You're viewing part of a thread.
but if some of my friends dont want to work it they can just sell me the land. And if we produce more food than we need we can sell it so we can buy other things we don't produce. I dont understand why its wrong to own a farm.
Substance farming is different than owning a farm that exists by its own production of food and selling those produced goods at market price.
Personal property is for personal use. That's it.
Once you start to accumulate surplus property then its very obviously not personal anymore. A person that doesn't want a garden won't have one to sell you, because they wouldn't have one in the first place.
Don't think in terms of "right" and "wrong". Think materially.
what if their father left them the garden and they want to sell it to me? what if they want to move somewhere else and they decide to sell me their property?
Inheritance is antithetical to meritocracy is the basis for generational wealth and capitalist dynasties.
Everything must go, use it lose it.
What even is your motivation to do more than the bare minimum to survive if not to leave it to your children? I would rather take care of my kids future than let some corrupt government do it who will prioritize their children over mine
You can't even imagine helping your neighbors, huh?
You overestimate how much the average person cares for people they don’t know.
Keep telling on yourself.
I wish the truth was different…
It is! Humans are naturally cooperative and empathetic, we aren't selfish assholes that only care about our immediate families.
Empathy is a skill. It atrophies under capitalism, but it could be trained and flourish under different conditions.
From wikipedia:
Ancient views of greed abound in nearly every culture. In Classical Greek thought; pleonexy (an unjust desire for tangible/intangible worth attaining to others) is discussed in the works of Plato and Aristotle.[9] Pan-Hellenic disapprobation of greed is seen by the mythic punishment meted to Tantalus, from whom ever-present food and water is eternally withheld. Late-Republican and Imperial politicians and historical writers fixed blame for the demise of the Roman Republic on greed for wealth and power, from Sallust and Plutarch[10] to the Gracchi and Cicero. The Persian Empires had the three-headed Zoroastrian demon Aži Dahāka (representing unslaked desire) as a fixed part of their folklore. In the Sanskrit Dharmashastras the "root of all immorality is lobha (greed).",[11] as stated in the Laws of Manu (7:49).[12] In early China, both the Shai jan jing and the Zuo zhuan texts count the greedy Taotie among the malevolent Four Perils besetting gods and men. North American Indian tales often cast bears as proponents of greed (considered a major threat in a communal society).[13] Greed is also personified by the fox in early allegoric literature of many lands.[14][15]
Greed (as a cultural quality) was often imputed as a racial pejorative by the ancient Greeks and Romans; as such it was used against Egyptians, Punics, or other Oriental peoples;[16] and generally to any enemies or people whose customs were considered strange. By the late Middle Ages the insult was widely directed towards Jews.[17]
In the Books of Moses, the commandments of the sole deity are written in the book of Exodus (20:2-17), and again in Deuteronomy (5:6-21); two of these particularly deal directly with greed, prohibiting theft and covetousness. These commandments are moral foundations of not only Judaism, but also of Christianity, Islam, Unitarian Universalism, and the Baháʼí Faith among others. The Quran advises do not spend wastefully, indeed, the wasteful are brothers of the devils..., but it also says do not make your hand [as though] chained to your neck..."[18] The Christian Gospels quote Jesus as saying, ""Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions",[19] and "For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.".[20]
In the entirety of human history communism has never worked. Not once has any society been able to work on the ideals of it.
Yeah, because the US bombs them or funds terror cells or blockades their economy.
Cold War. Communism was hunted and destroyed whereever it arose.
If communism was so strong it wouldn't have to worry about capitalist intervention. You just proved my point of communism / socialism being weak if the apparent enemy is easily able to wreck you economy and implode your country it is not a strong system.
Might makes right, then?
In terms of global politics, yes. Every country has fallen back into capitalism in some form, the closest I can think of being truly, actually communist were the Spanish Anarchists based out of Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. If you would like to read about them I recommend George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia." Everyone made the same amount, they called each other comrade regardless of rank, etc. They did not last long though, taken out by their own democratic allies during the Civil War.
It's impossible to uncouple society from capitalism. It's not a possibility, but it definitely could work. Maybe capitalism just needs longer than communism to fail?
The wealthiest country in the world has unaffordable healthcare and homelessness, how is that capitalism working?
So what are all those people without kids doing?
Make a better world, build a stronger economy for them excel in and make their own way. I plan on providing the very best for my children to let them go about their life as they see fit and not have to rely on something I might pass down.
Corrupt governments is a cop out statement too, ideally you wouldn't stand for government corruption.
A person who could actually assemble a farm through small land acquisitions through the power of friendship probably deserves it tbh
I wouldn't really call it friendship. Company is a good word.
You're talking about using your personal connections within the community to slowly assemble a farm from small acquisitions like their deceased father's garden and then leveraging those connections to find people to help you work the land. People that don't need to give you their land and don't need to work your land, they're actually choosing to do it freely. That'd actually be amazing if it ever happened.
That basically has zero relation with how farms work under capitalism.
Freely? No. For money. They can also work for money.
Except they don't need money, so it's still a free choice they're making.
When you don't need money to have a life worth living and all needs are already provided, any choice to work for money is a free one.
Who decides what constitutes surplus?