---------------------------
I commented on his previous article here. That missive was rife with half-formed arguments, misdirections, and straw men. Let's see if he can straighten things out. Read on:
---------------------------
Having previously attracted the ire of conservatives in my role as a publicly self-identified communist who advocates for collective ownership of property, I should have seen it coming. Knowing how giddy my critics would be, I shouldn’t have tweeted when my backpack, containing my computer, was recently stolen from a friend’s car. When I did, conservative Twitter had such a ball taunting me with Extremely Hilarious variations on the same “liberating property” line that they made a whole entire Twitchy out of the affair (my apologies if this is the first you are learning of that site). Now, don’t get me wrong, crowing over the misfortunes of one’s political opponents is good fun and a natural right, but for best results the taunts should be both witty and coherent. On the matter of wit I’ll defer to you, but in the coherence division this late episode was sorely lacking.
Specifically, the barbs confused possessions with property, a long-acknowledged dichotomy I have attempted to articulate on television, social media and here at Salon, evidently in vain. So, once again: When I advocate collectivizing property, I am talking about financial assets (land deeds, stocks, bonds, patents and other intellectual property monopolies, and so forth), not personal possessions that human beings use on an ongoing basis, like computers or backpacks or clothes or cars or whatever. The latter are for use, the former for making money. If the occasional blurriness of these categories is reflected in dictionary definitions, that does not eliminate the obvious conceptual distinction. ("Obvious conceptual distinction?" Hardly. It is a contrived, artificial distinction, the primary purpose of which is to reassure us that we'll get to keep our stuff when government comes to confiscate everything else. On what basis he is able to claim this is unknown, because the ability of government to follow "the rules" has never been demonstrated in a free society, let alone a communistic one.)
Nor, despite charming insinuations to the contrary, does the distinction alone undermine pro-capitalist arguments. It is perfectly possible to differentiate between property – known by some as “the means of production” or “capital” – and personal possessions – known by some as “the fruits of production” or “stuff” – and still make the case that property is better owned privately than publicly, but right-wing Twitter declined to make this case, preferring instead to pretend, ears finger-plugged, “la la la” gleefully ringing from each freedom-loving throat, that there is no difference between a stock and a sweater. (Sweaters and other use-commodities can also be collectivized in lending libraries, as some communities do with bikes, cars, tools, toys and, obviously, books – but this is not crucial for ending capitalism.) (Yes, it is possible to differentiate between property and possessions. It is also possible there is a utopian world with pink unicorns and rainbows. What the author seems unable to comprehend is that the "means of production" he so earnestly wants government to confiscate is still someone's stuff. He only wants to draw a line between some stuff and other stuff.)
It is worth pointing out one common theme of the Twitter harassment, (You were mocked, sir. And rightly so.)
which held that the thief probably needed the computer and backpack more than I did, because it’s an argument I’m somewhat sympathetic to, on the supposition that petty theft is generated chiefly by poverty. (His experience as a target of theft is simply a microcosm of what he advocates on a macro level. Notably, he is only "somewhat sympathetic" to the plight of the poor, oppressed thief, which is simply another way of saying he didn't like being a target that much. But despite this, it remains a mystery to him as to why his detractors would object to macro-theft at the hands of government.)
This does not make theft “communist,” though: (A bare assertion, left unproven. It is in fact theft for any party to take someone else's rightful property, no matter the mechanism of the confiscation.)
A better way of justly and equitably ensuring that everyone has access to computers and backpacks is by ending material insecurity, (Actually, he should mean "equalizing material insecurity," which is to say, make everyone equally miserable.)
not by transferring one individual’s only computer to another individual before the first has backed up his projects, (Did he really mean "his" projects? On what basis does he claim that the projects belong to him?)
an oversight for which he is kicking himself. Distressing and bewildering though it may be to conservative Internet randos, the logical takeaway from an episode like this is greater fervency in the struggle to end poverty (which is a necessary byproduct of private ownership of property). (Um, yeah. If no one owns property, by definition no one can be deemed poor. And as we certainly know, communism simply brings down everyone to the level of the lowest, with government keeping the spoils. So yes, no more poverty, because no one has anything.)
In spite of U.S. catechism on the matter, theft of your work is not the defining characteristic of communism, but of capitalism, wherein a boss immediately owns the work workers create, even at the very instant they create it. (No, the worker has sold his work in the form of employment for wages. A mutually agreed contractual arrangement where the worker exchanges labor for money. The product of that labor has been transferred to the company, as agreed.)
The workers’ work immediately becomes the boss’ to try and get rich off of. (Chuckle. This guy is clueless. The objective of a business is to make a profit, and that is supposedly unjust? We have just established that the worker sold his productiveness in a voluntary transaction, and it is no longer his. The new owner can do with it as he wills.)
Indeed, a worker’s time, body and very life belong to the boss during work hours, (That is the nature of the fair, equitable, and voluntary contract for employment.)
and if the worker objects to this arrangement, insists on owning the fruits of their own labor, the boss is liable to produce a pink slip. (Indeed. If the employee becomes dissatisfied with the terms of his employment, the employee is free to attempt to renegotiate them. And, the employer is free to react according to its own interests.)
For instance, this article, which is mine while it is on my new computer, belongs to Salon once it is posted online, and it is Salon’s to do with as it wishes. (Because Salon purchased it from him, again, in a mutually agreed contract. Thus, he sold it and it now belongs to Salon.)
When the means of production are shared by all, though, and everyone is materially secure as a matter of guaranteed right, (Non sequitur. There is no evidence at all that everyone will be "materially secure if the means of production are "shared." In fact, in every extant example of communism, this has never been the case.)
workers will have the option to keep all our work. (A worker has the ability to keep all his work now. That arrangement is called "self employed." But even when self employed the worker cannot keep all his work. The government has prior claim to as big a percentage as it thinks it needs, in an involuntary arrangement called "taxes. This does not seem to bother the author in the least. No howls of indignation, no hysterical assertions of oppression directed to his darling the government.)
That is, unless someone busts into our friend’s car and pinches it. (Irony, thy name is Jesse Myerson. Why would someone pinch his work in the workers paradise? Remember that capitalism is the cause of poverty, and poverty results in thievery? Yet he is still at risk of being stolen from, apparently, despite of all his previous assurances to the contrary.
This is typical of the muddled thinking of the Left. And if communism is populated with these kinds of pseudo-intellectuals entirely persuaded of their own superiority, his hoped-for communist utopia will face the same fate as every previous effort. As it should be.)
I commented on his previous article here. That missive was rife with half-formed arguments, misdirections, and straw men. Let's see if he can straighten things out. Read on:
---------------------------
Having previously attracted the ire of conservatives in my role as a publicly self-identified communist who advocates for collective ownership of property, I should have seen it coming. Knowing how giddy my critics would be, I shouldn’t have tweeted when my backpack, containing my computer, was recently stolen from a friend’s car. When I did, conservative Twitter had such a ball taunting me with Extremely Hilarious variations on the same “liberating property” line that they made a whole entire Twitchy out of the affair (my apologies if this is the first you are learning of that site). Now, don’t get me wrong, crowing over the misfortunes of one’s political opponents is good fun and a natural right, but for best results the taunts should be both witty and coherent. On the matter of wit I’ll defer to you, but in the coherence division this late episode was sorely lacking.
Specifically, the barbs confused possessions with property, a long-acknowledged dichotomy I have attempted to articulate on television, social media and here at Salon, evidently in vain. So, once again: When I advocate collectivizing property, I am talking about financial assets (land deeds, stocks, bonds, patents and other intellectual property monopolies, and so forth), not personal possessions that human beings use on an ongoing basis, like computers or backpacks or clothes or cars or whatever. The latter are for use, the former for making money. If the occasional blurriness of these categories is reflected in dictionary definitions, that does not eliminate the obvious conceptual distinction. ("Obvious conceptual distinction?" Hardly. It is a contrived, artificial distinction, the primary purpose of which is to reassure us that we'll get to keep our stuff when government comes to confiscate everything else. On what basis he is able to claim this is unknown, because the ability of government to follow "the rules" has never been demonstrated in a free society, let alone a communistic one.)
Nor, despite charming insinuations to the contrary, does the distinction alone undermine pro-capitalist arguments. It is perfectly possible to differentiate between property – known by some as “the means of production” or “capital” – and personal possessions – known by some as “the fruits of production” or “stuff” – and still make the case that property is better owned privately than publicly, but right-wing Twitter declined to make this case, preferring instead to pretend, ears finger-plugged, “la la la” gleefully ringing from each freedom-loving throat, that there is no difference between a stock and a sweater. (Sweaters and other use-commodities can also be collectivized in lending libraries, as some communities do with bikes, cars, tools, toys and, obviously, books – but this is not crucial for ending capitalism.) (Yes, it is possible to differentiate between property and possessions. It is also possible there is a utopian world with pink unicorns and rainbows. What the author seems unable to comprehend is that the "means of production" he so earnestly wants government to confiscate is still someone's stuff. He only wants to draw a line between some stuff and other stuff.)
It is worth pointing out one common theme of the Twitter harassment, (You were mocked, sir. And rightly so.)
which held that the thief probably needed the computer and backpack more than I did, because it’s an argument I’m somewhat sympathetic to, on the supposition that petty theft is generated chiefly by poverty. (His experience as a target of theft is simply a microcosm of what he advocates on a macro level. Notably, he is only "somewhat sympathetic" to the plight of the poor, oppressed thief, which is simply another way of saying he didn't like being a target that much. But despite this, it remains a mystery to him as to why his detractors would object to macro-theft at the hands of government.)
This does not make theft “communist,” though: (A bare assertion, left unproven. It is in fact theft for any party to take someone else's rightful property, no matter the mechanism of the confiscation.)
A better way of justly and equitably ensuring that everyone has access to computers and backpacks is by ending material insecurity, (Actually, he should mean "equalizing material insecurity," which is to say, make everyone equally miserable.)
not by transferring one individual’s only computer to another individual before the first has backed up his projects, (Did he really mean "his" projects? On what basis does he claim that the projects belong to him?)
an oversight for which he is kicking himself. Distressing and bewildering though it may be to conservative Internet randos, the logical takeaway from an episode like this is greater fervency in the struggle to end poverty (which is a necessary byproduct of private ownership of property). (Um, yeah. If no one owns property, by definition no one can be deemed poor. And as we certainly know, communism simply brings down everyone to the level of the lowest, with government keeping the spoils. So yes, no more poverty, because no one has anything.)
In spite of U.S. catechism on the matter, theft of your work is not the defining characteristic of communism, but of capitalism, wherein a boss immediately owns the work workers create, even at the very instant they create it. (No, the worker has sold his work in the form of employment for wages. A mutually agreed contractual arrangement where the worker exchanges labor for money. The product of that labor has been transferred to the company, as agreed.)
The workers’ work immediately becomes the boss’ to try and get rich off of. (Chuckle. This guy is clueless. The objective of a business is to make a profit, and that is supposedly unjust? We have just established that the worker sold his productiveness in a voluntary transaction, and it is no longer his. The new owner can do with it as he wills.)
Indeed, a worker’s time, body and very life belong to the boss during work hours, (That is the nature of the fair, equitable, and voluntary contract for employment.)
and if the worker objects to this arrangement, insists on owning the fruits of their own labor, the boss is liable to produce a pink slip. (Indeed. If the employee becomes dissatisfied with the terms of his employment, the employee is free to attempt to renegotiate them. And, the employer is free to react according to its own interests.)
For instance, this article, which is mine while it is on my new computer, belongs to Salon once it is posted online, and it is Salon’s to do with as it wishes. (Because Salon purchased it from him, again, in a mutually agreed contract. Thus, he sold it and it now belongs to Salon.)
When the means of production are shared by all, though, and everyone is materially secure as a matter of guaranteed right, (Non sequitur. There is no evidence at all that everyone will be "materially secure if the means of production are "shared." In fact, in every extant example of communism, this has never been the case.)
workers will have the option to keep all our work. (A worker has the ability to keep all his work now. That arrangement is called "self employed." But even when self employed the worker cannot keep all his work. The government has prior claim to as big a percentage as it thinks it needs, in an involuntary arrangement called "taxes. This does not seem to bother the author in the least. No howls of indignation, no hysterical assertions of oppression directed to his darling the government.)
That is, unless someone busts into our friend’s car and pinches it. (Irony, thy name is Jesse Myerson. Why would someone pinch his work in the workers paradise? Remember that capitalism is the cause of poverty, and poverty results in thievery? Yet he is still at risk of being stolen from, apparently, despite of all his previous assurances to the contrary.
This is typical of the muddled thinking of the Left. And if communism is populated with these kinds of pseudo-intellectuals entirely persuaded of their own superiority, his hoped-for communist utopia will face the same fate as every previous effort. As it should be.)
No comments:
Post a Comment