 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:13
|
|
Okay, now David Floyd and I have a debate going on in two seperate threads, so I thought I'd stop thread jacking them and move it here. I'm also bringing in my debate with Jon Miller about the nature of the capitalist state, since these are, in fact, related points.
Property is not an inherent right of man. No such thing (inherent rights) exists. We only have such rights as we can claim and successfully defend. The right of property as a universal right, that is, a right which all men can claim, is a relatively modern claim. Even then, it didn't apply to men of the "wrong" color or women.
Human beings, for almost their entire existence, lived in a propertiless state. Property only came into existence when humans began agriculture. What is the point of owning property, if you have to carry it everywhere? Just drop the stupid rock and make a new tool when you need it. This is what the achaelogical record shows. This is, in fact, how other tool using primates still act today (chimps, bonbos, etc).
Once agriculture was invented, once people didn't have to keep moving to secure food, then, and only then, could property come into existence and become feasable. Even then, property was only in existence for a priveledged few, priests and priest-kings, nobility.
It is only with the rise of capitalism that property becomes a "universal" concept, that all men are entitled to property. But like previous forms of society, in capitalism, property is only for the few. You and I might be able to own tiny amounts of property: a house, a car, personal items, but true property, commercial or agricultural land, factories, mines, etc. remain far beyond the reach of mortal men. These are the types of property that control the lives of billions, the types of property a person needs in order not to be a slave to others. Furthermore, the propertilessness of the vast majority is necessary for the property of the tiny few.
Abolsihing property would do nothing to the average American, let along the average human. We are already without property. We would only be forcing a pitiful few to join the rest of humanity in their propertilessness. Since the vast majority have no property, why should we respect the property of the insignificant few?
It is because of this, that people of property form governments. From the first days of taking property in the form of humans, through serfdom and finally to capitalism, states have existed for one purpose, and one purpose only, to protect the property of the few.
The state in America is more than just the elected government. It is the bureaucracy, the military, the police. Should committed socialists be elected to power (and overcome Madison's checks against factions), they would not be able to create a socialist society. The bureaucracy would sabotage attempts to impliment it. The military would overthrow it. The police would harrass the movement before it came to power.
The working class cannot simply lay hold of the capitalist state. It must be abolished and a new state constituted to protect the new, more advanced property of the working class. The property of all, instead of the property of the few.
Indeed, we communists are not opposed to property. We just want everyone to have it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:13
|
|
Your use of the term "right" is incorrect. No human being has any right. The strong take from the weak. Government is created to give the people rights, to protect the weak from the strong. Communism/Socialism is flawed in that sense. Nobody has the "right" to property. You work for what you get.
There are some things I do agree with:
Free education (if you're willing to learn and do the work, you should have the opprotunity)
Free health care (profiting off of disease, illness, and injury IMO is wrong)
Protection of the law (this is a DUH, but I have to include it)
Equal Opprotunity based on skill
If everyone was guaranteed property, than the system would collapse. You would not have to work because you will always have a guaranteed property. If you do work, you have no motivation to excel because you don't get any more or any less regardless of the quality of your work.
What we need is a system of government that rewards excellence, but also allows equal opprotunity. The system should give the power back to the people, instead of the politicians. Legislation should not be complex (i.e. no attaching stupid little extras to laws). Justice should be fair. And punishment should fit the crime. This may mean expanding the jury size, or creating a new type of judicial worker. A set of people similar to judges who can be fair and impartial and can make decisions in the gray areas.
Basically, we need to take the good from capitalism, the good from commie/socialism, give everyone his or her say, make the system fair, and put it in practice.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Okay, now David Floyd and I have a debate going on in two seperate threads, so I thought I'd stop thread jacking them and move it here. I'm also bringing in my debate with Jon Miller about the nature of the capitalist state, since these are, in fact, related points.
It is because of this, that people of property form governments. From the first days of taking property in the form of humans, through serfdom and finally to capitalism, states have existed for one purpose, and one purpose only, to protect the property of the few.
The state in America is more than just the elected government. It is the bureaucracy, the military, the police. Should committed socialists be elected to power (and overcome Madison's checks against factions), they would not be able to create a socialist society. The bureaucracy would sabotage attempts to impliment it. The military would overthrow it. The police would harrass the movement before it came to power.
The working class cannot simply lay hold of the capitalist state. It must be abolished and a new state constituted to protect the new, more advanced property of the working class. The property of all, instead of the property of the few.
Indeed, we communists are not opposed to property. We just want everyone to have it. |
I agree with you (basically) on the property issue
I disagree with you on the government thing
'governments' exist to protect and help the people in them have a better life
governments are just one type of social structure
all social structures are the same in that they derive their power from the people in them, who give up some of there existance to the social structure
it appears that the most fundamental social structure is the family
early man had groups of families join together in order to better serve those in them (this is how early governments were formed)
also early on, there were those who wanted more of the resources, and stole from what was given the social structure freely by those who entered into the structure
one of the primary things stolen was property, but freedom was also stolen as was right
over the years those early structures advanced into governments, but families also existed as a competeing and somewhat complimentary social structure (another example of a social structure is organized religion)
after a long period of time with government being subverted by a few (the nobles), the idea of democracy came into being
this was a big step in the right direction since the direction of what was done could (in ideal) be directed by those who were part of the structure
also though, property was seen as more and more important and so those who were wealthy used there position in the movement to democracy to make sure that they had the property, not the people
from them was created structures which served property and no man and looked to gain more property, not support the needs of the people (these competeing social structures are known as corporations)
the goal of communism is a classless society
(I am not sure what is stated here right now so I will post this and work more on it later tonight)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
that is because it has been subverted
it was more subverted before, it will be a lot harder (Arguably impoosible) to build from scratch
and we already have these structures which are suppose to do what is needed
and some of them (like the US government) has the power to fight the corporations
we just need to retake control
get back what we put into them
no longer allow areselves to be stolen from
if we destroy the states the corporations will be allowed to run rampant (there will be nothing with which to control them)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm not talking about what they say they are for, but what they actually do. The state will kill to protect the property of others. The state will beat your ass if you try to strike effectively. The state will take your tiny peices of property to give to someone who already has lots of property. |
you should have no property, it is worthless and more effeiciently put to use in the hands of the state
also having property makes oyu better able to enslave your fellows
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What about taxes? A huge portion of our taxes go to the coffers of big business, either in the form of tax credits, subsidies, military contracts, etc. Do you get compensated for that? |
I agree it is horrible screwed up with right now
but tearing down will just take up our energy and leave the corporations with no competitors
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Jon, if we break the power of the state, we've broken the power of the corporations. They are intricately interwoven. |
no we will have a whole lot of things with more power than the dutch east indy company (which took down governments) but with nothing to fight them
once nations look to be dropping the corporations will leave them behind and use other mechanisms(which are already emplace) to have power
look at the multinationals now, they need no state
corporations are parasites true, but they can be parasites off weaker structures then governments and if forced too can have existance in and of themselves
Jon Miller
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Che, ever read Snowcrash or like books
ever seen the power of multinationals
or how the old companies acted when there was no state arround (dutch east Indy companie and the like)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cia
|
|
Far away from here
Apr 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
The corporations will exists without the state.
Business has existed long before states were created.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
You guys are under the impression that the state and the corporations are separate entities. Who do you think pays for all those politicians' campaigns? How come the super rich guys like Perot never get elected? It's because this is a corporate funded Democracy! |
corporations exist witihin states, currently
but I point to all the power they have over peopls lives as showing that they do not need the state
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:13
|
|
In any individual confrontation, the state certainly has an advantage against a coporation. However, against the entire capitalist class (bourgeoisie), the state would do what it's told. Generally, however, the state only intervenes if a corporation is threatening the system as a whole. Monopolies threaten the profits of other companies, as well as destabilize the system, so the state bans them for the good of the class as a whole. The capitalists opposed unions, and minimum wages, etc., but for the good of the class, the state forced them to accept it, because the growing alternative was guys like me.
If we communists break the state, it will have only been while fighting the full power that the corporations have to throw at us. Thus, breaking the states necessitates breaking capitalists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
but at some point the corporations will allow the state to fall and look out for themselves
you agree that the state has the power, then all we need is to show the people that they are in danger, they will respond and the corporations will be eliminated
a lot better than your idea of fighting governments (We have to fight more people (including others who shold side with us) and afterwards the corporations (cause they will still hold the property))
unions were another social structure created to fight the corporations internally (As a parasite)
but they have the same issue as ealy governments, they are subverted by the few (who will just turn into a new ruling class, it happened in russia)
I don't want to start the struggle all over again, you would just be moving us back 4000 years and we would probably have to face something kin to corporations again (this is assuming you win and we are not just enslaved by corporations until something new appears)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
chegitz,
quote:
Property is not an inherent right of man. No such thing (inherent rights) exists. We only have such rights as we can claim and successfully defend. The right of property as a universal right, that is, a right which all men can claim, is a relatively modern claim. Even then, it didn't apply to men of the "wrong" color or women. |
Do you own or have a valid claim on yourself?
If you answer yes, you agree in principle with natural rights and private property.
If you answer no, you agree in principle with slavery.
Which is it?
quote:
Human beings, for almost their entire existence, lived in a propertiless state. Property only came into existence when humans began agriculture. What is the point of owning property, if you have to carry it everywhere? Just drop the stupid rock and make a new tool when you need it. |
All that meant was that abandoning property and remaking it later was more convenient. I'd wager the average human would be upset if someone hit him on the head and took his hammer, hmm?
quote:
Once agriculture was invented, once people didn't have to keep moving to secure food, then, and only then, could property come into existence and become feasable. Even then, property was only in existence for a priveledged few, priests and priest-kings, nobility. |
This isn't true, but the "priviliged few" did have advantages due to an immoral and coercive government/economic system (feudalism). That is not capitalism.
quote:
It is only with the rise of capitalism that property becomes a "universal" concept, that all men are entitled to property. |
Actually this is just when natural rights were first named and articulated. They always existed as a concept, but no one bothered to elucidate it.
quote:
But like previous forms of society, in capitalism, property is only for the few. |
Untrue. We all own property.
quote:
You and I might be able to own tiny amounts of property: a house, a car, personal items, but true property, commercial or agricultural land, factories, mines, etc. remain far beyond the reach of mortal men. |
Again, untrue.
My greatgrandfather owned several farms and businesses - speaking of which, small, family owned businesses make up a large percentage of the US economy. Further, just because you can't afford a mine doesn't mean you can't, in theory, own one. There's a difference, and there's nothing wrong with that. No society is devoid of poor people, or even has less poor people than rich people - no moral, non-coercive society, that is.
quote:
These are the types of property that control the lives of billions, the types of property a person needs in order not to be a slave to others. |
Slavery implies forced labor. The wage labor system is, and always has been (under capitalism and capitalist-type systems) voluntary, based on voluntary individual contracts.
quote:
Abolsihing property would do nothing to the average American, let along the average human. We are already without property. |
Even assuming this is true, it would certainly harm the property owners. Egalitarianism is immoral, and can be used to justify anything. Don't like a rich man? Fine, rob him. He doesn't want to give up his wealth? OK, apply more force, through him in prison.
quote:
We would only be forcing a pitiful few to join the rest of humanity in their propertilessness. Since the vast majority have no property, why should we respect the property of the insignificant few? |
Because of natural rights - although I disagree that only property such as mines, agricultural land, etc., is meaningful. To make that claim shows an ignorance of economics.
quote:
It is because of this, that people of property form governments. From the first days of taking property in the form of humans, through serfdom and finally to capitalism, states have existed for one purpose, and one purpose only, to protect the property of the few. |
Immoral governments protect the rights of a few. Moral governments protect the rights of all.
quote:
Should committed socialists be elected to power (and overcome Madison's checks against factions), they would not be able to create a socialist society. The bureaucracy would sabotage attempts to impliment it. The military would overthrow it. The police would harrass the movement before it came to power. |
Untrue - but the US population would never elect socialists.
Oh, yes they would - we have 1 socialist Congressman. That's it. Socialism is unpopular in America, at least total socialism, abolition of property, etc.
quote:
Indeed, we communists are not opposed to property. We just want everyone to have it. |
And there's the problem. You don't believe that everyone has a positive right to own property, but you believe there is a negative right not to be poor. This is also known as entitlement. Unfortunately for you, proper entitlement is not based on egalitarianism. Proper entitlement is more along the lines of this is mine. Either I made it myself with no obligation not to keep it, or I entered into a contractual relationship in which another would produce it for me in exchange for payment. That is proper entitlement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cia
|
|
Far away from here
Apr 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
The hilarious part is communism and socialism both depend on an intrinsic selflessness of people. Which is only true for maybe 90% of the population. The problem is that the 10% will destroy those systems because there is no check on them. Productivity is drained and those who work feel like idiots so they slow down or stop. The people must be fed so goverment forces some to work, normally by force. Those people resent being forced to work because there are no goods they receive. On and on the cycle goes throughout the economy. This is why those forms of government suck.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-05-2002 08:03
.
|