What's new
By:

Welcome to our newest JazzFanz member!!!

And welcome back franklin!

I feel like I'm the only person who doesn't know how you left.
 
heyhey said:
Historically they are. He was referring to that as robbery.

The communists sought to make all property collective. He was speaking to them when he spoke about property being revolutionary. He realized that it would cripple the individual and the masses and put them at the mercy of the state. How can anyone stand against any action of the state in such a condition?
Click to expand...
Collectivism is a good example. Practically, communism turned into a party oligarchy and the root exploiting of state as an experiment for humanity reflected itself economically in that way in communist state of Russia. Collectivism could be a step, just like having a political party to protect the rights of proletarian class against the wealthy bourgeois, but obviously, it became just an illusion after Stalin, and weakness of human nature to power prevailed again.

Theoretically, socialism required the Workers' Party ending its historical function and get solved, collectivism turning into a natural understanding of the means of life that are not private properties, but means of a whole world's nation that has the knowledge to consume and reproduce them with a completely mutual, sci-fi'ly telepathic approach towards the means of living in the happiest way possible.

Then again obviously, it came down to just being a utopia. But socialist actions of mankind has made great benefits to the egalitarianization of the society as much as possible up until now, and it still lights a candle in the darkness of state's rule. Property could be a revolutionist action against the one-handed ruling of the state against society, but it could also simply mean that only the real holder of power who is the holder of property can balance or unbalance things up. So if the balancing effect of property is unbalanced, we're back to square **** once again with a fresh new governmental force that seeks for more property and power to exist.
 
I said something in the "posters you miss" (or whatever it's called) and someone said you got banned. I thought maybe I missed something.
 
Gameface said:
I said something in the "posters you miss" (or whatever it's called) and someone said you got banned. I thought maybe I missed something.
Click to expand...

Oh. That's probably because I changed my email address to an incorrect email and it set my rep at zero until I responded to the confirmation email, which I couldn't get. My inquiries to Jason were lost in his spam folder until, coincidentally, the same day I finished creating that new account that I messaged you from. Took me a week to figure out I mistyped benjamin.

If it wasn't for a new router allowing me to create a new account and Jason checking his spam folder I might have been lost to JF forever. Couldn't even post from my work computer on the duplicate.
 
LogGrad98 said:
All property is, is something of value. No distinction is made about who values it, why, or for how much, or anything else. You want to argue semantics, have fun with that.

property (ˈprɒpətɪ)
n, pl -ties
1. something of value, either tangible, such as land, or intangible, such as patents, copyrights, etc
Click to expand...

I have previously admitted that his statement is reliant upon definitions. When speaking concepts semantics matter. I am not arguing for any definition of the word. I am not even arguing. I am just doing my best to relay a concept without butchering it.(I pretty much am butchering it)

Property has many meanings. Gold has a lustrous property but that is clearly not what we are talking about. The definition that you use is fine but it is also not what Proudhon is talking about. He made a distinction between possessions/personal property and property. He did not make the distinction for the sake of semantics but to try and convey his ideas and to be precise about concepts having only the imprecise tool of language with which to do it with.
 
addictionary said:
Collectivism is a good example. Practically, communism turned into a party oligarchy and the root exploiting of state as an experiment for humanity reflected itself economically in that way in communist state of Russia. Collectivism could be a step, just like having a political party to protect the rights of proletarian class against the wealthy bourgeois, but obviously, it became just an illusion after Stalin, and weakness of human nature to power prevailed again.

Theoretically, socialism required the Workers' Party ending its historical function and get solved, collectivism turning into a natural understanding of the means of life that are not private properties, but means of a whole world's nation that has the knowledge to consume and reproduce them with a completely mutual, sci-fi'ly telepathic approach towards the means of living in the happiest way possible.

Then again obviously, it came down to just being a utopia. But socialist actions of mankind has made great benefits to the egalitarianization of the society as much as possible up until now, and it still lights a candle in the darkness of state's rule. Property could be a revolutionist action against the one-handed ruling of the state against society, but it could also simply mean that only the real holder of power who is the holder of property can balance or unbalance things up. So if the balancing effect of property is unbalanced, we're back to square **** once again with a fresh new governmental force that seeks for more property and power to exist.
Click to expand...

The Anarchists of the 19th century were socialist. The communists were state socialists and they were collectivists. The anarchists had a(I think warranted) distrust of the state and collectivism. They favored the individual and mutualism instead. Mutualism is socialist it's just not communist. The anarchists argued for social ownership of the means of production as much as the communists they just did not think the state was the right way to achieve it.

I brought this up because ZCMI (Zions Cooperative Mercantile Institution) was a mutualist institution and not really a collectivist one. Nowadays it's a mall but when the mormons first came to Utah ZCMI was a great example of the power and desirability of mutualistic social institutions.
 
franklin said:
Snapple is good stuff. If you want something with a little more flavor but no sugar then try a good chai. I like Gevalia's and take it without sugar. Currently drinking a cup of Tazo and it's kinda ****ty. That expensive mall Teavana is pretty good stuff too but you have to double the amount recommended to get a good cup and throw in a bag of lipton's green if you want any caffeine out of it. Buy it at Target too instead of the mall. Jade Citrus Mind is tasty.
Click to expand...

I loathe green tea with a passion. Tastes like pure spunk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top