Marxism and the workers

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Just to give you one more thing to respond to (unless you’d prefer to just respond to this instead of previous posts):

I think that will work just fine. Perhaps I do use words rather loosely at times, and should look into cleaning that up. I will keep it in mind. I still think I tend to use words as they are used societally, as the only place I get into page long obfuscations on definitions is this site, and nowhere else. Language is social afterall, and only understood contextually.

From our conversation, I think that some of your points stem from a certain misunderstanding of humans. I’ll list some of the points you have made as I understand them:

Idk if they are misunderstanding about humans but ok

There should not be “private property” - that is, you do not believe it is just that any single person should have the final say on any given piece of propertty

I was going to say “not really..”

Here’s what I believe. No “single” person CAN have the final say on any given piece of property, it must by its very nature be social (a point we don’t disagree on; property is (a specific form of) dispute resolution.) I’m not really getting into whether it is just at this point. The immorality of property is not in what it is (possession and control, which is necessary), but it in how it is claimed.

That for there to be “private property”, the original “owner” must necessarily have been the first person to initiate violence

Or the threat thereof; which is violence in my book.

All property should be “jointly owned property” - and more specifically, it should be considered “owned” by the people who use it

“Should” is a tricky situation. I do think the outcome of working class aquisition of power will be in the creation of a new type of possession and control, not analogues to private property. I do think more just and equitable outcomes (yes, “just” is a subjective term) will arise from property being “jointly controlled” by more people, especially those who regularly use it. I’m not sure I believe that anything “should” happen, other than what does happen tho… but that’s a whole different philosophical debate (ethical relativism v absolutism).

I don’t think property should be owned at all; that is to say, I don’t think there should be proper “property.”

Might makes right, and you want this might to be in the hands of the working class.

Might doesn’t make right. That would be ludicrous, and saying that NAZI Germany was right simply because they had the most might at the time. C’mon, nobody should believe that make actually makes things right

What I believe is that might makes what will happen, how things will be organized, and that this might “should” be in the hands of the working class (more importantly, it probably will be through internal inconsistency of the capitalist mode of production), thereby dissolving that class and all class antagonism with it

I am going to respond to these points. I do not believe they are straw men, as they are just paraphrases of things you have said

Let me know if you believe these are not accurate and in what way they should be tweaked.en

See above.

First, I would like to talk about the “might makes right” approach to law. I do not agree with that approach

As seen above, nor do I. Nevertheless, that it is almost always how it works out.

That is the approach that forms the basis of statutory law, and in some very important ways I do not feel it really is “law” (it sort of is and it sort of isn’t - I’ll explain in a bit). I would like to quote Clayton from his post What Law Is on the definition of law:

@Clayton

Law is the alternative to violent conflict when conflict-avoidance strategies (such as property lines) have failed to avoid conflict. In terms of rights in property, law is the production of new, stipulated property-lines which resolve real conflicts without further violence.

Different systems of law can form, but they do not necessarily have to be a “might makes right” system. Clayton has explained the origin of law in his post A Praxeological Account of Law, and he has shown (I believe correctly) that the origin of law was not a “might makes right” approach.

I would not be able to respond to this without knowing the historical account of how property actually arose. This is unfalsiable post-diction, and therefore pseudo-science.

He used the example of two men having a dispute, and these two men are of roughly equivalent size and weight. It is dangerous for them to fight because one of them might lose. This is why they try to settle the dispute verbally. The reason they try to settle verbally is because neither one has the might to definitely win. Obviously statutory law has become the dominant form of law in the modern world, but it was not always the case. Many societies have had at some point (or still do have) common law, which is still a might makes right approach, but it is not centralized law; and customary law, which does not need to be a might makes right approach at all, though it does depend upon the society. There have been other systems, but I don’t feel the need to talk about them.

I mean, I would prefer customary law to an extent as well (obviously, if you are buying, selling, or owning slaves, I see no problem in bringing violence upon you). It would seem that customary law is actually necessary for their to be cohesive law, and that statutory law is mostly just a function of states trying to legitmize themselves.

Earlier, I stated that statutory law is sort of law and sort of not law. Obviously, it is law in the sense that it fulflls the definition of law; it does provide alternatives to settling disputes with further violence. I also had said earlier in the thread that it is either superfluous or unjust, and it probably makes more sense to say it that way instead. Let us use the example of slavery in the United States. Not only was it considered lawful to own slaves, but it was considered lawful to kidnap escaped slaves and return them to their “owners”. I’m not sure much else really needs to be said about this other than the fact that while this was lawful, it was incredibly unjust. However there were laws in the US at the time that were just (e.g. laws against theft). But these laws would be superfluous, because they exist in customary law societies.

In short, I do not support a system of “might makes right”, as the laws are either superfluous or unjust.

Again, I largely agree with you on the efficacy of customary law, and the coerciveness of statutory law. My questions would be; “just” according to whom? And do you think customary law could or would allow for the acquisition of people as property, ie slavery?

Second, I would like to address the point that for there to be “private property”, the original owner must have necessarily been the one to initiate violence or the threat thereof. Again, I would like to quote a passage from A Praxeological Account of Law:

There was a time before law. If we go far enough back in our evolutionary ancestry, we reach a point where our ancestors were not yet verbal. Since the ability to speak and engage in complex, rational argument is a precondition for law, these ancestors could not have had law. At some point, our ancestors acquired the ability to speak. At some later point, law emerged.

Of course, even before our ancestors could speak, they could get into disputes. Disputes occur between other animals frequently. Without the ability to speak, there are fewer ways in which to resolve disputes. Usually, dispute resolution between animals involves intimidating displays of force, threats, and violent or even deadly conflict. Disputes are costly and risky so, even in the non-verbal animal kingdom, there are dispute avoidance mechanisms. Birds mark their territory with sticks, dogs with urine, and so on. The behavior of establishing publicly visible borders is important because, as long as others see and abide by those borders, disputes can be avoided.

When a dispute arose between our verbal ancestors who had not yet developed law, they had the option of talking about the dispute. If, after talking (perhaps shouting), they did not engage in physical violence, they had resolved their dispute verbally. People who could resolve their disputes verbally would incur less costs and risks than those who could not and, consequently, would enjoy an advantage in survival and reproduction. However, we know from experience that it is very difficult for two parties to resolve any serious dispute unaided since each party to a dispute tends to distort the facts and engage in special pleading in his own favor. One solution to this problem is to ask a disinterested third-party to hear the dispute and offer an opinion. People who were willing to bring their disputes to a third-party were more likely to resolve their disputes without the cost and risk of violent conflict and enjoyed an advantage in survival and reproduction over those who did not.

I have bolded the second paragraph because it explains very well what I mean when I say “the concept of ownership is inherent to humans”. Animals establish what they see as their own, and humans do the same thing.

Again, as does the theif; namely to what you consider “your stuff.” So I say, again, that the claim to possession and control alone is not good enough to be considered property, else the theif’s claim is a claim to property. You’re saying the concept of “possession and control” is inherent to humans, which is true, and then conflating possession and control to “property,” which is a very specific form of possession and control.

Just because someone has claimed something as their own does not mean they have initiated or threatened violence against anyone else.

It does not, I agree.

If I pick an apple off of a tree and then start to eat it, I have not threatened anybody else. However, if someone else were to come along and take that apple from me, they have used violence.

Yet in property, it may have been “their” apple, and so, within a property system, you have used violence, by trespassing and theivery. But, without the respect for property claims, this is ludicrous, is it not?

Therefore, it is easy to see that one can claim possession and control non-violently, ie, you picking the apple. It is when someone claims “mine” that the threat of violence is necessary. You can only claim it as “mine” with the claim that you will defend it from being taken. The choices are:

1. You claim it as your own, and bring the threat of violence to protect it from being taken.

2. They claim it as theirs, with the threat of violence to protect it.

3. Nobody claims it as anyting other than nature’s bounty, you eat the apple, and the guy finds another one.

… I guess we could add in 4; one of you just abandons all hope for peace and brings physical violence on the other…

Now, one objection might be that I could pick the apple and put it aside, and then someone else comes along and takes it. There was then no violence or threat of violence by the second individual, so there! But by what right does the second individual have to take that apple?

What “right” did you have to take it?

Why does the second person have a better claim to that apple than the first person?

Good question. Why does the first person have a better claim than the second?

How is it right that if I take the time to gather food for storage and find shelter for myself that I must now remain constantly vigilant, else the food I have gathered is up for grabs by anybody who can get away with it?

Why is it right for you to take more apples than you need, forcing others to go without or take “yours” from you?

Furthermore, if I pick the apple off of a tree, and then I drop it so that I may climb down safely, is it not mine any more? It is up for grabs until I can pick it up again?

Why was it “yours” just for picking it? If it is “yours” just for picking it, wherein does wage labor not expropriate the value of the laborer’s productivity?

This is why libertarians support the rule of first use.

This was my original contention tho; there is no piece of (meaningful) property anywhere on earth that can be actually applied to the first use rule. For the libertarian society to be as justifiable as claimed we would have to strike down the legality of all current property claims and leave the entire world up for homesteading. That’s why it is often responded, when I bring this up, that “the claimants and their descendants are long dead and so we don’t have to worry about that.” Fine, fair enough… but it sure does seem like a post-hoc rationalization for the status quo.

But this does not mean that the original appropriators of property are necessarily threatening or using violence against anyone. They are just realizing the golden rule. “Respect what is mine, and I’ll respect what is yours.”

“Respect what is mine” or… what? That’s been my point the entire time.

Now, it may seem that I am trying to be a slippery fish here on the original appropriation of property. The thing is, my views have changed a lot over the last few years, and they have continued to change. I used to be a conservative, then a Rothbardian, but I have not been a Rothbardian for a while now. Clayton has mentioned in other threads that he considers the NAP to be incomplete but largely suitable for the vast majority of human interaction. Maybe he is right and maybe he isn’t. My view has been informed by the golden rule for a very long time, and I believe the NAP is about as close to that as anything can be. But the golden rule is a solid rule as far as I’m concerned when it comes to society. The idea of a social contract is only partially valid. The common and original definition of the social contract is that by being a part of society, you agree to surrender your freedoms to the state or the majority. This, in my opinion, is nonsense. The only concept of a social contract that I could ever believe to be valid would be the idea that by being a part of society, you agree to the golden rule.

Quite simply, what you are suggesting is against the golden rule. “People should not have private property” is completely against the golden rule. If I take the time to find food or make shelter, that is mine. I will respect the food that you have found and the shelter you have made, and you will respect mine. If people really could not respect the things that other people own, there would not be any societies today. We would be living in poverty, if we were even living at all.

Fair enough, but you’re talking about something wildly different than modern society. If we could go back in time to pre-neolithic days, perhaps I would agree with you.. tho probably not. What you are dealing with today is the violent appropration of all land, across the world, and its aftermath. There is no “food and shelter you and I have made.” There is only the aftermath of “things our ancestors were coerced and/or compelled to make at the behest of feudal property claimants.” It would be like me going to Bristolville, Ohio and killing everyone in the town, claiming it all as my property and telling you to “respect what is mine and I’ll respect what is yours.” It’s absurd.

To summarize: It is not necessarily so that for there to be private property that the original appropriator must have used violence or threatened violence. Also, I support the NAP because it is a legal realization of the golden rule. I support the golden rule because I do. There is no way to reason out logically something like that. You either take it as a premise or you don’t.

I completely agree with the bolded.

Third, to address your idea about abolishing private property: As I said, it has to do with the golden rule. You can either respect my stuff or you don’t.

I will respect your claim to your toothbrush, not your factory.

Good luck trying to form a society around the idea that you don’t need to respect other people’s things.

Good thing I’m not trying to build a society around that idea (or really “ideas” at all. I’m trying to establish society around the respect for people). It all really depends on “what” things are “yours” and “how” you use them, for socialists to determine valid claims.

There’s not much else to say about it. I don’t believe it can happen, period. It’s not just even a question of whether it is moral or just.

I’d rather prefer to not get into a “can it happen” debate because 1) I’m not arguing for a free-for-all society, but one based on need, not profit, and 2) I don’t think ancap can happen (because the ruling class would fight it nearly as hard as they fight socialism. Sure, they love to use libertarians to get the government out of the way when they need to. But when it comes to actually being libertarian, they see you guys as a threat).

Fourth, I have nothing against jointly owned property, but there is no way that property can be owned by everyone. It just boils down to the golden rule

I agree; there is no way for property to be owned by everyone. There is a way for possession and control to ultimately lay with the people democratically.

Finally, I said in the beginning that many of your points come from a misunderstanding of humans.

I’m not sure you made a good case for your contention tho.

As was pointed out earlier, many animals mark their territory and food. Humans do the same thing. Naturally, not all humans respect the claims of other humans. Some just take what they want from others and try to prevent others from gaining access to what they have taken.

See above.

But you are asking us to pretend that a society could form without respecting the claims of individuals.

I am claiming no such thing.

I can see why you dismiss any argument about human nature. For a society without private property to exist, there would have to be a fundamental shift in human nature - that people would not claim things for themselves, or that people would be okay with others taking the things that they have claimed as their own.

1. For a libertarian society to exist there must be a “fundamental shift” in “human nature.” People would have to stop claiming other people’s things as their own and using military means to back up those claims. I don’t really see this happening, it is not in the interests of the ruling class (and really only in the interests of the small business owner and small land owner), so it won’t come about through reform. It is not in the interests of the antagonist class either (the working class), so it wouldn’t come about through revolution. If something is not in the interests of the ruling class, a class with the economic means to bring society to their will, or the antagonistic class… I don’t see any means of how to bring it about.

2. For a society without private property to exist there would have to be nothing more than a legal means to make possession and control democratically accountable. Once all possession and control is democratically accountable, there is no longer “property” in the traditional sense of the word. I see no reason why democratically accountable claims to possession and control does not fit in with your “Golden Rule” other than the whole “mine” part (it’s more "I will respect you, if you will respect me).