Yes, capitalist property is hostorically siezed by the people through force, just like feudalism was ended by force. I don’t have rose tinted glasses, I know force is required, I just see it as necessary and the outcome extremely positive.
That’s a fine perspective to have. But it is the textbook definition of robbing someone at gunpoint.
They have something of value that you want, you don’t want to exchange said value for it, so you take it by force… at gunpoint.
Maybe there’s a moral justification for that. Maybe you think they don’t deserve it, or you need it more, or you think their ownership of it represents it’s own form of theft… But they’re definitely getting robbed at gunpoint.
I’m not taking a normative position here. I’m not saying anything about morality, or good guys and bad guys. I’m offering up moral frameworks to justify those actions. My takeaway from Robin Hood wasn’t that he was the villain.
I just don’t get why you’d act like the idea is NOT to take from the ownership class at gunpoint when that’s the whole idea. None of the rest of it works unless you do that. Just say it with your whole chest. Don’t bitch out.
Capitalists already steal value from workers by paying them less than the value they create. One short bout of “theft” to take back what was stolen over centuries isn’t really theft, it’s returning what’s owed.
You’re mixing up the revolution and ensuing socialist period with the communist, fully collectivized period. “From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs” applies to the fully collectivized communist period, and doesn’t need to be “enforced at gunpoint,” it just exists without capitalists anymore. The revolution does have appropriation from capitalists, as well as the socialist period of gradually collectivizing society’s production and distribution.
That’s a bit of a cop out. “There’s no Robin Hood at that specific point because it’s already been taken at gunpoint by the time we dole it out”.
That doesn’t erase the fact that they’re very much is a Robin Hood figure with a gun. And if you want to seize everything at gunpoint You should at least be up front about it.
If your point is true and right in virtuous you do not need a spin on it.
The question that you originally responded to was IMO about early socialism and revolution. It assumes that people have something to give (besides labor) and you picked up on that when you referenced robbing.
You’ve moved the goalposts. First you conceed that yes there will have to be “theft” (your word not mine), then when I agreed with you (while not being so judgey as to call it theft), you pivoted to “no, we only start counting what happens after we’ve seized power. Everything before that doesn’t count” (paraphrasing of course).
I agree with you that if you laid out a timeline and point to where the economy would be reorganized, it comes after seizing everything at gunpoint. Obviously you can’t reorganize till you’ve taken ownership. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen.
That’s a pretty rose tinted view. It is, generally speaking, “collectivized” at gunpoint.
Yes, capitalist property is hostorically siezed by the people through force, just like feudalism was ended by force. I don’t have rose tinted glasses, I know force is required, I just see it as necessary and the outcome extremely positive.
That’s a fine perspective to have. But it is the textbook definition of robbing someone at gunpoint.
They have something of value that you want, you don’t want to exchange said value for it, so you take it by force… at gunpoint.
Maybe there’s a moral justification for that. Maybe you think they don’t deserve it, or you need it more, or you think their ownership of it represents it’s own form of theft… But they’re definitely getting robbed at gunpoint.
Oh no! How dare the peasants rob the nobility at gun point of their rightful fiefdoms!
I’m not taking a normative position here. I’m not saying anything about morality, or good guys and bad guys. I’m offering up moral frameworks to justify those actions. My takeaway from Robin Hood wasn’t that he was the villain.
I just don’t get why you’d act like the idea is NOT to take from the ownership class at gunpoint when that’s the whole idea. None of the rest of it works unless you do that. Just say it with your whole chest. Don’t bitch out.
That’s the singular aspect I’m judging.
Capitalists already steal value from workers by paying them less than the value they create. One short bout of “theft” to take back what was stolen over centuries isn’t really theft, it’s returning what’s owed.
That’s what I was getting at. Don’t soft pedal it.
“There WILL be a Robin Hood type taking shit at gunpoint”.
You’re mixing up the revolution and ensuing socialist period with the communist, fully collectivized period. “From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs” applies to the fully collectivized communist period, and doesn’t need to be “enforced at gunpoint,” it just exists without capitalists anymore. The revolution does have appropriation from capitalists, as well as the socialist period of gradually collectivizing society’s production and distribution.
That’s a bit of a cop out. “There’s no Robin Hood at that specific point because it’s already been taken at gunpoint by the time we dole it out”.
That doesn’t erase the fact that they’re very much is a Robin Hood figure with a gun. And if you want to seize everything at gunpoint You should at least be up front about it.
If your point is true and right in virtuous you do not need a spin on it.
I’m not spinning anything, you asked a question about communism and I answered, and now you’re moving the goalposts to revolution and early socialism.