Marxist-Leninist Atheism

Mach said:

Workers do have a say with capital and labor in the U.S. system, and in general in most any capitalistic free market (mixed to some degree in every case) system. See above post, clearly that's false.

If you want to "change the framework" based on such false claims, I don't believe you've actually provided any justification.

Again, you are not typically coerced to purchase land, sell land, or work the land in a largely free society. Likewise you typically enjoy the freedom to purchase land, sell land, work the land, own capital, sell capital, etc. Surely you want to change the system such that what...you no longer have the freedom to do these things? Be specific, stop claiming it's begging the question, I'm pointing out what freedoms and coercion are related to the current system. Why not show where precisely the problems are in the current system, and in turn show precisely how the socialist utopia framework will address them. I promise if you list our sociaist framework I will not mistakenly claim you're begging the question, I really want to see it written out.

And be sure to include taxes in the calculus. I pay probably 35-40% off earnings to the collective, some of which is directly taken from property. Isn't that already an indirect form of collective ownership?

Click to expand...

No they don't have a say with what is done with the capital, or result of their labor in the companies that they create wealth for ...

This whole "freedom" thing ASSUMES that ownership of private land and capital is a given ... it isn't, it isn't a state of nature, you're claim to land ownership is a STATE ENFORCED INSTITUTION, it's coercion in the sense that every one is forced to accept it, it is AS arbitrary as me saying "I am the king of france."

What you're saying is akin to me saying "no one is forced to buy or sell air, or work for someone in exchange for air, so it's a free society," in that statement I'm pre-supposing private air ownership.

RGacky3 said:

No they don't have a say with what is done with the capital, or result of their labor in the companies that they create wealth for ...

Click to expand...

You are making no sense. Which worker is forbidden this? Some are, some are not, it all depends on what they freely exchanged. Do you mean someone who hasn't earned money, can't spend money? That's typically true! Do you oppose that?!
Workers own their own labor. That is precisely what allows them to exchange it in the market place, or not. That most people choose to exchange it, does this bother you? Please explain.

This whole "freedom" thing ASSUMES that ownership of private land and capital is a given ... it isn't, it isn't a state of nature, you're claim to land ownership is a STATE ENFORCED INSTITUTION, it's coercion in the sense that every one is forced to accept it, it is AS arbitrary as me saying "I am the king of france." What you're saying is akin to me saying "no one is forced to buy or sell air, or work for someone in exchange for air, so it's a free society," in that statement I'm pre-supposing private air ownership.

Click to expand...

It's more than natural, it's self-evident. Ownership is complex, but high level it starts with the authority to control something (land, your labor, your house).
If Tim declares: "No one owns the land!"
The premise already accepted for this to be true (authoritative, whatever) is that Tim has the authority to make such a declaration, that is, Tim can decide who can and cannot use the land. Tim is acting as owner, in the very act of declaring that no one owns it. You cannot escape the logic RGacky3.

Freedom implies ownership. If you are not the owner of your own person (your labor, your thoughts, etc.), you would not be able to enforce your own freedom. Surely you are not suggesting we give up our ownership to you because you demand it.

Mach said:

It's more than natural, it's self-evident. Ownership is complex, but high level it starts with the authority to control something (land, your labor, your house).

Click to expand...

In many human societies, private ownership of property was not self evident or "natural". For example, having a monarch own all lands that the serfs worked on was a standard societal arrangement for a good bit of human history. Don't get me wrong, I support capitalism, but its a man made institution, not the magical default for human existence.

Mach said:

You are making no sense. Which worker is forbidden this? Some are, some are not, it all depends on what they freely exchanged. Do you mean someone who hasn't earned money, can't spend money? That's typically true! Do you oppose that?!
Workers own their own labor. That is precisely what allows them to exchange it in the market place, or not. That most people choose to exchange it, does this bother you? Please explain.

Click to expand...

of coarse they can spend the money, but that money is not the result of their labor, most of the result is profits that go to capital holders.

It's more than natural, it's self-evident. Ownership is complex, but high level it starts with the authority to control something (land, your labor, your house).
If Tim declares: "No one owns the land!"
The premise already accepted for this to be true (authoritative, whatever) is that Tim has the authority to make such a declaration, that is, Tim can decide who can and cannot use the land. Tim is acting as owner, in the very act of declaring that no one owns it. You cannot escape the logic RGacky3.

Freedom implies ownership. If you are not the owner of your own person (your labor, your thoughts, etc.), you would not be able to enforce your own freedom. Surely you are not suggesting we give up our ownership to you because you demand it.

Click to expand...

That's nonsense.

By saying "no one owns land" you're saying "No one has EXCLUSIVE access to land and can thus EXLUDE others from that land." Which is akin to saying "No one is king," if you think saying no one owns land is authoritarian then why isn't saying "no one is king" authoritarian as well.

Freedom doesn't imply ownership, also you cannot own yourself because YOU ARE yourself .... its a logical contradiction since ownership is where an subject has exlusive rights to an object, YOU are not an object, you're a subject, i.e. the one doing the owning, it's as illogical as saying that one rapes oneself.

rathi said:

In many human societies, private ownership of property was not self evident or "natural". For example, having a monarch own all lands that the serfs worked on was a standard societal arrangement for a good bit of human history. Don't get me wrong, I support capitalism, but its a man made institution, not the magical default for human existence.

Click to expand...

You just gave an example of s system that also includes people making claims to ownership of land. You're demonstrating the fundamental nature of land ownership. Self-evident also does not mean everyone observes it, nor does it mean everyone is aware of it. Neither of those refute that argument. It's self-evidence in two ways. First, that you must accept that individuals can declare ownership of land which you did above.

The other aspect of why land ownership is fundamental, is how its tied to other freedoms. How are you going to enjoy life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without a place to sleep and put your poessions and raise a family? It's fundamental to those things, whether we like it or not, whether we employ magic or not. Right to life is one of the most fundamental, if you have to use a hierarchy of why it's so important, it appears in all categories. You can't exercise a right to other stuff, without being alive to exercise it...fundamental. You can't have capitalism if you have nowhere to put your loot, it's fundamental.

RGacky3 said:

of coarse they can spend the money, but that money is not the result of their labor, most of the result is profits that go to capital holders.

Click to expand...

Individuals can choose to work or not work. They can choose to exchange that work for money or not. And they own that money in such a free exchange, and they can spend it as they see fit. That includes incorporating, having or not having capital holders, making or not making profit, etc.

The big issue you have is that our system affords individuals greater freedom than your proposed system. It is a super set of your make-believe utopian system. People can engage in exactly the sort of communal ownership in our current system that you claim to really desire to force on everyone else. In your system however, we would NOT be free to enjoy the freedoms we currently have.

You strictly prefer to have people be significantly less economically free that in our mixed, but largely economicly and political free system. Calling it democratic is negative. Individual freedom is far greater in value than democratic freedom.

That's nonsense. By saying "no one owns land" you're saying "No one has EXCLUSIVE access to land and can thus EXLUDE others from that land." Which is akin to saying "No one is king," if you think saying no one owns land is authoritarian then why isn't saying "no one is king" authoritarian as well.

Click to expand...

Saying no one has exclusive access is still exactly a declaration by a person with regards to who has and does not have acccess. You have merely given an example of the current argument, you have not refuted it. If you decalare that I cannot have exclusive access, you appear to believe your right to declare who owns what, trumps mine. A clear example of authoritarian. YOU DO NOT RULE ME.

Freedom doesn't imply ownership, also you cannot own yourself because YOU ARE yourself .... its a logical contradiction since ownership is where an subject has exlusive rights to an object, YOU are not an object, you're a subject, i.e. the one doing the owning, it's as illogical as saying that one rapes oneself.

Click to expand...

Your concept of object and subject is irrelevant, and absurd. Clearly we can establish legal entities that have "ownership", refuting your claim that we cannot.
Freedom implies ownership because if you cannot be free to own food, own shelter, etc., you cannot be free to live, and thus you cannot be free.

This is really basic stuff, no wonder you believe in socialism if you don't understand these things :/

German guy said:

The biggest problem I see with this idea is that it doesn't really reduce the problems, when you replace the medium "money" with the medium "power".

Click to expand...

The only real way to secure liberty is to disseminate power among as many people as possible. Allowing power to concentrate in any hands, and then merely hoping that they won't abuse it, is futile.

German guy said:

Yes. But when you replace it with some kind of hierarchy (and you have to, whenever it comes to collective ownership), you replace money as power with another type of power. That's why I don't think nationalizations are a good idea. Instead of the capitalists exploiting the workers, you'll have corrupt officeholders with authority doing the same.

I sympathize with the idea of balancing and taming free markets, though. Not a friend of laisser-faire capitalism.

Click to expand...

Why would officeholders have the authority to exploit anyone? Why would holding an office entitle someone to a higher amount of legal right or personal power? That's what checks and balances are for. That's what multiple co-equal branches of government are for. That's why no one is above the law, and law not authorizing special privilege for elected officials. Do elected officials in Germany enjoy that level of personal power over the rest of the citizenry? If not, why would you assume that a socialist system, which is explicitly about limiting that sort of personal power, would be prone to that?

RGacky3 said:

Yes there is, if it can be reasonably argues that the economy is democratic and that the workers have a significant say over the capital and what is done with their production it can reasonably called socialist ...

Click to expand...

Indeed. Socialism is really little more than applying democracy to economics as well as government. Instead of relying on democratic government to be a check on an oligarchical economy.

Mach said:

Individuals can choose to work or not work. They can choose to exchange that work for money or not. And they own that money in such a free exchange, and they can spend it as they see fit. That includes incorporating, having or not having capital holders, making or not making profit, etc.

Click to expand...

1. they can choose to work IN THEORY, in reality it's not really a straight choice.
2. You're assuming the primacy of capitalist property laws, i.e. the people controling the capital have exlusive rights over it.

The big issue you have is that our system affords individuals greater freedom than your proposed system. It is a super set of your make-believe utopian system. People can engage in exactly the sort of communal ownership in our current system that you claim to really desire to force on everyone else. In your system however, we would NOT be free to enjoy the freedoms we currently have.

You strictly prefer to have people be significantly less economically free that in our mixed, but largely economicly and political free system. Calling it democratic is negative. Individual freedom is far greater in value than democratic freedom.

Click to expand...

How? You know what makes people MORE free? Having a say over the things that effect their actual life. What would make one more free, working at a place wehre the boss decides EVERYTHING, or working at a place where you have a say ... Now you can say "oh its infinging on the boss' freedom," that is ONLY if you ASSUME absolute capitalist property laws ... something that capitalist apologists cannot seam to understand is arbitrary and not a state of nature.

Saying no one has exclusive access is still exactly a declaration by a person with regards to who has and does not have acccess. You have merely given an example of the current argument, you have not refuted it. If you decalare that I cannot have exclusive access, you appear to believe your right to declare who owns what, trumps mine. A clear example of authoritarian. YOU DO NOT RULE ME.

Click to expand...

This is simply faulty Logic .... "No X has exclusive access to Y" doesn't say ANYTHING about who does or does not have access to Y, all it is saying is that no X can tell any other X that they are not allowed to have access.

I mean you do realize how stupid that sounds.

Me: No one can be the absolute monarch of France
You: You telling me I can't be the absolute monarch of France is a way of RESTRICTING MY FREEDOM, YOU DON'T RULE ME.

That is the EXACT argument you're making.

Infact, you saying "you do not rule me" is (according to your logic) a declaration of what I can and cannot do ... obivous authoritarianism.

I think I've made my point here, saying "no one can exclude other people from pieces of land by force," is an anti-authoritarian principle.

Your concept of object and subject is irrelevant, and absurd. Clearly we can establish legal entities that have "ownership", refuting your claim that we cannot.
Freedom implies ownership because if you cannot be free to own food, own shelter, etc., you cannot be free to live, and thus you cannot be free.
This is really basic stuff, no wonder you believe in socialism if you don't understand these things :/

Click to expand...

No it isn't irrelevant and absured, it's LOGIC.

When you say We can establish, who is "we?"
You don't need "ownershiip" to eat food, use shelter and so on ... people had and did all these things long before Capitalist property laws.