Jump to content

Zeffolia

Members
  • Content Count

    3457
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Zeffolia last won the day on February 25

Zeffolia had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

306 Excellent

2 Followers

About Zeffolia

  • Rank
    2K, On My Way

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Selected

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Citations Needed Podcast News Brief: As a Social Democracy Response to Covid19 Falters, Likelihood of Martial Response Rises
  2. Once again I will return to a quote I copied a while ago Once again you're failing to look at this entire question in terms of the relations of production. Whether a jeweler's house is personal or private property is determined by the relations of production in which that house is located, which depends upon the time period in question. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01c.htm#c1 A jeweler's house which is located in a town in which that house is the product of and instrument of alienated labor is private property. That same house anywhere or anywhen else, where it does not stand in relation to production in a way that alienates those who do not have it, is personal property. In essence, after the communist abolition of private property, that house would crease to be private property and would be able to be personal property if the relations of production have become fully communalized
  3. To elaborate a bit more under the assumption that this distinction has been made clear, the entire reason for the communist desire to abolish private property is because the alienation of the individual from the material world inherent in the abstractions that the capitalist system's relations of production impose upon the proletariat class by the bourgeoisie, render the material world in which the proletariat find themselves separated from the body in a way that is similar to the lopping off of an appendage previously attached in an abstract and multi-layered way to the mind of the body. The materialist viewpoint of Marx is deeply ecological and all-encompassing of the material realm of human existence. The class struggle inherent in capitalism is itself a violent dissection, a separation of nature from itself imposed upon the majority of nature by an alien minority, the bourgeoisie. He relates this also to the rape of the fields and its subsequent mineral depletion. Marx was an ecologist and truly loved humanity and the material world and aimed solely to bring political economy away from the abstractions of bourgeois economists, away from any ideology which is isolated and solipsistically intellectual, and back into the material realm again, and this is what he has set in motion
  4. You're not understand the Marxist conception of the differentiation between personal and private property if you keep bringing up "moveable", it's irrelevant. As I pointed out, it's not about the device being movable. A personal computer (which I will now just call "computer" from now on because of the name collision here of "personal"-computer which does not relate to the word "personal"-property) can either be personal or private property - it depends entirely upon the context, not upon the object itself. That specific context upon which it depends is the relations of production surrounding the object's existence. That context determines whether it's part of the means of production which is the sole determiner of whether it's personal or private property If computers are ubiquitous and trivial for anyone to get within reason, it cannot be considered part of the means of production, and cannot be monopolizable, and therefore one's ownership of the object cannot be used to alienate any other workers from their labor. This means it's personal property in that context But during the early days of computers where they are scarce and time has to be allotted in some way, the computer would in fact become part of the means of production, and in this scenario it is private property in that context As for your jewelry example, I am not using personal and private interchangeably, I am using them in line with the Marxist conception of the terms, you're just misunderstanding them. I admit it's possible I mis-typed in the past without noticing it, if that's the case you can point out the specific location Gems are raw materials labored upon for production of the refined object, in this case jewels. They are part of the means of production, and as such are private property, not personal property. In the peasant and artisan quote I gave from The Communist Manifesto, the personal property of the peasant or artisan is that which stays in their immediate vicinity and is used not for laboring upon, for producing anything, but for living. To put it more specifically, those objects could be viewed as extensions of the body of the individual, the linkages of that individual to the material world, whereas the private property, the incoming stream of gems which are labored upon to produce jewels, are not part of that laborer's connection to the material world, and are in fact themselves, within the context of the specific example you gave, products of alienated laborer themselves, in this case that of the gem miners. For these reasons the Marxist conception of the differentiation between personal and private property are rooted entirely in the concept of alienated labor, which is itself rooted entirely in the concept of state violence being applied to those who violence the private property rights of those of the higher class who are perpetrating the aforementioned alienation of labor, which brings this concept back of course to class struggle. If I have not made myself clear I suggest reading Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 as well as The German Ideology
  5. In the information age, informational/computational labor can be performed anywhere, and thus ownership of a computer on which labor can be performed is not ownership of the means of production, because it is not "the" means of production in a way a monopolizable factory factory is, it is merely "a" means of production. Thus it is still personal property unless a material condition appears where computers are scarce and those who own them try to extract rent from those who use them, or to appropriate the surplus value of their labor. I don't think anything I've said has been imprecise, you could point out what you're talking about if you disagree
  6. property is theft, and theft is violent banks are indeed violent. they rent, through taxes, the state monopoly on violence in exchange for enforcing the private property rights of the money they lend out, which they borrow to begin with from the same state doing the violence. money itself is violent, it's the baton and gun of the police abstracted through pieces of paper, all in the end signifying the state monopoly on violence
  7. Marx's distinction between personal and private property is rooted entirely in the relations of production. If it's the means of production, it's private property. If it's not the means of production, but rather a petty commodity, it's personal property. Homes are not used to generate wealth through labor. If it's a large home full of instruments of production and located on farm land whose ownership is associated with ownership of the home, that's the means of production and it's private property. If it's a small home full of your books and maybe some kitchen instruments, it's personal property. That same house though which constitutes personal property would be private property if it were owned by a landlord and rented out, or if it became an essential shelter in the laboring on a particular nearby resource, giving that individual a monopoly on labor. His distinction is not as trivial as the civil law definition of being "movable".
  8. the bolded point is not hair splitting, it is integral to what private property means. private property is property which is only attributable due to the threat of state violence enforcing the ownership dissimilarity across groups of people. personal property however can be maintained by an individual, even created by an individual, and thus requires no violence to exist. whereas private property requires violence, through the creation of economic conditions, once again under the threat of state violence to enforce said private property rights, to generate wage slaves to defend the privately owned building (one large enough to be considered private property, like an office building or factory) etc. no, even from his own words in the most basic text https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf
  9. there's a difference between societal goals and individual goals. we live under capitalism right now, no use pretending like we don't, that would be pretty dumb, even if you don't want to be. plus, to reply to your point more specifically, owning a house and living in it is personal property, not private property. it's private property when the landlord owns it.
  10. i don't think you interpreted the intent of my post correctly. i merely mean mixing some aspects of non-specialization back into society. it doesn't mean removing specialization entirely. the division of labor is what turns humans into cogs in machines, since labor is then merely refined down to become whatever is required to fill in the gaps between what the machines can do for us. it alienates the laborer from their job and is soul destroying. we can merge technology and self sufficiently. like ai-powered greenhouses which send you phone alerts when they detect your spinach is turning yellow. this will help us maintain our efficiency but still let the individual take care of themselves more or less, as long as that AI software is free and open source and does not require internet, and can run on cheap smart phones connected to a basic wheeled robot to move around the camera. youre right, but i think even this is too selfish - it's a "I want to claim my land first before it runs out" mentality. I think we need to move more physical reality into communal ownership and communal shared maintenance
  11. corona has made me rethink not only my longterm financial portfolio allocation strategy, but it has made me apply that same form of thinking to the rest of life. not only should we be financially stable, but we should be materially stable with physical assets to fall back on, like land and a house which is owned rather than rented, even if it's just a trailer you live in on a tiny sliver of land. like social capital, the interactions and relationships you have with the people in your community who can hook you up with food if you get fucked. and like longterm storage of medical supplies, as well as even personal medical knowledge. i feel like my education in the US was truly woefully lacking. I actually don't know anything, I'm basically mentally degenerate and completely ignorant on pretty much every topic. this is especially concerning because i actually have a pretty good education and always got a's and stuff, but in the end i am a fucking moron who doesn't even know how to grow a potato or rig up a water filtration system for your piss, or whatever other things preppers do not only do I feel this should be applied on the individual but to the greater society. if we're still using stupid metrics like stock market performance to judge economic health after we exit this crisis, it's going to not bode well for climate change readiness. clearly we need smarter metrics being the primary health monitor, like how long each community in the country could isolate itself and be completely self sufficient for example. why doesn't each neighborhood have its own communal garden to grow the majority of its food, which everyone takes turns taking care of or which is a group activity? this is like an enthusiast type thing but it should be a standard thing. why doesn't everyone know a little bit of everything ill end my rant here
  12. coronavirus socialist activism discussion YT livestream from prominent US socialists
  13. Marx said the most advanced technological nation will lead the communist revolution
  14. It's not about this, it's about what this is a test run for. Climate change.
  15. How many artists are as progressive as AE, as in they change their style at a rate this significant each release?
×
×
  • Create New...