free to look up any economic studies that have taken place over the past 5-10 years. They all say this exact same thing. The "pie" is getting bigger only for the upper class. Most people see no increase in their portion of the pie, while lower-class people are seeing their portions of pie diminishing.

This is otherwise known as the elusive "wage gap" or "income disparity" and its fluctuations are quite clearly observable.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:20 pm
- Working-class families have had to work, on average, 200 hours more than 10 years ago.
- Rich families work the same.
- Over the past 30 years, lower-income families have been steadily losing their earnings.
- Over the past 30 years, middle-class families have remained unchanged.
- Over the past 30 years, upper-class families are earning more.
What's so special about 30 years? Why not 50 years, or 100 years?

Over the past 30 years, federal wealth redistribution alone has grown from $180 billion to $1.6 trillion. Correlation? Causation? Make of that what you will.

[Tungsten]

"Cappies" have absolutely no evidence to back this belief up. To the contrary, that is undeniable fact, no matter which way you try to skew it, twist it, angle it, or otherwise butcher it's unavoidable accuracy.Watch this: I build a house- by myself. I'm now richer than someone who hasn't got a house.

Unless you're going to try to make me believe that everyone can be a billionaire (something even the most right-wing conservatives don't bother trying to claim).
How does making a billion throw someone else in poverty? Try to apply the house anology to this. Is the only way of aquring a house to throw someone else out of one? Ridiculous.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 20, 2007 12:35 pm--> (ZX3 @ March 20, 2007 12:35 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:13 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:14 pm

[email protected] 18, 2007 02:34 pm

If you made your house, and put time into making it nice and big, I don't see why people would take it away, unless of coarse your having a hosue is somehow causing poverty for other people, which I don't see how it could.
"Cappies" would agree that one man's wealth is not the cause of another man's poverty. But obviously socialists dissagree. Indeed, a note in this very thread talks about taking approvingly about socialism taking away private homes. So one ought to suspend the incredulity that critics of socialism could believe that socialism could possibly target personal possession.
First of all, Socialism is'nt a 'Thing' its a word to describe a wide range of ideas, that pretty much have in common the idea that people have a right to what they produce.

As to needing to Proove Socialism, I'll do it right now.
People work in their own interest? Correct
If Production was held communally if would work to the Communities interest? Correct
If Production was help Privately it would work to Private Interests? Correct

Does Democracy Benefit Citizens in a state more than a Dictatorship? Yes, Why?
Because in a Democracy the people making the decisions are the ones the decisions impact. Same concept for Socialism.
great. the one page the server will not allow me to reply to, and it is the one page when an argument is made on behalf of socialism. [/b]
What? They won't let you reply? I dont' get it.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 20, 2007 02:13 pm
"Cappies" have absolutely no evidence to back this belief up.

But over any significant period of time of human history, overall wealth has increased. If any increase in wealth was offset by a corresponding decrease in wealth, then this wouldn't be possible. Instead, there is more wealth in the world than ever before, and at the same time the world average standard of living is higher than ever before.
The amount of wealth increasing does'nt mean much really at all if it is'nt benefiting people everyone, infact if the overall wealth is increasing, but the gap in wealth is also increasing that should throw up a red flag (nice pun huh ;) ) that something is wrong with the system.


How does making a billion throw someone else in poverty? Try to apply the house anology to this. Is the only way of aquring a house to throw someone else out of one? Ridiculous.

If you build a house all by yourself, on land that is'nt used by anyone your right, but the fact is it just does'nt work that way. How does someone make a billion, usually its not by himself, generally he has to have some Capital, and then Labor, then he needs the Labor to use the Capital to make products and sell them, or offer a service. Now how is this making other people poor? Well pretty much becaues your using someone elses Labor, someone who has only that to sell, his Labor, what your doing is making a profit of him (Your not giving him the full value of what he produces because they you would'nt make a profit off him) so your pretty much stealing from him. Thus your making billions is done because of some one elses poverty, who has nothing but his labor to sell. Thats what us Socialists call exploitation.

Now if you start your own company, aquire your own Capital that is'nt needed by someone else, and then do all the work and it does pretty well, I don't think a lot of Socialists would have a problem with you doing well with your buisiness.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RGacky3+March 21, 2007 12:15 am--> (RGacky3 @ March 21, 2007 12:15 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:35 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:13 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:14 pm

[email protected] 18, 2007 02:34 pm

If you made your house, and put time into making it nice and big, I don't see why people would take it away, unless of coarse your having a hosue is somehow causing poverty for other people, which I don't see how it could.
"Cappies" would agree that one man's wealth is not the cause of another man's poverty. But obviously socialists dissagree. Indeed, a note in this very thread talks about taking approvingly about socialism taking away private homes. So one ought to suspend the incredulity that critics of socialism could believe that socialism could possibly target personal possession.
First of all, Socialism is'nt a 'Thing' its a word to describe a wide range of ideas, that pretty much have in common the idea that people have a right to what they produce.

As to needing to Proove Socialism, I'll do it right now.
People work in their own interest? Correct
If Production was held communally if would work to the Communities interest? Correct
If Production was help Privately it would work to Private Interests? Correct

Does Democracy Benefit Citizens in a state more than a Dictatorship? Yes, Why?
Because in a Democracy the people making the decisions are the ones the decisions impact. Same concept for Socialism.
great. the one page the server will not allow me to reply to, and it is the one page when an argument is made on behalf of socialism.
What? They won't let you reply? I dont' get it. [/b]
neither do I. can't even do it in the form of a new thread.

But this goes through.

After six times, I surrender.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:08 pm
So pretty much your saying that because people are stupid in General (both rich and poor from the Capitalist and Working class) we should give the power and control of wealth to the few idiots? Why not make it democratic?


For the very same reasons the founding fathers of the United States created the electoral college and the state-elected Senate: the masses don't make good decisions.

A poor person is not necessarily stupid. It doesn't have to do with class. It has to do with the fact that people think government/society can operate based on their opinions.

It can't.

You really want the masses deciding how big your house can be or how much gruel you'll be allotted per month? You want to put that much power in their hands?

You sure?


Look who won the popular vote in the United States in 2004.

I rest my case: other people should have as little say in what you do as possible.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 17, 2007 07:22 pm

So don't hold your breath that people are smart enough to make your candyland fantasy come true anytime soon.

True, but they would be forced to make a choice for a different type of system after a catastrophic system collapse in which wheel-barrows of cash would be needed to buy a loaf of bread.
:o

You agree that people are stupid, but you think it'd be great if they have a chance to pick new leadership during a chaotic situation in which they're panicked.

That worked great in Germany in the 1930s didn't it.

When wheelbarrows full of cash are required to afford basic living necessities, people will pick security over fairness every day of the week.



Let me guess, you are self-deluded enough to assume that when such circumstances manifest themselves, you'll emerge from your marijuana haze, sew on few more cool patches, douse on a little more patchouli oil and lead the people to their salvation?


Good lord. Who needs tv.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 01:39 am

For the very same reasons the founding fathers of the United States created the electoral college and the state-elected Senate: the masses don't make good decisions.

No, they did so because they were aristocrats intending to create a closed loop of power. This is the same reason why they favoured property qualifications to vote.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 23, 2007 01:46 am--> (Demogorgon @ March 23, 2007 01:46 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 01:39 am

For the very same reasons the founding fathers of the United States created the electoral college and the state-elected Senate: the masses don't make good decisions.

No, they did so because they were aristocrats intending to create a closed loop of power. This is the same reason why they favoured property qualifications to vote. [/b]
I'm sure that in the fog that is your head, things are true simply because you've decided they are.

Unless you want to continue posting absurdities, I suggest you figure out that that's not really the case for all of them.

While it's true the founding fathers generally agreed that to have an effective interest in the affairs of the state one should own property, an idea with which I'm sure you disagree, many were in favor of public education for the specific purpose of helping those without property rise up to the propertied class. Many were in favor of an egalitarian, agrarian society that if you read closely practically resembles a commune.

I'll throw you a bone to see if you have even the vaguest knowledge of anything on the topic...there actually was one group, or party, that fostered sentiments much like those you claim they all advocated. They were crushed by Andrew Jackson.

Who were they?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 01:56 am

I'm sure that in the fog that is your head, things are true simply because you've decided they are.

Unless you want to continue posting absurdities, I suggest you figure out that that's not really the case for all of them.

While it's true the founding fathers generally agreed that to have an effective interest in the affairs of the state one should own property, an idea with which I'm sure you disagree, many were in favor of public education for the specific purpose of helping those without property rise up to the propertied class. Many were in favor of an egalitarian, agrarian society that if you read closely practically resembles a commune.

I'll throw you a bone to see if you have even the vaguest knowledge of anything on the topic...there actually was one group, or party, that fostered sentiments much like those you claim they all advocated. They were crushed by Andrew Jackson.

Who were they?
Well you have fairly bought into America's civil religion enthusiastically. Not being American though, I have the luxuary of being able to learn about the circumstances of America's founding without having to trawl through all the sugary romanticism. Calling them "Founding Fathers", sounds like "Uncle Joe" to me. :lol:

The founders were generally followers of the ideas of John Locke, who of course strongly favoured the property qualification. Locke was of course solely concerned with the interests of those with property, I sometimes get the impression he didn't even consider that other people existed in any meaningful sense. After all he wrote "every man has posession of his own self" which is commonly considered to be an anti slavery phrase, yet he made a fortune investing in the British Africa company which of course concerned with slave trading. Further when he wrote the constitution of New Carolina it included very strong defences of slavery. Naturally of course that may have been political expediency. My interpretation of this was that Locke didn't really register the contradiction. Slaves were something different to him, and I suspect he saw the lower classes in the same way. His record certainly shows this, from his participation in government on both sides of the Atlantic.

And his followers were no different. The issue of slavery is a clear example of course. Jefferson wanted to use the British Government's tolerance of slavery as one of the excuses for rebellion and he also very strongly asserted that man had fundamental rights. Trouble was he kept slaves. Was this intentional double standars or was it not even registering with him? Make your own mind up.

At any rate, the founders of America had the Lockian dea that the purpose of government was first and foremost to protect property, other rights came into it as well, but property sat at the forefront. Giving the vote to non property owners would have seemed hilarious to them, they weren't worthy of the vote in their eyes and besides they thought it would violate the property owners rights to have non poperty owners having any say in the government. The rights of non property owners didn't register.

And then of course there was good old political expdiency, give non property owners the vote and they might vote to have a share of the wealth and we can't have that. Worse they might vote for people other than the aristocratic property owners, and that wasn't the idea at all. They hadn't spend considerable effort, wresting power away from the British to give it away to the people!

Another important factor to consider as well, which you have completely missed, was that when the founders were drawing up the constitution, they were seeking inspiation in what had gone before, they weren't to keen to repeat the mistakes of the Articles Of Confederation so they didn't look there too much, they looked across the Atlantic, a lot of influence came from the old Roman Republic, but the real practical influence came from the British constitutional set up. The House Of Representative is clearly modelled on the British House Of Commons, which at the time of course had quite strict property qualifications to vote for or take a seat in it. A arge reason why property qualifications existed in America was that they were just copying what they saw in Britain. It simply seemed the normal thing to do. That is the reason also that the Senate and Presidency were not to be directly elected, they were copying the aristocratic House Of Lords and monarchy.

So to see why property qualifications and unelected elements of power comes from, you really have to look at British history. That stretches a long way back, but suffice to say the basis for these rules was to make sure the ruling classes stayed ruling.

This undemocratic trend continues in both Britain and America to this day, but more so in America. I am sure this sort of thinking is the reason why America is still to introduce basic democratic reforms like proportional representation.

Now that question about Andrew Jackson? Well he was responsible for the defeat of the National Republican party, though whether you could say he crushed them is disputable, they soon morphed into the Whigs after all, and did all right for themselves, though they didn't get the presidency too often. Jackson of course had pretty elitist views himself, and indeed wasn't above a bit of genocide when it came to the native Americans.

One last point, as for your oh so clever point about Germany voting for Hitler, well perhaps my history is hazy, but I don't recall Hitler ever winning a Democratic election, the only one he ran in was the PResidential election of 1932 in which he lost to Hindenburg. The Nazi's did all right in Parliamentary elections peaking at about a third of the votes (and seats) though they were falling back again by the time Hitler became Chancellor. They did win some local elections, perhaps you refer to that. Hitler became Chancellor because of the aristocrat Hindenburg who appointed him Chancellor and then blunderingly signed the Reichstag Fire Degree. Democracy had already broken down in Germany three year earlier though, because of Hindenburg's fatal combination of belief in aristocratic government (where does this keep popping up?) and the fact he was a weak and easily persuaded man. His constant use of Article 48 caused a lot of the trouble.

Now then, have i demonstrated to you I understand the history?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:33 am


Now then, have i demonstrated to you I understand the history?
Not really.

I think you understand a version of history that paints the American founders in the worst possible light by judging them on the moral standards of today, which is preposterous.

Locke and Jefferson profited from the slave trade? Goodness, if that means anything else they did was null and void then should we say the same of Al Gore? He profited and continues to profit off of highly-polluting mining techniques. I guess that means whatever he says about climate change is all lies.

You complain about Jefferson. Was it political calculation or hypocrisy that caused him to own slaves? Well he did try in the Continental Congress to get a law passed abolishing slavery. It didn't pass. He didn't free his slaves when he was alive because it was against Virginia law. Maybe he should have moved and just given up the fight in the Virginia legislature. Ran away like a little *****. Maybe he should have violated the law, gone to jail, and seen his slaves sold to other slave-owners, inevitably breaking apart slave families. Would that decision and their hearbreak have satisfied your 20/20 vision and demand for instant, radical action regardless of the consequences? Maybe he should have freed them in his will as Washington did, except Virginia passed a law prohibiting that practice as well.

Sure, Jefferson, Locke and the rest did what we would consider bad today. But what sense does it make to hold people 200 years dead to the standards of today? None. Instead, it makes sense to look at their whole body of work. You cannot reasonably look at what they accomplished and not give them some credit for doing good. Remember when they did their thing, your homeland probably scoffed at the idea that leaders could be elected at all.

With regards to Hitler, my point is this. The Nazis were winning seats and Hitler had the popularity required for Hindenburg to appoint him because they promised security - economic and otherwise - in a time of chaos. If you don't like that example consider FDR. He too was elected during a time of chaos. Certainly no Hitler, he still promised the security of government-sponsored economic assistance. How do you look at those and other examples from history and come to the conclusion that next time there's economic chaos, hundreds of millions of people are going to listen to a bunch of patchouli-oil soaked teenagers who tell them that if they don't want to work everything will be great, because everyone will share and nobody will be in charge and we can just smoke grass all day while the robots do all the work?

I'm sorry. I just don't see it happening ace.

[Demogorgon]

I think you understand a version of history that paints the American founders in the worst possible light by judging them on the moral standards of today, which is preposterous.No, I simply seek to paint them as they were. Were they bad people? I do not know, I never met them. They were however politicians, aristocratic politicians. Whether it was out of badness, self preservation, or simply not considering an alternative, they did create a system of government specifically designed to keep power in the hands of those who had inherited it during the revolution. And as for judging by modern moral standards? I won't go into a meta-ethical debate, much as I would like to, so I will simply say there were plenty then, who knew slavery to be wrong.

Locke and Jefferson profited from the slave trade? Goodness, if that means anything else they did was null and void then should we say the same of Al Gore? He profited and continues to profit off of highly-polluting mining techniques. I guess that means whatever he says about climate change is all lies.Not at all, I was simply trying to demonstrate to you that they were aristocrats unconcerned with those beneath them. Not even in a cruel way, just an unthinking way. As for Locke and the rest of his work. I am pretty certain that I know it a lot better than you and I can tell you that most of it is rubbish. Some of it is wrong of course simply because he was one of the first philosophers exploring this field and others cleaned it up. But a lot of it is logically invalid because he makes to many pre-suppositions about history and the nature of society that it looks to me he made up to justify his theory.

As for Jefferson, well nothing was stopping him taking his slaves out of the state. Indeed it was found later on that people doing that could lead to all sorts of interesting legal cases.
Remember when they did their thing, your homeland probably scoffed at the idea that leaders could be elected at all.Given Locke was a senior member of the Government of my country, that statement does not make a great deal of sense. At any rate, as I say, the American constitution was largely based on Britain where Governments were already elected (by very limited suferage albeit).

With regards to Hitler, my point is this. The Nazis were winning seats and Hitler had the popularity required for Hindenburg to appoint him because they promised security - economic and otherwise - in a time of chaos. If you don't like that example consider FDR. He too was elected during a time of chaos. Certainly no Hitler, he still promised the security of government-sponsored economic assistance. How do you look at those and other examples from history and come to the conclusion that next time there's economic chaos, hundreds of millions of people are going to listen to a bunch of patchouli-oil soaked teenagers who tell them that if they don't want to work everything will be great, because everyone will share and nobody will be in charge and we can just smoke grass all day while the robots do all the workAgain the Nazi's were losing popularity at the time. But anyway your point that in times of crisis people will vote for leaders who promise them economic security. Remind me, what have Communist parties tradtionally promised at such times? I seem to recall Lenin coming to power under exactly those sort of circumstances.

And drop the insults about teenagers, you are the one to talk about that. You have called yourself a Libertarian, and the internet forums dedicated to that make this one look very grown up and mature. Full of geeky high school students, whose idea of fun is to masturbate to the sex scenes in Atlas Shrugged.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:30 am


Do not delude yourself that you've demonstrated anything to me that I did not already know. You simply repeated your claims from before which earn a big *YAWN*.


And drop the insults about teenagers, you are the one to talk about that. You have called yourself a Libertarian, and the internet forums dedicated to that make this one look very grown up and mature. Full of geeky high school students, whose idea of fun is to masturbate to the sex scenes in Atlas Shrugged.

Indeed, there isn't much difference between you all. "My system would work because I think it would and I'm really smart." is all you have to offer.

If I said I was libertarian, I meant socially.

[Demogorgon]

Do not delude yourself that you've demonstrated anything to me that I did not already know. You simply repeated your claims from before which earn a big *YAWN*.I am glad you know a great deal about this. It will obviously put you in a good position to disprove my original claim, which you have yet to touch, that the American Constitution was written with the intention of preserving power in the hands of the aristocratic ruling class. So far you have painted a nice child friendly picture of "the founding fathers" and then danced around the issue by talking about differing moral standards of the day. Perhaps third time will be the charm.


Indeed, there isn't much difference between you all. "My system would work because I think it would and I'm really smart." is all you have to offerI don't remember ever saying such a thing. I certainly won't take anything on faith, and have disagreed with other leftists here many times when I think they are unrealistic. But on the subject, what, pray tell, do you have to offer? "I'm a big clever Government employee with a twelve year olds repetoire of insults"? It's not much more impressive, is it?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+March 11, 2007 10:24 pm--> (wtfm8lol @ March 11, 2007 10:24 pm) Possessions are "personal" things one owns, whereas property is "impersonal". Where, exactly, is the line splitting the two? [/b]
Property in the capitalist sense is anything which can be used to exploit the labour of those who have nothing else to sell but their labour. Factories, farmland, etc.

wtfm8lol

I still haven't been told what types of things will be taken away from me after your glorious worker's revolution.
Do you own any factories, or own any means of production that utilises the labour of others whom you then pay less than what they make for you? Fairly simple really.

[dbzfanl]

I just read the first post, and I'm answering it:

Possessions have personal value.
Property has monetary value.

[colonelguppy]

monetary value can reflect personal value and vice versa, so where exactly is the line drawn?

[t_wolves_fan]

I am glad you know a great deal about this. It will obviously put you in a good position to disprove my original claim, which you have yet to touch, that the American Constitution was written with the intention of preserving power in the hands of the aristocratic ruling class.

We aren't going to agree on this since you would view anything dealing with property to effect an "aristocratic ruling class". Frankly the Federalists of Alexander Hamilton openly advocated exactly what you say, while egalitarians like Thomas Jefferson or James Madison felt quite differently. Yes, to the latter property ownership was a significant qualification for having a share of power, but not in the interests of sustaining a separate and unattainable "ruling class".

But this is the problem. To you, property is by definition equal to ruling class. To me it isn't and your opinion is absurd. We can't reach an understanding when our base definitions are the same.


So far you have painted a nice child friendly picture of "the founding fathers" and then danced around the issue by talking about differing moral standards of the day. Perhaps third time will be the charm.

Which you reject. I understand why you have to do it. Judge them based on your current moral beliefs and they're awful people. I'd say the same thing if I did as you do. It's absurd, but so be it.


"I'm a big clever Government employee with a twelve year olds repetoire of insults"? It's not much more impressive, is it?

It's called playing to the level of the competition. And blowing off steam.

How should I react towards a bunch of children who keep making the same tired tautological arguments? "Capitalism is slavery because I say it is." You're not much different, ace. You know some history, which is a vast improvement over most of these clowns, but like every other hack you put history into the context of your choice so that it can prove your own point. "Jefferson owned slaves and didn't free them, therefore he was evil". OK, fine. Ignore the fact that he was prohibited by law from freeing them. Ignore the fact that had he attempted to free them he would have broken up several families, causing further suffering. Ignore his repeated attempts to use the political process to abolish slavery. None of that matters to you, does it. If he wasn't radical then he was part of the problem. A = A because you say so.

*yawn*.

[Demogorgon]

We aren't going to agree on this since you would view anything dealing with property to effect an "aristocratic ruling class". Frankly the Federalists of Alexander Hamilton openly advocated exactly what you say, while egalitarians like Thomas Jefferson or James Madison felt quite differently. Yes, to the latter property ownership was a significant qualification for having a share of power, but not in the interests of sustaining a separate and unattainable "ruling class".

But this is the problem. To you, property is by definition equal to ruling class. To me it isn't and your opinion is absurd. We can't reach an understanding when our base definitions are the same.
Why precisely were they determined property would be one of the main qualifications for voting, if not to preserve power in the hands of the property owners? It may of course have seemed simply natural to them as that is how the franchise was determined in Britain, but then again they got rid of other siginificant (and seemingly natural) aspects of the British constitution.

Which you reject. I understand why you have to do it. Judge them based on your current moral beliefs and they're awful people. I'd say the same thing if I did as you do. It's absurd, but so be it.Again, I did not say this. I am not making any judgement on them as people, they were a diverse bunch. I am simply commenting on what they were doing. I doubt many were excluding the lower classes out of plain nastiness, they would have rationalised it well, but nonetheless that is what they were doing.

If you recall this conversation started because you made the absurd statement that is was wisdom on the part of the authors of the constitution that they did not allow for popular eletion of the President or the Senate. Coming back to that point, was that really such a good thing?

At any rate, the American Constitution was two hundred years ago a very progressive document. Obviously within sxty years it ws already reactionary, but for it's time it was indeed progressive, and I think those that wrote it would be pretty radical people if they live today. But as I am not American, and not raised to believe silly stories about how wonderful they were, I do not hve to believe in a fairytale version of the constitutions construction and can comment fairly on what was really going on, and it is simple fact that for all the good that I accept happened, that they were devising a system of Government that was still very much "by the elite, for the elite". They based it on Britain's constitution for heaven's sake.

How should I react towards a bunch of children who keep making the same tired tautological arguments? "Capitalism is slavery because I say it is." You're not much different, ace. You know some history, which is a vast improvement over most of these clowns, but like every other hack you put history into the context of your choice so that it can prove your own point. "Jefferson owned slaves and didn't free them, therefore he was evil". OK, fine. Ignore the fact that he was prohibited by law from freeing them. Ignore the fact that had he attempted to free them he would have broken up several families, causing further suffering. Ignore his repeated attempts to use the political process to abolish slavery. None of that matters to you, does it. If he wasn't radical then he was part of the problem. A = A because you say so.And now you put words in my mouth. Jefferson was a human like the rest of us. He had his faults and he had his positive aspects. I just don't believe in raising him to sainthood, which you seem inclined to do. For somebody so rude about other people's religions, you are fairly devoted to your own.

And as for what are you meant to say? Well perhaps if you said something intelligent you might get intelligent responses. In the other sections (which I understand you can't view?) there are threads containing pretty intelligent discussion indeed. There's a lot of guff too of course, no denying it, but there are smart people here, the fact most of them give this section a wide berth suggests to me that it's not entirely our side providing the poor quality arguments, is it?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 11:12 am
[Why precisely were they determined property would be one of the main qualifications for voting, if not to preserve power in the hands of the property owners? It may of course have seemed simply natural to them as that is how the franchise was determined in Britain, but then again they got rid of other siginificant (and seemingly natural) aspects of the British constitution.
[/quote]
It is not true one needed property to vote at the time. One could have wealth as well. The requirements were very small for both, and virtually any white male (and in many states, including southern states, black males) who had a job was able to meet the criteria for voting.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:31 am

[Why precisely were they determined property would be one of the main qualifications for voting, if not to preserve power in the hands of the property owners? It may of course have seemed simply natural to them as that is how the franchise was determined in Britain, but then again they got rid of other siginificant (and seemingly natural) aspects of the British constitution.

It is not true one needed property to vote at the time. One could have wealth as well. The requirements were very small for both, and virtually any white male (and in many states, including southern states, black males) who had a job was able to meet the criteria for voting. [/quote]
Not at the time of the constitutional convention, though of course some states were more generous than others. It was during the area of "Jacksonian Democracy" (an absurd concept) that most white males really started voting.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+March 23, 2007 01:39 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ March 23, 2007 01:39 am)
[email protected] 17, 2007 08:08 pm
So pretty much your saying that because people are stupid in General (both rich and poor from the Capitalist and Working class) we should give the power and control of wealth to the few idiots? Why not make it democratic?


For the very same reasons the founding fathers of the United States created the electoral college and the state-elected Senate: the masses don't make good decisions.

A poor person is not necessarily stupid. It doesn't have to do with class. It has to do with the fact that people think government/society can operate based on their opinions.

It can't.

You really want the masses deciding how big your house can be or how much gruel you'll be allotted per month? You want to put that much power in their hands?

You sure?


Look who won the popular vote in the United States in 2004.

I rest my case: other people should have as little say in what you do as possible. [/b]
I agree people should have as little to say in what other people do as possible, but waht happens when everyone is involved? should we leave it up to one guy? You pretty much did'nt answer my issue at all. You say the Masses don't make good desicions, so we should leave up desicions that involve the masses to an elite class? Do they make better desicions than the masses? I don't think so.

I don't want the Masses deciding how big my house can be because it does'nt concern them, but niether do I want a few fat cats deciding either.

Capitalism does'nt lead to more individual choice, it gives the choice to the elite, not the individual. Socialism does'nt take it from the elite and give it to the masses, it gives the choices to the individual, and if it concerns the masses, to the masses.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:48 am


[Why precisely were they determined property would be one of the main qualifications for voting, if not to preserve power in the hands of the property owners? It may of course have seemed simply natural to them as that is how the franchise was determined in Britain, but then again they got rid of other siginificant (and seemingly natural) aspects of the British constitution.

It is not true one needed property to vote at the time. One could have wealth as well. The requirements were very small for both, and virtually any white male (and in many states, including southern states, black males) who had a job was able to meet the criteria for voting.
Not at the time of the constitutional convention, though of course some states were more generous than others. It was during the area of "Jacksonian Democracy" (an absurd concept) that most white males really started voting. [/quote]
False. There were, for all practical purposes, little restrictions upon voting, even in 1787.

[Red Tung]

And the whole reason why "fat cats" are "elite" is?

So they are "elite" judging from what criteria? Maybe, instead of regarding fat cats as elite perhaps you should question the criteria that the system allows for fat cats to become elite. The richest man in the world relies on the elite ingenuity of a group of workers to allow him to be "elite", so there is a difference between "elite" and elite, but it's just the nature of the game to allow for the "elite" to rule over everybody including the elite.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:07 am

False. There were, for all practical purposes, little restrictions upon voting, even in 1787.
That simply isn't true. Again of course it varied from state to state. But a great number of people were kept out.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 06, 2007 02:19 am--> (Demogorgon @ April 06, 2007 02:19 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 12:07 am

False. There were, for all practical purposes, little restrictions upon voting, even in 1787.
That simply isn't true. Again of course it varied from state to state. But a great number of people were kept out. [/b]
Since we are limiting the pool to white males, the answer is that there were no real, meaningful restrictions. Black males at the time could vote in most states, although the qualifications were often set higher than for white males.