Agree or disagree

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'll respect possessions whose private ownership doesn't coerce or force me into taking an action. Otherwise I demand equal status of ownership.

[spice756]

When the revolution comes the state will take your property.And no i don't like private ownership it is bad .

[Dr Mindbender]

When the revolution comes the state will take your property.And no i don't like private ownership it is bad .




It wont take your property, it will take your means of production.

This is probably the most mis-cited concept by communism's opponents.

[Bud Struggle]

I'll respect possessions whose private ownership doesn't coerce or force me into taking an action. Otherwise I demand equal status of ownership.

You can demand (the means of production) all you want, I don't think that it will make much difference. And if you "take action" I am afraid that there will an opposite and much greater reaction by society aimed in your direction.

You'll note in the little drama above--you (the proletarian) are the one initiating the "demands" and the "action"--the force. The (borgeois) factory owner (by way of society) is merely defending what already exists. He is not going out of his way to impose himself on you by force--what gives you the right to impose force on him first?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Nice way to excuse feudal fiefdoms, Tom.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You'll note in the little drama above--you (the proletarian) are the one initiating the "demands" and the "action"--the force. The (bourgeois) factory owner (by way of society) is merely defending what already exists. He is not going out of his way to impose himself on you by force--what gives you the right to impose force on him first?

Not quite; historically speaking anti-bourgeois revolutions have been triggered by bourgeois attempts to suppress a militant proletariat, including a particular attempt to censor an anti-war newspaper in 1917. ;) The proles initiate the demands and some "action" (through the strike mechanism which you, in your "right to work" Orwellianism, despise so much), but to quote you, the "opposite and much greater reaction" forces the proles to take truly extra-legal action.

Also, he himself can't go out of his way to preserve wage labour by force, but has to rely on the military-security apparatus.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Absolute land ownership is an indefensible and incoherent position, Tom. In an anarchist or libertarian society if some rogue capitalist tries to claim ownership over large tracks of land he's going to have a hell of a time paying for a defense agency that can handle the sheer number of people opposed to his claims. The Wal-Marts and Disneys of the world aren't going to reach into our pockets and pay for the state to protect them whenever someone paints Mickey Mouse on their wall, or download the movie "illegally." Or, for a better example, let's say that I "own" a house and I move away for ten years. The house starts to decay. Some family comes in and possesses the house, makes good friends with the neighbors. Then I come back and try to evict the person (or possibly sue them). What's the consequence?

The most likely outcome will be a social anarchist position - co-equal claims, with concessions and agreements.

[Dean]

It wont take your property, it will take your means of production.

This is probably the most mis-cited concept by communism's opponents.

The workers will take it, not the state.

[spice756]

It wont take your property, it will take your means of production.

This is probably the most mis-cited concept by communism's opponents.

In socialism the state owns all property and will provide you a house.In communism the community or group owns all property and will provide you a house.

In capitalism people can only own property if you have money to buy it.But even in capitalism you don't rally own property has you pay city taxes every year.

[JimmyJazz]

*snip some irrelevant stuff about the unlikelihood of communist revolution*

You'll note in the little drama above--you (the proletarian) are the one initiating the "demands" and the "action"--the force. The (borgeois) factory owner (by way of society) is merely defending what already exists. He is not going out of his way to impose himself on you by force--what gives you the right to impose force on him first?

Is there a name for this logical flaw already, or shall we call it "argument from the status quo"?

edit: nevermind, I just remembered it's an "is ought fallacy".

[Bud Struggle]

Is there a name for this logical flaw already, or shall we call it "argument from the status quo"?

edit: nevermind, I just remembered it's an "is ought fallacy".

And what is the name of the fallacy for changing thing for no good reason? :)

[Bud Struggle]

Not quite; historically speaking anti-bourgeois revolutions have been triggered by bourgeois attempts to suppress a militant proletariat, including a particular attempt to censor an anti-war newspaper in 1917. ;) The proles initiate the demands and some "action" (through the strike mechanism which you, in your "right to work" Orwellianism, despise so much), but to quote you, the "opposite and much greater reaction" forces the proles to take truly extra-legal action.

Also, he himself can't go out of his way to preserve wage labour by force, but has to rely on the military-security apparatus.

There's two points here--first you have to understand what a business is: as in my case (like in the case of a lot of mid sized business owners.) There are building with large rooms, various amounts of machinery and tools, raw materials of all sorts and lastly people mulling about. None of these things are the "business" and all can easily be replaced if needed. What the business is is my commitments, my purchases, my payments, my contracts and my agreements.

The business is my handshake--that's the only think that makes the business function from day to day and can't be replaced.

The Second point is I understand what you wrote above--but if I build a business myself, agree with people to work for me at a wage agreed upon by all parties willingly. I buy the raw materials, I invent the means of converting them to the finished product. I make fair and reasonable contracts sith my suppliers and my vendors and force NOTHING on anyone of anything--what right do you (the proletariat) have to force me to do anything?

What right have you to force me to give up my means of production, if I am forcing nothing on anyone? As you mentioned, the borgeoise have done some forcing int the past--but not now.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Oh boy. Tell people living in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that.


but if I build a business myself, agree with people to work for me at a wage agreed upon by all parties willingly. I buy the raw materials, I invent the means of converting them to the finished product. I make fair and reasonable contracts sith my suppliers and my vendors and force NOTHING on anyone of anything--what right do you (the proletariat) have to force me to do anything?
If you force nothing on us, why do you think we'll care?

Now if you take control of the local oil reserves, you expect us to just sit idle and let you profit off of the natural world?

[Bud Struggle]

Now if you take control of the local oil reserves, you expect us to just sit idle and let you profit off of the natural world?


Good point--I do need to be cricumspect about my business. All right I will buy only gas and oil from Citgo owned by the noble citizens of Venezuela. Or the duely elelcted leadership of Russia for that matter--surely the elected president there represents the interest of the Russian people--and who am I to say if they don't. That's up to the Russians, isn't it?

But really, you can also say that the oil is there for us all--I'll drill and use what I need. And you can drill and use all that you need. Fair?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

But really, you can also say that the oil is there for us all--I'll drill and use what I need. And you can drill and use all that you need. Fair?

That's the whole purpose of a workers' council. It would be very inconvenient for our property to mimic cell reproduction every time someone came up and requested oil.

[Bud Struggle]

That's the whole purpose of a workers' council. It would be very inconvenient for our property to mimic cell reproduction every time someone came up and requested oil.

But your worker's council would be only one way to mimic cell reproduction. Another would be me using (my many times mentioned on this Fora) charm to organize a group of guys, one that has a degree in engineering and another with some knowledge of refining and a couple of others to drill and refine the oil we ALL OWN in the ground.

You are free to do the same with the oil we all own.

I guess the way I would do my cell reproduction--would be more like Cancer. :lol::lol::lol:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Another would be me using (my many times mentioned on this Fora) charm to organize a group of guys, one that has a degree in engineering and another with some knowledge of refining and a couple of others to drill and refine the oil we ALL OWN in the ground.

You are free to do the same with the oil we all own.

This isn't even logical. If two people own a reserve they can't act independently unless both agree.

[Bud Struggle]

This isn't even logical. If two people own a reserve they can't act independently unless both agree.

You miss point. We own no reserve. You or me--I just can organize a systemized use for a resource we all own in common. We all own it, we all can drill for it and refine it. I just have a consortium of people that can actually make it happen--and you don't.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You miss point. We own no reserve. You or me--I just can organize a systemized use for a resource we all own in common. We all own it, we all can drill for it and refine it. I just have a consortium of people that can actually make it happen--and you don't.

This sounds like a juvenile anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, no offense. The number of drills that can occupy a given region are limited, and one of us could monopolize on a large enough portion of oil.

[Bud Struggle]

This sounds like a juvenile anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, no offense. The number of drills that can occupy a given region are limited, and one of us could monopolize on a large enough portion of oil.

I'm no arachno-capitalist (joke) but there is a point about "first come first serve."

What if we all start out even--and then some of us are better at utilizing our common resources than others?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There is no such thing as starting even.


but there is a point about "first come first serve."

Most of the time.

[mikelepore]

I build a business myself, agree with people to work for me

Strange juxtaposition.

I'm going to do this task all by myself! Now, let's see how much I need to pay someone so that I can go sit down while they do it for me....

[BobKKKindle$]

And if you "take action" I am afraid that there will an opposite and much greater reaction by society aimed in your direction.By society? The vast majority of human beings do not own any part of the means of production, especially in the developing world, and currently endure terrible poverty because we live under an economic system where the driving force behind all economic activity is generating profit for those who are lucky enough to own, at the expense of meeting human needs. Given this situation, why would 'society' be opposed to the abolition of private property, which is the root cause of so much despair and hardship? Why, if everyone apparently wants to preserve private property, did the Russian proletariat offer such enthusiastic support for the Bolsheviks in 1917, who always stated that they would take control of the economy and place major enterprises under state ownership if they took power?


You'll note in the little drama above--you (the proletarian) are the one initiating the "demands" and the "action"--the force.

This is questionable, given the violence which occurs every day under capitalism due to the imperialist wars, and the historical acts of violence which allowed capitalism to develop, in the form of enclosure acts which provided a large labour force for British industrialists by forcing peasants to migrate to urban areas. But, even assuming this is true and the workers are initiating force, why does this matter? Why should communists be bound by abstract moral principles if forcing the bourgeoisie to surrender their property allows us to solve hunger and homelessness?

All your talk of "rights" obscures what capitalism is really about: the exploitation of the working class, and the unjust allocation of rewards through private property. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie will have their property taken away by the state, they will be deprived of the right to vote, and if they try to do anything about it, the state will do whatever is necessary to protect the revolution against the threat of reaction, regardless of what bourgeois philosophers think is acceptable. Or, as Mao said:

"Every Communist must grasp the truth, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"

"Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p 224.

[Dr Mindbender]

In socialism the state owns all property and will provide you a house.In communism the community or group owns all property and will provide you a house.

In capitalism people can only own property if you have money to buy it.But even in capitalism you don't rally own property has you pay city taxes every year.

say for example if you build a house yourself, with purely your own labour then that house becoming your own property should remain so under capitalism or communism. I'm not sure why any leftist should have a problem with this pillar concept.

A house in its own right does not produce anything and is not a means of production therefore the state or workers have no remit to seize it since it does not exploit others.

What capitalism does differently that is wrong is to legitimise the material conditions that that lead to the co-ersion of expropriation of labour, turning others into menial labourers at the behest of controllers of vass sum of capital (via the private ownership of the workplaces).

[Green Dragon]

A house in its own right does not produce anything and is not a means of production therefore the state or workers have no remit to seize it since it does not exploit others.



Ahhh! But it does. The house has to be built and constructed. Does your desire to move to a different house impact upon housebuilders and those looking for their first house? Of course it does.

[Green Dragon]

Or, for a better example, let's say that I "own" a house and I move away for ten years. The house starts to decay. Some family comes in and possesses the house, makes good friends with the neighbors. Then I come back and try to evict the person (or possibly sue them). What's the consequence?



There is a possibility that the squatters get the house. It would depend upon a lot of circumstances of the actions of the owners.
Of course, this type of situation would have to be resolved in a socialist system as well. Can people move into empty houses and make nice with the neigbors, and have their action protector? What if the owner of the house is indisposed for whatever reason.

[Green Dragon]

It wont take your property, it will take your means of production.

This is probably the most mis-cited concept by communism's opponents.


A small and inconsequential distinction. Since the community owns the means of production, it has the authority to determine whether you need a particular item. And thus whether they will produce it for you.

As a practical consequence, it means that your possessions are yours simply becaused the community has permitted you to have them. So while there may be a piece of paper saying you "own" your television, the real world result is that you "own" it only because the community says you can own it.

[Ratatosk]

I'll respect possessions whose private ownership doesn't coerce or force me into taking an action. Otherwise I demand equal status of ownership.What does that mean? Counting something as "coercion" or "forcing" you into taking an action already entails an implicit standard of freedom, so as a criterion it doesn't really stand on its own.

You can argue that each and everything "corces you into taking an action" if you leave "coercion" sufficiently vague.

no i don't like private ownership it is bad.lol

[Dr Mindbender]

Ahhh! But it does. The house has to be built and constructed. Does your desire to move to a different house impact upon housebuilders and those looking for their first house? Of course it does.
What housebuilders? I am referring specifically to self sustinance.

As for your question, certainly not in my case. If i had the material means to construct my own home tomorrow, the only one affected would be my already abundantly well off land-lord.

I dont see how there could be any repercussions to anyone outside the equation.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A small and inconsequential distinction. Since the community owns the means of production, it has the authority to determine whether you need a particular item. And thus whether they will produce it for you.

As a practical consequence, it means that your possessions are yours simply becaused the community has permitted you to have them. So while there may be a piece of paper saying you "own" your television, the real world result is that you "own" it only because the community says you can own it.

Hullo. What's this - another capitalist not acquainted with reality? I thought only Baconator could be quantified as such.

Your possessions are only yours because people don't force them from you. That's how all systems exist - capitalism, socialism, communism, feudalism. Not even your person is secure if the strongest force available decides so.

[Baconator]

Hullo. What's this - another capitalist not acquainted with reality? I thought only Baconator could be quantified as such.

Your possessions are only yours because people don't force them from you. That's how all systems exist - capitalism, socialism, communism, feudalism. Not even your person is secure if the strongest force available decides so.



Easy there tiger. Learn your is from ought and cut out the sophistry.:D

[trivas7]

It wont take your property, it will take your means of production.

This is probably the most mis-cited concept by communism's opponents.
Good point. This is pertenent to the distinction that USSR lawmakers made between private and personal property.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Easy there tiger. Learn your is from ought and cut out the sophistry.:D

Learn something called reality and stop arguing about something that exists in utopia. Until we create a self-serving matrix that can reflect on everyone's desire to rule reality, that fact isn't going to disappear.

[Green Dragon]

What housebuilders? I am referring specifically to self sustinance.

Not in the note I cited.





As for your question, certainly not in my case. If i had the material means to construct my own home tomorrow, the only one affected would be my already abundantly well off land-lord.

I dont see how there could be any repercussions to anyone outside the equation.


For most people, even in a socialist community, that is not a "realistic" scenario.
So they are stuck with somebody else having to build it for them. Can a person get a new house yearly? No.

[Dr Mindbender]

For most people, even in a socialist community, that is not a "realistic" scenario.
So they are stuck with somebody else having to build it for them. Can a person get a new house yearly? No.

the stick that capitalists often like to hit us revolutionaries with, is that anyone has the freedom to become a big CEO under capitalism regardless of how humble their origin.

Yet the reality is that for the most part, it is not a ''realistic scenario'' either.

I think you need to check out your own semantic backyard before you reproach us on ours.

BTW i may be fairly ignorant about architecture but i'm quietly confident that it is not always necessary to hire labour to construct a house. Especially in the third world where people are less abashed about using more primitive materials and construction methods.

I had a friend in England who acquired an uninhabitable property and thanks purely to his own carpentry skills was able to turn it into a respectable 5 bedroom abode - no hired help required.

The same argument could be said about the rags to riches anecdotes that cappies have such power wanks over.

[Self-Owner]

I'll respect possessions whose private ownership doesn't coerce or force me into taking an action.


Given that that's effectively all of them, welcome to anarcho-capitalism!

[Green Dragon]

the stick that capitalists often like to hit us revolutionaries with, is that anyone has the freedom to become a big CEO under capitalism regardless of how humble their origin.

Yet the reality is that for the most part, it is not a ''realistic scenario'' either.

I think you need to check out your own semantic backyard before you reproach us on ours.

BTW i may be fairly ignorant about architecture but i'm quietly confident that it is not always necessary to hire labour to construct a house. Especially in the third world where people are less abashed about using more primitive materials and construction methods.

I had a friend in England who acquired an uninhabitable property and thanks purely to his own carpentry skills was able to turn it into a respectable 5 bedroom abode - no hired help required.

The same argument could be said about the rags to riches anecdotes that cappies have such power wanks over.

Your carpenter friend built his house in a capitalist system.
The point is simply that very few people have the skills or interest or time to build a house singlehandedly. There is no reason to suppose that will magically change.
The reason why the distiction between "private" and "public" production that socialists seek to make really is not that great. The personal property exists only because the community permits it.

[RGacky3]

I'll respect possessions whose private ownership doesn't coerce or force me into taking an action. Otherwise I demand equal status of ownership.



Thats reasonable, if no coercion is nessesary then you don't need any laws, if you don't need any laws you don't have the property laws, in that case its just a dude with stuff, and theres nothing wrong with that, whats wrong is when possession turns into legal ownership that restricts the needs of other people and forces them to submit to the owner, i.e. tyranny, i.e. Capitalism.

That type of possession is a given, theres no argument needed.

[Dr Mindbender]

Your carpenter friend built his house in a capitalist system.
so what? He didnt require any other external labour so i mantain my point.


The point is simply that very few people have the skills or interest or time to build a house singlehandedly. There is no reason to suppose that will magically change.
The same can be said for the field of managerial capitalism and it's relationship with the general population.

The difference is, the big businessman wears an almighty halo despite his complete lack of material contribution to the species- under communism the role of a carpenter would not be held in greater or less regard than an engineer, doctor or mechanic. Via technocracy people could pursue their own interests and talents to the greatest degree, without being co-erced down the line of menial wage slavery resulting in skill stagnation.



The reason why the distiction between "private" and "public" production that socialists seek to make really is not that great. The personal property exists only because the community permits it.
currently the mentality and social outlook of communities are the product of the material conditioning of the day. The community tolerates it because of ignorance; they have never known anything else and take it for granted that the prominent voices of the day are right.

[Green Dragon]

I'll respect possessions whose private ownership doesn't coerce or force me into taking an action. Otherwise I demand equal status of ownership.






Somebody, somewhere had to make the computer I use... or the clothes I wear...or the food I eat.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Ulster Socialist;1249657]so what? He didnt require any other external labour so i mantain my point.


Sure he did. He needed somebody to produce the wood for the frame, wires for the electricity, pipes for the plumbing ect.'

[pusher robot]

I'll respect possessions whose private ownership doesn't coerce or force me into taking an action. Otherwise I demand equal status of ownership.




Well, then, I shall I decline to respect your bodily autonomy, since the presence of your faces coerces me into the cessation of my fist-swinging activities?

I hope you realize the logical consequences of using such an absurdly broad definition of coercion.

[RGacky3]

Well, then, I shall I decline to respect your bodily autonomy, since the presence of your faces coerces me into the cessation of my fist-swinging activities?


You don't need to punch a guy in the face to live a comfortable life.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It's kind of funny, because taken to its extreme you could argue that my original statement was absurd, but Pusher still manages to fold on a point. :laugh:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Somebody, somewhere had to make the computer I use... or the clothes I wear...or the food I eat.

Thank you for the irrelevant remark, GD.

[Green Dragon]

Thank you for the irrelevant remark, GD.

Well, you brought the concept up. Maybe somebody will make willingly and with great pleasure make you a sofa, so you can enjoy your leisure time at his or her expense.
But I would tend to doubt relying upon such utopian visions for the satisfaction of all your needs and wants, for all of the time.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, then, I shall I decline to respect your bodily autonomy, since the presence of your faces coerces me into the cessation of my fist-swinging activities?

I hope you realize the logical consequences of using such an absurdly broad definition of coercion.
Witness how the libertarian mind works: Someone says, "X is coercion," and the libertarian responds with "no, X cannot be coercion, since it would be absurd to try to remove X from human society."

The flaw in that line of thinking, of course, is that it rests on a really big, unstated and undefended assumption: "Coercion is the greatest evil and must be at least minimized if not eliminated altogether." So if something looks like it's good, then it can't be coercion, because in the libertarian mind all coercion is by definition bad.

If someone forces you to respect my bodily autonomy, Pusher, that is indeed coercion. And in this case, coercion is a good thing. Notice also that something which is coercion for you is at the same time freedom for me. This is how freedom and coercion are linked in very many circumstances. The greater the coercion upon the slave, the greater the freedom of the master. The freest man imaginable is a supreme dictator of the whole planet.

[pusher robot]

Witness how the libertarian mind works: Someone says, "X is coercion," and the libertarian responds with "no, X cannot be coercion, since it would be absurd to try to remove X from human society."

The flaw in that line of thinking, of course, is that it rests on a really big, unstated and undefended assumption: "Coercion is the greatest evil and must be at least minimized if not eliminated altogether." So if something looks like it's good, then it can't be coercion, because in the libertarian mind all coercion is by definition bad.

If someone forces you to respect my bodily autonomy, Pusher, that is indeed coercion. And in this case, coercion is a good thing. Notice also that something which is coercion for you is at the same time freedom for me. This is how freedom and coercion are linked in very many circumstances. The greater the coercion upon the slave, the greater the freedom of the master. The freest man imaginable is a supreme dictator of the whole planet.

You're participating in an entirely different argument. Libertarians do, in fact, recognize, c.f. Hobbes, that some limited amount of coercion is indeed necessary for maximum civil liberty. In fact, it is Genecosta who is taking the absurd position that you ascribe to me, stating that he refuses to recognize any rights that require any coercion upon him - even, apparently, "good" coercion. Hence my satirical question.

So why don't you take up your argument with him.

EDIT:

You know, I just wanted to add that this:


The flaw in that line of thinking, of course, is that it rests on a really big, unstated and undefended assumption: "Coercion is the greatest evil and must be at least minimized if not eliminated altogether." So if something looks like it's good, then it can't be coercion, because in the libertarian mind all coercion is by definition bad.is so ridiculously ignorant of what libertarians think that any opinion you might have about "libertarians" should be completely and totally discounted.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Actually, I neither said nor implied such a thing. I realize my original response could have slightly indicated as much, but I was more or less criticizing Tom's reasoning.

In fact I had been given this statement from a "neo-"Objectivist. :cool: While not totally libertarians (if you take Ayn Rand's use of the word), they're pretty damn close. I posted it prematurely to see what people's opinions were. After thinking about it more, I adjusted the phrase (as you can see in my signature) to fit the goals of libertarian socialism. The "neo-"Objectivist I was talking with tried to defend the case that Rand's vision of capitalism is the only system that completely erases coercion because it utilizes the state to defend natural rights.

Assumptions.

[Bud Struggle]

but I was more or less criticizing Tom's reasoning.


A good half the posts in OI sometimes seem to be criticizisms "Tom's reasoning."

:lol:

[Dean]

Well, then, I shall I decline to respect your bodily autonomy, since the presence of your faces coerces me into the cessation of my fist-swinging activities?

I hope you realize the logical consequences of using such an absurdly broad definition of coercion.

This isn't really accurate. Coercion is not always some distinct concept; it involes the action of one limiting that of another. Unfortuantely, as we are materially - bound creatures, our powers are irrevocably tied up in the existence of the same material reality - that is, my right to be in X spot is wholly dependent on someone else right and actions there. There is no clear distinction here, but there are some basic rules we can live by to try to insure a fairly decent and egalitarian system of rights.

There are a lot of relationships, specifically exclusory property relationships, which definitely involve coercion. The power a capitalist has over material required by humans for life is a case in point: if material reality demands that I live on someone elses property, and the person enacts stipulations for that tenancy, then the relationship is markedly coercive.

Coercion, as a psychologically defined relationship, is ultimately hard to grasp in its entirety.