Are you your brother's keeper?

Audio and video get completely out of sync very quickly, so I guess if you want to know what I have to say, just listen and don't watch.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• individualism
• collectivism

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

@justamarxist I am not sure this is the answer to my (very specific) question. You specifically noted that Pullman didn't belong to its residents. Did you mean it should have belonged to the residents? If so, what concept of ownership should be applied in this case, and how would it work, specifically?

[justamarxist]

@TheLegalImmigrant05 Well, I guess something like the original Pullman town would belong -- as property -- to whoever owned stock in it, according to whatever terms applied to the stock. In the case of Pullman IL, the residents weren't stockholders as far as I know. And because there was no public, commonwealth aspect to Pullman, the town did not belong to Pullman-dwellers through any notion of citizenship, either.

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

@justamarxist "Use values might be subjective ... but exchange values are not. A can of soup might serve as a paperweight, or it might save the life of a starving person: the pricetag is the same, regardless of the actual utility for individual buyers." - The price in which store? on what date, at what hour? Prices change. Price = something a buyer and a seller agreed upon, for a specific transaction. It is a reflection of their subjective minds. Objective economic value is a mirage.

[justamarxist]

@TheLegalImmigrant05 Use values might be subjective for the individual, but exchange values are not. A can of soup might serve as a paperweight, or it might save the life of a starving person: the pricetag is the same, regardless of the actual utility for individual buyers. Exchange values reflect *average* use values, and these are *socially* determined. For the average American, a can of soup is just another option in a context of abundant food, and what he must trade for it reflects this.

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

@justamarxist How specifically can a town "belong to its residents" exactly? What definition of ownership are you using in this context?

[justamarxist]

@TheLegalImmigrant05 Re that objection, I'm thinking of something more along the lines of George Pullman's capitalist paradise of Pullman, Illinois. Pullman IL didn't belong to the residents of Pullman. It belonged to George Pullman and his company, and he ran the place with the expectation of an annual 7% profit. In short, it was a society without a public sphere. There could be more than one such society corporation; in fact, they could compete for residents.  Do you like that idea, or no?

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

@justamarxist (1) Profit is only possible when someone buys your product/service FOR USE, so that point is kinda moot. (2) The reason that a system of free exchanges can be profitable to all parties involved is based on the fact that value is subjective and not inherent in the object itself. Value resides in the mind of the consumer. That's how 2 people who trade BOTH benefit.

[justamarxist]

@TheLegalImmigrant05 Everybody (individuals, families, corporations) must produce more than they consume? But keeping in mind that capitalism is production for profitable exchange, rather than just production for use, this would mean that everyone must somehow sell more than they buy. How is that even possible? If everyone produces more than they consume, then there will be a surplus of commodities that no one can realize profit from. The result would be a serious crisis.

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

@justamarxist "A propertyless person in a world where others own all the resources faces coercion ("do as I tell you, or starve")" Define "coercion" in this context. A person coming in off the street to negotiate a salary is under no coercion at all, IMO. Now, if you count as coercion his body's need to eat for survival, then sure, the nature itself coerces him. Let's condemn, arrest and jail nature!!!

Also, why is he propertyless, and does it matter in your view?

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

@justamarxist So an employer refusing to hire me on my conditions because they believe my salary demands to be too high is essentially the same as a robber taking my wallet at gunpoint? You honestly see no difference between the two?