The "Means of Production" misconception.
|
The vast majority of the time you are correct that confiscating the means of production does not in any way ensure it will continue to be successful. The exceptions would be for a few basic social needs, such as if the only water source for a town is privately controlled and it will become community property instead. But even then the "production" (or bottling in that latter scenario) would degrade and it would be up to individuals to produce their own. 1
point
People that support the confiscation of the "means of production" tend to think that the "means of production" are magical objects that allow people to create more with less thus breaking the law of conservation of energy. I read this far before determining that you are an idiot who is trying to refute his own straw man argument that magic is not real and that you can't get more from less (i.e. the fundamental basis of the last nine years of capitalist austerity policies). Furthermore -- and again like an idiot -- you try to conflate the laws of physics with the laws of socio-economics. If the morale of a group is sky high it will produce more than if its morale is at rock bottom and yet the physical variables remain the same. This is because socio-economics and physics are two completely different fields of study. By your very own "logic" the human race breaks the law of conservation of energy because its production has been rapidly growing and expanding over time. I bet your head truly wobbled in history class when you learned about the industrial revolution. Were you the first to raise your hand and tell the teacher she was breaking the laws of physics? Excluding the fact that you ignored my point and focused on marginal allegories i gave in order to explain my point, production isn't the creation of new material, it's the acquisition and/or rearrangement of material. My point is that the rich don't posses some object that can be passed around and allows them to generate wealth, they simply invest in the production of goods, something that everyone can do. 1
point
Excluding the fact that you ignored my point I patiently explained that you had no point. You were using straw man argumentation and radically misapplying the laws of physics. If sticking your fingers in your ears and stamping your feet is the best response you can muster then perhaps you should not be posting debates in the first place. and focused on marginal allegories This is what politicians mean when they say, "empty rhetoric". production isn't the creation of new material, it's the acquisition and/or rearrangement of material. You are refuting your own arguments again. Nobody has claimed that production is the creation of new material. The first law of thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with production. My point is that the rich don't posses some object that can be passed around and allows them to generate wealth So your "point" is yet another straw man argument? Please shut up. You're quite quite mad. |
