[komali2]

If a landlord owns 500 homes and tenants pay off the mortgage, maintain the place, and generate the income stream, who is really taking from whom?

"Seizing" kind of sounds like theft. If McDonald's employees at one shop in Pasadena Texas suddenly stopped sending money up the chain, isn't that theft of that particular McDonald's shop? I say no, because the theft has already occurred, but legally: faceless profiteers at wherever McDonald's is headquartered stole the land from the locals in Pasadena for the purpose of generating profits for people in NYC. Their labor and the surplus value of same is stolen to actualize and maintain those profits.

"But McDonald's provided the equipment, training, advertising!" Yes, and long after the value of that equipment, training, and advertising is "paid off" (the given franchise has achieved profitability), the headquarters will continue to steal surplus value from the local workers. Indefinitely.

Why don't Pasadena McDonald's employees just build/buy their own equipment, start their own burger shop, call it something other than McDonald's? Because society is designed to serve the needs of McDonald's shareholders, not Pasadena minimum wage McDonald's employees: they could never get together the kind of capital needed to do so. Get a loan, investment? Sure, now they're in the same situation: someone is extracting the surplus profit off their labor, and nobody's gonna go for a loan to a bunch of minimum wage Pasadenans without a very juicy potential profit margin.

Capitalism is structured around exclusion: capital, land, patents, credit, licenses, distribution networks, rent, and monopoly advantages are already controlled. The era of "just compete with McDonald's" is long dead.

> Is seizing the means of production not equivalent to starting a company and stealing things others have built for the company to get started with?

So to answer your original question, "seizing the means of production" doesn't mean "starting a company." Within the context of capitalism, you could do what I did and start a co-op, which is a worker-owned entity where profits are distributed equally, so no theft of surplus. However that's not a sustainable solution to the overall problem of capitalism because we will never have the kind of capital accumulation that allows much larger companies to start influencing governments or engage in lawfare. If AKQA decides to eat us, there's not much we can do to stop them. Also all institutions of capitalism are against us: nobody wants to give us loans or an investment, it's stupid hard to navigate bureaucracy, the very formation mechanisms are so much more complicated than when a business is a simple minority shareholder owned corp. On the other hand our members make way more than local rates (3x, sometimes more) and are much happier than AKQA folks, and our client outcomes are phenomenal, so idk, everyone should convert their business to a co-op.

Sorry, rambling. Seizing the means of production doesn't mean taking people's toothbrushes, it means abolishing the right of an owner class to control the productive infrastructure everyone depends on and extract profit from other people’s labor simply because their name is on a piece of paper.

Means of production: land, factories, warehouses, tools, machines, logistics networks, software infrastructure, housing, energy systems, water systems.

Seizing means transferring control away of the means of production from distant profiteers, to the people who actually build, operate, and maintain those means.

Incidentally this shifts priorities away from pure profit and usually to things that are better for the workers and users: compare the incentives and impacts of Linux versus those of Microsoft.

Seizing can look like: occupying, collectivizing, expropriating, squatting, unionizing, converting firms to worker control, building commons, abolishing intellectual property, refusing rent, creating parallel distribution systems, and making capitalist ownership unenforceable or irrelevant.

[pfannkuchen]

Too long, did read but replying to a granular supporting point at the beginning not to the whole idea. Which isn’t to say I dismiss the whole idea, this is just how my brain processes arguments. If an argument relies on a certain support, I like to check in on the supports and not just accept or refute the argument.

> If a landlord owns 500 homes and tenants pay off the mortgage

So I agree that this situation feels like a scam, and I think that feeling is based on human instinct and so it is in a way just objectively true (since unfairness is fundamentally defined by that instinct).

But, what is inducing this unfair situation?

Is it the part where someone owns the land and the building and someone else pays them to use it?

Or, is it the part where some third party gets to decide who can use its money, which is to say “who is in the club”, and people outside of that club pay both the third party and the people in the club for basic necessities, without which they will die. In essence they are held hostage and must pay their own ransom. And the reason that’s ostensibly fair under the current moral regime is that club membership is… itself determined by money.

Do we think that part might be the root cause of the unfair feeling in this situation?

Please do respond to my specific point here as I’m curious to engage and I’m not trying to nitpick you. If you just respond with a dismissal such as “the argument doesn’t rest on this point”, then I will conclude your overall argument is not sound (whether due to being insufficiently thought through or whether due to being fundamentally invalid, I don’t know, but I don’t feel it’s my responsibility to figure that out and I can just dismiss the claim until someone comes along with a more well structured argument).

[komali2]

What is inducing, or what is unfair? I understand that liberals (actual definition, not American) may feel that a good rigid analysis would determine that land ownership is fine so long as we can solve the boy's club problem of wealth concentration meaning a few landlords own most of the land, or that a small subset of people are financed such that they can own most things. That's what you mean, right?

So along these lines the idea is, we can keep doing private property (this is different than personal property - toothbrushes), so long as we solve the "unfair" imbalance that leads to coercive landlord relationships?

Sure, I'd rather live in that world than this one.

But, for once I get to wear the anarcho-communist hat, so I'm gonna give my full commie answer: no, private property isn't fair, natural, normal, or sane. It is the root cause of the wealth concentration, the boy's club, and the feeling of unfairness.

Capitalism's inevitable end stage is wealth concentration, because fundamental to capitalism is the idea that money == power, after all, the amount of capital you have determines the amount of resources you get to decide how to distribute. So eventually, you get enough to where you can make decisions about whether to put a plant in Pasadena or Deere, Texas, and whichever town gives you the more permissive legal situation is the town you choose. Lobbying, lawfare. The instruments of the State, no matter how well designed by moral liberals attempting to prevent club membership being determined by money, are chipped away by you and your friends. This is compounded by the fact that most people are happy with what they have and just want to get on with their lives, but the corporations are capitalistically unable to do that: they HAVE to constantly grow, or they're not delivering good shareholder value. Only so many directions to grow. So they overwhelm the energy of humans who just want to chill, get a mountain of small decisions passed that make their lives unfair.

The unfairness is around the exclusion. 500 property landlord isn't just due to money concentration - it could be inheritance (yes that's wealth concentration but only because we consider land to be wealth), cronyism, or domination (go look up how most of the land in Taiwan was acquired, or in the UK, and how that land never really left the families it was given to by actual military conquerors).

It's not fair that one person/entity can arbitrarily exclude access to what traditionally is the commons - we're talking about housing right now but I mean all commons, land, network infrastructure, water. It's not fair that they can charge rent to access those commons for all of forever, despite the fact that the only reason those commons have any value at all is the existence of the community that needs it. The relationship is inherently interconnected but for some reason the money moves one way and only one party gets to say how the resources are distributed, and it's not the party with the actual needs! Which in the real world leads to detached corporations and individuals making bad decisions about resource distribution because of their distance from the need or because they're trying to maximize profit, which leads to capitalist insanity like leaving fields fallow despite workers wanting to work and people needing food, but crop prices aren't high enough to justify planting, growing, and then selling the food in a market, so fuck yall, we chained up the commons due to changing marker conditions.

It's not fair that people have to justify their labor's value to capitalist markets instead of the needs of their community. It's not fair that access means of that labor can be shut off based on the whims of markets or, don't forget, a petty human (remember that dumb beach access gate thing in California a couple years back?). Wealth concentration is an inevitable symptom of this system and therefore not the core problem.

Even under less wealth concentrated private property, a landlord can still evict a tenant that doesn't want to be evicted. That's unfair.