Source
r/CapitalismVSocialism•
RandomCapitalist

"Capitalists can't defend their property without the state"; So who is it protecting non-capitalist property ("possessions" if you will) without the state?

Ostensibly some socialists occasionally leave their homes and something is keeping the unwashed masses from taking them. I suspect socialists will say "well sure it's The State now but in True Socialism it will be X" (which, sidebar, if you've ever had a B&E at your business or home it's FUCKING HILARIOUS to suggest that The State did anything at any time to prevent it or will do anything to get you compensation). How it works in real life is that I put locks on my door, cameras around the perimeter, a gun in my nightstand and pay for insurance and when a break-in happens I A - defend my property if I'm home and B - file an insurance claim if I'm not. At no time did The State do anything to help defend my property or help me get compensation (other than write a report for my insurance company)... This idea that The State is protecting Private Property is 10000000% ideological bullshit. I digress.....

So in True Socialism, what is this myserious protection force defending people's homes that is incapable of defending "absentee" owned property?

Posted May 19, 2018, 5:08 PM UTC

1142
HeFlipYaMutual Exploitationism•

Good post. You keep other ppl’s meathooks off your stuff (who would be tempted to) by making it too costly for them to put them on it, or not worth bothering.

8
RandomCapitalistOP•

It must be pretty poignant judging by the total lack of answers and down votes.

4
HhturaNationalist, Ecology, Progress•

What you seem to be missing is how some people provide no definition for the state beyond its use as an instrument of domination by one class over others, and as such the same basic formation of people and materials morphs from being a state into not being one if it stops being used for the purpose of upholding capitalism and instead is limited to defending personal possessions.

4
RandomCapitalistOP•

That not how ethics works.

If Real Socialism property norms can be upheld with some "non state" mechanism than do can the property norms of Capitalism TM.

"It's not a state if it's Real Socialism" isn't coherent although it's probably why Real Socialism has never and will never exist.

6
TornikkAnarcho-Syndicalist•

Personal property =/= Private ownership of MoP

3
RandomCapitalistOP•

And?

I never said it does. I'm familiar with your magical words and I even addressed them.

6
TornikkAnarcho-Syndicalist•

If we accept what I said, your example of personal property being unprotected is not relevant to what happens to capitalist MoP post-state.

2†
RandomCapitalistOP•

So you have no answer. Shocker.

6
the_calibre_cat•

This, my friends, is what's known as deflection.

3
TornikkAnarcho-Syndicalist•

If pointing out how OP has mixed up two subjects - only one of which is related to state protection based on class - is deflection to you, I don't envy anyone's prospects of having meaningful debate with you.

0†
Anen-o-meCaptain of the Ship•

Enforced and protected by what is the question.

2
Hpunk98Democrat/softban idiots from politics•

This idea that The State is protecting Private Property is 10000000% ideological bullshit.

Because it doesn't, it protects the bourgeoisie not property. Police protect property.

1
x62617former M1A1 Tank Commander•

Why can't I defend my property without the state?

1
RandomCapitalistOP•

You'll have to ask one of these soshawists.... I assume they believe this because they don't actually own anything and even if they did, are too feeble to defend it anyway.

1
TonyGazeIndependent Soc-Dem, Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Kautsky, the usual•

Human decency? Respect? The lack of Capitalism that forces people to extremes, encouraging criminality?

0†
apophis-pegasusJust find this whole thing interesting•

Human decency? Respect?

Both of these can be very situational

The lack of Capitalism that forces people to extremes, encouraging criminality?

Criminality existed prior to capitalism.

11
RandomCapitalistOP•

LOL holy fuck!

It's literally a religion to you where the fucking devil is corrupting people's actions and if we can only cast him out of our hearts everyone will be a good boy.

Jesus christ you fuckers are scary.

So basically before Le Capitalism you suspect nobody had to worry about violence from other people.... Oh wait, literally the opposite is true.

You're a complete brainwashed fucking idiot.

9
the_calibre_cat•

This is basically the reason I'm not a socialist. This belief that we'll all just sing kumbaya one day because the mode of production no longer alienates one from his labor is, frankly, unrealistic as all get out. I appreciate the logical challenges that some socialists provide, but at the end of the day... we have a society to run, and they literally think that once socialism, world = perfect.

And that's ridiculous.

6
Anen-o-meCaptain of the Ship•

In short you think people will become angels. That's incredibly naive.

6
TonyGazeIndependent Soc-Dem, Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Kautsky, the usual•

naive optimistic

FTFY

-1
rock3601•

Optimism to an extreme is naivete.

1
SerendipitySocietyAbolish the commons•

The lack of Capitalism that forces people to extremes, encouraging criminality?

Couldn't've asked a better question myself. I always thought the positive correlation between anti-capitalism and criminality was important, even when I was a left liberal.

0
rethyuPolanyi Socialist•

Your property is still ultimately backed up by the power of the state. If someone breaks into your home while you aren't there, changes all of the locks, declares that it is theirs now, and starts shooting at you when you try to get in, what are you going to do? Call the police. If the police aren't certain whether or not it really is your property or the property of the person claiming it, they are going to contact another government agency to find the answer: the register of deeds. Once the police are certain it's your property, they are going to exercise the power of the state to dispossess the intruder and return your property to you. The intruder will be hauled off to meet another agent of state power: the judicial system. And, finally, the intruder might meet yet another agent of state power: the prison system.

You might not need the power of the state to defend your property in every instance, but your right to ownership is always backed by the state being willing to exercise its power to enforce your rights.

0
the_calibre_cat•

If someone breaks into your home while you aren't there, changes all of the locks, declares that it is theirs now, and starts shooting at you when you try to get in, what are you going to do? Call the police.

I mean, maybe? I'd probably just use money, get an AR-15 and a decent scope with night vision, and solve the problem myself. If they're shooting at me from my own property, then it's self-defense, sooo...

2
RandomCapitalistOP•

If someone breaks into your home while you aren't there, changes all of the locks, declares that it is theirs now, and starts shooting at you when you try to get in, what are you going to do? Call the police.

Lol no, no I wouldn't.

How does any of this even answer my question?

0
lunaticlunatic•

They mostly aren't protecting possessions now, because they're moveable objects. That wouldn't change much. But factories can't really be picked up and carried off by burglars, so when workers occupy them and refuse to leave, agents of the state can reliably come to protect the property.

0
RandomCapitalistOP•

A house can't be picked up and carried off can it???

You can occupy whatever the fuck you want. What's going to protect your house from the rest of your cult?

You didn't come close to addressing what I said.

1
lunaticlunatic•

Community watch.

0
zzzztopportalNeolib/Soclib•

It's very hard to defend one's property without police, and impossible if you own a large estate

0