1462
Listen here, kulak...
(i.ibb.co)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
1462 points (93.3% liked)
Memes
45828 readers
2656 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
And technically that means you’re producing on that farm which makes it private property.
You're getting a lot of flak (rightly), but I figured I'd actually give you a right definition so this can be a growing opportunity: If you own a resource and you use that resource to produce profit, that resource is private property. If you're not making profit, it's only personal property. Farm for your family? Personal property. Farm where you give the output to your community? Personal property. Farm where you sell the yields? Private property.
Ok, so exploitable land (a means of production) can be owned for the exclusive enjoyment of an individual in a socialist economy. Got it, thanks.
Yes, exploitable land can be owned by an individual in a socialist economy. If you're growing food for your family, then that's just one family the state doesn't have to feed. If you're growing food for your community, then that's several mouths the state doesn't have to feed. If you're hoarding or selling food (or in one very famous historical case, burning it out of spite), then you are monopolizing a resource that could be feeding people, and the state will intervene, whether by buying your land back from you, taking it from you, liquidating you as a class, or some other solution to be determined by the state in question - there is no one size fits all blueprint to socialism.
I know I was being snarky, but I do appreciate the context. The monopolizing bit clarifies it for me as something that you may own but if found to be monopolizing the resource to a detriment of the community, that is not acceptable. So “own” isn’t really used here to mean entitled to, but something that you may possess as an appropriation while acting in good faith.
"Or some other other solution to be determined by the state in question"
Gulags, generally speaking
I literally said "liquidating you as a class" as a possible retaliation. "Gulags" is not a gotcha, if you hoard or destroy food during a famine you are committing murder and you need to be stopped for the good of society.
By the way, the US prison population today is higher than the Gulag population of the entire Soviet Union at its peak. I'd sure as hell rather see gulags full of reactionaries and food-burners than full of drug users and the chronically unemployed. I'm curious, why do you prefer the latter?
Well being worked to death and/or being strait up shot tends to keep those numbers down. And how many of those "hoarders" were quite literally starving but they had a tiny bit on hand? And how many more were in there for "anti-soviet behavior" instead of anything related to hoarding or destroying food.
Gulags, concentration camps and the like are definitely a "gotcha" as much as a "gatcha" can exist.
Tankie apologetics 101:
it blows my mind the lengths that online rightists will go to to defend literally burning food during a famine. Why?
What percentage of the harvest was lost to the destruction of grain?
Yes, people who burn food during a famine should be rehabilitated, and prisons were the method (that doesn't work) that people thought was effective to that end at the time.
And what of people who steal food during a famine, like the bolsheviks?
You're right, it's so fucked up that Stalin stole all those poor Kulaks' grain and put it in a big swimming pool so that he and his cabinet could swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck.
Are there Kulaks in the room with you right now?
The soviets took enough grain from Ukrainian peasants to induce widespread hunger and death. But let's blame 1% of the peasantry who had already liquidated as a class.
People should steal food from hoarders to redistribute it to starving peasants actually.
If youre talking about grain quotas they stopped taking grain out of the region and started importing food when they realized there was a famine.
I agree, but the quota on kulak liquidation led to starving peasants being targeted.
After millions of people had already starved to death. A minor but necessary bump in the road toward industrialization, I'm sure.
It wasn't necessary. They could have foreseen the need for an independent commission to verify the numbers that local officials were reporting. They could have cracked down harder on sabotage of planting and harvesting and the mass slaughter of livestock by kulaks.
Industrialization was necessary. If they didn't push hard for industrialization we might all be speaking German right now. They cut it close to the wire and the mistakes that they made resulted in mass suffering. But there were no more famines with the exception of post ww2 after that famine, in an area that previously frequently had famines, because collectivization worked once the kinks were worked out.
Rapid industrialization at the cost of millions of lives was only a necessity because Stalin insisted on Socialism in One Country.
Had proletariat revolutions not failed elsewhere, especially Western Europe, there would be no need for such a haphazard and reckless transition.
Okay but how was the soviet union to create a global proletarian revolution? They had to work with what they had.
You could ask Trotsky but Stalin had him murdered 🤷
I've read Trot stuff and found their arguments unconvincing in this context. Global proletarian revolution is something we all have to exercise agency over, if youre in the soviet union you can't just rely on everyone else spontaneously uprising, you have to plan for that not happening. And it didn't happen, so...
In reality the party takes the food you've grown for your family and gives it to urban centers, and if you resist you catch a bullet.
Want to add on that there is another distinction which I think is slightly more accurate. Personal property only denies use to others through the details of use by the owner, private property prevents others from using resources that the person using the property isn't directly using through threats of violence.
That's not really how it works
I’m sorry, are you implying that private ownership of a means of production (in this case, farm land) is acceptable in a socialist economy?
What I never quite understand/know is where internet based services land. If I run a cloud based storage company / web design company or such, the servers are on my personal property and therefore should be considered allowed. Where does that start becoming non "personal."
It's like charging someone to park their ideas/data on my personal property. Which I imagine would be considered private property instead. Where is the nuanced line?
Anyone care to explain?
We're communicating using the fediverse. I can use my own private instance to connect, but in my case I am using a "collective" instance. While capitalism sees the Lemmy Blahaj as a "private enterprise", it is functionally more akin to a free associative collective where members can take their content with them.
I would say part of the confusion is because our technology has evolved in a capitalist context, collectivism isn't the default state of being so the solutions made cater towards (corporate) private ownership.
Lol, sure.
Nah
Wrong. Personal property is owned by an individual person. Private property is owned by corporations/ capital. It's impossible for one to magically change into the other.
Only if you keep all the stuff you produce
Oh cool, socialism is when you own a means of production but only keep some of the produced goods.
If you keep more than you need, yes. Socialism is not about hoarding wealth especially in the form of necessary goods.
Who gets to decide how much I need? Some juche thug in the capital wearing a bunch of fake military ribbons? Sign me up!
IDK, maybe we could decide such things similar to how we're having this conversation and we're able to upvote on what's being said. Totally unprecedented I know.
Do you think there's voting involved in a command economy?
My brother in Marx, that's not how any of this works.
Me: how about democracy in the work place?
Reactionaries: but what about Stalin?
Me: did I stutter?
Ok, thanks for clarifying that the internet still has no idea what socialism is.
How is private ownership of farmland socialism?
Good question.
Yeah, socialism is about slave labour.
Socialism is when you don’t have to do alienated work. And when noone else has to. Of course the productivity will be higher if you share the means of production with others. But it’s perfectly fine to work on your own too and harvest the fruit of your work. As you know, nobody gets rich by his own hands work, but you can get along. Capitalist exploitation starts when other people work for you and when you take the added value for your own benefits.
Under a capitalist legal framework yes, but hear me out, it's possible to redefine laws and is really what this debate is about.