[The Immortal Goon]

He still won't have what it takes, especially if he is armed: that's where the landowner's power comes from, not the factory owner's.

[Truth To Power]

So like all Marxists, you DELIBERATELY REFUSE TO KNOW the fact that the factory owner can only offer the worker an opportunity he would not otherwise have, while the landowner FORCIBLY DEPRIVES the worker of opportunity he WOULD otherwise have.

[The Immortal Goon]

So like all Marxists, you DELIBERATELY REFUSE TO KNOW the fact that the factory owner can only offer the worker an opportunity he would not otherwise have, while the landowner FORCIBLY DEPRIVES the worker of opportunity he WOULD otherwise have.

I "deliberately refuse to know" this in the same way that I "deliberately refuse to know" that Xenu was the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who 75 million years ago brought billions of his people to Earth (then known as "Teegeeack") in airplane-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them with hydrogen bombs resulting in alien thetans to adhere to humans, causing spiritual harm.

[Truth To Power]

I "deliberately refuse to know" this in the same way that I "deliberately refuse to know" that Xenu was the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who 75 million years ago brought billions of his people to Earth (then known as "Teegeeack") in airplane-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them with hydrogen bombs resulting in alien thetans to adhere to humans, causing spiritual harm.

No, you are fully aware that that is false. There is no empirical evidence for the Xenu story, but it is a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality that the factory owner can only offer the worker an opportunity he would not otherwise have enjoyed, while the landowner forcibly deprives the worker of opportunity he WOULD otherwise have enjoyed. Attentive readers will note that you have not even attempted to dispute this fact, because you know you can't. All you have done is claim, falsely, that the fact is similar to an obvious fabrication. You have just deliberately refused to know it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil. As I said.

[The Immortal Goon]

I remember you have some kind of weird adherence to an obscure piece of economic horseshit that makes virtually no sense.

Since you can't articulate it well, and it's obviously not really what runs the means of production, it's best to just treat it like the joke that it is

[Hawking]

I recommend you read the book Tribal Leadership. Here is a video on the main points:

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_logan_o ... leadership

[Sivad]

a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality that the factory owner can only offer the worker an opportunity he would not otherwise have enjoyed

The workers couldn't start a social cooperative or democratically establish publicly owned industries?

the landowner forcibly deprives the worker of opportunity he WOULD otherwise have enjoyed

The rich industrialists maintain their private control of capital by corrupting our democracy with money and lies, so through graft and duplicity the factory owner also deprives the worker of opportunity he WOULD otherwise have enjoyed.

[The Immortal Goon]

I recommend you read the book Tribal Leadership. Here is a video on the main points:

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_logan_o ... leadership

As near as I can tell, this has nothing to do with the batshit theory that landowners in a capitalist market are in a completely different capitalist market than people that own land AND own factories.

[Hawking]

Sorry, I should have directed that to the OP who asked, "what peoples' thoughts are on the importance and function of creating hope/morale in workers and through what means it is achieved, as well as any concerns or associated thoughts one has on the matter. Such as personal experiences in oration, direct action and so on to inspire something in others."

[Sivad]

the batshit theory that landowners in a capitalist market are in a completely different capitalist market than people that own land AND own factories.

Another major defect in geoism is the idea that while land rent is an intolerable outrage, industrial rent is somehow sacrosanct. I give the geoists credit for at least getting half of the way to revolutionary consciousness but for some inexplicable reason they stall out just short of the critical realization that it's not just the one institution but the whole socio-economic scheme of capitalism that's bullshit.

[quetzalcoatl]

Another major defect in geoism is the idea that while land rent is an intolerable outrage, industrial rent is somehow sacrosanct. I give the geoists credit for at least getting half of the way to revolutionary consciousness but for some inexplicable reason they stall out just short of the critical realization that it's not just the one institution but the whole socio-economic scheme of capitalism that's bullshit.

They are guilty of taking some kernel of truth that, properly limited, might have a explanatory power in a particular set of circumstances, and then trying to make it a universal theory. It clearly is not. Rent on money cannot be derived from rent on land. We even have rent on rent on money (in the form of derivatives, a multi-billion dollar market).

Even if they could make these equivalencies stick, rent on land has no explanatory power over wages and unemployment, the factors that most affect people.

[Sivad]

My take on private ownership of natural resources is as long as Locke's proviso is satisfied there is no issue, but when there isn't 'enough and as good' left over all property claims are illegitimate and if those holding the property refuse to make fair and reasonable accommodation then force is justified.

[Truth To Power]

I remember you have some kind of weird adherence to an obscure piece of economic horseshit that makes virtually no sense.

No, you do not. You have made up that false belief. The facts of economics I identify make perfect sense.

Since you can't articulate it well,

You are aware of the fact that I am very clear, and articulate it perfectly well.

and it's obviously not really what runs the means of production,

By using the term, "means of production," you deliberately refuse to know the fact that land and capital are entirely different, and cannot meaningfully be aggregated any more than chalk and cheese can.

it's best to just treat it like the joke that it is

IOW, you are aware that it is factually correct, self-evident, and indisputable, and you cannot offer any facts or logic that contradict it.

[Truth To Power]

The workers couldn't start a social cooperative or democratically establish publicly owned industries?

Maybe. But they didn't. So my statement is factually correct as a matter of objective physical reality, while you are attempting to dispute it with a hypothetical. Sorry, but what might have happened if workers had had the qualities of a factory owner is irrelevant to what DID happen because they DIDN'T.

The rich industrialists maintain their private control of capital by corrupting our democracy with money and lies,

No, they do not. It is banksters, landowners, IP monopolists, and other privilege holders who do that, not factory owners, because owning a factory confers no power to do so. The factory owner must compete. The privilege holder is preserved from that necessity.

so through graft and duplicity the factory owner also deprives the worker of opportunity he WOULD otherwise have enjoyed.

No, that is just baldly false as a matter of objective physical fact. It is impossible for anyone to deprive any worker of opportunity he would otherwise have by owning a factory, because the factory is not an opportunity that would otherwise have existed. Only by owning land titles, natural resource rights, IP monopolies, bank licenses and other privileges can anyone deprive the worker of opportunity he would otherwise have. It is impossible to do so by merely owning a factory. You have not described any mechanism whereby it would be possible, nor will you ever be doing so.

[Truth To Power]

My take on private ownership of natural resources is as long as Locke's proviso is satisfied there is no issue, but when there isn't 'enough and as good' left over all property claims are illegitimate and if those holding the property refuse to make fair and reasonable accommodation then force is justified.

It's been known for decades that Locke's Proviso has never been satisfied, and never can be. Proof: if the last land parcel that is as much and as good as the previously appropriated ones is appropriated, Locke's Proviso is not satisfied, so it cannot be appropriated. But that means the second last also cannot be appropriated, which means the third last cannot, etc. So none may be appropriated without violating the Proviso, not even the first one. QED.

[Truth To Power]

As near as I can tell, this has nothing to do with the batshit theory that landowners in a capitalist market are in a completely different capitalist market than people that own land AND own factories.

You like making up absurd, incoherent garbage and attributing it to others, don't you? What would it even mean to be "in a completely different capitalist market"? Are those who own slaves in a completely different capitalist market from those who own slaves and land? What about slaves and factories? And whether they are or aren't in a completely different capitalist market, how does that affect the fact that the slave is the one doing the work, not his owner? You see how absurd, disingenuous and irrelevant your nonsense is?

[Truth To Power]

Another major defect in geoism is the idea that while land rent is an intolerable outrage,

That is just some absurd nonsense you made up. Geoism holds no such view, any more than abolitionists held the view that labor is an intolerable outrage. The abolitionists' view was that the slave owners' appropriation of their slaves' labor was the intolerable outrage, just as geoists hold the view that private landowners' appropriation of the publicly created rent of land is an intolerable outrage. The theft is the outrage, not the thing stolen.

See how that works?

industrial rent is somehow sacrosanct.

What is "industrial rent"? Are you really repeating the neoclassical lie that all factor returns are rent? That wages are the rent of labor, and profits or interest the rent of capital?

The essential characteristic of rent is that it is obtained not by making a contribution, but by depriving others of access to economic opportunities that would otherwise have been accessible.

I give the geoists credit for at least getting half of the way to revolutionary consciousness but for some inexplicable reason they stall out just short of the critical realization that it's not just the one institution but the whole socio-economic scheme of capitalism that's bullshit.

You are either willing to know the fact that capital is produced by labor but land is not, or you aren't. You aren't. Simple.

[Sivad]

Maybe. But they didn't. So my statement is factually correct as a matter of objective physical reality, while you are attempting to dispute it with a hypothetical. Sorry, but what might have happened if workers had had the qualities of a factory owner is irrelevant to what DID happen because they DIDN'T.

What if they had the qualities but lacked the opportunity? I can point to real world examples of successful companies that are worker owned and operated, so it's definitely not a question of qualities but of opportunity. Workers are capable of successfully owning and operating factories, it's a much better deal for them, so why aren't more workers doing this? Why aren't all workers doing this? The answer is obvious, they're denied the opportunity by corrupt and duplicitous crony capitalists.

No, they do not. It is banksters, landowners, IP monopolists, and other privilege holders who do that, not factory owners, because owning a factory confers no power to do so. The factory owner must compete. The privilege holder is preserved from that necessity.

But the privilege holders did compete, they competed for the privilege. By the logic of capitalism their investment of time, energy, and resources entitles them to the privilege, it doesn't matter that there are more equitable arrangements or more efficient means. The logic of capitalism is very simple - winners keepers, losers weepers.

No, that is just baldly false as a matter of objective physical fact. It is impossible for anyone to deprive any worker of opportunity he would otherwise have by owning a factory, because the factory is not an opportunity that would otherwise have existed. Only by owning land titles, natural resource rights, IP monopolies, bank licenses and other privileges can anyone deprive the worker of opportunity he would otherwise have. It is impossible to do so by merely owning a factory. You have not described any mechanism whereby it would be possible, nor will you ever be doing so.

You're contradicting yourself. You began this post by stating "maybe"[the workers could start a social cooperative or democratically establish publicly owned industries], so which is it?

[Sivad]

depriving others of access to economic opportunities that would otherwise have been accessible.

You just rejected my argument because it was hypothetical but your whole case rests on the exact same hypothetical.

So my statement is factually correct as a matter of objective physical reality, while you are attempting to dispute it with a hypothetical. Sorry, but what might have happened if workers had
ad the qualities of a factory owner is irrelevant to what DID happen because they DIDN'T.

So any privilege holder could just say sorry, but we're not depriving anyone of anything because what otherwise would have been economic opportunities if the deprived had had the qualities of a privilege holder is irrelevant to what DID happen because they DIDN'T. For the privilege holder it's a matter of objective physical reality that you are attempting to dispute with a hypothetical.

[The Immortal Goon]

No, you do not. You have made up that false belief. The facts of economics I identify make perfect sense.

You are aware of the fact that I am very clear, and articulate it perfectly well.

By using the term, "means of production," you deliberately refuse to know the fact that land and capital are entirely different, and cannot meaningfully be aggregated any more than chalk and cheese can.

IOW, you are aware that it is factually correct, self-evident, and indisputable, and you cannot offer any facts or logic that contradict it.

Well, since you aren't going to argue your side and just blubber about how you think I secretly I agree with you, I suppose there's not much left to say