Chavez once again porves he's a tin pot dictator in the making.

[Spiffor]

Re: Re: Re: he does not believe in property rights

Originally posted by Flubber
Isn't that standard communism?

Yes it is.


Kuci
It's very different from "property rights for the rich".

Commies generally don't oppose the right to own big cars and a big house (unless it's rental). OTOH, commies do oppose the right to own a business, no matter how humble (save for some commies who support the right of property over small businesses).

[DinoDoc]

Spiffor: You just told me that its different only by phrasing it differently than che did. Nothing about why it is different.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Spiffor: You just told me that its different only by phrasing it differently than che did. Nothing about why it is different.

From what you write, you think that "property rights of the rich" are the same as "property rights over the means of production".

They're not: A rich person can have many properties that he doesn't put to productive use (his mansion, his numerous sport cars etc). Such property won't be challenged by most commies.

OTOH, A middle-class person can have much less property, that he puts to productive use (say, he owns 20k$ worth of shares). This specific property will be challenged by commies.

Edit: oh sorry, I confused you with Kuci. This is an answer to the wrong question then.

[Spiffor]

Dinodoc

The reason why commies oppose private property over the means of production (and not other forms of properties), is because we think that it's inherently exploitative.

Under capitalism, the owner is the one who has power over how a company is managed. The company's goal is to bring as much money as possible to the owner. At the cost of the worker (who is the one producing wealth in the first place), and sometimes even at the cost of future investments.

Some pro-capitalists believe we can have an harmonious system, where most people end up benefitting, if we just let it this way. Soci aldemocrats believe that we can curb this inherent exploitative streak with state-interventionism.

Commies believe that the only viable way to do away with exploitation, so that the worker gets the entirety of the wealth he produces (as it should be), is to do away with private property over the means of production entirely.

Non-productive property has nothing to do with it: in your non-productive property, nobody works to produce a wealth that you partly keep for yourself. You can have the biggest mansion around, as long as you don't use it to make money off somebody else's work, you don't use it in an exploitative way.

[lord of the mark]

DD

if you let guys own BMWs, it dont produce nothing, but it does let commie types own BMW's, and money in swiss accounts, which is a damn sight more secure than a govt provided dacha or govt limo.


OTOH property right in the means of production can actually lead to economic growth and advances, disturbing the equilibrium that lets commies rule. Social Dems are happy to let that econ growth take place, but what to skim off some cause the wages workers get, while more than theyd get in the absence of capitalist development, are less than they oughta get, since why shouldnt those who have less get more, see Rawls and and all that. And they can skim a bit off for themselves in their jobs as govt minister, etc. While the commies want to place themselves as apparatchiks everywhere in the system, use the economy for patronage to control the society, and you cant hardly do that unless the state owns the Means of prod, and you do just as well as an apparat as a SD govt minister, and its a lot less transparent, and if it holds the economy back, well who gives damn.

Hope this helps

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


All said and done ExxonMobile makes quite a bit of money now don't they.

Yes but why is that relevant ??

Its the nature of investment that those with existing wealth will be the ones doing it

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Dinodoc

The reason why commies oppose private property over the means of production (and not other forms of properties), is because we think that it's inherently exploitative.

Under capitalism, the owner is the one who has power over how a company is managed. The company's goal is to bring as much money as possible to the owner. At the cost of the worker (who is the one producing wealth in the first place), and sometimes even at the cost of future investments.

Some pro-capitalists believe we can have an harmonious system, where most people end up benefitting, if we just let it this way. Soci aldemocrats believe that we can curb this inherent exploitative streak with state-interventionism.

Commies believe that the only viable way to do away with exploitation, so that the worker gets the entirety of the wealth he produces (as it should be), is to do away with private property over the means of production entirely.

Non-productive property has nothing to do with it: in your non-productive property, nobody works to produce a wealth that you partly keep for yourself. You can have the biggest mansion around, as long as you don't use it to make money off somebody else's work, you don't use it in an exploitative way.

This is where it always breaks down for me


If I invent, build and operate a machine, I can have ALL of the benefits of this. EVERYTHING was my labour so if this machine can magically produce some consumer product that someone wants I can be very very wealthy.

But the second I decide to hire someone, I am "exploiting" him if he doesn't get the entire value of the products produced. It seems irreelevant that:
1. The wage I am paying is higher than any other wage available-- even if it was 5 times higher than wages available for similar work

2. The machine represents 20 years of my labour-- some from actual building it and some from saving years and years worth of my wages to buy the materials

To me if you do not acknowledge the labour that went into creating the machine, the system has a fatal flaw. The products that result come from both the labour that went into the machine and the labour of the operator of the machine, didn't it??

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Yes but why is that relevant ??

Its the nature of investment that those with existing wealth will be the ones doing it

If it's within a social system it's not natural. And it's relevent, because you are talking about what's "fair." "Fair" does not exist within a vacuum.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
DD

if you let guys own BMWs, it dont produce nothing, but it does let commie types own BMW's, and money in swiss accounts, which is a damn sight more secure than a govt provided dacha or govt limo.


OTOH property right in the means of production can actually lead to economic growth and advances, disturbing the equilibrium that lets commies rule. Social Dems are happy to let that econ growth take place, but what to skim off some cause the wages workers get, while more than theyd get in the absence of capitalist development, are less than they oughta get, since why shouldnt those who have less get more, see Rawls and and all that. And they can skim a bit off for themselves in their jobs as govt minister, etc. While the commies want to place themselves as apparatchiks everywhere in the system, use the economy for patronage to control the society, and you cant hardly do that unless the state owns the Means of prod, and you do just as well as an apparat as a SD govt minister, and its a lot less transparent, and if it holds the economy back, well who gives damn.

Hope this helps

That's worse than shooting people.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: he does not believe in property rights

Originally posted by Spiffor
Kuci
It's very different from "property rights for the rich".

Commies generally don't oppose the right to own big cars and a big house (unless it's rental). OTOH, commies do oppose the right to own a business, no matter how humble (save for some commies who support the right of property over small businesses).

*sigh* I guess I have to spell it out:

Who owns most of the means of production? Thus, who would be impacted by prohibiting ownership of the means of production?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
To me if you do not acknowledge the labour that went into creating the machine, the system has a fatal flaw. The products that result come from both the labour that went into the machine and the labour of the operator of the machine, didn't it??

This may be hard for you to believe, but you can invent, manufacture and use a machine in a communist society also.

[pchang]

Yes, but can you invent a machine, build a machine, and hire someone to use your machine?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by pchang
Yes, but can you invent a machine, build a machine, and hire someone to use your machine?

Theoretically no one will work for a wage.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Theoretically no one will work for a wage.

and thats where it always breaks down for me. An entrepreneur can do as much as he wants as long as only he uses his machine-- he can appropriate all that value and no one apparently has an issue.

But if he dares to ask others to use his machine as well, that is "exploitation" even in circumstances where he is willing to pay far more than a party could receive for ANY other similar work. So he is best off to simply sit back and use his own machine and never share it with others.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Theoretically no one will work for a wage.

Does that mean everyone just gets some standardized ration of housing, food and other consumables regardless of the job they do.

How would it work

1. For the doctor
2. For the plumber needed to fix a house
3. If due to my bad back I want to get the neighbor kid to mow my lawn?? ( OR is lawnmowing a centralized state function ??)