Mr. Bronner did, he's dead now and his son is running the company. He started it from scratch in California when he barely had a pot to piss in. Property is not force, you are claiming rights which are not yours. You have a nerve to speak of force when you would take it away through force of arms, that's hypocrisy. I bet the workers at that company would skin you alive if you ever suggested they treat the owners in the fashion you are suggesting. Like I said the more I talk to you the less I respect what you believe in.
That's because you somehow think force is only used by my side. It isn't. The bourgeoisie uses force to protect their property. Again, it's unjustly acquired to begin with; why shouldn't the workers seize it? Why shouldn't the workers seize what is theirs? And why should production be geared towards profit and the accumulation of wealth rather than social needs?
Not force, the law. Its the law that protects property rights. The workers didn't build it, it isn't there's to "seize". It isn't "theirs". The production can be geared towards both and I am only willing for the State to take a portion of that wealth for social needs, your idea is that the fruits of another's labor should be seized, workers are not working in a feudal setting where they are not being paid for their labor. You're no more than a thug, a thief. And like I said your system could never produce a Steve Job, there would be no incentive nor freedom for a Job. All your system could possibly produce is mediocrity. There's that lady again: "...if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel."
The law is force. All law is force. Hence why it is enforced. Force can be used for good. Not according to the laws or institutions of capitalism, no, but they do operate it and produce the value. No single man ever built a factory by himself. They are being paid less than their productivity and the surplus value is pocketed by the owner, who owns the productive forces. Workers, on the other hand, have nothing but their labor to sell. It's a feudal institution. No, calling out unfairness is not being a "thug", a "thief". Except for the various brilliant minds that it did produce. By the way, where would Steve Jobs have gotten without workers? Your moralism and appeals to ideals are the problem. It isn't about this or that being "rightfully" his or hers. It's about what is materially better for everyone and about the fact that the wealth can be used to meet social needs and therefore we will seize it and we will share the wealth. You would have people starve just because they don't "own" the food.
Yes force can be used for good like when it prevents plunder, thuggery and thievery. And yet Dr. Bronner started making soap alone in his apartment until he could get his son to come and help him and then later higher workers. Based on your idea of "equity" they would be making less than they are now, and if they do not know how to innovate they soon wouldn't be making anything at all. You are not suggesting workers getting together and building their own company, you are asking them to take what was built by another. Actually yes what you describe to me is thuggery and thievery. absolutely it is and smallness of character and mind since they are not innovative enough to build their own like the workers at Garden Supply Company. Where would the workers have gotten without the innovation of Steve Jobs and others like him? Oh I'm convinced now that your "ideals" are not better for anyone but the thug. And you see you believe that because I wouldn't legitimize thuggery and thievery I would have people starve. How narrow minded of you.
@Redstar See this? http://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100 Its a list of employee owned companies. I think its fantastic, notice how they didn't have to steal nor plunder to do so.
That is really only important to Marxists. What could he have understood about psychology, considering that it did not yet exist as a field of study when he was writing? If humans had stayed in a near static state of social and economic development as that of the nineteenth century, Marx might still be relevant. But history has not developed according to his predictions, and the passage of time will continue to confuse and annoy confident prognosticators. There are no good reasons to believe in an inevitable outcome to future history, only religious ones. If the rule against proselytizing doesn't apply to you the same as it does to Christians and Muslims, it should.
You mean, when it protects the property of the wealthy. That's what you are trying to say. No, it was built by the workers. Innovation and brilliant thinking doesn't require capitalism. And, you subscribe to this "Great Man" view of history, which I do not. Steve Jobs did not produce all the wealth that he owns. He only produced Apple and profits from the ownership of capital, not labor. Private property is an invented fiction that keeps wealth out of the hands of the many to be used for social needs. The real thuggery is the thuggery by the wealthy who have long engaged in colonialism and exploitation to acquire their wealth. Amartya Sen And when the rest of the working class seizes the means of production, it won't be stealing or plundering.
I am sensing that you are justifying capitalism with "human psychology". Please back up this position. Marx is relevant, only not in the United States. On the contrary, the antagonisms of labor and capital are becoming obvious. Agreed, which is why no Marxist believes in "inevitable outcomes". Why do you think revolutionary activity is necessary? Typical. Silence everybody who doesn't agree with you.
@Redstar Anyone, anyone who owns property whether it be a wealthy individual or not. I am not wealthy but I do own property, you would say that if I hire workers to build and start a business where I hire a worker and a manager, where I treat them correctly then you have a right to take away what I had envisioned and funded and essentially built because you think you have the right. A worker does not have to work for me, they are not chattel, they are not slaves. Apple was a concept before it was a product. Private property is a fact, just because something was invented (like human rights or protection against child abuse) doesn't make it a fiction. Anyway, I don't see any more need to discuss this with you. I do thank you though, you have completely turned my stomach to your so called "ideals" and "morality". I would have nothing to do with it. And I would fight it as you fancy yourself an overlord, an enemy of freedom and choice. It takes a real narcissist to take what doesn't belong to him and declare it victory. Only a narcissist would confuse a fair bargain with feudalism. At first I thought you were concerned with justice but you aren't. You just represent another thug, like Goldman Sachs.
I'm not the one who made the rule. But yes, religious dogmatists are not free to preach on this site, or drag every discussion into how awful everything is going to continue to be until everyone else believes the same dogmatic nonsense that they do. Now I'm sad that Steampunk abandoned the forum, because you and he could have had epic battles over which regime was actually worse, Stalin's or Hitler's.
The exploitation is inherent in the mode of production; it isn't about "treating them correctly". You are, essentially, paying workers below their productivity and as a capital owner leveraging your ownership of capital. Right, they don't have to work. They can just starve to death. I can rather imagine a feudal lord saying: "Hey, you don't have to work for me or on my land, I'm not forcing you to!", ignoring the fact that the feudal lord owns the very productive forces which are critical for the worker to make a living. And? Concepts don't feed people. Labor does. Concepts are valuable, to be sure, but again, there is no reason to suppose that people can't have ideas or brilliant thoughts without capitalism. Private property is arbitrary. Even proponents of private property can't agree on its principles. I have no ideals or morality. Marxism is not about ideals or morals. It's about meeting the needs of the masses with production. And I am concerned with justice: it's about the justice of production.
Good thing I'm actually providing examples, sources, and intellectual arguments for my Marxist ideology. Hitler's. Nazism is a disgusting ideology even in principle.
@Redstar Whatever. I'm sorry you have nothing to teach me. I don't care about your fixation with this ideology, I've heard enough.You are indeed an ideologue.
Don't get upset because I don't believe in the same principles that you do. What's not an "ideologue"? Everybody supports something. Edit: Instead of taking it from me, just go pick up a copy of Capital by Marx and read for yourself. By no means do I claim to be the primary source for Marxist thought
No thanks. I'm quite sure I don't want to read Marx...not when there are so many other things to read. What you support is violence and thievery.
I thought everyone knew.. I have always known GeoffP was a 'pinko'. But not a 'mao collar march weirdly' kind of pinko. We do not discuss it because GeoffP and I usually disagree on everything and knowing there is something we agree on is probably distressing to the both of us. Yes. And it is annoying. Because he praises what we all know does not work. Because it is the ideal. It is also a natural progression of society. It cannot be forced.. In Russia, it was forced, as it was in other Communist countries. It is supposed to be a natural progression, in that society, of its own accord, moves from the feudal system, to a capitalist system and the natural progression from that is communism. It has never been given the chance to do that, as Communism has been forced and pushed onto society instead of allowing the natural progression. So what we have seen historically is not a natural progression, but a forced system, going from feudal and directly to a Communist system (as per Russia for example). The result of that is still very much a class based system where those in the upper echelons of society and those in power have enriched themselves and forced the "working and peasant class" into more poverty and serfdom. We saw it in the seizing of grain which led to the deaths of millions. We see it in North Korea today. RedStar is more concerned with the talking points. The 'ra ra ra' kind of thing, which is really annoying for someone like me, who actually is a communist at heart, or one who believes in the natural order of things. There is quite a few of us. But you need to not look at it as it has been applied terribly in the past and present. Communism can never be applied or forced. It is supposed to naturally progress to that state... We have yet to see a single society do that without a military force pushing it onto an unwilling populace. So it has gotten a bad name. We aren't that bad.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Why would we take it? It should never need to be "taken". The irony of course is that RedStar is lecturing us about Communism and its benefits as per the USSR, but here he is, at home, on a computer enjoying the fruits of capitalism... Irony.. He hasn't even progressed naturally to that State. Hence why he would make a good "commie", because to him, it is about forcing it on others, not himself. [HR][/HR] Which is why Cubans are killing themselves trying to escape Cuba and where Cubans are afraid to speak out against the leadership without fear of death...? That's the thing, in Cuba, it was forced. It was never a natural progression and Castro has grossly enriched himself while 'his people' suffered. You are seeing Cuba through rose coloured glasses. Communism was forced on them, there was no natural and gradual transition. And anyone who resisted or criticised, we murdered by those in power. So don't blame the US embagoes for Cuba's brand of communism failing. It failed because it was forced onto the populace and people were murdered by the Communist regime to either silence the others and to instill a culture of fear amongst the people, or to silence any opposition. Cubans today love Castro because he appears as a gentle grandfather to them who is sick. But give them the chance to leave Cuba and live in the US, they would take it in an instant. Because they were never given the chance to progress into Communism.. If all wanted it. Communism is but one system and it is meant to be a gradual societal change to that system. And it is never meant to be forced to maintain either. Even Marx commented on that, in fact, it was central to his beliefs regarding Communism. So was the USSR. Marx clearly never saw Russia as being ready for Communism. It hadn't progressed to that point yet. If an army is having to invade to force Communism upon the populace, then they are doing it wrong. Get it yet? It worked so well that they reverted to a Capitalist system? Really? Provide evidence? The former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Cuba... Really, it's not that hard. It can't be forced on a large scale. Understand? Do you even understand the very basics of Marxism? Or did you just look up the more popular talking points and now just regurgitate it on this site as a talking point? Marx saw each man as being free to determine his own fate - ie.. liberty. It is through that process that man would naturally work through the different systems and progress up towards Communism and socialism as being the preferred state. Read up on how Marx viewed estranged labour and human nature. *Sigh* Marx saw communism as the utopia.. Hence why society as a whole would survive through each system and naturally progress onto the other system when the other failed or collapsed. Ergo, Communism was the ideal, but one that can only be reached when other systems have failed. Hence one reaches utopia. And that is what you do not "get". Have you ever even read Marx? And you just showed me at how badly you really do not understand communism and Marxism and instead, you are just focusing on the popular talking points and slogans.
Very Nearly Esoteric There is no nutshell explanation that contains the concept adequately. That is, to merely say the term pertains to the disconnection between the worker and the produce of his labor just doesn't give adequate context or detail. It is a psychomoral and economic consideration that suggests Marx would have been better off had he occurred, in history, after Freud. Of course, the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts are particularly obtuse, even esoteric. The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and size. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. The devaluation of the world of men is in direct proportion to the increasing value of the world of things. Labor produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity – and this at the same rate at which it produces commodities in general. This fact expresses merely that the object which labor produces – labor's product – confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer. The product of labor is labor which has been embodied in an object, which has become material: it is the objectification of labor. Labor's realization is its objectification. Under these economic conditions this realization of labor appears as loss of realization for the workers; objectification as loss of the object and bondage to it; appropriation as estrangement, as alienation. So much does the labor's realization appear as loss of realization that the worker loses realization to the point of starving to death. So much does objectification appear as loss of the object that the worker is robbed of the objects most necessary not only for his life but for his work. Indeed, labor itself becomes an object which he can obtain only with the greatest effort and with the most irregular interruptions. So much does the appropriation of the object appear as estrangement that the more objects the worker produces the less he can possess and the more he falls under the sway of his product, capital. All these consequences are implied in the statement that the worker is related to the product of labor as to an alien object. For on this premise it is clear that the more the worker spends himself, the more powerful becomes the alien world of objects which he creates over and against himself, the poorer he himself – his inner world – becomes, the less belongs to him as his own. It is the same in religion. The more man puts into God, the less he retains in himself. The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object. Hence, the greater this activity, the more the worker lacks objects. Whatever the product of his labor is, he is not. Therefore, the greater this product, the less is he himself .... (Marx) What do you get when Hegel meets Freud? Something akin to Marx, except Marx had a vocabulary more Hegelian than Freudian. This is only natural, of course, since the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts precede the existence of Sigmund Freud himself, speak nothing of his published work. Absent from Marx's work is any coherent expression of what Norman O. Brown derived in his reflection on Freudianism, the dialectic of neurosis. It is as if Marx is grasping after an idea, but the words to describe it had not yet been invented. ____________________ Notes: Marx, Karl. "Estranged Labour". Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. 1844. Marxists.org. July 24, 2012. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm See Also: Brown, Norman O. Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytic Meaning of History. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1959.
@Tiassa Kenneth Shouler, Ph.D has a good explanation here: http://www.netplaces.com/philosophy...nding-alienation-seeking-a-humane-society.htm And here lies wisdom:"In addition, many professional philosophers and lay readers think that Marx idealized human nature. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, Marx insisted that excessive self-interest, over-weaning greed, and lust for power were manifest only in capitalist societies. But some of the same tendencies were observed in the upper-class members of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. On the other hand, not all capitalists are driven exclusively by greed. In short, one can say that some features of human nature can be the same in any economic system."
