/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22903514]

According to the Cambridge dictionary, this is the definition of theft: "the act of taking something that belongs to someone else and keeping it"

In the sentence "property is theft", doesn't the word "theft" itself implies the existence of legitimate owner(s) (from whom the property was stolen), and thus implies a legitimate form of property , thus refuting the idea that property is theft?

[Anonymous No.22903522]

>>22903514
you are trying to legemize theft

[Anonymous No.22903526]

>>22903514
it's a figure of speech

[Anonymous No.22903528]

>>22903526
A figure of speech isn't exempt from logic

[Anonymous No.22903534]

>>22903514
Property is misappropriation.

[Anonymous No.22903541]

>according to the such and such dictionary

no sir, I do not read retards, be gone

[Anonymous No.22903551]

>>22903541
>Rejects the use of definition
It would perhaps have been wiser of you not to say that. Now everyone knows that you have never been part of any serious academic work

retard

[Anonymous No.22903568]

>>22903551
I have no idea what a serious academic work is in 2024. Shakespeare wrote fine English long before Dr. Johnson penned an index for the entire English language. Dictionaries are for gradeschool teachers and those whom they beat over the head with spelling books. Spelling varies. Thought is unverifiable if you cannot think. Grammarians wear dunce caps which say "I cannot think but I can spell, according to the such and such dictionary, which is also where I get my ideas..."

[Anonymous No.22903572]

>>22903534
>Property is misappropriation
The very idea that one could misappropriate implies that legitimate appropriation is possible, the same way that you could not misuse an object if a correct use of the object didn't exist.
If legitimate appropriation is possible, then property isn't necessarily misappropriation.

[Anonymous No.22903577]

>>22903568
Dictionaries are made so that a common understanding of words can be agreed upon, if I had not taken the time to define what theft was, some retard would have claimed that theft doesn't imply legitimate ownership, which is obviously false.

[Anonymous No.22903599]

The benevolent liberal principle of private property for all is a masking shield to the reality that only capitalists are able to accumulate value while wagies gets just enough crumbs to reproduce and work. Even their own vital force is not owned by themselves but stolen at $10 an hour or less. The ersatz of property they get to cope with being alienated from their life is getting thinner and thinner with every economical crisis, as margins increase.

[Anonymous No.22903605]

>>22903514
>property
>theft
How spooked of you, Anon. While your point works quite aptly in your haunted framework... such spooky language gets us nowhere. Yes, the communist believes that everything should belong to everyone, and he uses incredibly silly, illogical phrasing to make his 'point'. But, the fact of the matter is that all things are mine. I am rather simply just not exerting dominion over them. How can one steal something that's already his? He cannot, that's how.

[Anonymous No.22903613]

>>22903599
Yes, but that's beside the point

[Anonymous No.22903628]

>>22903613
Property, as defined and defended by dominant bourgeois institutions, is the theft of the majority's lifetime by a minority of property enjoyers. Hypothetical "legitimate" form of property stays within bourgeois legitimus or exits the realm of property.

[Anonymous No.22903632]

>>22903628
SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKED

[Anonymous No.22903651]

>>22903577
Common understanding exists independently of dictionaries. If you do not possess common understanding, then you look to the dictionary. You do not ever, under any circumstances, gather a philosophical definition from a fucking list of words.

[Anonymous No.22903656]

>>22903528
It literally is retard. If you don't understand, try reading this sentence again:
>It literally is retard.

[Anonymous No.22903660]

>>22903632
What do you own? Are you proud of it?

[Anonymous No.22903690]

>>22903660
The items which I have actually enforced my ownership over are rather nice. In my objectively correct opinion, mind you. I have in my possession a rather nice collection of coins and banknotes, a computer set up that I quite like, a fat retarded cat who I love dearly, and many other things I care less about.

[Anonymous No.22903911]

>>22903656
Are you mentally challenged?

[Anonymous No.22903917]

>>22903514
>>22903572
Lol I like it, very hoppian

[Anonymous No.22903923]

>>22903599
Nigger we own so much because of capitalism, where are you eating crumbs? I have fresh meat every day for minimum wage.

[Anonymous No.22903929]

>>22903514
You're making a similar argument as Marx did when he criticizes Proudhon (the originator of "property is theft"), so well done to you if this originated from your own reason.

[Anonymous No.22903935]

>>22903929
>ACKSHUALLY marx already debunked this
Did he debunk price discovery lmao

[Anonymous No.22903945]

the implied true owner is the "commune"

[Anonymous No.22903957]

>>22903935
Scientific truth is often the complete opposite of the immediate interpretation suggested by outward appearances (like prices).

[Anonymous No.22903993]

>>22903957
So the empirical evidence of communism starving people isn’t enough either then

[Anonymous No.22904002]

>>22903514
Belonging is a transient state that is ever changing, thus a mutually agreeable transaction can never be theft

[Jon Kolner No.22904005]

>>22903945
Then that would make it property of the community which is still theft apparently. It is circular reasoning which Euthyphro would be proud to call his own.

[Anonymous No.22904019]

>>22903993
Today the Sun travelled around the Earth as my empirical observations confirmed.

[Anonymous No.22904036]

>>22904019
Lmao, disregards your first point. Whether you believe in trying things or working it out on paper communism still fails. Why don’t you just admit you are an idiot who would rather see people die than admit you have been an easily misled retard with your life?

[Anonymous No.22904046]

>>22903929
What more did he say? The legitimate owner is the ruling class of each epoch?

[Anonymous No.22904053]

>>22904046
Marxists believe that all property is a creation of violence to justify violence in taking it

[Anonymous No.22904107]

>>22904005
>Then that would make it property of the community which is still theft apparently.
not really, the implied meaning essentially is that there is a primitive/principial/original possession of the whole, and that the individual steals from it by claiming individual possession

[Anonymous No.22904141]

>>22904036
>easily misled retard
Lmao you're the one that thinks "price discovery" is some profoundly useful revelation when in reality it is nothing but the schematization of price logs courtesy of the gelded serfs of the bourgeoise

[Anonymous No.22904145]

>>22904107
That just seems like resentment issues.

[Anonymous No.22904244]

>>22903514
Everything begins as commons before it is claimed, so you'd be stealing from the commons. Of course if you were to reappropriate property after humans have added value to it you are stealing their added value. If you actually want to solve this problem I'd recommend you look into Georgism.

[Anonymous No.22904364]

>>22904244
So the property of the commons is legitimate ; therefore property is not theft

[Anonymous No.22904688]

>>22903656
lmao this >>22903911 retard didn’t even understand what was wrong with his post

[Anonymous No.22905118]

>>22904688
figures of speech can only be contradicting themselves when it's their own purpose (such as oxymorons), in the case of "property is theft", the sentence is meant to be taken literally, and no one saying it admits the contradictory nature of it. So yes, you are mentally challenged, I'm sorry.

[Anonymous No.22905209]

This sentence is false.

[Anonymous No.22905225]

>>22903551
your larping ass is not an academic lmfaoooo. kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.22905418]

>>22905225
You write like a wigger, literally no one cares about your 70iq opinion

[Anonymous No.22905887]

>>22903577
>Dictionaries are made so that a common understanding of words can be agreed upon
Outside of dictionaries of specialist disciplines (dictionary of legal terms, of philosophical terminology, etc), no they don't.

[Anonymous No.22907231]

>>22904364
I'm not sure if commons counts as property, as it doesn't have a defined set of owners. In any case I don't agree with Marx on this, because he fails to distinguish between claimed capital and produced capital.

[Anonymous No.22907245]

>>22903514
>According to the Cambridge dictionary

[Anonymous No.22907298]

>>22904141
Not an argument. Typical of communists, being retarded without arguments.