Why do socialists want to take away the right to own private property? , page 3

reply to post by ANOK

Socialism...The workers ownership/control of the means of production and distribution. (yet to happen in ANY country).

Nationalism...The government ownership/control of the...(almost ALL countries have nationalised systems).

I get your distinction. And I must say that I feel the same way about Nationalism as you apparently do. Whenever one entity has ownership over everything, every other entity will suffer because of it. That's human nature, to exploit others in order to further one's own interests.

This, I believe, it the reason why, as you pointed out, that your version of socialism has not yet been successful in any country. It simply goes against human nature. Look at any force of workers: do they try to help each other out, or do they try to each best the others, striving for superior working conditions, superior pay, superior benefits? I have seen the latter many times more than I can count, but I have yet to see the former.

There used to be a paper plant around this area that appeared to use many of your suggestions. Employees were paid very well, but were expected to remain at their posts until relieved by the next shift. That meant that tardy workers were frowned upon by their peers, while those who showed up on time were appreciated. Shift adjustments were typically left to the workers; if one person needed to be off for a day, someone else could fill their shift in return for the same favor on a day they needed to be off. Management allowed this on a regular basis as a matter of routine.

Employees could be fired by a representative board of workers. The only way new employees could be hired was if they were approved by this same board. As you might imagine, there was a huge waiting list of applicants begging for a job in this plant. Sadly, it was eventually sold out to a national chain of paper mills and the conditions I mentioned before were replaced by more traditional working arrangements.

That worked, but it only worked because there were still rules in effect by upper management. If people had been able to simply stop working whenever they felt someone should have been there to relieve them, even if that person had not shown up, then the plant could not have operated.

So it would be with any group that tried to perform a service. Those who will laze by and only do the bare minimum that is required will soon slow down and stop the more productive workers. Jealousy will run rampant. "I do twice the work as he does, so I should make twice as much." "I am here on time every day, and this guy is always showing up 30 minutes late. Yet he is making the same wages I am. Why should I not be late too?"

Social security, medicare etc., is not socialism. 'Social programs' are a product of capitalism because capitalism requires a poverty class, and what are we to do with that class of people, let them starve? The armchair capitalists probably says yes, because they don't fully understand the system they blindly support.

They are socialistic programs, but I understand your distinction yet again. Still, I fail to see how such a major change as you appear to be proposing would lead to anything other than anarchy and lack in the short term, which would destroy any support one might have for your version of socialism at the grass-roots level. Therefore, these programs, while not perfect (or even close to perfect IMHO) are the best we can manage without taking the risk I mention above.

BTW this thread is not about the merits of socialism, it was about what socialists mean by 'property', and I answered that question.

Yes, you did:

Originally posted by ANOK

If you are using a piece of land and live on it then that land is yours under common land ownership. The only land that you cannot claim a right to is land that is not being used.

My initial question to this is: What exactly constitutes 'use'?

As an example, my family owns about 90 acres of land, mostly wooded. I have claim to 40 or so of that (the partially developed area, plus some of the wooded). Out of that amount, maybe 5 acres have buildings on it and therefore could be considered to be being 'used' by those who took a casual look at our situation.

But that 35 acres behind me is being used. It is a refuge, a quiet place for me to retreat to when the cares of the world become too great. It is a source of firewood for heat. It is a source of food, containing a deer population. Those are uses, even though in order to maintain it for these uses, the natural state must also be maintained. It is not fenced, since the deer typically roam over several such tracts. It contains no buildings since those would scare off the deer. It contains no 'harvested' areas, as I prefer to maintain the natural beauty by being very selective about which trees I use for heat.

Under your proposal, would I be forced to live next to a housing development simply because some people who did not appreciate the natural beauty of the area decided they wanted to live there? Would my usage of the land be less important than their proposed use of it, simply because my usage was not as overt?

In an even earlier post, I believe you mentioned that a socialistic system would allow workers to produce more efficiently the things we need. But you fail to comprehend the fact that these 'needs' (more correctly 'wants', to be sure) change as new technology is created. This new technology only comes about through self-sacrifice by the creators of such technology; one does not typically profit while new ideas are being researched and developed, but rather profit greatly when such technologies are introduced to the public. It is a question of either profiting moderately in the present or greatly in the future, and is a decision each individual must make for themselves.

In your proposed system, where is the motive to create new technologies to benefit mankind? Who determines what services and products are to be made or done for others? What is frivolous and what is necessary? I'm sure you have an answer to all these questions, and an intelligent answer at that. But would others not have differing ideas, just as intelligent, but from a different perspective? So whose do we use?

I understand your concept, and many aspects of it are admirable. But I simply wonder if it is possible to implement, given the conditions of human nature.

TheRedneck

Frankidealist:

As far as the question you ask goes, "Why do Socialists want to do away with private property," ANOK has done a great job answering that.

For broader themes, "socialism" has to be one of the most abused and misused words, particularly in American politics. Do not assume that everyone or everything that calls its/theirself "socialist" really is.

In terms of historical and economic theory, I think the crucial thing to understand is that Karl Marx (who was a historian and economist, not a politician) saw the critical driving force throughout human history to be who controls the means of production in a society, including the labor force.

Private property in this theory is a way of alienating (separating) the laborer from the product of his labor because in making labor exchangeable for cash it becomes a good that can be separated from the laborer.

Crucial to this way of thinking is that Marx understood work to be a fundamental characteristic of humanity; that he believed that the drive to leisure was a product of the unnatural separation of the worker from the work. Socialism as a stage on the path toward communism (which Marx believed to be the historical destination of man) is marked by differences in reward based on work done, so there is still a form of positive encouragement to work in the transition out of a capitalist society. The more you produce, the more you will get to keep; but the keeping is more a sort of right of usage than our notion of absolute possession.

In particular, inheritance rights are seen by many Socialists to perpetrate the capitalist dominance by reinforcing the class structure.

---

editing in some info from actual Socialists

The Socialist Labor Party of America, assembled at its 47th National Convention, reasserts the inalienable right of all human beings to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We hold that the purpose of government must be to secure to every citizen the enjoyment of this right. Taught by experience we hold, furthermore, that this right is an illusion for the overwhelming majority of people—the working class—under the present system of economic despotism that is essentially destructive of their life, their liberty and their happiness.

We hold that humanity cannot exercise their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without ownership of the land on and the tools of production with which to work. Deprived of these, the lives, liberty and fate of the workers are in the hands of the class that own those essentials for work and production.

Socialist Labor Party

---

Oh yeah, and everyone support the Debate Forum and check out the debate in my signature on whether or not the U.S. is ready for a move to a Socialist government

[edit on 3/10/09 by americandingbat]

reply to post by TheRedneck

---

I disagree with your assessment of Human Nature.

I believe this is one of the major stumbling blocks to the improvement of our lives. This is a major misconception that those who wish to maintain their power will try to tell you, that we need to be controlled by a centralised over-bearing authority.

It's the system that we have that perpetuates most bad Human Natures through fear. Fear, perpetuated by the state, is rampant in society on many levels.

Most people who believe Humans are naturally greedy, and even 'evil', obviously are not including themselves in this assessment. It's just everyone else that's bad. But in reality it's just a way you can justify supporting an unfair system without the guilt. You are the bad one for supporting a system that perpetuates that bad behaviour.

It is a fact that Humans are naturally altruistic.

www.goodnewsnetwork.org...

It's this system we live under that perpetuates bad behaviour, and those who have control of the state are the worse offenders. They use every trick in the book to perpetuate the natural Human tendency for survival.
Condition people to live in a constant state of fear and they are easy to control.
Consumerism, for example, is coerced through this new fear of being 'left behind' and not 'with it'. A waste of life and resources to keep those who control the economy wealthy and in control.

It's all about control. The 'system' is about keeping those at the top in control, not about making them rich. They're already rich. The system is to keep us all under economic slavery so we are 'kept in our place'. We are a threat to their power, so we are controlled to both supply the labour and to keep us from realising the illusion of their power.

reply to post by ANOK

I disagree with your assessment of Human Nature.

That would appear to be the prime difference in our positions. I make no secret of the fact that I am very cynical when it comes to humanity as a whole, although I do try to hold out hope that I may someday be proven wrong. Sadly, since we see society through different eyes, and since (in my view, anyway) the crux of our respective arguments is the way society would react to a truly socialistic arrangement, I see no way we can ever agree. Except, of course, to agree to disagree.

Most people who believe Humans are naturally greedy, and even 'evil', obviously are not including themselves in this assessment. It's just everyone else that's bad.

Oh, but no, at least not me.

Seriously, though, I do not see myself as immune to the traits I despise in others. I see myself as someone who would like to change, but is having a hard time of it... pretty much the same way I see most others.

You have made a very logical argument here ANON, and while I can't agree with you, I can respect the difference in our positions. Good debating with you.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

---

Hey mate I can respect that, thanx.

Yes I believe this incorrect assessment of our own nature is what keeps a lot of people from opening up to the idea of true freedom and liberty.

People think they're free, but when really pressed they admit that freedom scars them because of their negative view of other people, perpetuated by the media.

You have to realise we are not the evil people the MSM keeps trying to make us appear to be. Use some common sense and look around you. I live in a inner city high crime area, but even here it's not nearly as bad as the MSM paints it, nowhere near as bad. People around here just want to live in peace like anyone but when you're pushed into a corner, politically, socially and financially some people are going to act out. That IS Human nature.

It's funny, but I feel like a Human arguing with a non-Human and trying to convince you we're not really bad. No offense but maybe you just don't have the world experience to see how people really can do incredible things if we're allowed to. But as soon as we try to organise ourselves the authorities come in and try to discredit the organisation. Unions are the obvious example but it goes much further than that. The authorities don't like us being organised, because we then become a threat to the nice little system they have set up for themselves.

Go read about the Spanish revolution and how the farmers organised themselves using anarcho-socialist principles.

The role of anarchism in the Spanish Revolution or Spanish Civil War of 1936 is too often absent from histories of this struggle against fascism. Alongside the war millions of workers collectivised the land and took over industry to pursue their vision of a new society.

flag.blackened.net...

Please check it out and read. This is real PEOPLES history, not 'rich mans' his-story. You weren't taught this in school. They organised with NO central government, while at the same time fighting a war against the fascists. Ordinary working class people.

Also read 'Homage to Catalonia', by George Orwell if you get a chance, it's about the Spanish revolution/civil war.

It can be done, but it won't ever be done of we don't realise we can do it!

reply to post by ANOK

---

One more time, 100 % agreed.

May Nestor Makhno also not be forgotten.

Edit :

reply to post by ANOK

---

Same agreement.

Edit : Nazism and Nihilist alike Weltanshauungen ("View of the World", litt.) are fuelled by [paganistisch] low/down/depreciative view of human kind. When monotheism, by the way, put the Human Kind forth up to the Ultimate Goal of the entire universe - even as a time process (so the creationism stuff as described symbolicaly within the Bible, - well the Torah, if not Tanakh, here.)


[edit on 11-3-2009 by Rigel]

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Rigel]

Town hall threat to seize empty homes: campaign to force owners to sell or rent out.

Anyone who leaves their house empty for six months or more should face the threat of losing it, ministers said yesterday.
They told town halls to pressure homeowners to sell up or rent out homes where no one is living.

Those who fail to get a house occupied before the deadline risk having it seized by their local authority and used to house council tenants.
The campaign to force homeowners to dispose of empty houses was launched by housing minister Margaret Beckett, who said the slowdown in construction of homes means empty ones must be used.

It is most likely to affect recently bereaved families who could face seeing the home of a dead relative taken if they delay too long in deciding what to do with it.

During the recession many families are likely to hang on to empty property because they cannot sell or let it, or because they are hoping for higher prices.

Councils have been told to send threatening letters warning homeowners of their powers to 'take over the running of the property and bring it back into use by force'.

Owners who fail to respond will then be sent questionnaires designed to establish whether the town hall has the legal right to seize their property.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

There are literally tens of thousands of council owned properties throughout the country that stand empty, but rather than fill those first, they would rather seize privately owned property and give it to some immigrant, whose only goal in life is to live off benefits and most importantly the government would make a nice profit.

Most English politicians have homes that are empty most of the time, which they also claim expenses for, but no doubt they'll be exempt from this legislation, but what's new. Greedy hypocrites.

reply to post by ANOK

Hey mate I can respect that, thanx.

The beauty of ATS. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

And I have to admit, you may not have changed my mind, but you have made me think. That's always a good thing.

You have to realise we are not the evil people the MSM keeps trying to make us appear to be. Use some common sense and look around you. I live in a inner city high crime area, but even here it's not nearly as bad as the MSM paints it, nowhere near as bad.

It's funny, but I feel like a Human arguing with a non-Human and trying to convince you we're not really bad. No offense but maybe you just don't have the world experience to see how people really can do incredible things if we're allowed to.

Ah, but you do proceed form a false assumption here. My view of humanity is not based on the MSM, but on my own experiences. I typically laugh at the MSM for trying to show me how good people really are.

As for my experience, well, I personally think a half-century of living, a decade of that traveling the US as an over-the-road truck driver, counts for something. It's true that I have never been outside of North America, although I do have some friends form countries other than the United States that I talk to frequently. I like hearing their viewpoints.

But as soon as we try to organise ourselves the authorities come in and try to discredit the organisation. Unions are the obvious example but it goes much further than that. The authorities don't like us being organised, because we then become a threat to the nice little system they have set up for themselves.

I can understand where you get this. In many times of distress during historical times, groups of people have successfully managed to govern themselves for a time. Unfortunately this arrangement always seems to evaporate, leaving us right back where we started from: the haves and the have-nots arguing about who should have what.

I really do wish I could subscribe to your world view, and nothing would delight me more than being able to say "You were right and I was wrong". I am not happy about my world view one bit; I simply do not see the goodness and compassion you mention on anything approaching a regular basis.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

---

I'm sorry to hear your life experiences of people has been so negative, but I would imagine the people you find on the highways of America are not a good example of the world at large. I mean who's nice to anyone when you've been driving all day and some trucker gets in your way..

But we're talking people in general here, not our own experiences really. I've had plenty of bad experiences with people, I'm no naive kid, but no one single experience, or person, is reflective of Human nature. There are many reasons people act out, and a large majority are directly connected to the 'system' we live in, poverty, inequality etc. Very few people are really naturally amoral.

And punishment obviously doesn't work, as crime goes on regardless of threats of punishment. The more laws they enact, the more criminals they create. Most crime is a direct result of the system, and of existing laws.

Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism
  Posted 11 days ago with 79 member flags

Hippy Do-Gooders have Destroyed the World
  Posted 12 days ago with 23 member flags

Facts About Socialism
  Posted 4 days ago with 23 member flags

Are Liberals REALLY More Intelligent Than Conservatives?
  Posted 8 days ago with 18 member flags

Why conservatives . . . . . suck!
  Posted 1 days ago with 16 member flags

The "Occupy are Socialists," Megathread
  Posted 12 days ago with 8 member flags

Unpopular Opinions: Say NO to Human Rights
  Posted 7 days ago with 7 member flags

This is what needs to happen: REVOLUTION!
  Posted 15 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: