"robbing the stolen"?

[Janoah]

And now in France, on the one hand, conscience says that the pogroms of shops and establishments are bad.
On the other hand, if Marx is right, and the capitalist steals surplus value from the worker, then there is some justification for "robbing the stolen".

[Gary Childress]

And now in France, on the one hand, conscience says that the pogroms of shops and establishments are bad.
On the other hand, if Marx is right, and the capitalist steals surplus value from the worker, then there is some justification for "robbing the stolen".

Nah, the richest 10% earn their wealth; the remainder of the world's workers are just covetous and try to bully their way with labor unions to steal money from their employers.

[MikeNovack]

Compound statement.

The (literal) correct answer would be "I agree" << if you have read Marx you would know that >>

That is the correct answer regardless of whether you agree with the simple statement "the capitalist steals surplus value from the worker"

[Immanuel Can]

Do you mean "do you agree that Marx thinks all 'surplus value' is 'stolen,'" or do you mean, "Is it true that it is?" Those are very different questions. Marx believed a whole lot of things that weren't true.

[Janoah]

Do you mean "do you agree that Marx thinks all 'surplus value' is 'stolen,'" or do you mean, "Is it true that it is?" Those are very different questions. Marx believed a whole lot of things that weren't true.

Do you agree that a capitalist is a thief because he is a capitalist?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you mean "do you agree that Marx thinks all 'surplus value' is 'stolen,'" or do you mean, "Is it true that it is?" Those are very different questions. Marx believed a whole lot of things that weren't true.

Do you agree that a capitalist is a thief because he is a capitalist?

Of course not. In the first place, there's no such thing as "Capitalism." But in the second place, how can you know anybody is a thief, until you can identify what he has "stolen" and why it "wasn't his" in the first place?

What you're asking is equivalent to, "Do you agree a man is a thief because he's black?" It's not any more warranted than that.

P.S. -- So it appears you don't mean what Marx may have thought. You're instead asking if we agree with it?

[Janoah]

Do you mean "do you agree that Marx thinks all 'surplus value' is 'stolen,'" or do you mean, "Is it true that it is?" Those are very different questions. Marx believed a whole lot of things that weren't true.

Do you agree that a capitalist is a thief because he is a capitalist?

You're instead asking if we agree with it?

Yes

[Impenitent]

Knights of Addition aside, justifying theft is far from noble...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Do you agree that a capitalist is a thief because he is a capitalist?

You're instead asking if we agree with it?

Yes

Well, then, no. It's silly. A man could be what you call a "capitalist" (though how you're defining that, and how you're identifying who is and who is not one remains a mystery), and still have earned whatever it is he has. From whom has he stolen it? How do you know it's stolen?

But there's an even bigger paradox in the question, and it's really amusing. Kant would have seen it immediately. But Marxists don't see it.

And it's this: that if you say, "Capitalists steal," then you are affirming private property rights. And why? Because to "steal," by definition, means "to take that which rightfully belongs to another." In other words, you're saying the capitalist violated the private property rights of the (alleged) victim of the theft. But if the "victim" can have private property rights, so that taking from him is "stealing," then so can the "capitalist." He also has private property rights; so the mere fact that he has something doesn't tell us at all whether he owns it legitimately or not. But you've now admitted the possibility of his legitimate ownership of what he has.

In which case, taking it from him could also be "theft," and you would be as bad as he is, if you did it.

So you'd have to prove that the "perp" in question, the "capitalist" really had no legitimate claim to what he has, and that, in fact, it legitimately belonged to the private property of the "victim."

So do you have any such proof?

[MikeNovack]

Do you mean "do you agree that Marx thinks all 'surplus value' is 'stolen,'" or do you mean, "Is it true that it is?" Those are very different questions. Marx believed a whole lot of things that weren't true.

Precisely, IC

The STATEMENT was NOT "is X a case of Y" but "Is X a case of Y according to Z". Thus the truth of the statement depends not on whether or not "X is a case of Y" but upon what Z says thinks it.

Where you get lost is in thinking whether Z is correct matters. "Marx believed a whole lot of things that weren't true" is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he believed them to be true.

[Janoah]

justifying theft is far from noble...

Do you mean "theft by capitalists" or theft by pogromists?

[Janoah]

By the way, Karl Marx lived primarily on financial support from his close friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels, and Engels himself lived and provided for Marx, using his capitalist income.
It turns out that Marx wrote his works about "the theft by capitalists" using "stolen by capitalist money".
“The proletariat is the gravedigger of the bourgeoisie,” wrote Marx and Engels, and many bourgeois have nurtured and continue to nurture Marxism.

[Impenitent]

justifying theft is far from noble...

Do you mean "theft by capitalists" or theft by pogromists?

anyone taking that which is not ones to take

-Imp

[Janoah]

I can say that I, too believed that Marxism was right, I had no doubts about its formula for surplus value.
But when I saw that socialism doesn’t work, I started to think about it and came to the conclusion that Marx’s formula is wrong.

[MikeNovack]

I can say that I, too believed that Marxism was right, I had no doubts about its formula for surplus value.
But when I saw that socialism doesn’t work, I started to think about it and came to the conclusion that Marx’s formula is wrong.

Quite so, over simplified, omitting obvious components on the "expense" side.