Karl Marx, Yesterday and Today

[PureX]

It's not an issue of who has money and who doesn't, and it never as been. It's about CONTROL. It's about who controls the mechanisms of commerce, and therefor of the distribution of goods and services, and even more importantly, of opportunities.

We love to claim that in America anyone can become rich. But the overwhelming fact is that this is a bald faced lie. Like saying "anyone can win the lottery". Yet only one in a million ever really does. Because only one in a million ever actually can. Our system is so totally stacked against anyone but the cronies of the rich ever being able to succeed that only they ever succeed. Yes a very few will "win the lotto" and manage to succeed in becoming an elite. But millions of others never will, no matter how hard they work or how smart or how lucky they are. Because the elites keep all the control for themselves. Just as they always have, no matter what form of government we have.

It's all about control. Money is just the means a capitalist culture uses to allocate and enforce who gets to be in control.

 

[Unfettered]

What do you mean by "howling"?

I mean to say that necessities pertain to the individual and are real and demand immediate attention (I need food today, I need shelter today, I need money today, etc.); they are loud, noisy, in your face, etc., whereas mutual self-interests pertain to everyone generally and are abstractions (the idea that we all need food, the idea that we need shelter, etc.); they are are silent, passive, not demanding. You can't found a society on both things; they are in conflict at all times. A society so ordered, then, would always be in conflict. This describes where the US currently is; we are founded on a not-yet-perfect base of mutual self-interest, but are yielding more and more to the cries of practical necessity, effectively establishing practical necessity as a second founding principle. It isn't working; it won't work; it can't work.

In any case, the concept of the social contract would imply cooperation and practical benefit for members of a given society. I don't see how it would be contradictory, unless we're applying different standards to different subsets of individuals within a society (or in the world at large) - which can be viewed as contradictory, hypocritical, and problematic.

A contract is a real thing, never an abstraction. If you don't sign a real contract, there is no contract. So the idea of a social contract is a fantasy.

If you're suggesting a society founded through social contracts, that would be interesting to see. How would you secure signatures on the part of those who don't want to sign?

The problem is that governments and other powerful entities oftentimes fail to abide by their own stated principles. That undermines the integrity of the social contract and creates unnecessary dissension and conflict. When too many people take an attitude of "rules for thee but not for me," then people will tend to get riled up over time.

I agree. This always causes problems.

 

[Shaul]

Karl Marx was a fool. His concept of dialectic materialism is wrong and stupid. His philosophy is hackneyed, unworkable and has been disastrous wherever it has been tried to be implemented. A pox upon him.

 

[Unfettered]

Adcess to land? Like little farms?

If one chooses to farm, yes—if that is how one chooses to pursue happiness.

The point is that, in the US, the law secures a person's right to pursue happiness, but the US government infringes that right outright by claiming all the land, denying our natural claim to what nature affords all creatures—land (for a home, for a garden, for a carpentry shop, for an orchard, for whatever one conceives to do with it). This is an egregious rights abuse. It is a gating of the right to pursue happiness, rendering it not a right, but a privilege. Major, major problem in the law. And the American people have been indifferent to it, effectively, since the beginning. At the founding they allowed the status quo (citizens have no inherent right to land) to be perpetuated when they should have rejected it, just like they should have rejected slavery and repression of women.

 

[PureX]

If one chooses to farm, yes—if that is how one chooses to pursue happiness.

The point is that, in the US, the law secures a person's right to pursue happiness, but the US government infringes that right outright by claiming all the land, denying our natural claim to what nature affords all creatures—land (for a home, for a garden, for a carpentry shop, for an orchard, for whatever one conceives to do with it). This is an egregious rights abuse. It is a gating of the right to pursue happiness, rendering it not a right, but a privilege. Major, major problem in the law. And the American people have been indifferent to it, effectively, since the beginning. At the founding they allowed the status quo (citizens have no inherent right to land) to be perpetuated when they should have rejected it, just like they should have rejected slavery and repression of women.

The government IS THE PEOPLE. (Or it's supposed to be.) When the government claims the right to oversee land usage it is doing so on behalf of the people of the United States. (Or it's supposed to be.) It's not that citizens have no inherent right to the land, it's that we all have an equal right to it. And our government, then, representing us all, is charged with determining who gets to use it, and how (on all our behalves).

All our complaining about government interference is missing the whole point of government. "Interfering" is it's job. It's why we instituted governments to begin with: to maintain the peace and equilibrium between and among us all. To do that it MUST "interfere". It MUST impose the necessities of the whole, not the individual.

 

[Stevicus]

I mean to say that necessities pertain to the individual and are real and demand immediate attention (I need food today, I need shelter today, I need money today, etc.); they are loud, noisy, in your face, etc., whereas mutual self-interests pertain to everyone generally and are abstractions (the idea that we all need food, the idea that we need shelter, etc.); they are are silent, passive, not demanding. You can't found a society on both things; they are in conflict at all times. A society so ordered, then, would always be in conflict. This describes where the US currently is; we are founded on a not-yet-perfect base of mutual self-interest, but are yielding more and more to the cries of practical necessity, effectively establishing practical necessity as a second founding principle. It isn't working; it won't work; it can't work.

Not sure what you're getting at here, though if we're finding that have to yield more and more to the cries of practical necessity, I would attribute this to myopically bad planning. It relates to what I was saying earlier about a society-wide failure to see cause and effect and understand the consequences of our actions. As an example, the wanton fiscal irresponsibility of our government for the past 50+ years has led to more significant hardship and has increased the amount of angst and "howling," as you put it. We could have planned better. We didn't, and now, we're facing bigger problems.

A contract is a real thing, never an abstraction. If you don't sign a real contract, there is no contract. So the idea of a social contract is a fantasy.

If you're suggesting a society founded through social contracts, that would be interesting to see. How would you secure signatures on the part of those who don't want to sign?
I agree. This always causes problems.

What's a "real contract"? Just a piece of paper with ink on it. Is that not every bit of an abstraction as you say the social contract is? If people decide to break it, what are you going to do? What are your options? Use force? What if their force is bigger than yours? In that case, it wouldn't matter if it's on paper or some kind of implied contract. The resulting problems would be the same.

 

[metis]

Karl Marx was a fool. His concept of dialectic materialism is wrong and stupid. His philosophy is hackneyed, unworkable and has been disastrous wherever it has been tried to be implemented. A pox upon him.

He certainly was no "fool", but some of his proposals were "pie in the sky" and some others blatantly oppressive. Engles angrily abandoned him mostly over the latter.

 

[Unfettered]

Not sure what you're getting at here, though if we're finding that have to yield more and more to the cries of practical necessity, I would attribute this to myopically bad planning. It relates to what I was saying earlier about a society-wide failure to see cause and effect and understand the consequences of our actions. As an example, the wanton fiscal irresponsibility of our government for the past 50+ years has led to more significant hardship and has increased the amount of angst and "howling," as you put it. We could have planned better. We didn't, and now, we're facing bigger problems.

I understand. The natural world precludes the abolition of necessity, even with the best planning. All I'm saying is that establishing "providing for necessity" as a foundational principle of government is a bottomless pit. It is an unwinnable war. Hence, a poor foundation.

What's a "real contract"? Just a piece of paper with ink on it. Is that not every bit of an abstraction as you say the social contract is?

No, there is a difference. A signed piece of paper is real; it exists. It can be read. It can be pointed to. It can be checked and re-checked. Which means people can hold one another accountable for what is agreed to in it.

There is no social contract. It does not exist. So it can be made to say and mean whatever anyone wants it to say. No verification. No accountability.

If people decide to break it, what are you going to do? What are your options? Use force? What if their force is bigger than yours? In that case, it wouldn't matter if it's on paper or some kind of implied contract. The resulting problems would be the same.

Yes, when people violate the terms of real contracts, force may be required exact accountability. But the use of force would be justified. Without a real contract, use of force is wholly arbitrary. How, then, could it be said to be justified or not? It's chaos.

 

[Unfettered]

The government IS THE PEOPLE. (Or it's supposed to be.) When the government claims the right to oversee land usage it is doing so on behalf of the people of the United States. (Or it's supposed to be.) It's not that citizens have no inherent right to the land, it's that we all have an equal right to it. And our government, then, representing us all, is charged with determining who gets to use it, and how (on all our behalves).

Applying your statement above: If THE PEOPLE are charged with determining who gets to use the land, and if that charge must be executed under the real premise that THE PEOPLE all have equal right to the land, how do THE PEOPLE arrive at a determination that my neighbor shall have a 10,000 acre ranch and I shall have a 1,000 sq ft apartment on the 5th floor of an apartment building?

All our complaining about government interference is missing the whole point of government. "Interfering" is it's job. It's why we instituted governments to begin with: to maintain the peace and equilibrium between and among us all. To do that it MUST "interfere". It MUST impose the necessities of the whole, not the individual.

Again, how is it arrived at that my neighbor's necessity equals 10,000 acres while my necessity equals 1,000 sq ft? By what standard do THE PEOPLE come to this determination? Also, how does that interference maintain peace? How does that interference maintain equilibrium?

 

[Audie]

If one chooses to farm, yes—if that is how one chooses to pursue happiness.

The point is that, in the US, the law secures a person's right to pursue happiness, but the US government infringes that right outright by claiming all the land, denying our natural claim to what nature affords all creatures—land (for a home, for a garden, for a carpentry shop, for an orchard, for whatever one conceives to do with it). This is an egregious rights abuse. It is a gating of the right to pursue happiness, rendering it not a right, but a privilege. Major, major problem in the law. And the American people have been indifferent to it, effectively, since the beginning. At the founding they allowed the status quo (citizens have no inherent right to land) to be perpetuated when they should have rejected it, just like they should have rejected slavery and repression of women.

Who claims all the land?
I own some USA property.

Someone killed the natives used / sold
the property how many times.
Now I own it.
Identify the problem with that as related to your theme?




If you mean like national parks
and forests, what do you want ?

Open it all to the public for free?

 

[Unfettered]

Who claims all the land?
I own some USA property.

Someone killed the natives used / sold
the property how many times.
Now I own it.
Identify the problem with that as related to your theme?




If you mean like national parks
and forests, what do you want ?

Open it all to the public for free?

If "civilization" is the assumption—on any level—it is self-evident that nature does not grant the right to any body of people to claim all the land. That is the answer I offer to the question of natives vs settlers. It is the only answer that satisfies the demands of reality. Any other answer makes someone homeless. Nature is fine with that; civilization is not. So again, if the assumption is "civilization"…

The question of the actuality of the right to claim land is insulated from the question of how to regulate claims on what is available. The right to claim land is as real as is the right to life. What we've never done is address to a reasonable and equitable conclusion the question "how to regulate" in light of the right to claim land. That has never been done. The law has never acknowledged that humans have a right to claim land, only that they may own land. And in terms of the law the indifference to the right to claim land is the primary cause for the prevalence of homelessness and poverty. Not the only cause, but the primary cause.

On the question of "free" vs "purchased," the right is to claim land, not buy land. If you have to buy it, you don't have a right to it. It is self-evident that we have a natural right to claim land sufficient for our natural needs.

So in my mind the question is: Do we want to address this problem, or just complain about it? Or ignore it? If we want to address the problem, let's do the work and figure out how to conform the law to what is self-evident: persons have a right to claim land equal to their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Shaul]

He certainly was no "fool", but some of his proposals were "pie in the sky" and some others blatantly oppressive. Engles angrily abandoned him mostly over the latter.

I disagree vociferously. A fool is a person who acts unwisely or imprudently. A fool is someone that deceives others. Karl Marx is the epitome of a fool. So much so that his picture could be used in the dictionary next to the definition of the word.

 

[metis]

I disagree vociferously. A fool is a person who acts unwisely or imprudently. A fool is someone that deceives others. Karl Marx is the epitome of a fool. So much so that his picture could be used in the dictionary next to the definition of the word.

Yes, there's more than one kind of "fool", but ignorant he was not. We all make mistakes at times, but just because that's logically correct, we're not all "fools", imo. Matter of fact, I don't like that word because it's comonly used as a label for an entire person.

 

[Stevicus]

I understand. The natural world precludes the abolition of necessity, even with the best planning. All I'm saying is that establishing "providing for necessity" as a foundational principle of government is a bottomless pit. It is an unwinnable war. Hence, a poor foundation.

Still not sure what you're getting at.

No, there is a difference. A signed piece of paper is real; it exists. It can be read. It can be pointed to. It can be checked and re-checked. Which means people can hold one another accountable for what is agreed to in it.

There is no social contract. It does not exist. So it can be made to say and mean whatever anyone wants it to say. No verification. No accountability.

It must exist to some degree. It certainly must have existed for as long as humans learned the ability to speak through language. Contracts are written in a human language - but paper is not inviolate or beyond reproach. Some contracts can be forged or falsified. Some can be signed under duress. There can often be many loopholes and mistakes.

As far as holding one another accountable for what is agreed to in it, who agreed to hold anyone accountable? Who agreed that that's what contracts are for, and where did this line of thought all originate from? From something you say does not exist? (Or maybe you think it comes from God?)

Yes, when people violate the terms of real contracts, force may be required exact accountability. But the use of force would be justified. Without a real contract, use of force is wholly arbitrary. How, then, could it be said to be justified or not? It's chaos.

Look, if everyone in the world said what they meant and meant what they said, if everyone fulfilled their promises and honored their agreements, whether written or not, then this world would be...a utopia. In the end, it's all about who has the force. It's certainly chaotic, but then again, in the building and creating of bigger and better armies, there also has grown a need for discipline and good order.

 

[Audie]

If "civilization" is the assumption—on any level—it is self-evident that nature does not grant the right to any body of people to claim all the land. That is the answer I offer to the question of natives vs settlers. It is the only answer that satisfies the demands of reality. Any other answer makes someone homeless. Nature is fine with that; civilization is not. So again, if the assumption is "civilization"…

The question of the actuality of the right to claim land is insulated from the question of how to regulate claims on what is available. The right to claim land is as real as is the right to life. What we've never done is address to a reasonable and equitable conclusion the question "how to regulate" in light of the right to claim land. That has never been done. The law has never acknowledged that humans have a right to claim land, only that they may own land. And in terms of the law the indifference to the right to claim land is the primary cause for the prevalence of homelessness and poverty. Not the only cause, but the primary cause.

On the question of "free" vs "purchased," the right is to claim land, not buy land. If you have to buy it, you don't have a right to it. It is self-evident that we have a natural right to claim land sufficient for our natural needs.

So in my mind the question is: Do we want to address this problem, or just complain about it? Or ignore it? If we want to address the problem, let's do the work and figure out how to conform the law to what is self-evident: persons have a right to claim land equal to their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Cut the population to 1 percent and you could do it.

But you know, owning land is an idea only recognized
by the " civilized".

There's no natural right. It's the opposite.

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree vociferously. A fool is a person who acts unwisely or imprudently. A fool is someone that deceives others. Karl Marx is the epitome of a fool. So much so that his picture could be used in the dictionary next to the definition of the word.

Marx had an elaborate nightmare.
Masses mistook it for a dream.

 

[Revoltingest]

Cut the population to 1 percent and you could do it.

But you know, owning land is an idea only recognized
by the " civilized".

There's no natural right. It's the opposite.

"Natural rights" are an illusion based upon strong feeling.
All rights are things we believe to be rights.
When enuf people believe them to create a consensus,
then they become law.

 

[Unfettered]

Cut the population to 1 percent and you could do it.

LOL. Yes, easily. I think we're already there (looking at the number of citizens who own land).

But you know, owning land is an idea only recognized
by the " civilized".

Territoriality is natural and necessary. So I'd offer that there is no fault to be found with the territorial nature of land ownership, only with monopolizing it, or placing artificial barriers to it.

There's no natural right. It's the opposite.

What is "the opposite"?

 

[Unfettered]

Still not sure what you're getting at.

I'm sorry that I'm not expressing it clearly.

It must exist to some degree. It certainly must have existed for as long as humans learned the ability to speak through language. Contracts are written in a human language - but paper is not inviolate or beyond reproach. Some contracts can be forged or falsified. Some can be signed under duress. There can often be many loopholes and mistakes.

As far as holding one another accountable for what is agreed to in it, who agreed to hold anyone accountable? Who agreed that that's what contracts are for, and where did this line of thought all originate from? From something you say does not exist? (Or maybe you think it comes from God?)

Well, I know that if I don't have written documents (agreements, contracts, etc.) validating my claim on property, etc., that society won't honor my claims. That's what I'm appealing to here. Simply saying, "I own this piece of land," won't cut it. I think there's something to what I've been saying, as relates to contracts. I also understand, though, that verbal agreements are real, though only on the same basis as written contracts—both parties must speak and hear and agree to the terms of the contract.

Look, if everyone in the world said what they meant and meant what they said, if everyone fulfilled their promises and honored their agreements, whether written or not, then this world would be...a utopia.

Well, not a utopia, since that is a "noplace," but I understand what you're saying—things would be great.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm sorry that I'm not expressing it clearly.

Some people see government as a "necessary evil" to maintain law and order and provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, among other things. Is that what you meant by a "poor foundation"?

Well, I know that if I don't have written documents (agreements, contracts, etc.) validating my claim on property, etc., that society won't honor my claims. That's what I'm appealing to here. Simply saying, "I own this piece of land," won't cut it. I think there's something to what I've been saying, as relates to contracts. I also understand, though, that verbal agreements are real, though only on the same basis as written contracts—both parties must speak and hear and agree to the terms of the contract.

This relates to more contemporary lawyer-speak, which describes how things are nowadays, but it doesn't negate or refute the origins of the social contract as theorized by Locke and Hobbes, among others. The trouble is that lawyers are often clever con artists who have the ability to manipulate language for their own purposes.

Just because something is written on a piece of paper doesn't mean that it's honest or honorable, and when the law is made on an ad hoc basis and contracts can no longer be trusted, it undermines the overall faith in the system in general. That's what has led to the slow deterioration we've been seeing, as we have a government which has turned the blind eye to corruption, organized crime, and other forms of malfeasance committed by lawyers and legal authorities.

When the law itself becomes chaotic and unpredictable, society as a whole is sure to follow. It's all really based on faith. It's not the "paper." Money is just paper, too, but it has value only because people believe it has value. There's nothing natural about it.

Well, not a utopia, since that is a "noplace," but I understand what you're saying—things would be great.