And Eliotn, I know intelectual property (or labor) can be a specific topic, but this post its about socialism in general so we talking about everything I guess. They were talking about property so it made sense.
That’s state capitalism, communism is an economy where the community controls it’s economic life by direct democracy, there is no state or central planning, and there is no hierarchy; like in any socialist form of organization.
I said that intelectual property is impossible because it is contradicts the notion of property. Property comes into being when you mix labor with recourses, and that gives you a title over it. E.g. I chopp tries or mine ore, and that timber and ore are mine, because I have labored to make them. If you have a patent on making a house, that’s basically saying I can’t build a house without your permission, and that means you are controling what I can do with my timber which is my legitimate property, even though I would use it in a way that would not harm anyone or limit their freedom.
I’m neither marxist nor materialist.
Intelectual and physical labor exist, and no one will deny it. The main thing that socialists instist upon is that you must apply constant labor in order to be entitled to constant income. Patents are for intellectual labor the same thing that usury (as Proudhon called it, meaning investment and renting) are for physical labor.
Ok I might still be confused about the terminology but that’s not what is important for me right now, and I also don’t want to discuss that (Ill take your word) neither I want to define who you are exactly even thou I still think you are materialist.
About the intelectual labor issue. For me its all about the end product, I really don’t care if resources are mixed with labour, I can call the things that I hear and see…my intelligence MY BRAIN, as a resource, mixed with a hard time of learning, focusing and actually using it (my brain), I would get an end product (just like Marx did).
But even in writing a book for example, Im using the pen and paper or computer (resources) mixing it with my labor and producing something, same thing with music somebody uses the drum, guitar, etc etc. So I still don’t see how you make those distinctions, and I don’t see the need for distinctions its all about end product and letting the market decide what is valuable or not, if it has labor (however you define it) or not that’s irrelevant, labor is subjective and irrelevant, you can labor all your life (WITH “CONSTANT LABOR”) to have the same end product I make in 5 minutes, that doesn’t make your product better than mine, and therefore my 5 minutes labor should give me equal amount of rights to your life long CONSTANT LABOR, because we have both the same end product. Wrong?
You wanted to focus on patents, but that’s a more complicated subject, you don’t have to pay Marx everytime you want to have a Marxist partie or share his thoughts. Im in favor of a fair reward to those that make patents not a never-ending reward for eternity. But again forget the patents…
Sure, you are free to be delusional.
If you reject the notion of property (and property comes into being by mixing labor with recources), but it’s contradictory then to say that there should be property.
And you are entitled to your book, and to the recording of your music. But if you sell your book or the recording of your music to someone, you are not entitled to give them orders on what they mustn’t do with their own property, when they are not hurting anyone or limiting they’re freedom. They are free to do print or burn copies of their own property.
Ok stsoc I know you doing the most that you can, but try not to avoid the hardest questions or the hardest quotings.
I made in 5 minutes (thanks to my amazing mind labor) the same product that took a lifetime of constant labor for you to produce, my product its equally valid and “good” for society as yours, actually its exactly the same: should I get the same retribution for my 5 minutes labor as you get for your constant life labor?
If you say no you automaticaly saying that mind/intelectual labor is not labor at all, what is behind your theory all along, and the only thing that can sustain all that you said till now, and thats why I call you materialist (amongst other reasons) would appreciate if you could answer this question.
And about intelectual property of course in your conception there is absolutelly nothing wrong with me getting a book that took you 20 years of hard research, isolation in a cave or any imaginable drama/sacrifice possible, copy it and sell millions of copys like if it was mine.
Moraly there is nothing wrong with that of course, yet there is something wrong with the boss supposedly taking a part of the profit of your labor…why? because intelectual labor is no labor! (and has no resources) therefore cant be property and deserves no reward, therefore thinking is a useless activity that you do on your spare time as an hobby after your permanent life of “constant farming and fishing”…
Is like you can enjoy others creations but your creations go unrewarded and you necessarily need to create for free, because its no labor. Im not even saying that you shoud do intelectual works to profit from it, Im just stating that what is fair is fair, what is labor is labor and what is moral is moral.
And “property” Im not contradicting anything since I didnt give any definition, I dont agree with that definition end of story. Property? is just something you hold in your posession, or that belongs to you (like your mind and body). Either is resource mixed with labor or it fell from the sky like a meteor or the water that falls from the clouds or a piece of land or the product of your talents, its irrelevant to me therefore I cant imagine where do you find a contradiction. UNLESS you saying I cant have a diferent definition of property and need to share the same complicated divisional perspective that envolves resources mixed with labor (which its funny).
Retribution?
Which I didn’t say.
If you buy it, it is yours. I have no say in what you do with your property (if you don’t harm someone or limit their freedom), and if I sell you my book, you can do with it whatever you want- read it, burn it, sell it, reprint it.
For the fourth time, intellectual property is not impossible because intellectual labor is not real, but because it is in contradition with the notion of property.
It deserves a reward. You write a book, you print it, and sell it. What you earn is yours.
And what is contraditory is contradictory. Intellectual property is contradictory to the notion of property itself.
And which you have the right to do what you want (as long as you don’t hurt anyone or limit their freedom). And intellectual property is in contradiction with that.
You cannot have a definition of property that doesn’t have in it the part that says that you have the right to do whatever you want with your property. If somone else besides you can control your property, then it is not your property, calling it your property becomes nonsensical.
I have to give you props STSOC for sticking with the interrogation, it obviously must mean a great deal to you, but I’m still no closer to understanding how your positions could in any way lead to a more just society, or how any society could survive at all under these ideals.
You don’t believe in any separability of property rights, one owns something completely or not at all? I cannot own land so all my possessions I must carry with me at all times because I cannot exclude others from any parcel of land. Restaurants cannot exist because to allow someone to eat at a table is a separation of property rights, the right to the use of the table for a portion of time. Those allowed to eat at a table could destroy it or take it as their own? If I plant a field of corn others are free to take my crops? Noone can help me harvest because I am alienating their labor by not allowing them to take everything they harvest. Division of labor breaks down because one cannot excel at planting while another harvests more efficiently?
I assume your position is that one laboring to plant the field gives them property in the harvesting of the field, but this in itself is a separation of property rights, they cannot own the land but they own the right to the harvest, they own its use for a period of time. If this is legitimate, what makes surther separations illegitimate, for instance the division of profits between the planter and harvester?
More than that, the one planting the field could not later on keep anyone at all from harvesting it.
Thus, any long-term operation becomes impossible, and theft is institutionalized. Society becomes marked by high-time preference activity, and thus civilization revert back to what was possible before low-time preference individuals created the modern world. The number one means of civilizing: investment, becomes impossible.
It’s probable that what he actually wants is indeed a reversal of civilization back to pre-industrial levels. People like him often choose these theories because they think pre-industrial civ somehow better.
Ragnar, looks like didn’t even read what I wrote, or you just don’t want to understand it.
You can by leaving your property on that parcel of land. Land cannot be property, but things you make (or stuff others made and you bought) are your legitimate property, and no one has the right to take them without your permission. Land can be possession, meaning be used by your property to exist. When you till the soil, it is yours, because you have removed it from the state of nature by mixing labor in it, but you have not, and cannot mix labor witht he intangible area that the soil occupies. So, when he soil returns in it’s untilled state of nature, you cannot legitmately deny anyone else the right to till that parcel of land, being that you do not have ownership of the area of land, and there is no property of yours occupying that parcel of land to phisically stop someone else from using it.
They would exists, you can allow anyone to use your property.
Where could you get this idiotic idea from? I have never said anything similar.
He can help you harvest if you cooperate as equals. You together decide how to share the work, the ownership of the product of your collective labor is collective, and you toghether decide what to do with that product, e.g. for how much to sell that corn (of whatever) and how to share the earnings. No alienation of labor is present because you are both in direct control of your labor and it’s product, and no one else takes any part of that product.
“For the fourth time, intellectual property is not impossible because intellectual labor is not real, but because it is in contradition with the notion of property.”
And its in contradiction with YOUR notion of property because you don’t consider it labor. My brain is the resource which I cultivate (labor) and get an end product.
Even thou you don’t want to admit it EVERYTHING you said till now points to the idea of “mind labor” not being labor, even the fact that you don’t consider the “boss” as entitled to any right or profit. Not to mention the “you could be an artist in your free time after doing the REAL LABOR like everyone else” (not exact quote).
About the book I think I am very clear about your sense of justice you sacrificed 20 years of your life researching to make a book, and you sell me one book, and its ok if I get rich and make millions with the PRODUCT OF YOUR LABOR! Oh….yeah I forgot its not labor, only putting the ink on a piece of paper is labor, therefore only that can be property. What is basically the same as saying any random printing on a piece of paper is an equaly valid product because the labor is only that part of the process.
About retribution was the second time I asked, I realize I made a mistake because in my language the word retribution (or a similar one) means any kind of pay back, giving something in return, not punishing, but I guess you could easily guess the meaning I intended to give by yourself.
So I repeat, I did in 5 minutes what took you 50 years, the same end product, so am I entitled to get the same amount of money (or any other kind of reward) in 5 minutes as you get in 50 years?
It does not, and I have explicitly said the opposite.
The boss is not entitled to take product of someone else’s labor.
I will repeat my answer: In socialism, in the communities functioning by mutualism, they [artists] would function as producers and sellers of their products. If people want to buy them [artists’ products], they’d buy them. In communities functioning by collectivism or communism, he’d have to contribute vitally important work to the community and could do art in his free time, or would have to convince the community fo accept that his art is enough of contribution to the community that he should take part in community’s food and similar products on the basis of providing art.
You took one of three options I mentioned of how could artists function in a socialist societies and you attributed to it something I have not said.
If I sell you my book, and you reprint it and becoming rich, you becoming rich is a product of your labor (reprinting) and for that labor you used your legitimate property (your book).
*That book you reprinted is your book, because you bought it, and I don’t have the right to tell what you can or can’t do with your property (if you do not harm anyone or limit their freedom), you can do whatever you want with you property, and I have no say in it.
You are not entitled to any price. You get what people are willing to pay you. If you spend 5 minutes of work for something that people want to pay great price, good for you; if I work 50 years for something no one wants to pay, well, bad for me.
Ok “quick reply”
1- You totally ignored all my point about all your conceptions of labor and property not taking into consideration anything besides taking a piece of paper and printing thats the only resource/labor envolved, therefore thats the only property, your resource is the ink and paper and the labor is the printing all the mind labor or research envolved = not relevant, not resource not labor not property not anything.
2- About the artist I took the example of your communist society, and I dont consider “convincing comunity that my work deserves a payment” reasonable plus what is the diference between that and letting the market decide? None, EXCEPT that the majority would decide and not the individuals, being worst both for me and for them. Thats why I ignored it, and I seriously dont understand why wouldnt you just let me make it and earn the money as a full-time job, why do I have to choose between those 2 options…but this point is basically irrelevant to me.
3- Good to finally hear the answer, I just wanted to know how unequal your society could be, now I know that I can make each 5 minutes the same you make each 50 years.
Where did I say that? Mind labor and research involved produced the book. But when I buy a book, no one has the right to forbid me from reprinting it.
Nothing preventing you from living in the mutualist communities and operate on the market.
Three options. The third is to do make it and earn money as a full-time job by selling your products on the market.
This sentence makes no sense.
Please somebody tell me that I make sense! 
When you say I can earn for 5 minutes of my time what you will earn with 50 years than…OBVIOUSLY I have the possibitie to make tons of more money than you, I think the phrase is self explanatory I dont see what can possibly not make sense.
About the labor, well I dont know how else can I make you see the obvious, you keep saying the same and you just refuse to realize it, but thats ok im only here to learn not to convince you.
For you resources = paper and ink, labor = printing, this mixed equals to property and therefore only this property can be protected. Therefore I have the right to sell millions of copys of your book. 20 years research? Totally irrelevant, totally unrewarded…blablabla. Nevermind…
That was not the argument. The point is that rights are not absolute. If exercising your right means depriving someone of theirs, your right is suspended. If you understand this with the “right to live”, “right to freely move”, etc, you should be able to understand the same concept when applied to “right to own products of own’s labour”. You have a right to own the product of your labour, but it does not extend so far as to deprive others of their rights. It has nothing to do with legitimacy of “intelectual labour”.
Anonymous, that was my argument and “rights not being absolute” has nothing to do with nothing, even if it may sound smart.
Ok Ill try to explain one last time because you are not stosc:
“right to own product of my own labor”
The product of my labor in your (and his) equation is strictly printing, being the research totally excluded.
Only that justifies that only the book (as an object) is considered property, and its considered product of your labor.
The “immaterial” content of the print, the labor involved in the content is not protected at all, because is not considered property, because the research was never seen has labor (and the brain as resource).
Only according to that logic there is absolutely nothing wrong with copying it and sell it. Because you bought the book (the product of my labor) and you making a book yourself (the product of your labor), or better copying it, there is NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL between copying and making, and you are doing the exact same labor I did which is PRINTING.
I totally understand your logic, that’s why I say your logic is only possible because the mind labor/research is not seen as labor.
The “proof” of my theory is simple and almost instinctive: I researched for 20 years sacrificing many things in life, I sold you one book (I didn’t sell anymore) you took it and sold 1 million, you are now rich with the “product of your labor” I am still poor. Who thinks this is fair? Nobody honest.
Don’t take me wrong I download many stuff probably more than both of you together, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know what is right and what is wrong, and most importantly I never sold anything.
Sharing is ok but taking the “product” of someone else’s labor is not ok (of course for you is not labor).
And by the way not only copying would be totally ok but even puting your name as the author in that copyed book, would be equally acceptable according to both of you. Nothing wrong with that, because is not property and the book is a product of your labor, afterall you did the printing.
Ps: When I said sharing is ok I dont totally stand by what I said (reading it sounds hypocrite), what I mean is more like is acceptable because when I “share” which is not “sharing” but copying Im still taking the product of that someone else labor, because Im taking a client away from him (or not depending if that person was going to buy it or not). But of course 95% of the people “benefit” with this so who cares? … Not me to be honest, of course if every single person shares and they stop making anything. Then I might start caring.
I’m not quite sure what you mean? If we take"the anarcho" in it’s original meaning: without-rulers. And not take it as meaning without-rules …
Firstly, how do you define “the full product of your labor”? How would the members of a cooperative attach a value to “the full product of your labor” so as to know how much to pay you? Secondly, why is it better for a group of people to decide by majority vote how much Jones should get in exchange for his labor, rather than Jones and a boss negotiating to decide how much Jones gets in exchange for his labor? Is there some reason for supposing that a democratic process will tend to give individual workers something closer to the “full product of their labor” (whatever that is) than an employer-employee negotiating process?
Could you define “labor”? If Bob builds a machine all by himself, and then hires people to run this machine to produce widgets, did Bob contribute labor to the production of said widgets? If you’re trying to determine who contributed labor to the production of some product, do you need to go all the way back to the first stage of production?
In a cooperative “the workers” (as a collective) take all the earnings and decide how to dole them out to the individual workers, just like the boss. What’s the difference? How is the power-relation between an individual worker and the collective different than the power-relation between an individual worker and the boss? Is the negotiating position of the individual worker better in a cooperative than in a capitalist-owned firm? In both cases, the individual worker does not get to decide unilaterally how much he receives for his labor. In both cases, the individual worker does get to choose whether he will work here or work elsewhere. I don’t see any difference at all, other than that the worker in the cooperative gets to vote, but so what? If the worker has a right to the full product of his labor, why should he have to obey the result of a majority vote? What’s that got to do with anything? Why is doling out the profits by majority vote more just than, for example, rolling dice or using a random number generator to decide who gets what?