@SecurityCulture
Question: If there is no private ownership within a communist society, is there ownership of use? Meaning if I am standing, eating or drinking I am using, but I am I not owning—at least temporarily? If so, and these small durations of ownership are of no philosophical problem then why do problems arise when these durations increase?
“Surely, you’re familiar with polylogism — it’s a central tenet of classical Marxism.”
If it is so central you should have no trouble pointing out where Marx ever uses this word.
“And to be unfamiliar with the post-marxists is quite embarrassing. Althusser, in particular, is hugely influential. You should familiarize yourself with your own tradition before you come in here giving smug replies to everyone’s questions.”
I am familiar with my tradition. Left Communism.
Is OP going to attack negative rights or just historical “capitalism”?
Also, will OP debate me at debate.org?
“How is Marx’s own writings excempt from this principle?”
He never said it was.
“Why don’t you go ahead and answer my questions.”
I did
“Question: If there is no private ownership within a communist society, is there ownership of use? Meaning if I am standing, eating or drinking I am using, but I am I not owning—at least temporarily? If so, and these small durations of ownership are of no philosophical problem then why do problems arise when these durations increase?”
Property under Communism is defined on jus in rem principals. Use and Occupancy.
Social labor as opposed to? Anti-social labor? hehe just nitpicking.
How do you reconcile a common situation where the price is set at a rate where people are unwilling buy said commodity? In your hypothetical world, what happens in these scenarios? Products are going un-purchased, and the organization of laborers are going unpaid.
Also what drive/motive do these laborers have to make a cheaper more efficient product? What drive do they have to make more abundant products?
Also, I’d like to know more details about how you price goods and commodities. The assessment arbitrary to me. How do you price widgetA? Assuming you use a factory and labor to produce it? How much does widgetA cost, and how much do you pay laborers?
“Is OP going to attack negative rights or just historical “capitalism”?”
I’m not attacking anything, just answering questions. If attacking something involves answering the question then I’ll do it of course.
“Also, will OP debate me at debate.org?”
I’m wasting enough time posting here as it is.
It would however be far more productive for all of us here, if you focused your attention in discussion with a single person here, or elsewhere. You trying to tackle everyone’s questions is just too much for any real ground to be covered.
jus in rem or jus ad rem? Its odd that you would allow absolute rule or dominion over an article, but its good to know that there is a system of ownership here.
“How do you reconcile a common situation where the price is set at a rate where people are unwilling buy said commodity?”
Price is not set, it is determined. If the SNLT is too high for people to afford a given Commodity, it will not be produced. There’s no profit in that.
whoa wait I jsut re-read what you wrote, when you say hypothetical world are you taking a jab at my conception of Capitalism or are you using “hypothetical world” to mean my conception of Communism? If it is the former what I said above applies, if it is the latter i will respond after you answer.
“Also what drive/motive do these laborers have to make a cheaper more efficient product? What drive do they have to make more abundant products?”
This seems to be taking a step from a Capitalist world to a Communist world, I’m not sure which economic structure we’re talking about here now.
“Also, I’d like to know more details about how you price goods and commodities. The assessment arbitrary to me. How do you price widgetA? Assuming you use a factory and labor to produce it? How much does widgetA cost, and how much do you pay laborers?”
My confusion extends to this question too, sorry.
The basic problem in your post is that you didn’t understand me. I’m not saying that a Marxist with no philosophical basis can actually counter these arguments. I’m saying that they use the bourgeoisie class lense crap thing as a tool for analysing society, not rebutting the arguments. Wittgenstein gives us the tools to rebutt the actual arguments.
Then please explain to me how their misuse of words stems from capitalism.
“jus in rem or jus ad rem? Its odd that you would allow absolute rule or dominion over an article, but its good to know that there is a system of ownership here.”
jus in rem, jus ad rem is what Capitalism is defending.
good point flic. I do have questions in would like to filter through a medium though.
“Then please explain to me how their misuse of words stems from capitalism.”
It has to do with the fact that by being intellectually honest, we arrive at Communism.
As soon as Marx took the LTV to its logical conclusions, everyone abandoned it. Before Marx, Adam, Ricardo, etc. were all upheld for using the LTV.
SecurityCulture,
since you like Wittgenstein so much (as I do) you might be interested in this piece.
I would also suggest that you focus your efforts on answering Esuric’s questions. Obviously, it’s silly to expect you to have a conversation with all thirty of us at once.
It’s also silly to expect forum discussions to be particularly illuminating. If you’re truly interesting in the Austrian critique of Marxism, I’d suggest Böhm-Bawerk*'s* Marx and the Close of His System, or Mises’s Marxism Unmasked.
It has to do with the fact that by being intellectually honest, we arrive at Communism. As soon as Marx took the LTV to its logical conclusions, everyone abandoned it. Before Marx, Adam, Ricardo, etc. were all upheld for using the LTV.
That sounds very, very vague. How do we arrive at Communism by being intellectually honest? Did they really abandon it because they don’t like the logical conclusions, or because we moved to better theory?
Perhaps now I’m asking too much. It may be better to ask for some articles explaining this. Can you provide any literature of any sort that can elaborate further?
Really this back-and-forth two sentence reply format gets nothing done.
Security, I really implore you to either take up Seiben on his debate.org challange, or even allow one or two posters to have an exclusive thread with you here. Otherwise, this is just a giant waste of time. You will just ignore the complex arguements and focus on the chaff and one-liners.
“How do we arrive at Communism by being intellectually honest? Did they really abandon it because they don’t like the logical conclusions, or because we moved to better theory?”
That’s sort of the entire debate isn’t it?
“You will just ignore the complex arguements and focus on the chaff and one-liners.”
What evidence do you have to support this claim?