How do we fix this?

...

worse than op tbh

Revolution.

You must be at least 18 to post here.

And to everyone else in this thread: Pic related.

Saging is for people who share racial ancestry with Ferdinand Lassalle

Neither are.

Only when there is no justification for the thing being property.

But even if you remove all of society you still don't have food fall in your mouth in the natural world. Having to do something to not starve is not voluntarily due to biology. It seems like the only situation that is acceptable is if someone else brings food to you or if you're dead. How is there a practical application for that? Who is going to be doing labour for you for free?

Yeah, but you'll work only for yourself. You won't have to pay someone else rent in order to forage for berries in a particular area.

What justifies your receipt of it then? Then it magically becomes rightfully owned again?>>2309041
Your solutions is that the western population will be foraging for berries.

Literally learn history before 1700 to solve this mystery, user. You do realize capitalism isn't eternal, right? Maybe look into how people sustained themselves before it was established. Also fun to look into shit like enclosure to learn how your supposedly 'free' and 'voluntary' system was forced on the populace from above.

You can have a temporary monopoly over an object you're using on a regular basis, but claims to objects you do not use are illegitimate and form the basis for exploitation.

Keep in mind as well that very close analogues of enclosure are currently underway in the Amazon basin, India, and parts of sub-saharan Africa.

Leave what other people have built and go do it then.

Why should I when I can just take what is rightfully mine? Besides, all of the land in the world is owned by someone now anyway.

I thought property was theft, why is it yours?

its really sad how easy it is sometimes :(

As I said before, property which an individual does not personally use is illegitimate. So for instance factories, farmland, server farms, etc. These rightfully belong to the workers who do use them every day. These objects belong to them because they use them. Being a wage laborer myself, it is in my interest to take possession of the apparatus present in my work place and use it to produce for the benefit of others, rather than to make my boss a profit.

Well it doesn't go to me, it goes to…It depends on the tendency in the left you follow. The issue can be framed in terms of rent. To be more specific, rent is illegitimate because it involves profiting not based on your contribution but on the way the legal concept of ownership works in the modern world.

They won't, the point here is reciprocity. What you contribute through your labor to other and society is what you int turn are entitled too.

There is a distinction between the personal and the private when it comes to property in the left. Personal property is just yours, private property belongs to those who work/use it.

It's all mine

Ok, born in medieval england, stand around doing nothing wanting free food…nothing comes. Kill pig to eat, farmer who raised pig takes your head off with a crossbow. Local militia - "what a lazy cunt well done farmer"

Labor is entitled to all that it creates. Property is theft precisely because it steals my labor from people to support a violent parasite.

It is precisely the proprietors who want free food, and they get this free food by violent monopoly over the means of production. We are the farmer taking the thief's head off.

Farm on land which a feudal lord has laid claim to in order to grow food to feed yourself, and have the knights confiscate a chunk of your crop annually because you are using a certain area of land.
Work using capital that someone else has laid claim to in order to produce goods to exchange for food, only receive wages equal to a portion of the value you generate for your employer, get arrested if you have a problem with this.

See a pattern?

Create something then.
Except you havn't produced anything. The farmer produced the farm, if someone wants to come and get a piece of it for free then they are the thief.

Speak for yourself buddy. In your analogy, the working class is the farmer and the bourgeoisie are the ones coming along using armed force to take the pigs.

That is precisely what the proletariat does.

We are the farmer, the thief is the proprietor. The very nature of private property allows you to demand something for nothing.

Im just asking when is this historical period which shows how things "should" be that we are going to revert to. "pre 1700" apparently?

No. We should not revert to any time period. It is just important to realize that there is nothing natural about the current state of affairs when it comes to wage labor, and that the way production is organized has changed many times before.

They do, they work on the farm.

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't it depends on when and what kind of farm they have. What is produced on the farm, by workers if this farm is a business, is what makes the profits and profits the fruit of labor in markets.

before
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution
psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

yeah I get what you mean, some other guy said earlier, see pre-1700 for the answer, I was just saying pre-1700 doesnt look any different.

Yes they do. People predominantly produced goods directly for use, rather than for market exchange, and they were separated from their product forcibly through direct hierarchical domination, rather than through market mechanisms.

So if a thief spends enough time, energy, and risk into stealing something, that that legitimately makes it his?

...

The proles also do this, yet get nothing. The reason the bourg get everything is because they threw abstract capital at it. They also didn't construct it, they hired other people to do that for them.

...

...

You can do this right now?

It's not literally organizing things the way they were back then, it's that most of us want to bring back the "philosophy" of how "economics" was organized back then.

...

No, he's stealing something when he gets a usurious profit from his investment: this profit can only exist by stealing the labor of the workers, by paying them less then the value of the work they do.

That fortune likely came from previous theft. But regardless, if in this hypothetical situation the investor saved up his life savings to build this dam, then he should get that money back. If he gets more than he put in then that means someone else is getting less.

The question is why they have and should have the fortune, and why it entitles them to ownership and profits as opposed to, as a possibility, an return on an equity loan.

hmmm…….

please build dam and in return you will have the money you started with, minus years of time and research, oh and if it doesn't work out you wont even have that back, so the only possible situation is a loss or at best nothing. But please do it anyway because the people who dont have the capability of doing it need stuff.

That other people are hired to spend doing. If the capitalists is involved he's just one of many doing the planning and management.

They don't have the ability because capitalists hoard the capital. Capital isn't some magical property inherent to the being of capitalists.

no one is stopping you from selling pebbles on the side of the road and catching fish or whatever, no one is putting a gun to your head and making you rent someone elses stuff to make money, You want to because you want the products of things people who did things that you cannot, like the computer you are typing on right now.

Yes, what your saying is one of the ideas that helped lead to leftism.

Ok how do they get the capital for that kind of project without being capitalists
inb4 TAKE IT! IM A LARPER! (this still requires capitalists
inb4 muh berries, muh pebbles, the people will just build a nuclear power plant out of twigs as a community project

So if you're ok with current order whats your problem?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

Several ways.

That is such a distilled universal statement it applies to literally any system ever. Yeah, people work for things, so what?

You evidently have a low one if you think being smart means you will be a capitalist or that every capitalist is intelligent. Or you think that higher than average Autism Level does anything other than make you better at management.

Either there's a samefag here or Holla Forums or /liberty/ are lurking in decent numbers.

Im not saying that, Im saying that capital is not the only reason why not everyone has the ability to construct a hydro-electric dam. Therefore just saying "the only reason they cant is because the capitalists have all the money" isnt true.

Of course not everyone is able to build a dam, but that doesn't change the fact that the capitalist makes no contribution at all to the effort, yet reaps the reward.

Yeah, high Autism Level engineers design the dam, the owner, especially for huge energy infrastructure project like a dam just throws money at it, and makes sure its spent efficiently. So capital is still the primary thing preventing the workers or local community from starting it. There would still be division of labor under another system.

There are some contributions they might make, like helping management, making sure the money is spent efficiently and doesn't go over-budget, but that's just another form of labor, and doesn't justify why they get the profits or have unaccountable control over the dam.

Single mothers have to work.