Talking With A Socialist

  An Almost Fully-Automated Talking Point Exchange

Back to Catalog

This is a YouTube comment exchange I had with a socialist in the YouTube comments of a bad video I won't link. The black coloured text is what I said and the red coloured text are his responses. Sometimes it is nice to talk to a socialist, to remind myself that I am not one despite the innumerable issues I have with "capitalism."

Good luck having any rights without property rights.

Why wouldn't property rights exist?

Because of the slippery slope.

That's not an answer.

Do you understand the difference between personal property and private property?

That's not the answer you wanted.
The difference? Yes, it is arbitrary.

No it truly wasn't an answer at all.
The question was Why wouldn't there be any property rights under Socialism..and your response was It's a slippery slope..
You might as well have said nothing.

And there's a very big difference between personal property and private property. If you own a car, that's clearly for personal use. I don't care about your personal property. If you own a car factory however, it's not for personal use so it's private property since other people are directly involved and are directly affected by decisions you make with no input from those people.. that's what will be abolished under Socialism. Private property will be replaced with collective ownership, and both collective property rights and personal property rights will be protected

It has been a slippery slope alright but sure let's say nothing of it. You will own nothing and be happy about it.

What if you want to use that "personal" car to give rides to people for money? Then those people whom you give a ride to will be affected by the decisions you want to take with it and they will have no input about it either. What if you want to rent out that car to a driver and walk instead to save some money? Then what you do with that car will affect the driver you rent it to and he will have no say in it. What if you want to do deliveries on the side to make save something? Then what you do with it will affect others. He will have his state-issued "personal" property but he will be so limited in what he can do with it that it might as well not be his own lest it leaves the arbitrary bounds of "personal" property. So too with a lot of other "personal" property. Private propery is the means of production therefore any property which is used in an economically productive way cannot be regarded as "personal" property.

You will still own things under Socialism lol, take a deep breath.
And I'm not sure why a person would go to you for transport and pay out of pocket when public transport of all modes is available to get you where you want, but you're talking about the relationship between two individuals making a trade, which I don't care about.
The customer is not an employee. And if you bought the car, it's not "state issued". If you wanted to use your car to make money, fine, but if you bring employees on then they get a say in how the car is used.

Sure buddy, you will be happy after taking your soma.
It's still a trade between two individuals when you rent out your car. Public transport will not drop you off right where you want to, saving you some time.

If you think you can live off of charging people money for something they can get for free, knock yourself out man

There is nothing free, mate.

Sure there is. That's just a dumbass talking point that you feel the need to regurgitate. Do better.

Cool down dude. I didn't call anything you said a dumbass talking point and I could have. It's not like anything we have said is new.

You could have but you would've been wrong.
So to recap, there's still different kinds of property rights under Socialism.

I would have been wrong? That's what you would say.
So to recap, the division between private and "personal" property is arbitrary and so "different kinds of property rights under socialism" is a euphemism for almost no property rights. I might add there will be less property too but that's not necessarily always a bad thing.

No there's a very clear distinction between the two, but you don't care. You want to fear monger because I don't know..willfully ignorant? Either way, when we do eventually transition to Socialism the quality of your life will vastly increase. Your welcome.

Oh yes, of course, the only reason I wouldn't see things your way on this matter is because I don't care or am willfully ignorant. Whatever helps you sleep at night. We are transitioning to socialism, with that much I'll agree, although I am not sure it means what you think it means for your quality of life. Prepare to have a rude awakening. You are very welcome too.

With the abolishment of private property, the working class will collectively own the means of production and yes the quality of life for the working class (that's you and me) will definitely be raised

Well, it depends on whether resources can be allocated more productively this way. Which is doubtful.

We have the resources right now to be able to do it, what in the actual fuck are you talking about

First of all calm your tits. Secondly consider the lilies of the field. Next consider that the current levels of mass production have been reached under a system of private property rights. By removing that system of private property you are at least taking a gamble if you intend to maintain or even grow current levels of production. If there is a contraction in production then the resources available will decrease.

Worker co-ops have proven to be more productive than their non democratic counterparts soooo there's your argument out the window

Then just move to a worker coop or make one. Soooo I don't see why you would need to abolish private property at all.

Because it's undemocratic
I do not want to live in an undemocratic society. It's really that simple. Either you're pro freedom or you're not

I see it isn't enough for you to set up your own worker coops and live like that, everybody else must be forced to live in it too. That's what freedom is.

Exactly! Now you get it! In order to have freedom in the workplace private property must be abolished! There's no other way for workers to have bargaining power, vote for their manager, and have a say in decisions that effect them, that is freedom

No, I still don't get why you can't have voluntary worker coops and private property. Why do you want to force this on everyone and call it freedom? Why not let people have a choice whether to work in private company or set up and work in a worker coop? Isn't that more free?

Because private property isn't voluntary.
Why would anyone choose to be in a work environment at which they have zero control over? Why would someone willingly choose to be at the complete whim of an owner who   is an asshole and could fire them at anytime for any reason? Why would someone willingly put themselves in a situation where they couldn't have actual power over their wage?
No sane person would work in these conditions, and in a democratic society these conditions wouldn't exist in the first place.

Private property is voluntary. People are free to set up those worker coops but they would rather work for private institutions. So you ask why would anyone choose to work as an employee? If the business you work for fails, as an employee then all you have lost is your job whereas if you  pour your own resources into a coop and it fails you would have lost the resources you have invested into the coop (and your job) because in a coop you are a part owner of the business but you're not totally in charge of it either. It's like the worst of both worlds of either owning a business or being an employee. You won't get to set your own rules because you're only a part owner of the business but if the enterprise fails you will also lose your stake in it as a part owner.

Now you are lying. There is nothing voluntary about private property. You are trying to make the argument that it's possible to voluntarily choose to have your freedom taken away, that it's possible to wage slavery but it's okay because the person agreed to it.
Why are you against freedom?

I actually answered your question about why someone would choose to be an employee. I haven't heard back from you about it. I am not against freedom at all, I just have a different meaning for the word freedom than you do. Unfortunately freedom means too many things to too many people for you to make such a blanket accusation. Wasn't it Marx who said "no man fights freedom, at most he fights the freedom of others"? Also although I think you are wrong, I have not stooped low enough to accuse you of lying.

Even if your basic rights are provided, you still carry the risk of losing the initial investment you made into the business without actually being totally in charge of how that investment is used. Once you have lost that investment you cannot really try setting up the business again until you have saved the resources to try again, so you are not really free to try and fail as many times you want as you would have to wait to save the funds or go into debt to try again - and then again you wouldn't even be in control of those savings you scraped off. Also even if your basic needs are provided, your cost of living would have to be covered by your labour but if you fail then that means your living costs will have to be covered by others, so the costs of your failure are also likely to affect others who have to provide for you until you stop failing, how long will others be able to cover your living costs? Remember that most new business ventures are failures, so you and many others like you would put a considerable strain on the system, so would net payers into the system really allow you to fail as much as you need to or would they rather push you as quickly as possible into some kind of work that at least pays for your living expenses (whether you like that work or not) given that they are paying your living expenses?

By Otaking, or The Good Student