German Woman Gives Away Other People's Money

[Havet]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/germany-banker-robin-hood-court

The accused hasn't put one cent in her own pocket. She did it purely out of sympathy with people who were suffering financially," the woman's lawyer, Thomas Ohm, said. She was a "good samaritan" with a "Mother Courage" nature, referencing the Brecht character who believes she can do good in a bad world. The employee was accused of allowing overdrafts for customers who would not normally qualify for them. She then used the money from richer customers to temporarily disguise the loans during the bank's monthly audit of overdrafts.

The judge said: "It's difficult to find an appropriate punishment here. On the one hand we have big losses. But on the other hand we have here this altruistic behaviour, which makes the case very different from the norm."

Wonder how this woman would feel if I drained her savings to help some starving Africans? Or all the other people applauding her.

Some dangerous precedents reinforced here :

1. Stealing money to help yourself = selfish. Stealing money to help others = altruistic. I.e. You can't be selfish if you're helping other people.

2. Rich people don't deserve to keep their money compared to poor people. (completely ignoring how they achieved that money)

3. The classic - Rich people are guilty for having money, and poor people are deserving for not having money.

Whats that great Rand quote to the effect --

"Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?"

---

I mean, echnically the bank's clients, all of them, had already been "stolen" some value of their money due to special privilege of government granted to banks, Fiat currency which devalues the money and regulations which restrict the amount of competing businesses which would offer a better service.

I suppose her actions were "sort of" legitimate in one sense, in the sense that the richest people likely had gotten such money through force by colliding with the government, but that would imply that the woman had went through all the clients info and see where they gained the money, which she didn't.

On the other hand, fiat currency doesn't devalue the money, printing Fiat currency does.

Its not giving away other peoples money that is good, its returning money from a thief to the person it was stolen from, which wasn't what was going on here.

While rich people are more likely to make money through government co-option, poor people are far more likely to get more stolen money in welfare than their money stolen in taxation.

Taking money back from a thief (government) is signficantly more black and white than stealing from someone who deals with a thief.

Anyway, don't let my rant get in the way of your interpretation of the story.

[Bud Struggle]

Tipical Socialist. So what?

[greymatter]

Woman missed her true calling: government

[Jazzratt]

This is socialism in action, albeit on a small and extremely limited scale. I'm glad it pisses off people like you because it shows the chasm that exists between your politics and anything remotely grounded in respect for human beings.

EDIT: Actually this isn't really socialism in action. It's something I think that leftists should support, just as I support (on a pragmatic basis) taxation, the minumum wage and the whole other raft of things that show humanity can occaisonally do better than "fuck you I got mine".

[Bilan]

Tipical Socialist. So what?

Typical, you mean.
And I'm afraid it's not typical of anything, or anyone. You may have noted that this case, as said by the judge was "unique". Thus, making it the opposite of typical: it is uncommon.

IF this was typical, then the response would have been different.

Further, this is more of a Robin Hood style of redistribution of wealth: "Take from the rich and give to the poor".
Socialism is not about taking peoples money.

[Drace]

Starving people should work for the money guys


that would imply that the woman had went through all the clients info and see where they gained the money, which she didn't.

Ya what an idiot. Everyone knows people like Bill Gates are superhuman and actually worked 2 million hours to earn 60 billion.

[greymatter]

I must have missed the article about the capitalist class giving themselves the money of the working class.
Yeah, cause it's really that simple.

[RGacky3]

Yeah, cause it's really that simple.

It kind of is.

[Havet]

Socialism is not about taking peoples money.

Seconded

[Jazzratt]

Seconded

True. It's not about grabbing as much as you can and fuck everyone else, either. Certainly if you're quoting Rand to support your point it's probably not a socialist one.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Socialism is not about taking peoples money.

This is kind of dodging the issue as far as I'm concerned. If we have a revolution, Bill Gates might not be forced to give his money away. Society will just organize in a way that makes money worthless.

However, will Bill Gates live (from a material standpoint) a less luxurious life? Most likely. Did he work for it. Well, according to our definition of work (which I agree with), he did not.

If you're really being honest with people, I think you have to say that socialism might not be about taking peoples money, but the consequences amount to pretty much the same thing.

There is also something running through this thread that is the idea that "if someone did work for something" they have a right not to be stolen from. If someone legitimately earned 500,000 dollars, a starving person can still legitimately steal from them.

[Led Zeppelin]

Anyway, don't let my rant get in the way of your interpretation of the story.

Oh, don't worry, I won't.

I'd have to read your rant for that to be able to happen anyway.

[Ele'ill]

There is also something running through this thread that is the idea that "if someone did work for something" they have a right not to be stolen from. If someone legitimately earned 500,000 dollars, a starving person can still legitimately steal from them.

What?

Does anybody have the right to steal from someone else?

[Jazzratt]

What?

Does anybody have the right to steal from someone else?

No, they don't. Does that mean that stealing from someone cannot be justified? No. You don't need "the right" to do something to mean it is a justifiable action.

[Bilan]

This is kind of dodging the issue as far as I'm concerned.

Well, no, it isn't.
Dodging the issue implies I conjured up something else so people would avoid realising what it actually is. This isn't what I did.
I made the point that socialism and what this woman did are in no way related. We're not the Merry men.



If we have a revolution, Bill Gates might not be forced to give his money away. Society will just organize in a way that makes money worthless.

Yes.



However, will Bill Gates live (from a material standpoint) a less luxurious life? Most likely. Did he work for it. Well, according to our definition of work (which I agree with), he did not.

Yes, in the sense that, he will no longer command the billions of dollars he does now.



If you're really being honest with people, I think you have to say that socialism might not be about taking peoples money, but the consequences amount to pretty much the same thing.

Not really. Taking peoples money is a personal thing - it is about gaining for oneself by taking from someone else.
Socialism is not a personal thing, it is a collective thing. IT is about undermining the existing class relations to benefit society as a whole.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

This is socialism in action, albeit on a small and extremely limited scale. I'm glad it pisses off people like you because it shows the chasm that exists between your politics and anything remotely grounded in respect for human beings.

EDIT: Actually this isn't really socialism in action. It's something I think that leftists should support, just as I support (on a pragmatic basis) taxation, the minumum wage and the whole other raft of things that show humanity can occaisonally do better than "fuck you I got mine".

this is really strange post
and they made you admin?!

I'm glad you realize that this isn't socialism in any way (well, maybe something in the vein of utopian socialism)
taxation and wealth redistribution by the state have a lot more to do with class struggle than some bank teller helping out clients

sigh
anarchists...
oy vey

[RGacky3]

This is kind of dodging the issue as far as I'm concerned. If we have a revolution, Bill Gates might not be forced to give his money away. Society will just organize in a way that makes money worthless.

Great point.

[Tungsten]

The employee was accused of allowing overdrafts for customers who would not normally qualify for them.
Isn't that how we got in this financial mess in the first place?

----------------


This is socialism in action, albeit on a small and extremely limited scale. I'm glad it pisses off people like you because it shows the chasm that exists between your politics and anything remotely grounded in respect for human beings.I'm sure if it was your bank account that had been emptied, you'd be singing a very different tune.

EDIT: Actually this isn't really socialism in action. It's something I think that leftists should support, just as I support (on a pragmatic basis) taxation, the minumum wage and the whole other raft of things that show humanity can occaisonally do better than "fuck you I got mine".
Vs "fuck you, I got yours" I'll take the former any day.

I hope you never complain about the government spending your taxes on things you don't aprove of, because this is virtually the same thing.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

You are so fucking thick.

If we're all involved in the so - called "corperatist" (i.e. how capitalism actually works) system that "steals" from people, what problem do you have with the money going to the poor?

Because it sets a bad "precedent?" Seriously?

[Drace]

Socialism is not about taking away from others and giving to the poor.
Your way of thinking is very restricted.
Socialism is about the workers owning the means of production.
Capitalism has turned labor into an act of fetching for yourself to survive and thus changed the mindset of people. Labor is now thought to be a way for you to earn your wage and be able to survive in the world. It has turned men into wage-slaves and hidden the real cause of labor -- to produce for the needs of the workers.
Thus, the same concept would not apply under socialism.
Labor would not be done for profit but for the sake of its need; by the workers, for the workers.
The mechanics would greatly change and it would be incomparable to "taking away from the rich and giving it to the poor" in today's society.

[Havet]

You are so fucking thick.

If we're all involved in the so - called "corperatist" (i.e. how capitalism actually works) system that "steals" from people, what problem do you have with the money going to the poor?

Because it sets a bad "precedent?" Seriously?

Stealing always sets a bad precedent, whether its theft from the poor to the rich or from the rich to the poor.

This is why I said that I don't agree with the theft commited by the State and the corporations as well.

[Havet]

Certainly if you're quoting Rand to support your point it's probably not a socialist one.

How is it not?

Let's look at my quote again:


"Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?"

This little quote has no frontiers. It is not destined only to capitalists, or to workers, but to all on both classes who have that insane idea of altruism.

Eg of how it can apply to workers as well: Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it (which is done by the workers), but moral to give it away (to the State and the capitalists).

[graffic]

Hayenmill, You assert that the woman has taken money away from people who have "earned" it and given it to people who have not "earned" it. Unless we live in a truly meritocratic society (which we don't, far from it) then I don't see how you can say this

[IcarusAngel]

How is it stealing to take money from people who didn't earn it and give it to the poor and middle class, who should have all the resources to begin with?

And of course socialism purposes wealth redistribution, at least at the beginning. Because socialism must take the resources from the elite who control them now and put them into the hands of the workers. The only thing that prevents them from doing that now is the state capitalist system which protects the exploiters of society.

Furthermore, a dollar is worth more to a poor person than it is to a rich person. This is utility theory. The poor person needs the money to buy food, clothes, etc., whereas the rich person uses it for tips in a strip club.

And humans are altruistic. If we weren't we'd steal food from our children and do everything for ourselves. Rather, we are wired up to recognize each other's pain etc.

[RGacky3]

Stealing always sets a bad precedent, whether its theft from the poor to the rich or from the rich to the poor.

This is why I said that I don't agree with the theft commited by the State and the corporations as well.

You make it a point to say "corporations" class domination predated "corporations."

The rich got rich BECAUSE of class domination, which is what we want to end.


This little quote has no frontiers. It is not destined only to capitalists, or to workers, but to all on both classes who have that insane idea of altruism.

Eg of how it can apply to workers as well: Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it (which is done by the workers), but moral to give it away (to the State and the capitalists).

Do you believe in the redistribution of wealth? Considering most of the wealth in this world was made in this Capitalist system that you oppose? But wealth I mean industry, capital and resources, i.e.. power.


And humans are altruistic. If we weren't we'd steal food from our children and do everything for ourselves. Rather, we are wired up to recognize each other's pain etc.

And it survives strongly in a society that encourages selfishness and discourages altruism.

[Havet]

Hayenmill, You assert that the woman has taken money away from people who have "earned" it and given it to people who have not "earned" it. Unless we live in a truly meritocratic society (which we don't, far from it) then I don't see how you can say this

Wait, I never said that. I said that she didn't bother to know if the rich people who had money in that bank had earnt it or not. She just assume that, because they were poor, they deserved that money, and she proceeded to commit fraud based on that.

Now I ask, if her actions are justified, then certainly me stealing money from her to give to starving Africans is also justified.

[Havet]

The rich got rich BECAUSE of class domination, which is what we want to end.

Not entirely. Take soccer players for instance. But yes, I will agree that many rich people got rich illegitimately and/or by force


Do you believe in the redistribution of wealth? Considering most of the wealth in this world was made in this Capitalist system that you oppose? But wealth I mean industry, capital and resources, i.e.. power.

I already adressed that point in my other thread, but you keep ignoring the arguments. Removing the state makes many businesses and institutions collapse once they have to internalize their costs, and the remainders might be "communalized" through either an employee buyout or through implementation of a general strike for worker self-management.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, this is not an example of socialism. It's an example of awesome hilariousness and the popularity of this story is a reflection of the wide-spread anger at the banks out there. Last month I was charged $99 in overdraft fees (they tried 3 times $33 charge each time) for a $20 check from 2 months ago that wasn't cashed until the end of last month... fuck the banks. When someone stole my PIN number at a gas station, my account was frozen for 3 months while they "investigated" my fraud claim - $300 bucks was what was taken. After they cleared my case it still took another month before I could access my account... fuck the banks. It's about time someone used banks to steal from the rich and give to the poor rather than the opposite which is the norm.

Finally - the US government gave billions of tax dollars to the banks (who used that money to call-in debts, consolidate, and merge companies) while states are slahing funding and gutting programs all over the place. This is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich on a mass scale... yet this woman has caused so much anger among conservatives here - get a fucking clue.

[Havet]

... yet this woman has caused so much anger among conservatives here - get a fucking clue.

Just'd like to point out that I oppose the collusion between government and banks a hell of a lot more than this woman, but that the court's decision is setting some dangerous precedents, namely: Stealing from anybody is legitimate as long as the money goes to needy people.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Stealing from anybody is legitimate as long as the money goes to needy people. Well, it is. As long as we're talking about "rights", one person's right to live outweighs another person's right to own. As Emma Goldman said: "Ask for work. If they do not give you work, ask for bread. If they do not give you work or bread, take bread."

[Havet]

Well, it is. As long as we're talking about "rights", one person's right to live outweighs another person's right to own. As Emma Goldman said: "Ask for work. If they do not give you work, ask for bread. If they do not give you work or bread, take bread."

So, then, according to this principle, I may steal whatever property you own in order to give to those in need, like starving africans for example.

Do you agree with this?

[Durruti's Ghost]

So, then, according to this principle, I may steal whatever property you own in order to give to those in need, like starving africans for example.

Do you agree with this?

Yes. Similarly, I would not deny that the starving man across the street has the right to take food from my refrigerator--he needs it more than I. However, it would be preferable that he take it from others who need it less--such as, for example, a large chain of restaurants.

EDIT: If I were starving myself, I would apply the same principle.

[Havet]

Yes. Similarly, I would not deny that the starving man across the street has the right to take food from my refrigerator--he needs it more than I. However, it would be preferable that he take it from others who need it less--such as, for example, a large chain of restaurants.

EDIT: If I were starving myself, I would apply the same principle.

So I can come over and get some of your stuff?

[IcarusAngel]

And who would stop someone from taking someone else's 'property' in the first place? THE STATE.

Notice how anarcho-capitalists love statism when it fits in with their corporatist principles. Again, capitalism vs. social democracy is an issue of two forms of statism competing against one another.

Capitalism is the worst form of statism.

[Durruti's Ghost]

So I can come over and get some of your stuff?

Are you starving?

[Havet]

And who would stop someone from taking someone else's 'property' in the first place? THE STATE.

Who are you talking to? Tip: quoting what one said helps understanding whom you're addressing.


Notice how anarcho-capitalists love statism when it fits in with their corporatist principles.

I thought ancaps loved PDAs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense_agency)?

[Havet]

Are you starving?

I'm not stealing for myself, but for starving africans.

Just like the german woman wasnt stealing for herself, but for the poor people who had a bank account.

So, can I come over?

[RGacky3]

I already adressed that point in my other thread, but you keep ignoring the arguments. Removing the state makes many businesses and institutions collapse once they have to internalize their costs, and the remainders might be "communalized" through either an employee buyout or through implementation of a general strike for worker self-management.

Some institutions might collapse, but as long as businesses have property rights, most will have their power.

Also, employee buyout? If there are no cops why not juts take it. Also if property rights stay in place you know whats gonna happen? Companies will have private security, and private militias, i.e. a government that is only accountable to the companies, now THAT is what you want, either that, or your just to dumb to realize where power comes from.

[IcarusAngel]

A 'defense agency' in protection of private property fits the definition of government. Anarcho-Capitalism = competing forms of governments trying to protect capitalism.

You are an anarcho-capitalist because that is where free-markets lead to.

[Havet]

Some institutions might collapse, but as long as businesses have property rights, most will have their power.

How would they have property rights if their current property rights are protected by the State, who disapeared.


Also, employee buyout? If there are no cops why not juts take it. Also if property rights stay in place you know whats gonna happen? Companies will have private security, and private militias, i.e. a government that is only accountable to the companies, now THAT is what you want, either that, or your just to dumb to realize where power comes from.

I was just posing an alternative. It's likely to be cheaper - in human lives - to buyout the company or massively strike so that the owner has no other alternative than to give it away.

[IcarusAngel]

Some institutions might collapse, but as long as businesses have property rights, most will have their power.

Also, employee buyout? If there are no cops why not juts take it. Also if property rights stay in place you know whats gonna happen? Companies will have private security, and private militias, i.e. a government that is only accountable to the companies, now THAT is what you want, either that, or your just to dumb to realize where power comes from.

Yes. Hayenmill's 'anti-statism' is just a statism that is even worse than current statism.

He offers no real solutions to any given problem.

[Havet]

A 'defense agency' in protection of private property fits the definition of government. Anarcho-Capitalism = competing forms of governments trying to protect capitalism.

It doesn't fit my definition (http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-t112106/index.html?p=1480146#post1480146) of government.


You are an anarcho-capitalist because that is where free-markets lead to.

Not really (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765).

Its strange that after all this time you still pretend that i'm an ancap just so you can argue me more easily.

[IcarusAngel]

lol. So you think that private defenence agencies in protection of property and tyranny, two things which anarchists are historically against in the first place (defence agencies and property), are anarchist and free-market?

That proves that you are a 'market anarchist,' and not a market socialist.

[IcarusAngel]

By the way, I'm working on a program that draws a circle the area of which grows at a rate of 10 pixels per second. It shows the circle and the rate at which the radius is changing.

When I'm done, it would be fair to say it's my program. However, I don't feel that it's my PROPERTY because I did not invent the language (Java) or the computer that I'm typing on. It may be my computer but it's not 'my language.'

In the same way, men may have land but they do NOT own land. Does that make sense? No one has a right to the land, i.e., the earth:

When the "sacredness" of property is talked of, it should be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property.
The earth is given as a common stock for men to labor and live on.
Jefferson and Locke (two liberals more progressive than modern right-wing capitalists).

[Havet]

lol. So you think that private defenence agencies in protection of property and tyranny, two things which anarchists are historically against in the first place (defence agencies and property), are anarchist and free-market?

That proves that you are a 'market anarchist,' and not a market socialist.

And? I've never denied i'm a market anarchist. Except market anarchism =/= anarcho-capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765)

[graffic]

Wait, I never said that. I said that she didn't bother to know if the rich people who had money in that bank had earnt it or not. She just assume that, because they were poor, they deserved that money, and she proceeded to commit fraud based on that.

Yes i suppose you could say that there are some poor people that are incredibly lazy and dumb and in one sense deserve everything they have but I would argue that is a result of the way they have been brought up in society.

How many members of the bourgeoisie do you see lying around on the streets begging for money because they have been lazy or unproductive in life?

[RGacky3]

How would they have property rights if their current property rights are protected by the State, who disapeared.


Cool, so you don't believe in property rights, awesome, so you also don't believe in the market.


I was just posing an alternative. It's likely to be cheaper - in human lives - to buyout the company or massively strike so that the owner has no other alternative than to give it away.

If the boss has no propety rights over it, they don't need to buyout or anything, the workers just take it.


It doesn't fit my definition (http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-t112106/index.html?p=1480146#post1480146) of government.

If the outcome is exactly the same, and if it acts the sameway, I frankly could'nt give a rats ass what your definition is, if it works the same way and the outcome is the same, in my mind its the same.

[Havet]

Cool, so you don't believe in property rights, awesome, so you also don't believe in the market.

I think that there is a lot of stupid semantics over private property and that those who claim to oppose private property most often actually support some limited or particular form of it but they call it by some other name such as "personal property" or "possessions". I think that in particular situations there can be some kind of private commons or private property that has a policy that effectively makes it "public" in a meaningful sense (see Roderick Long for an exposition on this concept).

Property is theft "when it is related to a landowner or capitalist whose ownership is derived from conquest or exploitation and only maintained through the state, property laws, police, and an army". Property is freedom for "the peasant or artisan family [who have] a natural right to a home, land [they may] cultivate, [...] to tools of a trade", and the fruits of that cultivation — but not to ownership or control of the lands and lives of others. The former is considered illegitimate property, the latter legitimate property.

However, Proudhon warned that a society with private 'property' without equality would lead to statist-like relations between people.
[I]"The purchaser draws boundaries, fences himself in, and says, 'This is mine; each one by himself, each one for himself.' Here, then, is a piece of land upon which, henceforth, no one has right to step, save the proprietor and his friends; which can benefit nobody, save the proprietor and his servants. Let these multiply, and soon the people . . . will have nowhere to rest, no place of shelter, no ground to till. They will die of hunger at the proprietor's door, on the edge of that property which was their birth-right; and the proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, 'So perish idlers and vagrants.'"[26] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29#cite_note-25)
Unlike capitalist private-property supporters, Proudhon stressed equality. He thought all workers should own property and have access to capital. He stressed that in every cooperative "every worker employed in the association [must have] an undivided share in the property of the company"[27] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29#cite_note-26).

And this is why I always stress out the importance of equality of opportunity in a free market.


If the boss has no propety rights over it, they don't need to buyout or anything, the workers just take it.

He's still as likely to want to defend his property until he dies. He was in a position of privilege, he won't let it go so easily. I prefer alternatives where there is no risk of a high cost of human lives.


If the outcome is exactly the same, and if it acts the sameway, I frankly could'nt give a rats ass what your definition is, if it works the same way and the outcome is the same, in my mind its the same.

But the outcome isn't the same, and it does not act the same way.

[Skooma Addict]

When the "sacredness" of property is talked of, it should be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property.
The earth is given as a common stock for men to labor and live on.
Jefferson and Locke (two liberals more progressive than modern right-wing capitalists).

So you believe in some form of property then. If I cannot come and burn down your house, then you must believe in some type of property rights. True, it doesn't have to be private property, but it is still property nonetheless.

The earth is not given as a common stock for men to labor and live on. That almost sounds like you think some God gave us the earth for a purpose. So what form of property do you believe is legitimate? If everybody owns everything, then I will object and say that is extremely unfair and arbitrary.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So you believe in some form of property then. If I cannot come and burn down your house, then you must believe in some type of property rights. True, it doesn't have to be private property, but it is still property nonetheless.


I think that there is a lot of stupid semantics over private property and that those who claim to oppose private property most often actually support some limited or particular form of it but they call it by some other name such as "personal property" or "possessions". I think that in particular situations there can be some kind of private commons or private property that has a policy that effectively makes it "public" in a meaningful sense (see Roderick Long for an exposition on this concept).Yes, I don't think most Marxists and radicals are against "personal" property, just the control over the means of production and private property for profit - not use. As Marx says facetiously in the Communist Manifesto: people worry that communists want to take away their homes and private property when capitalism, for the majority of workers, does a fine job of stripping homes and possessions from workers as it is.


However, Proudhon warned that a society with private 'property' without equality would lead to statist-like relations between people.
"The purchaser draws boundaries, fences himself in, and says, 'This is mine; each one by himself, each one for himself.' Here, then, is a piece of land upon which, henceforth, no one has right to step, save the proprietor and his friends; which can benefit nobody, save the proprietor and his servants. Let these multiply, and soon the people . . . will have nowhere to rest, no place of shelter, no ground to till. They will die of hunger at the proprietor's door, on the edge of that property which was their birth-right; and the proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, 'So perish idlers and vagrants.'"[26] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29#cite_note-25)
Unlike capitalist private-property supporters, Proudhon stressed equality. He thought all workers should own property and have access to capital. He stressed that in every cooperative "every worker employed in the association [must have] an undivided share in the property of the company"[27] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29#cite_note-26).

And this is why I always stress out the importance of equality of opportunity in a free market. Well this is where you get into idealism in my opinion. Private property didn't create capitalism as we know it, capitalism created private property as we know it. One of the first steps when the bourgeois were establishing their rule was to enclose the common lands - it would not have been possible for capitalism to establish hegemony and grow if feudal property relations remained intact.

Further, even among property-owning capitalists there are differences in their power and influence. The pressures of capitalism (to compete and grow or stagnate and die) mean that when firms in the same industry acquire parody in labor costs or technology, the only way to continue to grow is to find new markets or to create new markets by taking them for competitors or destroying (buying up) competing firms. So even if all companies had profit-shearing schemes with it's workers or some kind of co-operative democratic decision-making structure, if capitalism remains, so do the problems and contradictions of the system. During economic crisis, workers would have to lay-off their co-workers (how would that vote work?) and this would not necessarily be for the benefit of all people, but only for the benefits of profitability of one firm of workers.

Again, this is an example of idealism because it's like you want to cut the branches off of an oak tree (certain features of modern capitalism) in hopes it will grow back as a redwood tree. The modern state, contemporary property laws and so on are the result of the historical development of capitalim... the needs of capitalism were different in the 1830 than they were by the time of major industrialization and so the nature of the state changed to one that created the conditions needed by industrial capitalism (state-grants for rail roads and bridges and police forces to keep the industrial slums in line).

The irony is that in order to somehow compel the capitalists to give all workers a share of profits and decision making, you would basically need a violent revolution that would give the capitalist ruling class no choice but to reform. If companies are willing to loose short-term profits and have bad PR and possibly use the courts and cops against workers striking for an extra bathroom break then how do you think they'd respond to demands for a wholesale change in the way their businesses are run?

Ok, so say you have a mass movement and that pressure is created and through general strikes and protests and so on, business relents and you get your way. Why keep a wounded monster alive? Why keep a system intact that serves only profits and not the needs and wants of the very people whose labor create productivity? Why keep a system that's logic means it's better to pay people not to grow food because that will keep the price up? Why keep a system that causes crisis of overproduction and drives businesses to create state military forces in order to protect trade routs and markets and go to war to create new markets?

Market-anarchism or market-socialism is about as viable as social-democratic means for reforming the state in hopes that the nature of the system can be side-stepped. The capitalist state and the capitalist market are intertwined and you can't get rid of one without also getting rid of the other.

[RGacky3]

He's still as likely to want to defend his property until he dies. He was in a position of privilege, he won't let it go so easily. I prefer alternatives where there is no risk of a high cost of human lives.

Thats like saying a king will defend his kingship till he dies, if no one else recognises his kingship its meaningless. The same with Capitalists, he can moan and groan all he wants, he's not going to single handedly take over a factory or whatever, chances are he'll shut up.


But the outcome isn't the same, and it does not act the same way.

You know what the difference is? A government is somewhate accountable to the people, a private security force is not. The outcome is worse, because it is essencially a capitalist dictatorship, where tax will be replaced with rent (only the people have no say in it whatsoever), and laws are replaced by private rules enforced by the security (again with no public input whatsoever).


I think that there is a lot of stupid semantics over private property and that those who claim to oppose private property most often actually support some limited or particular form of it but they call it by some other name such as "personal property" or "possessions". I think that in particular situations there can be some kind of private commons or private property that has a policy that effectively makes it "public" in a meaningful sense (see Roderick Long for an exposition on this concept).

No ... We don't believe in any property rights. WHen was the last time someone tried to steal your underwear, or your toothbrush? You don't need property rights for those things, especially when everyone has access to their own. I don't believe in ANY property rights.


However, Proudhon warned that a society with private 'property' without equality would lead to statist-like relations between people.

"The purchaser draws boundaries, fences himself in, and says, 'This is mine; each one by himself, each one for himself.' Here, then, is a piece of land upon which, henceforth, no one has right to step, save the proprietor and his friends; which can benefit nobody, save the proprietor and his servants. Let these multiply, and soon the people . . . will have nowhere to rest, no place of shelter, no ground to till. They will die of hunger at the proprietor's door, on the edge of that property which was their birth-right; and the proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, 'So perish idlers and vagrants.'"[26] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29#cite_note-25)
Unlike capitalist private-property supporters, Proudhon stressed equality. He thought all workers should own property and have access to capital. He stressed that in every cooperative "every worker employed in the association [must have] an undivided share in the property of the company"[27] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29#cite_note-26).

And this is why I always stress out the importance of equality of opportunity in a free market.

I don't know where your getting PRoudhons support for private property or the "free" free market from there ...

If property is regulated to be equal, then its no the free market is it.

I don't think you even know what your ideology is.

[Havet]

Well this is where you get into idealism in my opinion. Private property didn't create capitalism as we know it, capitalism created private property as we know it. One of the first steps when the bourgeois were establishing their rule was to enclose the common lands - it would not have been possible for capitalism to establish hegemony and grow if feudal property relations remained intact.

Makes sense. If they did not restrict people's possessions and property in the first place, then they would have no power.


Further, even among property-owning capitalists there are differences in their power and influence. The pressures of capitalism (to compete and grow or stagnate and die) mean that when firms in the same industry acquire parody in labor costs or technology, the only way to continue to grow is to find new markets or to create new markets by taking them for competitors or destroying (buying up) competing firms. So even if all companies had profit-shearing schemes with it's workers or some kind of co-operative democratic decision-making structure, if capitalism remains, so do the problems and contradictions of the system. During economic crisis, workers would have to lay-off their co-workers (how would that vote work?) and this would not necessarily be for the benefit of all people, but only for the benefits of profitability of one firm of workers.

I think you are conflating capitalism with free-market. You can have a democratic free-market with competition but not necessarily based on profit. What would differ the most from that free-market and today's capitalism is that there would be equality of opportunity. It follows that if they had access to land and opportunity to capitalize the product of their labor they would either employ themselves, or, if employed by others, their wages, or remuneration, would rise to the full product of their toil, since no one would work for another for less than he could obtain by working for himself.

Equality simply means the freedom of every individual to develop all his being, without hindrance from another, be he stronger or weaker.


Again, this is an example of idealism because it's like you want to cut the branches off of an oak tree (certain features of modern capitalism) in hopes it will grow back as a redwood tree. The modern state, contemporary property laws and so on are the result of the historical development of capitalim... the needs of capitalism were different in the 1830 than they were by the time of major industrialization and so the nature of the state changed to one that created the conditions needed by industrial capitalism (state-grants for rail roads and bridges and police forces to keep the industrial slums in line).

Your analogy would be correct if i were advocating reformism, as most right-libertarians do, but I do not. There can't be no way to reform the system, the privileges and powers are too well entrenched, and its keepers won't let go of them easily.


The irony is that in order to somehow compel the capitalists to give all workers a share of profits and decision making, you would basically need a violent revolution that would give the capitalist ruling class no choice but to reform. If companies are willing to loose short-term profits and have bad PR and possibly use the courts and cops against workers striking for an extra bathroom break then how do you think they'd respond to demands for a wholesale change in the way their businesses are run?

Well, i've always supported a revolution. The only difference is that I am in favor of practicing counter-economics as a way to weaken the ruling class before the revolution is enacted, in order to save resources and human lives.


Ok, so say you have a mass movement and that pressure is created and through general strikes and protests and so on, business relents and you get your way. Why keep a wounded monster alive? Why keep a system intact that serves only profits and not the needs and wants of the very people whose labor create productivity? Why keep a system that's logic means it's better to pay people not to grow food because that will keep the price up? Why keep a system that causes crisis of overproduction and drives businesses to create state military forces in order to protect trade routs and markets and go to war to create new markets?

Again, this is why I favor a revolution. I don't wish to reform the system. It cannot be done.


Market-anarchism or market-socialism is about as viable as social-democratic means for reforming the state in hopes that the nature of the system can be side-stepped. The capitalist state and the capitalist market are intertwined and you can't get rid of one without also getting rid of the other.

Of course the capitalist state is intertwined with the capitalist market. We want neither. We want a free-market (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765) where people are free to develop themselves without any restrictions and without any exploitation.

[Havet]

Thats like saying a king will defend his kingship till he dies, if no one else recognises his kingship its meaningless. The same with Capitalists, he can moan and groan all he wants, he's not going to single handedly take over a factory or whatever, chances are he'll shut up.

Ok that makes sense


You know what the difference is? A government is somewhate accountable to the people, a private security force is not. The outcome is worse, because it is essencially a capitalist dictatorship, where tax will be replaced with rent (only the people have no say in it whatsoever), and laws are replaced by private rules enforced by the security (again with no public input whatsoever).

A right-libertarian would say that its the private security force that is accountable to the people, not the government, because if it does not supply the existing demand it will go out of business.

I, though, support neither in the current system of affairs, because both (government and private businesses) account to each other while the people just remain enslaved.


No ... We don't believe in any property rights. WHen was the last time someone tried to steal your underwear, or your toothbrush? You don't need property rights for those things, especially when everyone has access to their own. I don't believe in ANY property rights.

But you do believe in "possession" rights, no?

For example, a TV is a possession, and people often try to steal each other's tv, so thats an example of possession theft.

Likewise, if you have any other form of personal property, like some very special or rare underwear, with gold or diamonds, people will want that and might even steal for it.


I don't know where your getting PRoudhons support for private property or the "free" free market from there ...

Well that's because you forgot to quote the other part:

"Property is theft "when it is related to a landowner or capitalist whose ownership is derived from conquest or exploitation and [is] only maintained through the state, property laws, police, and an army". Property is freedom for "the peasant or artisan family [who have] a natural right to a home, land [they may] cultivate, [...] to tools of a trade", and the fruits of that cultivation — but not to ownership or control of the lands and lives of others. The former is considered illegitimate property, the latter legitimate property."

He's not really support private property as granted by the State or by those who conquer and exploit, but property as in the product of one's labor (possession?)


If property is regulated to be equal, then its no the free market is it.

He didn't say that, did he?

Equality simply means the freedom of every individual to develop all his being, without hindrance from another, be he stronger or weaker.

When he says "all workers should own property and have access to capital" he is introducing one of his most important ideas: Mutualist banks

If mutual banks of the Proudhonian variety were allowed to issue private banknotes with the output of future production used as collateral, then the capacity for self-employment would be readily available for anyone with marketable skills.

Some modern forms of mutual credit are LETS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LETS) and the Ripple monetary system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_monetary_system) project.

[RGacky3]

A right-libertarian would say that its the private security force that is accountable to the people, not the government, because if it does not supply the existing demand it will go out of business.

Not the people, whoever pays them, if a company pays them to defend his "property," then it essencailyl because the private army of that person paying them. Then what you have is again ... I dictatorship.

Private property with a private army is no different from a dictatorial government in everything but name, and justifying ideology.


But you do believe in "possession" rights, no?

For example, a TV is a possession, and people often try to steal each other's tv, so thats an example of possession theft.

Likewise, if you have any other form of personal property, like some very special or rare underwear, with gold or diamonds, people will want that and might even steal for it.


People steal TVs not because they don't have a TV but because they want to sell the TV in the free market, the reason that is possible is because of property rights, people who steal TVs don't steal it and then just use it to watch TV.

As far as gold and diamonds, their value is either sentimental, or because of the market, the latter would be done away with along with Capitalism, as for the former, the only people that purposely steal things with sentimental value do it for personal reasons, which has nothing to do with socio-economics.

YOu don't NEED property rights when you take away all aspects of Capitalism.


Well that's because you forgot to quote the other part:

"Property is theft "when it is related to a landowner or capitalist whose ownership is derived from conquest or exploitation and [is] only maintained through the state, property laws, police, and an army". Property is freedom for "the peasant or artisan family [who have] a natural right to a home, land [they may] cultivate, [...] to tools of a trade", and the fruits of that cultivation — but not to ownership or control of the lands and lives of others. The former is considered illegitimate property, the latter legitimate property."

He's not really support private property as granted by the State or by those who conquer and exploit, but property as in the product of one's labor (possession?)

Why do you need righst over the product of ones labor? In a communistic society your not working for a profit, your working for a specific purpose, to better your surroundings, provide for yourself or your family, or take part in a project that will benefit the community, and thus you. Why do you need so called "property rights" for any of that?

[Havet]

Not the people, whoever pays them, if a company pays them to defend his "property," then it essencailyl because the private army of that person paying them. Then what you have is again ... I dictatorship.

Private property with a private army is no different from a dictatorial government in everything but name, and justifying ideology.

I don't really understand what you're talking about, but I agree that we currently have dictatorship over the workplace.


People steal TVs not because they don't have a TV but because they want to sell the TV in the free market, the reason that is possible is because of property rights, people who steal TVs don't steal it and then just use it to watch TV.

Hey i'm aware that most of them sell it, but most of them also keep at least one of the ones they steal, so I guess it serves both purposes for them.


As far as gold and diamonds, their value is either sentimental, or because of the market, the latter would be done away with along with Capitalism, as for the former, the only people that purposely steal things with sentimental value do it for personal reasons, which has nothing to do with socio-economics.

But they still steal them anyway. That was my point.


YOu don't NEED property rights when you take away all aspects of Capitalism.

Why do you need righst over the product of ones labor? In a communistic society your not working for a profit, your working for a specific purpose, to better your surroundings, provide for yourself or your family, or take part in a project that will benefit the community, and thus you. Why do you need so called "property rights" for any of that?

You need property rights to prevent other people from destroying the specific purpose you were working on, destroy the betterments you brought to your surroundings, steal your provisions for yourself and your family and/or destroy projects that benefit the community.

Like i've said before, individual property rights are no more justified than collective property rights. It doesn't matter if there's profit or not, it matters that anyone, whether individually or collectively, cannot survive if their products of their labor are not secured by force, which can be done by worker's militia, for eg.

[RGacky3]

Originally Posted by RGacky3 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1611499#post1611499)
Not the people, whoever pays them, if a company pays them to defend his "property," then it essencailyl because the private army of that person paying them. Then what you have is again ... I dictatorship.

Private property with a private army is no different from a dictatorial government in everything but name, and justifying ideology. I don't really understand what you're talking about, but I agree that we currently have dictatorship over the workplace.

WHat I am saying is if a capitalist (In your free market utopia) has property, houses, buisinesses and so on, and he has a private security force to protect his property, HE is a dictator, Its the exact same thing as the state, since its "his property" he can dictate the rules, he can dictate anything, and enforce it with his private security force. Its the same thing as the state, only worse.

The private security force is not accountable to the people as you claim, he's accountable to whoever pays him, and who's gonna higher private security? Capitalists.

This is YOUR system I'm talking about.


Hey i'm aware that most of them sell it, but most of them also keep at least one of the ones they steal, so I guess it serves both purposes for them.


Your missing my point completly.


But they still steal them anyway. That was my point.

Yeah so? That stuff is gonna happen with or without property rights, things with sentimental value don't need property rights, most people understand those things are important and you want them around, that has nothing to do with property rights.

The fact is almost 100% of theft if not all of theft, is purely market based.


You need property rights to prevent other people from destroying the specific purpose you were working on, destroy the betterments you brought to your surroundings, steal your provisions for yourself and your family and/or destroy projects that benefit the community.

Like i've said before, individual property rights are no more justified than collective property rights. It doesn't matter if there's profit or not, it matters that anyone, whether individually or collectively, cannot survive if their products of their labor are not secured by force, which can be done by worker's militia, for eg.

You don't need property rights to stop some maniac from destroying projects or betterments of society, you just stop the guy. If property rights are invalid, that includes individual and collective, you don't need "property rights" to stop people from destroying your community.

[Havet]

WHat I am saying is if a capitalist (In your free market utopia) has property, houses, buisinesses and so on, and he has a private security force to protect his property, HE is a dictator, Its the exact same thing as the state, since its "his property" he can dictate the rules, he can dictate anything, and enforce it with his private security force. Its the same thing as the state, only worse.

The private security force is not accountable to the people as you claim, he's accountable to whoever pays him, and who's gonna higher private security? Capitalists.

Yeah that makes sense. But that is not likely to happen in "my" system,


Yeah so? That stuff is gonna happen with or without property rights, things with sentimental value don't need property rights, most people understand those things are important and you want them around, that has nothing to do with property rights.

The fact is almost 100% of theft if not all of theft, is purely market based.

Almost 100% of theft is based on greed and profit, and the reason why profits are insanely high for theft/exploitation-based actions is because of the current economic system we have wherein there is no equality of opportunity.

As an individualist once put it: "The differences in natural ability are not, in freedom, great enough to injure any one or disturb the social equilibrium. No one man can produce more than three others; and even granting that much you can see that it would never create the chasm which lies between Vanderbilt and the switchman on his tracks."


You don't need property rights to stop some maniac from destroying projects or betterments of society, you just stop the guy. If property rights are invalid, that includes individual and collective, you don't need "property rights" to stop people from destroying your community.

If I don't need property rights to stop people from destroying my community (even though property rights would only serve as a way to solve disputes before using force) then I don't see why you need to worry about my community if you are free to make another one without any property rights, so long as both do not enforce each other's ideologies on the other.

[Skooma Addict]

Yes, I don't think most Marxists and radicals are against "personal" property, just the control over the means of production and private property for profit - not use. As Marx says facetiously in the Communist Manifesto: people worry that communists want to take away their homes and private property when capitalism, for the majority of workers, does a fine job of stripping homes and possessions from workers as it is.

Right. Marxists do believe in property rights, just not private property. Since all forms of property are social constructs, the goal is to determine what forms of property are fair, and what forms of property will lead to a flourishing society. In my opinion, anything besides private property is grossly unfair if it is going to be forced upon the population by a government. If I homestead and build a house on a piece of land that nobody else has used before, then I would say that I have a higher claim to this piece of land than some baby in Pakistan. This, combined with the fact that private property is economically superior to public property in a world of scarcity makes private property preferable.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Right. Marxists do believe in property rights, just not private property. Since all forms of property are social constructs, the goal is to determine what forms of property are fair, and what forms of property will lead to a flourishing society. In my opinion, anything besides private property is grossly unfair if it is going to be forced upon the population by a government. If I homestead and build a house on a piece of land that nobody else has used before, then I would say that I have a higher claim to this piece of land than some baby in Pakistan.

If someone finds land and builds a house

Well except in capitalist society, labor is generally done collectively. So who has more of an inherent claim on a tract house, the people who put up the money, the people who designed it, the people whose labor built it, the people who working in the power company that allows the home to run and be built, the people who built the sewer lines, the people who painted the house, or the people who live there and have made it their home?

Since modern labor can only be done collectively, then the results of that labor, in a Marxist view should be used collectively and decisions about it made collectively (in my view, this means democratically). This doesn't mean that people should not have a right to privacy and their personal possessions and space... I think if workers could decide this, they would want everyone to have their own protected personal home whenever possible. Of course there may have to be compromises immediately after the revolution and some people may have to share homes or remain in their crappy apartments until people can reorganize production to meet peoples needs, but capitalism does this already (I've lived in many places where I had to share a room as well as family homes that have been converted into apartments with too many people living in the same place) and has no intention or plan to fix this problem. Also developers and investors right now get to decide who lives where and what kinds of homes can be built right now - I think communities could do a much better job of this than a bank loan officer deciding what kind of homes would produce the biggest profit for the investment. Hell, the fucking Amish do this and they don't even have buttons - I think if workers put our minds together we could easily house everyone and ensure that all of our basic needs are met and then the rest would be deciding how to prioritize our wants.


This, combined with the fact that private property is economically superior to public property in a world of scarcity makes private property preferable.What scarcity? There are McMansions that were thrown up during the housing boom in the US that now sit empty only because if the price was lowered, no profit could be made. So in capitalism, too many homes can cause foreclosures and homelessness! It's insanity.

Essentially the difference between production as it is under capitalism and how production could be done democratically and based on use is summed up nicely in the slogan: human needs, not corporate greed.

[Skooma Addict]

If someone finds land and builds a house

Well except in capitalist society, labor is generally done collectively. So who has more of an inherent claim on a tract house, the people who put up the money, the people who designed it, the people whose labor built it, the people who working in the power company that allows the home to run and be built, the people who built the sewer lines, the people who painted the house, or the people who live there and have made it their home?

But that wasn't my example. You can't just change my example. In your case, the owner of the house would depend on the agreements between the parties you mentioned.

But my example was supposed to show that homesteading land gives a person a better claim to that piece of land than some bystander.


Since modern labor can only be done collectively, then the results of that labor, in a Marxist view should be used collectively and decisions about it made collectively (in my view, this means democratically). This doesn't mean that people should not have a right to privacy and their personal possessions and space... I think if workers could decide this, they would want everyone to have their own protected personal home whenever possible. Of course there may have to be compromises immediately after the revolution and some people may have to share homes or remain in their crappy apartments until people can reorganize production to meet peoples needs, but capitalism does this already (I've lived in many places where I had to share a room as well as family homes that have been converted into apartments with too many people living in the same place) and has no intention or plan to fix this problem. Also developers and investors right now get to decide who lives where and what kinds of homes can be built right now - I think communities could do a much better job of this than a bank loan officer deciding what kind of homes would produce the biggest profit for the investment. Hell, the fucking Amish do this and they don't even have buttons - I think if workers put our minds together we could easily house everyone and ensure that all of our basic needs are met and then the rest would be deciding how to prioritize our wants.


If I pay some people to build a house, and the contract we signed says that I will retain ownership over the house, then I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to exclusively own the house.

In my opinion, from the fact that labor must be collective (this isn't true in all cases), that alone does not mean workers should collectively own the product of their labor.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think you are conflating capitalism with free-market. You can have a democratic free-market with competition but not necessarily based on profit. What would differ the most from that free-market and today's capitalism is that there would be equality of opportunity. It follows that if they had access to land and opportunity to capitalize the product of their labor they would either employ themselves, or, if employed by others, their wages, or remuneration, would rise to the full product of their toil, since no one would work for another for less than he could obtain by working for himself.Fair enough I suppose I am conflating these things. Capitalism is obviously very flexible and can take the form of everything from state-capitalism to neo-liberalism, but I don't see how capitalism and the profit motive can be separated.


Your analogy would be correct if i were advocating reformism, as most right-libertarians do, but I do not. There can't be no way to reform the system, the privileges and powers are too well entrenched, and its keepers won't let go of them easily.Fair enough I wasn't sure how you were suggesting that society could be changed.

So without the capitalist ruling class, what class rules your proposed society? It sounds like you want a society run by the petite-bourgeoisie maybe? Like left-anarchists I think where we part ways in our view of the state is the idea that the state is a system set up by the ruling class of society and in capitalism, any form of capitalism needs some kind of state to (in the best examples) set business standards, prevent random tariffs, prevent counterfeiting of currency, protect trade routes, develop courts to set rules regarding property rights and so on. In your proposed society some kind of organizational body "a state" would be needed to ensure everyone had the same opportunity: free continuing education, ensuring access to land and a home, and so on. So who would decide these things and in what class interests?

As a marxist, I believe that a stateless society can only exist if there are no classes as well; therefore there would need to be a time when workers organize themselves as a "state" to ensure the needs of the workers are met and decided on democratically and then as society is shifted away from production for profit then the "state" build to do this becomes less necessary and can be jettesoned like all the other unnecessary things like telemarketing and advertising jobs, debt collection agencies and so on.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But that wasn't my example.You're right - my first sentence go cut off for some reason. In your example, I have no problem with someone who built a house by themselves on empty land they found, they do have the perfect right to claim it as their own and shouldn't be kicked off. Ironically capitalism does this all the freeking time - small farmers go into debt due to drought or the dust bowl or a fall in market prices and so a family that's lived in a home build by homesteaders is eventually taken over by the bank.


You can't just change my example. In your case, the owner of the house would depend on the agreements between the parties you mentioned. Yes but I was explaining that your example is not the norm...

Well except in capitalist society...and so I was taking your hypothetical and changing it to the much more common reality


But my example was supposed to show that homesteading land gives a person a better claim to that piece of land than some bystander.Yes, I agree. Labor put into the creation of something should mean that the laborer gets to decide what happens to the product of their labor. I didn't know you were a Marxist.

[Havet]

Fair enough I suppose I am conflating these things. Capitalism is obviously very flexible and can take the form of everything from state-capitalism to neo-liberalism, but I don't see how capitalism and the profit motive can be separated.

You're right, it can't be separated from profit motive. But profit is not a distinctive aspect of capitalism - exploitation of labor is.

You can have societies free to pursue profit so long as that profit is made with the consent of everyone, unlike now. Such societies would have equality of opportunity for everyone to access capital and resources to self-employ themselves, so the profit employers would be able to make would be drastically reduced, and the dominant forms of economic organization would be co-operatives.


So without the capitalist ruling class, what class rules your proposed society? It sounds like you want a society run by the petite-bourgeoisie maybe? Like left-anarchists I think where we part ways in our view of the state is the idea that the state is a system set up by the ruling class of society and in capitalism, any form of capitalism needs some kind of state to (in the best examples) set business standards, prevent random tariffs, prevent counterfeiting of currency, protect trade routes, develop courts to set rules regarding property rights and so on. In your proposed society some kind of organizational body "a state" would be needed to ensure everyone had the same opportunity: free continuing education, ensuring access to land and a home, and so on. So who would decide these things and in what class interests?

All of those things you mentioned do not require a State for them to naturally appear in an environment of free-enterprise and equality of opportunity. There are mechanisms that regulate this which come from the bottom up (consumer demand, worker strength (remmember, with equality of opportunity they would have a far greater say in how things are run), common law systems, worker's militias to enforce commonly agreed upon rules, etc).

/Mutualists/Individualist anarchists usually don't support a State redistributing resources after a revolution. To quote my other thread:


COM.: "But your object is identical with that of Communism! Why all this to convince me that the means of production must be taken from the hands of the few and given to all? Communists believe that; it is precisely what we are fighting for."

INDV.: "You misunderstand me if you think we wish to take from or give to any one. We have no scheme for regulating distribution. We substitute nothing, make no plans. We trust to the unfailing balance of supply and demand. We say that with equal opportunity to produce, the division of product will necessarily approach equitable distribution, but we have no method of 'enacting' such equalization."

"The differences in natural ability are not, in freedom, great enough to injure any one or disturb the social equilibrium. No one man can produce more than three others; and even granting that much you can see that it would never create the chasm which lies between Vanderbilt and the switchman on his tracks."


As a marxist, I believe that a stateless society can only exist if there are no classes as well; therefore there would need to be a time when workers organize themselves as a "state" to ensure the needs of the workers are met and decided on democratically and then as society is shifted away from production for profit then the "state" build to do this becomes less necessary and can be jettesoned like all the other unnecessary things like telemarketing and advertising jobs, debt collection agencies and so on.

I prefer decentralized systems of taking care of the workers rather than a centralized one, which necessarily concentrates power and will eventually lead to corruption.

[Skooma Addict]

You're right - my first sentence go cut off for some reason. In your example, I have no problem with someone who built a house by themselves on empty land they found, they do have the perfect right to claim it as their own and shouldn't be kicked off. Ironically capitalism does this all the freeking time - small farmers go into debt due to drought or the dust bowl or a fall in market prices and so a family that's lived in a home build by homesteaders is eventually taken over by the bank.


So you do support private property then?


Yes but I was explaining that your example is not the norm...

...and so I was taking your hypothetical and changing it to the much more common reality

People don't need to homestead land these days. But people can buy houses from others who themselves legitimately acquired the home themselves.


Yes, I agree. Labor put into the creation of something should mean that the laborer gets to decide what happens to the product of their labor. I didn't know you were a Marxist.


If I own a house, and I hire a laborer to build a new cabinet, I am the one who should be allowed to decide what is done with the cabinet. I am not a Marxist.

[Havet]

But people can buy houses from others who themselves legitimately acquired the home themselves.

You probably know this, but let me state it anyway. There is no objective criteria for ownership. There are no "natural rights" or "objective truth" regarding property. it all boils down to the community you're inserted in.

So when you say legitimately you should add: legitimately according to the community.

[Jimmie Higgins]

All of those things you mentioned do not require a State for them to naturally appear in an environment of free-enterprise and equality of opportunity.The things I mentioned are the very limbs of the state. A court without the backing of the state and without and armed force backing that state and the agreements of the court is about as valid as spitting in your hand and shaking.

After the American Revolution there was the articles of confederation. When the new governmnet sent judges out to remote areas, people just rebelled and tarred the judge if they disagreed with his ruling or felt it favored the large landowners over the small landowners (these are the same farmers who supported the Revolution in the first place because they felt that English judges always sided with the landlords and the rich landowners). So they told Washington to grab his wooden teeth and create a competent national force (as opposed to the state militias which were inadequate to control the rebellions) to force people to accept the legitimacy of the new governmnets and the new judges.

This is the basis of "law" - men with guns who get to write the rules. So this goes for trade agreements among firms (corporate law) as well as agreements between competing capitalist nations.


I prefer decentralized systems of taking care of the workers rather than a centralized one, which necessarily concentrates power and will eventually lead to corruption.Your anarchism is showing:). Concentrations of power are threatening depending on who has the power. I don't think that the ruling class in feudalism was worried about the king having too much power (the power of someone appointed by God no less!) because his power was there to ensure the continuation of the feudal system. The ruling class of the USSR didn't care about the State having too much power because they were the beneficiaries of it. Lincoln concentrated more power than the decentralized power of the slave-owning ruling class in the south... but in my view the radical capitalism of Lincoln was favorable to the slavocracy.

So the question of power depends on who wields that power and in whose interests. If the working class is able to set up their own organizations for the running of society and they are thereby able to get rid of inequality and class divisions and so on then that is a good concentration of power. If a dictator consolidates power in the name of the working class but serves the interests of a different clique or class, then obviously a concentration of power is not desirable.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So you do support private property then?Not the private ownership of the means of production, but I support the right to personal property.


People don't need to homestead land these days. But people can buy houses from others who themselves legitimately acquired the home themselves.Just as people could once legitimately acquire labor by purchasing slaves. It's the set-up of society that makes this work, not anything inherent.

Again, my point was that in modern society virtually everything that is man-made is the product of collaborative labor. However the benefits of collective labor are privatized. If you were on a island with 20 people, there would be no way for 1 of these people to get the other 19 to build a house and then tell them that all 19 of them have to live in the basement while the 1 person gets the rest of the house... space needed to plan more building projects or to plan the decoration of the rest of the house. No, if everything was equal, then the 1 persona would have to share just like everyone else and they would probably have an interest in building 1 house with 20 rooms or 20 small houses.

[Skooma Addict]

Not the private ownership of the means of production, but I support the right to personal property.

But in some cases, you do support private property. So you do not think there is anything wrong with private property per se. Only when it is applied to certain objects.


Just as people could once legitimately acquire labor by purchasing slaves. It's the set-up of society that makes this work, not anything inherent.

I meant legitimate according to you. You believe that people should be allowed to own the land they homestead. So it follows that they could legitimately transfer this ownership to another person. That is what I meant.


Again, my point was that in modern society virtually everything that is man-made is the product of collaborative labor. However the benefits of collective labor are privatized. If you were on a island with 20 people, there would be no way for 1 of these people to get the other 19 to build a house and then tell them that all 19 of them have to live in the basement while the 1 person gets the rest of the house... space needed to plan more building projects or to plan the decoration of the rest of the house. No, if everything was equal, then the 1 persona would have to share just like everyone else and they would probably have an interest in building 1 house with 20 rooms or 20 small houses.

Yes, on an island with 20 people, something like that would never happen.

[Havet]

The things I mentioned are the very limbs of the state. A court without the backing of the state and without and armed force backing that state and the agreements of the court is about as valid as spitting in your hand and shaking.

After the American Revolution there was the articles of confederation. When the new governmnet sent judges out to remote areas, people just rebelled and tarred the judge if they disagreed with his ruling or felt it favored the large landowners over the small landowners (these are the same farmers who supported the Revolution in the first place because they felt that English judges always sided with the landlords and the rich landowners). So they told Washington to grab his wooden teeth and create a competent national force (as opposed to the state militias which were inadequate to control the rebellions) to force people to accept the legitimacy of the new governmnets and the new judges.

And there were many areas after the revolution who had their own custom law and "private law agencies" (which were more democratic than what you'd expect) which took care of the law of its citizens. Here are some examples:

"In the absence of a formal structure for the definition and enforcement of individual rights, many of the groups of associates who came seeking their fortunes organized and made their rules for operation before they left their homes. Much the same as company charters today, these voluntary contracts entered into by the miners specified financing for the operation as well as the nature of the relationship between individuals. These rules applied only to the miners in the company and did not recognize any outside arbitrator of disputes; they did not "recognize any higher court than the law of the majority of the company."

on company's relation to their employees:

"In addition to the rules listed above, company constitutions often specified arrangements for payments to be used for caring for the sick and unfortunate, rules for personal conduct including the use of alcoholic spirits, and fines which could be imposed for misconduct, to
mention a few.'In the truest nature of the social contract, the governing rules of the company were negotiated, and as in all market transactions unanimity prevailed. Those who wished to purchase other "bundles of goods" or other sets of rules had that alternative."

on how land disputes were settled:

"A mass meeting of miners was held June 8, 1859, and a committee appointed to draft a code of laws. This committee laid out boundaries for the district, and their civil code, after some discussion and amendment, was unanimously adopted in mass meeting, July 16. 1859. The
example was rapidly followed in other districts, and the whole Territory was soon divided between a score of local sovereignties.'"

resolving of disputes:

"While the mining camps did not have private courts where individuals could take their disputes and pay for arbitration, they did develop a system of justice through the miners' courts. These courts seldom had permanent officers, although there were instances ofjustices of the peace. The folk-moot system was common in California. By this method a group of citizens was summoned to try a case. From their midst they would elect a presiding
officer or judge and select six or twelve persons to serve as the jury. Most often their rulings were not disputed, but there was recourse when disputes arose. For example, in one case involving two partners, after a ruling by the miners' court, the losing partner called a mass meeting of the camp to plead his case and the decision was reversed.44 And if alarger group of miners was dissatisfied with the general rulings regarding camp boundaries or individual
claim disputes, notices were posted in several places calling meeting of those wishing a division of the territory. "If a majority favored such action, the district was set apart and named. The old district was not consulted on the subject, but received a verbal notice of the new organization. Local conditions, making different regulations regarding claims desirable, were the chief causes of such separations."4~ "The work of mining, and its environment and
conditions, were so different in different places, that the laws and customs of the miners had to vary even in adjoining districts."4"

competition for justice:

"In Colorado there is some evidence of competition among the courts for business, and hence, an added guarantee that justice prevailed.

The civil courts promptly assumed criminal jurisdiction, and the year 1860 opened with four governments in full blast. The miners' courts, people's courts, and "provisional government" (a new name for "Jefferson") divided jurisdiction in the mountains; while Kansas and the
provisional government ran concurrent in Denver and the valley. Such as felt friendly to either jurisdiction patronized it with their business. Appeals were taken from one to the other, papers certified up or down and over, and recognized, criminals delivered and judgments accepted
from one court by another, with a happy informality which it is pleasant to read of. And here we are confronted by an awkward fact: there was undoubtedly much less crime in the two years this arrangement lasted than in the two which followed the territorial organization and regular government"


This is the basis of "law" - men with guns who get to write the rules. So this goes for trade agreements among firms (corporate law) as well as agreements between competing capitalist nations.

Well I just mentioned above how you don't need a State, but rather free association of people in order for them to take care of themselves and resolve disputes according to common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law), for example.

In somalia, for eg, you have statutory, contractual, customary, and natural law. Custom law "emerges spontaneously as people go about their daily business and try to solve the problems that occasionally arise in it without upsetting the patterns of cooperation on which they so heavily depend" (Van Notten, 15: 2005)

One of the big problems with somalia is the fact that there are many people in a privileged position and there are many ancient laws (stoning people to death for instance) who are simply irrational, yet they still apply it (i believe those are called tort laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_law))


Your anarchism is showing:). Concentrations of power are threatening depending on who has the power. I don't think that the ruling class in feudalism was worried about the king having too much power (the power of someone appointed by God no less!) because his power was there to ensure the continuation of the feudal system. The ruling class of the USSR didn't care about the State having too much power because they were the beneficiaries of it. Lincoln concentrated more power than the decentralized power of the slave-owning ruling class in the south... but in my view the radical capitalism of Lincoln was favorable to the slavocracy.

I agree, though I don't know much about Lincoln's story.


So the question of power depends on who wields that power and in whose interests. If the working class is able to set up their own organizations for the running of society and they are thereby able to get rid of inequality and class divisions and so on then that is a good concentration of power. If a dictator consolidates power in the name of the working class but serves the interests of a different clique or class, then obviously a concentration of power is not desirable.

Yeah, I prefer the working class to set up their own decentralized organizations to run society locally rather than have representatives of the working class in a centralized position of power or something else.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Stealing always sets a bad precedent, whether its theft from the poor to the rich or from the rich to the poor.

This is why I said that I don't agree with the theft commited by the State and the corporations as well.

But presumably all the rich are capitalists - and therefore thieves, or are rich due to a capitalist society (that is one where there is a percentage of the population rich enough to waste millions buying fine art etc).

Actually "stealing" from the rich sets a great precedent. Thats what we "communists" want to do (along with a lot of other things). You are deliberately twisting things to make out that people would only define this as "theft", rather than theft from a particular group (I.E. THE FILTHY RICH). Can't you see how unlikely that is? And who cares about "precedent" anyway? Don't you see how plain wet that sounds, whining about "Precedent"? Personally I'm just glad some poor folks are a little better off.

[Patchd]

A fraction of the wealth of the rich have been taken back and distributed and there is a shitstorm, but the daily theft committed against the working class doesn't deserve a mention, I'll repeat what others have said already, it is not socialism, and it isn't what I'd desire, but hell, kudos to the person who did it.

[Havet]

But presumably all the rich are capitalists - and therefore thieves, or are rich due to a capitalist society (that is one where there is a percentage of the population rich enough to waste millions buying fine art etc).

Presumably, but not true. Is a soccer player a capitalist which got its wealth through the exploitation of other people's labor?


Actually "stealing" from the rich sets a great precedent. Thats what we "communists" want to do (along with a lot of other things). You are deliberately twisting things to make out that people would only define this as "theft", rather than theft from a particular group (I.E. THE FILTHY RICH). Can't you see how unlikely that is? And who cares about "precedent" anyway? Don't you see how plain wet that sounds, whining about "Precedent"? Personally I'm just glad some poor folks are a little better off.

If you don't mind this action, then you won't mind telling me your adress so I can come over and steal some of the things you own so as to give to the poor.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Presumably, but not true. Is a soccer player a capitalist which got its wealth through the exploitation of other people's labor?



If you don't mind this action, then you won't mind telling me your address so I can come over and steal some of the things you own so as to give to the poor.

No, but he does possess his wealth due to being in a job that gets a lot of money pumped into it by those that got their wealth though exploitation of other peoples labour. This money is clearly illegitimately taken from those that created it. Do you suppose that football players would have 1/10 of their current value if it were not for the advertising opportunities available in football? (Or perhaps the whole "celebrity culture" thing.)

Of course I will mind. I'm pretty poor. Go take from someone else.

What I have no problem with is giving some of my stuff to poor Africans as long as you give some of the wealthiest's stuff to me.

[Havet]

No, but he does possess his wealth due to being in a job that gets a lot of money pumped into it by those that got their wealth though exploitation of other peoples labour. This money is clearly illegitimately taken from those that created it. Do you suppose that football players would have 1/10 of their current value if it were not for the advertising opportunities available in football? (Or perhaps the whole "celebrity culture" thing.)

By that standard everyone has directly or indirectly been in contact with exploited wealth. Whenever you buy something from a store you are trading wealth (the object you are buying) gotten through exploitation of other people's labor. Would it be illegitimate for you to buy anything from every single store in a capitalist country?


What I have no problem with is giving some of my stuff to poor Africans as long as you give some of the wealthiest's stuff to me.

You are kind of creating alternate scenarios. The case with the german woman is quite simple: You take from someone who is wealthy, regardless of how that wealth appeared, and give it to someone who is poor, precisely because they are poor.

If she'd had any criteria whatsoever for who she took the money from, i'd think highly of her. But I don't, because she was acting under an irrational concept of morality which doesn't even recognize who are the people exploiting (the ruling "class") and who are being exploited (the working "class").