Global Capitalism

[MikeNovack]

How would such ownership work, in your view? Are you talking about workers buying out an existing owner, or are you thinking of a group of workers starting their own factory. Those would be quite different situations, of course.

OR seized by force of arms i revolution? If you think what you CALLED "worker ownership" depended nn hw came into being, defend the useful meaning of that distinction. That thing sitting out by the curb, You want to call it a "car" if bought? A "rac" is stolen/, An "arc" if inherited? ETC>?

How about "customer owned" enterprises? In effect, non-profits", as those are returned to the owners (the customers). Don't bother with silly arguments like "could not possibly work, could not govern itself, would be terribly inefficient, etc " Just look up how admired and successful MassMutual is. << disclosure -- I worked there three decades, and have to say nobody thinks of the history or than anything is different from ordinary capitalism.But ONE of the early-mid `19th Century visions of socialism was producer and consumer co-ops >>

[Immanuel Can]

How would such ownership work, in your view? Are you talking about workers buying out an existing owner, or are you thinking of a group of workers starting their own factory. Those would be quite different situations, of course.

OR seized by force of arms i revolution?

That's not only Marxist...it's also theft. Somebody had to pay, and pay a lot, and assume a lot of personal financial risk, for that factory to exist.

And I was assuming you were not advocating theft.

What you seem to be suggesting -- to rob the owners of the benefits of their entrepreneurship -- would be to remove all incentives for people to create factories in the first place. Nobody would take risks, put investment in, or create a thing that would simply be stolen from them the moment that they hired workers. That strategy would collapse the economy and destroy all innovation, as all Marxist regimes have shown. Why would we try again something that has failed so completely, and so often?

If you think what you CALLED "worker ownership" depended nn hw came into being,

Well, I was assuming legitimate, rightful and honest ownership. If you mean "theft," then it's obviously none of those three.

[MikeNovack]

That thing sitting out by the curb, You want to call it a "car" if bought? A "rac" if stolen, An "arc" if inherited? ETC?

I will repeat. HOW does that thing change its identity.

Ownership/property is a SOCIAL relationship. We can say A "owns" B if/f some society agrees that this is the case. It is NOT an objective relation with physical meaning (like when we say A "is heavier than" B)

If the people of a society come to believe that they (the workers) own the factory then that becomes the new social reality. And the capitalists who insists "but it's still mine" is treated as delusional.

[Immanuel Can]

That thing sitting out by the curb, You want to call it a "car" if bought? A "rac" if stolen, An "arc" if inherited? ETC?

I will repeat. HOW does that thing change its identity.

You don't understand what theft is? I don't believe it.

Ownership/property is a SOCIAL relationship.

Well, that's the Marxist view. But it's wrong, as Marx so very often was. The right to own is "unalienable" and "endowed by the Creator". It's not a mere "social relation." And Marx never had any thought for it, because he was a layabout, a ne'er-do-well and a sponge, himself. As his mother said about him, "Karl writes so much about capital; I wish he'd make some."

He never did. He freeloaded from his friends, particularly Engels, was grateful for none of it, squandered most of it, and ended his life ranting about how he deserved more of a free lunch. Not a great economist, that guy; and he's a 100% failure in practice, as well. You'd do well to look elsewhere for your economic advice...maybe to somebody who was a little bit successful himself, or at least to somebody who's advice made somebody else successful.

If the people of a society come to believe that they (the workers) own the factory then that becomes the new social reality.

So if somebody enters your house and takes charge of all your possessions, and the neighbours happen to agree he can do that, he hasn't stolen anything from you? You aren't deprived?

Can he have your wife and kids, too? I assume you believe that not just property, but marriage and parenting are also nothing but social relations...

Secularism is so absurd, really.

[MikeNovack]

You don't understand what theft is? I don't believe it.

I know very well what theft is. Not the issue. At issue is whether a "schmatah" << a rag, often used as a stand in for any object in Talmudic discussion>> remains a schmattah if it is stolen, rather than bought, a found object, etc.


Ownership/property is a SOCIAL relationship.
Well, that's the Marxist view. But it's wrong, as Marx so very often was.

NO, Marx was s strict materialist. He treats ownership as something real. He said the workers had to TAKE the means of production from the capitalists rather than simply to convince everybody that is was theirs, and not the capitalists.

If the people of a society come to believe that they (the workers) own the factory then that becomes the new social reality.

So if somebody enters your house and takes charge of all your possessions, and the neighbours happen to agree he can do that, he hasn't stolen anything from you? You aren't deprived?

Can he have your wife and kids, too? I assume you believe that not just property, but marriage and parenting are also nothing but social relations...

Secularism is so absurd, really.

What does secularism have to do with this?

Are you wishing to defend the claim "A owns B" represents a MATERIAL relationship? << as opposed to a social relationship, might vary culture to culture >>

Care to comment on the Carl Sandburg poem

“Get off this estate."
"What for?"
"Because it's mine."
"Where did you get it?"
"From my father."
"Where did he get it?"
"From his father."
"And where did he get it?"
"He fought for it."
"Well, I'll fight you for it.”

[Immanuel Can]

You don't understand what theft is? I don't believe it.

I know very well what theft is. Not the issue. At issue is whether a "schmatah" << a rag, often used as a stand in for any object in Talmudic discussion>> remains a schmattah if it is stolen, rather than bought, a found object, etc.


Ownership/property is a SOCIAL relationship.
Well, that's the Marxist view. But it's wrong, as Marx so very often was.

NO, Marx was s strict materialist. He treats ownership as something real.

In a sense, he did. He thought "the workers" had a right to own things. But nobody had any right to private property, he insisted. But again, Marx was just nuts. He had no reason to assert property rights for his in group, and none for those he didn't like. But like all secularists, he actually had no reason to assert any rights at all.

He said the workers had to TAKE the means of production from the capitalists

That's called "theft." Is that what you're advocating?

If the people of a society come to believe that they (the workers) own the factory then that becomes the new social reality.

So if somebody enters your house and takes charge of all your possessions, and the neighbours happen to agree he can do that, he hasn't stolen anything from you? You aren't deprived?

Can he have your wife and kids, too? I assume you believe that not just property, but marriage and parenting are also nothing but social relations...

Secularism is so absurd, really.

I note you didn't answer my question, above. Is that what you are willing to concede? That anybody can steal from you, and so long as some group of others approves of it, it's not theft? What's your answer?

Are you wishing to defend the claim "A owns B" represents a MATERIAL relationship?

What a bizarre thing to suggest. It's a moral relation, obviously.

But then again, secularists have no justification for any morals, either.

[Gary Childress]

I thought Marx was only against private ownership of social institutions and was fine with personal property. That's actually what I got when I asked ChatGPT if Marx was against people having any property at all. Although, ChatGPT is probably an atheist creation and therefore not correct.

[Iwannaplato]

I thought Marx was only against private ownership of social institutions and was fine with personal property. That's actually what I got when I asked ChatGPT if Marx was against people having any property at all. Although, ChatGPT is probably an atheist creation and therefore not correct.

The heathen intelligence is correct. Private property was ok. It was the means of production and other exploitative according to Marx ways of accumulating wealth (banks, for example) that were naughty. You could have cars and houses and the stuff you put in houses, for example.

[Immanuel Can]

I thought Marx was only against private ownership of social institutions and was fine with personal property.

Marx was fine with HIM having things. He just didn't want anybody else to own stuff that could be his. He was a greedy little brat.

But he summarized his view himself, in one line: : "...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single sentence: Abolition of private property". -- The Communist Manifesto (1848)

Tell Chat GPT the truth. It seems to have missed it.

[Gary Childress]

Tell Chat GPT the truth. It seems to have missed it.

Apparently.

[Immanuel Can]

Tell Chat GPT the truth. It seems to have missed it.

Apparently.

It's not reliable. These things have to be programmed, you know: Wikis, AI, ChatGPT...they're all products of algorithms arranged by somebody. And just because they generate stuff doesn't mean the algorithm has suddenly been dissolved.

But we can take Marx's word for what Marx believed, I think.

[Gary Childress]

So apparently the term "private property" was different from the term "personal property" in Marx. "Private property" being ownership of the means of production and "personal property" being personal possessions. That's the way I was taught Marx. Apparently, incorrectly.

https://chatgpt.com/share/69ad7c22-dc60 ... d4453ccd38

[Gary Childress]

But maybe picking a single sentence out of the Communist Manifesto, out of context, devoid of nuance, or qualification is the proper way to understand Marx. I don't know. I was educated at a secular school. And apparently, not very well.

[Immanuel Can]

But maybe picking a single sentence out of the Communist Manifesto, out of context, devoid of nuance, or qualification is the proper way to understand Marx. I don't know. I was educated at a secular school. And apparently, not very well.

I have the Communist Manifesto here on my desk, if there's anything you don't know about it. Just ask.

[MikeNovack]

1848 was an interesting year in Europe.

Might I humbly suggest that trying tom understand what people in 1848 meant should be taken in the context of the struggles going on around them?

Marx writing in England. Working men did NOT yet have the vote (1848 marked the putting down of the Chartists). What were the "revolutionary" demands of the "left" in the latter half of the 19th Century? Being able to vote, to form unions and bargain collectively, etc. And yes, these WERE seen as order upsetting revolutionary demands by the establishment in power.