Head to Head, Uncensored v Snakestretcher on Marxism.

[AConcernedCitizen]

You got a citation for that?

The Communist Manifesto. Critique of the Gotha Programme. Take your pick.

All land is converted into the common property in Marxism. In fact, Marx critiqued Lassalle for attacking factory owners without attacking landowners.

Where would your privately owned home even come from? What would it mean to "own" a home in that context? Inheritance rights are abolished, so you aren't going to inherit a family home, and you aren't going to leave it to your kids. Are you imagining that Marx was envisioning that the proletariat would collectively "sell" homes to people in a way that is meaningfully different from just providing them with a place to live?

Do you think Marx envisioned a thriving real estate market where folks could buy land, let it appreciate in value, and then sell it for a profit?

What do you do if you want to add a new bathroom, but you don't know how to do the plumbing or electrical? Do you get to increase the value of your privately owned capital by exploiting the labour of a plumber or electrician?

Any version of "abolishing private property" is going to include abolishing privately owned real estate.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Can you not read? Here, I'll highlight the important part:


It might surprise you, in a section entitled "rent of land", that Marx is talking about those that rent their land. Landowners, in this context, are not people that own a small parcel of land for their personal use, but those that derive rent, that is, profit, from land ownership.

You missed the whole point of the passage. All landowners profit from landownership. Not just those who seek rents from tenants. Marx specifically addresses those "landowners who do not lease their land to tenants," and concludes unequivocally with:

"The final consequence is thus the abolition of the distinction between capitalist and landowner, so that there remain altogether only two classes of the population – the working class and the class of capitalists. This huckstering with landed property, the transformation of landed property into a commodity, constitutes the final overthrow of the old and the final establishment of the money aristocracy."

 

[spud_meister]

You missed the whole point of the passage. All landowners profit from landownership. Not just those who seek rents from tenants. Marx specifically addresses those "landowners who do not lease their land to tenants," and concludes unequivocally with:

"The final consequence is thus the abolition of the distinction between capitalist and landowner, so that there remain altogether only two classes of the population – the working class and the class of capitalists. This huckstering with landed property, the transformation of landed property into a commodity, constitutes the final overthrow of the old and the final establishment of the money aristocracy."

Right. Society is divided between those that sell commodities and those that sell labour. The purchase of a house, like the purchase of a car or the purchase of food, is done to sustain the efforts of the worker to produce commodities. It is materially different than the ownership of land, or cars, for the purpose of rent-seeking, whereby one survives off the work of other people.

Hell, you only have to read the rest of the chapter to find the conclusion of Marx's thought:

Association, applied to land, shares the economic advantage of large-scale landed property, and first brings to realization the original tendency inherent in [land] division, namely, equality. In the same way association also re-establishes, now on a rational basis, no longer mediated by serfdom, overlordship and the silly mysticism of property, the intimate ties of man with the earth, since the earth ceases to be an object of huckstering, and through free labour and free enjoyment becomes once more a true personal property of man.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

The purchase of a house, like the purchase of a car or the purchase of food, is done to sustain the efforts of the worker to produce commodities. It is materially different than the ownership of land, or cars, for the purpose of rent-seeking, whereby one survives off the work of other people.

Having exclusive use of a home for your personal consumption for a time is not the same as owning a home. That is called renting.

In a Marxist society the State owns the home, and you rent it for your personal consumption.

Just as food is consumed and no wealth is accumulated in the eating of it, time spent living in a home is consumed by the renter, and no wealth is accumulated.

Homeownership, by contrast, is an investment in capital, and can be converted to other forms of capital as an accumulation of wealth.

If you can invest your capital in a home and then sell your home for a profit to increase your capital, then a home is exactly the sort of property that Marx advocated abolishing.

If you can live in a home, but cannot sell it, then you are not the owner. You are a renter.

 

[spud_meister]

Having exclusive use of a home for your personal consumption for a time is not the same as owning a home. That is called renting.

In a Marxist society the State owns the home, and you rent it for your personal consumption.

Just as food is consumed and no wealth is accumulated in the eating of it, time spent living in a home is consumed by the renter, and no wealth is accumulated.

Homeownership, by contrast, is an investment in capital, and can be converted to other forms of capital as an accumulation of wealth.

If you can invest your capital in a home and then sell your home for a profit to increase your capital, then a home is exactly the sort of property that Marx advocated abolishing.

If you can live in a home, but cannot sell it, then you are not the owner. You are a renter.

Is you understanding of ownership tied only to exchange as a commodity? Do you think houses have no intrinsic use value, but their value is only derived from exchange? Under Marxism, you own, that is, retain for your exclusive personal use, a home. Being unable to sell it for profit doesn't render it unowned.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Is you understanding of ownership tied only to exchange as a commodity? Do you think houses have no intrinsic use value, but their value is only derived from exchange? Under Marxism, you own, that is, retain for your exclusive personal use, a home. Being unable to sell it for profit doesn't render it unowned.

Renters retain homes for their personal, exclusive use. That doesn’t make them owners.

 

[Bodhi]

In what social setting? We are products of our environment among other things. The social system and the incentives we live under influences behavior making it very hard to pin down one or more things as human nature. As a social species we work best when we cooperate, not when we live like ayn rand.

(PART I of II)

bomberfox: "We are products of our environment, among other things.
The social system and the incentives we live under influence behavior, making it very hard to pin down one or more things as human nature. As a social species, we work best when we cooperate, not when we live like Ayn Rand." --page 7, #152

We are indeed products of our environment. Marxism posits that a person's views and behaviors aren't decided by their consciousness or philosophical beliefs but by their material conditions of existence, particularly their relationship to the means of production. In other words, it isn't what a person thinks about the society they live in that shapes their views, but one's position in that society's economic system. The central concept is that a society's mode of production shapes that society's social, political, and intellectual life. That encompasses the ways in which people think about and relate to one another. Marxism suggests that people's beliefs and consciousness are products of their social existence within a society's economic system rather than the converse.

For instance, a Marxist would argue that a capitalist society's class structure, in light of its immutable inequalities, shapes the consciousness of people within those classes. The capitalist class and the working class hold opposing opinions due to their differing roles within the production process. Members of the capitalist class, who control the means of production, tend to hold more conservative views. At the same time, workers who are economically exploited are more likely to develop a revolutionary consciousness. In brief, Marxism stresses that an individual's beliefs and ideas don't fundamentally determine their viewpoint but rather their position within the socioeconomic structures in which they dwell.

Toward a broader discussion of human nature and to answer the oft-stated socialism/communism "is against human nature," we need to answer the question, "What is human nature"? It encompasses all possible behaviors and modes of conduct that human beings engage in, which necessitates an examination of their evolutionary history. By examining how human beings have evolved, we can gain a solid understanding of the fact that humans have always been deeply communal social animals. Language itself is one of the essential things that lends us a level of intelligence over all other animals, enables us to pass culture down through future generations, and allows us to have a relationship with ourselves. Language blossomed out of our need as incredibly social animals who required ways to interact and communicate with one another in increasingly nuanced ways to survive without the large teeth and claws that other animals possess. It was our ability to be highly sociable and work together to cooperate with our fellow human beings that enabled humans to be successful as a species on this planet.

Therefore, the notion that human nature is inherently conducive to capitalism is unfounded. Even if we adopt the broad idea that any behavior possible for animals can be considered part of human nature, we can still make distinctions about what is more conducive and less conducive to human flourishing and well-being. We can even use data about depression or anxiety rates and murder rates to see how healthy a given society is. And once we travel down that road, it becomes clear that capitalism exaggerates some of the worst aspects of human nature and is deeply antithetical to human nature.

Suppose we take seriously the idea that humans are social and communal animals and that our existence is predicated on the fact that we're communal and social. In that case, the atomized, hyper-individualist, constantly competitive, and consumerist capitalist system we're all compelled to operate in is antithetical to our nature. Indeed, there is nothing in our evolutionary history that suggests we should spend several hours a day sitting in front of a television. There is nothing in our evolutionary history that indicates we should spend eight hours of our day under the auspices and dictates of a petty tyrant we call a boss, slaving away for a few measly dollars so we can afford food, shelter, and clothing, and little else for ourselves. In many ways, capitalism represents the opposite of what is conducive to human flourishing.

(END of Part II)

 

[Bodhi]

(Part II of II)

On the other hand, if you're a socialist/communist, what do you believe in? You believe in community. You believe in cooperation. You believe in solidarity. You think that we only produce healthy individuals in the context of which those individuals arise is healthy. Not this dichotomy between the collective and the individual. It is a dialectical relationship between the two. Healthy communities give rise to healthy individuals. And in turn, healthy individuals go on to continue and propagate healthy communities.

So, in many ways, the argument that communism doesn't comply with human nature is false. Human nature is wholly compatible with socialism. Marx and Engels, in their assessment of history, discussed the idea of primitive communism. This idea posits that, before the emergence of feudalism and capitalism, human beings lived in tribal, communal arrangements for over 100,000 years.
Therefore, the idea that communism is antithetical to human nature is nothing more than an ideological obfuscation put forward by ubiquitous, multifaceted, and uber-funded forces of capitalist disinformation.

Lastly, I apologize to bomberfox for my incapacity to answer more quickly.

(END of PART II)

Home Page - Party for Socialism and Liberation

Liberation News PSL on Twitter

www.pslweb.org

 

[Bodhi]

The Marxist definition of private property doesn't include your home. How can you debate something you don't understand?

In response to spud_meister's 'The Marxist definition of private property doesn't include your home" (page 7, #154), Uncensored2008 wrote, "Rent and rent-seeking are major themes in Marxism. Homeownership is a significant part of the private property Marx seeks to eradicate." --page 7, #164

As a studied Marxist for more than forty years, I can attest that spud_meister is correct. Although capitalists and capitalist culture more broadly have a vested interest in convincing workers otherwise, Marxism isn't concerned with the ownership of personal private property, including one's home, period. Nonetheless, conditioning workers to believe that a socialist revolution would take their homes, vehicles, televisions, toothbrushes, etc., has forever been an effective way to convince workers that Marxism/scientific socialism is a bad, evil, and taboo subject not worth their time.

Uncensored2008 went on to quote Dr. Marx, "From this relation of rent of land to interest on money, it follows that rent must fall more and more so that eventually, only the wealthiest people can live on rent. Hence, the ever-greater competition between landowners who do not lease their land to tenants. Ruin of some of these; further accumulation of large landed property.

"This competition has the further consequence that a large part of landed property falls into the hands of the capitalists and that capitalists thus become simultaneously landowners, just as the smaller landowners are, on the whole, already nothing more than capitalists. Similarly, a section of large landowners become at the same time industrialists. --Capital - Vol. 1."

Uncensored2008: "Marx specifically condemns small landowners - those who now possess single-family homes." That isn't the case.

Marx's comments outline a fact regarding land rent and its connection to interest rates, which creates increased competition among landowners and eventually leads to the concentration of land ownership amongst the wealthy. In particular, it proposes that as the cost of land rent falls due to the impact of interest on money, only the wealthy can afford to live only on rent. That heightened competition among landowners, principally those who do not lease their land to tenants, ultimately leads to the devastation of some as well as the further amassing of large landed property by a few.
Ergo, Marx did not condemn small landowners any more than those small landowners are homeowners like you and I. Rather, Marx had in mind petty reinters/small landlords and the like who are often squeezed out by larger reinters. Despite even small landlords being a detestable bunch "who reap where they never sowed" (Adam Smith). Marx did not berate them. He only delineated their relationship to more significant landlords.

Finally, I would like to apologize to Uncensored2008 for my inability to reply sooner.

Home Page - Party for Socialism and Liberation

Liberation News PSL on Twitter

www.pslweb.org

 

[Bodhi]

Owning a home is much different from owning a toothbrush. Private landownership is specifically slated for abolition by Marx and Engels.

Even with the toothbrush example. Marx and Engels don't oppose having a toothbrush reserved for your exclusive use, but you could not fully "own" it.

If one could actually "own" personal items like toothbrushes, they could obtain ownership of such items where supply of such items was high and demand was low, then transport them to somewhere that demand was high and supply was low and exchange them for other such items, and before you can say "holy return on investment Batman!" they have themselves a personal items trade empire.

(PART I of II)

In response to my comment, "It is essential to differentiate between private property, known as the means of production, and personal property, such as one's home, appliances, and toothbrush because Marxism doesn't oppose the ownership of such personal objects" (Page 7, #155), AConcernedCitizen wrote: "Owning a home is much different from owning a toothbrush. Private land ownership is specifically slated for abolition by Marx and Engels. Even with the toothbrush example. Marx and Engels don't oppose having a toothbrush reserved for your exclusive use, but you could not fully 'own' it." --Page 7, #172

Yes, of course, owning a home is much different from owning a toothbrush; I didn't state or suggest otherwise. I merely mentioned the private ownership of homes, appliances, and toothbrushes as a means of distinguishing between these things and the private ownership of the means of industrial production.

Yes, Marxism opposes the private ownership of land, but only in relation to productive land, such as farmland. So, yes, immense farmlands currently owned by Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Archer Daniels Midland, Tyson, Perdue, and foreign corporations, among others, would be specifically targeted by a socialist revolution. (How farming and all other industries could be run in the hypothetical American Socialist Commonwealth: http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf .)

Even if Marx and Engels had opposed the private ownership of homes, that wouldn't mean that all socialist experiments would have to adhere to it, for Marxism is a guide to socialist revolution, not a blueprint. Indeed, Marx and Engles were social scientists, not dogmatists. Neither of them ever described what a socialist society would look like or how it would be operated. That is partially borne out by the fact that some socialist revolutions have permitted private ownership of homes while others have not. As I mentioned in the post "AConcernedCitizen responded to, "Cuba has a homeownership rate of 90%." Private ownership of homes is also permitted in China, Vietnam, and Laos. Cubans, Chinese, and Laotians don't own the land beneath their homes, but they're able to lease it and turn a profit from it when it is sold.

It is also worth noting that in the U.S., homeowners don't own the rights to the minerals that lie beneath their property and are often not compensated when those resources are extracted. It's also the case that unless one holds a grant deed to one's home, one does not own that home; the note holder does. According to Forbes, the "U.S. Has 3rd Lowest Percentage Of Households That Own Their Homes Without Mortgages." https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwa...holds-that-own-their-homes-without-mortgages/

Additionally, most homeowners in the U.S. are subject to paying yearly property taxes that can be relatively high, thereby jeopardizing their ability to maintain homeownership. However, in China, for example, very few homeowners pay property taxes. Moreover, China's current fixed "loan prime rate" is 3.6%, while the U.S.'s national average for a 30-year fixed rate is currently 6.98%. Ergo, homeownership in China is a far more secure venture than in the U.S.

(END of PART I)

 

[Bodhi]

(PART II of II)


As for AConcerendCitizen's notion that "Marx and Engels don't oppose having a toothbrush reserved for your exclusive use, but you could not fully 'own' it," respectfully, that's silly. Anecdotally, I have lived and worked in China, and I have spent a relatively large amount of time in Cuba. As such, I can assure readers that ordinary Chinese and Cuban workers own their personal property, i.e., homes, vehicles, televisions, toothbrushes, and more. To believe otherwise is a manifestation of ideological obfuscation born of omnipresent capitalist culture.

As Dr. Marx wrote, under capitalism, "private property [read: ownership of the means of industrial production] has already been abolished for nine-tenths of the population." In other words, as long as the infinitesimal and parasitic capitalist class owns the means of wealth production, most workers will never achieve prosperity. It is a fact that most workers can't afford a $500 emergency expense, and fifty million workers are food insecure. That is what should concern this forum's readership, not whether Marx and Engles opposed the private ownership of homes; they did not.

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency

It's not news that Americans are terrible at saving. We talk about it year after year after year. New to the 2016 conversation, though, is the fact that just 37% of Americans could pay for a $500 emergency using money from a savings account. The other two-thirds would have to resort to cutting...

www.forbes.com

https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america

Finally, I apologize to AConcernedCitizen for my inability to respond more promptly.

(END of PART II)

Home Page - Party for Socialism and Liberation

Liberation News PSL on Twitter

www.pslweb.org

 

[bomberfox]

(Part II of II)

On the other hand, if you're a socialist/communist, what do you believe in? You believe in community. You believe in cooperation. You believe in solidarity. You think that we only produce healthy individuals in the context of which those individuals arise is healthy. Not this dichotomy between the collective and the individual. It is a dialectical relationship between the two. Healthy communities give rise to healthy individuals. And in turn, healthy individuals go on to continue and propagate healthy communities.

So, in many ways, the argument that communism doesn't comply with human nature is false. Human nature is wholly compatible with socialism. Marx and Engels, in their assessment of history, discussed the idea of primitive communism. This idea posits that, before the emergence of feudalism and capitalism, human beings lived in tribal, communal arrangements for over 100,000 years.
Therefore, the idea that communism is antithetical to human nature is nothing more than an ideological obfuscation put forward by ubiquitous, multifaceted, and uber-funded forces of capitalist disinformation.

Lastly, I apologize to bomberfox for my incapacity to answer more quickly.

(END of PART II)

Home Page - Party for Socialism and Liberation

Liberation News PSL on Twitter

www.pslweb.org

Its quite alright friend.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Yes, Marxism opposes the private ownership of land, but only in relation to productive land, such as farmland.

Homes are productive land. Homes are where new labour is grown. But where exactly did Marx state any such exception anyway?

Regardless of whether a given piece of land is currently being used productively or not, land itself is inherently a means of production. It can be used for production. Marx called it “the basis of capital” in fact.

Purchasing a home is a capital investment, and ownership of a home is ownership of capital. Wage labour that goes into improvements on the home increases the value of the owner’s capital by extracting the surplus value from the laborers.

Even if Marx and Engels had opposed the private ownership of homes, that wouldn't mean that all socialist experiments would have to adhere to it

I never suggested otherwise. I was talking about Marxism.

Proudhon and other more market-friendly flavours of socialism may retain various degrees of privately owned capital, but they are not Marxism.