Doesn't the service industry preclude communist revolt?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by JohnT
Iain Banks has it correct: Communism will be a great system when we are able to tap stars for energy sources, machines do all physical labor, nanotechnology provides all, and people are bored and well-fed. Until then, we need Capitalism to get us there.

Actually, it was Deep Blue beating Kasparov that convinced me of the inevitability of communism.

But until then we need a mixed economy. However, private markets simply cannot deal with the world's most pressing problems (Partly because they cause some of them): HIV, pollution, systemic poverty, environmental degradation being prime examples. These may accelerate events.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kucinich

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

So you admit you were wrong in the other thread?

Well here's more to stick in your pipe.

The capitalist view of property rights is basically rubbish. If it is not to be viewed as some vestigially religious concept (which I have often argued in these pages) we are left with the sensible view that property rights exist for broadly utilitarian reasons, and if that is the case, they are not absolute rights.

The whole right wing view of things is ridiculous anyway, I can't see why my having or controlling an item constitutes anything more than that - there is certainly no magical relation between me and the thing (as Locke seems to think).

Property rights are conventional and contingent on producing good outcomes. When they fail to do this job, we should dispense with them. Crying and whining because the state takes your property is meaningless, the state gives you the right to own things in the first place, as long as it makes everyone better off. If it stops being justified by its utility, too bad.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you can;t hold a real discussion on a topid with a jaded and inherently incorrect view of the other side.

Mind if I use this statement whenever someone goes off on 'Neo-conservatism' without understanding what it is? It'd be perfect.

--

Oh, and on 'property rights', they aren't absolute rights, HOWEVER, if there is an absolute right to life, then I don't see how you cannot have an absolute right to property, because, at the very least, your body is your own property.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich


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

Actually, the only way to have a good be essentially free is to have extremely productive or advanced industry so you cut down the cost of production so drastically you can make it virtually free. Last time I looked not everyone can own a factory. Those free CD's companies now give out? Can you manufacture CD's Sky?

Capitalism is just freedom of contract and freedom of property.

Wrong. The very word disproves this-capitalism-meaning that the most important part of the whole system is Capital, which is distinct from say labor and resources.

[Whaleboy]

Bolshevism/Stalinism certainly wouldnt work. I would argue that there are already numerous Marxist elements in Western society. Consider it a conglomerate, a dynamic one at that, instead of just a mere battle of simplistic ideologies and isms that Western propaganda would have us think.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich

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".

Why don't you try to be intellectually honest, instead of simply trying to score points. Obviously I'm simplifying a highly complex issue. Do you seriously consider unskilled labor to be a service for sale?

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.

It's not relevent. It doesn't change their relationship to society. It doesn't preclude them from having to sell their labor-power in order to make a living.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why don't you try to be intellectually honest, instead of simply trying to score points. Obviously I'm simplifying a highly complex issue. Do you seriously consider unskilled labor to be a service for sale?

I agree with you, however unskilled labor is becoming more scarce in our societies. Unskilled workers in factories become more and more replaced by machinery, and facotry workers are often skilled in controlling / manipulating said machinery. Unskilled labor has not disappeared (it remains everywhere in thirld-world countries, and a significant chunk of the workforce of our societies is unskilled as well), however it does be on the wane here.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Mind if I use this statement whenever someone goes off on 'Neo-conservatism' without understanding what it is? It'd be perfect.

The problem is that it isn't really an intellectually coherent doctrine. Same goes for the old model.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh, and on 'property rights', they aren't absolute rights, HOWEVER, if there is an absolute right to life, then I don't see how you cannot have an absolute right to property, because, at the very least, your body is your own property.

Is it? The law, at any rate, does not recognize full ownership rights over one's body, which would, among other things, include the right to sell it.

(I, of course, mean selling it in the literal sense, not with reference to prostitution, which really is only yet another service which does not alter your legal rights wrt your body any more than mowing your neighbour's lawn for monetary reward does.)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
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.

elijah

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.

wrt uploading, the theory (I'm not endorsing, I'm explaining here) is that it's an implicit contract. wrt downloading, the theory is just like why downloading child porn is as illegal as creating it - you are directly "benefitting" off of the violation of the law, and creating a demand.

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.

Yes, but keeping you from downloading something is not a violation of freedom of contract, because it's outlawing the activity.

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.

It is about freedom of contract - which, like all freedoms, is denied by the government in some cases when there is a definite utility in doing so.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
So you admit you were wrong in the other thread?

Nope, I'm just trying to stick to the argument at hand, rather than having it devolve into the debate over whether intellectual property is actually property.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, the only way to have a good be essentially free is to have extremely productive or advanced industry so you cut down the cost of production so drastically you can make it virtually free.

Uh, DUH! That's the situation we're talking about.

Wrong. The very word disproves this-capitalism-meaning that the most important part of the whole system is Capital, which is distinct from say labor and resources.

So communism is really just about communes, not that thing Spiffor was talking about. Good to know.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why don't you try to be intellectually honest, instead of simply trying to score points. Obviously I'm simplifying a highly complex issue. Do you seriously consider unskilled labor to be a service for sale?

Yes.

[chequita guevara]

Then you are a fool.

[Ramo]

elijah

wrt uploading, the theory (I'm not endorsing, I'm explaining here) is that it's an implicit contract.

Well, that's a crappy theory. If you can appeal to an "implicit contract" for this, why not every other social relation (thus rendering freedom of contract meaningless)?

wrt downloading, the theory is just like why downloading child porn is as illegal as creating it - you are directly "benefitting" off of the violation of the law, and creating a demand.

Who said anything about the law? Legal doesn't make it consistent with freedom of contract.

Yes, but keeping you from downloading something is not a violation of freedom of contract, because it's outlawing the activity.

And what's your point? Just about every contract involves an activity. Again, are prohibitions on usury as in the middle ages consistent with freedom of contract? What about inheritance, another activity?

It is about freedom of contract - which, like all freedoms, is denied by the government in some cases when there is a definite utility in doing so.

So you're saying that some contracts are fine in capitalism and others are not (as in, say, communism; communists would consider their violations of freedom of contract utilitarian)? I thought you just said that capitalism was about freedom of contract?