this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
380 points (87.0% liked)
Memes
55921 readers
782 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 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" refers to communism. It's a direct response to the OP. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their work" refers to socialism and revolution, but wasn't the subject of the OP.
No. I answered OP's question about communism, then it got shifted to socialism and revolution. This is important, as the original question was framed as how do you keep communism going.
Sure.
Oh no! How dare the peasants rob the nobility at gun point of their rightful fiefdoms!
I'm not taking a normative position here. I'm not saying anything about morality, or good guys and bad guys. I'm offering up moral frameworks to justify those actions. My takeaway from Robin Hood wasn't that he was the villain.
I just don't get why you'd act like the idea is NOT to take from the ownership class at gunpoint when that's the whole idea. None of the rest of it works unless you do that. Just say it with your whole chest. Don't removed out.
That's the singular aspect I'm judging.