Collectivist

Other countries did follow America's lead in nationalizing "Thanksgiving" but for us it is not a symbol of independence or victory (which is true we have both but for other reasons) but a celebration of the results of producing a good harvest set before them, which was an indication that they would not starve through a tough winter. In our modern day Thanksgiving it also is a day of celebrating independently producing the means to sustain oneself and one's family. This is has always been a uniquely American notion.

It is not a sacrifice to save (or attempt to save) those that you love or truly care about rather then watch them slowly expire. A sacrifice is giving up a "value" for a "non-value", so in this case you are right (pride=love)

“Thanksgiving” is known as a uniquely American celebration. In colonial times it was universally seen as a day of giving thanks for a good and healthy harvest and for the rewards and success for producing a bountiful crop .This holiday of sharing an abundant meal with family and friends was a recognizable symbol to the world as a reward for the outstanding results born of individualism and hard work and an outward and a recognizable measurement of pride-American pride. A pride born from caring and loving parents who acted and sacrificed (often with their very lives) in a manner so that their children would never know or feel the pain of starvation!

Humans are imbued with irresistible impulses toward competition and cooperation, greed and generosity,They commonly have a passion to dominate, to display superiority and excellence, to attain distinction and honor, (and to create and to be seen as creative)-Stephen F. Williams Liberal reform in a Illliberal Regime:the creation of private property in Russia 1906-1915. Hoover Institution Press, 2006, Stanford University Pp.16 (underlining mine) So there!

Since this topic seems to be over-I'll take the win and go back to sleep! Collectivist

Me thinks by dropping 3,4,5 no progress would never happen!

I think by eliminating #3 and you line out " When others finnally learn of the innovation" leaving #4 as "they adopt it," you will arrive at communal communism. Am I correct?

Don't laugh I had almost given up that there were "real" Objectivist intellectuals in this world Collectvist

Let me start with this L+UV=Pp (Labor plus use value (time it takes to make stuff) equals private property! Yes, No? Why?

Well then, we share something in common......but please keep this discussion going. I haven't been this lucid in years! Collectivist

Intersting.......let me reverse this....What would you #3 to fit my arguement/theory. If you put me on the spot however, I would have to answer that unless our primitive surrendered L-UV=Pp he would sacrificed to the "gang" of the tribe. Our primitive did not have the ability to form a consciousness that would inable to "reason" with some who would view his techiques or invention as worth while. The tribe would prob think this was "evil" work and an offense to god(s) and kill him not realizing the harm they did to the climb to progress. This obvious breaks the chain. That's why I want your input! Collectivist

Bingo! ......keep it going! Agree, Why? disagree, Why?

I don't think I am wrong on this (my basic theory) If Ayn is mad at me and throws me out of the collective again ....so be it I agree with Ayn on everything else! You however present a good case but I'll stick to my theory. As I said before I am no intellectual (actually I am a real dope!) but I must admit my curiosity has been heightened by all these postings. I admire you guys for sticking to what you beleive to be true! And by the way I was a practising Buddhist for 20 years before I saw the error in forcing mind into emptyness (nothingness)-Do you have any expirence with Buddhism? Collectivist

My last post I used L+UV=Pp with an explanation.Figures it didn't post Very frustrating BTW does anyone thing this would be a good paper, if so where would you suggest I send it to Collectivist

Yes, and no. Yes,Would you believe I re-read some of Locke yesterday and I see just a smiggen of a simiarity (which is normal). And no, after thinking about it I perhaps can see what you mean in Marx however "use value" can be a personal thing without being "abstract" Personal private property has no "surplus value" My head wants to say: L=Pp=UV .....man you guys are making me think/work hard! I like it....keep it coming (I think Ayn would have been proud of all posters here. (I'm no so sure about me though. I'm not an intellectual, just curious about things) Collectivist

All new techniques/inventions become "common" don't they? Our primitive wants to survive so he guards his spear making process. If the tribe is threathened from other tribe it would be natural to share the T/I. After that certainly the tribe advanvancse one notch above the other tribes. Progress unitl a newer techinque or invention becomes reality! The primitive through his T/I of private property helped continued survival. Would you not do the same?

Priviate property ownership proceeds from the labor necessesary to create it. In other words, if I create it, I own it. Labor creates value which creates progress (I am speaking of the creative mind in application (things like shaping spears, writing books or inventing a new type of motor- not communal labor like working corn fields or being meerly an appendage of a machine owned by another). If it is given to me as a gift freely and without conditions, again I own it. If a council gives me a problem to solve and I solve it even when the problem solved is applied by others, I still own its delivery (contractual intellectual property ownership). Our primitive may not have been able to put these processes into words but the principles therein are still valid for him. Collectivist

primitive man guarded his property to the death. Yes, sharping a weapon with a new technique would arouse jealous raving of others in the tribe less adroit. Eventually over time this new techique of spear sharpeing because common place advancing the tribe one step higher than preious (food, defense more leasure ) all those things you mentioned. a long house is a communal meeting place for the tribes elders, chief etc. (keeping the sacred fire lit to keep the god(s) happy and provide warmth in council. A new technique or invention belongs to the person creating such. Does he share it (see my original post) You pose interesting and stimulating questions. It clearifies my thinking. Keep it going please Collectivist

Primitve private property- a new and better way to sharpen a spear used for hunting jealously guarded by its owner (possible beginning of totem worship) Communal peoperty-a long house used for council or cultivation of agriculturial fields inwhich everyone of the tribe was required to work (communal communism) Non-property an area outside the village secured by competing tribe(s) Medicine or the impliments of "first aid" (to the extent it existed) etc.....also the Maya had a great communal society where men with certain carving ability built large stale to pin the history of the nation (specialized stratified collective work)

Yes, I refute communal property (but it does exist) as a means of progress into ever higher realms of conscioueness and invention. The average primitive obayed the dictates of the tribe (this is also true) but there were those who were different paving different roads so to speak who ventured on their own (inside the tribe which is also true) Thus having created something new advanced his tribe to a more powerful state. To believe otherwise, at least for me, would prove Marx and Engles were right to acknowledge the withering away of the state into a functional communal communistic one. Historical materialism treats man as a non-thinking unconscious enity devoid of "spark" and invention-am I wrong?....and I agree that the first instance of "noted" private property accured in ancient Rome but my point is tht it existed (private property) well before recorded history Collectivist

My e-books (Sigfried series ) on sale at Amazon is exactly what you refered to (good battles evil and struggles and overcomes) Collectivist

....and as far as usefulness, I agree. It may turn out to be "bunk" but....it gives me something to formulate and think about.

This is an new and interesting topic. I just thought you were sure I was not an Objectivist. I chose the name "Collectivist" as my moniker to start conversations here.(reverse psychology) Collectivist

What about pre-recorded history priviate property? That is my focus. To say that it didn't exist would be begging the question. At least my theory explains the quantified "jumps" in knowlegde, invention and progress. I'm not challenging you just explaing my position Collectivist

....and as I said my theory is my own and still developing! O, and the reason I chose two books from the 19th century was to frame my theory in the time frame of Engles book, to refute his theory of communal communism. Rands book of course was wriiten in the 20th century Collectivist