JKJ, I think you are the one who is confused - and very closed-minded. Not much point trying to argue with you. The Internet remains the finest example of the case for social ownership. The current threat to it comes from concentrated private ownership and the state. Sharing stuff is 'piracy' under capitalism. Under social ownership, it wouldn't be. There is no reason as to why permission from the state would be necessary. Meanwhile, in the here and now, the Australian government is cracking down further on our liberties - and please don't tell me this is a socialist government.

JKJ

You have an interesting definition of social ownership. It means either that everyone on the planet is in on every decision or alternatively a dictatorial government decides everything.

byork and David

Obviously if the means of production are privately owned, that's not what Marx or anyone ever meant by social ownership. It's you two who are totally confused.

byork

1.
Given that you have failed to understand the most basic concepts in Marx's theory - he stood for the public not the private ownership of the means of production - what makes you think you're in any position to judge whether he left a rich legacy of thought? You don't even agree with it yourself!

2. Given that the pamphlets you were distributing in the 1960s were "social wealth" according to your own definition: "cooperative effort of many workers" - (you didn't make the paper or ink, did you?)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16764&page=0
- therefore according to your own theory they were not your property, and you had no right to distribute them until you first obtained the *political* decision which, according to your theory, is the basis of an ideal society.

You told us: "What I stand for is basically the extension of democracy into the social and economic realms, which means social wealth belonging to those who produce it..."

So according to your own theory, everyone who participated in producing those pamphlets- the foresters who cut down the trees, the people who made the ink, the guys who drove the trucks - owned those pamphlets, and you had no more right to use those pamphlets than, according to your theory, a capitalist has to profits. But you didn't get the decision of whatever you mean by the extension of democracy into the social and economic realms, did you? Or does that expression just mean "Barry York can do whatever he wants with other people's property?" What does it mean? It doesn't mean individual liberty to privately own the means of production, does it?

Can't you see you're caught in an absurdly confused self-contradiction of both yourself and Marx? You are, aren't you?

Don't get me wrong. I think it's great that you have finally understood the importance of individual liberty, and how the *private* ownership of the means of production and individual liberty provide for a much better and fairer society.

JKJ, it was my support for individual liberty that led me in the direction of Marxism in the first place, back in the 1960s, so please stop misrepresenting me. I feel no need to account for your ignorance of the topic.

So are you saying that Marx stood for the private ownership of the means of production?