How to respond to this argument?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

It is us workers who have built the worlds scyscrapers, bridges and railways, pretty much anything of value on this earth. And it is we, workers, from the cleaner to the teacher, who keeps society running. And yet we are exploited by a small minority.

The counter-argument:



Just because you do a job doesn't mean you have the right to own it. When I collect debts I cannot put the money in my own wallet. I receive wage for the job, and THEY belong to me.

There are other people who own the money I collect. In the same way it was a person, company/corporation who owned the scyscraper, bridge or railway that you were part of building. You do not own what you built. You own the wage you received by building it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The counter argument is based on (1) freeze-framing history, and (2) imagining that socialism is based on a moral case for changing the rights of property.

(2) Property rights (over the means of production and exchange) are not god-given, nor were they given by nature. They were created in order for a minority to use any wealth they had (see (1)) to buy the labour power of those who had no other means of living.

(1) The latter, had no means of livelihood since they (or their ancestors) were kicked off their land, in the vast majority of cases hundreds of years ago, often by the friends of those with wealth (aka, the state), in order to create these new property rights for their friends. The wealth already possesed by those who accumulated this land was of course also obtained by plunder hundreds of years earlier still (aka Feudalism).

Fast forward a few hundred years and the dispossessed working class is in hock to the rich descendants of those robbers. Workers, in this enforced position, make the things the property owners sell/use to make more money/property (etc).

But, without the workers, nothing would get done, nothing made.

So, the latter once more hold much pontetial power; they can bring the whole show to a grinding halt. And, at certain points in history, the friends of the property owners (aka the state) find they can no longer rule in the same old way, and the workers won't let them. When that happens, a new enforced change in property rights will ensue (aka, a revolution) and those who benefitted from the last enforced change in property rights will find they have their rights removed/cancelled, and property collectivised.

And so, all this is not about property rights as such -- i.e, winning a moral argument. It is about power, and when our side has that power it will use it in a way that the old ruling classes used it, to alter property rights, except in our favour this time -- in favour of the vast majority by the vast majority.

If doing that is 'wrong' then so was the last change in property rights all those years ago. On the other hand, if that was OK, so is this.

And if the 'owners' do not like it -- well they can argue their case in front of the Supreme Soviet (and good luck), if they are still alive, that is.

Although, I have to say, they will be no more successful than if you now tried to argue that you had a right to Bill Gates' dosh....

And, of course, they will get as much chance to plead their case, as landless peasants now get in the 'third world' -- i.e., none at all.

Tough....

[This is, as you will understand, the simplified version -- anything else would be out of place in Learning.]

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"There are other people who own the money I collect" - yes, but that's like saying "there are other people who own the skyscrapers I build". It is a statement of fact, not a statement of right. It sounds like the person who invented this argument has just discovered the fact that private property inevitably implies exploitation. The argument essentially states:

"This so-called 'exploitation' of yours is the natural result of property rights. Property rights are legitimate, therefore exploitation is also legitimate."

You should counter it with:

"Yes, exploitation is the natural result of property rights. But exploitation is unacceptable and illegitimate; and this is one of the reasons why property rights themselves are unacceptable and illegitimate."

Basically, you have to argue that private property is unjustified, that no one rightfully owns anything except their own labour. Physical goods are created from a combination of natural resources and human labour. Private property arises when someone claims control over natural resources - such as land - and is therefore in a position to dictate terms to those who wish to use those natural resources in their work. Private property began when a barbarian with a big stick pointed to a patch of land and proclaimed "this land is mine", after which he proceeded to beat anyone who wanted to work the land without his permission. Using his control over the land, he could demand that any product of the land belongs to him - anyone who wished to work the land had to surrender their entire crop to him, and in exchange he would pay them "wages" to keep them alive and working. In this manner, the barbarian with the big stick accumulated wealth, which his great-great-great-etc.-grandchildren used to purchase the site, machinery and building materials necessary to erect a skyscraper. Based on their ownership of this capital, they were then able to dictate terms to the construction workers and seize the product of their labour much like the old barbarian seized the peasants' crops so long ago.

In other words, private property began with force and abuse; it began with someone unjustly denying other people's access to land. All property is fundamentally based on such acts of theft.

Or, if you need a quote:

"The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one."
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1755

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 05:30 pm
And so, all this is not about property rights as such -- i.e, winning a moral argument. It is about power, and when our side has that power it will use it in a way that the old ruling classes used it, to alter property rights, except in our favour this time -- in favour of the vast majority by the vast majority.
Well, such arguments are rarely persuasive. "We will establish socialism whether you like it or not" is not likely to convince people to help with the revolution, or ever to kindly step out of the way.

Telling people that socialism or communism is inevitable may have two rather nasty consequences: First, it may encourage socialists to do nothing and expect the revolution to fall out of the sky. Second, it may cause non-socialists to say "resistance is futile, eh? We'll see about that!"

Before we can do anything in the interests of the vast majority, we must persuade the vast majority (or at least a significant part of it) to join us. And that requires winning the moral argument.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 28, 2007 03:52 pm


Telling people that socialism or communism is inevitable may have two rather nasty consequences: First, it may encourage socialists to do nothing and expect the revolution to fall out of the sky. Second, it may cause non-socialists to say "resistance is futile, eh? We'll see about that!"


Actually, it's likely to just provoke a condescending smirk or snicker.
Anyone who is inclined toward predestinarian ideology is probably already sending money to an evangelist.

The guy you're talking to sounds like a "libertarian party" type and is not likely to be vulnerable to moral argument or reasoning. What he says about property is more or less true and is only addressable with the Socratic "why?" You might point out that the concept of property changes a lot over time and that his own ancestors were undoubtedly property, but chances are, he will respond that those ideas of property were incorrect and that the True Ideal of Property is exactly what prevails at this moment, maybe with a few adjustments for "intellectual property" and the curtailing of eminent domain. After enough whys, he will assure you that it will always be as it is, and telling him otherwise will only persuade him that he is a realist and you are an idealist. Forget him. His value is that he serves as a practice dummy.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Thanks! :D


Forget him. His value is that he serves as a practice dummy.

I think, if we forget "him" we forget the working class movement. Because such opinions are pretty deep-rooted in the majority of people.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:37 pm



I think, if we forget "him" we forget the working class movement. Because such opinions are pretty deep-rooted in the majority of people.
If a workingclass movement were to emerge, the Mister Blocks of the world would not be in it, and many who are not workingclass would be in it. Point is, you can waste a lot of time and acquire a lot of frustration by trying to reason with fools so one shouldn't let it become an obsession. You can open doors for them but they have to walk through themselves.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Edric O:


Well, such arguments are rarely persuasive. "We will establish socialism whether you like it or not" is not likely to convince people to help with the revolution, or ever to kindly step out of the way.

Telling people that socialism or communism is inevitable may have two rather nasty consequences: First, it may encourage socialists to do nothing and expect the revolution to fall out of the sky. Second, it may cause non-socialists to say "resistance is futile, eh? We'll see about that!"

Well, where did I say communism was 'inevitable' (indeed, if you check out earlier threads in this section, you will discover I argued the opposite)?

Now, if you want to graft a moral argument on top of this, fine.

But I'd like to see you try.

All of the many I have seen (and that includes yours) fail, and situate this whole 'debate' in their court (that is, in the court of the owners of property).

Your use of 'theft' is just one of the give-aways. No owner of property will accept that modern day exploitation (or the expropriation of common land now or in the past) is/was theft -- since they define what a legal right is to suit themselves.

Rights are not free-floatring ideas; they depend on law -- and to claim our rights we have to seize power and re-define it to suite ourselves.

Hence, if you try to pose this moralistically you will lose (unless you were arguing with a dim-wit), and you would also be misleading anyone to whom you tried to sell your ideas.

[My argument is in fact based on over 25 years experience arguing with the defenders of property, and it silences them every time (or it just angers them).

Once more: tough.]