quote:
Well, there could be other factors - such as education and the wealth inheritance cycle. It has been prostulated, for example, that the rich are more knowledgable in how to make their money grow (or in avoiding taxes).
Absolutely true. And that is where a moral criticism is levelled at property-owning societies: wealth begets wealth, and the wealthy are a ruling, self-perpetuating class. Thus for example you later say:
quote:
But you can create your own company under Capitalism.
While this is notionally true, if the existing wealthy class has both the resources and the knowledge to best succeed, then their success is going to drive out the start-up companies; its more likely that a start-up will enter debt straight away and less likely to be able to procure good deals through contacts or nous. Some 70% of start-ups fail in the first year.
quote:
Ok, there is sense in this. May I ask what resources (aside from land) would be considered "public"? And also, what happens when this resource (or any other) is being used at maximum capacity?
The communist formulation is "the means of production". That is, the resources we exploit and the tools we use to exploit them. Its a distinction between the tools by which we produce the things we use, and the things we use themselves.
If a common resource is being exploited at capacity, AND this causes some sort of conflict among would-be exploiters, a committee could be established to arbitrate, by one of several established democratic mechanisms.
quote:
So I have been taught a lie. Hmmmmm....reminescence of my Anglican primary school days.
Yes. Capital explicitly shows how people of different abilities get to control differeing quantitites of wealth in its demonstration of the labour theory of value.
quote:
So there ARE property rights, but only stuff that you are using, right?
In a sense, yes, but we are talking of a social contract relationship so distinct from orthodox property rights that its worth making a terminological distinction. One formulation that is used is to distinguish between personal property and private property.
This also shows why the assertion that if I am a communist I should give my house and goods over to whoever demands it is also a misrepresentative lie. Communism does allocate to me the right to exclusive use of these assets.
quote:
Question:
1) Can you build your house as big as you want it? (How much is exploit-able?)
No; that is exactly the consequence of private property, and results in the steady elimination of communal property. For example originally in Rome the Ager Publicus was free grazing ground, but was steadily appropriated by private owners and major landholders.
So here is the relevant question for your house: how many beds can you sleep in at one time? How many toilets can you use at one time?
Exploitation limits your right to socially enforced exlusive access; it does not limit the wasteful expenditure of your own wealth surplus to your survival requirements. It is highly unlikely that anyone else will NEED to make use of your second bed or second toilet and demand these from you, but equally you have little personal NEED for a 200-room mansion.
quote:
2) Can you buy a TV for every room in your 200-room mansion?
Assuming that through your efforts you had generated such a quantity of social value equivalent to the production costs of all those TV's, yes you could.
quote:
3) Does this mean you can own as much money as you can earn but you can't buy more things than you can use?
Stuff you can have; what you cannot do is limit access to the means of production.
The kind of problem this model attemopts to solve is this: a factory producing widgets falls below the ROI the owner would like or considers worthwhile; therefore they close the plant and throws the workers out on their ear. That facility could still have been productive, and the workers may still have been able to do socially valuable work; even if the ROI was nominal they might have remained self-sufficient.
quote:
Also, your ability to make money for the company increases your worth to it, and thus increases your income. (If this does not happen, you can change over to another company that recognises your worth)
This only demonstrates that it is not my own ability which brings me my wealth, but my ability to persuade other people, who control wealth, to give me some. Its not much different from feadalism, is it? Capital is actually a late medieval analysis. The worker is a vassal dependant on the lords good will (and arguably wage workers have fewer rights than feudal serfs).
Therein lies the second moral criticism of property-owning societies: not only does wealth beget wealth and the ruling class sustain itself, but tyhat very factor makes the rest of society dependant on the whim and will of these large owners. Property owning societies are inherently unfree.
quote:
So under your system, all the companies would be state owned, and your wages would be performance-tagged? (Everyone owns everything + direct incentives to work harder)
Well, I dislike yu reference to "state" to indicate "collective action by the people", but your formulation is essentially correct. The state however is a particulatr entity with particular fetaures - such as standing armed bodies anf the monopoly of violence - that are not necessary in non-properties societies.
quote:
I won't buy into the idea of charity supporting the elderly and disabled on the grounds that charity is not guaranteed to generate sufficient funds. If you say taxes, then the issue is moot, yes.
Too bad, I'm afraid. People often accuse communism of being feelgood hippy shit, but it aint. The two key concepts are: "From each according to their ability to each according to their need" and "He who does not work does not eat."
But again, this is a theory being advanced specifically for an INDUSTRIAL society that finds it trivially easy to over-produce foodstuffs. It is, in other words, well within our ability to feed those that need food, and we can freely do so without jeopardising our own sustenance. FUNDS are not the issue because funds only indicate the ability to mobilise socially-held resources.
quote:
Is it ok if I come over to your house and take your Porsche out for a spin while you are watching TV, and so obviously not exploiting it?
In principle, yes it is OK, but equally it will be OK if I punch you in the nose when you bring it back. Its a matter between you and me, not the armed might of the state. I would have the right to ask why you made a point of using my vehicle rather than some other vehicle. OTOH, if you were rushing your pregnant wife to hospital and speed was of the essence, your decision would be more sensible and I would be less likely to find it offensive.
™ Version 4.2