mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,991
Try actually understanding what you're reading for once.
So what form does the resistance take?
- Thread starter stanfr
- Start date
lobosrul5
Philosopher
This has become a huge irrelevant tangent. I do apologize for misrepresenting Marxism when I should've said some other form of Communism. Can we move on?
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,991
It's not any form of communism nor socialism, as it does not entail public ownership of the means of production. Indeed, Marx derided Georgism as "capitalism's last gasp" or something like that. It's a solution to a problem with the moral underpinnings of capitalism, namely that "initial acquisition" cannot be justified, and looks very much like theft from the commons.
Thomas Paine: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
From the perspective of a would-be entrepreneur who wants to put land to productive use, a rational system of public ownership might be preferable to private ownership of land. If I want to build a factory in an industrial district, the first thing I need to do is acquire a bunch of land to build it on--either buying it or signing a long-term lease. That represents an enormous up-front cost, effectively acting as a barrier to entry.
Petitioning the state to use a plot of land, on the other hand...just add it to the stack of permits I'd need to get, anyway.
Last edited:
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 10,101
interesting take
Of course, it's a market economy! It's a version of the market economy that it has spent decades turning into.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
There's a difference between collective services to help the needy and full redistribution of wealth.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Well Marx's take certainly aged like milk!
But what does this have to do with the form of the resistance? Is it going to be yet another misguided attempt to impose statist totalitarianism in the name of Karl "Couch Surfer" Marx?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Honestly, I think it's hollow panacea.
I think it would be awesome if everyone owned their own home. On the other hand, I also recognize that some people - like my sibling - do not want to own a home of their own. My sibling wants to rent, they don't want to be responsible for the exterior maintenance, the plumbing and electricity, and all of the other obligations that come with owning a home. My sibling, and many others, want to outsource the responsibility for those functions to a landlord.
Similarly, I understand that wanting everyone to have a home, either owned or rented, is a desire but it's not something I think should be imposed. If you wish to impose such a requirement on society, then I think there should be a well-defined minimum for what constitutes such a home. If you'd like to make a proposal for minimum home standards, feel free, and I'll happily discuss. But just making a blanket declaration is insufficient to gain approval, and without clear guidelines for what that minimum is, all you're really doing is designing a society that rewards moochers.
Even if I were to accept that everyone should somehow have a right to a home, I see absolutely no reason why that should be paired with a limit on how many homes someone else should be allowed to have - that's where it crosses into punishing the wealthy.
To be clear - I'm all for reducing the cost of owning a home. But making some arbitrary rule that nobody is allowed to own more than five (or any other number) isn't going to accomplish that. It does nothing at all to address the cost of housing - which is the only real barrier to having a home in the US. It's not like we're short of homes and have run out of room to build more, that's absolutely not the problem at all. We have plenty of apartments available, we have plenty of houses available... but they cost too much. Standing on your soapbox lamenting that Bob down the road has four homes, and exclaiming about how unfair it is won't do a single thing to reduce housing costs.
If you actually want to reduce housing costs... how about we disallow foreign entities to own apartment buildings and rental properties in the US? Disallow venture capital in home building in the US? Perhaps take a stand against gentrification of urban areas and the continuous expansion of commercially zoned properties in densely populated cities? Maybe we don't actually need to approve a starbucks on every corner, and a fresh-pressed juice bar every other block with seventeen vegan gluten-free gastropub, upscale fusion restobar, or private brewery taphouse in each square mile?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Universal basic income, maximization of leisure time as an objective, destruction of meritocracy, teaching to the lowest common denominator and removing programs for gifted children, presumed oppression as a basis for monetary reward in the form of reparations or unearned incomes, expansion of the social safety net to encompass discomfort rather than strict need, socially funded medical services that cover more than critical care and necessary treatment, an ever-expanding list of required "preventive" screenings and treatments as free services, living wages for part-time jobs that should be predominantly filled by high-school kids, diversity of external characteristics as a business objective while seeking strict conformity of thought and viewpoint... Off the top of my head.
As an example of the ever expanding preventive requirements... the shingles vaccine shouldn't be *free*. Available, yes, absolutely. But shingles is not contagious and is also not lethal. It's painful and super duper sucks, but it's not a public health risk nor life threatening. I'm happy that the vaccines are available, and I've got an appointment for mine coming up... but it shouldn't be mandated to be provided free of cost to the consumer. Similarly, I don't think PReP should be mandated to be covered for free. It's great that it exists, and I'm all for it being available. But seriously, wear a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ condom and don't do needle drugs and the risk of contracting AIDS is virtually nonexistent. Society as a whole shouldn't be obligated to pay the cost for the lack of responsibility of a few.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Cleopatra was Greek, not Egyptian.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I don't think that will make it easier for people to own homes. It would, however, make it easier for farmers to own large plots of land, as well as commercial endeavors and industry.
Susheel
Illuminator
Well, are you sure. How many generations between Prolemy prime and Cleo? You think the Greek bloodline stayed pure during all those generations?
Susheel
Illuminator
Not farmers...conglomerates.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Dude, seriously? Cleopatra was born in Alexandria, of predominantly macedonian ancestry. There's some potential for a bit of persian ancestry mixed in some generations prior to Cleopatra's birth - but persians are caucasians.
Susheel
Illuminator
The lineage is Ptolemaic, as in, has Ptolemy as pateiarch. There is no evidence that the Macedonian bloodline was maintained.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Thanks for your list! I'm not familiar enough with Marx to say which of the above ideas are rooted in his writings and which aren't; not every progressive idea can be traced back to Marx's core idea of class struggle and his revolutionary solution.
It also shows me you're not a follower of hard-right ideology. You're more nuanced than that, which causes no small amount of confusion among many posters here.
I certainly fall into the progressive camp; for me, reducing social inequality and wealth disparity are big on the list of things I like. I'm also in favour of government intervention to help society toward those goals, which I suspect you're probably not, or at least to a much lesser degree than I am.
Here's where I agree with you:
- Destruction of meritocracy. People should be assessed on skill as well as other characteristics.
- Teaching to the lowest common denominator and removing programs for gifted children. People learn at different rates, and education systems can really struggle with this.
- Presumed oppression as a basis for monetary reward in the form of reparations or unearned incomes. This should be means-tested; for example, reparations in Canada for the residential school system. Individuals should be compensated for abuse. I'm uncertain what should be done to address the huge impact the schools had on Canada's indigenous population.
- Diversity of external characteristics as a business objective while seeking strict conformity of thought and viewpoint. DEI programs need to be engaged and active, and have clear goals. I suspect you're not in favour of any sort of DEI, but I wonder if you've studied the idea in depth or are just echoing its opponents' talking points.
Here's where we differ:
- Universal basic income. Studies have shown UBI actually encourages people to seek out better jobs if they're underemployed. It does not increase reliance on the welfare state, nor does it encourage people to be lazy (probably because the UBI benefits merely keep one alive; they don't allow the person to prosper.) But I'm not certain how it can be funded.
- Maximization of leisure time as an objective. That doesn't mean people don't have to work, but no one should be a slave to their job, and people should not have to spend more than 50% of their waking hours working and commuting back and forth to a place of employment.
- Expansion of the social safety net to encompass discomfort rather than strict need. A healthy population is better than an unhealthy one, and less expensive.
- Socially funded medical services that cover more than critical care and necessary treatment. A failure to fund non-critical care often leads people to not seeking are until the situation becomes critical, making the subsequent treatment more expensive and the recovery longer. There's also the possibility the person may die when an earlier intervention could have saved a life.
- An ever-expanding list of required "preventive" screenings and treatments as free services. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Trite, perhaps, but in the long run encouraging good health is less expensive than treating the problems caused by bad health.
- Living wages for part-time jobs that should be predominantly filled by high-school kids. This one's tough to argue against, but in my opinion not everyone can land and maintain a job that pays better than minimum wage.
Most of the paragraph is covered in my previous points: preventing disease is less expensive than curing it. That goes for fully funded public medical care as well as public/private model. That means, unfortunately, here in Canada my taxes having to treat a life-long smoker's lung cancer and a drug user's hepatitis C. This is where other public health measures can help reduce the incidence and the subsequent treatment costs.
Last edited:
I notice when you complain about derailing and when you don't.
As for what people are allowed and not allowed to do, there's this, which has everything to do with the resistance against U.S. totalitarianism:
Ken Klippenstein on X, Oct 2, 2025
Dept of Homeland Security fmr chief of staff calls NSPM-7 "Orwellian beyond belief" and like nothing he's ever seen in his two decades of work in national security
But I guess this is too difficult for authoritarians to even try to grasp.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,606
In rare cases, shingles can be lethal. It can also lead to loss of vision, brain swelling and meningitis. Your lack of empathy for your fellow humans is astounding.
And yet society does pay for the lack of responsibility of a few. Whether we are willing to pay the cost or not.
The subject of infectious disease is one where the doctrine of personal responsibility falls down and tries to eat its own foot. A completely faithful wife might be infected with HIV by a philandering husband. You might be infected with COVID by an asymptomatic carrier who got it from a family member who got it from a coworker who knowingly went into work sick since they didn't think it was a big deal.
You can and will suffer the negative consequences of irresponsible behavior by people whose names you will never know. Negative consequences that can only be mitigated by collective action.