In fact, there have been cases in history where private property exists without the need for a government, and it is something that in itself is quite feasible, as long as someone can protect their property by itself, or as long as nobody tries to take the property of another, that situation could occur, without the need of the State. Although it is true, the State is perhaps the best mechanism to secure private property, but the fact that the government removes the property at any time does mean something, and something very negative.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
"Private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived (not a relationship between person and thing), e.g., artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts and seas. Marxism holds that a process of class conflict and revolutionary struggle could result in victory for the proletariat and the establishment of a communist society in which private property and ownership is abolished over time and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community. (Private property and ownership, in this context, means ownership of the means of production, not personal possessions)."
Private property is a relationship between those who control the means of production and those who don't. Control can only be done through force. That force is the state. (Even if it is a "business" they simply become a state)
Ok, I understand then that you mean private property, but exclusively talking about the means of production, or not? If that is the case, I can say that in the same way, the participation of the State is not necessary for there to be such property.
In addition, Marx the only thing that got with his theory is to increase the power of the State, not to diminish it, socialism, brings maximizes all the problems of capitalism and does not bring any of its benefits.
"In addition, Marx the only thing that got with his theory is to increase the power of the State, not to diminish it, socialism, brings maximizes all the problems of capitalism and does not bring any of its benefits."
complete opposite actually, all it did was improve the condition of the workers
I think it is very bold to say that it has improved the quality of life of workers, the nationalization and centralized planning has been the misfortune of each country that has implemented it, in fact, the countries that have the highest quality of life, are where it exists. more legal security of private property, and those that appear better positioned in the index of economic freedom.
you forgot one thing though, imperialism. Third world countries are capitalist too, and they are poor because capitalism. Capitalism can not function without imperialism.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
The vast majority of African governments are Socialists, as they are in Latin America.
socialism is worker control of the means of production, what you are thinking of is called "welfare capitalism". (which is often needed to prevent socialism actually, funnily enough)
Asia has done well with capitalism. There is Singapore, HK, Macau, Taiwan, Malaysia, Dubai, Rest of UAE, Qatar, Israel.
BTW you are wasting time. Never argue with a socialist. You might as well argue with a SS (National Socialist)
also communism does not need centralised planning (although things like project cybersyn have shown that it is better than capitalism in every way.)
Allende made a disaster in Chile, luckily the future economic policies of Pinochet saved from the economic disaster, the scarcity and poverty that Allende caused in Chile.
lmao
same situation as in other "socialist" countries, they made the mistake of allowing the capitalists to keep power. These capitalists destroyed the economy by doing things like paying truckers to stop moving supplies. The capitalists did this to stop socialism, it is not a result of socialism itself lmao
chile was actually amazing because they were able to move 70% of the needed supplies with something like 30% of the normal amount of truckers, beating out capitalism completely.
(remember, the literal day after pinochet came to power food was back in the stores, he must simply be that good right?)
"Ok, I understand then that you mean private property, but exclusively talking about the means of production, or not? "
Private property is a relation between people over the means of production. I'm not using the stupid capitalist definitions
I still believe that private ownership of the means of production is something that can be reached quite easily without the need for a monopoly of force. Although it is true, that the State is a great guarantor of private property.
"I still believe that private ownership of the means of production is something that can be reached quite easily without the need for a monopoly of force. Although it is true, that the State is a great guarantor of private property."
By definition private property is taking away one groups ability to freely use the means of production without taking away their dependence on it. The only way to take away freedom is (violent) force (or threat of force) on one group from another to do their bidding. This is how most anarchists would define a state, so by definition private property cannot exist without a state.
According to Locke, every man owns a property that belongs to himself and no one has the right to that property except the owner himself, since the work employed in that property makes it his own and, having employed his work in that property, makes the rest of the men no longer have a right over her. For he has taken that property from the state in which it commonly belonged to all and has made it his.
In addition, although we could discuss the moral issue about property ownership, there is also the issue of whether or not it is beneficial to eliminate property, because according to what Mises tells us, abolishing property would be totally damaging to the market.
capitalism is the most destructive force in history, capital accumulation to be specific. So fuck markets
"According to Locke, every man owns a property that belongs to himself and no one has the right to that property except the owner himself, since the work employed in that property makes it his own and, having employed his work in that property, makes the rest of the men no longer have a right over her. For he has taken that property from the state in which it commonly belonged to all and has made it his."
We could go into the debate that property is a social construct, but instead I will use the socialist argument.
The understanding of private property is based on absentee ownership, the owner has no need to labor the property for profit. That means the property (or future property attained through capital accumulation) was attained through ownership of capital, not through their own labor.
The basis of leftism is that the worker deserves everything they produce.
if you think that there will be no problem in that you give us your account and all the money in it. that is, property is a robbery, right?
private vs personal property.
Private property itself is offensive violence and thus requires a monopoly of force
It requires the use, or intent, of the use of force, but not the monopoly of it. There may be cases in which individuals have the power to defend what they consider their property, without the need of the State.