Confiscation of private property

[FloridaCommunist]

I'm a communist, but for some reason lately I've come to think that the confiscation of property by the government in order to ensure that there is the elimination of private property ownership is wrong...I just think that nationalized property takes away rights from the proletariat.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Workers seizing control of the means of production and democratising it is the only way to enforce classless society. State control isn't communism.

[FloridaCommunist]

I'm sorry I didn't specify. Isn't one of the ideas of socialism that a group will seize private property and then dissolve away? And if so, wouldn't that group have some sort of a higher class than everyone else?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I'm sorry I didn't specify. Isn't one of the ideas of socialism that a group will seize private property and then dissolve away?

Well that is a specific strand of Socialism, it is not the universal idea of revolution and I don't subscirbe to that theory. The workers taking control for themselves is the only solution.

[CELMX]

Workers seizing control of the means of production and democratising it is the only way to enforce classless society. State control isn't communism.

Couldn't state control be a stage to achieve communism? A very short one, hopefully.
And anyways, wouldn't the proletariat benefit from state controlling private property at first? The proletariat could have better homes, etc., instead of the rich owning everything.
When the state/dictator steps down from power, then, wouldn't everything be democtratised?
and when you say it takes away the proletariat's rights, what rights? Their property is almost nothing, controlled basically by the bourgeoisie. If the temporary government intervenes, and controls property, it would actually be much better for the working class.

That is just what I think...i might be very wrong (I too am new to this):)
and, sorry i'm so repetitive(^.^)

[Comrade Corwin]

But they are still taking the property against the will of many. I know for a fact that most in the United States would be againist property confisaction even if it was done by Jesus himself.

[FSL]

But they are still taking the property against the will of many. I know for a fact that most in the United States would be againist property confisaction even if it was done by Jesus himself.


And that is why no one is confiscating any property yet.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Couldn't state control be a stage to achieve communism? A very short one, hopefully.
And anyways, wouldn't the proletariat benefit from state controlling private property at first? The proletariat could have better homes, etc., instead of the rich owning everything.
When the state/dictator steps down from power, then, wouldn't everything be democtratised?


I don't forsee state control as a stage towards Communism. Such centralised and top-down structures in my view lead to the concentration of power in the hands of a minority. When this happens there is no chance of democratic societies or leaders stepping down. In order to pave the way to Communism we need to dissolve the structures which help to impose Capitalism in society. The revolution should seek to put power in the hands of workers and work horizontally via networks of workers re-organising society.

[CELMX]

In my opinion, I think it would be waaaay too unorganized if you have a revolution without a leader in the beginning. And at last resort, if the leader does not step down, could the powerful working class not overthrow him?

[Comrade Corwin]

I hear you saying that, but I don't understand what you mean? What is the proposed vehicle to do such things? What are the "structures" of oppression if not land ownership by the rich, as Karl Marx himself said was the greatest threat?

[Spawn of Stalin]

But they are still taking the property against the will of many. I know for a fact that most in the United States would be againist property confisaction even if it was done by Jesus himself.
Realistically, there isn't a whole lot they could do about it, when you are in such a small minority, revolution is literally a case of like it or lump it.

[Dimentio]

I'm a communist, but for some reason lately I've come to think that the confiscation of property by the government in order to ensure that there is the elimination of private property ownership is wrong...I just think that nationalized property takes away rights from the proletariat.

I don't believe in nationalisation myself as a mean to strengthen the working class. Control is very important. I think an organisation which is under control of the working class should overtake the means of production, rather than a state. But the state might be needed to make this transfer of control over the means of production possible.

[Psy]

I'm a communist, but for some reason lately I've come to think that the confiscation of property by the government in order to ensure that there is the elimination of private property ownership is wrong...I just think that nationalized property takes away rights from the proletariat.

Then how will the workers take control of the means of production? The confiscation of factories by workers is the confiscation of privation property by workers. Same with squatters that break into their own homes that has been reposed by the bank, that is confiscation of private property of the bank by those that personally used it.

The proletariat own no property of any significance under capitalism (if they did they wouldn't be proletariat) thus the proletariat have nothing to gain from private property rights.

[CELMX]

but the confiscation of property would be from the rich...and with this confiscation, wouldn't there be a lot of "giving" of property as well, to people not so well off?
I don't understand why people would be opposed to the idea of having property given to them, since the majority of the people are below middle/upper class.

[Comrade Corwin]

Where I live in the United States, a majority of people are still in the general category of the middle class, which makes up our mostly productive class of working individuals. The lower classes that can only afford to live in abject poverty within Section 8 housing, commonly do not work within the roles generally attributed to the proletariat and in many cases, whether it be their fault or not, do not work or only perform menial tasks. Therefore, the definition of the working class is actually pretty skewed here and the lower echelon of those that own and cling to property are actually the ones that perform the labor necessary to produce a "worker's state".

[Psy]

Where I live in the United States, a majority of people are still in the general category of the middle class, which makes up our mostly productive class of working individuals. The lower classes that can only afford to live in abject poverty within Section 8 housing, commonly do not work within the roles generally attributed to the proletariat and in many cases, whether it be their fault or not, do not work or only perform menial tasks. Therefore, the definition of the working class is actually pretty skewed here and the lower echelon of those that own and cling to property are actually the ones that perform the labor necessary to produce a "worker's state".
There is no middle class, only proletariat and bourgeoisie, you either own means of production or don't. Even if you are a well off worker with a nice house and two cars you don't own any property of any significance, a $900,000 house produces no capital and actually a liability as it requires capital and labor to maintain.

Thus like I said you can't be part of the proletariat (by definition) and own any property of any significance.

[red cat]

Given the fact that the bourgeoisie confiscates workers' belongings during a revolutionary war, it is unlikely that a worker will own even that when dictatorship of the proletariat is implemented.

[Comrade Corwin]

That is what I am trying to say. You tell a worker in a capitalist society that the property that he/she has worked to own is meaningless and they'll tear your head off! Don't be a foolish idealist, be a real communist.

[Psy]

That is what I am trying to say. You tell a worker in a capitalist society that the property that he/she has worked to own is meaningless and they'll tear your head off! Don't be a foolish idealist, be a real communist.
But it is not us that is telling the proletariat their property is worthless it is the capitalists. When the banks rather have a abandoned house then let residence live there over due on their mortgage they are telling the proletariat their house only has value as a means of producing capital. All the commodities worker buy only has value in a capitalist society when it is sold in the market, then it has zero value when it used by workers. That is how property rights work in capitalism, capitalists has right to the means of production and no ones else has any property rights, if a capitalists wants to buy your land you have no right in capitalism as a proletariat to keep your land and the capitalist only has to give you the market value of the land, you have no rights under capitalism as a proletariat to tell a capitalists they can't buy your land as the state will expropriate your land for the capitalists if your refuse, the police will then kick you off your land even if you have a deed since as far the state is concerned the capitalists rights to own your land is greater then your deed to the land.

Meaning in the USA no workers has a right to their land since as far as the US government is concerned only capitalists has the right to actually own land, they don't care if your land was passed down to you for generations unless you are also a capitalists you have no rights over that land if a capitalists wants it.

[Comrade Corwin]

I see what you mean, but then what as we as communists believe? I don't think that workers would think it as much of an improvement if we expropriated the land to put under the control of the worker's state. Just like capitalism, it would mean that a majority of individuals would feel they have no control over any property.

[Psy]

I see what you mean, but then what as we as communists believe? I don't think that workers would think it as much of an improvement if we expropriated the land to put under the control of the worker's state. Just like capitalism, it would mean that a majority of individuals would feel they have no control over any property.

The big question workers have to ask is what is property, to ask this you have ask what is the purpose of property rights, in capitalism the purpose of property rights is so capitalists can profit from the means of capital production without expending their labor for example a bank can say a house is their property thus they are entitled to tribute from the tenets in the form of mortgage payments, or a factory owner can take position of the commodities their workers produce on their property.

Workers don't have to worry about property in this respect being collectivized as they never had rights to them.

Of course one might say well what about my dwelling or home, well property rights under capitalism doesn't really cover that. Don't believe me, think about it if you are camping on public property the law does not recognize your tent as private property, the police can search threw your tent without search warrant as the law does not see homes as property that are not a commodity or means production.

Okay you might think that is capitalism surely early societies had property rights to protect personal property, you would be wrong, the crime of trespassing came from feudalism to protect the estates of landed aristocracy.

When it comes to determining ownership of private property it just comes down to decisions of the state, meaning having private property in a workers state would actually give the state more far power as the state would know have the authority of saying who owns property. For example lets say you have a bunch of farm land with a river running down forest outside the boundaries of any the farms, with private property it means those that own the forest above the farmer would have ownership of the water the farmers use and don't have to consider the farmer with regards to making changes to the river all because the property lines drawn up by the state that would only be their property lines because the state said so.

In comparison if there is no private property it means the farmers would have a right to the water in the forest including a right to other resources they require regardless of how far they are from the farm, meaning the farmer could have a right to diesel fuel for their tractors refined hundreds of kilometers away from oil extracted thousands of kilometers away.

[ckaihatsu]

When it comes to determining ownership of private property it just comes down to decisions of the state, meaning having private property in a workers state would actually give the state more far power as the state would know have the authority of saying who owns property.


Sorry to nit-pick here, Psy, but I think using the term 'private property' here, in this context, isn't the best term to use. (But your point stands.)





For example lets say you have a bunch of farm land with a river running down forest outside the boundaries of any the farms, with private property it means those that own the forest above the farmer would have ownership of the water the farmers use and don't have to consider the farmer with regards to making changes to the river all because the property lines drawn up by the state that would only be their property lines because the state said so.

In comparison if there is private property is means the farmers would have a right to the water in the forest including a right to other resources they require regardless of how far they are from the farm, meaning the farmer could have a right to diesel fuel for their tractors refined hundreds of kilometers away from oil extracted thousands of kilometers away.


It seems like using the term 'private property' in this context is a term of convenience, or even outright marketing -- the allocation of resources like diesel fuel would have to be decided (ultimately) by the workers' state, regardless. Even more, the workers' state might even have a prevailing interest in *discontinuing* the traditional system of family farming altogether -- look at the degree to which the tradition has eroded already, with the rise of corporate (large-scale) farming under capitalism.

A post-capitalist (communist) society would have a *mass political interest* in *liberating* all individuals -- this would mean giving the descendants of family farm families a full range of choices as to what to do with their lives. Any post-capitalist society that leaned toward favoring the upholding of the family farm (institution) *over* the prerogatives of the *individuals* from those family farms would *not* really be revolutionary, by definition.

A revolutionary politics should really maintain an *explicitly* anti-private-property plank in its platform for this reason, or else it can easily lapse back into the trap of upholding antiquated methods -- ones that respect societal conventions more than the *people* involved in them.

[Psy]

It seems like using the term 'private property' in this context is a term of convenience, or even outright marketing --

I could have forgotten to add a negative ie "if there is no private property"



the allocation of resources like diesel fuel would have to be decided (ultimately) by the workers' state, regardless. Even more, the workers' state might even have a prevailing interest in *discontinuing* the traditional system of family farming altogether -- look at the degree to which the tradition has eroded already, with the rise of corporate (large-scale) farming under capitalism.

True



A post-capitalist (communist) society would have a *mass political interest* in *liberating* all individuals -- this would mean giving the descendants of family farm families a full range of choices as to what to do with their lives. Any post-capitalist society that leaned toward favoring the upholding of the family farm (institution) *over* the prerogatives of the *individuals* from those family farms would *not* really be revolutionary, by definition.

Also true



A revolutionary politics should really maintain an *explicitly* anti-private-property plank in its platform for this reason, or else it can easily lapse back into the trap of upholding antiquated methods -- ones that respect societal conventions more than the *people* involved in them.

Again true.

[Misanthrope]

Your tooth brush or house or what have you is a completely different form of property then the means of production.

[Comrade Corwin]

I know what we are getting at here. I understand the confiscation of the means of production in the forms of property. That is now a lot clearer to me. So, I suppose it would be correct to say that we must confiscate industrial and commercial property, not residential. That would make a lot of sense, even to our complacent working class.

Living in a very rural area, I know that there are VERY few family owned farms and they are dying out mostly by choice to sell their property as smaller plots and move on from agriculture into the modern middle class. I think even in a revolutionary state, we should allow those farms to die a natural death rather than pry the property from the owner's callused hands. The corporate agricultural structure is more productive and in the right hands (the workers) it could be very beneficial to allow that model to replace the family owned farms as they disappear. Now, the big problem, more for agro-corporations than small farms, is the workers who are being used for their cheap labor (including immigrant labor) should finally be given a better standard of living when it comes to the agricultural aspect of our better society. However, as communists, I'm sure this issue is in the bag already and doesn't need to be addressed so thoroughly in this topic.

[Psy]

Living in a very rural area, I know that there are VERY few family owned farms and they are dying out mostly by choice to sell their property as smaller plots and move on from agriculture into the modern middle class. I think even in a revolutionary state, we should allow those farms to die a natural death rather than pry the property from the owner's callused hands.

They would pretty much be irrelevant if the commanding heights of industry have collectivized. Their water, electricity, parts and diesel fuel would come from worker controlled industries, as would transportation and major food chains. They would have to go to public meeting to arrange for their goods to be picked up else regional transportation soviets might not have surplus capacity at harvest time meaning family farms would have to partake in production plan.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Couldn't state control be a stage to achieve communism? A very short one, hopefully.
And anyways, wouldn't the proletariat benefit from state controlling private property at first? The proletariat could have better homes, etc., instead of the rich owning everything.
When the state/dictator steps down from power, then, wouldn't everything be democtratised?
and when you say it takes away the proletariat's rights, what rights? Their property is almost nothing, controlled basically by the bourgeoisie. If the temporary government intervenes, and controls property, it would actually be much better for the working class.

That is just what I think...i might be very wrong (I too am new to this):)
and, sorry i'm so repetitive(^.^)

"Temporary government/dictator." Oh boy. That's a dangerous line you're flirting with.

It appears some users are desperately trying to iron out any discrete differences between perceived "values," as evident by the fact users are claiming there only exists the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Defining the former of which as those holding "significant" holdings of capital is all fine and dandy on a message board, but what exactly does significant mean?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

In my opinion, I think it would be waaaay too unorganized if you have a revolution without a leader in the beginning. And at last resort, if the leader does not step down, could the powerful working class not overthrow him?

Was the Enlightenment carried out by one particular leader? The Scientific Revolution? The Industrial Revolution? Paleolithic?

Let's first define "revolution" so that we can come to an agreement about what exactly we're talking about. If one thinks of the perceived revolution as being a brutal coup, that varies significantly from a broader social revolution.

[The Red Next Door]

if you taking property from the common worker, yes it wrong but from a greedy weathly fat ass so right.

[HEAD ICE]

Private property itself is confiscation. There is nothing wrong with demanding and using what is rightfully ours.

So really, there is no confiscation of private property if you don't rightfully deserve it. If you take any justification at all for private property it logically deduces into a common right.

When the government confiscates property for any reason (be it to "redistribute" it or anything else) it still is private property.

Private property itself is an act of violence.

This of course is not talking about possessions, the fruits of your labor.

[ZeroNowhere]

if you taking property from the common worker, yes it wrong but from a greedy weathly fat ass so right.Sure, but what about the majority of the bourgeoisie?

[el_chavista]

There is a difference between property in general and the means of production. A transition to communism implies the nationalization of the main means of production under workers' control.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

So there is no way of differentiating between means of production and possession?:confused:

They're not as independent as some would think.


There is nothing wrong with demanding and using what is rightfully ours.
One is left wondering what you mean by "ours." If you mean the workers at a particular firm, that is one thing, but uniform communism that exists outside of a mutualist environment is inherently authoritarian because those claiming ownership over property had no part in its production.

[Durruti's Ghost]

They're not as independent as some would think.

Eh? The dividing line seems pretty clear--under a system of possession, whoever is using something owns it (not in the sense of having absolute right to it but in the sense of having control over it for the duration of possession). In a system of private property, whoever used something first owns it and can trade, improve, and destroy it as one sees fit. Where do you see a blurring in the distinctions between the two?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Eh? The dividing line seems pretty clear--under a system of possession, whoever is using something owns it (not in the sense of having absolute right to it but in the sense of having control over it for the duration of possession). In a system of private property, whoever used something first owns it and can trade, improve, and destroy it as one sees fit. Where do you see a blurring in the distinctions between the two?

"Duration of possession." Do you have any specific timetable in mind or an exact list of qualifications for possession?

[ckaihatsu]

One is left wondering what you mean by "ours." If you mean the workers at a particular firm, that is one thing, but uniform communism that exists outside of a mutualist environment is inherently authoritarian because those claiming ownership over property had no part in its production.





In a communist economy there would be *no* commodities -- just goods and services produced by utterly voluntary labor using assets and resources liberated from private ownership, globally, and run collectively.


---





Eh? The dividing line seems pretty clear--under a system of possession, whoever is using something owns it (not in the sense of having absolute right to it but in the sense of having control over it for the duration of possession). In a system of private property, whoever used something first owns it and can trade, improve, and destroy it as one sees fit. Where do you see a blurring in the distinctions between the two?





[T]his is a good opportunity to [make] the distinction between * personal property * and * private property *. Personal property is anything that you are using yourself, for your *own* pleasure or projects. Private property is quasi-collectivized assets and resources which are independent of personal usage -- usually put towards the function of realizing a profit.

I'm sure a communist state would develop policy that covers living arrangements. Perhaps everyone would have a time limit on how long they could keep their stuff somewhere without actually living there. After a certain amount of time your stuff would be moved and the place would be re-collectivized and made available for someone else's personal use.

Many locations, everywhere, might just be made available, perpetually, as guest quarters for anyone, anytime. The line between temporary and permanent would really blur since it wouldn't matter much how long or how short someone stays in one place -- and by spending some labor credits one could find assistance in moving one's stuff around, too.... Everything that you don't move with you would be the property of the communist state, whether for living arrangements or production / service.

[cenv]

I agree with most of what's been said here, but I take issue with the idea that toothbrushes and houses should be treated the same way. Obviously we aren't going to go collectivizing toothbrushes after the revolution, but if someone has a ridiculously large house, it might be necessary to divide it up to help end homelessness, or turn it into a public space. While the goal of the revolution is to seize the means of production, not property in general, we will have to deal with the disparities in personal wealth/property that are left over from capitalism.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree with most of what's been said here, but I take issue with the idea that toothbrushes and houses should be treated the same way. Obviously we aren't going to go collectivizing toothbrushes after the revolution, but if someone has a ridiculously large house, it might be necessary to divide it up to help end homelessness, or turn it into a public space. While the goal of the revolution is to seize the means of production, not property in general, we will have to deal with the disparities in personal wealth/property that are left over from capitalism.


Certainly. I've attached a chart that establishes a prioritization based on varying material factors:

[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

[Die Neue Zeit]

They're not as independent as some would think.

One is left wondering what you mean by "ours." If you mean the workers at a particular firm, that is one thing, but uniform communism that exists outside of a mutualist environment is inherently authoritarian because those claiming ownership over property had no part in its production.

Can you please elaborate on your view (the not-so-distant relationship between possessions and productive property)?

[Comrade Corwin]

Okay, okay! Now the means of production are property most commonly found within the industrial and commercial zoning of the current economic system. Residential should be tweaked and in the extreme cases of 15-acre lawns, should be broken up and redistributed in order to ensure the needs are met for the working class.

We as communists, in reality the intellectuals of our movement, have no right to this property as individuals or as a nationalizing organization. We are merely transitioning the leadership of industry from the corporate capitalist executives to the workers. The government can only better represent the workers; we cannot assume leadership as the workers.

Also, there is a huge difference between private and personal property. Material items, both luxury and necessity, are personal and only should have the notice of the government when it comes to severe hording of luxury items or in the need to redistribute inequitable resources from the previously wealthy upper classes (around 10% of the world's population). The working class people of minimal excess should never have to fear us, as a political force, confiscated or analyzing their personal property. This was often the mistake made by some former communist regimes and they lost the faith of the people. The worst we should do is detoxify the people from their capitalist propaganda of false hopes, confiscate horrid excess from a very small group of people and let time under a more enlightened society fix the rest.