I kind of find this whole idea moot though, since you consider your labour to be your property and get very angry that someone would exploit it.
Another thing, if I just say to you - that bike you ride, give it to me will ya? You’ll refuse. Im sure. So that man-made convention, you’re just as responsible for that as anyone.
Also, animals protect prey they’ve caught, not out of convention but because they’ll die otherwise.
Theres a lot to object to this abstract approach to things which are really very concrete.
Not sure what I’m supposed to get out of those statements there. I tried to find a way to make them relate to my point but failed. Might be my fault. Maybe I didn’t say it right so that the little bulb could go pop.
Not interested in a long exchange or discussion, so maybe let me redirect my point.
“I know Marx thought stealing is a natural compulsion that should be stimulated”
Insofar as Marx condoned ‘stealing’, it (theft) would be only incidental to the process of revolution and the overthrow of the existing state.
I was just making an effort to relate your reply to my post.
Also, I don’t believe that you don’t get the relevance of my point to yours. I think it’s too painful for you to realize that you’re extremely property-fixated.
“nsofar as Marx condoned ‘stealing’, it (theft) would be only incidental to the process of revolution and the overthrow of the existing state.”
Meaning, only stealing every single piece of property in the whole state. Yes, I can see how that’s like, totally irrelevant.
No it wouldn’t happen that way. Violent revolutions are unlikely in first world countries now. Instead what’ll happen is government services and products will beat out private businesses over a very looooong period of transition, forcing private businesses to collapse. Phasing into state capitalism. In this way, no actual seizure of property is conducted. Rather business property (not personal property) is lost through natural market mechanisms.
Next the state capitalism should phase into socialism by expanding and increasing direct decision and control to/for the workers. Corporatizing more and more and more.
The problem isn’t THAT this should and might happen, but HOW it will happen. It’s never been done before.
Wait, by the way, with that reply to my stealing comment, you were actually saying yeah we were allowed to take the election because property is a social construct.
Lel
You sneakily hid your admissal in a puzzling diatribe about morality being the same as economics to distract the judge. I admire your tactics.
The same can be said about wealth, money, and power. They are all man-made constructions built on agreements made with words. The universe doesn’t care if we break our agreements, burn our money, and disperse our power. It’s all a “spook” and exists only in your head and your language.
So why are you bothering to steal and destroy it from those who managed to obtain it and give it (artificially) to those who never earned it?
Again - same with agreements, money, and power - “there will be differing notions and concepts about what constitutes rightful” (until mandated brainwashing is firmly instituted - as is being done currently).
Yes certainly there will be disagreements about that – concerning everything -
“I know we said that if you work for it you can keep it - but
those were only words - you understand.
Now we only agree that if you work for it - WE own it. We think that is more fair - and there are more of us.”
And if I need to explain to you why “direct majority” (simple majority) is unjust, miserable, and deadly, “then I’ve got no business even trying to explain any of this…cuz if that doesn’t make sense, you ain’t about to understand anything else either.”
And you are probably one of these nutters that thinks that the US Electoral College idea is unjust too – total naivety - and exactly backwards from reality - as always with the brainwashed lefties.
Hey here’s a tasty irony for u guys. Did u know that Marx believed neither in ‘equality’ or ‘rights’… or I should say believed that neither were natural things, but man-made conventions.
Here’s the irony. The Right, on the other hand, believes there are natural rights endowed by a god, and that part of this endowment is a natural state of equality between all men.
Now being that neither of these are true - there is no god and people are not ‘equal’ (at least not in the ways ‘equal’ is thought of here in the conservative narrative) there has to be something else compelling these conventional beliefs into being and a reason why they are a particular way. That thing that compels the development of such ideas is the usefulness of the ideas for those who hold the most property. For instance, it had to be argued in the pre-classical age that those who ruled did so because it was their divine right (not because the people chose them). This idea - that rulers were sponsored by gods - kept the wealthy in prominent political positions for centuries… and organized state religion formed around this process wherever it happened.
‘rights’ are then decreed by those who are ruling at the time (selected by god), and the people follow suit without question.
Now you’ve got two cornerstones for a constitution that will immediately begin with two false premises.
But the irony man. The irony that the guy who defends the meek (Marx) believes in neither and is called evil… while the right, which defends the elite, believes in both and is called good by those who get exploited by it.
The concept of ‘rights’ here is neatly packaged to protect the functioning of the system, e.g., you have a right to obtain and own property and it is illegal for someone to take it. This had to be in place before a free market could evolve and develop a class that would amass enormous amounts of wealth by monopolizing property (production means in this case).
There is no such thing as “THE RIGHT”, but whatever it is some think rights are god-given, and weirdly not applicable to negroes; whilst others on the “right” would agree with Marx on this issue (if you caricature is correct).
If ANY of the “right” beleive that bullshit they have a very funny way of showing it. Gays and Trans seem to not be recipients to the same rights, nor Mexicans, or any one wishing to start a new life in the USA. The right are great at restricting rights, unless it is the right to go on a shooting spree.
For what it is worth rights and equality is not found in nature in any sense. They are in fact human conventions. Only a complete twat would think otherwise.
There is no irony here, expect that you are confused about the entire issue.
It is like the stimulus package it is made to appear an enormously lot ( deluge down like a tropical rain) but it evaporates as quickly…
Trickle is an improper optically ellusive metaphor.
In fact it is an illusively constructed optical effect, resembling some kind of hothouse speculative bonzeei study- to assess a major cataclysm up and down the social spectrum, if the Big One were to occur.
After all 4 trillion is barely 25 percent of the gross national income of the US, a mere pittence when the inflationary pressures caused by printing unlimited amounts of currency are factored in.
The irony sculptor would be from the perspective of the working class in general; of what the ‘Right’ represents and stands for in theory, but what it ends up being in practice.
The theory that all are created equal cannot be tested because we cannot know if man was created (or just a subject of evolutionary forces and processes in a godless universe).
An example of the theory of legal rights being flawed would be any example you took from a typical trial involving negligent representation and defense for the defendant because he hasn’t the money for a real lawyer. I’ve actually experienced this myself. Now it needn’t matter that technically any legal representation is representation enough… but when a statistical pattern emerges showing differences in outcomes because of some other consistent factor (being broke), you can safely say that ‘equal rights’ only exists in theory in at least this respect, because of the quality of representation being the same in most of the bad outcomes (most felonies end up in plea bargains rather than not guilty verdicts) And that’s only one instance of unequal rights. Felons being unable to vote or carry firearms is another.
So you have a constitution founded on a baseless claim that we’re created by a god and a baseless claim that we’re given equal rights by it (for it very well could be that yeah, ‘god’ exists, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that it give us rights). But forget about that; god or not, if the constitution’s language is general enough, no real grit will be given to examining what equal rights plays out to be in real-time, not just on scrolls of parchment.
But back to the irony. Now one would think that the party endorsing religious doctrine as part of it’s foundation, would be the one looking out for the practical needs of the people… and yet the politics and economics it practices doesn’t allow for that. They favor only relatively few at the expense of others (that lost value when the worker receives less than what it cost the employer in wages to produce, market and sell).
While the other party, the ‘Left’, are heathens who believe in neither divine creation or inherent rights (materialists would believe in no such thing), and yet have the working class interests as its sole purpose.
That’s irony Haus. No matter how you cut it. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t such a costly irony to so many millions of decent honest working people.
When those who can manage a large business can’t keep their money for doing so, they stop managing the large business - or just move somewhere else. In either case jobs go away and no one makes money. Instead the socialist government raises taxes even more on everyone else until only the wealthy running the government have anything worth having - Venezuela.
Without corporations making huge amounts of money, 100’s of millions of jobs go away and communism takes over – maximum taxation for minimum service (if any).
It is simple economics that has proven out time and time again = “science” on the peasants.
I really hate for this unworthy one to have to contradict Your Worship with the facts of real life but humility has offered me no choice -
How do you kill a snake - cut off its head
How do you get rid of the bees - kill the queen
How do you conquer a kingdom - capture the king
How do you control a corporation - buy out the board
How do you defeat an army - capture its generals
How do you destroy a nation - corrupt its government
Power, it seems, is always assembled from above. Take away what is on top and the rest disperses into dust. The arms and legs do powerful work. But cut out the heart and they lose all inspiration. Cut off the head and they lose all direction.
I agree that the feet do all of the walking – but they only get fed by the heart and the head.
Guys, the problem as i see it is the Trumpian no holds barred return to classic Capitalis, the so called gilded age where no controls were placed on unlimited acquisition. Deregulation, De unionization, and a nostalgic return to an era that developed reactions like Marxism
But such return is regular and compelling. , given the natural inclination of men.
This against tje effects of neo liberal idealism of the worker class which does mot exist either. The in between synthetic appeal went out with the death of gods. the leaders and movers whose spotless integrity to the common good has lost it’s luster, along with the individual appreception of the value and general meaning of a life worth living.
It was never “unlimited” and no one but the Marxists creating a strawman ever propose that it ever be unlimited. “It’s free and wild! You need us to control it or it will EAT YOU!!”
