Please indulge me in some questions

[Jeremiah Dyke]

When reading left-information I tend toward confusion.

Is it correct to say that all property (land, machines, food, etc) is borrowed for a period of time which it is used and then returned to nature?

The individual has freedom over their own body, but not the fruits of their labor?

Best,
Jeremiah

[Action Johnny]

Well, what do you mean by property?

We generally make the distinction between person property (car, tv, ect..) and private property, or control over the means of production (owning factories, natural resources: oil fields, mines, ect..)

I don't really understand what you mean by "returned to nature", sounds like some sort of hippie mantra.

The individual and the community both reap the benefits of their labor.

What left information are you reading btw?

[Zanthorus]

Well according to Marx & Engels famous Manifesto "...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." Now "private property" is usually interpreted as meaning that communists are "back to nature" style nutcases who want to abolish all ownership however even if you go back a line in the Manifesto we find:


The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

What communists mean by "private property" is actually "bourgeois private property", the right of the bourgeoisie to appropriate the surplus product of the labouring classes. Because of the linguistic confusion that stems from "abolition of private property" though I usually tend to use the term "class property" ("The Commune, they exclaim, intends to abolish property, the basis of all civilization! Yes, gentlemen, the Commune intended to abolish that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few." - Marx, CWiF) instead because it causes less confusion.

[Jeremiah Dyke]

This makes a little more sense now. I kept thinking in terms of greatest utility for the most. I forgot to distinguish between types of property

So, along these lines, if I were to domesticate wild horses or my pugs they would be my property correct? By property I mean no one could take them from me a redistribute them? What if I breed them as a way of barter? Would this still fall under personal ownership even though I own the means of production i.e. I own the original horses or dogs.

[CartCollector]

What communists mean by "private property" is actually "bourgeois private property", the right of the bourgeoisie to appropriate the surplus product of the labouring classes. Because of the linguistic confusion that stems from "abolition of private property" though I usually tend to use the term "class property" ("The Commune, they exclaim, intends to abolish property, the basis of all civilization! Yes, gentlemen, the Commune intended to abolish that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few." - Marx, CWiF) instead because it causes less confusion.
Why did Marx even use the term 'private property' to refer to a certain type of property? I believe it's caused more difficulties in people understanding Marxist ideas than it's helped them, because in the contemporary definition, private property refers to all property owned privately (exclusively by one or more, but not all, people). Why couldn't he have just said something like 'private ownership of the means of production,' or more simply, 'capital?' That way people wouldn't think that communists want to take every last possession they own and make it common property.


So, along these lines, if I were to domesticate wild horses or my pugs they would be my property correct? By property I mean no one could take them from me a redistribute them? What if I breed them as a way of barter? Would this still fall under personal ownership even though I own the means of production i.e. I own the original horses or dogs.


I think as long as it's all done by your own labor it's okay. The problem starts when some people hire others to work for them and the employers take a cut off of the workers' wages, in other words profit.

[GPDP]

Why did Marx even use the term 'private property' to refer to a certain type of property? I believe it's caused more difficulties in people understanding Marxist ideas than it's helped them, because in the contemporary definition, private property refers to all property owned privately (exclusively by one or more, but not all, people). Why couldn't he have just said something like 'private ownership of the means of production,' or more simply, 'capital?' That way people wouldn't think that communists want to take every last possession they own and make it common property.

This. When I talk to people about communism, I make it a point to NEVER utter the words "private property." I always use "private ownership of the means of production" instead, and tell them that's what we socialists strive to abolish. Personal property is another matter entirely, since you do not exploit anyone by having an Xbox 360 of your own.

[Zanthorus]

Why did Marx even use the term 'private property' to refer to a certain type of property? I believe it's caused more difficulties in people understanding Marxist ideas than it's helped them, because in the contemporary definition, private property refers to all property owned privately (exclusively by one or more, but not all, people). Why couldn't he have just said something like 'private ownership of the means of production,' or more simply, 'capital?' That way people wouldn't think that communists want to take every last possession they own and make it common property.

Unfortunately for us, times and circumstances change. In historical context "dictatorship of the proletariat" makes perfect sense as an effective way to communicate the message that between capitalism and communism is a transition period where the whole working class attains political power and uses it to opress the bourgeoisie and begin building the new society. But because of later linguistic development the phrase just serves to frighten people off. We just have to keep updating our language and ideas to communicate with whatever historical and cultural situation we find ourselves in.

[mikelepore]

Is it correct to say that all property (land, machines, food, etc) is borrowed for a period of time which it is used and then returned to nature?

I wonder if the source of your question is that you read an article that was paraphrasing the following comment found in Marx's "Capital", volume 3, chapter 46:

"Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries [users of the fruit], and, like _boni patres familias_ [good parents of families] they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition."