After OWS, I've been left trying to explain and defend a huge key note here.

[AshleyO]

The right to property.

As far as I can tell, I think Americans culturally love the idea of property. They LOVE the idea of being a decider and a boss and a person who gets to make decisions on industry.

At the protest, my sign was very simple.

Private ownership of industry is theft.

I felt that "property is theft" was connoting way too much and typically, it seems that Americans think that that means you want to take their house away from them or their land... Well... yeah, but that's not really what I was trying to get them to focus on.

So. That seems to be what this is all about. How important is the right to property?

What can I say to people who ask about this to give them a very simple and solid argument for my position. Half the time I feel like I have to give them a lecture instead of giving them some quick little statements for them to chew over.

After this rally and after careful consideration, I've determined that capitalism and the right to property is HOSTILE to democracy. How's the quickest and most eloquent way I can express this so that people can understand without feeling like "ze soviets" are coming to take their house away?

[Alan]

Man, I've been trying to work on that for four years already. I'll get back to you on this if I ever figure it out, but we could open this question into a discussion to see what we manage to get out.

[AshleyO]

A guy got pissed at me and said that eventually, people in other countries will enjoy the same protections and rights for workers that Americans enjoy, so I shouldn't even be using them as a talking point.

I proposed to him what it might be like if the entire world's industries all of a sudden had the standards of workers' rights in the west with the rest of the world. What kind of world would that be? Imagine if China couldn't work their people 16 hours a day, had to pay them a living wage, and provide health benefits for them. Imagine if those standards were imposed on all nations all around the world. Tomorrow. Would that really be such a scary world?

[Ben Lahnger]

I'm at a loss for understanding how you can be an advocate of paying people a living wage but not think people should be able use those wages to purchase possessions.

I mean, I get all the evils of the capitalistic society, but don't they all arise out of systematic abuses, and not the simple notion of using a fairly earned wage to purchase a fairly bartered good?

[AshleyO]

That's exactly what I was talking about.

Property is just a terrible word because people tend to confuse it with possessions.

But no. What I mean about property is when someone has explicit proprietary rights over industry or vital services.

I'm talking about the confusion that someone gives credit to Steve Jobs for making their precious iPod when in reality, the hands that made them were Chinese.

The fact that workforces are a commodity that can be bought and sold and bought at the cheapest price possible is what I'm talking about.

I'm just saying that it's incredibly weird that vital services such as food, housing, medicine, and just about all things that are required for a human being to actually exercise their right to LIFE is privatized and can be denied to you based on what little you make. Hell, workers' unions around the world should ALWAYS be working together to keep each other strong in the face of capitalism. And even though we as Americans LIKE the idea of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we're ALWAYS trying to cut programs and budgets that enable those rights. We want to deregulate the market because we as a culture HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT A REGULATION IS.

This... is really starting to get frustrating. I'm starting to consider that moving to Canada might actually be a sane move on my part.

[Ben Lahnger]

Well, it is frustrating. But thank you very much for clarifying, in a concise way, what you meant by your previous statement.

I think you could also reference Elizabeth Warren's recent comments (in support of higher taxation of higher income earing people and entities) when she said (and I'm paraphrasing a bit), "You got rich? Good for you. But nobody is a self-made millionaire. You bring your goods to the market on roads the people built. Your businesses and staff are protected by first responders who are paid for by the people. Your employees are skilled in large part due to publicly funded educational facilities. (etc.)"

Those precious iPods weren't just made for Steve Jobs by the Chinese. We ALL had a hand in it.

However, that's a tangent, and the greater focus needs to be on the inequity of using cheap labor to profiteer while denying those laborers basic needs and comforts due to keeping their wages below a liveable level, as you said.

I've been thinking about Canada for about a decade now; I'm not keen on the climate and I think that would just be an attempt at a geographic escape that actually wouldn't do a thing to work toward making things better. But I understand the frustration.

[Despanan]

Here's my current "In a nutshell" version of "Property is Theft"

Originally Posted by Despanan

I'm not talking about possessions and I'm not talking about you taking home a fair wage for your labors, I'm talking about profit. Workers wages aren't considered profit they're considered the cost of doing business.

When you set up a company that provides something necessary for life (Food, shelter, Medicine etc.) The people have no choice but to buy the product (If not from you, from a similar company.) When you, and your competitors, as capitalists, minimize expenses while maximizing profit (which is what capitalism demands) you are all coercing your customers into paying MORE than what a product is worth, effectively on pain of death. You have NO business making a profit off of the blood of others. You have no business making profit off of the shivering of your fellow man, or the rumbling in his belly. If you do you are a thief and deserve to be treated as such.

[Jonathan]

I recently started a stupid little company that basically sells these little metal things that a local company makes for me.

They make each little metal bit for X, which is a totally awesome price so I go for it. I tell them to make me a bunch of them, so I can pretty them up and sell them for say 2X.

If by some miracle I manage to sell one, I can replace the missing inventory and ... I dunno, buy shit I guess.

Is this a horrible exploitation of my fellow man?

I can't tell if I am working to seize the means of production for myself and work out a mutually beneficial arrangement with the other dude, or if I am a terrible human being.

[Alan]

"I have a business where I own my own labor power, therefore it should be alright for people to be able to own other people's labor power"


.....what?

[Jonathan]

The above example, while true, is a vanity side project. Despanan's quote seems to imply that doing more than breaking even was bad. Maybe I'm not reading it correctly, and that really only applies where survival is on the line?

Nobody's going to experience hardship if they don't buy one.

--

In my day to day life, I'm an employee. When everything's said and done, the company benefits more from having me than they would if they didn't retain my services. That's basically the only reason they'd keep me, or anybody else, around.

You can see it as exploitation (which to be pendantic, it is: they get more than they give), but under the current arrangement, I'm cool with it.

They don't own my labor power, they rent it.

[Alan]

Well that's good for you but that's unfortunately not the circumstance even a fraction of the world suffer through.

[Jonathan]

It is unfortunate. I think everyone deserves at a minimum a certain standard of living and human dignity.

Unfortunately, noblesse forgot the oblige.

[Alan]

Why expect anything of the noblesse?
This economic system is inherently repressive, and it rewards greed and viciousness. Why should we expect any other conclusion from it? No matter how charitable a wealthy person may be, this charity is entirely a contingency.

Socialism is always slandered as 'utopian' but isn't it more utopian to expect for a society to have values in spite of its economic systems instead of because of them?

[Jonathan]

The "nobility" as such should be clever enough to realize it is in their best interests to keep the general level of misery as low as possible (in the sense of reducing suffering). They had a good racket going, but for some unfathomable reason seem intent on blowing it through some bizarre combination of greed and incompetence.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I recently started a stupid little company that basically sells these little metal things that a local company makes for me.

They make each little metal bit for X, which is a totally awesome price so I go for it. I tell them to make me a bunch of them, so I can pretty them up and sell them for say 2X.

If by some miracle I manage to sell one, I can replace the missing inventory and ... I dunno, buy shit I guess.

Is this a horrible exploitation of my fellow man?

I can't tell if I am working to seize the means of production for myself and work out a mutually beneficial arrangement with the other dude, or if I am a terrible human being.

Non-profit companies exist. Every person that works in that non-profit is earning a living wage while generally not having to worry about making a decision between luxury and medicine for example.

So. Why profit?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The "nobility" as such should be clever enough to realize it is in their best interests to keep the general level of misery as low as possible (in the sense of reducing suffering). They had a good racket going, but for some unfathomable reason seem intent on blowing it through some bizarre combination of greed and incompetence.

1) The problem is that the "profit" any company makes, is not owned by the "owner" of that company, as it is only tertiarily related to that owner's labor and investment. Literally and BY DEFENITION the ONLY way to make a profit is to sell a product or service for more than it is worth. The only way you can do this is by exploiting your workers, your customer, or both.

As this profit is not possible without the consent of both your workers and your community, the profit does not belong solely to the proprietor of the establishment, but in fact to the proprietor, his workforce, and the community, and thus must be given up in fair proportion to the workforce and community. To do otherwise is theft.

2) The nobility SHOULD realize that they have a good racket going. However, from simple observation of reality we can see this is not the case. The upper-class in America complain about taxes and money despite having more money than they've ever had before, and paying LESS taxes than they have ever paid since taxation began. This is largely because people are not primarily logical, but instead make their decisions based on emotion.

Besides, why give a stupid noble the opportunity to exploit the system and hurt others with his stupidity? It's stupid to commit a crime, we don't just let people rob banks because "They ought to know better".

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Non-profit companies exist. Every person that works in that non-profit is earning a living wage while generally not having to worry about making a decision between luxury and medicine for example.

So. Why profit?

Well, if we're considering my example, all I've been able to generate so far are start up costs, so profit isn't even a consideration until I can at the very least address my materials cost and web hosting bill. After that I guess I can think about paying myself for my own pro-bono web design work. I'd like to be wrong, but I don't think I have to worry about the profit / non-profit distinction in my personal case for a depressing while.

If I can get pointed at a non-profit org that needs a computer nerd within an hour commute, I'd love to talk to them. In fact, while I was out of work for a full year I tried approaching a couple and had no luck.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Despanan

1) The problem is that the "profit" any company makes, is not owned by the "owner" of that company, as it is only tertiarily related to that owner's labor and investment. Literally and BY DEFENITION the ONLY way to make a profit is to sell a product or service for more than it is worth. The only way you can do this is by exploiting your workers, your customer, or both.

As this profit is not possible without the consent of both your workers and your community, the profit does not belong solely to the proprietor of the establishment, but in fact to the proprietor, his workforce, and the community, and thus must be given up in fair proportion to the workforce and community. To do otherwise is theft.

2) The nobility SHOULD realize that they have a good racket going. However, from simple observation of reality we can see this is not the case. The upper-class in America complain about taxes and money despite having more money than they've ever had before, and paying LESS taxes than they have ever paid since taxation began. This is largely because people are not primarily logical, but instead make their decisions based on emotion.

Besides, why give a stupid noble the opportunity to exploit the system and hurt others with his stupidity? It's stupid to commit a crime, we don't just let people rob banks because "They ought to know better".

I'm not sure I have much to respond to you with on your first point. If everyone was fairly compensated for what they were worth, it would be a nice society. Other than that, I'm not sure I can comment further.

My attitude on your second point is that if the "elite" cannot regulate themselves, we'll have to do it for them. I don't care if they're wealthy, I care that they're fucking things up, and not pulling their weight. With privilege comes responsibility. If they cannot or will not conduct themselves in a befitting manner, why suffer them? This is a toddler with a firearm scenario - they do not have the capacity to handle the responsibility so it has to be stripped away.