Archer0915 (07-11-2017)
Right. But you don't need a state to protect them. Many American Indian tribes owned that land communally and would parcel out rights to pieces of land to families who would keep those rights for as long as they used the land, and when it fell into disuse, it was reallotted to another family. There was no state to do thxis, it was just the tradition.
Again, though, the topic here is exploitation of workers.
You do under capitalism, which was my point.
That wasn't capitalism.Many American Indian tribes owned that land communally and would parcel out rights to pieces of land to families who would keep those rights for as long as they used the land, and when it fell into disuse, it was reallotted to another family. There was no state to do thxis, it was just the tradition.
I know. And I believe capitalism's ownership framework is exploitative, which would necessarily extend to workers.Again, though, the topic here is exploitation of workers.
Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
--John Adams
True socialism and communism exploit the worker where they have no incentive to do more. Those on top own those on the bottom and there is no hope for a brighter future. Worker class is worker class.
EDIT: To answer the OP, NO!
But not capitalist property rights.
By allowing individuals to appropriate resources that would otherwise be held in common. Land, for example.How?
You're not. But if you use the state to appropriate more than your fair share of nature's bounty, which capitalism allows and even encourages, then you are exploiting me.Again, if you voluntarily agree to work for me for a wage, how am I exploiting you?
Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
--John Adams
OK, I give, and have no idea how you're defining capitalism.
If it's held in common then no one is exploited, just the common. Without private rights to use of the land, you then end up with a tragedy of the commons.By allowing individuals to appropriate resources that would otherwise be held in common. Land, for example.
That I would agree with, but it wasn't mentioned in my hypothetical, nor anywhere in the OP here.You're not. But if you use the state to appropriate more than your fair share of nature's bounty, which capitalism allows and even encourages, then you are exploiting me.
Wish I had kept it, an article demonstrating how socialism, on a large, centralized planning scale, actually resulted in exploitation of the workers. But again, the exploitation is in a statist system.