Private property and workers rights

[The Feral Underclass]

Workers don't have 'rights.' We don't need them either.

The idea of a 'right' implies some kind of institution that is endowed with the authority to give out privileges and securities. What is this authority? It also implies the existence of a permanent strata of humans whose problems and concerns can be mediated by the introduction of some kind of code.

Our historical task is to abolish capitalism, and in so doing abolish ourselves as proletarians. We don't want to codify the existence of the "worker," we want to abolish the worker and smash the social relationship that creates us.

[argeiphontes]

The idea of a 'right' implies some kind of institution that is endowed with the authority to give out privileges and securities.

Not necessarily. That's not how I think of rights. Rights just naturally inhere in you because of certain qualities you have. For example, Peter Singer thinks that animals have a right not to be made to suffer by virtue of the fact that they can suffer. I agree.

I don't think anyone can grant rights, they can only recognize them. So, the rights in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights aren't granted by the U.N. They are natural rights that have been recognized by the U.N. but that people naturally have for other reasons, like just being people.

[The Feral Underclass]

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily.

That's not how I think of rights. Rights just naturally inhere in you because of certain qualities you have. For example, Peter Singer thinks that animals have a right not to be made to suffer by virtue of the fact that they can suffer. I agree.

That is a human construct. You have done nothing but apply your arbitrary standards as a human in a position of authority over an non-human animal.

I don't think anyone can grant rights, they can only recognize them. So, the rights in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights aren't granted by the U.N. They are natural rights that have been recognized by the U.N. but that people naturally have for other reasons, like just being people.

The idea that a right is 'inherent' is an anti-materialist view point and implies the existence of some kind of mystical force. The concept of rights is a human made invention; it is a social construct, and one that is used to legitimate the authority of rulings classes.

[argeiphontes]

The idea that a right is 'inherent' is an anti-materialist view point and implies the existence of some kind of mystical force.

Are you sure? An animal's desire not to suffer looks pretty concrete to me.

The concept of rights is a human made invention; it is a social construct, and one that is used to legitimate the authority of rulings classes.

That's not necessarily true. The concept could be a discovery rather than an invention. You can't say that all rights exist to legitimate some authority? What about the rights that remove authority? Like the woman's right to choose an abortion? Or anyone's right to bodily integrity? Neither of those make you less free as I can see.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

So where do rights come from? What part of material nature obliges people to act in a certain manner towards other people?

The problem with framing the abortion debate in terms of a "right to choose" is that this "right" then becomes relative, competing with other rights (indeed, someone could invent a "right" of the fetus to this and that). It is better to avoid rights and ethics altogether.

[The Feral Underclass]

Are you sure? An animal's desire not to suffer looks pretty concrete to me.

Animals don't have desires.

That's not necessarily true. The concept could be a discovery rather than an invention. You can't say that all rights exist to legitimate some authority? What about the rights that remove authority? Like the woman's right to choose an abortion? Or anyone's right to bodily integrity? Neither of those make you less free as I can see.

You keep operating within the paradigm of 'rights.' There is no such thing as "women's rights," that is a liberal construct. Women don't need 'rights' to determine what to do with their bodies unless we accept the assumption that there is an authority that exists that determines that there are alternating views that need to be codified. The "right" of women to have abortion only exists because patriarchal society is based on the assumption that women don't have control of their body. Women don't need a "right" to know that their bodies are theirs.

[ThatGuy]

It was usually buy yourself out of slavery. However, this generally didn't occur.


You keep going on about choice but a choice between being a slave and death is not a meaningful choice.

But it is a meaningful choice if people tend to choose slavery instead of death. If I was stranded on a desert island with no drinking water, I would make up some god and pray to it, that a ship comes along willing to buy me as a slave. I would prefer other options, but that doesn't mean that they'll magically appear.

How can you? I always side with the slave.

If the slave sold himself voluntarily and then chose to break his contract, he committed fraud. You can help desperate people without violating legitimate contracts.

This is quite ironic considering we've all been telling you that the product of the workers' labour is taken by the capitalist and that the worker is coerced into it while you've been saying it's not a problem.

If private property is a just principle, which I believe it is, the capitalist exchanges remuneration for labour, and the worker is not being coerced into anything. Your whole argument depends on private property not being a legitimate right, without demonstrating that it truly isn't.

[ThatGuy]

So where do rights come from? What part of material nature obliges people to act in a certain manner towards other people?

The problem with framing the abortion debate in terms of a "right to choose" is that this "right" then becomes relative, competing with other rights (indeed, someone could invent a "right" of the fetus to this and that). It is better to avoid rights and ethics altogether.

Nothing obliges anyone to act in any manner towards other people. There is no objective way to prove that rape is wrong, but you can still believe it's wrong and be prepared to defend that belief with force.

But if you avoid rights and ethics altogether, what are you left with? What can you base a claim that something is just or that it isn't on? Might makes right? That is of course what human relations boil down to in the end, but codes of conduct have great power, in that they unify people and allow for greater groups to work together in a coordinated manner. I don't see how you can avoid ethics and still be able to talk about what society should look like.

[Axiomasher]

But it is a meaningful choice if people tend to choose slavery instead of death...

In what sense do you think it is 'meaningful'? Are you suggesting that all choices are of the same order, qualitatively? A choice between slavery or death is no different from a choice between, say, which flavour ice-cream you're gonna have at the movies?

[Axiomasher]

...

If private property is a just principle, which I believe it is, the capitalist exchanges remuneration for labour, and the worker is not being coerced into anything. Your whole argument depends on private property not being a legitimate right, without demonstrating that it truly isn't.

Seriously? You can't see how back-to-front this is? The monopolisers, by virtue of their monopolies, force the remainder to exchange labour for wages. Work for X or starve is a blatantly coercive force by any reasonable standards though I'm seriously doubting your openness to reasonableness tbh.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Nothing obliges anyone to act in any manner towards other people. There is no objective way to prove that rape is wrong, but you can still believe it's wrong and be prepared to defend that belief with force.

Or, one can oppose rape without resorting to frankly degrading "discussion" about whether structural violation of women is "wrong" or "right", to what degree it is wrong etc. etc.

But if you avoid rights and ethics altogether, what are you left with?

Class interest.

What can you base a claim that something is just or that it isn't on?

Nothing. Who cares if something is just?

Might makes right? That is of course what human relations boil down to in the end, but codes of conduct have great power, in that they unify people and allow for greater groups to work together in a coordinated manner. I don't see how you can avoid ethics and still be able to talk about what society should look like.

Again, class interest. And not what it should look like - that's idealism - but what we want it to look like.

That's not even mentioning the inherently bourgeois, racist, misogynist, homophobic and transphobic character of ethics.

[Tim Cornelis]

Or, one can oppose rape without resorting to frankly degrading "discussion" about whether structural violation of women is "wrong" or "right", to what degree it is wrong etc. etc.

How?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

How?

How what? How one can oppose rape? That is a question of tactics. Why one should oppose rape? There is no "why". Rape is part of the class structure of society that is against our interest as proletarians and members of specially oppressed groups. Nothing is going to force someone to look after their interest - but then they shouldn't be surprised when the class-conscious proletariat turns against them.

There are no rights, no wrongs, just struggling social groups. Communists are those who take a stand for one of the groups. Liberals pretend that they are above the struggle and make up "objective" moralities and similar trash.

[Philosophos]

I know it happened, but there are so many other options, that I simply can't see why someone would actually choose slavery. If he'd no longer want to be a slave, and he permanently sold himself into slavery, he wouldn't have a say in it according to my beliefs, true. That's why you DON'T want to be a slave, there's no turning back. However from what I know, when people sold themselves into slavery, they usually kept some of their rights and had a limit on the duration of their servitude, or ways out of it. It's just like with any other contract really. If you sign something you regret later, you're usually screwed, so it's a good idea to really think things through and have a way to opt out of it.

That's the main point about contracts though, you choose to enter them. You can always pretend they simply aren't an option and you can ignore that they even exist.

Well, I could say what you're promoting is oppression just as easily. How can you be free when others have the right to take away from you what you devoted your scarce time on earth to make? How can you be free, when you're coerced into relationships you don't wish to be part of?

you really don't know about slavery do you? Just imagine a boss in your , let's say, office. He does almost anything he wants with you, he makes you feel like shit because he "owns" the right to fire you at any time.

Now let's just imagine a lord that has slaves. He's x100 times a boss and he owns your life, do you really think that you are gonna have any 'rights' or anything close to this?

At the same time I suppose you don't really know that people that 'chose' to become slaves, were forced to because of dept or because they basically had nothing and they couldn't survive. I can't imagine any lords being kind and giving options to people that owed them money just like I can't imagine a good mafiozo that will give you plenty of time to pay back the money that he gave you.

[Tim Cornelis]

How what? How one can oppose rape? That is a question of tactics. Why one should oppose rape? There is no "why". Rape is part of the class structure of society that is against our interest as proletarians and members of specially oppressed groups. Nothing is going to force someone to look after their interest - but then they shouldn't be surprised when the class-conscious proletariat turns against them.

There are no rights, no wrongs, just struggling social groups. Communists are those who take a stand for one of the groups. Liberals pretend that they are above the struggle and make up "objective" moralities and similar trash.

I object to rape because it is horrendous, not because it is in my self-interest, because I'm not a psychopath. By that logic, rape is no longer objectionable when communism exists.

[Per Levy]

For example if I produce a field, isn't that field now exclusively mine forever, since somebody else growing something on my field means I can't use the whole field I've produced and am thus unable to enjoy part of the fruits of my labour?

how can you produce a field? and who gave you the field in the first place?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I object to rape because it is horrendous, not because it is in my self-interest, because I'm not a psychopath.

Alright, but some people find homosexuality to be horrendous. (Quite a few of them in fact.) Basing social policy on feelings is very dangerous.

By that logic, rape is no longer objectionable when communism exists.

When communism exists, rape will not exist.

[Tim Cornelis]

Alright, but some people find homosexuality to be horrendous. (Quite a few of them in fact.) Basing social policy on feelings is very dangerous.

Right. I do not purport that my objection is based on an objective morality, it is empathy-based, which I deem synonymous for morality (and is subjective).

When communism exists, rape will not exist.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, you're wrong. You would not object to rape. Or let's say a cryogenically frozen person, conditioned by class society, awakes in communism and rapes. You would not object.

[The Feral Underclass]

Alright, but some people find homosexuality to be horrendous. (Quite a few of them in fact.) Basing social policy on feelings is very dangerous.

But rape isn't a sexuality. The sexuality of gay people and rape are not comparable.

When communism exists, rape will not exist.

That is a ridiculous statement. Not least of all because you have absolutely no idea what will happen in a communist society.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Right. I do not purport that my objection is based on an objective morality, it is empathy-based, which I deem synonymous for morality (and is subjective).

My point still stands: basing public policy on any sort of subjective attitude or emotion is dangerous, particularly to specially oppressed groups. "Pro-life" fascists are supposedly guided by empathy toward fetuses.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, you're wrong. You would not object to rape. Or let's say a cryogenically frozen person, conditioned by class society, awakes in communism and rapes. You would not object.

But to assume otherwise doesn't make any sense - it would be analogous to assuming that currency and M-C-M' will continue to exist in communism. Rape isn't just physical assault, it's physical assault in conditions of structural oppression of women, young people, sexual minorities etc. If these conditions still persist, communism has not been achieved. If they do not, rape as such is impossible.

Of course, physical assault is still something that we should oppose, and in a communist society, mechanisms will exist to prevent such occurrences. And of course, I do very much abhor rape and other forms of physical assault of innocent people. But my abhorrence is not sufficient to determine the communist attitude toward these phenomena - we need a firmer basis. I would also highly dislike sleeping with my brother, but I don't think that my abhorrence of that needs to be made binding, in fact I think consensual adult incest should not be prosecuted at all, and the participants in such relationships should not be discriminated against.

But rape isn't a sexuality. The sexuality of gay people and rape are not comparable.

I never said that they were. I am merely saying that attempts to base some kind of morality on feelings, even "moral" feelings, are dangerous. They can lead, and historically have led, to the murderous persecution of gay people, of women etc. etc. I mentioned gay people, not because I think gay sex is comparable to rape (if anything, heterosexual sex is much more "suspicious" as far as its relation to rape goes), but because everyone mentions the things that bother them first.

As for the rest, see my reply to TC.