Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread

hodj_sl said:

He definitely should, because he accused me of putting words in his mouth when I said that he claims its okay for communists to kill capitalists but not the other way around. Yet that's literally what he's saying here in this quote Trollface has repointed out.

That if you dare resist, communists have a right to kill you, but you don't have a right to kill them in self defense of your property they've come to steal. They have a right to kill you in self defense while they force you off your property, usurp your bank accounts and finances and give them to others. Its laughable. Criminal thieves have no right to claim self defense after shooting the person's home they've invaded. The entire premise is nonsensical garbage.

Click to expand...

You've put words in my mouth the whole time. I can backlog and show you if you'd like again.

Nothing is being taken away and given to someone else.

You know what happened to all those fiefdoms, kingdoms, and guildhalls that are now in history books and are little more than tourist attractions? Productive forces made them irrelevant, just as one day productive forces will do the same to property and bank accounts.

hodj_sl said:

Go for it bro. Everyone here can read the thread.



Oh you're just going to take it away, and there won't be a state to get it, or anyone else, so I guess we'll just let it rot?

You've been pretty good at not going full retard so far, but this smells like you're about to go outright full retard. I really don't want to see you embarass yourself that way, so I thought I'd warn you: This sounds like the beginning of the worst argument you've made so far. Just fair warning.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, the entire thread should be read. If not, I can quote again when you misquoted or misunderstood.

The abolition of private property in communism does not mean redistribution of that property. It doesn't mean taking property away from landowners and giving it to poor people. It doesn't mean handing it over to the State. In both of these cases, nothing is changed except who owns the land.Abolition of private property means there is no private ownership. That, secondarily along with emancipation of labor I had to set you straight on earlier, is whatdefinescommunism.

Bro, just give it up with all the green text and youtube stuff. It's really annoying. You've tried every which way to wiggle in something else. I almost thought we were going down the killing another vs murder tangent before that was quickly ignored.

Chomsky already destroyed Kurzweil. From your postings, it would do you much better to crack open a few books than watch more youtube vids of guys with bling rings.

I'm confused. What is the difference from giving it to someone else or abolishing private property? If my dad's farm is taken away from him, what happens when some other person decides they want to do something else with it? Will the government decide that instead of his 3 ponds he dug and built on the land himself, they should instead be turned into land fills? What if they decide he should instead switch his cropland to something else, or ask him to level his black walnut trees that he has been growing on his farm for 30 years for more farmland?

Again, how will you get him (or me, or my kids) to give up that land so someone that has never spent any time there can decide how it is used? Are you just relying on education so that we think it will be a good idea?

khalid_sl said:

I'm confused. What is the difference from giving it to someone else or abolishing private property? If my dad's farm is taken away from him, what happens when some other person decides they want to do something else with it? Will the government decide that instead of his 3 ponds he dug and built on the land himself, they should instead be turned into land fills? What if they decide he should instead switch his cropland to something else, or ask him to level his black walnut trees that he has been growing on his farm for 30 years for more farmland?

Again, how will you get him (or me, or my kids) to give up that land so someone that has never spent any time there can decide how it is used? Are you just relying on education so that we think it will be a good idea?

Click to expand...

There's this constant thought of something being 'taken away', but that's not the right way to think about it. We've been bred under modern capitalism to think of objects, land, toys, chewing gum, whatever, as being strictly under the ownership of someone. Almost every single object or thing, in nature or otherwise, right now isownedby some person or entity, even airspace. But this doesn't really mean anything and is mostly illusory conceptions applied by humans, and although very useful and needed conceptions at this time, all it gives you is exclusive access or use to that object or thing at your whim. Under scarcity, this ownership makes sense (getting into the whole rights at production is a separate issue) because if there's only one stick of chewing gum, and since I have the most money, I can appropriate for myself this gum.

In socialism and on the road to real communism, youneed to own less and less. It doesn't make sense toowna piece of land under communism because there's no real reason anyone would claim such a ridiculous notion of 'owning the land' to begin with: you don't need exclusive access to the thing. Sure, in the earlier stages of socialism, it will still make some social relational sense to keep this conception alive, like I said the road is long, just as feudalism paved the way for capitalism, so too does capitalism pave the way for socialism, socialism into communism.

You mention your dad has walnut trees on his property. Maybe someone else wants to plant apple trees. Yes, absolutely that is an issue to resolve. But the resolution to that issue, under communism, will be solved differently than who has the slip of paper saying they 'own' the land to plant it on. Communism is just as much of a psychological shift as it is an economic one, just as any major turning point in human society is - and this one would be the biggest (and the most fulfilling of human potential).

You can't and look at current property rights and apply a communistic perspective on them. You have to look at a much bigger picture, the picture of human history, by looking at where wewould beright before the transition to communism. That's not an easy thing to grasp by no means.

Someone has to make the decision as to how that farm/factory will be utilized or else it will go fallow. Who makes that decision in a world without property rights?