This is a YouTube comment exchange I had with a socialist in
the YouTube comments of a bad video I won't link. The black
coloured text is what I said and the red coloured text are his
responses. Sometimes it is nice to talk to a socialist, to
remind myself that I am not one despite the innumerable issues I
have with "capitalism."
Good luck having any rights without property rights.
Why wouldn't property rights exist?
Because of the slippery slope.
That's not an answer.
Do you understand the difference between
personal property and private property?
That's not the answer you wanted.
The difference? Yes, it is arbitrary.
No it truly wasn't an answer at all.
The question was Why wouldn't there be any property rights under Socialism..and your response was It's a slippery slope..
You might as well have said nothing.
And there's a very big difference between personal property and private property. If you own a car, that's clearly for personal use. I don't care about your personal property. If you own a car factory however, it's not for personal use so it's private property since other people are directly involved and are directly affected by decisions you make with no input from those people.. that's what will be abolished under Socialism. Private property will be replaced with collective ownership, and both collective property rights and personal property rights will be protected
It has been a slippery slope alright but sure let's say nothing
of it. You will own nothing and be happy about it.
What if you want to use that "personal" car to give rides to
people for money? Then those people whom you give a ride to will
be affected by the decisions you want to take with it and they
will have no input about it either. What if you want to rent out
that car to a driver and walk instead to save some money? Then
what you do with that car will affect the driver you rent it to
and he will have no say in it. What if you want to do deliveries
on the side to make save something? Then what you do with it
will affect others. He will have his state-issued "personal"
property but he will be so limited in what he can do with it
that it might as well not be his own lest it leaves the
arbitrary bounds of "personal" property. So too with a lot of
other "personal" property. Private propery is the means of
production therefore any property which is used in an
economically productive way cannot be regarded as "personal"
You will still own things under Socialism
lol, take a deep breath.
And I'm not sure why a person would go to you for transport and pay out of pocket when public transport of all modes is available to get you where you want, but you're talking about the relationship between two individuals making a trade, which I don't care about.
The customer is not an employee. And if you bought the car, it's not "state issued". If you wanted to use your car to make money, fine, but if you bring employees on then they get a say in how the car is used.
Sure buddy, you will be happy after taking your soma.
It's still a trade between two individuals when you rent out your car. Public transport will not drop you off right where you want to, saving you some time.
If you think you can live off of charging
people money for something they can get for free, knock
yourself out man
There is nothing free, mate.
Sure there is. That's just a dumbass
talking point that you feel the need to regurgitate. Do
Cool down dude. I didn't call anything you said a dumbass
talking point and I could have. It's not like anything we have
said is new.
You could have but you would've been
So to recap, there's still different kinds of property rights under Socialism.
I would have been wrong? That's what you would say.
So to recap, the division between private and "personal" property is arbitrary and so "different kinds of property rights under socialism" is a euphemism for almost no property rights. I might add there will be less property too but that's not necessarily always a bad thing.
No there's a very clear distinction
between the two, but you don't care. You want to fear monger
because I don't know..willfully ignorant? Either way, when we
do eventually transition to Socialism the quality of your life
will vastly increase. Your welcome.
Oh yes, of course, the only reason I wouldn't see things your
way on this matter is because I don't care or am willfully
ignorant. Whatever helps you sleep at night. We are
transitioning to socialism, with that much I'll agree, although
I am not sure it means what you think it means for your quality
of life. Prepare to have a rude awakening. You are very welcome
With the abolishment of private property,
the working class will collectively own the means of
production and distribution..so yes the quality of life for
the working class (that's you and me) will definitely be
Well, it depends on whether resources can be allocated more
productively this way. Which is doubtful.
We have the resources right now to be
able to do it, what in the actual fuck are you talking about
First of all calm your tits. Secondly consider the lilies of
the field. Next consider that the current levels of mass
production have been reached under a system of private property
rights. By removing that system of private property you are at
least taking a gamble if you intend to maintain or even grow
current levels of production. If there is a contraction in
production then the resources available will decrease.
Worker co-ops have proven to be more
productive than their non democratic counterparts soooo
there's your argument out the window
Then just move to a worker coop or make one. Soooo I don't see
why you would need to abolish private property at all.
Because it's undemocratic
I do not want to live in an undemocratic society. It's really that simple. Either you're pro freedom or you're not
I see it isn't enough for you to set up your own worker coops
and live like that, everybody else must be forced to live in it
too. That's what freedom is.
Exactly! Now you get it! In order to have
freedom in the workplace private property must be abolished!
There's no other way for workers to have bargaining power,
vote for their manager, and have a say in decisions that
effect them, that is freedom
No, I still don't get why you can't have voluntary worker coops
and private property. Why do you want to force this on everyone
and call it freedom? Why not let people have a choice whether to
work in private company or set up and work in a worker coop?
Isn't that more free?
Because private property isn't voluntary.
Why would anyone choose to be in a work environment at which they have zero control over? Why would someone willingly choose to be at the complete whim of an owner who is an asshole and could fire them at anytime for any reason? Why would someone willingly put themselves in a situation where they couldn't have actual power over their wage?
No sane person would work in these conditions, and in a democratic society these conditions wouldn't exist in the first place.
Private property is voluntary. People are free to set up those
worker coops but they would rather work for private
institutions. So you ask why would anyone choose to work as an
employee? If the business you work for fails, as an employee
then all you have lost is your job whereas if you pour
your own resources into a coop and it fails you would have lost
the resources you have invested into the coop (and your job)
because in a coop you are a part owner of the business but
you're not totally in charge of it either. It's like the worst
of both worlds of either owning a business or being an employee.
You won't get to set your own rules because you're only a part
owner of the business but if the enterprise fails you will also
lose your stake in it as a part owner.
Now you are lying. There is nothing
voluntary about private property. You are trying to make the
argument that it's possible to voluntarily choose to have your
freedom taken away, that it's possible to wage slavery but
it's okay because the person agreed to it.
Why are you against freedom?
I actually answered your question about why someone would
choose to be an employee. I haven't heard back from you about
it. I am not against freedom at all, I just have a different
meaning for the word freedom than you do. Unfortunately freedom
means too many things to too many people for you to make such a
blanket accusation. Wasn't it Marx who said "no man fights
freedom, at most he fights the freedom of others"? Also although
I think you are wrong, I have not stooped low enough to accuse
you of lying.
Even if your basic rights are provided, you still carry the risk of losing the initial investment you made into the business without actually being totally in charge of how that investment is used. Once you have lost that investment you cannot really try setting up the business again until you have saved the resources to try again, so you are not really free to try and fail as many times you want as you would have to wait to save the funds or go into debt to try again - and then again you wouldn't even be in control of those savings you scraped off. Also even if your basic needs are provided, your cost of living would have to be covered by your labour but if you fail then that means your living costs will have to be covered by others, so the costs of your failure are also likely to affect others who have to provide for you until you stop failing, how long will others be able to cover your living costs? Remember that most new business ventures are failures, so you and many others like you would put a considerable strain on the system, so would net payers into the system really allow you to fail as much as you need to or would they rather push you as quickly as possible into some kind of work that at least pays for your living expenses (whether you like that work or not) given that they are paying your living expenses?
By Otaking, or The Good Student