To what extent is private property abolished?

[jmpeer]

Does the abolition of private property refer to production property, or property in general? (I advocate the latter, so don't feel like you need to defend it if that's the case.)

[Kuppo Shakur]

"Property" generally only refers to means of production. Many communists believe people are still entitled to various possessions.

[JazzRemington]

It refers to the abolition of private property in terms of production property (or in other words, the means of production). Ownership of individual items produced is a moot point, and wouldn't be a major issue.

[Amphictyonis]

Does the abolition of private property refer to production property, or property in general? (I advocate the latter, so don't feel like you need to defend it if that's the case.)

Proudhon wrote "What is Property" and made the distinction between property and possessions. You cannot use a possession to coerce another human being. One (possession) is a toothbrush while the other (private property) is a factory.

Your toothbrush will not be a means of exploitation nor would your home or car.

[GPDP]

Does the abolition of private property refer to production property, or property in general? (I advocate the latter, so don't feel like you need to defend it if that's the case.)

You mean you are an advocate of property in general, or the abolition of property in general?

Anyway, socialists of all stripes generally refer to the abolition of private property as the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production.

[jmpeer]

GPDP, sorry for the confusion, I meant I advocate the complete abolition of private property.

[Apoi_Viitor]

To be honest, when I first read Marx's statements that we should "abolish all private property", I was like "fuck you I like my ipod". :blushing:

Edit: Also, I think when interpreting Marx's statement, one should look at the conditions of the time. I think he literally meant the collectivization of all private property, but I only assume this was because at the time, if you weren't rich, you literally owned nothing. Now, I don't think that's applicable to modern society. In The Conquest of Bread, Peter Kropotkin, also advocated for the abolition of all private property, but at the same time, he wrote that (this isn't a literal transposition) "there's no need to force people into communal kitchens, if you want to cook at home, with your pots and dishes, I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to". But yes, basically I agree with most of the above, that only the means of production need to be communized.

[jmpeer]

Actually, infrastructure would be a better term than production property, wouldn't it?
But what about homes? Are they completely in the private domain? Or do they require some sort of government contract?

Edit:
Yeah, even when I say the complete abolition of private property, that wouldn't mean you don't have personals sitting around your house. I mean, think about it. Ownership is a social contract. One that can be very easily violated behind your back or at gun point robbery. The only ownership that really matters is infrastructure, which I regard as anything that doesn't function on your person. I mean, what, are you afraid someone's going to rub your toothbrush on their balls or steal your clothes because you don't "own" them anymore? You all have to realize, even as socialists/communists, being so sensitive about property is the product of capitalism.

[Rêve Rouge]

Actually, infrastructure would be a better term than production property, wouldn't it?
But what about homes? Are they completely in the private domain? Or do they require some sort of government contract?

I'm a little confused on this issue too. Are homes considered private property, or personal property? Or a kind of government contract as jmpeer says?

[#FF0000]

Actually, infrastructure would be a better term than production property, wouldn't it?
But what about homes? Are they completely in the private domain? Or do they require some sort of government contract?

Nah, homes are pretty private, I think. Personal living space and all that.

And infrastructure probably isn't a good word because that refers to things like electrical, sewage, roads...etc. "Capital" is a better general word.

[syndicat]

I usually distinguish between "productive property" and "personal property." In the present capitalist society "productive property" is anything that can be used by its owner to make a profit, usually through its use in a process where workers are hired to production work. But this includes business assets that could be used to acquire productive property, such as money capital.

Personal property are things that are not productive property but are being used by somone or a household simply to enjoy or make things immediately for their own use or consumption. So a stove you use to cook on in your household is personal property. Similarly, your house, if you own it and simply use it to live in, is personal property.

But notice that things can be personal property in one context but productive property in another context. Although a dwelling is personal property for the person living there, if a slumlord buys up houses to make money from renting them out, then they become productive property.

A car you use to get around in is your personal property, but if a company owned a fleet, such as a pizza chain that delivers, then they become productive property.

I don't think there is any point to disallowing personal property. What we should be concerned with is productive property, because this can be the basis of a class system and exploitation. On the other hand, at the point where personal property is produced, if we have a system of socially owned and controlled production, then the products are also socially owned. So how they then become personal property depends on the particular system of distribution.

[Revolution starts with U]

Not only is it ridiculous to abolish personal property (like you said, I like my playstation), but it would be absolutely unfeasable and would just lead to all sorts of black markets.
Communalization of capital, things that make a profit. I might even say not just profitable things, like a hobby that has to be reported on a 1040. But just those things for which you have to hire additional workers (but im a noob, so idk lol).

[jmpeer]

syndicat, that's precisely the matter then. If personal property exists, then your distribution of resources relies solely upon the integrity of the people. You should prevent the problem by restructuring infrastructure in such a way that personal property is unnecessary. That's much easier to do.

[jmpeer]

Revolution starts with U, you've misunderstood my perspective. I would not deprive people of these kind of simple luxuries. And I don't know why it would mean you have to give up your ipods and playstations. They're completely worthless, except to you. I'm just saying we should structure our cities in such a way that needing items like these would become obsolete. These kind of things can be very easily integrated into our lives without having to produce all these consoles and handheld devices.

Anyways, I'm out for tonight.

[AK]

Proudhon wrote "What is Property" and made the distinction between property and possessions. You cannot use a possession to coerce another human being. One (possession) is a toothbrush while the other (private property) is a factory.

Your toothbrush will not be a means of exploitation nor would your home or car.
This, pretty much. Communists advocate the abolition of private property rights, not personal possessions.

[ZeroNowhere]

To be honest, when I first read Marx's statements that we should "abolish all private property", I was like "fuck you I like my ipod". :blushing:

Edit: Also, I think when interpreting Marx's statement, one should look at the conditions of the time. I think he literally meant the collectivization of all private property, but I only assume this was because at the time, if you weren't rich, you literally owned nothing. Now, I don't think that's applicable to modern society. In The Conquest of Bread, Peter Kropotkin, also advocated for the abolition of all private property, but at the same time, he wrote that (this isn't a literal transposition) "there's no need to force people into communal kitchens, if you want to cook at home, with your pots and dishes, I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to". But yes, basically I agree with most of the above, that only the means of production need to be communized.
It's a pity that you didn't read on, then: "Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations."

[Jimmie Higgins]

This, pretty much. Communists advocate the abolition of private property rights, not personal possessions.

A good way to talk to people about this issue is to use the bit from the Communist Manifesto when they say something along the lines of: Do communists wish to abolish people's personal possessions? No, it's capitalism that has already abolished the ability of most people to have personal possessions through poverty and inequality.

Communists/Anarchists want everyone to have a place to live and to have a good life from the result of their collective labor efforts - it's the capitalists who want to foreclose homes and kick people out and rob workers of the products of their collective labor efforts.

[jmpeer]

Again, the abolition of private property, even as it pertains to personals, does not imply that you do not have personals, just as it does not imply society would no longer have means of production. Why must you 'own' something to have it?

[DaComm]

Does the abolition of private property refer to production property, or property in general? (I advocate the latter, so don't feel like you need to defend it if that's the case.)

Vulagr anti-communists like to be assholes for the sake of it and confuse Private Property (that is, private ownership of the means of production, which they would know if they actually read Marx) and Personal Property (your clothes, pencils, etc.). The former we seek to eliminate, the latter, no.

[Obzervi]

I don't acknowledge the existence of any private property, because property is used as a storage of wealth in the capitalist system. Everything on the planet belongs to everyone. I make very few exceptions, for example toothbrushes. Don't really want to use other people's and don't think they want to use mine. Also in terms of housing in a post-revolutionary society there won't be need for these large, separated structured which only divide people and create alienation. All living spaces will be communal in nature, fostering a sense of community and cohesiveness. This is to combat individualism, which is a byproduct of a capitalistic society and only leads to greed and disregard for others.

[syndicat]

how do you know this is what people want? They certainly seem to want to have their own privacy. So what are you planning? Forcing them into communal living at the point of a gun? sounds like top down barracks communism to me.

[Fulanito de Tal]

We (Americans) would need a strong change in values to live in communal living.

Here's my question regarding private homes. If people are allowed to own homes, what happens when all the homes are owned and some people still do not have one? I understand we could build more houses, but let's take this to the extreme. Let's say all of the housing space is gone due to environmental factors beyond our control. What happens to the homeless?

[#FF0000]

We (Americans) would need a strong change in values to live in communal living.

Here's my question regarding private homes. If people are allowed to own homes, what happens when all the homes are owned and some people still do not have one? I understand we could build more houses, but let's take this to the extreme. Let's say all of the housing space is gone due to environmental factors beyond our control. What happens to the homeless?

Well then I guess there would be homeless but I don't think it'll ever get to the point that there is just no room for people to live.

[Aesop]

We (Americans) would need a strong change in values to live in communal living.

Here's my question regarding private homes. If people are allowed to own homes, what happens when all the homes are owned and some people still do not have one? I understand we could build more houses, but let's take this to the extreme. Let's say all of the housing space is gone due to environmental factors beyond our control. What happens to the homeless?

Well if there was no way more houses could be built then we will have to allocate the ready existing houses.I am sure buckingham palace has enough places to house luxembourg.

On a serious note during the russian revolution people were given houses in the heart of the cities to share, which was a vast improvement from the wooden shacks at the edge of the city. So in all if there was a situation to arise when there was no more heads the needs of people not being homeless come before the wants of people who like to play lord in a castle.

[Black Sheep]

In every 'property' thread, the word toothbrush is bound to come up.

Godwin's law of property.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Well then I guess there would be homeless but I don't think it'll ever get to the point that there is just no room for people to live.

What would your solution be?


Well if there was no way more houses could be built then we will have to allocate the ready existing houses.

I think that means that homes would not be personally owned.

[Obzervi]

What would your solution be?



I think that means that homes would not be personally owned.

The solution is communal living, because then everybody has an incentive to improve the conditions of the structures within which they live. Our idea of a "home" is a social construct, and has only existed for a very short time period in human history (in its current capitalistic form). The way in which each family lives in a completely separate structure today only encourages division and alienation within a community. We need to create cohesiveness, therefore communal living is the answer.

[Martin Blank]

Does the abolition of private property refer to production property, or property in general? (I advocate the latter, so don't feel like you need to defend it if that's the case.)

The short answer is that private property will be abolished to the fullest extent possible. I think the general rule will be that if can be considered a form of constant or variable capital, where the exchange-value overshadows the use-value, then it will be placed in common. Cases in point:


The means of production (factories, shops, mills, etc.), distribution (OTR trucking, railroad, air cargo, etc.) and exchange (stores, dealerships and outlets, from the corner liquor store to Wal-Mart).
Public services, including utilities (heat, electricity, water, etc.), mass communication (Internet, telephone, television, etc.), health care, education, and so on.
Large farms, "factory farms" and agri-business
Multi-family dwellings and rental properties

Individual, single-family houses will likely be placed into common ownership through attrition, as people move or die. (Since the right of capital inheritance would be abolished, the probate issues would no longer be a concern.)

Pretty much, if it's not listed above, you don't have to worry about losing it. But there are some exceptions. For example:


Nobody wants your toothbrush, but if you've got 20 boxes of 2000 toothbrushes each, expect a knock on the door, you hoarder.
Your car is your car, but if you're running a black market car dealership out of your backyard, we're headed your way.
Like with the car, your boat is your boat, but if you're backyard looks like a marina, batten down the hatches. Then again, if your other house is a yacht, heave to and prepare to be boarded.
Nobody's going to take the clothes off your back or out of your closet, but you might want to consider donating some if your house looks like the clothing department at Macy's.

In short, if all you can get out of these things is more or less only the use-value, then there is no concern about it. It's yours and you've earned them.

[Peace on Earth]

I don't acknowledge the existence of any private property, because property is used as a storage of wealth in the capitalist system. Everything on the planet belongs to everyone. I make very few exceptions, for example toothbrushes. Don't really want to use other people's and don't think they want to use mine. Also in terms of housing in a post-revolutionary society there won't be need for these large, separated structured which only divide people and create alienation. All living spaces will be communal in nature, fostering a sense of community and cohesiveness. This is to combat individualism, which is a byproduct of a capitalistic society and only leads to greed and disregard for others.
How do I put this nicely? Umm...fuck you and your extreme collective mindset. There is nothing wrong with individualism, as long as you don't take that to the extreme as well and trample on other people's wellbeing in the name of your own individual needs.

Homes are not the problem. Do you want thousands of people to live in bland gymnasiums sharing bathrooms by the hundreds? A post-capitalist society should be focused on meeting everyones needs, not an overarching umbrella that is supposed to suit everyone.

Your way of making everyone equal is the reason communism often times has a bad name.

[Obzervi]

How do I put this nicely? Umm...fuck you and your extreme collective mindset. There is nothing wrong with individualism, as long as you don't take that to the extreme as well and trample on other people's wellbeing in the name of your own individual needs.

Homes are not the problem. Do you want thousands of people to live in bland gymnasiums sharing bathrooms by the hundreds? A post-capitalist society should be focused on meeting everyones needs, not an overarching umbrella that is supposed to suit everyone.

Your way of making everyone equal is the reason communism often times has a bad name.

One of the main flaws of capitalism is its inefficiency. Collectivism solves this and is the essence of communism. Communism and individualism are diametrically opposed, so if you call yourself an individualist you can not be considered a true revolutionary, probably just someone doing it for the image while implicitly rejecting its main tenets.

[jmpeer]

Again, why must you "own" something to have or have access to it? I presume none of you have trouble sharing your kitchen sink with your family, computers at your school or library, seats on the light rail, etc, etc. When there's an abundance or enough of a resource and you're confident you'll have access to that resource, you don't have to put any thought into it. You just use it as you need it. So why do you insist people must be able to "own" personal property? Society can and should be structured in such a way that ownership is completely obsolete.