socialism, property, and the state

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jon, if we break the power of the state, we've broken the power of the corporations. They are intricately interwoven.

This is where you (and I think Jon will agree) are mistaken. The state controls corporations much more than you know.

I mean, they enjoy the fact that stability allows them to have a stable currency, et. all... but they'll adapt, and they won't go down. They'll create their own form of communes.

[Jon Miller]

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

[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!

[cia]

The corporations will exists without the state.
Business has existed long before states were created.

[Jon Miller]

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

[chequita guevara]

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.

[chequita guevara]

The capitalists know that if we communists are the ones to abolish the capitalist state and set up a workers state, they will be nationalized. They although they wish to be free from the regulations of the state, they would support it against us.

[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

[Sava]

Corporations control more than the government. They control the clothes you wear, the music you listen to, the games you play, the cars you drive, etc, etc, etc. Our entire bankrupt culture is controlled by less than a thousand CEO's.

Unless, of course, you are Amish and you make your own clothes.

[David Floyd]

chegitz,

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?

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?

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.

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.

But like previous forms of society, in capitalism, property is only for the few.

Untrue. We all own property.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Sava]

I think the next revolution in this country will be a consumer revolution. People will rise up and take control of the government and break down these greedy corporations. Why do you think Republicans want to de-regulate everything? They want to force the public to rely on corporations so much that getting rid of them would cause complete chaos. That's why the government should be in charge of the country's infrastructure (Communications, Education, Health Care, Transportation). Even the military is at the mercy of corporate America. The only thing that isn't stamped with a "TM" are the soldiers who die. Everything else is the property of the corporations, sold to the armed forces.

AHHHH I'm getting so aggravated listening to my own rhetoric that I'm going to go insane and become one of those street prophets who walks around naked with two boards that make a sign that says "THE END IS NEAR" because I'll be so insane that the pressure stops and I will disconnect myself and not use anything that corporate America has touched but then I will be naked and my hair will be long and my signs will be written in blood on paper that I made!!!!

All right, good night all, I'll continue my insanity in the morning!

[cia]

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.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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?

Bad form! That's a false dilemma--it's entirely possible to disagree in principle with both natural rights and slavery.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The right of property as a universal right, that is, a right which all men can claim, is a relatively modern claim.

Relatively modern? Property as such exists even in the animal world. For example, some animals regard territory as their property and defend it against intruders. Capitalist system simply formalized the right of property. Che, by making such statements you undermine some reasonable points of your original post.

As a side remark, according to the theory of "scientific communism" that reigned in the USSR, there are two kinds of property: personal property and private property. Everything that can serve as the means of capitalist "exploitation" of other people is regarded private property. Personal property is used only for personal needs and never for exploitation. Personal property is welcome by the communist state, private property is rejected.