Give me one good reason a small group of people should "own" all of the land and control all the of the major companies while you spend a lifetime indebted to them just to have a roof over your head, food in your belly, and a little bit of money left over to further enrich them by buying cheap distractions.
One
Good
Reason
(bonus: their need for cheaper and cheaper labor are also the reason white countries are becoming multicultural)
Why do burgers always want everything handed to them on a fucking plate?
Success isn't something you can order at McDonalds, you dumb cunt. Go outside and make something of yourself.
Give me one good reason why a small group of elite government officials should own all the land...
Private property is the key to liberty. Therefore in order to create a more free society, as many people as possible should own private property.
Distributism is miles better than socialism and capitalism, both of which deprive you of property and enslave you.
Isn't inheriting a lot of wealth from your dad like that? Oh yeah that doesn't count.
>has reading comprehension issue
I think if you read the post, you would realize this is the argument being made against capitalism.
That it allows landlords, bankers, to effectively sit back and do nothing while others labor and produce to create wealth for them.
Communism as described by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, et al, is a stateless society. The socialist state or consolidation of power was proposed afterwards as a sort of transition phase, of course the actual transition into communism has never happened once power was consolidated.
But nonetheless, it is important to understand what communism as described by it's proponents meant to understand it's notions of property and ownership claims.
I would start with Rousseau and other classical liberal notions of ownership claims and labor, as these were really a precursor to Marx and Proudhon's ideas on ownership claims.
However natural “owning” land or "private property" may seem in our statist society, in the long sweep of human existence, it is a fairly recent invention and has only existed with the establishment of a state.
why should the jews own everything?
sage
nobody is stopping you from becoming a landlord or a banker. why not become one?
>why not become one?
hmm I think the biggest barrier to entry is the fact that it requires more money than I can make in several lifetimes.
>He isn't internationally slum lording through a shell corporation.
Whatever man, maybe it just wasn't meant to be for you.
>effectively sit back and do nothing
The fact you would make that statement and attack someone else's intelligence is hilarious.
>mistakens awareness of political ideologies for advocacy
I'm currently saving for a down payment on a home with my fiance, my credit is great and I make enough to qualify for mortgage in the area we're interested in... we'll hopefully be able to start looking for places to put in offers next Spring.
I understand and enjoy discussing political ideologies, I'm also realistic and I understand my situation in my current environment. I'm absolutely a capitalist in practice, this doesn't mean that I can't be aware of other political ideologies or discuss them.
I personally don't think communism is a realistic achievable goal in today's world but it's evolution from classical liberal notions of ownership and the Labor Theory of Value are fascinating and something that a lot of people fail to understand or have been taught to ignore entirely.
No offense but Im pretty sure I have a better than average understanding of stateless socialism, having been an anarchist for 9 years. I wont bother wih my objections to classical Marxism as Ill just be parroting Bakunin but I will point to the many examples of societies that called themselves communist as proof that Bakunin was right.
Property ownership precedes the state. It is natural to have things (capital) and combine them with your labor and natural forces to generate wealth.
The state has it's place in society but only when all other more local options are exhausted. Remember, Im a Distributist, not a capitalist, so Subsidiarity is my model for the role of the state.
>absolutely clueless
Here, I'll quote the father of free market capitalism himself on this one...
"The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for the natural produce of the earth."
- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Do you understand now?
Cute quote. It doesn't make your statement correct. In order to become a landlord, one has to first build the capital in order to invest in real estate. Not everyone is born wealthy. I own 4 properties and have 4 sets of tenants, I also have a full time job in order to pay for my mortgages and fees. Your opinion on wealth makes you sound like a typical socialist 19 year old.
Do you understand now?
>having been an anarchist for 9 years
Then you should be familiar with Proudhon's distinction between personal property and private property.
>Property ownership precedes the state.
This would be personal property, property which the person readily possesses or occupies. Often through their own labor or ability to defend the property as their own.
Private property is a state-enforced claim to ownership. Only with private property are landlords and bankers able to actually gain wealth from the labor of others while not even necessarily defending the property or occupying the property. They rely on the state to enforce their claim.
I can never tell if the marxist fags on pol are serious or just trolling
Private property is defined as property used to generate wealth (often through the exploitation of labor, one might add). Capital is always private property.
Private property is not state defined because I can point to private property in stateless societies. He may be a ancom, but David Graeber's Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology talks about some societies. What he fails to mention though is that they have privately owned property, even through their systems are primative.
Because all attempts to run society otherwise have failed and they returned to a market economy.
For example, Pol Pot's Cambodia abolished all currency, all religion and dragged city dwellers out to farm in the countryside as equals with the peasants. Anybody (outside the CPK of course) who could lord over somebody else were killed, which included those with glasses because it meant they could read which meant they were educated which meant they had money.
A quarter of the population died, anything resembling industry or infrastructure was destroyed, and it only lasted four years.
socialism could only work in a society where at least 99.999% of people are good. maybe heaven could be a socialist paradise
>In order to become a landlord, one has to first build the capital in order to invest in real estate.
Yes
>Not everyone is born wealthy.
Absolutely true
>I own 4 properties and have 4 sets of tenants, I also have a full time job in order to pay for my mortgages and fees.
Good for you, you worked hard and made smart investments. Real estate is a great investment, my parents themselves who both worked in real estate their entire adult lives rely on their own real estate investments that they have built up over the years for their retirement.
You made those investments because you realized that you could gain equity, collect rent and hopefully secure a nice comfy nest of a retirement for yourself. You made those investments because they can continue to generate wealth for you. On the flip side, the bank loaned you the capital so that they can collect interest and increase their wealth.
This is the reality of the world that we live in, it's functional and I'm not bashing it.
I've been working on getting all my ducks in a row to qualify for my first home mortgage and hopefully start searching and making offers this spring. I'm a small business owner, and regularly work over 50 hours a week.
>typical socialist 19 year old
I'm 28, not even a socialist. I just understand the notions of ownership proposed from classical liberals to anarchists and communists because I'm very interested in the history of political movements and their influence. I was clarifying the argument for you since you didn't understand it and still want to Don Quixote all over the fucking place with your own personal story.
Ok guys, fuck this dumb nigger and his commie thread, answer me this k
What would happen if we made a law that only people can own things? Like, a truck or whatever can't bring to a company, it has to belong to the owner of the company. The company can't buy shit, the owner has to. Would a law like that eliminate rampant corporatism while still enabling free market capitalism and encouraging entrepreneurialism?
You aren't clarifying anything, you're flogging a dead horse from a garbage argument from a toxic ideology. It's also amusing that someone who has posted their personal story in this thread is attacking someone else who did; far more briefly.
>What would happen if we made a law that only people can own things? Like, a truck or whatever can't bring to a company, it has to belong to the owner of the company.
While this may work for small businesses, it would not be functional at all for a corporation with many different shareholders.
The corporation, in theory, is a wonderfully democratic institution in which collective ownership can occur. You would be limiting this unless multiple people could own the same property, but this would effectively just be what a corporation is in practice anyway. If that makes sense.
The issue that communists have with property isn't necessarily just the ownership itself, but the way in which it facilitates a system where labor is not directly rewarded. The idea is that this is somewhat ineffective as shareholders may have worked hard to produce the capital which they invested, only to have it squandered by horrible workers in the corporation who produce nothing of value. And inversely, that they may have not worked hard at all for the capital which they invest and then demand the largest share of what society is paying for the product while giving very little to those who labored to produce it.
It's not so much that some should own more than others, as that it's the only thing that actually works.
because if you invent the smartphone, dumb niggers who buy it with their welfare money should not be financially equal to you, nor should they be as powerful or influential as you for doing absolutely nothing but wanting and some even claiming needing the product you invented, managed, advertized for, and sold en masse. whiny niggers and those who do nothing in their lives but consume complain that these successful people also do nothing but sit around and roll in cash. this is because they're smart and invest in automatic production and marketing. these people got so rich from their success that they now pay others to do all the steps for them, even paying people to act as the spokesperson for their invention while they have 0 spotlight living in their mansion doing nothing till they die.
if you're against capitalism, you're a lazy nigger bringing down business owning niggers that are trying to make their race look good.
>garbage argument from a toxic ideology
Is father of capitalism's contribution to labor theory of value "toxic" in your opinion?
Aggressive ignorance about your own beliefs and values is a fascinating thing. Understanding the argument of "the other side" often strengthens your own.
Because they bought it from people who sold it to them
>one good reason
On property claims to capital investments:
Innovation requires taking market risks, and those market risks need a reward.
This isn't possible when a purely labor value amount is placed on goods produced. When individuals have capital freed up to invest in innovations, this provides a natural selection process for seeking innovations of value to society.
On land ownership:
Since society has moved far beyond simple agrarian means of production to more specialized roles, most individuals do not labor on the land which they occupy. Instead, the system of capital allows them to labor in other sectors of society and enjoy the fruits of their labor by ownership in property if they wish.
In urban areas, at least here in the US, there is a a growing prevalence of collective ownership by Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). This may become even more prevalent as shortage of developable land increases. The REIT is a wonderfully democratic institution for it's shareholders, who having labored to produce their own capital have decided to put it into collective ownership of land and retire from it's proceeds. You yourself can gain a share in a REIT and effectively become a "land owner" for just $224.03 (NYSE:ESS) and collect dividends, perhaps for your retirement. What a beautiful thing.
>Private property is not state defined because I can point to private property in stateless societies.
Curious if you can give me examples?
> It doesn't make your statement correct. In order to become a landlord, one has to first build the capital in order to invest in real estate.
No. They lend the money, and get their tenants to pay it off. Landlords are the scum of the Earth. They add nothing to Humanity. They are Pigs.
>You yourself can gain a share in a REIT and effectively become a "land owner" for just $224.03 (NYSE:ESS) and collect dividends, perhaps for your retirement. What a beautiful thing.
>land has become so egregiously expensive in NYC thanks to capitalism the only way a person can hope to own any is by buying shares that represent an infinitesimal amount of ownership in a holding company that owns land all to get a measly dividend
>this is an example of capitalism working
kek can't make this shit up
>THE RICH CONTROL ALL CAPITAL GOODS
So what?
You can't eat capital goods. Who cares if they manage it?
The vast majority of CONSUMER GOODS in the economy are consumed by the working class.
Taking their money from them will not benefit you whatsoever.
Also marxists need to be killed.
>Then you should be familiar with Proudhon's distinction between personal property and private property.
LMAO
I love bullshit arbitrary distinctions which serve no purpose in discussion.
Adam Smith's labour theory of value was already debunked ages ago with the marginal revolution.