Why We Need Communism: Tent City University Lunchtime Meeting, 11 April

You're simply proving my point.

if your 'point' is one which is diametrically opposed to the one you made earlier then I would be yes

If your 'point' is that you're coming across like a patronising prick, i believe it was proven a couple of posts ago.

I'd recommend you read Marx.

If reading Marx was going to do anyone any good it would have done so by now.

Aww, how adorable. Personal attacks.

Eh?

patronizing present participle of pa·tron·ize (Verb)

Verb: Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.

The calorific and nutritional value of potatoes is only made real in relation to other sources of calories and and nutrition; just as the communicative value of a mobile phone is only made real in relation to other methods of communication. Love detective is right, we make value. Rogue Leader is trying to dream a way out of our current mess, by wishing to subordinate our actions to some other naturally determined order where potatoes are intrinsically 'better' than gold.

It is precisely the central position of human actions that makes communism such an attractive idea; a free association, the objects of which are to encourage the development and utilisation of our abilities (both individual and social) to identify and meet our needs (again both individual and social). The only qualification for entry to the free association being our mutually recognised, our shared humanity.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

We need potatoes and gold.

I have a potato, but the nearest thing to gold I have is a fun size crunchie.

Wow. That's an astoundingly meaningless pile of bollocks. I'm impressed.

It would be great if you could argue your point?

Fair enough if you don't understand it, just admit. However you have simply resorted to personal insults, which means you've lost the argument imo.

Ok, perhaps you could explain what the difference is between

and libertarian fundamentalist free market libertarianism?

It is precisely this sort of emotive, sub-romantic gushing that puts so many people off becoming communists.

(It's that repetition of "our" in the last sentence that really grates... unbearable)

Maybe, if you could explain what "libertarian fundamentalist free market libertarianism" is.

I believe RL was alluding to the distinction between use-value and exchange-value.

While obviously nothing has value apart from human beings, that does not mean that nothing has inherent value. All use-values inhere in their objects, and the physical presence of the object is required for its use-value to be realized.

But as RL rightly says, exchange-value is immaterial and relational only. If you try to say the same of use-value, the distinction between them evaporates.

I am amazed that you have the intellectual sophistication to engage in socio-economic debate at this level and yet seem to be incapable of seeing the difference between things that have value in and of themselves and things that have value only as a medium of exchange.

It's most magnanimous of you not to exploit that meaningless typo that I made. After all, concentrating on a simple error by someone in a hurry might betray the intellectual bankruptcy of your position.

Things don't have value "in and if themselves", as has been pointed out. If you disagree with what has been said, argue why.

I take it from that, that you don't know what you mean.

I think the distinction between consumable commodities and exchange units is quite clear. I'm really not sure what it is you don't understand.

Oh, right. You actually don't know what libertarianism is?

I'm asking you to respond to the points made to you.

If you believe there are points that I haven't answered, I'm sure you'll be delighted to remind me.

This is why the left is fucked. Far too busy trying to score points off each other.

Again - I'm asking you to explain what you mean by "fundamentalist free market libertarianism".

I know what I meant when I referred to free market libertarian types. I'm guessing you mean that? The main difference would be attitudes to private property (i.e. means of production) and wage labour.

You haven't responded to any points put to you as far as I can see.

Can we just refer to 'free marketeers' from now on? I'm a bit weary of typing it out every time.

I'm referring to people who believe that there should be no regulation of industry whatsoever and that individuals are free to conduct themselves as they see fit without fear of state censure. By extension, this means that the free marketeer is free to develop his or her own skills which might or might not be exchangeable for the necessities of life.

Yes? And?

In that scenario what about people who don't own property?