In Defense of Private Property (in the Marxist sense)

[BitterTea]

Different sorts of Anarchists often seem to be arguing for a state when debating since we have different ideas as to what constitutes bad power.

I somewhat agree with this, but not entirely. From my experience, right-anarchists are tolerant of left-anarchist communities in their midst, but the reverse is not true. During the course of arguing against top down organization, one necessarily loses the ability to dictate which type of society would or should come about in the absence of the state.

The main reason that, IMO, Capitalist and Socialist anarchists need to keep debating is that I doubt that corporations would simply wither away if the framework of government were removed. Yes, a Democratic government is far from an ideal solution, and yes the corporations do capture it and use it to enrich themselves.  However it is still preferable to the corporations ruling directly, which is what will happen if they are left in possession of all the resources that they currently possess without the government to keep them in line.

I just explained previously why a state is necessary for the survival of large corporations - it provides taxpayer subsidized defense services. The idea that the state would collapse and the large corporations would what, take its place? It's ridiculous. The government we have today is only able to continue functioning because a large percentage of people are under the illusion that it is able to continue functioning. There would be no such illusion if corporations tried to take the place of government. People would not so willingly submit to their "new" overlords, I don't think.

I have no problem with market anarchists, in fact I am one, as are many of you who label yourself capitalist

I subscribe to voluntaryism, or anarchy without adjectives.

as long as there is support for ownership of capital determining production, rather than actual use of production determining production then there is support for government.

All arguments against the private ownership of capital I have seen fall back on the Labor Theory of Value, which I find does not describe reality very well at all. If you would like to defend LTV or propose an alternate argument against the private ownership of capital please feel free.

[1713463296]

1713463296

[1713463296]

1713463296

[hugolp]

as long as there is support for ownership of capital determining production, rather than actual use of production determining production then there is support for government.

What does this exactly mean? "actual use of production determining production"?

[Babylon]

as long as there is support for ownership of capital determining production, rather than actual use of production determining production then there is support for government.

What does this exactly mean? "actual use of production determining production"?

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.

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

[kiba]

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.

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

Does that mean if I don't live in my house, than I don't own my house?

[bittersweet]

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.

That doesn't make any sense. Why not to the workers who made machines used by the factory? And to the workers who mined raw materials? Maybe the machines do 90% of the work, not the workers inside the factory? Of course I don't expect any sense from communistic ideas.

[Anonymous]

I like how Marxists believe the owner produced no valuable work at all.

[markm]

Quote "Why not to the workers who made machines used by the factory? And to the workers who mined raw materials?"

Because they are workers? Therefore like all workers they were cheated out of the products of their labour?

-MarkM- (Just guessing... More likely because they are now in process of owning the places they are making machines and mining in?)

Edit: I thought it was workers own the means of production, not workers own the products others go on to use to produce things...

[bittersweet]

What do you mean cheated? They were paid for their work (unless they were slaves).

[markm]

Earlier poster seems to imply they are cheated out of ownership of the shoes but I think Marx was more about they were cheated out of the tools of their trade - the means of production. (In Celtic "triads" the tools of one's trade is one of the three things that cannot (as in must not / should not) be taken from someone.) (Actually it was sexistly worded though at least in translations I've seen as compared to some brands of antisexism.)

So maybe if the workers should own the factory they make shoes with the capitalist should own the propaganda machine (money or whatever) used to herd workers into the idea that owning a shoe factory aka making shoes in one is a good idea?

-MarkM-

[bittersweet]

Shouldn't the workers send the machines back to the factory which produced the machines?
And give the building back to the workers who built it?

The workers in the factory never owned the means of production from the factory. Even if it was stolen, it wasn't stolen from them. Maybe they were stolen once, but who said the workers (who were hired and were PAID for their work) are the ones who should get it? Maybe they are grand-grand-grand-children of some tribe who stole it in the first place 5000 years ago?

[markm]

Maybe simple abandonment? The owner went off to bed instead of staying in the factory making shoes so by default he now owns a bedroom for the night while the night shift owns the factory for the night?

Then later they go off to own a bed someplace and the dayshift takes ownership of the factory?

-MarkM-

[bittersweet]

Just because I go sleep doesn't mean I abandon all my property besides the bed. Abandonment means I'm not willing to use it in the future. Also I don't like the idea of sharing my bedroom with some bums only because somehow they managed to get inside my house when I was away. This could work in a filthy cave perhaps, not in a civilized society. It makes any savings completely pointless because anyone can come and take it. All you would achieve would be people hiding goods like squirrels walnuts.

[markm]

Well maybe Marx had a stash someplace. Anyone find it yet?

-MarkM-

[bittersweet]

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

Yeah, also your life isn't sustainable without force if someone decides to come and take it.

[markm]

Yeah. I think it might have been one of the Marines (as in once one always one aka maybe "retired") on NetMarketingForum (a dot com) who brought up some great possible quote possible mere top of head summary along the lines of

What has violence ever achieved? Other, of course, than abolishing slavery, ending this that or the other world war, accomplishing this that or the other great thing.

It was a pretty decent-sounding list of accomplishments actually. Uh, I mean wow it was a nicely crafted piece of propaganda. But hey like I said I think it was one of the Marines so military grade is to be expected, yes?

Maybe googling could come up with it even, not sure.

(Hmm maybe it was "accomplished" not "achieved" and in answer to a googly-famous poem or work that had a different bias...)

-MarkM-

Editted: added "abolishing slavery" as one of the accomplishments/achievements I recall.

[Babylon]

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.

That doesn't make any sense. Why not to the workers who made machines used by the factory? And to the workers who mined raw materials? Maybe the machines do 90% of the work, not the workers inside the factory? Of course I don't expect any sense from communistic ideas.

Who enforces this ownership?  Without a government of some sort you can't. 

As far as raw materials, you extract raw materials, then you trade them to someone who is going to use them to make finished goods.  Same with production machinery.

[Babylon]

I like how Marxists believe the owner produced no valuable work at all.

Didn't say that.  I said that his ownership cannot be maintained without a government.

If he does valuable work and trades it to someone for something, great.  if he attempts to simply maintain ownership and collect rent then there is going to have to be a government to protect his right to do so.

I'm not saying anarcho-capitalism is evil,  I'm saying it's impossible. 

As to your house Kiba, if you are renting it out to someone else, then it's his house (just like that truck that Russian Truck driver was driving in the example someone brought up earlier)

[bittersweet]

Didn't say that.  I said that his ownership cannot be maintained without a government.

Protection of property is impossible without government?

How about I just setup traps and access codes?

Hey, if my machine cuts your head off at night, it's not my fault - I told you not to touch it!  

[Babylon]

Didn't say that.  I said that his ownership cannot be maintained without a government.

Protection of property is impossible without government?

How about I just setup traps and access codes?

Hey, if my machine cuts your head off at night, it's not my fault - I told you to not touch it! 

good for you. And if you are the one working your machine that works just fine.

The means of production are then owned by the producers.

Meanwhile if you hire someone else to use your machine he won't be able to, it will cut off his head.

[markm]

Quote "Hey, if my machine cuts your head off at night, it's not my fault - I told you not to touch it"

Yeah but the Organic Peripherals Manual Page claims mantrap and/or spring gun use also fires up certain Organic Peripheral Behavioral Subroutines...

-MarkM-