• hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do you think private property is not enforced in a capitalist state?

    • HardNut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      For a moment, assume a complete stateless world. Anarchy in the genuine sense - literally no state, just people and the product of what they do. Let’s say someone invents a thing and they want to sell it. There’s no state to regulate what he does, so selling it isn’t out of the question by default. Let’s say he buys wood to construct storage facilities, and a store front. That was wood he bought, and he owns the product of it. Again, there’s no state, just things to buy/sell and stuff to do. no state to claim the land he built it on, it’s just his shop, his wood, his materials, his ideas. Those are privately owned by him, because he collected or bought it himself. Is this the result of enforcement, or is this just a guy who wanted to sell something?

      Now consider again an anarchist state, at what point does the collective come into play? It’s not his wood, it’s everyone’s wood! According to who, who decided that? This guy didn’t, so it’s his. Okay well let’s say people have agreed that the means of production are collectively owned. Well, what if this guy doesn’t agree? Actually, fuck it, it’s my hypothetical, he doesn’t agree. I sure wouldn’t. I built it, so it’s mine. Okay well now we have a group of people that agree they collective own the things I made. How are they gonna make it theirs? Are they gonna take it by force, thereby enforcing the rule?

      Private ownership is not enforced, it’s achieved. Collective ownership is enforced.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Who is he buying wood from? How did they come to own that wood? What is he using to pay for that wood? That “just things to buy/sell and stuff to do” is hand-waving a lot that goes into running the systems that we have in place. It’s a common fallacy to assume capitalist functions are a feature of nature that have and will always exist just because it’s the system you’re living under.

        • HardNut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not hand waving, it’s a hypothetical lmao. You can’t just call it a fallacy and leave without engaging with any of the reasoning, that’s just cheating and lazy

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You have no reasoning to begin with. I asked basic questions about your little scenario and you couldn’t answer them. Again, where is this guy buying the wood from? How did the person who he bought the wood from come to own that wood in the first place? How were they granted the rights to that wood? Did they just stake a claim by calling firsties? First come first chop? What do they accept as payment for that wood? Some form of currency? What gives that currency legitimacy? You’re hand-waving crucial details in your little capitalist fantasy but scrutinize collective ownership. You’re either completely clueless or you’re intentionally skipping over those details because then you’d have to admit the enforcement involved in getting your little capitalist fantasy to actually work out.

            • HardNut@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Dude there’s no way you actually expect me to explain all of this just to illustrate that private ownership doesn’t require enforcement. That point has been made, and it’s been made clearly. Just because you’re confused about specific details doesn’t mean I did a poor job of explaining it. But, out of pure stubbornness, I’ll indulge:

              where is this guy buying the wood from?

              Either he cut it down or someone else did and sold it to him

              How were they granted the rights to that wood?

              Rights are a matter of state. There is no state. Nobody did.

              Did they just stake a claim by calling firsties? First come first chop?

              Sure, I guess.

              What do they accept as payment for that wood? Some form of currency? What gives that currency legitimacy?

              Again, there is no state. Currency is a representation of value legitimized by the state. Without a state, there’s no currency. They would use money, and by money, I actually mean the Marxist definition of it. Money is a commodity, something that holds genuine value.

              You’re hand-waving crucial details in your little capitalist fantasy but scrutinize collective ownership.

              And this is why your questions are annoying to me. Are you under the impression that this was not a hypothetical? Do you think this was an analogy, or a genuine prescription for how a society should run? You’re taking scrutiny hyper specific details because you want to argue with what I’m saying, yet what I’m trying to tell you have not even made a passing through your train of though.

              My point is this, and only this: It is natural for people to take ownership of things. Any claim that something I gathered, bought, built, or was given as a gift is actually just in my possession would necessarily have to be enforced, otherwise it’s just mine.

              • hark@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Okay so this guy went to some random forest and cut trees. Then someone emerges and says “hey, that’s my forest, you’re cutting my trees”, to which the initial guy responds with “I don’t see your name on 'em”. Now what? Who resolves this dispute? The only point you’ve made is that you haven’t thought your favored ideology through. It doesn’t count as enforcement if it’s your favored system because only the bad systems require enforcement in your eyes? A hypothetical doesn’t work when it falls apart at the most basic level.

                • HardNut@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, just seem to be willing to participate in a thought experiment that could contradict your worldview. That’s fine, I’ll just leave you alone now. Have a good one

                  • hark@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You weren’t willing to answer basic questions about your own thought experiment because those simple questions challenged your worldview. I’ve been trying to participate this whole time and it’s just made you angry. Do you think participation is just people agreeing with you?