Comrades, I require help arguing

[Robespierre2.0]

I'm arguing with a bunch of capitalists on a facebook 'drug war' group. So far, I've had them on their heels, giving them Cuba as an example of socialist democracy and highlighting the obvious inequities of the capitalist system. However, this guy made some wierd-ass reply trying to argue that there is no difference between personal and private property. I don't really know what he's getting at, and therefore I don't know how to argue against him. He also made some dumbass comment about Castro being a dictator without backing anything up, which I'll be able to tear apart easily, but the first part specifically is where he has me a bit confused. Could anyone help me pick apart his argument?

I've pasted it below-

"[INSERT MY NAME HERE], anything can be used to create wealth. I have an axe, it doesn't matter if you want to call it my posession or my property (they mean the same thing despite your attempt to pretend they do not). I take this axe and I chop down a tree and carve it into an axe handle. This now has worth to the smith who hammers out steel. Together through equitable trade we create an axe...wealth creation.

It doesn't matter if we create these side by side or a machine stamps and carves them out and assembles them. The system is the same.

Private property is the only means of maintaining liberty that exists because you fail to consider that all a government is is a monopoly of force. If you worry because corrupt people seek to have power over others and use business as their method you must be naive to think they would not seek to have ultimate power over others via an unchallenged system of government backed by unrestrained force.

It is sad that someone can actually believes that Castro isn't a dictator. It shows just how naive you are in that you seek to examine business for corruption but one lie of someone in government has you lapping their palm for affection. He has a puppet cabinet that meets once a year to retroactively approve everything he does. Can you find one time within history that they haven't approved a measure of his? You can't because they haven't. If your allegiance to socialism blinds you so much to the evils and horrors of this system that you can't see the obvious lies then you are going to remain relegated to obscurity and ridicule. Which is honestly where you belong until you can take off your ideological blinders."

Help me win one for the people, comrades!

[RedAnarchist]

Why is this in OI?

[Dr Mindbender]

better yet, why dont you invite the afformentioned 'cappie' to revleft OI so we can all have a piece of him?

[Lynx]

There is private property, personal property and also a right to privacy.
For example, a tenant has a right to privacy while not being the owner of the premises.

Using an axe to chop down a tree to create wealth for yourself is one thing. Charging someone else for the use of your axe is another. From ownership of an axe to ownership of the trees and the entire means of production, one quickly arrives at a situation where the 'owners' no longer have to do the work.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:10 pm
There is private property, personal property and also a right to privacy.
For example, a tenant has a right to privacy while not being the owner of the premises.

Using an axe to chop down a tree to create wealth for yourself is one thing. Charging someone else for the use of your axe is another. From ownership of an axe to ownership of the trees and the entire means of production, one quickly arrives at a situation where the 'owners' no longer have to do the work.

Using an axe to chop down a tree to create wealth for yourself is one thing. Charging someone else for the use of your axe is another.

This may be what the opponent debater was getting at. If it's the case that you are unable to even prevent other people from coming along and taking your axe to use for whatever purpose they see fit, leaving you axe-less, then you can't really be said to own it in any meaningful sense.

[Robespierre2.0]

Why is this in OI?

This seemed like the best place to post this kind of question. After all, the guy's pro-capitalist, and therefore adhering to an opposing ideology.


better yet, why dont you invite the afformentioned 'cappie' to revleft OI so we can all have a piece of him?

Because I want to win the argument...
Also, because I don't want to say, "I find your language confusing and therefore am unable to answer your question. Please come to Revleft so my fellow communists can give you a marxist gangbanging."

[Lynx]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 03:57 pm
This may be what the opponent debater was getting at. If it's the case that you are unable to even prevent other people from coming along and taking your axe to use for whatever purpose they see fit, leaving you axe-less, then you can't really be said to own it in any meaningful sense.
They would only take away your axe or force you to share it if axes were in short supply. How much of what you would consider as personal-use property is in short supply?

The inverse of this relates to the load factor argument.

The means of production need to be in short supply or otherwise not obtainable because of insufficient capital.

[Robespierre2.0]

Actually, upon further thought, maybe I should have asked where the disctinction between personal and private property actually lies.

Technically, the guy is right, in that individuals can create wealth (in this case, another axe) using their own axe and metalsmithing equipment.

I also know that in our capitalist society, it's not feasible for one to be able to live off of product of their own labour making axes using the above tools- A capitalist tool company with machines and a system of mass production could easily put them out of business and force the individual producers to either join the toiling masses or starve to death.

What is the distinction between individual posessions that can be used to create small amounts of wealth and the machines (factories, offices, private property etc.) that can be used to mass produce commodities?

[pusher robot]

They would only take away your axe or force you to share it if axes were in short supply.


Who is "they?" And most importantly, who decides?


How much of what you would consider as personal-use property is in short supply?

Uh...lots? Diamonds spring to mind. Clear-grain oak wood. Teak. Helium. Ceramic cutlery. Ultra-portable convertible tablet computers. 1976 Dodge Chargers. Anything remotely rare or expensive to construct.

[mikelepore]

In a capitalist system, the industries are legally classified as private property. However, the whole society relies on the industries for survival and regular use, so it's almost like classifying the atmosphere and the oceans as private property.

Something like one's household items are genuinely personal belongings. They have no importance to any other members of society.

[Great Helmsman]

I too have found that capitalists have a lot of difficulty understanding the difference between private and personal property.

[Ol' Dirty]

"[INSERT MY NAME HERE], anything can be used to create wealth. I have an axe, it doesn't matter if you want to call it my posession or my property (they mean the same thing despite your attempt to pretend they do not). I take this axe and I chop down a tree and carve it into an axe handle. This now has worth to the smith who hammers out steel. Together through equitable trade we create an axe...wealth creation.

It doesn't matter if we create these side by side or a machine stamps and carves them out and assembles them. The system is the same.

Private property is the only means of maintaining liberty that exists because you fail to consider that all a government is is a monopoly of force. If you worry because corrupt people seek to have power over others and use business as their method you must be naive to think they would not seek to have ultimate power over others via an unchallenged system of government backed by unrestrained force."

This could countered in many ways: during the first sentence, they say that 'anything can be used to create wealth.' That point is really ambiguos: does he mean that any tool can be used to create wealth, or does he mean that anything can be used to create wealth? If he's using the former, he really needs to drop the defininate qualifier, because that's almost impossible to back up. Can soap make wealth? :huh:

Assuming he's talking about the means of production -tools, machines, yadda yadda- would, under a capitalistic economic system, be called private property/capital -other than state-owned industries-. Under a socialistic economic system, though it would be considered public property. Under either system, goods used for personal consumption -food, clothes, ornaments, or whatever- is -suprize, surprize-considered personal property. So, at least from my understanding of Marxist economics -however limited it may be :D - there is a difference between private and personal property.

Secondly, most socialists don't advocate 'an unchallenged system of government backed by unrestrained force.' Most believe in some sort of democratic body, representitive, direct or otherwise, in some form.

To be honest, though, Fidel is a dictator. The country hasn't had a new official president since the revolution, and he's got his brother acting as president now, which is obviously nepotism. Cuba is definately not totalitarian -though it is comparitively authoritarian,- but Fidel is still a dictator, and Cuba is essentialy a one-party state.

[Robespierre2.0]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:27 am

To be honest, though, Fidel is a dictator. The country hasn't had a new official president since the revolution, and he's got his brother acting as president now, which is obviously nepotism. Cuba is definately not totalitarian -though it is comparitively authoritarian,- but Fidel is still a dictator, and Cuba is essentialy a one-party state.
Fidel was voted president of Cuba. Term limits are undemocratic, anyway. If the people want to keep re-electing the same person, why stop them? Also, multiparty elections are a joke- you know the CIA is always going to bankroll the neoliberal parties.

[MT5678]

In the case of Cua, you probably know what you are doing, but look at this.
http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/democracy.htm
http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/cuba/qanda.html

It has a colloquial tone, but it just says in smaller words what the ZNet articles say in bigger words. Cubans are active in labor unions, voting for "worker's parliaments" that consult with the state to make sure that workers aren't screwed over.

Cuba has exemplified the fact that if you stay away from neoliberal capitalist hell, you will develop far better than Friedman said you would. Cuba has a model healthcare system, free internet, great education, very few detainees (all of whom have been tried!), hardly any inflation or unemployment, and more!

The democracy could use a little work, but its better than the elitist bipartisan consensus in the United States.

[Robespierre2.0]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:56 am

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/democracy.htm
http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/cuba/qanda.html

Thanks for the sources, comrade!
I've been putting the Cuba: Issues & Answers site to good use, but the more sources the better.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 06:47 pm
Who is "they?" And most importantly, who decides?
A communist system would expropriate them, based on the need to free up the means of production.


Uh...lots? Diamonds spring to mind. Clear-grain oak wood. Teak. Helium. Ceramic cutlery. Ultra-portable convertible tablet computers. 1976 Dodge Chargers. Anything remotely rare or expensive to construct.
They are not means of production. Resources like (industrial) diamonds, oak wood, teak, and helium would only be a concern if you owned an insanely large inventory.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 06:47 pm
Who is "they?" And most importantly, who decides?
A communist system would expropriate them, based on the need to free up the means of production.


Well that's so wonderfully vague that there's really nothing to argue there.


They are not means of production.

Of course not, since the question you asked was,
How much of what you would consider as personal-use property is in short supply? So I give an answer, and you argue against it by saying that it's personal use, not means of production. What the hell point are you trying to make?

Whatever it is, it's probably non-responsive to the OP's question anyways. Since I can construct a legitimate scenario wherein any of those things are necessary to produce some kind of good or service, it would appear that they in fact can be means of production as the OP's opponent claimed. You have not provided an explanation as to why that is not so.

[Jazzratt]

I always understood that after the revolution we allow the workers to own the means of production. If it something small like an axe it's fine for an individual worker to own and use it, it's only if they try to make profits or coerce others into using the axe for them that we run into problems. Larger scale things (like factories, schools and lumber mills) would be run by the various syndicates and collectives with input from the non-technical sphere.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 26, 2007 10:34 pm
Actually, upon further thought, maybe I should have asked where the disctinction between personal and private property actually lies.

Technically, the guy is right, in that individuals can create wealth (in this case, another axe) using their own axe and metalsmithing equipment.

I also know that in our capitalist society, it's not feasible for one to be able to live off of product of their own labour making axes using the above tools- A capitalist tool company with machines and a system of mass production could easily put them out of business and force the individual producers to either join the toiling masses or starve to death.

What is the distinction between individual posessions that can be used to create small amounts of wealth and the machines (factories, offices, private property etc.) that can be used to mass produce commodities?
he ask frerquently question that consider that all people are bad whitch is not truth,and he make mistake arguing about property telling that there is no difference beetwen private and personal mixing toothbrush and firm,classic capitalistic dilema :D

[pusher robot]

If it something small like an axe it's fine for an individual worker to own and use it, it's only if they try to make profits or coerce others into using the axe for them that we run into problems.

Let me see if I understand this. Suppose I own an axe and use it to cut up firewood to keep my home nice and toasty. My neighbor, a carpenter, comes and tells me he wants to use my axe to cut down some wood for his carpentry. Are you saying it's okay if I say, "no, go to hell, it's my personal property and I want it to keep warm," but it's NOT okay if I say, "I'll let you use it, but only if you build me a shed in the back first."

You should be able to see that in the first scenario, society is worse off, but in the second scenario, overall wealth has increased. Yet you seem to believe the second scenario is worse than the first.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 27, 2007 03:18 pm

If it something small like an axe it's fine for an individual worker to own and use it, it's only if they try to make profits or coerce others into using the axe for them that we run into problems.

Let me see if I understand this. Suppose I own an axe and use it to cut up firewood to keep my home nice and toasty. My neighbor, a carpenter, comes and tells me he wants to use my axe to cut down some wood for his carpentry. Are you saying it's okay if I say, "no, go to hell, it's my personal property and I want it to keep warm," but it's NOT okay if I say, "I'll let you use it, but only if you build me a shed in the back first."

You should be able to see that in the first scenario, society is worse off, but in the second scenario, overall wealth has increased. Yet you seem to believe the second scenario is worse than the first.
That depends entirely on whether the carpenter agrees to build the shed for you. And, of course, if getting the axe from you is the only way he can get an axe - if that's the case then neither option is really acceptable (if you tell him to bugger off he's left axeless and if you make him build a shed you're unfairly using your possession to force him into work he needn't do.).

[pusher robot]

That depends entirely on whether the carpenter agrees to build the shed for you.

Are you saying that voluntariness is important? This is a shocking concession!


And, of course, if getting the axe from you is the only way he can get an axe - if that's the case then neither option is really acceptable

Then I raise the point again - if your possession of a given thing is contingent on nobody else being able to use it more productively than you happen to be, you can't be said to "own" it in any meaningful way. You "own" it as much as you "own" the seat you occupy on the bus - which is to say, not at all.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by pusher robot+November 27, 2007 03:00 am--> (pusher robot @ November 27, 2007 03:00 am)

pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 06:47 pm
Who is "they?" And most importantly, who decides?
A communist system would expropriate them, based on the need to free up the means of production.


Well that's so wonderfully vague that there's really nothing to argue there.


They are not means of production.

Of course not, since the question you asked was,
How much of what you would consider as personal-use property is in short supply? So I give an answer, and you argue against it by saying that it's personal use, not means of production. What the hell point are you trying to make?

Whatever it is, it's probably non-responsive to the OP's question anyways. Since I can construct a legitimate scenario wherein any of those things are necessary to produce some kind of good or service, it would appear that they in fact can be means of production as the OP's opponent claimed. You have not provided an explanation as to why that is not so. [/b]
I apologize, I should have merged the question with "used as means of production"

There is no need to seize means of production, such as an axe, that are widely available. Things that are widely available don't provide any great exploitative potential to those who own them.

There is a load factor argument that can be used to insist that items be shared, but that might be more a technocratic argument than a communist one.