Yes, capitalist property is hostorically siezed by the people through force, just like feudalism was ended by force. I don’t have rose tinted glasses, I know force is required, I just see it as necessary and the outcome extremely positive.
That’s a fine perspective to have. But it is the textbook definition of robbing someone at gunpoint.
They have something of value that you want, you don’t want to exchange said value for it, so you take it by force… at gunpoint.
Maybe there’s a moral justification for that. Maybe you think they don’t deserve it, or you need it more, or you think their ownership of it represents it’s own form of theft… But they’re definitely getting robbed at gunpoint.
Capitalists already steal value from workers by paying them less than the value they create. One short bout of “theft” to take back what was stolen over centuries isn’t really theft, it’s returning what’s owed.
You’re mixing up the revolution and ensuing socialist period with the communist, fully collectivized period. “From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs” applies to the fully collectivized communist period, and doesn’t need to be “enforced at gunpoint,” it just exists without capitalists anymore. The revolution does have appropriation from capitalists, as well as the socialist period of gradually collectivizing society’s production and distribution.
That’s a bit of a cop out. “There’s no Robin Hood at that specific point because it’s already been taken at gunpoint by the time we dole it out”.
That doesn’t erase the fact that they’re very much is a Robin Hood figure with a gun. And if you want to seize everything at gunpoint You should at least be up front about it.
If your point is true and right in virtuous you do not need a spin on it.
Yes, capitalist property is hostorically siezed by the people through force, just like feudalism was ended by force. I don’t have rose tinted glasses, I know force is required, I just see it as necessary and the outcome extremely positive.
That’s a fine perspective to have. But it is the textbook definition of robbing someone at gunpoint.
They have something of value that you want, you don’t want to exchange said value for it, so you take it by force… at gunpoint.
Maybe there’s a moral justification for that. Maybe you think they don’t deserve it, or you need it more, or you think their ownership of it represents it’s own form of theft… But they’re definitely getting robbed at gunpoint.
Oh no! How dare the peasants rob the nobility at gun point of their rightful fiefdoms!
Capitalists already steal value from workers by paying them less than the value they create. One short bout of “theft” to take back what was stolen over centuries isn’t really theft, it’s returning what’s owed.
That’s what I was getting at. Don’t soft pedal it.
“There WILL be a Robin Hood type taking shit at gunpoint”.
You’re mixing up the revolution and ensuing socialist period with the communist, fully collectivized period. “From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs” applies to the fully collectivized communist period, and doesn’t need to be “enforced at gunpoint,” it just exists without capitalists anymore. The revolution does have appropriation from capitalists, as well as the socialist period of gradually collectivizing society’s production and distribution.
That’s a bit of a cop out. “There’s no Robin Hood at that specific point because it’s already been taken at gunpoint by the time we dole it out”.
That doesn’t erase the fact that they’re very much is a Robin Hood figure with a gun. And if you want to seize everything at gunpoint You should at least be up front about it.
If your point is true and right in virtuous you do not need a spin on it.
I’m not spinning anything, you asked a question about communism and I answered, and now you’re moving the goalposts to revolution and early socialism.