Goebel is my name.Some say I'm interesting.
This is a Haiku.
Goebel Gone Global
I’m TIRED of being called greedy.
Wanting to keep what you rightfully acquire through your own honest effort and then dispose of it as you see fit is NOT greed; wanting to take from someone else what they rightfully acquire through their honest effort and then dispose of it as you see fit,…
Yeah because making money based on your possession of capital is totally the same thing as hard work *eyeroll*
*Note* Just for the record, I am against taxation and view it as theft. But I also view the exploitation of labourers by capital as theft. That is (probably) where I disagree with OP.
Taxation is theft — on that point we are in absolute agreement.
On the other point, consider that constraining the definition of capital to mere currency is at least incomplete. Say you have in your possession a small parcel of land, a simple set of farming tools, and packet of pumpkin seeds. You plow your little field, plant your seeds, tend them carefully, and your patience and labour produce for you a lovely crop of pumpkins to harvest. Brilliant!
Say then that I approach you and demand that you give me your plow (Ha! Bet you thought I was going to say “a pumpkin,” huh?) because I want the plow to work my own field, where I want to grow potatoes. Where then does that leave you? You can still tend your land and grow your pumpkins, but with considerably increased labour and inconvenience without your plow. Now, does it matter if you bought the plow with money you earned from the sale of earlier pumpkins, or if you acquired the plow as an exchange for a wheelbarrow, or if you received the plow as a gift? No. The fact is, it’s YOUR plow, and you are completely within your rights to dispose of it (or not) as you see fit.
You can choose to simply deny my request. You can choose to give me the plow outright. You can choose to exchange the plow for something I have that you want more than you want the plow (a cart, perhaps). You can also choose to lend me the plow and ask for something from me to compensate you for the inconvenience of not having your own plow available for your own use — say, I am to provide labour for you for a fortnight to help harvest the pumpkins, at the end of the fortnight you are to lend me the plow, and after planting season I am to return the plow to you, with the addition of a bushel of my potatoes to compensate for my wear on your plow (to keep things simple, let’s assume you and I are both hounourable people and will both adhere to the terms of our agreement).
I, as the requestor, am within my rights to go elsewhere if I dislike either your choice of the plow’s disposition or any of the terms or conditions you set as the plow’s rightful owner — after all, you’re not the only bloke in the world with a plow. ;) So where, I ask, is the “exploitation” in all this?
You didn’t address the point that I made. I said:
“Yeah because making money based on your possession of capital is totally the same thing as hard work *eyeroll*”.
What you described was an exchange between equals and not the result of what I described (thus no visible exploitation from my p.o.v.). Let’s try another example:
You own a large swat of land. A swat of land so large that you could never maintain it yourself and you need assistance to do so. Since there is a state monopoly on the legitimacy of land ownership and yours and others is protected by the state, not everyone (and in face most people don’t) has access to very much land. Those people who do not have free access to land, because they have no means of producing on their own, come to you for employment. They maintain your fields for you, you take the product of their labour and sell it, give them a wage and keep the rest as profit. You have done no (or at most little) work in this process and yet are probably receiving greater income than those whom you hired and who maintained the land simply because you are granted ownership of it by the state. THAT is the exploitation that I spoke of; THAT is “making money based on your possession of capital”.
(Source: crankyanarchist, via crankyanarchist)
..This is far from being the philosophical post, that the title might suggest.
(Though I rather feel like writing that other post now)No, actually, I just want to clear out eventual confusion:
I should tell ya all, that when I say socialism I often refer to what could also be called communism. I don’t know about where you are from, but in Denmark the word communism is now commonly used as another word for Stalinism. So in essence, it covers a totalitarian system with a huge state with much power.
So in Denmark the terms socialist and communist have basically changed position, or at least the old idea of socialism being a stage between capitalism and communism no longer applies. That is why I am vary of using the term “communism”, and prefers the less negatively charged “socialism”.
For now, I am going to use both socialism and communism with the same meaning = the original Marxist idea of communism.
If anyone could tell me how these words are commonly used internationally, I would be grateful! But for now, I hope this clears out some confusion in my future posts..
You are correct, in most of the world (at least the capitalist world) the word communism has become equated with Stalinism. To some extent, though, so has socialism (especially in the United States). In the United States words have become so shifted from their original intended meanings that it often becomes very difficult to communicate. For example, the word Libertarian here has started to mean essentially minarchists who support a capitalist economy. The best thing to do is when you write about these topics to present your definitions of crucial words in the beginning.
I can provide you with the definitions of capitalism, socialism, and communism that I most often use:
Capitalism: an economic system structured upon the accumulation of capital in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.
Socialism: an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively.
Communism: an economic system in which the means and product of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively.
Communism is a socialist idea based on it’s public ownership of the means of production in order to free labour from wage slavery and the general influence of capital. The difference is that in a communist society the product is in some way communally owned in order to distribute according to need. It’s also notable that most socialistic societies will have some communistic elements in order to keep those cannot produce on their own afoot.
I think it’s also worthy of note that this is not the largest dividing issue between socialists. The largest issue, at least it seems to me, is on whether government is a force that can be used to push forward the social revolution or whether it is incompatible with the social revolution and has in fact been it’s greatest hindrance. Essentially, semantic difference is that of state socialism vs libertarian socialism. I’m wondering which side you take on that issue.
