Truth to Power wrote:Capitalism and socialism -- including communism -- are failed ideologies because they are factually in error. By commingling land and capital as "the means of production," they refuse to know the fact that land and capital are fundamentally different. The socialist pretends capital is land to justify stealing capital, the capitalist pretends land is capital to justify stealing land.
The Immortal Goon wrote:Perhaps you'd be so kind as to show a source where some half-assed so called Marxist defines land as:
Marx, examining capital wrote:Money as distinguished from coin is the result of the circuit C—M—C and constitutes the starting point of the circuit M—C—M, that is the exchange of money for commodities so as to exchange commodities for money. In the form C—M—C it is the commodity that is the beginning and the end of the transaction; in the form M—C—M it is money. Money mediates the exchange of commodities in the first circuit, the commodities mediates the evolution of money into money in the second circuit. Money, which serves solely as a medium in the first circuit, appears as the goal of circulation in the second, whereas the commodity, which was the goal in the first circuit, appears simply as a means in the second. Because money itself is already the result of the circuit C—M—C, the result of circulation appears to be also its point of departure in the form M—C—M. The exchange of material is the content of C—M—C, whereas the real content of the second circuit, M—C—M, is the commodity in the form in which it emerged from the first circuit.
If I could figure out what that gibberish meant, I might be able to help you.
Here's what Marx himself said:
"Means of production are capital if, from the worker's standpoint, they function as his non-property, i.e., as someone else's property. In this form, they function only as opposed to the labor. The existence of these conditions in the form of an opposition to labor transforms their owner into a capitalist, and the means of production which belong to him, into capital." (Theorien uber den Mehrwert, Vol. III, p. 530).