• obsoleteacct@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

      • obsoleteacct@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        28 minutes ago

        That’s what I was getting at. Don’t soft pedal it.

        “There WILL be a Robin Hood type taking shit at gunpoint”.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 minutes ago

          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.