In Defense of Private Property (in the Marxist sense)

[bittersweet]

From a practical standpoint all I get for the rent is maintenance, which I could get more cheaply elsewhere.

Huh? No, not all you get for the rent is maintenance. What you get is a building to live in. You don't believe that houses appear just like that out of thin air, do you? The owner had to build it or buy it - it's an investment of time or money - and also a risk - he may get the money back eventually but he can't be sure - there are natural disasters etc. You on the other hand thanks to his investment don't have to spend large amount of time and money, nor risk that much - so if you prefer to pay a smaller price monthly, you rent it.

[1714569811]

1714569811

[1714569811]

1714569811

[1714569811]

1714569811

[1714569811]

1714569811

[Garrett Burgwardt]

In the case of The Icelandic Commonwealth, it was the church that eventually destabilized the system. Gullible people were to blame

Then the American Old West was already owned by the USA, they just were leaving it alone. When they finally moved in, people accepted them because they were part of the country already, but had been dealing with things on their own.

Most recently in Somalia, the people are actively fighting back against a government being instated, and private property is defended in a way very similar to the Icelandic Commonwealth.

I expect the Somalians will devolve back into Tyrrany,  I hope they will evolve to true Anarchy,  I sincerely doubt that they will manage to maintain their frontier sort of society for long at all.

All signs point toward things getting better for them, so I wouldn't be so sure about any sort of 'devolution to Tyranny', as the populous is dead set against it happening.

[hugolp]

It means this.

if a factory is used to produce boots under capitalism the boots belong to the owner of the factory, under socialism they belong to the workers who used the factory to produce the boots.

Lets accept your defintions of capitalism and socialism. Why is any of those arrangements bad? (I am guessing you think one of those two arrangements is bad)

Ownership of the factory is a convenient legal fiction, it's a form of capital and isn't really sustainable without force.

This is not true. There are examples in history. You can argue its good or bad, but you can not say its impossible.

Also, you can not say they did not lasted. Every human society changes for worse and for better. The fact of the matter is that it is possible. And you can not say the prove is that they did not lasted specially when you propose a system that has never existed.

So please, explain to me what is wrong with any of those arrangements.

[Babylon]

It means this.

if a factory is used to produce boots under capitalism the boots belong to the owner of the factory, under socialism they belong to the workers who used the factory to produce the boots.

Lets accept your defintions of capitalism and socialism. Why is any of those arrangements bad? (I am guessing you think one of those two arrangements is bad)

Ownership of the factory is a convenient legal fiction, it's a form of capital and isn't really sustainable without force.

This is not true. There are examples in history. You can argue its good or bad, but you can not say its impossible.

Also, you can not say they did not lasted. Every human society changes for worse and for better. The fact of the matter is that it is possible. And you can not say the prove is that they did not lasted specially when you propose a system that has never existed.

So please, explain to me what is wrong with any of those arrangements.

What's wrong with the factory owner owning the product of the factory is that then he has the power to set wages and prices, the employees do not have equal power to do so.  This creates an inequality of power, which means that it is no longer an anarchist situation.  The owner is a government.

Anarcho-communism has also existed, in Ukraine and Spain,  in both cases it was destroyed by a military attack, not subverted from within as happened in the American West.

[kiba]

What's wrong with the factory owner owning the product of the factory is that then he has the power to set wages and prices, the employees do not have equal power to do so.  This creates an inequality of power, which means that it is no longer an anarchist situation.  The owner is a government.

The factory owner is subjected to competition from outside. Laborers are subjected to labor competition. Supply and demand determine the negoitating power of factory owners and laborers.

IF the factory owner is desperate for labor, he may then spent an exorbitant amount of money to acquire said labor. In this case, laborers seem to be in a position of power.

However, if the situation is reversed, the factory owner is now in position seem to be in a position of power.

BUT, this is what factory worker and the factory owner agreed to. Libertarian ethical theory said this mutually agreed agreement cannot be interfered with no matter how unbalanced the power relation is.

Indeed, you may have seen me out there just BEGGING for jobs. The power of employers are great.

[hugolp]

What's wrong with the factory owner owning the product of the factory is that then he has the power to set wages and prices, the employees do not have equal power to do so.  This creates an inequality of power, which means that it is no longer an anarchist situation.  The owner is a government.

Kiba already explained perfectly why its not true that the factory owner sets wages. If it were true most employeers in the USA would pay only minimum wage. The reality is that only 4% pay minimum wage.

Now, it is true that government regulations hurt the workers position when negotiating a wage and allows the factory owner to pay less for labor. But this is not a problem of the free market, its a problem of state capitalism or corporate socialism (Ill let you choose the label).

Again, I would like to know why you think its wrong. I agree in a lot of things with socialists, specially mutualists, but I really dont get this obsession with demonizing wages.

Anarcho-communism has also existed, in Ukraine and Spain,  in both cases it was destroyed by a military attack, not subverted from within as happened in the American West.

The anarcho-communist communities did not live enough to see what would have happened. How do you interpret that they not were able to organize and defend themselves? Also its important to notice that some of this communities became extremely morally repressive even banning alcohol. In some few cases they even became murderers.

Also, all societies that are capable of lasting die from within. Its human nature. People get used to the institutions that gave them prosperity and take them from granted. Then they start neglecting this institutions assuming the prosperity will last. Its nothing extrange, it happens to all systems because its human nature.

Btw, I dont think the American West as a whole is an example of anarchy. Some regions and some zones in particular were, but not all, although there is no doubt there were freer than today.

[kiba]

Again, I would like to know why you think its wrong. I agree in a lot of things with socialists, specially mutualists, but I really dont get this obsession with demonizing wages.

If it is our ethical principles that is leading to differing conclusions like this, than we should discuss them.