Owning your own home does not make you capitalist or a property owner. A capitalist controls the means of productiona and makes decisions about what is produce, how it is produced and how it is distributed. Capitalist employ armies of waged labour--9/10ths of the pouplation-- to produce goods not for their benefit but solely to make enormous profit for him, while paying labourers no more than subsitance wages. Capitalist own great swathes of land and property, shares and investments apart from their place of residence. That is private property. Your home is your personal property and two thirds of Americans don't even own that, infact many can't afford the bodies they live in.
Do you own the means of production Garr? If not, if you receive a salary, like it or not, you are not a capitalist, you are slave wage labor, exploited by those you so regularly fawn over, On Oct 13, 4:09 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Funny... > > Fully 1/3 of all Homes in the U.S. are bought and paid for. > > I believe that is a few more than 1 in 10... > > And you wonder why people question the "facts" you just throw around > here? > > On Oct 12, 3:06 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the > > right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own > > labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal > > freedom, activity and independence. > > > Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! The abolition of this > > state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality > > and freedom! > > > You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. > > But in your existing society, private property is already done away > > with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is > > solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You > > reproach us therefore, with intending to do away with a form of > > property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non- > > existence of any property for the immense majority of society. > > > In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your > > property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend. > > > From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, > > money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, > > i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be > > transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, > > you say, individuality vanishes. > > > You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other > > person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. > > This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made > > impossible. > > > Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of > > society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate > > the labour of others by means of such appropriations. > > > It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all > > work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. > > > According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to > > the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members, who work, > > acquire nothing, and those who acquire everything do not work. The > > whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: > > that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer > > any capital. > > > All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and > > appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged > > against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating > > intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of > > class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the > > disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the > > disappearance of all culture. > > > That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous > > majority, a mere training to act as a machine. > > But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended > > abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois > > notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the > > outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois > > property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class > > made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and > > direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of > > your class. > > > The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal > > laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your > > present mode of production and form of property – historical relations > > that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this > > misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. > > What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit > > in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit > > in the case of your own bourgeois form of property. > > > Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this > > infamous proposal of the Communists. > > The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the > > hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more > > disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family > > ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children > > transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of > > labour.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
