Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Darius would be looking down on you
[automerge]1767716548[/automerge]
Nope, he sees all private property as negative
Idk what communist doctrine but Marx was pretty straight forward in his distaste for private property. Back to using the watch example you wouldn’t be able to own one in a Marxist commune.
[automerge]1767716548[/automerge]
Are you sure of that? What do you call "private property"?
Of course I can. In a healthy society both job are necessary, no matter how hard you need to prepare for them. The value that you get from it might be different yeah, but the ethical necessity not to hierarchize these job is fundamental.
If you create a hierarchy in term of payment, you then consider that two people working the same amount should be payed differently. This is capitalism and the start of inequalities and exploitation. This is also how people justify inequalities that the fact that some people, while poor, stay poor while other, can be rich.
You see, what you are not taking into account is that in our society, no everyone can be a doctor. You need what we call "capitals" (social, economic, cultural etc.) to access such education. So by paying more these jobs when there is already an inequality of access, you create a double process of inequality and you create the promise that if you are poor, you will stay poor (unless of a miracle)
Reality under capitalism does not reward efforts, it does not reward skill, it rewards capitals. Meritocracy is a myth
This is why we need to pay the same amount for the two types of work, even if they require different skills and one, a better preparation. It's necessary to keep an equality of income.
For the rest, under socialism, the value you will get from these work will not necessarily related to money. That's why I'm telling you that your current reading grid is capitalist biased. You need to shift it if you want to understand why people will go for said or said type of work, even if they are difficult or not..
Spoiler: Under socialism, a neurosurgeon could also be a garbage cleaner and find purpose in both work.
Again, your vision is capitalistic and meritocratic. If you want to understand what I'm talking about here, you need to project yourself into a non capitalist society were the need for competition is gone.
A little precision (from Marx):
Marx is actually talking about the "bourgeois property", in other words, the private ownership of the means and chain of production. Like I said before, under communism/socialism (call it whatever), you will be able to own private object and stuff. You simply won't have the power to exploit others.
Yup
Of course I can. In a healthy society both job are necessary, no matter how hard you need to prepare for them. The value that you get from it might be different yeah, but the ethical necessity not to hierarchize these job is fundamental.
If you create a hierarchy in term of payment, you then consider that two people working the same amount should be payed differently. This is capitalism and the start of inequalities and exploitation. This is also how people justify inequalities that the fact that some people, while poor, stay poor while other, can be rich.
You see, what you are not taking into account is that in our society, no everyone can be a doctor. You need what we call "capitals" (social, economic, cultural etc.) to access such education. So by paying more these jobs when there is already an inequality of access, you create a double process of inequality and you create the promise that if you are poor, you will stay poor (unless of a miracle)
Reality under capitalism does not reward efforts, it does not reward skill, it rewards capitals. Meritocracy is a myth
This is why we need to pay the same amount for the two types of work, even if they require different skills and one, a better preparation. It's necessary to keep an equality of income.
For the rest, under socialism, the value you will get from these work will not necessarily related to money. That's why I'm telling you that your current reading grid is capitalist biased. You need to shift it if you want to understand why people will go for said or said type of work, even if they are difficult or not..
Spoiler: Under socialism, a neurosurgeon could also be a garbage cleaner and find purpose in both work.
Again, your vision is capitalistic and meritocratic. If you want to understand what I'm talking about here, you need to project yourself into a non capitalist society were the need for competition is gone.
A little precision (from Marx):
Marx is actually talking about the "bourgeois property", in other words, the private ownership of the means and chain of production. Like I said before, under communism/socialism (call it whatever), you will be able to own private object and stuff. You simply won't have the power to exploit others.
Yup
Idk what communist doctrine but Marx was pretty straight forward in his distaste for private property. Back to using the watch example you wouldn’t be able to own one in a Marxist commune.
Last edited:
Marx is one thing, the system he proposed is another. I gave you his own words. In marxism, we call "the end of private property" the end of the private ownership of the means of production. In other words, you don't have to worry about owning your favorite objects.
But even in that case, private property is only a consequence of our current world. In a socialist world, private property would eventually disappear for most things. Not by force, but by design. You don't feel the need to own water, right? It would be similar for a lot of things under a "socialist/communist" society.
But even in that case, private property is only a consequence of our current world. In a socialist world, private property would eventually disappear for most things. Not by force, but by design. You don't feel the need to own water, right? It would be similar for a lot of things under a "socialist/communist" society.
I accurately pointed out that in Marx’s end goal society you wouldn’t own a watch, you wouldn’t own anything to begin with.
You conceded that in the second paragraph to talk about moving away from property. I pointed out that you can’t easily take away rights people were given and here you are claiming they’re exploiting others
if you can logically follow, that man with the watch is the exploiter you’re talking about
You conceded that in the second paragraph to talk about moving away from property. I pointed out that you can’t easily take away rights people were given and here you are claiming they’re exploiting others
if you can logically follow, that man with the watch is the exploiter you’re talking about
But here's the thing, they tried pure capitalism and it didn't work. They tried many versions of socialism and it didn't work. Socialism has never succeeded in large nations, and while it has worked in smaller ones(increased literacy and education, better infrastructure, higher life expectancy), they either went full-blown authoritarian or got fucked by the US to establish a dictator or pro-capitalist leader.
It is very easy for a dictatorship to emerge under socialism due to the concentration of power into a one-party state. There are no pure success stories so we have no baseline on how a socialist society would function on a larger scale.
Communism advocates that people only recieve according to their needs. If you dont NEED a watch, then you can't have one. Even if you need and receive one, it isn't yours and can be taken away. That's the point.
It is very easy for a dictatorship to emerge under socialism due to the concentration of power into a one-party state. There are no pure success stories so we have no baseline on how a socialist society would function on a larger scale.
Communism advocates that people only recieve according to their needs. If you dont NEED a watch, then you can't have one. Even if you need and receive one, it isn't yours and can be taken away. That's the point.
I'm sorry, but I gave your Marx's own words about communism. Not a simple reflection about private property. You can accept it or not but that's how we, marxist, consider private property.
Being afraid to lose basic prviate property is irrationnal as it is not what we want to end. It's a strawman if you prefer, a false flag to attack this type of society.
I mean, you can point a lot of things that are wrong. I don't mind. But they are still wrong lol.
Private property as in you owning an object is not what is targeted, the private ownership of the means of production here. It's a nuance that we must agree on.
No. The people with the private ownership of the means of production are.
I mean, it's really not that's complicated:
Watch : object
Owning the means of production : illegitimate power
Only one is targeted by communism, the other will disappear by design or rather, as a natural result of the system, without force. Just like the fact that you don't need to own water, we will end up not needing to own basic stuff outside of personal items. It's not really something to be afraid of, it's only a natural consequence of the system. It will feel... normal.
It's not a end goal rather than a logical consequence.
Being afraid to lose basic prviate property is irrationnal as it is not what we want to end. It's a strawman if you prefer, a false flag to attack this type of society.
I mean, you can point a lot of things that are wrong. I don't mind. But they are still wrong lol.
Private property as in you owning an object is not what is targeted, the private ownership of the means of production here. It's a nuance that we must agree on.
No. The people with the private ownership of the means of production are.
I mean, it's really not that's complicated:
Watch : object
Owning the means of production : illegitimate power
Only one is targeted by communism, the other will disappear by design or rather, as a natural result of the system, without force. Just like the fact that you don't need to own water, we will end up not needing to own basic stuff outside of personal items. It's not really something to be afraid of, it's only a natural consequence of the system. It will feel... normal.
It's not a end goal rather than a logical consequence.
yet*
But yeah, it's a risky bargain I agree. I think socialism came too early. Without a real intersectionnal thinking, without a real anti-authoritarian protection, it was doomed to fail. But I believe things could be different now. At least if we do it with care and respect.
But in anycase, I do not really believe in pure communism. I don't really believe a state. I prefer the bottom up solution.
Well.. of course people shouldn't be able to own all the watches lol
But yeah, it's a risky bargain I agree. I think socialism came too early. Without a real intersectionnal thinking, without a real anti-authoritarian protection, it was doomed to fail. But I believe things could be different now. At least if we do it with care and respect.
But in anycase, I do not really believe in pure communism. I don't really believe a state. I prefer the bottom up solution.
Well.. of course people shouldn't be able to own all the watches lol