When there is enough beach front property for all, lemme know. Until then, resources are finite. I’m not interested in Marxist “comfort” and “security”; I also want “freedom” and “justice”. I’d have neither if the fruit of my labor was taken and distributed by people who believe they know better than me how it ought to be used. No thanks…
When there is enough beach front property for all, lemme know. Until then, resources are finite. I’m not interested in Marxist “comfort” and “security”; I also want “freedom” and “justice”. I’d have neither if the fruit of my labor was taken and distributed by people who believe they know better than me how it ought to be used. No thanks. Albeit that happens already now, with income taxes. “Capitalism” is an invention by Marxists. Adam Smith, for example, had nothing to say about “capitalism.” Our economic system is currently deeply unjust, but it’s not “capitalism.” Nor is it operating in a way that has been commonly favored by people who are called “capitalists”, like Smith.
Some level of property inequality will result from a just economic system. People are not equal in our “productive”capacity or interest. Equal property ownership could only result from an unjust economic system — at least in a world without that infinite beach front property. I simply do not believe your vision is congruent with economic reality or human nature. At least my nature.
At this moment I’d perhaps argue that Zionism today is the *most* destructive form of “identity politics” in the U.S., and potentially the world. As for the adherents at FAIR, yah it’s quite disappointing and disturbing to see an organization supposedly against racial tribalism defending a genocide by a pseudo ethnic state. It’s clear whatever FAIR is motivated by it isn’t what FAIR claims it is. It is remarkable to see the growing popular shift against Zionism though. It’s becoming more and more just an establishment fringe ideology that has enormous power but less and less democratic support. The more people learn, the more that will happen.
Not everyone has to own specifically beach front property to have a good home, and not everyone would wants permanent home on the beach. Temporary, seasonal residences could be shared by many.
The fruit of your labor would not be distributed by bureaucrats. You would decide where you wanted to live permanently. Freedom and security come from being secure and having material access to the full fruit of your labor. Those with more than others under class rule invariably call the shots name have more freedom and rights. Such would not be the case if workers owned productive property communal and shared in that abundance.
Human nature is adaptable. We develop behavior and desires based on the economic rules under which we are compelled to operate in. That includes your nature, and mine.
Many supporters of capitalism will say that the failure of the American iteration of it is because it's "not really capitalism." If it requires money to run; if products are commodities to be sold at a profit; if industries are owned & run by a few, it's a variation of capitalism. That is not a classless, stateless, and moneyless economy envisaged by Marx and Engels.
I do, of course, fully agree with your last paragraph. It's good to be unified with you on that, because I most certainly didn't sign up with FAIR to promote Zionism. At least this happened early in its existence as a warning sign to its members. I too find it refreshing to see more people standing up to this destructive form of identity politics. All identity politics has big money and a lot of emotion supporting it, but now that Israel has gone too far, the tide is turning.
Honestly the classless stateless and moneyless economy envisaged by Marx and engels is incoherent to me. it is like a square circle. but is wrapped in utopian optimism. I think some of the things they thought about the value of labor for example are fundamentally erroneous. value is largely subjective. profit is not simply the exploitation of labor. profit among other things can be reward for risk. I don't particularly care to go into the details of my criticism of marxism here. you're welcome to message me and we can discuss it if you want though.
Hi, Jeffrey! I will respond to just these last points you made here, then message you if I want to discuss any more as per your request.
I think a classless, stateless, and moneyless economy makes perfect sense in a post-Industrial era where technology has advanced to the point of producing an abundance for all. There is virtually no longer any scarcity of goods that could be produced and land can be divvied up in an egalitarian manner with housing units that enable many people to share the land.
That is not "utopian" in the sense that it would be a perfect society, but rather a much better and more advanced one than we have today, one that would not engender behavior of the sort we see in a system based on competition, one-upmanship, greed, mistrust, and where one's personal value is determined by how much they have materially compared to other people.
Profit is not reward for risk because risk is not equal to everyone. Those who wee born into a lot of money, have the right connections, and receive large government subsidies for their entrepreneurial endeavors -- as most rich people do -- are making no risks at all compared to the average person with only a few thousand dollars to their name, who are almost guaranteed to fail. This is in contrast to multi-billionaires like Trump or Hunter Biden who have families and networks that build them back up after numerous business failures; or bankers that get bailed out by the government for high risk speculatory gambits that caused the 2008 economic crash. I've been a working class entrepreneur since the early 1990s and I can assure you there is no bailing out for average working people by either rich family members or the government if they lose everything.
As for profit not being the exploitation of labor? We are increasingly unable to make a living for our hard work that we perform for capitalists despite doing all the useful work. And with automation increasingly taking over most forms of work as we enter later stages of industrial development, we are in serious trouble if we side with the capitalists in thinking that class rule, money, and production for profit should continue into infinity.
Value can be subjective, unless it has actual material usefulness, such as some metals compared to others in terms of construction. However, value because so subjective in one sense under capitalism that some metals, such as gold, are considered of high economic value simply because it's rare, not because it's useful in a practical sense.
As noted above, I will message you beyond responding to these last points you brought up here if I want to discuss Marxism further. In the meantime, thank you for the engagement and I look forward to working with you on what we do agree on, and which is of great relevance to FAIR: dealing with the promotion and defense of Zionism here.
When there is enough beach front property for all, lemme know. Until then, resources are finite. I’m not interested in Marxist “comfort” and “security”; I also want “freedom” and “justice”. I’d have neither if the fruit of my labor was taken and distributed by people who believe they know better than me how it ought to be used. No thanks. Albeit that happens already now, with income taxes. “Capitalism” is an invention by Marxists. Adam Smith, for example, had nothing to say about “capitalism.” Our economic system is currently deeply unjust, but it’s not “capitalism.” Nor is it operating in a way that has been commonly favored by people who are called “capitalists”, like Smith.
Some level of property inequality will result from a just economic system. People are not equal in our “productive”capacity or interest. Equal property ownership could only result from an unjust economic system — at least in a world without that infinite beach front property. I simply do not believe your vision is congruent with economic reality or human nature. At least my nature.
At this moment I’d perhaps argue that Zionism today is the *most* destructive form of “identity politics” in the U.S., and potentially the world. As for the adherents at FAIR, yah it’s quite disappointing and disturbing to see an organization supposedly against racial tribalism defending a genocide by a pseudo ethnic state. It’s clear whatever FAIR is motivated by it isn’t what FAIR claims it is. It is remarkable to see the growing popular shift against Zionism though. It’s becoming more and more just an establishment fringe ideology that has enormous power but less and less democratic support. The more people learn, the more that will happen.
Not everyone has to own specifically beach front property to have a good home, and not everyone would wants permanent home on the beach. Temporary, seasonal residences could be shared by many.
The fruit of your labor would not be distributed by bureaucrats. You would decide where you wanted to live permanently. Freedom and security come from being secure and having material access to the full fruit of your labor. Those with more than others under class rule invariably call the shots name have more freedom and rights. Such would not be the case if workers owned productive property communal and shared in that abundance.
Human nature is adaptable. We develop behavior and desires based on the economic rules under which we are compelled to operate in. That includes your nature, and mine.
Many supporters of capitalism will say that the failure of the American iteration of it is because it's "not really capitalism." If it requires money to run; if products are commodities to be sold at a profit; if industries are owned & run by a few, it's a variation of capitalism. That is not a classless, stateless, and moneyless economy envisaged by Marx and Engels.
I do, of course, fully agree with your last paragraph. It's good to be unified with you on that, because I most certainly didn't sign up with FAIR to promote Zionism. At least this happened early in its existence as a warning sign to its members. I too find it refreshing to see more people standing up to this destructive form of identity politics. All identity politics has big money and a lot of emotion supporting it, but now that Israel has gone too far, the tide is turning.
Honestly the classless stateless and moneyless economy envisaged by Marx and engels is incoherent to me. it is like a square circle. but is wrapped in utopian optimism. I think some of the things they thought about the value of labor for example are fundamentally erroneous. value is largely subjective. profit is not simply the exploitation of labor. profit among other things can be reward for risk. I don't particularly care to go into the details of my criticism of marxism here. you're welcome to message me and we can discuss it if you want though.
Hi, Jeffrey! I will respond to just these last points you made here, then message you if I want to discuss any more as per your request.
I think a classless, stateless, and moneyless economy makes perfect sense in a post-Industrial era where technology has advanced to the point of producing an abundance for all. There is virtually no longer any scarcity of goods that could be produced and land can be divvied up in an egalitarian manner with housing units that enable many people to share the land.
That is not "utopian" in the sense that it would be a perfect society, but rather a much better and more advanced one than we have today, one that would not engender behavior of the sort we see in a system based on competition, one-upmanship, greed, mistrust, and where one's personal value is determined by how much they have materially compared to other people.
Profit is not reward for risk because risk is not equal to everyone. Those who wee born into a lot of money, have the right connections, and receive large government subsidies for their entrepreneurial endeavors -- as most rich people do -- are making no risks at all compared to the average person with only a few thousand dollars to their name, who are almost guaranteed to fail. This is in contrast to multi-billionaires like Trump or Hunter Biden who have families and networks that build them back up after numerous business failures; or bankers that get bailed out by the government for high risk speculatory gambits that caused the 2008 economic crash. I've been a working class entrepreneur since the early 1990s and I can assure you there is no bailing out for average working people by either rich family members or the government if they lose everything.
As for profit not being the exploitation of labor? We are increasingly unable to make a living for our hard work that we perform for capitalists despite doing all the useful work. And with automation increasingly taking over most forms of work as we enter later stages of industrial development, we are in serious trouble if we side with the capitalists in thinking that class rule, money, and production for profit should continue into infinity.
Value can be subjective, unless it has actual material usefulness, such as some metals compared to others in terms of construction. However, value because so subjective in one sense under capitalism that some metals, such as gold, are considered of high economic value simply because it's rare, not because it's useful in a practical sense.
As noted above, I will message you beyond responding to these last points you brought up here if I want to discuss Marxism further. In the meantime, thank you for the engagement and I look forward to working with you on what we do agree on, and which is of great relevance to FAIR: dealing with the promotion and defense of Zionism here.
👍🏽