: : And in his critique of Proudhon, Marx deals with the possibility that the proletariat could in fact be owners of capital. So proletarianism can't be defined as exclusion from the ownership of capital. (The fact that Marx tried to incite revolution by posing the working classes and the owning classes as opposing sides in a struggle was Marx's legacy to the art of propaganda, not economic theory.): A socialist labeling Marx as propagandist? Interesting.
SDF: How do you know I'm a socialist? To quote the always-correct Joel Jacobson, who defends the Regime of Truth against the egregious errors of those stupider than he, "you are passing off your opinions as objective fact."
: Maybe socialism is evolving past Marxism. A good paradigm shift and an excitingly heady one to contemplate.
: : : So, he goes to work for a capitalist who pays him $10 per hour. If he were to work without this individual's capital he would only produce goods priced at $2 per hour.
: : SDF: Since the source of all capital is the labor of the working classes,
: Which tens of thousands of years ago included everyone. Remember, no per-social individual means no pre-modern tribalism. Which means that at one time lines of property were drawn because people managed better when they could define a sphere that was their responsibility, although still a unified tribal collective.
SDF: Euro-Americans did NOT propertize the current territory of the United States of America "because people managed better when they could define a sphere that was their responsibility" -- they did it because they wanted to TAKE AWAY the land from First Nations stewardship and use it for their own purposes. People "managed better" in early imperialist societies (Greek, Roman etc.) when they could take what they wanted from other people -- there's no "responsibility" about it. Again, to quote the always-correct Joel Jacobson, who defends the Regime of Truth against the egregious errors of those stupider than he, "you are passing off your opinions as objective fact."
: This 'alienation', as you next suggest, was conciously and activly accepted by some past prole at one time or another.
SDF: By this definition of "accepted," we can also say that the Holocaust was "consciously and activly (sic) accepted" by the Jews. Does that justify anything?
: Thus, 'alienation' was the concious act of some past prole in order to maximize his/her personal utility.
SDF: You have been made The Offer by the Gestapo, who seeks merely to annihilate you and your kind. Either turn in fifty of your friends, or we will kill you and the friends of yours we see here. How do you "maximize utility" in this situation?
: If you're referring to war, much capital has been "extracted" through conquest.
SDF: To once again quote the always-correct Joel Jacobson, who defends the Regime of Truth against the egregious errors of those stupider than he, "you are passing off your opinions as objective fact." Go back and read Marx, find out what alienation is.
