Quote:
Originally Posted by gman
Sir Rabbit, I believe you have rendered the host of this thread speechless.
|
Perhaps.
But to the socialists and the fanatically capitalist, the "property rights" thing is just a mess of an arguement anyway. Indeed, I believe it is a language conflict. I just like to side-step that particular canard.
The term 'property' includes one's toothbrush and shoes. Thus, 'private property' means you own your own toothbrush. Thus, when one says one wants to nationalize 'private property', many seem to believe this means community owned toothbrushes. This is absurd, but it is the core of the arguments about 'private property' between the hardcore socialists and the hardcore capitalists.
Private property as 'capital' is only that property that is economically productive. Property that is not economically productive is not "capital" and is thus, not the 'private property' that is normally referenced by the term.
Indeed, if a socialist wants to really get at the core of my rejection of socialist theory, there are only two topics that will interest me. One is the (lack of a) socialist mode of production, and the second would be the 'labor value' (aka 'congealed labor' in Marx's terms) versus 'market value' argument.
Now if a capitalist wants to really get at the core of my understanding of Marxist theory, the way to do that is to discuss the issue of the falling average rate of return on capital.
Those are the core technical issues in my mind. I'll be happy to discuss these issues. I will not engage in meandering 'merits of socialism vs merits of capitalism' type discussions as they are meaningless, likewise with the 'rich people are evil' (or stupid or just lucky) arguments either. They are even less meaningful.