Should there be limits to an individual's property in society?

[MikeNovack]

I am getting sick and tired of your diversions of the matter under discussion.

Agrarian shmegarian, THAT wasn't what was the question. The question was your position that "communes" could not form an entire society, and I was giving an example, the clan based societies in which the clans were the were the fundamental unit of "ownership".

No obviously, if we had a modern clan based society the property owned would not be just land. Do you really want to defend the idea "would work for land but not any other sort of property". What reasons would you give for why what sort o property would matter*??

I will repeat, there is nothing wrong with you having your definition of "socialism". Where you are going off the rails is when you tell somebody who is self identifying as a "socialist" (BUT WHO YOU KNOW IS NOT USING YOUR DEFINITION, WHO YOU KNOW IS INCLUDING THINGS THAT YOU DO NOT CONSIDER SOCIALISM) that they are mistaken and MUST be believing in what YOU define as "socialism" (or they are dishonest or ill educated or ...)

* NOTE -- there is ONE distinction of "property" that matters, the distinction between property that has amount/quantity and property that does not. If I have property with amount/quantity, if I give half to you I have only half left for myself. But with property that has no amount/quantity I can give it (all) to you and still retain it. Think about knowledge as property. If master teaches the apprentice a mystery of the craft, still retains it.

[Immanuel Can]

I am getting sick and tired of your diversions of the matter under discussion.

Wow. That's just what I was going to say.

No obviously, if we had a modern clan based society the property owned would not be just land.

"Land" was your word. I just pointed out that it didn't mean much. We're not agrarian. And the "means of production" are now post-industrial, urban and technological.

I will repeat, there is nothing wrong with you having your definition of "socialism".

Except it's not mine. It's the Socialist definition of Socialism. They insist on two things, at minimum: abolishing of private property, which Marx said was primary, and then the seizing of all the means of production, by which they believe they can produce the new "Socialist Man."

Again, read your own theory before you talk. You'll find I'm right.

[MikeNovack]

Except it's not mine. It's the Socialist definition of Socialism. They insist on two things, at minimum: A) abolishing of private property, which Marx said was primary, B) and then the seizing of all the means of production, by which they believe they can produce the new "Socialist Man."

Again, read your own theory before you talk C. You'll find I'm right.

A) Socialists ARE agreed about this.

B) "seizing" less agreement. Remember back when "slavery" was being discussed? While the slave owners likely felt they wetre being robbed, their property seized, when slavery was abolished DO YOU AGREE? Or do you see this as a situation where the society/government was simply deciding "that person is NOT property".

C) Have you read Kropotkin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Goldman, Read, Stirner, Spooner, Tucker. et al (the anarchists, socialist and individualist)? LOL, I personally knew the late Murray Bookchin. What reason do you have tom think I have not read my own theory, so to speak?

[Immanuel Can]

Except it's not mine. It's the Socialist definition of Socialism. They insist on two things, at minimum: A) abolishing of private property, which Marx said was primary, B) and then the seizing of all the means of production, by which they believe they can produce the new "Socialist Man."

A) Socialists ARE agreed about this.

Yep.

B) "seizing" less agreement.

No, they're both Socialist essentials, by Socialist definition.

You really should give me your definition of Socialism, just so we can compare notes. But apparently, you're not going to do that, so there's no point in me asking...yet again.

I don't think you know what Socialism is. You've given me no evidence you do. You don't even have a definition, apparently.

[Gary Childress]

Is Cuba "socialist"?

[Immanuel Can]

Is Cuba "socialist"?

Yep. And tyrannical, and bankrupt, too. It all goes together.

[MikeNovack]

A) Socialists ARE agreed about this. (abolish private property)

Except --- the communal anarchists are only sort of agreed. The "sort of" got pointed out to some of us when (many decades ago) a number of left (communal) anarchists met with some right (individualist) anarchists to discuss where were were in agreement and where differing. The amount of agreement was surprising to both sides and both sides agreed that their vision would tolerate/have room for the other.

The individualists pointed out to the communalists that unless the latter were specifying a SIZE of communes they could not really say against all private property (in effect). After all, as size => 1 (or a nuclear family or an extended family) nothing would distinguish communal property from private property. << note that individualist anarchists tend to be good at spotting things like that >> In other words, the left anarchists could still say against all private property but communal property = private property if the commune were very small.

[Immanuel Can]

A) Socialists ARE agreed about this. (abolish private property)

Except --- the communal anarchists

You don't know whether or not they're Socialist, because you don't even know what a "Socialist" is. You don't know the theory, and you don't know the practice either, apparently. You actually imagine that such small-scale nonsense as kibbutzim and communes are adequate to the definition you don't offer.

But I know why you don't offer it, and prefer to list what you consider "examples" or "cases" instead. You don't want to have to face up to what Socialism actually is, or what it requires. You prefer to discuss these "cases" because they aren't large enough to expose the worst of what Socialism causes -- such as complete national economic collapse, waves of starvation, brutal re-education programs, torture chambers, prisons, gulags and piles of corpses. You prefer to deal with tame pseudo-Socialist communes, because even though they all fail, they don't fail as badly as full-on Socialism always fails.

Anarchists are not Socialists. Sharing a space or some money doesn't make one a Socialist. Having a co-op or a union is not sufficient to actualize Socialist theory. If you knew Socialist theory, you'd already know that.

Socialism is a comprehensive, collectivist, utopian, totalitarian, social-engineering, perpetual-revolution project run by and elite of governmental ideologues. (Communism adds an imagined state in which the government dissolves itself voluntarily; but Socialism doesn't necessarily accept that.) And that's what it is, by its own definition. Anarchists allow individualism, toleration, exception-taking, the dissolution or limitation of government, and other such things that are always anathema to Socialism. They do not fit the Socialists' definitions of "Socialism." They're irrelevant.

[Gary Childress]

A) Socialists ARE agreed about this. (abolish private property)

Except --- the communal anarchists

You don't know whether or not they're Socialist, because you don't even know what a "Socialist" is. You don't know the theory, and you don't know the practice either, apparently. You actually imagine that such small-scale nonsense as kibbutzim and communes are adequate to the definition you don't offer.

But I know why you don't offer it, and prefer to list what you consider "examples" or "cases" instead. You don't want to have to face up to what Socialism actually is, or what it requires. You prefer to discuss these "cases" because they aren't large enough to expose the worst of what Socialism causes -- such as complete national economic collapse, waves of starvation, brutal re-education programs, torture chambers, prisons, gulags and piles of corpses. You prefer to deal with tame pseudo-Socialist communes, because even though they all fail, they don't fail as badly as full-on Socialism always fails.

Anarchists are not Socialists. Sharing a space or some money doesn't make one a Socialist. Having a co-op or a union is not sufficient to actualize Socialist theory. If you knew Socialist theory, you'd already know that.

Socialism is a comprehensive, collectivist, utopian, totalitarian, social-engineering, perpetual-revolution project run by and elite of governmental ideologues. (Communism adds an imagined state in which the government dissolves itself voluntarily; but Socialism doesn't necessarily accept that.) And that's what it is, by its own definition. Anarchists allow individualism, toleration, exception-taking, the dissolution or limitation of government, and other such things that are always anathema to Socialism. They do not fit the Socialists' definitions of "Socialism." They're irrelevant.

And the problem with individualist anarchism is that you can kiss government goodbye. So much for welfare programs, so much for social security. If you're lucky, maybe a billionaire will allow you to shine his shoes for a few dollars so that you can buy a cigarette to give yourself an early death from cancer because the world is intolerable for you. Who needs government, right? The world would run just fine without government, I mean, just look at Somalia. See, I've proven my case. No need for government.

[Immanuel Can]

Except --- the communal anarchists

You don't know whether or not they're Socialist, because you don't even know what a "Socialist" is. You don't know the theory, and you don't know the practice either, apparently. You actually imagine that such small-scale nonsense as kibbutzim and communes are adequate to the definition you don't offer.

But I know why you don't offer it, and prefer to list what you consider "examples" or "cases" instead. You don't want to have to face up to what Socialism actually is, or what it requires. You prefer to discuss these "cases" because they aren't large enough to expose the worst of what Socialism causes -- such as complete national economic collapse, waves of starvation, brutal re-education programs, torture chambers, prisons, gulags and piles of corpses. You prefer to deal with tame pseudo-Socialist communes, because even though they all fail, they don't fail as badly as full-on Socialism always fails.

Anarchists are not Socialists. Sharing a space or some money doesn't make one a Socialist. Having a co-op or a union is not sufficient to actualize Socialist theory. If you knew Socialist theory, you'd already know that.

Socialism is a comprehensive, collectivist, utopian, totalitarian, social-engineering, perpetual-revolution project run by and elite of governmental ideologues. (Communism adds an imagined state in which the government dissolves itself voluntarily; but Socialism doesn't necessarily accept that.) And that's what it is, by its own definition. Anarchists allow individualism, toleration, exception-taking, the dissolution or limitation of government, and other such things that are always anathema to Socialism. They do not fit the Socialists' definitions of "Socialism." They're irrelevant.

And the problem with individualist anarchism is that you can kiss government goodbye. So much for welfare programs, so much for social security.

Right. You've got it. And so much for Socialism's aspirations to control all the means of production, or to be the exclusive system of belief and practice, or to have a means to rob people of their property. So much for enforcement, for censorship powers, for control of education, for control of the justice system, for management of the health care system, for control of prisons and mental health institutions, for foreign policy or the police force, or the shaping of human nature...in fact, Socialism would get none of its program off the ground in an anarchist ethos.

Who needs government, right?

Well, that's anarchism, alright. But we both see the problems with that, I think. The question is not whether we should have any government, but what the parameters of a legitimate one should be.

[Gary Childress]

You don't know whether or not they're Socialist, because you don't even know what a "Socialist" is. You don't know the theory, and you don't know the practice either, apparently. You actually imagine that such small-scale nonsense as kibbutzim and communes are adequate to the definition you don't offer.

But I know why you don't offer it, and prefer to list what you consider "examples" or "cases" instead. You don't want to have to face up to what Socialism actually is, or what it requires. You prefer to discuss these "cases" because they aren't large enough to expose the worst of what Socialism causes -- such as complete national economic collapse, waves of starvation, brutal re-education programs, torture chambers, prisons, gulags and piles of corpses. You prefer to deal with tame pseudo-Socialist communes, because even though they all fail, they don't fail as badly as full-on Socialism always fails.

Anarchists are not Socialists. Sharing a space or some money doesn't make one a Socialist. Having a co-op or a union is not sufficient to actualize Socialist theory. If you knew Socialist theory, you'd already know that.

Socialism is a comprehensive, collectivist, utopian, totalitarian, social-engineering, perpetual-revolution project run by and elite of governmental ideologues. (Communism adds an imagined state in which the government dissolves itself voluntarily; but Socialism doesn't necessarily accept that.) And that's what it is, by its own definition. Anarchists allow individualism, toleration, exception-taking, the dissolution or limitation of government, and other such things that are always anathema to Socialism. They do not fit the Socialists' definitions of "Socialism." They're irrelevant.

And the problem with individualist anarchism is that you can kiss government goodbye. So much for welfare programs, so much for social security.

Right. You've got it. And so much for Socialism's aspirations to control all the means of production, or to be the exclusive system of belief and practice, or to have a means to rob people of their property. So much for enforcement, for censorship powers, for control of education, for control of the justice system, for management of the health care system, for control of prisons and mental health institutions, for foreign policy or the police force, or the shaping of human nature...in fact, Socialism would get none of its program off the ground in an anarchist ethos.

Who needs government, right?

Well, that's anarchism, alright. But we both see the problems with that, I think. The question is not whether we should have any government, but what the parameters of a legitimate one should be.

Well, we both want limits on government. However, it's not clear to me that you want limits on property and what an individual can own. Is the ceiling the limit for you there? Or do you agree that there are some things an individual should not be permitted to own?

[Immanuel Can]

And the problem with individualist anarchism is that you can kiss government goodbye. So much for welfare programs, so much for social security.

Right. You've got it. And so much for Socialism's aspirations to control all the means of production, or to be the exclusive system of belief and practice, or to have a means to rob people of their property. So much for enforcement, for censorship powers, for control of education, for control of the justice system, for management of the health care system, for control of prisons and mental health institutions, for foreign policy or the police force, or the shaping of human nature...in fact, Socialism would get none of its program off the ground in an anarchist ethos.

Who needs government, right?

Well, that's anarchism, alright. But we both see the problems with that, I think. The question is not whether we should have any government, but what the parameters of a legitimate one should be.

Well, we both want limits on government.

Socialism doesn't. It requires only one government, the Socialist one, and perpetually so.

However, it's not clear to me that you want limits on property and what an individual can own.

I'm curious about your view on this. You live in a country in which you are in the top 10% (at least) of the world's wealthy. Most people in this world live much closer to the poverty line than anybody in North America ever does, short of the mentally ill and addicted street person.

Do you believe that that gives people who are poorer than you...say, the Cubans or the Colombians...the right to envy you and hate you because you own more than they do? Or do you think envy is only a sin when the truly poor do it, and somehow virtuous if you and I do it?

[Gary Childress]

Right. You've got it. And so much for Socialism's aspirations to control all the means of production, or to be the exclusive system of belief and practice, or to have a means to rob people of their property. So much for enforcement, for censorship powers, for control of education, for control of the justice system, for management of the health care system, for control of prisons and mental health institutions, for foreign policy or the police force, or the shaping of human nature...in fact, Socialism would get none of its program off the ground in an anarchist ethos.

Well, that's anarchism, alright. But we both see the problems with that, I think. The question is not whether we should have any government, but what the parameters of a legitimate one should be.

Well, we both want limits on government.

Socialism doesn't. It requires only one government, the Socialist one, and perpetually so.

Socialism puts a limit on what people can own, from what I have come to understand it does not necessarily believe in unrestricted power of government to do anything it wants either. I'm not aware that Marx made any claim that government should be authoritarian. I believe he admired the Paris Commune for the reason that the rule of the commune was democratic and answered to the workers and not the other way around.

Can you show me where Marx endorses government with no restrictions?

However, it's not clear to me that you want limits on property and what an individual can own.

I'm curious about your view on this. You live in a country in which you are in the top 10% (at least) of the world's wealthy. Most people in this world live much closer to the poverty line than anybody in North America ever does, short of the mentally ill and addicted street person.

Do you believe that that gives people who are poorer than you...say, the Cubans or the Colombians...the right to envy you and hate you because you own more than they do? Or do you think envy is only a sin when the truly poor do it, and somehow virtuous if you and I do it?

You can try to dress it up as "envy", however, I assure you it's a pragmatic concern for democracy and human welfare that leads me to believe that an individual person ought not own a society to the extent that they alone make critical decisions for it. That is inherent in our current society as Musk and Bezos demonstrate. I don't believe in monarchy, and I'm sure you don't either. Do you believe an individual should be able to own enough means in society where by they are able to enforce their will over all? Yes or no?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, we both want limits on government.

Socialism doesn't. It requires only one government, the Socialist one, and perpetually so.

Socialism puts a limit on what people can own, from what I have come to understand it does not necessarily believe in unrestricted power of government to do anything it wants either.

"What it wants"? Probably not. But it does demand unrestricted power to enforce its agenda on everybody.

That's one distinctive of Socialism: non-Socialists, like Classical Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, various centrists, can all tolerate diversity of opinon and practice. They can all tolerate...and in fact, expect...multiple parties and democratic voting, and accept the imperfections that naturally appear in a system were people are not straight-jacketed into one political program.

Socialism's not like that. It can't be. It has to enforce its program on everybody, because it believes that it needs everybody to be onboard in order for its program to work at all. So Socialism has zero tolerance for dissent, difference and departure.

However, it's not clear to me that you want limits on property and what an individual can own.

I'm curious about your view on this. You live in a country in which you are in the top 10% (at least) of the world's wealthy. Most people in this world live much closer to the poverty line than anybody in North America ever does, short of the mentally ill and addicted street person.

Do you believe that that gives people who are poorer than you...say, the Cubans or the Colombians...the right to envy you and hate you because you own more than they do? Or do you think envy is only a sin when the truly poor do it, and somehow virtuous if you and I do it?

You can try to dress it up as "envy",

I'm not "dressing it up" as that. That is exactly what it is. I'm just pointing it out.

...it's a pragmatic concern for democracy and human welfare that leads me to believe that an individual person ought not own a society to the extent that they alone make critical decisions for it.

But how is it better if one political party -- YOUR political party, apparently -- does exactly the same thing? Why should Socialism be suffered to own my society? I don't want it. I've seen what it does. Why should I be forced to go along with it, when it's so dysfunctional and wicked? Where's my freedom in that?

Do you believe an individual should be able to own enough means in society where by they are able to enforce their will over all?

Who would that be? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? The Kim Jongs?

You can't mean Bezos and Musk, I would say. They don't have that power, do they? And what about guys like Soros and Fink? They promote Socialism -- in their own interest, of course -- and are just as rich. Why are their billions less dirty than the billions of Bezos or Musk?

I'm not getting how you figure envy becomes a virtue when we do it, and it's a vice when anybody does it to you.

[Gary Childress]

I'm not getting how you figure envy becomes a virtue when we do it, and it's a vice when anybody does it to you.

Since you refuse to take my words at face value. I see no further reason to continue the discussion.