Communism and Private Property

[Lyev]

'...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.' [The Communist Manifesto, pg. 22]

I don't really understand why- can someone explain? I'm probably missing something out here.

Thanks.

[scarletghoul]

It's about the privately owned means of production, which allows the capitalists to exploit the proletariat. Communism would abolish this private ownership in favour of collective workers' ownership.

[Lyev]

So the workers share ownership, so that they own the means of production? Do the proletariat own the means of production in communism? or is that socialism?

[New Tet]

So the workers share ownership, so that they own the means of production? Do the proletariat own the means of production in communism? or is that socialism?

Neither. Under communism or socialism (take your pick) the means of production are the property of society as a whole and are democratically operated and managed by the workers themselves.

[scarletghoul]

Both, in theory. The idea is that workers/proletariat seize the means of production (and the state) through revolution. This begins the socialist stage, where the proletarian state is used to secure worker control and develop the communist collective system.
Of course, it hasn't always worked out that way, but thats the basic idea.

[Lyev]

How is the means of production collectively controlled then?

Oh and thanks for your patience and answers.

[chimx]

How is the means of production collectively controlled then?

Oh and thanks for your patience and answers.

Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the state owns the means of production. As class ceases to exist, the state evolves into an administrative system controlled by the general population.

[New Tet]

How is the means of production collectively controlled then?

Oh and thanks for your patience and answers.

Through the socialist industrial unions and their councils elected and based at the workplace, for starters

[Misanthrope]

How is the means of production collectively controlled then?

Oh and thanks for your patience and answers.

democratically by all those who participate in it.

[yuon]

'...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.' [The Communist Manifesto, pg. 22]

I don't really understand why- can someone explain? I'm probably missing something out here.

Thanks.

Private property, in this case, is the factories, farms, etc. that are considered "the means of production". It doesn't mean personal possessions, such as clothing, toothbrushes or similar.

Once again, there is a difference between the common use of a term, and the meaning attached to it by Marxists. (Seriously, I would suggest not using the Communist Manifesto dudes, or at least, updating the language...)

Communists, at least generally, but not always, do not think that everyone should be forced to share clothing, live in barracks or other crap. True freedom lovers (and I generally think of anarchist communists) reject "gray communism" as being against freedom.

Having everyone look the same, that's worse than the present system in many ways.

[Lyev]

Private property, in this case, is the factories, farms, etc. that are considered "the means of production". It doesn't mean personal possessions, such as clothing, toothbrushes or similar.

Once again, there is a difference between the common use of a term, and the meaning attached to it by Marxists. (Seriously, I would suggest not using the Communist Manifesto dudes, or at least, updating the language...)

I think I'm starting to grasp this whole thing now. Isn't there a quote 'property is theft'? is it that the minority (bourgeoisie) own the means of production through private property and can therefore exploit and alienate the majority (proletariat)? Marx described the prols as something like 'mere appendages of flesh attached to cold iron'. Bearing all this in mind I still don't understand why 'property is theft'. Shouldn't it be 'property is exploitation' or something like that?

And the Communist Manifesto is fine for me. I am going through '
Marx for Beginners by Rius at the moment and I have got Marx's Capital for Beginners by Smith and Evans coming in the post :).


Communists, at least generally, but not always, do not think that everyone should be forced to share clothing, live in barracks or other crap. True freedom lovers (and I generally think of anarchist communists) reject "gray communism" as being against freedom.

Having everyone look the same, that's worse than the present system in many ways.

So is 'grey communism' where everyone shares clothing and lives in barracks? I never realised that living in barracks and 'having everyone look the same' was Marx's and Engels' image of communism.

[Howard509]

'...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.' [The Communist Manifesto, pg. 22]

I don't really understand why- can someone explain? I'm probably missing something out here.

Thanks.

This is why traditionalism anarchism opposes private property, for the same reason as Marx:



So then what is the difference then between personal property and private property?

To put it simply on one hand you have your personal property, something that you own as a person something that you use in your day-to-day life, for example your house your CD collection and your car would all be considered to be part of your personal property, and I think we can all agree that there isn’t anything wrong with having a home of your own to live in, or a collection of CD’s that you like to listen to, or a car to take you from A to B when ever you so choose to go.

Now on the other hand you have what we call private property, which is entirely different from personal property, because from this kind of property an individual or a group of people can obtain profit. Basically private property is the factories, offices, warehouses and any other number of places a person can work, the tools that they use from the computer in the office to the machinery on the factory floor. All of the things that the majority of us (the workers) use to produce everything we have today.

You may be wondering why all of the things I’ve mentioned are considered “private” property; the means of producing wealth are considered private property because they are owned and controlled by a very small number of people, known as capitalists.

Now you may be saying ‘So what if they own everything, they pay us for the work that we do, everybody is happy’. Well what if I was to tell you that while you where out swapping your days work for a wage you where really being conned and robbed by your boss. How do you get the short end of the stick?

For arguments sake lets just say you work in a toy factory assembling toys. The boss buys in the toy parts; lets just say the total cost for one toy is €1 and you can assemble ten toys in an hour, and for this you get paid €10 an hour. The boss then takes the finished toys and sells them for say €50 each. So now the boss has just sold all the toys you made in that hour for €500, now the boss has to pay for the materials and your wages, so when you take them away he is left with a profit of €480 an hour.

But hang on a second you did all the work, why does he get €480 an hour while you only get €10. Well because in capitalism the small minority who have control of all the private property can do this everyday, they are robbing all of us each and everyday. So every time you hear about some company’s profits going up remember the just robbed them from you. Hence the famous anarchist slogan “Property is theft”.
http://www.wsm.ie/story/2664

[Howard509]

Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the state owns the means of production. As class ceases to exist, the state evolves into an administrative system controlled by the general population.

Has this ever happened in a Marxist-oriented country?

[Lyev]

Thanks for your patience and answers, things are clearer now. :)

[Durruti's Ghost]

I think I'm starting to grasp this whole thing now. Isn't there a quote 'property is theft'? is it that the minority (bourgeoisie) own the means of production through private property and can therefore exploit and alienate the majority (proletariat)? Marx described the prols as something like 'mere appendages of flesh attached to cold iron'. Bearing all this in mind I still don't understand why 'property is theft'. Shouldn't it be 'property is exploitation' or something like that?

You've hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what "property is theft" refers to; the fact that private property "rights" enable the bourgeoisie to steal the labor of the proletariat. As for "property is exploitation", isn't exploitation basically theft?

[Lyev]

You've hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what "property is theft" refers to; the fact that private property "rights" enable the bourgeoisie to steal the labor of the proletariat. As for "property is exploitation", isn't exploitation basically theft?

Yeah, in this case, I guess so. Who thought it up? I remember reading it somewhere, it was a French anarchist, but I can't remember his name.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Yeah, in this case, I guess so. Who thought it up? I remember reading it somewhere, it was a French anarchist, but I can't remember his name.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. He was also the person who coined the term "anarchist" as a political ideology, BTW.

Of course, most modern anarchists (myself included) have some issues with him on account of him being more than a little bit sexist.

[Lyev]

Yeah I also read that he didn't like feminists or womens rights or something, but that was just the times he lived in, right?

[Durruti's Ghost]

Well, I don't know how good of a defense that is for him, considering that Mikhail Bakunin (who wasn't much younger than him) was extremely pro-feminist. It is true that his views were shared by most people of his time, though.

Anyway, we should treat him the same as we treat any historical figure: accept the good parts, reject the bad.

[NecroCommie]

So is 'grey communism' where everyone shares clothing and lives in barracks? I never realised that living in barracks and 'having everyone look the same' was Marx's and Engels' image of communism.
Don't listen to that part at least. I honestly don't know what he was on about, for I can not recall anyone who views communism as people looking the same and living in the barracks. Well, that is if we don't count in capitalists.

And you are right, this certainly is not what Marx or Engels had in mind.

[StrictlyRuddie]

Don't listen to that part at least. I honestly don't know what he was on about, for I can not recall anyone who views communism as people looking the same and living in the barracks. Well, that is if we don't count in capitalists.

And you are right, this certainly is not what Marx or Engels had in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracks_communism
Used to describe the type of communism this guy wanted(and for some time Bakunin, during his association with the guy, which If I am correct also sparked the expulsion of bakunin from the International working mens association)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Nechayev

(sorry to go off topic there:/)

[RotStern]

Communism is the COOOOOLEST Private property sucks! :D

[SubcomandanteJames]

"Property is Theft!" (though I agree COMPLETELY with the idea) is a bit of a poorly worded statement as seen by some, because "theft" presupposes the taking of property that belongs to someone or a single entity, and thus property is inherently the opposite of theft, as it is defined by our modern society. However, property is communal theft would be a better statement because it defines property (private) and communal theft (taking from the community). Or possibly even property is theft from the people, defining the people as the SINGLE entity from whom property is being taken from, thus, validating theft.

Karl Marx has a similar critique of the expression, "since “theft” as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property".

[revolution inaction]

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. He was also the person who coined the term "anarchist" as a political ideology, BTW.

Of course, most modern anarchists (myself included) have some issues with him on account of him being more than a little bit sexist.

I'm not sure if he was the first person to use "property is theft" in hte first chapter of what is property he says


. I contend that neither labor, nor
occupation, nor law, can create property; that it is an effect without a cause: am I censurable?
But murmurs arise!
Property is robbery! That is the war-cry of '93! That is the signal of revolutions!
Reader, calm yourself: I am no agent of discord, no firebrand of sedition.

so it sound like it came from 1793 or earlier, although it may have been intended in a difrent way, i don't know any more than this.

[Lyev]

"Property is Theft!" (though I agree COMPLETELY with the idea) is a bit of a poorly worded statement as seen by some, because "theft" presupposes the taking of property that belongs to someone or a single entity, and thus property is inherently the opposite of theft, as it is defined by our modern society. However, property is communal theft would be a better statement because it defines property (private) and communal theft (taking from the community). Or possibly even property is theft from the people, defining the people as the SINGLE entity from whom property is being taken from, thus, validating theft.

Karl Marx has a similar critique of the expression, "since “theft” as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property".

I agree with the idea too, but, for me, 'property is communal theft' or 'property is theft from the people' doesn't quite have the same ring to it lol. Just to reiterate though, the quarrel with the statement is that it presupposes that the proletariat had property and the bourgeoisie took it from them?

And I'm fairly certain it was that french anarchist fellow to come up with the phrase. He wrote the book What is Property?, didn't he?

Once again, thanks for your answers.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I'm not sure if he was the first person to use "property is theft" in hte first chapter of what is property he says



so it sound like it came from 1793 or earlier, although it may have been intended in a difrent way, i don't know any more than this.

He's referring to the French Revolution and insinuating that the logical conclusion of the idea of "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity" is the abolition of private property, although Brissot de Warville used a similar phrase in another book (I don't remember which).

[Dave B]

I think the Proudhon, ‘property is theft’ thing is a misunderstanding.

What Proudhon meant by property was essentially ‘capital’ or ownership of the means of production by which the owners exploited, or ‘thieved’ from the working class, a proportion of their own product or labour ie surplus value and profits etc.

It played no small part in fact in Karl’s early days and ultimately the labour theory of value even if the idea was kicking around elsewhere.

Thus;



"That all accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive proprietor."



http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/ch03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/ch03.htm)

The idea was I think that the beneficiaries of means of production should be the ones who worked or used it.


I suppose that is a noble principal but what was not clear was how to sort out who got the water buffalo and paddy field and who gets the 24 foot reach combine harvester and 10,000 acres of prairie land in Canada.


It has been a while since I read it.

.

[SubcomandanteJames]

I agree with the idea too, but, for me, 'property is communal theft' or 'property is theft from the people' doesn't quite have the same ring to it lol. Just to reiterate though, the quarrel with the statement is that it presupposes that the proletariat had property and the bourgeoisie took it from them?

And I'm fairly certain it was that french anarchist fellow to come up with the phrase. He wrote the book What is Property?, didn't he?

Once again, thanks for your answers.

Yes, I believe it was Proudhoun.

The quarrel is that the definition of THEFT most commonly refers to the taking of private property. PROPERTY is referring to private property. So therefore: property is theft is PRIVATE PROPERTY IS TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY. Yes, it doesn't have the same ring, does it? :(

[Durruti's Ghost]

Yes, I believe it was Proudhoun.

The quarrel is that the definition of THEFT most commonly refers to the taking of private property. PROPERTY is referring to private property. So therefore: property is theft is PRIVATE PROPERTY IS TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY. Yes, it doesn't have the same ring, does it? :(

Proudhon made the distinction between two kinds of property: private property (illegitimate), which is not contingent on anything, and possession (legitimate), which is contingent on continued use of its object. Private property, in his view, consisted of the capitalist taking the rightful possessions of the workers, and thus was theft. (This is an extremely oversimplified explanation of his ideas, but I think it covers the basic points.)

[revolution inaction]

He's referring to the French Revolution and insinuating that the logical conclusion of the idea of "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity" is the abolition of private property, although Brissot de Warville used a similar phrase in another book (I don't remember which).

he talks about the idea of "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" a lot in "What is property" but he specifically says property is robbery was a "war cry" of '93 so it really sounds like he is saying it was used before, and is not just the logical conclusion of liberty, equality and fraternity.
Brissot de Warville is mentioned in the wikopedia article, apparently marx claimed that is where proudhon got the phrase.

[Durruti's Ghost]

he talks about the idea of "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" a lot in "What is property" but he specifically says property is robbery was a "war cry" of '93 so it really sounds like he is saying it was used before, and is not just the logical conclusion of liberty, equality and fraternity.
Brissot de Warville is mentioned in the wikopedia article, apparently marx claimed that is where proudhon got the phrase.

It's possible that it was used before, but I haven't been able to find any other mention of it in connection with the French Revolution. As far as I can tell, the only previous incidence of "property is theft" was in de Warville's work.

[Lyev]

So could capitalists still own the means of production if their property wasn't private?

[Durruti's Ghost]

So could capitalists still own the means of production if their property wasn't private?

No. That's the main reason Proudhon wanted to distinguish between private property and possession: to create a market system under which capitalists could not exploit workers by altering the ownership system used by said market system so that workers would own the means of production by default.

He believed, like many people at the time, that the market was the most efficient means of providing for the needs of everyone. Most anarchists here disagree with him on this point, which is why we are mostly syndicalists, collectivists, or communists rather than mutualists.