Richard D. Wolff video: 3 basic types of socialism

[PyramidHead]

Private property is not personal property.

That seems to me like "Four legs good, two legs bad".

Not sure what you mean. Here's what I mean.

For all of human history (and indeed, as Bomb #20 disingenuously tries to claim for capitalism, some part of non-human history), there has been the entirely uncontroversial and justifiable concept of belongings. Nobody is advocating the abolition of belongings. The thing that communism seeks to do away with is not the thing that chimpanzees regard as personal items, or that children in tribal societies understand as ownership. Bomb #20 knows this; the only reason to invoke the "private property is older than the hills" argument is to conceal the very recent, very deliberate construction of private property as capital, which is what communists and socialists have always targeted for removal from society.

Belongings and private property are nothing in themselves, but only describe relations between humans. If something is a belonging of mine, I claim the right to use it for myself and my family, friends, or whoever. As the owner of a pair of shoes, I make a claim against your right to wear them, because those shoes are what I use to cover my feet when I leave the house. There can be intangible uses for personal property as well, of course, but the general idea is that things I possess are socially defined as things I want or need to benefit from personally in a direct way, related to the utility of the thing itself, and justifiable to the extent that it does not unduly deprive others of what they need more than me. This concept has never been challenged by any socialist or communist society and is precisely what is invoked as having existed since time immemorial; do not be fooled by attempts to deny the first fact to make relevant the second.

Private property is of no use to me in terms of its utility, and is not claimed by me in any relationship to what I want or need from whatever resource it provides, tangible or intangible. Private property has ONLY ever referred to the ownership of industry, business, production, or natural resources for the explicit purpose of using labor to increase the value at which it can be exchanged for something else. The owner of a donut shop does not eat all of the donuts the shop makes, nor does he want to, nor would he ever consider his desire for donuts as having anything to do with why he considers himself the shop's owner; he owns the shop because he wishes to transform the raw materials and infrastructure of the place into something that commands a market price by using the labor of others. This is the whole and complete definition of private property as regarded by socialism, Marxism, communism, anarchism, or any left movement that has ever weighed in on the idea. And it did not exist in human society until capitalism, despite apologists who try to assert otherwise.

 

[lpetrich]

Private property is not personal property.

That seems to me like "Four legs good, two legs bad".

Not sure what you mean. Here's what I mean.

(arguments snipped for brevity)

I tried to follow that argument, but I failed. It seems to me to be impenetrable hairsplitting, and that's why I called it "four legs good, two legs bad". That's from George Orwell's "Animal Farm", an animal allegory about the early decades of the Soviet Union.

 

[PyramidHead]

Not sure what you mean. Here's what I mean.

(arguments snipped for brevity)

I tried to follow that argument, but I failed. It seems to me to be impenetrable hairsplitting, and that's why I called it "four legs good, two legs bad". That's from George Orwell's "Animal Farm", an animal allegory about the early decades of the Soviet Union.

Orwell was a socialist who regarded revolutionary Catalonia (in Spain after the Civil War) as a model society, but you are correct that he despised Stalinist bureaucracy. He had no problem with socialist abolition of private property as far as I know; Catalonia was an anarchist society.

If you couldn't follow the argument as written, then it can be simplified to this: private property is property that generates profit. Look around at everything you consider your belongings. If it doesn't generate any profit for you, and is just an object you use for a practical or intangible purpose, no communist will take it from you or ever suggested such a thing. If it generates profit, then it's fair game.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not sure what you mean. Here's what I mean.

(arguments snipped for brevity)

I tried to follow that argument, but I failed. It seems to me to be impenetrable hairsplitting, and that's why I called it "four legs good, two legs bad". That's from George Orwell's "Animal Farm", an animal allegory about the early decades of the Soviet Union.

Orwell was a socialist who regarded revolutionary Catalonia (in Spain after the Civil War) as a model society, but you are correct that he despised Stalinist bureaucracy. He had no problem with socialist abolition of private property as far as I know; Catalonia was an anarchist society.

If you couldn't follow the argument as written, then it can be simplified to this: private property is property that generates profit. Look around at everything you consider your belongings. If it doesn't generate any profit for you, and is just an object you use for a practical or intangible purpose, no communist will take it from you or ever suggested such a thing. If it generates profit, then it's fair game.

Aye. If it generates profit, profit rightfully belongs to all who added the value, and any initial investment of value should only be able to extract that value as a function of divestment.

 

[PyramidHead]

Orwell was a socialist who regarded revolutionary Catalonia (in Spain after the Civil War) as a model society, but you are correct that he despised Stalinist bureaucracy. He had no problem with socialist abolition of private property as far as I know; Catalonia was an anarchist society.

If you couldn't follow the argument as written, then it can be simplified to this: private property is property that generates profit. Look around at everything you consider your belongings. If it doesn't generate any profit for you, and is just an object you use for a practical or intangible purpose, no communist will take it from you or ever suggested such a thing. If it generates profit, then it's fair game.

Aye. If it generates profit, profit rightfully belongs to all who added the value, and any initial investment of value should only be able to extract that value as a function of divestment.

Kropotkin argued that all value in a post-industrial society is socially created anyway; there is simply no longer any way to trace its rightful originators back to any party other than the society itself, as it depends on inputs from prior generations of workers, inventors, and explorers even before the first hour of labor is done.

 

[PyramidHead]

 

[Bomb#20]

Private property is not personal property.

That seems to me like "Four legs good, two legs bad".

Not sure what you mean. Here's what I mean.

For all of human history (and indeed, as Bomb #20 disingenuously tries to claim for capitalism, some part of non-human history), there has been the entirely uncontroversial and justifiable concept of belongings. ... Bomb #20 knows this; the only reason to invoke the "private property is older than the hills" argument is to conceal the very recent, very deliberate construction of private property as capital, which is what communists and socialists have always targeted for removal from society.

That, sir, is a trumped-up false accusation made with reckless disregard for the truth. Nowhere have I claimed capitalism has a non-human pedigree, and even if I had, you are not a competent mind-reader and you'd have no business calling my arguments "disingenuous". All a person accomplishes by calling others "disingenuous" is to put across the idea that he doesn't need to justify his views because his opponents already secretly know he's right and are just being dicks about admitting it. It's an ad hominem argument, and it's the "Poisoning the Well" fallacy.

I disagree with you. I genuinely, sincerely disagree with you. That may be just as hard for you to wrap your head around as it is for some Christians to wrap their heads around atheists genuinely, sincerely thinking there's no God, but put in the bloody effort. You are a religious zealot. Take that into account when you decide you know what other people really think about your religion's dogma.

 

[Tammuz]

I don't know, but the American political debate seems hung up over words like "socialism". Political discussions over here very rarely get that. People mostly discuss actual propositions, not often invoking such terms.

(And our national political debate, most of the time at least, is a lot more pragmatically oriented than the American political debate.)

 

[PyramidHead]

Not sure what you mean. Here's what I mean.

For all of human history (and indeed, as Bomb #20 disingenuously tries to claim for capitalism, some part of non-human history), there has been the entirely uncontroversial and justifiable concept of belongings. ... Bomb #20 knows this; the only reason to invoke the "private property is older than the hills" argument is to conceal the very recent, very deliberate construction of private property as capital, which is what communists and socialists have always targeted for removal from society.

That, sir, is a trumped-up false accusation made with reckless disregard for the truth. Nowhere have I claimed capitalism has a non-human pedigree, and even if I had, you are not a competent mind-reader and you'd have no business calling my arguments "disingenuous". All a person accomplishes by calling others "disingenuous" is to put across the idea that he doesn't need to justify his views because his opponents already secretly know he's right and are just being dicks about admitting it. It's an ad hominem argument, and it's the "Poisoning the Well" fallacy.

I disagree with you. I genuinely, sincerely disagree with you. That may be just as hard for you to wrap your head around as it is for some Christians to wrap their heads around atheists genuinely, sincerely thinking there's no God, but put in the bloody effort. You are a religious zealot. Take that into account when you decide you know what other people really think about your religion's dogma.

So which is it:

1. Before I corrected your misunderstanding, you truly believed that socialist and communist societies took away people's toothbrushes, heirlooms, teddy bears, and other personal belongings that can be rationally compared to the "property" recognized by chimpanzees

or

2. You lobbed an obvious bad-faith deflated football of an argument resurrected from the McCarthy era and are now clutching your pearls with indignation that I called you out on it

Not sure which is more poisonous, but either way: for someone who hates socialism so much you sure seem to love getting publicly owned

 

[bilby]

I don't know, but the American political debate seems hung up over words like "socialism". Political discussions over here very rarely get that. People mostly discuss actual propositions, not often invoking such terms.

(And our national political debate, most of the time at least, is a lot more pragmatically oriented than the American political debate.)

Yup. All these debates end up as:

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm just surprised nobody else has figured out the other name for the first "type" of socialism.

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm just surprised nobody else has figured out the other name for the first "type" of socialism. taken the bait I thought would lead to an epic victory but is actually just another boring case of libertarianism being unable to differentiate between classes and their material interests under capitalism

Cry more

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm just surprised nobody else has figured out the other name for the first "type" of socialism

Cry more

So you don't know another word for the merger of state and corporate power.

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm just surprised nobody else has figured out the other name for the first "type" of socialism

Cry more

So you don't know another word for the merger of state and corporate power.

Wolff's first definition of socialism deliberately specifies that state power is used to DECREASE corporate power, placing barriers between it and the welfare of workers, the environment, and/or vulnerable populations such as minorities. That's not a merger, it's a containment strategy. Your attempt to equate it with fascism, which uses state power to INCREASE the profit margins of domestic businesses at the expense of workers, the environment, and minorities, is what might charitably be called a lead balloon.

 

[Tammuz]

I don't know, but the American political debate seems hung up over words like "socialism". Political discussions over here very rarely get that. People mostly discuss actual propositions, not often invoking such terms.

(And our national political debate, most of the time at least, is a lot more pragmatically oriented than the American political debate.)

Yup. All these debates end up as:

View attachment 22125

Haha yes! I was with the bearded guy right until the last image.

 

[Bomb#20]

... as Bomb #20 disingenuously tries to claim ... Bomb #20 knows this; the only reason to invoke the "private property is older than the hills" argument is to conceal...

... Nowhere have I claimed capitalism has a non-human pedigree, and even if I had, you are not a competent mind-reader and you'd have no business calling my arguments "disingenuous". ...

So which is it:

1. ... or 2. ...

Mister, you put words in my mouth. Don't do that. You claimed I was being deceptive even though you had no reason to think so. Don't do that. When I griped about it, you made up a false dilemma and demanded that I pick one. Don't do that. Being civil while arguing isn't rocket science -- when you think I'm wrong, feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. So why don't you just stop acting like a prick?

Not sure which is more poisonous, but either way: for someone who hates socialism so much you sure seem to love getting publicly owned

So now being brutally misrepresented is called "getting publicly owned"?

Before I corrected your misunderstanding, you truly believed that socialist and communist societies took away people's toothbrushes, heirlooms, teddy bears, and other personal belongings that can be rationally compared to the "property" recognized by chimpanzees

In the first place, Mr. "If it doesn't generate any profit for you, and is just an object you use for a practical or intangible purpose, no communist will take it from you or ever suggested such a thing.", are you seriously under the impression that when the Communists trucked all the food they could lay their hands on out of Ukraine, right up to breaking into homes and seizing the food out of Ukrainians' kitchens, and left four million Ukrainians to starve to death, they were gentlemanly and well-disciplined about it and never looted family heirlooms? What planet are you from? And it's not just a matter of out-of-control foot-soldiers, and it's not just a matter of Stalin being a genocidal maniac. Communists have as a matter of policy seized any number of belongings people were keeping for their own use, notably houses and farm animals.

In the second place, you appear to be equating the concept "they didn't take away toothbrushes" with "they respected the right to own toothbrushes". Those are not the same concept. People were allowed to keep their toothbrushes because the Party felt it didn't need them, not because the Party felt people's natural right to toothbrushes was inviolate. There is nothing in the Marxist literature I've seen to suggest that Marxism accepts the concept of natural rights at all, let alone a right to belongings. Quite the reverse. Marx denounces "The Rights of Man" as bourgeois selfishness. The arguments Marxists make against letting people own machines are usually equally applicable to toothbrushes. You presented a typical example yourself: "there is simply no longer any way to trace its rightful originators back to any party other than the society itself". And you personally used the phrase "not a natural right, it's a legal construction like anything else" that very much suggests a wholesale rejection of natural rights.

And in the third place, communists do not own the English language. That you have decided "private ownership" doesn't mean "belongings" doesn't give the rest of us an obligation to make-believe that whatever is a vital distinction in your mind is automatically a distinction we have to make in our own reasoning. The circumstance that a couple of hundred years ago you guys had a religious revelation that owning a sweetshop can't "be rationally compared" to owning a dead rabbit or a hand-axe or a sheepdog or a house does not retroactively cause the reasons that the rest of us applied our preexisting dead-rabbit/hand-axe/sheepdog/house thought-patterns to have not been our real reasons, when for the first time some Babylonian opened a sweetshop. So if you do accept a natural right to "belongings" as entirely uncontroversial and justifiable, for you to claim that it doesn't apply to the particular belongings you limit "private ownership" to is something you have burden of proof for. It's not the job of the rest of us to discard everything we know about ownership and try to come up with a new wholly independent justification for letting sweetshops belong to people every time some newfangled religion comes along and invents its own Humpty-Dumpty language. We get to give you house-ownership reasons for sweetshop ownership because those are our real reasons. Duh! So if you aren't interested in hearing about owning houses because you think house-ownership reasons shouldn't apply to owning sweetshops, then it's incumbent on you to say something like "People forfeit their natural right to own a house if they misuse that house by selling sweets out of it", rather than "private ownership is not a natural right, it's a legal construction like anything else." It's not our job to deconstruct the latter and figure out you meant the former.

2. You lobbed an obvious bad-faith deflated football of an argument resurrected from the McCarthy era and are now clutching your pearls with indignation that I called you out on it

I am not responsible for what somebody said in the McCarthy era. If you think what I said reminds you of what somebody else said, that's not my problem; if you think he made his argument in bad faith, that's not my problem; if you think it's too brilliant an argument for me to have thought up something similar on my own, oh wait, you think it's a stupid argument; and frankly, your opinion that he made it in bad faith is probably every bit as poorly reasoned as your opinion that I made mine in bad faith. You are transparently not a competent judge of other people's sincerity. So why don't you just stop acting like a prick?