• Communist@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Google is extremely insufficient for this due to the insane level of propaganda on BOTH sides of the issue. The only way to get this information is to read theory from the actual philosophers, IMHO, and that’s asking a lot.

    And that’s not even getting into the terminology you have to learn just to understand the philosophers.

    For example: most people are under the impression that private property is things that normal people own… but that’s not even a little bit what marx means when he says abolish private property, you’ll note, that would be insane.

    • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      So what does he mean by “private property” if he’s not talking about the things normal people own?

      • Communist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Private property used by marxist philosophers refers to property that generates capital. An example would be a factory.

        When marx said abolish private property, what he was really saying is, make it so that factories are owned by the people who work in them, rather than by some rando who has nothing to do with working in them. He was not saying that you shouldn’t have the right to own a toothbrush.

        Your toothbrush, according to marx, would be PERSONAL property.

        • 4L3moNemo@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So, folowing your theory, if … I have a coat - it’s “PERSONAL” property; I wash my coat myself - it’s still “PERSONAL”; I rent my coat - it now becomes “PRIVATE” property; I ask someone to clean my coat for money - it’s “PRIVATE” property (remember I’m still renting it); Somebody wears my coat, whilst gathers mushrooms (uses my coat in process of making value) to sell them latter - it (the coat) is “PRIVATE” property;

          Questions:

          1. Why should we abolish my coat? Wheres logic in that? And how, at the same time, does it magicaly can be mine PERSONAL, mine PRIVATE, and (in sugested future) a collectives property?

          2. I mown someones lawn and they clean my coat (barter exchange) - my coat is PERSONAL or PRIVATE? How does that differ if money involved?

          3. Now change the “coat” into the “factory” (a “garage”, a “hammer”, a “boat”), what’s the diference?

          • Communist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why should we abolish my coat? Wheres logic in that? And how, at the same time, does it magicaly can be mine PERSONAL, mine PRIVATE, and (in sugested future) a collectives property?

            Nobody gives a fuck about your coat, do you honestly think that’s the problem marxists have with private property? that someone might… rent out their coat? that’s not the kind of thing we’re trying to solve here, it’s also something literally nobody does in the real world.

            If you worked in a coat factory, and you make 100 coats a day, how much should you be paid for that? I believe profit is the stolen value of labor, so, the worker should make the value of 100 coats if they make 100 coats, that’s the injustice we’re trying to solve.

            I own someones lawn and they clean my coat (barter exchange) - my coat is PERSONAL or PRIVATE? How does that differ if money involved?

            I’d say that’s personal, if you’re paying them to clean your coat, i’d say they have a coat cleaning business and the coat cloaners should own that business… which it sounds like in this example they already do, so, nothing needs to change.

            Now change the “coat” into the “factory” (a “garage”, a “hammer”, a “boat”), what’s the diference?

            Whether you’re one of the workers or not changes. If it’s a coat factory, you just own the factory, and make money off the stolen labor value, while contributing nothing. In your examples, you actually are contributing, which makes you a worker, and someone who should get the full value of your labor.

          • Moonguide@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not OP and not as educated in leftist theory, but the difference is nobody works inside the coat to produce that value. The purpose of that bit is to ensure one cannot profit from another’s labour by virtue of one owning the means of production, or at least that’s how I’ve always understood it.

            • 4L3moNemo@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Oh, but what if they work in my coat, in my barn, gather my mushrooms for a salary? He (worker/labourer) profits from my coat (it warms him, he saves expences not using his own), he doesn’t have to face elements and has an enviroment and a way of (having a job) earning in my barn, and his coleague sells my mushrooms gathered by team, to convert it into the money.

              So the worker profits from me. Profits from my labour put into the earnign of the coat, buying it, cleaning it, me saving (debting) and building a barn, aranging a mashrooms farm, finding people, taking risks, etc … Are you (socialists/comunists) talking about abolishing “worker/labourer” now, cause he profits from capitalist farmer? :)

              P.S. in scenario above, we would all earn our part, but if somebody wants to own any part more – of gear, buildings, organization, responsibility, risks – just buy shares, or vote by feet and build your own bussines.

              • Communist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                This is a terrible gotcha and shows that you didn’t even read the theory before you thought you could debunk it.

                A socialist system would mean that the worker is getting the full value of their labor… that includes your imaginary CEO, because that person is acting as a worker in much of your examples.

                Once you recognize that you’re arbitrarily assigning this person as a non-worker, you realize the problem with your gotcha…

                You’re basically saying “what if the ceo works really hard, then should he still get nothing?” the thing we’re trying to abolish is the people who DON’T work, the CEO’s who sit on their asses and collect would be the ones losing out in this system, same with landlords. The people actually working the land should own it. “passive” income is what socialists seek to abolish, because we actually value labor.

                • 4L3moNemo@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  P.S. answering to your: “This is a terrible gotcha and shows that you didn’t even read the theory before you thought you could debunk it.” Let’s not fall so low as to the personal attacks ;) or conclusions about a person. You don’t know what I have red and what not, to judge. A question is a question – it can be anounced even by a parrot. If you are to philosophize and a question is of current topic, and you are not a parrot yourself, then it should not be a problem to discuss it with logic and arguments by both sides. You see ;) I can do it also, well of course unless you are a parrot :)))

                  • Communist@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s not really a personal attack, it’s a statement of fact, you’re clearly approaching this assuming it’s stupid even though you obviously haven’t read the material needed to argue against it, if you had you wouldn’t be making the arguments you are.

                    Your arguments aren’t logical, they’re being petty with definitions, you’re squabbling about things that don’t matter to the socialist argument and can be answered hundreds of ways by the different philosophers, and if you had read any of the material you would understand why your arguments are meaningless.

                • 4L3moNemo@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What is that “the full value” that worker should get? If for example I have worked my ass, building five garages, and now i rent four of them for someone doing busines in there with their own hammer and my multitool – what is the full value that the renter/worker should get? What is the full value if someone who rents my garage, bought his own tools, created workplace, found someone happy to make stools whole day for him and now only sells them? What is the full value if someone (garage owner, or renter with busines) decided, that 10 years of working (their ass) hard is enought and now they will live a bit slower, maybe even employing profesional manager to do their job. Where is the line?

                  I understand giving everybody as much equal oportunities as possible, enabling everybody equaly as much as possible – but that does not magicaly make them all work equaly hard, equaly skilled, equaly balance their work/life/family/free time, does not magicaly eaqualy balance them all taking same risks, responsibilities.

                  What’s fair to take, to share with less efective (or happy) ones – that is the question? Should we make it harder for the faster ones, working harder ones, healthier ones?

                  How the fck not alowing to gain from someones earned capital or someones labour (by delegation of some tasks) will create equal oportunities? Whats wrong in and with curent democratic/capitalistic (semi social share and care policies having) system of western countries? System curently alowing workers to own shares and voting with their hands (as coowners) in business or voting by their feet and going to other busineses to work and own them (or building them themselves). Go and do?

                  • Communist@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    What is that “the full value” that worker should get? If for example I have worked my ass, building five garages, and now i rent four of them for someone doing busines in there with their own hammer and my multitool – what is the full value that the renter/worker should get? What is the full value if someone who rents my garage, bought his own tools, created workplace, found someone happy to make stools whole day for him and now only sells them? What is the full value if someone (garage owner, or renter with busines) decided, that 10 years of working (their ass) hard is enought and now they will live a bit slower, maybe even employing profesional manager to do their job. Where is the line?

                    Where the line is is debated among socialist all the time, and where you fall on that partially determines the type of socialist you are. Please read theory before assuming you have this incredible gotcha that nobody ever thought of.

                    The answer is quite simple, the full value is determined by the amount of profit they generate through their labor.

                    I understand giving everybody as much equal oportunities as possible, enabling everybody equaly as much as possible – but that does not magicaly make them all work equaly hard, equaly skilled, equaly balance their work/life/family/free time, does not magicaly eaqualy balance them all taking same risks, responsibilities.

                    Who cares? They’re getting the full value of their labor, even if that full value is less, i think you imagine socialists believe in absolute equality for some insane reason, this is why i’m saying you haven’t read the material.

                    What’s fair to take, to share with less efective (or happy) ones – that is the question? Should we make it harder for the faster ones, working harder ones, healthier ones?

                    This question doesn’t make sense when you factor in the things I just said, so, i’m just going to ignore it.

                    How the fck not alowing to gain from someones earned capital or someones labour (by delegation of some tasks) will create equal oportunities? Whats wrong in and with curent democratic/capitalistic (semi social share and care policies having) system of western countries? System curently alowing workers to own shares and voting with their hands (as coowners) in business or voting by their feet and going to other busineses to work and own them (or building them themselves). Go and do?

                    Nothing is wrong with some of those parts of it, in fact, socialists aren’t exactly anti-capitalist, they just recognize it’s a temporary thing. The problem with people who generate money from capital is that they don’t work, they make money from their money, and a class of people who simply makes money from their money are leeches on society, an unnecessary middleman between the people who actually do work, and the money they produce.

                    Furthermore, if you’re wondering why people would still have opportunities, the answer is that a union of workers can still form a business, this not only actually dramatically reduces risk, but also is much more doable when people actually get paid the full value of their labor rather than a tiny percentage.

                    Please read some theory before you try online gotchas, or at least ask questions instead of being a butthole and assuming you know better. You’re not using facts and logic to argue with me, you’re using ignorance and guessing about what we believe.

                    You’re kinda arguing with somebody who has actually bothered to read the material we’re talking about, and assuming you can outwit it without even reading it, and it’s a little like telling a quantum physicist they’re wrong because quantum physics doesn’t make any sense, it’s painful to read. This is a set of philosophies with hundreds of years of history, they’ve thought of all the things you’ve said many times.

                    The man who bakes a loaf of bread in order to buy a slice is not truly free.