Doesn't the service industry preclude communist revolt?

[Giancarlo]

I have the perfect gift for you guys:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=12517&item=3907675614

Don't you love Ebay? Sadly, I bought a CCCP communist party ID off Ebay including 100 various Russian pins. I'm a collector.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich
The whole thing about communism arising out of infinite productivity is interesting, but it really doesn't seem to say anything about capitalism. If we had infinite productivity, then we would still be capitalist; it's just that we would be communist, if not in the strictest sense of no ownership of the means of production, but in terms of distribution of resources. By the time communism could be implemented without conflict (which occurs whenever you have a redistribution of limited resources), it will already have arrived.

How would it be capitalist? If the means of production can produce freely without the need for much if any labor, then how does the proleteriat earn money? What would they buy the good with? Capitalism does not mean only private ownership-there was private ownership in the feudal and in the merchantalist system, in the slave economies of the classical age...and none of that made it capitalist. Capitalism implies a hwole range of relationships that would become impossible or invalid once we get to this infinite productivity.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
I have the perfect gift for you guys:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=12517&item=3907675614

Don't you love Ebay? Sadly, I bought a CCCP communist party ID off Ebay including 100 various Russian pins. I'm a collector.

That's not a communist party id, though

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by ErikM

That's not a communist party id, though

I know it isn't. I bought a real one off there but that was a good suggestion for you guys.

[Whoha]

No, because manufacturing jobs in the US pay between 2 and 3 times what ordinary service jobs pay.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Doesn't the service industry preclude communist revolt?

Originally posted by Kucinich
By your definition, though, a lawyer would be a proletariat - he has nothing to sell but his labor. His labor just happens to be worth a lot.

A lawyer is selling is knowledge, training, and skills. He is not merely selling is ability to do work, but his services as an officer of the court and the law.

Originally posted by DanS
Vast majority? Wouldn't stock ownership preclude people from being in the proletariat? If yes, then the majority of Americans aren't in the proletariat.

Not really. Most Americans who own stock do so in retirement plans, and own a very small piece of the pie. Controlling interest still resides in the top 10%, and the top1% owns the lions share of that. Furthermore, much of the stock owned by proletarians is not voting stock.

[Kuciwalker]

A lawyer is selling is knowledge, training, and skills. He is not merely selling is ability to do work, but his services as an officer of the court and the law.

And a factory worker is not merely selling his ability to do work, but his services as a assembly-line-person. A lawyer's ability to do work is his "services as an officer of the court and the law".

Not really. Most Americans who own stock do so in retirement plans, and own a very small piece of the pie. Controlling interest still resides in the top 10%, and the top1% owns the lions share of that. Furthermore, much of the stock owned by proletarians is not voting stock.

It's still capital.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
How would it be capitalist? If the means of production can produce freely without the need for much if any labor, then how does the proleteriat earn money?

The proletariat doesn't have to, because if the thing is essentially free, anyone can make it.

What would they buy the good with? Capitalism does not mean only private ownership-there was private ownership in the feudal and in the merchantalist system, in the slave economies of the classical age...and none of that made it capitalist. Capitalism implies a hwole range of relationships that would become impossible or invalid once we get to this infinite productivity.

Capitalism is just freedom of contract and freedom of property.

[Ramo]

Then is intellectual property anti-capitalist since it contradicts freedom of contract?

[Kuciwalker]

Huh?

Intellectual property is 1) a utilitarian violation of capitalism, if one at all, that serves the intent and 2) intellectual property.

[Ramo]

I never said it was a violation of capitalism. You asserted that freedom of contract is capitalism. If there's intellectual property, the state enforces a monopoly. It prevents me from freely contracting with others.

And yes, intellectual property is property. The existence of ownership doesn't imply freedom of ownership.

[Kuciwalker]

I never said it was a violation of capitalism. You asserted that freedom of contract is capitalism. If there's intellectual property, the state enforces a monopoly. It prevents me from freely contracting with others.

Huh?

And yes, intellectual property is property. The existence of ownership doesn't imply freedom of ownership.

I was saying that intellectual property, if viewed as actual property, is completely consistent with the freedom of property.

[Ramo]

What does "if viewed as actual property" mean? That sounds like a circular argument. If the state expropriates a bunch of stuff and calls it property, does that make these actions consistent with freedom of contract?

Huh?

I never signed a contract not to download a Led Zeppelin album. Whoever uploaded it didn't sign a contract not to upload that Led Zeppelin album. The state is forcing us not to do so. It's inconsistent with freedom of contract for the same reason why, say, state prohibitions on usury are inconsistent with freedom of contract.

[Kuciwalker]

What does "if viewed as actual property" mean?

Some people here are of the view that intellectual property is not, in fact, property. That was a stipulation that the following argument was true if one did not hold to their point of view

I never signed a contract not to download a Led Zeppelin album. Whoever uploaded it didn't sign a contract not to upload that Led Zeppelin album. The state is forcing us not to do so.

1) It is arguable that you, by implication, were bound to a contract by buying the ablum

2) That aside, you did not sign a contract not to take my money, either, but you can't. Does that make laws against theft violations of freedom of contract? No.

It's inconsistent with freedom of contract for the same reason why, say, state prohibitions on usury are inconsistent with freedom of contract.

A certain amount of state interference in those liberties is justified on utilitarian grounds (though not by Libertarians ) - another example is standardized currency. They make things run more smoothly.

[Ramo]

Some people here are of the view that intellectual property is not, in fact, property. That was a stipulation that the following argument was true if one did not hold to their point of view

Again:
"That sounds like a circular argument. If the state expropriates a bunch of stuff and calls it their property, does that make these actions consistent with freedom of contract?"

And which people? I've never said that IP isn't property. Or even that it wasn't justified.

1) It is arguable that you, by implication, were bound to a contract by buying the ablum

I've never agreed not to upload an album when I've bought it. Nor did I ever agree not to download an album, which is also prohibited by our IP laws.

2) That aside, you did not sign a contract not to take my money, either, but you can't.

Bad logic. Freedom of contract implies the consent of the relevant partners (those who have a good and those who wantg it). If I take your money without your consent, that contradicts freedom of contract.

1) It is arguable that you, by implication, were bound to a contract by buying the ablum

2) That aside, you did not sign a contract not to take my money, either, but you can't. Does that make laws against theft violations of freedom of contract? No.

A certain amount of state interference in those liberties is justified on utilitarian grounds (though not by Libertarians ) - another example is standardized currency. They make things run more smoothly.

And it's another example of how capitalism is not about freedom of contract. Justification isn't part of the argument, I'm just demonstrating the nature of capitalism.