PDA

View Full Version : Property is theft



SicN Twisted
01-18-2005, 12:39 AM
If slavery is murder (see my previous thread), then property is theft. For one to claim natural objects, such as land, as their own, is the same as someone claiming a human being's life as their own. Property is valued so much in our society, but I think it's a result of bourgeois arrogance. No human as the right to control land.

RXP
01-18-2005, 04:09 AM
How woudl you propose to run society? Land needs to be owned. You're living in some dream world that will never and should never exisist.

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 04:50 AM
Or perhaps your imagination isn't particularly creative?

Private property is an invention of capitalism, it simply didn't exist before. Why should it need to exist afterwards?

RXP
01-18-2005, 05:18 AM
It has exsisted since ancient times, time immorial, heck before that. 1066 in England and way before that. Property holdings go back to ancient times.

Imagination? You live in your fantasy world I'll live in the cold hard reality of how the world works.

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 05:41 AM
what? Tribal society certainly never had private property. The only form of private property in the feudal system, was that in which the King, as representative of God, was to own the entire collective private property of his ruling area, and give people responsibility to maintain it.

Private Property as we know and understand it, is relatively new.

RXP
01-18-2005, 06:09 AM
It's over a thousand years old.

On the scale of modern civilization that's old. Of course on the scale of humna kind tribal society or the universe it's an earshot.

But yes it's over a thousand years old. Heck much older I'll look into it.

intothevalleyofdeath
01-18-2005, 06:37 AM
If slavery is murder (see my previous thread), then property is theft. For one to claim natural objects, such as land, as their own, is the same as someone claiming a human being's life as their own. Property is valued so much in our society, but I think it's a result of bourgeois arrogance. No human as the right to control land.

land is the only thing with real value

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 06:39 AM
It's over a thousand years old.

On the scale of modern civilization that's old. Of course on the scale of humna kind tribal society or the universe it's an earshot.

But yes it's over a thousand years old. Heck much older I'll look into it.
Human tribal civilization isn't particularly old, 6000 years maximum I'd say. And the civilizations after it didn't have private property. As I said, feudalism for example.

RXP
01-18-2005, 08:48 AM
Tribal! Do we live in a tribal society? Why do you think the need for private property evolved? It's part of the economy, which is an evloultion of human society.

It's been around for well over a thousand years which is a long time in human terms no matter what you say about tribes and what not. Heck I'm pretty sure the Ancient Egyption and those before them (forgot their names) used to have property, that was 3k years ago. As I said I'm gonna look this shit up cause i'm actually interested in it, I'll ask my Land Law prof who's a complete g33k he should ahve the answer.

It's ancient in it's origin. And we can't do without it. To think otherwise is crazy! But then why am I arguing with you two you're never gonna change your stance.

RXP
01-18-2005, 08:52 AM
Yep just googled the egyptions I remembered correctly they did have private property and an early basis of proprietary rights.

That's 3k years ago.

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 09:01 AM
Egyptian Civilization also developed long before the rest of the world's civilizations. They were also tribal before there were neanderthals crawling in France.

It's most certainly not necessary for a society to function. During the USSR when it's economy experienced the most significant progress, there was absolutely no private property for example.

I don't see how it's necessary. It's a small handful of people who own private property. The majority are either living in apartments and paying rent, or their houses are mortgaged with the bank.

Mota Boy
01-18-2005, 10:06 AM
Say what you will, but the concept of private property has been in place for hundreds, if not thousands of years, surviving through more societal, political and technological changes than any alternative to the idea. Why? Well, it certainly can't be because it's a proven system that has sustained remarkable global progress... because it's not! It's secretly evil! It's gotta be, like, a lie or something. A lie propagated by the Man!

Betty
01-18-2005, 10:38 AM
I don't see how it's necessary. It's a small handful of people who own private property. The majority are either living in apartments and paying rent, or their houses are mortgaged with the bank.

Well regardless of whether it's not necessary in an entirely different utopian communist/anarchist society, I'm not sure if I agree with that last statement.

First off, it depends on what part of the world you're taking into account. When I look around ME, tons of land is privately owned.

Second, in your appartment renting example, even if the person who is renting doesn't personally own the property, it is still "private", and they can benefit from this by the fact that random people are not legally allowed to stroll through their buildings.

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 10:42 AM
If it was publicly owned, what makes you think random people would have the right to stroll through it?

Mota Boy
01-18-2005, 10:49 AM
Because it would be owned by the public? I was under the impression that publically-owned space was equally available to all the public.

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 10:59 AM
There are publicly owned apartments for the poor here in Denmark. They are specifically for the people who live in them.

sKratch
01-18-2005, 12:09 PM
If slavery is murder (see my previous thread), then property is theft. For one to claim natural objects, such as land, as their own, is the same as someone claiming a human being's life as their own. Property is valued so much in our society, but I think it's a result of bourgeois arrogance. No human as the right to control land.
Creating a logical progression out of things that don't logically progress doesn't lead to a valid conclusion.

RXP
01-18-2005, 01:08 PM
Second, in your appartment renting example, even if the person who is renting doesn't personally own the property, it is still "private", and they can benefit from this by the fact that random people are not legally allowed to stroll through their buildings.

Yeah wcm read up on leases. It's a STAKE IN THE PROPERTY. YOU OWN IT for the time period. YOu can deny anyone entry including the landlord. wtf. You anti property people are nutters.

RXP
01-18-2005, 01:12 PM
And I really don't see how the rich own all the property, you get a mortgage and you pay it off slowly but it's an asset.

As MotaBoy said the concept has survived enormous political and social upheavel yet it still exsist. The USSR's economy sucked it up big time so let it die.

RXP
01-18-2005, 01:12 PM
There are publicly owned apartments for the poor here in Denmark. They are specifically for the people who live in them.

We have that in the UK. Council houses.

Betty
01-18-2005, 04:01 PM
Public owned... Yet private property... at least in a sense.

It doesn't really seem that much different, like, in terms of the idea behind it. Besides the fact that your life is controlled by the goverment. I personally like the idea of being able to have a place that is mine. That I have control over, can build whatever I want on it, can do whatever I want while on it, can allow whomever I want on it, etc. It's not even so much materialistic, because it's land. I'd be tempted to say it's almost more about freedom. Freedom to have a place all to yourself.

Now, the issue of certain people not having the same access to this luxury as others is entirely different. But you could still resolve this without having to trash the idea of private property altogether.

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 04:27 PM
Well it's not private property in the sense that it cannot be sold, it cannot be rented out to others, etc. (One form of exploitation, you know how it is, a rich landowner buys a low-rent apartment building, rennovates it, jacks the price up and now the poor are homeless again or making a lot less money.

I mean the only freedom you are talking about is what...the chance to paint it? Or hire a carpenter to change it? Technically in a socialist state, the carpenters are state-workers as well, why would that be a problem?

Betty
01-18-2005, 05:07 PM
Yeah! The chance to paint it. And to have a bonfire in the backyard (be it deemed safe by the fire department). And to install a swimming pool. And to fence the yard and let your dogs run around.

I think it's VERY different in terms of freedom.

But yeah, it's true that city/country people have different views. Maybe that's why I feel that way. I grew up in the north, medium-smallish sized city, had a huge backyard. Had lots of general personal space. People who live in the big cities who are forced to live in appartments and take the cramped subway, not necessarily due to poverty, but simply due to their being so many people living there. I've heard that people from big cities actually need a smaller amount of personal space, and it makes total sense.

Just, if there's only public property, you can't have anything of your own, and you can never have the same amount of freedom.

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 05:14 PM
Since when was freedom tied down to the property we owned? That is rather backwards.

I grew up on in a house, with a huge backyard, in a white trash/middle class conservative town in the states.

Bonfires, are generally, at least in America, I know they are regulated in many places, or perhaps just Oregon (where I grew up). But they are regulated there, especially during the summer (not like there are any other seasons for bonfires....)

The amount of people who have pools is rather small is it not? and mostly upper middle class, well they will be disenfranchised and it will be truly tragic. But public pools will exist.

I live in Copenhagen now, I don't know about what people in the big city and space requirements in comparison with Oregon for example. But public transportation is so much better here, that in Copenhagen, cars are practically useless. While in Eugene they would be a necessity because the public transportation really sucked ass.

It's 1.15, if this sounds like a ramble, I'm sorry....

HornyPope
01-18-2005, 05:18 PM
Wtf private property has existed since forever.

And communists aren't against property anyways. They just want to collectivitize and spread it in an "equal" fashion among the people. Now, anarchists, on the other hand, reject the notion of 'ownership' all together.

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 05:24 PM
That's true we aren't. Hence why I was arguing against private property instead of property as a whole. At least I believe I was, it's 1.23 and my brain is fried.

SicN Twisted
01-18-2005, 06:27 PM
WCM, why did you have to turn your argument into promotion of absolute statism. I'm not saying that the public should be subjugated to an authoritarian state that controls all the land, that's another form of exploitation in its self. Property is theft, weather privately owned or owned by the state, since the state is an institution of authority.

Moose
01-18-2005, 07:02 PM
If slavery is murder (see my previous thread), then property is theft. For one to claim natural objects, such as land, as their own, is the same as someone claiming a human being's life as their own. Property is valued so much in our society, but I think it's a result of bourgeois arrogance. No human as the right to control land.


just stop embarrassing yourself now, please.

nieh
01-18-2005, 07:07 PM
Every living creature has a way of "owning" the land they live in. They all have something that says "back the fuck off, this is my place". If a person walks into a bear's cave, the person will get stomped because it's the bears property. If a wolf from one pack walks into the territory of another pack, he will get his ass chewed up. Just because there's no official "I paid money, from here to here is my land" stuff, no official boundaries, that doesn't mean they don't own the land.

Betty
01-18-2005, 07:34 PM
Just picking apart the examples I gave is not very useful, cause there are obviously tons you can give.

But I would like to say that you can definitely have bonfires in the winter. They rock! You just dress up in your snowsuit, grab a few beers, and hangout around the warm fire. Fires are regulated here, and there will be weeks when you can have them and ones when you can't, depending on the dryness, etc.

I'm just saying that's my opinion about private property though, you might not feel the same way. But I'm just one that likes a certain amount of space that can be mine.

Also, I like what Sic said... if you're gonna say you don't want private property, you have to go hardcore hippy (or whoever else would feel so happy and sharing).

Mota Boy
01-18-2005, 09:31 PM
Huh, the only time that my family has bonfires is at the beach when we throw a pier party. Then we make s'mores. The only time I see people burn anything in their yard here it's leaves.

Betty
01-18-2005, 09:46 PM
My dad is like a little kid with bonfires. Whenever I go home to visit he's all excited to have one. Although I think they're fun too. But I suppose it's not the most conventional thing to do when not "camping" or whatever. Like I said, crazy northerners. We have an old dryer tube as a pit, and lots of wood because we have a wood fireplace. At New Years, we burned a door. Sorta dangerous as it toppled over in flames.

Winter bonfire:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v603/Wildbetty/bonfire.jpg

Mota Boy
01-18-2005, 10:01 PM
Oooooh, that explains a lot. When I think of bonfires I think of piling up driftwood against dead branches until it's six feet high. Yeah, one of my friends has an outdoor fire pit like that. In a brilliant move, they've placed it on their wooden back porch.

Betty
01-18-2005, 10:18 PM
Picture says a million words...

You will keep me posted about when the deck/house burns down?

RXP
01-19-2005, 01:48 AM
Property is theft, weather privately owned or owned by the state, since the state is an institution of authority.

So council houses in the UK which are owned by the local governments for the poor people to live in is theft? wtf.

wheelchairman
01-19-2005, 02:14 AM
This is where we would disagree then Sic, I believe that things should be in control of the people as a whole (during the Socialist stage this would be through the government and probably done on a regional level), I don't think the abstract concept of ownership is truly harmful in this way. And you haven't really proven it yet.

Sirotilc
01-19-2005, 07:42 PM
The idea of not possessing land hasn't been proven either, despite the possibility of it happening being very far fetched, as most people see it.

"Imagine no possession, I wonder if you can"

SicN Twisted
01-19-2005, 10:53 PM
Commies are dillusional for thinking any kind of State can adequetly represent the people. The government is always a top down power structure - that's it's nature - a few government officials are always just as self serving as corperations. There is no such thing as a revolutionary or socialist state - all states are oppresive.

In order for land to be publicly owned, no group or organization would have any control over it.



And i'm not talking about ownership as an abstract concept, I'm talking about property. I have no problem with personal posissions, small thing you use in your daily life. I just don't believe it's right that humans can turn land into a commodity that can be bought or sold. I'm sure you agree with me on this. And you know, if the state controls the various rents of usage on all property to fit it's planned economy, this is not the people owning the property. This is rulers controlling land. The workers don't chose these rulers either, power is taken by force, so you can't say they represent the people in ANY sence.

wheelchairman
01-20-2005, 01:34 AM
It could be just as easily argued that the are dreamers when they believe class-war will end purely with the immediate destruction of state the state and the removal of property and money.

The state will have to be used in the class war, if it becomes a tool of the working class, then it becomes a tool of the masses.

And no one is talking about the ownership of a comb for example, I believe it's understood that by private property we're mostly referring to land.

SicN Twisted
01-21-2005, 12:17 PM
How do you expect, or even trust, the State to represent the workers? A revolutionary unoppressive socialist state has never existed in history, why should it ever?

wheelchairman
01-21-2005, 12:20 PM
The Paris Commune?

I think the early form of the Soviets was great.
The Zapatista's in Mexico also have some good ideas in my opinion.
And right now Hugo Chavez just nationalized the nation's largest paper-factory on the request of the worker's.

SicN Twisted
01-22-2005, 12:36 AM
The Paris Commune was not a State, in that it had no leaders.

The early Soviets were basically a small party that seized power in a violent coup and forced their policies on people with no sort of democratic process. Early Communist Russia is what I'd consider a prime example of top-down power structure. Lenin never had a social revolution, he starged a party coup d'etat, that's completely different. The great majority of Russian workers were not Bolchevik.

Hugo Chavez is a progressive rulers but he's still a ruler. His government still impliments policies over the people, while it's the people who should be implementing policies themselves. One man forcefully nationalizing an industry is not a good example of workers rule. He did it at the request of the workers, because the workers cannot do it themselves.

The Zapitistas are anarchist revolutionaries in Chiapias, I believe. They're not a State, they have no official recognized power. Their society also has no leaders. There's a huge difference between a commune and a State, if anything I'd have to say they're opposites.

wheelchairman
01-22-2005, 04:04 AM
Wasn't Proudhon one of the leader's of the Paris Commune? It fell with help of the factionalism that plagued the leadership.

The Soviets were a council system that existed parallel to the state power. The February Revolution had been incompetent in social change, which is why the soviets as a legislative force still had so much power, and why they were able to take power. To say that Lenin lacked popular support from the workers and peasants makes no sense in the fact that the bolshevik revolution wouldn't have survived the civil war had that been true.

Hugo Chavez has been elected quite a few times by the Venezuelan people, most recently last march where there was a vote on whether or not he should stay in power (called on by the Opposition), Jimmy Carter said the election was a-okay. I think the huge popular support among the workers for Chavez obviously makes him one of them.

I don't know enough about the Zapatista's but I do believe they have some leadership organization.

SicN Twisted
01-22-2005, 05:00 PM
Proudhon helped assemble and structure the paris Commune but he had no more say then any other member of the commune in making desisions. The Paris Commune gave nobody any sort of political power or status, everyone made desisions as a group with no leadership.

The Bolchevik Revolution definately didn't have popular support, that's why no effort was made to hold any sort of elections. They forced their ideals on the public, they won simply because their party usurped power from every other revolutionary group in Russia through brutal struggle.

Communists and anarchists agree that elections do not symbolize any kind of democracy, they simply show which particular oppressor the people have chosen to ignore their interests. Some countries allow people to chose their rulers, but they're still rulers who openly make desisions regarding their peoples welfare.

The Zapatistas foremost feature as that they have no leaders, they're anarchists modelling themselves after Spanish revolutionaries, and are against any kind of leadership and bureacracy.

wheelchairman
01-22-2005, 06:06 PM
No elections of the soviets? So why would the bolsheviks allow the mensheviks and the Left Socialist Revolutionaries in the Supreme Soviet?

SicN Twisted
01-23-2005, 04:54 PM
Because every citizen of a country should have as many rights as any other to decide how the country is structured. Why don't you see anything wrong with a few elitists controlling the government vanguard style?

wheelchairman
01-23-2005, 05:25 PM
It was a worker's revolution, only the worker's, soldier's and peasants had a vote, and I certainly see no problem with that. I'm surprised you do.

SicN Twisted
01-23-2005, 06:19 PM
The workers soldiers and peasants didn't have a vote, mainly because it was not a workers revolution - it was a party coup d'etat. Nobody had a vote except high ranking party members. This is not a workers state, it's a completely dictatorship.

wheelchairman
01-23-2005, 06:22 PM
I'm going to assume this is something you read from the marxist intelligentsia of Western Europe? It would've been impossible for the Bolsheviks to stay in power without mass support, or even hold congresses (which they did) without a voting apparatus.

SicN Twisted
01-23-2005, 06:25 PM
Where are you getting this? International statistics and history show that power was seized by a few people being in the right place at the right time. As I said, if the Bolcheviks had majority support, they wouldn't need to brutally purge their enemies and murder members of opposing socialist parties. Throughout history dictator's have been able to stay in power through force, not support. And show me any kind of evidence then any elections were held outside of the party vanguard.

wheelchairman
01-23-2005, 06:42 PM
Seeing as it's 3 am, I'm going to respond to this tomorrow.

RXP
03-22-2005, 01:54 AM
Hmmpf still waiting for the reply.....

RXP
03-22-2005, 01:56 AM
Every living creature has a way of "owning" the land they live in. They all have something that says "back the fuck off, this is my place". If a person walks into a bear's cave, the person will get stomped because it's the bears property. If a wolf from one pack walks into the territory of another pack, he will get his ass chewed up. Just because there's no official "I paid money, from here to here is my land" stuff, no official boundaries, that doesn't mean they don't own the land.

Nice analogy, never thought of it like that. The law is merely a method of owning the land but land has been owned since the start of evoultion. The modern version of pissing on your bounderies is an entry on the land registry.

We are all territorial animals the utopias do not take into account for this.

wheelchairman
03-22-2005, 04:25 AM
Where are you getting this? International statistics and history show that power was seized by a few people being in the right place at the right time. As I said, if the Bolcheviks had majority support, they wouldn't need to brutally purge their enemies and murder members of opposing socialist parties. Throughout history dictator's have been able to stay in power through force, not support. And show me any kind of evidence then any elections were held outside of the party vanguard.
The fact that the Bolsheviks were able to win the civil war, against the Whites, AND 7 foreign armies, is proof enough for me that they had majority support.

And Nieh's analogy is pointless. We're not talking about the space people live in. You'll still have that in a socialist country. We're talking about property in it's use to exploit and gain profit. Bears, generally don't tend to sublet their caves and then ask for a bit of deer-meat in return. And then every 6 months they don't tend to start asking for more deer-meat.

RXP
03-22-2005, 04:52 AM
And why can you not see that modern legislative reform means property isn't no longer as exploitive as it once was? And hopefully in the future it will begin to be less exploitive.

For example, the housing benefit in England or the concept of Constructive Trusts in most legal systems means that the 'weaker' gets a stake in the property. Inheritance tax meaning more people get property thus it doesn't stay in the same hands.

Property isn't solely used for exploitation. It's slowly reforming. We can do this in our current framework without resorting to communist uphevael. A social democrat reform would be just without resorting to the aboultion of private property which has become entrenched in all the modern socities throughout the world.

wheelchairman
03-22-2005, 05:41 AM
Because how permanent will it be? If you get a conservative government how likely is that to stay the same? Anything done by the labor party is just to appease people until the conservative party gets back to power.

And less exploitative isn't what we are going for. The point is to end exploitation of man by man. Property is one relation that does that.

RXP
03-22-2005, 06:10 AM
Property = man exploiting man

then knowledge = man exploiting man

for knowledge is the route of all exploitation. Without knowledge there would be no exploitation.

Therefore, we shall dismantle knowledge, burn the books, kill the educated. To end exploitation.

no knowledge = no property = no exploitation = communist utopia?

What i'm trying to demonstrate (by taking it to a reductionist level) is that abandoning a concept that's inherently part of human society, that's woven so deeply into us from birth is a utopian dream. Because private property is as much part of modern society as knowledge is.

The argument that some tribal societies didnít have private property is flawed because theyíre tribal socities. I can come back with the fact that they had less knowledge and they functioned fine. So why not burn the books?

Change comes about through progressive reform. Marx and Engles themselves said that in their envisioned utopia will be born from the womb of the old system (at the socialist stage) so will require some of its institutions mainly: money and law. But where they went wrong is the withering away of the state concept. Itís ridiculous to envision money and the law will wither away and so will exploitation.

I believe in the concept of class consciousness, but to a different degree. Once the masses realise that party policies are hugely middle class orientated they ought to vote in (using the current frame work) a social democratic reformist party who will use less drastic means to attempt to gain equality like a higher re-distro of income, legislative reform etc.

Sure you can counter that a conservative government might be voted in again and dismantle all the good work done by the social democrat party. But that's similar to saying that the old ruling elites could claim back power from the communists.

The law is transcends party lines in many cases. The English common law is a great example of this (as are any common law countries). The mere fact that a conservative government is voted in doesn't change the fact that the law is becoming more equal due to the common law. While the conservative parties could just pass a statute to change the common law precedent to a more elitist position if they did so too much then the law would be exposed as a mere sham reinforcing class consciences and then getting a reformist party back in. Itís a self regulating system.

To analogise my system it would probably be boom and bust ala the economy; until class consciousness was entrenched in the masses when it would peter out. Because they wouldnít vote a conservative government in.

Surely this is a better way to reform the system? by working within it rather than fighting it? The democratic ideal and the rule of law is a good thing it's just been corrupted. I think I would find agreement with the Marxists here but obviously not the anarchists who would say "omg statism"

Reading back over this, this is a pretty good account of what I believe and maybe even my own theory on where society is heading.

RXP
03-22-2005, 06:13 AM
Oh yeah WCM you read anything by E.P Thomson the English Marxist historian. He's views about just how corrupt 'the system' is are awesome. I'll scan you his chapter where he defends the rule of law I think you'll find it very interesting that a Marxist has such views.

SicN Twisted
03-22-2005, 09:53 AM
Why do people think that property is inherent to human society? Traditional Culture, native American and other, had no concept of land ownership until the Europeans introduced it to them. Private property is not inherent to humanity any more then state property is - land ownership was simply one of the first methods of barder societies used with each other to assist with selling their crops amongst each other. For thousands of years tribes coexisted without owning any land. In my opinion property always came with corruption, and has nothing to do with knowledge. You're making parallels between things that have little to do with each other.

wheelchairman
03-22-2005, 10:04 AM
Your idea RXP, the idea that class consciousness can be raised through parliamentary means, is called 'reform communism.' It's existed for nearly as long as revolutionary scientific communism has. The problem is that the social-democratic parties almost always become bourgeois parties in the end. All the social-democratic/Socialist parties of Europe today, started out as marxist parties, or almost all of the did. They all wanted the same. Yet, a century of bartering to attain support among the upper classes made them conform and bend their beliefs more and more.

Second, saying knowledge is a means of exploitation is to lack a scientific analysis. You're taking the statement of 'man by man' to mean 'allegorical general man by allegorical general man'. You know very well a marxist would never say that. Think what do Marxists but a supreme amount of weight on? That's right class relations. So to re-phrase the statement, it would be 'to end exploitation of bourgeois-man by working-man'. Knowledge, which is a necessity to class-awareness ties into this.

And a note on laws and their enforcement. Those who enforce the law (the Police and the Military), are almost always conservative by nature. That's why it's been a necessity for Marxist parties to have their own parties connected to them (Red Army in Russia, People's Liberation Army in China,) because even if the communists were voted into power, they'd have to contend with the might of the police and military. All laws can be written down and make the legislators satisfied, but they are only as good as the way they are enforced. Anyways, it's time for my dinner now. If you wouldn't mind scanning those pages in, that would be super.

RXP
03-22-2005, 12:35 PM
Yes but Sic you keep refering to non technolgised/globalised socities. Not the here and now. It cannot be done. You have your views and resort to proving them by going back to non tech times, I'll live in the real world.

WCM right click save as (http://offspringstuff.free.fr/rule_of_law_ep_thompson.rar)

RXP
03-22-2005, 12:53 PM
Oh yeah incase it doens't make sense the Black Act referes to this statute that was passed in like 1700s which made trival property offences capital offences.

Skate Rat 19
03-22-2005, 05:48 PM
Ok, I own my forum account. Is that theft? No. If you take it from someone else without their permission its theft. Theft may come out of property owning, but it's not the same thing.

wheelchairman
03-22-2005, 05:52 PM
Someone doesn't understand the form of property that we are discussing.

But then, I expect that from anyone with the word 'skate' in their name.

Skate Rat 19
03-22-2005, 05:56 PM
i'm really starting to think argueing with me is becoming a sport on this forum.

wheelchairman
03-24-2005, 04:05 AM
Again, one must discern a difference between private property and property.

However for that story to work, one must completely ignore tribal lifetstyle (which is what primitive man lived in). One simply didn't just fence off one's own lot with a white picket fence, it was far more communal. The idea of owning land, that one can divide, parcel, and barter, to make a profit is a product of the capitalist mode of production.

Omni
03-31-2005, 07:35 PM
wheelchairman and sic, I must say that you two are the most intelligent people I have ever seen on this forum, and many others. I am going to strive to understand as much as you two do a soon as I get the opportunity (I'm still in high school so they're will be plenty of opportunities in a year or two).

And I am not trying to kiss ass there, lol.

Love Anarchist
04-04-2005, 07:30 AM
Property definitely is theft... For me... For others it is blessing...
The problem is more of a philosophical one, cause history has so far proven the advantage that capitalism has on other systems... Marx, a left-wing hegelian that developed his historical materialism inspired by Hegel's dialectics, thought that a scientific communist worldwide regime could be possible as the dialectical end of history... However, communism is like christianism without God, it works for the masses, but it back-fired mostly because the lack of personality and perspective of the masses, much more attracted by crappy western culture... ( besides, policing their lives in order to keep the peace and harmony didn't help much either... )
The way to combat capitalism is to be a Dreamer, to deny history and learn from its mistakes, an individual that creates his own virtues, far from the stories of society, who still believes in the power of Love, in rebellion, in artistic passion and doesn't give a rat's ass about property, only wants to own himself... You can be anti-state as an individual, but if people don't evolve individually then they'd rather just have a comfortable, obedient "life", and having equal possesions and equal rights with everybody else doesn't excite them at all... Property may be theft and theoretically the communists and anarcho-communists are right, but people want it to be, and these scientifically optimistic wackos didn't know shit about psychology...