To summarize my objection (now that I've thought about it some more), we have similar experiences to perception like dreams, hallucinations, illusions, imagination, memory in which we're directly aware of the mental contents of our experience. What makes perception different from all other experience?

We can reduce everything to two fundamentals, matter, atoms, or particles (however you want to call them), and the relations which these have with each other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fields are just as fundamental, if not more so, than particles. Materialism is an incomplete understanding. The world is made up of more than particles.

As usual, all religious and spiritual implications are grammar mistakes. — StreetlightX

Which is analytic philosophy at its most absurd.

exist? — Banno

Have we left the question of Wittty's finitism behind?

So you believe the infinite number line exists? What happened to construction?

I like to wear it down one aisle and take it off the next to leave 'em guessing where I lean. — homer

The best is just to wear it on your head. It signals that you took the effort to don a mask, but you don't care enough to pull it down!

So there is a Shamwow mask! I post not simply to support our God-given right to own capital, but because those commercials were always fun. Finally a mask I can virtue signal icronically in!



The best part is, "Forget the environment, save yourselves!" at 0:32.

We could discuss some of the philosophical ideas of Gnostic Christianity:

The father’s thought became a reality, and she who appeared in the presence of the father in shining light came forth. She is the first power who preceded everything and came forth from the father’s mind as the forethought of all. Her light shines like the father’s light; she, the perfect power, is the image of the perfect and invisible virgin spirit.

She, the first power, the glory of Barbelo, the perfect glory among the realms, the glory of revelation, she glorified and praised the virgin spirit, for because of the spirit she had come forth.

She is the first thought, the image of the spirit. She became the universal womb, for she precedes everything,

the mother-father,
the first human,
the holy spirit,
the triple male,
the triple power,
the androgynous one with three names,
the eternal realm among the invisible beings,
the first to come forth. — http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-meyer.html

The great thing about arguing over virtue signalling is that we get to waste time arguing instead of ... ah fuck it, I'm going to watch Netflix.

As to the OP, My work is debating wearing masks among other policies if and when we go back to the office. We did an anonymous survey, and a significant number of responses indicated either that masks were too uncomfortable to wear for hours at a time, or the lack of faith in coworkers to follow the rules, so we should all just remain working at home until their is a vaccine.

What makes you think community ownership is any different? — Isaac

The 20th century. Communism has been tried.

As per above. I don't think there's a lot of evidence for the idea that humanity as a whole are 'into' any set thing. People are 'into' property ownership at the moment — Isaac

By "at the moment", you mean the history of civilization?

We are mostly whatever our culture makes us, change the culture, you change who we are. — Isaac

We're not ants, as someone once said regarding socialism.

If we change that culture there's no theoretical reason why people would not be in favour. — Isaac

Good luck with that. I can see Northern Europe style socialism/capitalism. I can't see the full blown thing becoming mainstream in places like the US.

Lesser-evil voting' (in close, competitive, elections) is the only option when subject to a schlerotic, ossified, colluding duopology such as the current U.S. two-party system. — 180 Proof

What I love is how it's every fucking election anymore. You have to vote for the lesser evil OR ELSE. Don't dare vote third party.

What that tells me is that the those in favor of the lesser evil have no intention in changing the status quo.

Voting against someone just seems like such a fucking waste... — Benkei

The American voting system has devolved into voting for the lesser evil, at least for major elections.

While not undermining the eventual goal of having people own their own homes and businesses. On which note: small investors just trying to save for retirement or for a down payment on a house also fall into this category of “bourgeoisie so petit they’re basically proles”) — Pfhorrest

Question: are socialists for private property in general as long as it isn't being used for capital to exploit workers?

unless you detail the way in which declaring property to be owned by the community would bring about this economic disaster. — Isaac

The argument would be is that it destroys incentive. But I was more thinking about the short term chaos of declaring all property public. A lot of people will not be in favor of that, for starters. And then you'd have arguments over how to fairly divide everything up, and what happens to all the former capitalists. And you'd have the poorer people who think it's their turn to own shit instead of sharing the wealth.

If modern hunter-gatherer communities are anything measure of how we used to live (which is, of course uncertain) then for the vast majority of human history we did not particularly "want to own our shit". — Isaac

I think it was more of what worked as a survival strategy for hunter-gatherers. Either way, I don't think using hunter-gatherers as a guide for of a high tech economy in a world of 7.8 billion people and global trade is very useful.

Force is being used to maintain ownership of possessions as they are. If I set up camp in a corner of your estate the police would force me off. — Isaac

Which I would say is a good thing in general, because people want to own their own shit. It's bad when there's an excess of wealth and poverty. So I don't really need that corner of the estate, and thus raise my taxes to provide the poor family nearby more of a means to escape poverty or a better place to live.

What's not good is deciding I should have no estate, because it all belongs to the community. If you want to wreck an economy, that's a good way to go about it.

FYI: I updated my reply before you finished typing your post, but you replied to the points I was making. Bad habit of mine.

The problem with many of the communist revolutions is that the communist party replaces the capitalists, because that's seen as a necessary step to force society to restructure. But you end up with an authoritarian government, a command economy, and those in the party being more equal than everyone else.

We’ve been told to live with less and less by not only Green Capital, but by the Church, by our liberal “friends,” and even by fellow comrades. Fuck that shit. Nah; if we’re going to be putting our shit out on the line it’s definitely not going to be so that I can live simply. — StreetlightX

I agree with this sentiment. If you're going to create the Marxist "utopia", then aim for one that offers the same perks as the capitalist one. The majority of us don't want to go back to lifestyle of peasants or monks. That's not a good selling point.

These are all capitalist structural aspects by which you acquired the capital in the first place. That's why some, at least fundamentally, revolutionary act is required to remove these structures and their effects. — Isaac

There is where the question of force comes in for a Marxist revolution. You can't abolish the capitalist system without having people give up all their capital. Unless you plan a generational thing where there is a gradual redistribution through heavier taxes, outlawing inheritance and what not.

Assuming the generational approach can work, given that the capitalists will have time to influence the system back in favor of owning capital.

Sounds reasonable.

And of course, that we as a society decide to 'value' the rarity of some guy who can juggle his balls well is an entirely political deicison - — StreetlightX

People value entertainment. Sports are just one example of that. There are other highly profitable entertainers. You can say all you want that they shouldn't get paid more than a school teacher or janitor, but people are still going to go sell out concerts and watch celebrities perform.

Considering that the NBA was among the first industries shut down as being entirely superfluous in the wake of COVID, — StreetlightX

The current situation is temporary. Sports will resume being played within a few months. One would hope a socialist revolution is aiming for a longer term solution.

we can well afford not to waste gargantuan sums of money on, effectively, an entirely useless activity — StreetlightX

That's your value judgement. Millions of sports fans disagree. I wonder if you feel the same way about music.

one that operates at the expense of others. — StreetlightX

You mean provides employment. One wonders how some of those wage slaves feel about not being able to go to work during C-19.

But they get to make that decision; someone else doesn't get to make it for them all. — Pfhorrest

Back to the factory example. Say I decide to start a business. I purchase the land, have the building constructed, and buy the equipment. So now I offer you $25 an hour to operate the machinery. You say that you don't want to be a wage slave. I say, well that's what people get paid to work in other factories of this kind in this part of the world. You reply that you should share in the profits. Okay, so then I ask if you're willing to pay your share of the investment needed to get the business started, and take on that risk. If so, you can be part owner.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with that? What's the alternative? That the would-be employees all chip in to make the investment? Or that they take ownership as soon as I make my money back?

What's my incentive to start a business?

I'd be fine with that for sports leagues, given how the owners try to get the community to pay for their stadiums, and then move the team when the vote doesn't pass.

Except, this entire analysis is bullshit, as without janitors and warehouse employees and so on, the entire economy collapses, as has been the case with COVID. You may be at the game to watch Lebron James, but the possibility of seeing that game, at that scale, with those seats, is enabled by an entire underclass that undergrids your 'enjoyment'. — StreetlightX

You seem to miss the part where the skill of an NBA player or top engineer is rare, and people are willing to pay more for that. If everyone gets the same cut, then you've distorted the value of the market, and that's where shortages and starvation enter the picture.

In any case, the point is not to do away with work, but to work, if necessary, so that the benefits accrue to the workers, and not their employers. Hence the strategic goal of socialism: that workers own the means of production. — StreetlightX

Fine, so say Lebron James leads a socialist revolution in the NBA. The slave owners are pushed out and now the teams are owned by all the various employees. So they show up the next day to figure out how to divvy up the billions of profit. But the players want most of it because fans come to watch them play, not the janitor sweeping the floors or the trainer wrapping an ankle.

So are things that much different for most of the employees? The problem is there is a huge asymmetry in what work is valued. Fans and media value the players. They don't care about any of the supporting staff. Yeah, someone needs to be scanning tickets at the door, but who cares what they make? I'm here to watch Lebron and the Lakers.

That's more of an extreme example, but you can imagine that Amazon programmers would think they deserve a higher share than the warehouse workers, since they're writing the code the business runs on, and there's no shortage of people you can hire to work in a warehouse, unlike skilled engineers.

You could argue that the majority of the employees can just outvote the players and programmers, but because of the asymmetry of value and the shortage of skill, the programmers and players can shut the business down if they don't get what they want. They can start their own business. You can always hire more ticket scanners and forklift operators.

I thing people who are competent should be allowed to choose death (I'm a traditional Stoic, in this an other ways). That doesn't mean they have a right to do so. — Ciceronianus the White

What is the difference?

Or perhaps you would build a universe in your mind, develop language, and eventually end up reading posts on a philosophy forum? — JoeyB

Then you could refute Witty's private language argument, except nobody else would know.

I don't think a brain cut off from the senses would amount to anything coherent in thought or experience.

There's no perfect system, because humans are involved. And some humans will seek to be more equal than the others. It might be rich capitalists, but it could also be higher up communist party members with all the right connections. Under any system, there's always going to be scarcity of some kind that's desired. It could be land, social status, precious jewels, whatever. And there will always be people better able for whatever reason (moral or otherwise) to acquire those things.

But it cannot be realised under capitalism, because most people spend most of their day under somebody else's supervision and control - namely at work. Every day, they sell not only their labour power but also their autonomy for a certain number of hours. Thus, they lose freedom, which in turn means a loss of self-determination. — StreetlightX

Workers are free to start their own businesses, become contractors, seek other employment, or work their way up the ladder. According to Google there are 30.2 million small businesses. One would think that if capitalism was the great evil of the modern world that the North Korean people would be flourishing. But guess what? The communist party there has had to allow a black market to spring up because it can't quite provide for the needs of the people.

Meanwhile, the evil capitalism has raised the standard of living over the past couple centuries for many, while the number of overalll poor are decreasing as they're finally able to take advantage of global markets.

It's not a perfect system and needs various protections and corrections, but it sure beats the alternatives humans have come up with so far. But maybe the next Marxist revolution will work out and deliver on its promises.

At any rate, as schopenhaur1 posted while I was typing this, people are still going to have to do work under any economic system, and some of that work is undesireable. At least until the robots are ready to do all the work for us.

but all of a sudden, when it comes to strategies for increasing the sum-total of human liberation in the world, — StreetlightX

What does liberation mean in context of the first page discussion on freedom where you concluded:

Need to hit the sack but a quick comment: the exercise of force and coordination of power are the conditions of, and not constraints upon, the exercise of freedom. — StreetlightX

Organizing people to push for reforms and better deals sounds good. But the Marxist rhetoric tends to carry a certain baggage when it comes to past revolutions, some of it involving the "exercise of force and coordination of power".

I think its fields all the way down. But on our level, the ordinary stuff seems material enough to call it that. But certainly old fashioned materialism was lacking. Does modern materialism survive the revision from the breakthroughs in physics to retain the name, "materialism"? I don't know. I guess that's why people tend to prefer physicaliism.

The infinite set? If infinity is the set of all numbers, then infinity is a member, unless it's not a number.

Only to stop the goons from committing assault. — Pfhorrest

That has happened as well, like with union busting. But in this case the property now belongs to the workers, so the state needs to back that when some of the capitalists are unwilling to hand their former property over.

Who is "coming to take" anything from anyone in this scenario? — Pfhorrest

That scenario works. Other scenarios might require force, like collectivizing family farms. It has in the past. But going back to the factory. What if the factory owner hires a bunch of goons to guard the factory before the workers come in the next day to take ownership? Now the state has to step in and apply force.

Not everyone is gong to just hand their property over. Not everyone wants to join the revolution. They're fine being wage slaves at the factory. They don't even want to be in a union. So what to do with them? Force them to be good comrades?

Money facilitates trade, fundamentally, and says nothing of wants. Beyond the basics, our culture largly trains our wants. We don't have to want what we're trained to want. — praxis

But people have been trading for wants, like silk and spices, as long as groups lived near enough each other to exchange goods, or travel to other lands was possible. It's true we don't have to want what we're being advertised, but we do still want more than just the minimum to survive.

It's not difficult to believe in a country that already has a constitution protecting rights. Are we arguing over lower case socialism which reasonable compromises to soften the excesses and abuses of capitalism, or the full-on upper case socialism that sees capitalism as inherently bad and wishes to demolish it?

Freedom is freedom for those who think differently, to quote a socialist. Unless 100% of the community is in agreement, some sort of injustice or coercion has to occur in order to meet the wants and desires of socialist power. This internal contradiction seems to me why socialist plans always collapse. — NOS4A2

I hope socialists don't believe anything like that, but I worry that is the outcome, at least for the sort of Marxist revolutions we've seen. Theres is no such thing as 100% agreement, even among socialists. There are always people in the community who disagree. Either we respect their rights or we coerce them. Problem is that some communities don't value the right to disagree. Religious groups have certainly had this issue in the past.

I take it StreetlightX is not found of such options and is not in favor of utilizing the power of the state if it can be avoided. The question I'm raising though is how does freedom fall out of community arrangement when there are going to be people who disagree with those arrangements? The communist party answer has been to use the power of the state to force them. That's not a good choice for anarchists.

But still, the problem remains concerning what to do with those who don't agree? If the capitalist system is to be dismantled, then how do you get people to give up their capital in favor of a better arrangement? Not everyone is going to be willing to go along.

And if you want to shoot workers for striking or whatever, and you think that the problem with this scenario are workers, then so be it, I've nothing to say to you. — StreetlightX

I didn't say anything about shooting striking workers. I said defending my property in the hypothetical scenario if the community organizes to come take it for the common good, like has happened during certain Marxist revolutions in the past.

Point being what to do about those who don't agree with the way a community wishes to reorganize for the common good? Force them to go a long?