Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

jawsome wrote: I know.......that's why I said I think you misunderstood me, as I was responding to another poster in the first place. :wink:

My apologies. :!oops:

[social]

jawsome wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: After reading this thread, it would have to be Capitalism.

Communism= Death of the Individual

Capitalism= Pure Freedom to the Individual(economic sense)

I just can't believe there are still communists who argue for it, your arguing against ones self.

The ironic thing is a lot of Communists critique Capitalism with a capitalistic approach: they believe people are being exploited of their natural, private right to their labor.

This is a rather ineffective criticism that seems to suggest that communism is based on the same type of greed that drives many capitalist societies. For a start, the fact that someone is entitled to what they produce does not amount to an advocation of the universal right to private property, to the right, per se, to own the results of one's private labour, or to any other right-wing ideal or "capitalistic approach" you can pull out of the bag. It is but a simple idea, used to demonstrate certain people do not get what they deserve and that many get far more than they earn. Communism as a thoery is about bridging the gap that divides these people; whether or not its theoretical model implies private property or economic freedom or any thing of the kind in your eyes, is irrelvant. The fact that in a communist society one is entitled only to what one earns - according, of course, to what others earn and how this affects the rest of the proletariat - makes your point rather null and void. In my view, it's another half-baked criticism from another pro-capitalist child of America, if you'll forgive my frankness.

[Free Thinkr]

social wrote: jawsome wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: After reading this thread, it would have to be Capitalism.

Communism= Death of the Individual

Capitalism= Pure Freedom to the Individual(economic sense)

I just can't believe there are still communists who argue for it, your arguing against ones self.

The ironic thing is a lot of Communists critique Capitalism with a capitalistic approach: they believe people are being exploited of their natural, private right to their labor.

This is a rather ineffective criticism that seems to suggest that communism is based on the same type of greed that drives many capitalist societies. For a start, the fact that someone is entitled to what they produce does not amount to an advocation of the universal right to private property, to the right, per se, to own the results of one's private labour, or to any other right-wing ideal or "capitalistic approach" you can pull out of the bag. It is but a simple idea, used to demonstrate certain people do not get what they deserve and that many get far more than they earn.
Your use of the terms "deserve" and "earn" assume private property rights. If you have no right to that which you produce, you can't be said to have been robbed of what you deserved or earned.

[LetsGetReal]

social wrote: jawsome wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: After reading this thread, it would have to be Capitalism.

Communism= Death of the Individual

Capitalism= Pure Freedom to the Individual(economic sense)

I just can't believe there are still communists who argue for it, your arguing against ones self.

The ironic thing is a lot of Communists critique Capitalism with a capitalistic approach: they believe people are being exploited of their natural, private right to their labor.

This is a rather ineffective criticism that seems to suggest that communism is based on the same type of greed that drives many capitalist societies. For a start, the fact that someone is entitled to what they produce does not amount to an advocation of the universal right to private property, to the right, per se, to own the results of one's private labour, or to any other right-wing ideal or "capitalistic approach" you can pull out of the bag. It is but a simple idea, used to demonstrate certain people do not get what they deserve and that many get far more than they earn. Communism as a thoery is about bridging the gap that divides these people; whether or not its theoretical model implies private property or economic freedom or any thing of the kind in your eyes, is irrelvant. The fact that in a communist society one is entitled only to what one earns - according, of course, to what others earn and how this affects the rest of the proletariat - makes your point rather null and void. In my view, it's another half-baked criticism from another pro-capitalist child of America, if you'll forgive my frankness. An argument that goes against the individual destroys the group, do you not understand that?

[skull]

I wanna say the most miss understood items on this lis are:
The theory of evolution
Islam
and Libertarianism
now i have simple reasons for this. 1st of all most of the world is capitalist. 2nd communism has gained a great deal of intresst since the cold war, and with it so has anarcy. 3rd socialism is being heavily practices outside the U.S. 4th facism is being studied alongside WW2 and 5th catholiism is just not that complicated, especially when the pope dies.
but i think we are asking the wrong question. what should be asked is what do we need to understand?
I think the world needs to understand islam... and it is our lack of understandingthat has caused many problems.

[Kindred]

Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

[Fido]

LetsGetReal wrote: social wrote: jawsome wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: After reading this thread, it would have to be Capitalism.

Communism= Death of the Individual

Capitalism= Pure Freedom to the Individual(economic sense)

I just can't believe there are still communists who argue for it, your arguing against ones self.

The ironic thing is a lot of Communists critique Capitalism with a capitalistic approach: they believe people are being exploited of their natural, private right to their labor.

This is a rather ineffective criticism that seems to suggest that communism is based on the same type of greed that drives many capitalist societies. For a start, the fact that someone is entitled to what they produce does not amount to an advocation of the universal right to private property, to the right, per se, to own the results of one's private labour, or to any other right-wing ideal or "capitalistic approach" you can pull out of the bag. It is but a simple idea, used to demonstrate certain people do not get what they deserve and that many get far more than they earn. Communism as a thoery is about bridging the gap that divides these people; whether or not its theoretical model implies private property or economic freedom or any thing of the kind in your eyes, is irrelvant. The fact that in a communist society one is entitled only to what one earns - according, of course, to what others earn and how this affects the rest of the proletariat - makes your point rather null and void. In my view, it's another half-baked criticism from another pro-capitalist child of America, if you'll forgive my frankness. An argument that goes against the individual destroys the group, do you not understand that?

You can argue against the individual all you want without effect on the group in modern society where the individual is thought to be all. In times past you could not snag a member of any group and execute them even if guilty without the group justly considering it an affront and a threat. And while we both know that you cannot punish one member of a group without punishing his or her family to a certain extent- that is hardly an impediment to long prison sentences. The other side of this, is that compared to the past the individual really is all, and the group has receded in importance and meaning. It really is possible to argue against the individual, and even to curtail many individual freedoms without having an effect on the group which has become a nebulous concept at best. People who think in terms of the individual cannot conceive of the group, and those who think of the group cannot conceive of the individual because the proper balance of the two concepts has been lost. We think of ourselves as Americans with pride, as the ancient Athenians thought of themselves with pride; but this does not stop groups within the group from looking at the larger society as so many cattle to be bled or milked or yoked to a plow. The communists were the victims of their elites, their individuals, and their intelligentsia. Only where the group was all, and every identity was an extension of the group, and the group was founded on family and common blood did communism work and work well. Only dire need and common poverty will ever make communism seem a blessing. We have lost the group, and no longer grasp its logic and meaning. Look at the tribalism of the Barrio, or the middle east. People who have forgotten the family and the tribe are sometime forces to rediscover them, but only as a result of extreme pressure on the individual. My thought is that the individual as a distinct concept is promoted because of the ease it adds to the exploitation of the individual by cohesive groups, governments, or corporations. The happiness it promises is specious.

[Robin Hood]

Kindred wrote: Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

If Marx didn't claim to have an objective measure of value then how could he claim something is a surplus? You're going to have to do better than finely worded dodges, Kindred.

[Robin Hood]

Fido wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: social wrote: jawsome wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: After reading this thread, it would have to be Capitalism.

Communism= Death of the Individual

Capitalism= Pure Freedom to the Individual(economic sense)

I just can't believe there are still communists who argue for it, your arguing against ones self.

The ironic thing is a lot of Communists critique Capitalism with a capitalistic approach: they believe people are being exploited of their natural, private right to their labor.

This is a rather ineffective criticism that seems to suggest that communism is based on the same type of greed that drives many capitalist societies. For a start, the fact that someone is entitled to what they produce does not amount to an advocation of the universal right to private property, to the right, per se, to own the results of one's private labour, or to any other right-wing ideal or "capitalistic approach" you can pull out of the bag. It is but a simple idea, used to demonstrate certain people do not get what they deserve and that many get far more than they earn. Communism as a thoery is about bridging the gap that divides these people; whether or not its theoretical model implies private property or economic freedom or any thing of the kind in your eyes, is irrelvant. The fact that in a communist society one is entitled only to what one earns - according, of course, to what others earn and how this affects the rest of the proletariat - makes your point rather null and void. In my view, it's another half-baked criticism from another pro-capitalist child of America, if you'll forgive my frankness. An argument that goes against the individual destroys the group, do you not understand that?

You can argue against the individual all you want without effect on the group in modern society where the individual is thought to be all. In times past you could not snag a member of any group and execute them even if guilty without the group justly considering it an affront and a threat. And while we both know that you cannot punish one member of a group without punishing his or her family to a certain extent- that is hardly an impediment to long prison sentences. The other side of this, is that compared to the past the individual really is all, and the group has receded in importance and meaning. It really is possible to argue against the individual, and even to curtail many individual freedoms without having an effect on the group which has become a nebulous concept at best. People who think in terms of the individual cannot conceive of the group, and those who think of the group cannot conceive of the individual because the proper balance of the two concepts has been lost. We think of ourselves as Americans with pride, as the ancient Athenians thought of themselves with pride; but this does not stop groups within the group from looking at the larger society as so many cattle to be bled or milked or yoked to a plow. The communists were the victims of their elites, their individuals, and their intelligentsia. Only where the group was all, and every identity was an extension of the group, and the group was founded on family and common blood did communism work and work well. Only dire need and common poverty will ever make communism seem a blessing. We have lost the group, and no longer grasp its logic and meaning. Look at the tribalism of the Barrio, or the middle east. People who have forgotten the family and the tribe are sometime forces to rediscover them, but only as a result of extreme pressure on the individual. My thought is that the individual as a distinct concept is promoted because of the ease it adds to the exploitation of the individual by cohesive groups, governments, or corporations. The happiness it promises is specious.

Been reading Mein Kampf, eh?

[Fido]

Robin Hood wrote: Fido wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: social wrote: jawsome wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: After reading this thread, it would have to be Capitalism.

Communism= Death of the Individual

Capitalism= Pure Freedom to the Individual(economic sense)

I just can't believe there are still communists who argue for it, your arguing against ones self.

The ironic thing is a lot of Communists critique Capitalism with a capitalistic approach: they believe people are being exploited of their natural, private right to their labor.

This is a rather ineffective criticism that seems to suggest that communism is based on the same type of greed that drives many capitalist societies. For a start, the fact that someone is entitled to what they produce does not amount to an advocation of the universal right to private property, to the right, per se, to own the results of one's private labour, or to any other right-wing ideal or "capitalistic approach" you can pull out of the bag. It is but a simple idea, used to demonstrate certain people do not get what they deserve and that many get far more than they earn. Communism as a thoery is about bridging the gap that divides these people; whether or not its theoretical model implies private property or economic freedom or any thing of the kind in your eyes, is irrelvant. The fact that in a communist society one is entitled only to what one earns - according, of course, to what others earn and how this affects the rest of the proletariat - makes your point rather null and void. In my view, it's another half-baked criticism from another pro-capitalist child of America, if you'll forgive my frankness. An argument that goes against the individual destroys the group, do you not understand that?

You can argue against the individual all you want without effect on the group in modern society where the individual is thought to be all. In times past you could not snag a member of any group and execute them even if guilty without the group justly considering it an affront and a threat. And while we both know that you cannot punish one member of a group without punishing his or her family to a certain extent- that is hardly an impediment to long prison sentences. The other side of this, is that compared to the past the individual really is all, and the group has receded in importance and meaning. It really is possible to argue against the individual, and even to curtail many individual freedoms without having an effect on the group which has become a nebulous concept at best. People who think in terms of the individual cannot conceive of the group, and those who think of the group cannot conceive of the individual because the proper balance of the two concepts has been lost. We think of ourselves as Americans with pride, as the ancient Athenians thought of themselves with pride; but this does not stop groups within the group from looking at the larger society as so many cattle to be bled or milked or yoked to a plow. The communists were the victims of their elites, their individuals, and their intelligentsia. Only where the group was all, and every identity was an extension of the group, and the group was founded on family and common blood did communism work and work well. Only dire need and common poverty will ever make communism seem a blessing. We have lost the group, and no longer grasp its logic and meaning. Look at the tribalism of the Barrio, or the middle east. People who have forgotten the family and the tribe are sometime forces to rediscover them, but only as a result of extreme pressure on the individual. My thought is that the individual as a distinct concept is promoted because of the ease it adds to the exploitation of the individual by cohesive groups, governments, or corporations. The happiness it promises is specious.

Been reading Mein Kampf, eh?

Why not look at the obvious Robin. People are treated as individuals to steal from them the power of organization and community. Individualism makes isolated victims, and even though the weak minded out of the desire for self gratification and self realization jump on the individualism bus, the success and survival in this world goes to cohesive groups like the Chinese out of China, the Jews out of Israel, and any made organization like corporations, institutions parties, and governments that never tire and never sleep.
People do not want to have their communities and families nosed up their butts, and we are used at the first opportunity to put distance between our individual selves and the group. I think we are repelled by the powerlessness of communities and families that seem to be all pointless morality and no effective muscle. But we can be pushed back on the safety net of family as well as pulled away from it. If people find they are dispossessed as individuals they may find they actually can live with their parents or siblings if it means having a roof over ones head. But we cannot really expect that the necessity of communal living always promoted the greatest happiness and cordiality among primitive peoples. Rather, individuality always results in a lonely helpless existence, and for example I offer those people who cannot find the love in their hearts for children. They may be free while young, but they face their futures with fear and loneliness. Pity them their youth, their freedom, and their money.

[Fido]

Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

If Marx didn't claim to have an objective measure of value then how could he claim something is a surplus? You're going to have to do better than finely worded dodges, Kindred.

You know, it has been many years, but I thought Marx said in effect that the value of an commodity is what we will pay for it. The price of an object contains the price of labor, and profit, and taxes, and waste. All the later three expenses born by labor alone. Labor creates all value, and this was a fact established by economists before Marx, and no business can long afford to sell their products below their absolute minimum price which is the price of the labor in it. But the other side of this is that when products are sold above their labor price whether it is to support waste or government, or profit means that goods must be exported, and the need for foreign markets means war, pure and simple.

[jawsome]

social wrote: jawsome wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: After reading this thread, it would have to be Capitalism.

Communism= Death of the Individual

Capitalism= Pure Freedom to the Individual(economic sense)

I just can't believe there are still communists who argue for it, your arguing against ones self.

The ironic thing is a lot of Communists critique Capitalism with a capitalistic approach: they believe people are being exploited of their natural, private right to their labor.

This is a rather ineffective criticism that seems to suggest that communism is based on the same type of greed that drives many capitalist societies.

I didn't mean to imply that.

Quote: For a start, the fact that someone is entitled to what they produce does not amount to an advocation of the universal right to private property, to the right, per se, to own the results of one's private labour, or to any other right-wing ideal or "capitalistic approach" you can pull out of the bag.

I never stated that. The fact that someone is entitled to the results of their labor is an entitlement to private property of some sort, I believe. Do you agree?

Quote: It is but a simple idea, used to demonstrate certain people do not get what they deserve and that many get far more than they earn.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote: Communism as a thoery is about bridging the gap that divides these people; whether or not its theoretical model implies private property or economic freedom or any thing of the kind in your eyes, is irrelvant.

I do not know how Communism's theoretical model possibly implying private property, its antithesis, to exist is irrelevant. Could you please explain?

Quote: The fact that in a communist society one is entitled only to what one earns - according, of course, to what others earn and how this affects the rest of the proletariat - makes your point rather null and void.

I don't see how that fact makes it null and void. It still implies that one is nonetheless entitled to a form of private property--whatever one earns, whether it be according to what others earn and how it might affect others.

Quote: In my view, it's another half-baked criticism from another pro-capitalist child of America, if you'll forgive my frankness.

It might be, so we should discuss it, yeah? PS- I'll be as critical of laissez faire capitalists as it is as "in the cloud" as most Communist theory, if not even more so. :wink:

[Kindred]

Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

If Marx didn't claim to have an objective measure of value then how could he claim something is a surplus? You're going to have to do better than finely worded dodges, Kindred.
Suplus value is the economic difference between the income that a worker produces and the income that a worker earns in the form of a wage. There. It's that simple.

[jawsome]

Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

If Marx didn't claim to have an objective measure of value then how could he claim something is a surplus? You're going to have to do better than finely worded dodges, Kindred.
Suplus value is the economic difference between the income that a worker produces and the income that a worker earns in the form of a wage. There. It's that simple.

How does one factor intellectual property into the equation? E.g., a worker might be able to make, say, a DVD player in an hour, getting paid $10 an hour. The DVD player makes a profit of $100 each. The surplus, if I understand correctly, is the $90 difference, right?

But how do you account for the creator of the product and his possible thought and work to go into the player?

[social]

LetsGetReal wrote: social wrote: jawsome wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: After reading this thread, it would have to be Capitalism.

Communism= Death of the Individual

Capitalism= Pure Freedom to the Individual(economic sense)

I just can't believe there are still communists who argue for it, your arguing against ones self.

The ironic thing is a lot of Communists critique Capitalism with a capitalistic approach: they believe people are being exploited of their natural, private right to their labor.

This is a rather ineffective criticism that seems to suggest that communism is based on the same type of greed that drives many capitalist societies. For a start, the fact that someone is entitled to what they produce does not amount to an advocation of the universal right to private property, to the right, per se, to own the results of one's private labour, or to any other right-wing ideal or "capitalistic approach" you can pull out of the bag. It is but a simple idea, used to demonstrate certain people do not get what they deserve and that many get far more than they earn. Communism as a thoery is about bridging the gap that divides these people; whether or not its theoretical model implies private property or economic freedom or any thing of the kind in your eyes, is irrelvant. The fact that in a communist society one is entitled only to what one earns - according, of course, to what others earn and how this affects the rest of the proletariat - makes your point rather null and void. In my view, it's another half-baked criticism from another pro-capitalist child of America, if you'll forgive my frankness. An argument that goes against the individual destroys the group, do you not understand that?

I understand all too well what you're saying, because its repeated on this forum a thousand times over by gungho right wingers just like you. People like you, who sound like broken records - moaning about "freedom" and "the individual" all the time - merely repeating what the words of other right wingers, without actually taking the time to think about the consequences of your beleifs, and the real world affects they have on everyday people. Its truly shocking how detatched you can become, given a computer and a cushy life in the world's richest country.

[social]

jawsome wrote: social wrote: jawsome wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: After reading this thread, it would have to be Capitalism.

Communism= Death of the Individual

Capitalism= Pure Freedom to the Individual(economic sense)

I just can't believe there are still communists who argue for it, your arguing against ones self.

The ironic thing is a lot of Communists critique Capitalism with a capitalistic approach: they believe people are being exploited of their natural, private right to their labor.

This is a rather ineffective criticism that seems to suggest that communism is based on the same type of greed that drives many capitalist societies.

I didn't mean to imply that.

Quote: For a start, the fact that someone is entitled to what they produce does not amount to an advocation of the universal right to private property, to the right, per se, to own the results of one's private labour, or to any other right-wing ideal or "capitalistic approach" you can pull out of the bag.

I never stated that. The fact that someone is entitled to the results of their labor is an entitlement to private property of some sort, I believe. Do you agree?

I have absolutely no idea where you get the beleif that Marx said people aren't entitled to anything, labour or property. Never did he say that people aren't entitled to what they themselves have earned.

Quote: Quote: It is but a simple idea, used to demonstrate certain people do not get what they deserve and that many get far more than they earn.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote: Communism as a thoery is about bridging the gap that divides these people; whether or not its theoretical model implies private property or economic freedom or any thing of the kind in your eyes, is irrelvant.

I do not know how Communism's theoretical model possibly implying private property, its antithesis, to exist is irrelevant. Could you please explain?

Whether you think communism is based on a "capitalist approach" because people are entitled to the "private property" of thier own labour does not concern me or I should think anyone else. It seems far more of a minute semantical concern than a damning, last-nail-in-the-coffin criticism of communism.

Quote: Quote: The fact that in a communist society one is entitled only to what one earns - according, of course, to what others earn and how this affects the rest of the proletariat - makes your point rather null and void.

I don't see how that fact makes it null and void. It still implies that one is nonetheless entitled to a form of private property--whatever one earns, whether it be according to what others earn and how it might affect others.

Where, again, did Marx say no one was entitled to property?

Quote: Quote: In my view, it's another half-baked criticism from another pro-capitalist child of America, if you'll forgive my frankness.

It might be, so we should discuss it, yeah? PS- I'll be as critical of laissez faire capitalists as it is as "in the cloud" as most Communist theory, if not even more so. :wink:

So says the man with "Property is freedom" plastered below his name... :wink:

[jawsome]

social wrote: jawsome wrote: social wrote: jawsome wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: After reading this thread, it would have to be Capitalism.

Communism= Death of the Individual

Capitalism= Pure Freedom to the Individual(economic sense)

I just can't believe there are still communists who argue for it, your arguing against ones self.

The ironic thing is a lot of Communists critique Capitalism with a capitalistic approach: they believe people are being exploited of their natural, private right to their labor.

This is a rather ineffective criticism that seems to suggest that communism is based on the same type of greed that drives many capitalist societies.

I didn't mean to imply that.

Quote: For a start, the fact that someone is entitled to what they produce does not amount to an advocation of the universal right to private property, to the right, per se, to own the results of one's private labour, or to any other right-wing ideal or "capitalistic approach" you can pull out of the bag.

I never stated that. The fact that someone is entitled to the results of their labor is an entitlement to private property of some sort, I believe. Do you agree?

I have absolutely no idea where you get the beleif that Marx said people aren't entitled to anything, labour or property. Never did he say that people aren't entitled to what they themselves have earned.

Where did I ever mention Marx? I think one big misunderstanding is that I said "A lot of Communists say...", not "Marx says this..."

But, again, I ask: is the entitlement to one's private labour a form of private property? If not, why do you disagree?

(Really, I am interested in this and your thoughts and would appreciate your responses.)

Quote: Quote: Quote: It is but a simple idea, used to demonstrate certain people do not get what they deserve and that many get far more than they earn.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote: Communism as a thoery is about bridging the gap that divides these people; whether or not its theoretical model implies private property or economic freedom or any thing of the kind in your eyes, is irrelvant.

I do not know how Communism's theoretical model possibly implying private property, its antithesis, to exist is irrelevant. Could you please explain?

Whether you think communism is based on a "capitalist approach" because people are entitled to the "private property" of thier own labour does not concern me or I should think anyone else. It seems far more of a minute semantical concern than a damning, last-nail-in-the-coffin criticism of communism.

I never claimed it to be. And, really, I don't know how it would be minute should it be true, or somehow implied.

I had never really thought of the implication under a week or so ago after reading this article.


Quote: Quote: Quote: The fact that in a communist society one is entitled only to what one earns - according, of course, to what others earn and how this affects the rest of the proletariat - makes your point rather null and void.

I don't see how that fact makes it null and void. It still implies that one is nonetheless entitled to a form of private property--whatever one earns, whether it be according to what others earn and how it might affect others.

Where, again, did Marx say no one was entitled to property?

I have always understood Marxism/Communism to be the abolition of private property. This is, as I'm sure you know, the summation of Communist theory by Marx himself. Maybe I do not understand it well enough, though. That is always a possibility.

Quote: Quote: Quote: In my view, it's another half-baked criticism from another pro-capitalist child of America, if you'll forgive my frankness.

It might be, so we should discuss it, yeah? PS- I'll be as critical of laissez faire capitalists as it is as "in the cloud" as most Communist theory, if not even more so. :wink:

So says the man with "Property is freedom" plastered below his name... :wink:

I'm a fan of Proudhon. :wink:

[Robin Hood]

Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

If Marx didn't claim to have an objective measure of value then how could he claim something is a surplus? You're going to have to do better than finely worded dodges, Kindred.
Suplus value is the economic difference between the income that a worker produces and the income that a worker earns in the form of a wage. There. It's that simple.

Do you have an objective measure of 'the income the worker produces' or the value of the worker working? You've contradicted yourself because you don't even understand your own terminology.

[Kindred]

Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

If Marx didn't claim to have an objective measure of value then how could he claim something is a surplus? You're going to have to do better than finely worded dodges, Kindred.
Suplus value is the economic difference between the income that a worker produces and the income that a worker earns in the form of a wage. There. It's that simple.

Do you have an objective measure of 'the income the worker produces' or the value of the worker working? You've contradicted yourself because you don't even understand your own terminology.

Arg. You are clearly confused between Marx's surplus value and Ricardo's labour theory of price. The 'objective measure' is one degree of the profit. Okay, keeping it simple here. When a worker makes ten units (of whatever) which sell for $14 a piece, the capitalist has made $140 (not taking into account costs other than wages). If the worker receives $7 an hour, and works for 10 hours to produce ten units, the surplus value is $70; that is the value that the worker creates, but does not receive himself. In effect, Marx argues, he is slaving himself to the capitalist once he reproduces his own wage, and continues to produce past that point.

Very simple ideas, funny how you were obviously oblivious to them.

[Robin Hood]

Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

If Marx didn't claim to have an objective measure of value then how could he claim something is a surplus? You're going to have to do better than finely worded dodges, Kindred.
Suplus value is the economic difference between the income that a worker produces and the income that a worker earns in the form of a wage. There. It's that simple.

Do you have an objective measure of 'the income the worker produces' or the value of the worker working? You've contradicted yourself because you don't even understand your own terminology.

Arg. You are clearly confused between Marx's surplus value and Ricardo's labour theory of price. The 'objective measure' is one degree of the profit. Okay, keeping it simple here. When a worker makes ten units (of whatever) which sell for $14 a piece, the capitalist has made $140 (not taking into account costs other than wages). If the worker receives $7 an hour, and works for 10 hours to produce ten units, the surplus value is $70; that is the value that the worker creates, but does not receive himself. In effect, Marx argues, he is slaving himself to the capitalist once he reproduces his own wage, and continues to produce past that point.

Very simple ideas, funny how you were obviously oblivious to them.

No, you are confused, there is no justification for the bit I've put in bold. Go back and rethink your 'simple ideas'.