"If you have a problem with depriving evil people of resources, you should probably oppose anarchism with the full force of your being. Otherwise, resources will flow to people who will make the most efficient and moral use of them for the maximum benefit of everyone."
"If your goal is to seize the means of production, anarchism won't work for you."
Seizing the means of production is giving it back to the humanity it was stolen from nice try tho
Except the fact that there is no one to give it back to? The labourer has parted with his labour in return for the money of the capitalist. Truly, we all already own our own means of production and we sell it to the highest bidder. There is nothing to seize other than the output which was already paid for. That is called theft.
Exactly correct Gregory. Communism is when you steal the product of other people's labor, namely which that went into the production of higher order production goods.
won't let me reply on the other one. im a communist i know what my system is about are you that stupid?
Your claim is that I'm stupid because you don't want to admit that you're a proponent of theft?
hit reply limit.....its taking back not stealing i already explained that. it doesn't matter if we steal it the rich take 95% of what we make either way and many people die because of them....
You still haven't provided evidence of how consensual exchange is theft so I'm left to believe that what you call "taking back" is actually an initiatory act of theft.
uhhh communism is getting the full results of your labor so I think you need to rethink that.....also it's owned by the rich not shared by everyone.....
What are the full results of my labour?
If company x offers me $20/hr for my labour in return for keeping what I produce and I agree. I own my means of production and I am voluntarily parting with it in return for money. If company X combine the product of my labour with the product of person b's labor (which they also paid for), then sell that for a profit (the price of THEIR labour). How has anyone done anything wrong? If I then turn around and tell company a that really the money they made for their part in the process belongs to me somehow I am nothing more than a thief and a schyster.
You need to labor for the rich to eat in this society they take most of what you produce
Walk me through this. Workers and employers have consensual relationships where workers trade time and labor for fixed sums of money because they prefer the money more than what they're producing (and the responsibility and risk that comes with owning what they're producing). Workers enter into these relationships because they expect to be better off than they otherwise would have been if they hadn't. This is called profit. Are you saying that the employer has no expectation of profit? Are you saying that workers are too stupid to agree to terms that are beneficial to them? Are you saying employers, investors and entrepreneurs don't work? Investors incur a majority of the risk in a business and entrepreneurs usually put in 16 hour days. At what point does it become reasonable to expect investors and "rich" people not to profit? What evidence do you have that they don't work?
It sounds to me like you're just class baiting like a typical Marxist
At what point does a consensual exchange become theft?
full results are everything you produce e.g. the equivalent of 400-500 thousand dollars a year min
What's your evidence of this claim?
"The means of production" is such an arbitrarily defined term that it has no value. I own a computer for personal use, but let's say I'm working on one of my film projects. I've hired a friend of mine to do the sound design and he uses my computer to do the work. I'm paying him for his services (like the evil capitalist exploiter that I am) and my computer has now become the means of production. Does he have the right to seize it? If not, how often would he need to use my computer while under my employ before it becomes his right to take it away from me?
Except you're using a computer for a monetary reason just by participating on this site, so doesn't your demonstrated preference betray your claim?
private property is different from personal property look it up it's basic lmao
And I just gave you a scenario that challenges those arbitrary definitions. Do you have an answer?
I do know the definition and in my scenario the computer is owned by me but laboured on by somebody else. My question is, at what point do they have the right to lay claim to it? Is it only if I don't use it at all? Or do they simply need to use it more than me? And for how long a period?
personal property is property labored on by one and owned by somebody else personal property is stuff you use.
You did not challenge them because you did not know the definition. Please try to learn about something before you debate it.
"personal property is property labored on by one and owned by somebody else personal property is stuff you use."
I certainly don't accept your convoluted and made up definition. Personal = private
Stealing is giving? Walk me through that please.
How exactly were the means of production stolen from the people? Which individuals were involved? Isn't your phone or computer a means of production? Who did you steal it from? Are you saying I can steal your phone or computer back from you because you stole it from me?
wow you can't even define private property vs personal property can you.....
The means of production in the begging of humanity were shared and all could use them because nobody owned them. Eventually feudalism and then capitalism rolled about with this land and other private property. They may have bought it but ultimately it was stolen from the people. They are simply taking it back not stealing it.
Personal property is something you own not use e.g. the billionaire you work for who has never worked a day in his life owns the building you work in. Personal property is something you work on or use that you own yourself. For example computers and phones
"wow you can't even define private property vs personal property can you....."
I guess I can't because that sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. Who did you steal your phone or computer from? Your hands are means of production too, now that I think of it. Who did you steal your hands from, capitalist swine?
read my comment again i answered that
I've reread it several times but it still looks like a distinction without a difference to me. It seems like you've invented this definition because it's too painful to admit that you're wrong.