Give me some arguments about property seizure

[Black Sheep]

Regarding the moral 'argument' that "we cannot take the cappies' property since they own it'

How should i approach the issue?I have some answers but they are too 'aggressive' to the common listener.

please elaborate on:
-(private) property is theft
-how the cappies got the property to begin with (trace back to history? dunno)
-how will the property seizure be done?
(by law of the elected workers' goverment? by force of their workers?
i have heard both views.)

note: by law, meaning that the elected workers' goverment will either buy private corporations and make them public, state-owned, or will use brutal taxation on them (and force a high enough minimum wage) so that the cappie owning the corporation will not make enough profit to sustain it,and will either have to move it or sell it.

[Potemkin]

Hey bulk,

This is a good question. I think that, if you recognize the need for revolution to overthrow the capitalist system, the expropriation of the capitalist class will undoubtedly happen then, and will probably come about by the people storming the mansions and palaces. This is at least the traditional vision.

I'm not a marxist (it's also possible the "property is theft" notion originated with Proudhon), but I think many of the answers to these issues originate in the capitalist's relationship to the means of production.

Let's go down the list:

Certainly, in the modern era, "property is theft" in at least two different ways:

1) In the sense that capitalists own the overwhelming majority of land, which is paid for through profit made by workers

2) In the sense that for an individual to own land deprives the community at-large of those resources. Once the property is owned, no matter how fertile or valuable, the owner can simply choose to let it sit there, while the surrounding community starves, or the community cannot enjoy the natural beauty of the land, etc.

Yes, the capitalists today purchase property with profits or inheritance. These are both illegitimate forms of wealth.

Again, traditionally, property seizure would be done during the revolution, and by force. However, I think this happened a bit differently in Spain. Also, I guess you could have a revolution, outing the bourgeoisie from political power, and then making laws to redistribute land, as I believe has happened in South America and Mexico.

Hope this helped.

[AnarchyIsOrder]

Regarding the moral 'argument' that "we cannot take the cappies' property since they own it'
It is completely baseless.


-(private) property is theft
I'm sure you know about exploitation? In other words, workers work, and capitalists then get wealth created by the workers simply through ownership of private property.


-how the cappies got the property to begin with (trace back to history? dunno)
That would generally depend on the place, wouldn't it?


-how will the property seizure be done?
(by law of the elected workers' goverment? by force of their workers?
i have heard both views.)
Well, we couldn't know for sure. Still, I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, the emancipation of the working class can be the task of the working class alone. As it is, workers work on the means of production, therefore all that would be necessary is to lock the capitalist class out. After all, why should we compensate them simply for the merit of ownership, as buying it out would end up doing?


overwhelming majority of land
Wait, weren't we talking about private property rather than land?

note: by law, meaning that the elected workers' goverment will either buy private corporations and make them public, state-owned, or will use brutal taxation on them (and force a high enough minimum wage) so that the cappie owning the corporation will not make enough profit to sustain it,and will either have to move it or sell it.[/QUOTE]

[mikelepore]

Regarding the moral 'argument' that "we cannot take the cappies' property since they own it'

At one time that was one of the objections to the abolition of slavery. People said, no matter how miserable the institution and the experience of slavery were, society would just have no choice but to allow it to go on forever, because to put an end to it would require the theft of someone's hard-earned financial investments, which would be morally wrong.

[Invincible Summer]

please elaborate on:
-(private) property is theft
-how the cappies got the property to begin with (trace back to history? dunno)
Through exploitation, the capitalist is able to aggregate wealth to purchase property, whereas the proletariat work their asses off to essentially allow the capitalists to live in luxury.

I suppose one can make the comparison to a thug mugging someone for all their money, then using that money to buy their girl a nice necklace. It's dirty money gained through dirty means.


-how will the property seizure be done?
(by law of the elected workers' goverment? by force of their workers?
i have heard both views.)

As an Anarchist, I do not think any worker's "government" (in the statist sense) will do the property seizure (or exist for that matter), but rather the organized workers/trade unions themselves.

Of course, we do not know for sure how it will be done, but I like how the Spanish Anarchists told the previous factory owners: "You will go back to work at the same time as usual, but work relations will be very different from now on." :lol:


note: by law, meaning that the elected workers' goverment will either buy private corporations and make them public, state-owned, or will use brutal taxation on them (and force a high enough minimum wage) so that the cappie owning the corporation will not make enough profit to sustain it,and will either have to move it or sell it.

Taxation will take awhile for the corporation to break down, especially if you're thinking of doing this to ALL the corporations, assuming they're still allowed to conspire and help each other out. You'd have to restrict their communications with each other.

[davidasearles]

I am not all that convinced that the capitalts are all that keen on maintaing private ownership of the industril means of production and distribution. I used to think that no way, they should not be in anyway indemnified for the loss of that propoert, simply as a matter of principle.

Some principles I am quite willing to die for. This is not one of them.

The US Constitution states:

private property (shall not) be
taken for public use, without just compensation.

I have no problem with Congress coming up with some kind of just compensation package for the market price of the existing tools of production being distributed back to the millions of stock holders in excange for the tools of production being made part of the workers' collective. (Patent law can simply be dissolved across the board without constitutional implication I believe.)

I don't think it's a big issue.

[Invincible Summer]

I am not all that convinced that the capitalts are all that keen on maintaing private ownership of the industril means of production and distribution.

So busting unions and cutting corners to keep profits up is just due to a "few bad apples" who want to keep capitalism the way it is?


The US Constitution states:

private property (shall not) be
taken for public use, without just compensation.

I have no problem with Congress coming up with some kind of just compensation package for the market price of the existing tools of production being distributed back to the millions of stock holders in excange for the tools of production being made part of the workers' collective. (Patent law can simply be dissolved across the board without constitutional implication I believe.)

I don't think it's a big issue.

I'm probably not reading you correctly, but are you suggesting that once private property is seized, the state will give the shareholders and capitalists (including the CEOs of corporations) a "compensation package" in exchange for the means of production?

Why do you still advocate for the existence of the state? Why are you advocating for "appeasement" to the capitalists?

[davidasearles]

I am not all that convinced that the capitalists are all that keen on maintaining private ownership of the industrial means of production and distribution.


So busting unions and cutting corners to keep profits up is just due to a "few bad apples" who want to keep capitalism the way it is?

Capitalism is about profits to the current owner even if corporate industrial assets are sold at depreciated cost to do it.

Components of the industrial means of production are sold all of the time. Even if a industrial component may turn a profit - it will be sold if there is a reasonable likelihood that a higher profit may be made somewhere else.

I wish I had better documentation for this, but this idea came to me a couple of years ago when I heard on the radio about 7 or 8 years ago that the market capitalization of General Motors was smaller than that of Yahoo. Google now has a higher "market cap" than Yahoo at $50,000,000,000.

Apparently as of today General Motors Market Cap is $1,800,000,000 or just over 1/3 of Google.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/companyreport?symbol=GM (http://moneycentral.msn.com/companyreport?symbol=GM)

(Market Cap is the product of the total number of outstanding shares of a corporation times the current market price of a single share.)



The US Constitution states:

private property (shall not) be
taken for public use, without just compensation.

I have no problem with Congress coming up with some kind of just compensation package for the market price of the existing tools of production being distributed back to the millions of stock holders in exchange for the tools of production being made part of the workers' collective. (Patent law can simply be dissolved across the board without constitutional implication I believe.)

I don't think it's a big issue.


I'm probably not reading you correctly, but are you suggesting that once private property is seized, the state will give the shareholders and capitalists (including the CEOs of corporations) a "compensation package" in exchange for the means of production?

No I'm not suggesting anything so dramatic as "seizure."

Congress could set up a process for the govt. acquisition of components of the industrial means of production and distribution to be turned over to workers who will operate them as part of a collective. Probably the govt. will have to subsidize worker pay until the larger co-op could get up and running and workers could be paid mostly in labor vouchers.

The govt. wouldn't have to buy all of the components of the industrial means of production, that's why the govt ought to be able to get a non-inflated price.

In the US the constitutional authority of the federal government to do this might be in question, that is why a constitutional amendment to plainly give it authority is proposed.


Why do you still advocate for the existence of the state? Why are you advocating for "appeasement" to the capitalists?

Lincoln once said:

"My first object is to save the Union, and not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it. And if I could save it by freeing some, and leaving others alone I would also do that."

OUR great objective should be collective control of the industrial means of production by the workers.

The "state" is a definitional bug-a-boo so tied up in cyclic reasoning that 95% of the left has their heads so far up their asses on, that the only way that they can see is to open their mouths.

And if a shareholder is appeased by receiving govt. money in exchange for his or her fractional part of the industrial means of production - now going to the collective control of the workers at taxpayer expense - then let them be appeased.