.
; ; CHAPTER VI
Jorge. - Well, have you seen what has happened? Someone transcribed a newspaper our last conversation, and it is published, has been kidnapped (Some of these chapters were written in 1897 and published in L'Agitazione of Ancona, which was frequently the victim of abduction)
Ambrose. - Ah!
Jorge. - No, you know nothing, of course ... I do not understand how you can claim to be right when he fears that the public know your ideas. In this paper were accurately reflected their views and mine. Should satisfy the public to appreciate the basis on which rests the current constitution, and do justice to the vain criticisms of their adversaries. But instead, you close your mouth at people, confiscates.
Ambrosio. - I have nothing to do with it, belong to the judiciary and not the prosecutor.
Jorge. - Ya, but they are all colleagues and encourages the spirit. If my conversation
you're bored, let me know and I'll talk to another party.
Ambrosio. - No, no, quite the contrary. I confess that I am very interested. Continue, and as for the kidnapping, will notify the king's attorney. After all, by law no one can deny the right to dispute.
Jorge. - Let's continue then. The other time, if I remember correctly, in defending the right of property, you grabbed the first base of positive law, ie the code, then the sense of justice, and therefore social utility. Let me briefly recap my ideas. In my opinion, individual property is unfair and immoral because it is based on open violence, on fraud, or the legal exploitation of the work of others, and is harmful because it hinders the production and prevents the alienation of land and all necessary work to meet the needs of all men, because it creates the misery of the masses and begets hatred, crime and most of the ills that afflict modern society. So the abolition would replace it with a system of common ownership, in which all men, giving their fair share of work, from gaining the maximum possible welfare.
Ambrosio. - I do not see that logic takes you to the property. You have fought the property because, in his view, derived from violence and exploitation of labor, has said that capitalists control the production in view of their benefit and not to best meet the needs of the public, with the least effort possible workers. You have been denied the right to obtain an income from a land that is not grown with their own hands, lending at interest money itself to make a profit or used in the construction of houses and other industries, but the worker's right to the product the work itself has recognized this yourself, or rather, has become their champion.
Therefore, logically, you can claim verification of title deeds done in their opinion, the abolition of interest on money and income, can even order the liquidation of the present society and the division of land and tools, between those who want to serve of them, but can not talk about communism. Individual ownership of personal work products must always exist, and if you want your security has emancipated worker of tomorrow, without which no work is done that does not bear any immediate fruit, must also recognize the individual ownership of land and production tools you use, at least while employed.
Jorge. - Very well, go, it seems that you also believe in socialism. Although a different trend than mine, but in the end, it is socialism. A judge socialist is an interesting phenomenon.
Ambrosio. - No, no, no socialist. The only surprise was in contradiction and show that following their logic should not a communist, but a "dealer", a supporter of the division of property. And then I would say that the division of property would render any big company and cause general misery.
Jorge. - I am not a dealer, a supporter of the division of property, nor, to my knowledge, does any modern socialist. I do not think the real divide is worse than leaving them united in the hands of the capitalists, but I know that division, if possible, be detrimental to production. Also could not last and would lead back to the formation of large fortunes, to exploitation outrance.
say that the worker is entitled to the full product of their work, but acknowledge that this right is not only a formula of abstract justice, and means in practice that there should be operators, which all must work and everyone should enjoy the fruits of labor, modes agree among themselves.
The worker is not an isolated being in the world, living for himself and for himself, but a rational being who lives in a continuous exchange of services with other workers, and must coordinate their rights with the rights of others. Moreover, it is impossible, especially with modern production methods, determine a product which is the exact part of the work of each, as it is impossible to determine the difference in productivity of each worker or each group of workers , which is partly due to the difference in skill and energy displayed by the workers and that part depends on the difference in soil fertility, quality of the instruments used, the advantages and difficulties dependent on the topographical situation or social environment. And therefore, the solution can be found in the strict respect for the rights of each, but the agreement must be sought in fraternal solidarity.
Ambrosio. - But then there will be no freedom.
Jorge. - On the contrary, that is when there is freedom. You, the so-called liberals, call liberty the right theoretical and abstract to do a thing, and be able to say without laughing or blushing, of a man who has starved for failing to obtain the food than enough. We, on the contrary, we call freedom of the possibility of doing something or not do it, and this freedom, which is the only true, it becomes the more it grows the agreement between the men and the support they give each other.
Ambrosio. - You said that if you divide the assets are quickly reconstitute the great fortunes and return to the previous state. Why?
Jorge. - Because from the beginning would be impossible to put them all in a state of perfect equality and then maintain it. The lands differ greatly between them, produce a lot with a little work and very little other work. And the advantages and disadvantages of all types offered by the various locations are great, and also large differences in physical and intellectual power between man and man. Now, at the time of division arise naturally rivalry and struggle: the best land, the best tools, best places would go into the hands of the stronger, smarter or more clever. Consequently, finding the best material resources in the hands of men better equipped, they would soon be in a position superior to others, and, on this advantage primeval Easily increase in strength again and start a new process operating in the same spirit xpropiación ye of weak
reconstitute bourgeois society.
Ambrosio. - But that could be prevented with good laws to declare inalienable individual quotas and surrounding the serious weaknesses of legal guarantees.
Jorge. - Uff! You always think that everything can be solved with laws. It notes his profession. Laws are made and unmade at the whim of the strong.
Those who are a little stronger than average are raped, those who are still strong, are deleted and others in their interest.
Ambrosio. - And then?
Jorge. - So, I've said before: it is necessary to replace men fighting for the agreement and solidarity, and to achieve, above all to abolish private property.
Ambrosio. - I wonder if you are a communist Everything is all the work you want and who will not make love. Eat, drink, have fun. Go Jauja country! And life more beautiful, and asylum beautiful! -Laughs- .
Jorge. - Seeing the look you want to offer the arguments defending this company, which is governed only by brute force, I do not really have much to laugh about.
Yes, sir, I am a Communist. But you seem to have a very strange notion of communism. Next time try to make him understand.
For now, goodnight.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment