4 ms·

>everything is unclear. A car, a hammer - even the computer you are reading this on can all be used as capital and lent to workers to apply their labor to. Yes

by zeteo 13y ago

>everything is unclear. A car, a hammer - even the computer you are reading this on can all be used as capital and lent to workers to apply their labor to. Yes, many means of production can be used by the owner as well but I don't think that makes the concept unclear. Marx only objects when you benefit from other people working for you and using it.

mason240 13y ago
So what would happen in a Marxist society when I hire someone to do work with that hammer, computer, or car? Is someone going to arrest me? The proponents of it claim it would be a stateless society, but that clearly isn't true if they have the power to stop me.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > So what would happen in a Marxist society when I hire someone to do work with that hammer, computer, or car? The simple, though not only possible, solution is that that doing the work itself, at least with the consent of the tool owner, entitles them to the value produced, and that contracts to the contrary have no effect to change that. > Is someone going to arrest me? That's a possible approach, too. > The proponents of it claim it would be a stateless society Marx, and some Marxists, claim that the adoption of their preferred policies would lead to the "withering away" of the State, but not that the policies themselves would equate to the absence of the State.
  - mason240 13y ago
    So like I said in another comment, it would be the state-by-another-name that would sending someone to arrest me for paying someone to write code on my computer.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      No, it would be the state-by-exactly-that-name enforcing whatever the rule was, which quite likely wouldn't be by arresting you for paying someone to write code on your computer, as that wouldn't actually address the issue with property relationship that Marxism is directed at (whereas redistributing the economic gains from that work would address that issue.)
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      It seems like just a collective refusal to enforce contracts that involve rents, while enforcing contracts that don't, would do a lot to put society on a Marxist footing (leaving aside entirely the question of whether that's a good idea - I'm somewhat inclined to say that it's not).

by zeteo 13y ago

mason240 13y ago

So what would happen in a Marxist society when I hire someone to do work with that hammer, computer, or car? Is someone going to arrest me? The proponents of it claim it would be a stateless society, but that clearly isn't true if they have the power to stop me.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> So what would happen in a Marxist society when I hire someone to do work with that hammer, computer, or car? The simple, though not only possible, solution is that that doing the work itself, at least with the consent of the tool owner, entitles them to the value produced, and that contracts to the contrary have no effect to change that. > Is someone going to arrest me? That's a possible approach, too. > The proponents of it claim it would be a stateless society Marx, and some Marxists, claim that the adoption of their preferred policies would lead to the "withering away" of the State, but not that the policies themselves would equate to the absence of the State.
- mason240 13y ago
  So like I said in another comment, it would be the state-by-another-name that would sending someone to arrest me for paying someone to write code on my computer.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    No, it would be the state-by-exactly-that-name enforcing whatever the rule was, which quite likely wouldn't be by arresting you for paying someone to write code on your computer, as that wouldn't actually address the issue with property relationship that Marxism is directed at (whereas redistributing the economic gains from that work would address that issue.)
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    It seems like just a collective refusal to enforce contracts that involve rents, while enforcing contracts that don't, would do a lot to put society on a Marxist footing (leaving aside entirely the question of whether that's a good idea - I'm somewhat inclined to say that it's not).