Views on Personal Property?

[cowslayer]

I know the Communists/Socialists/Anarchists hold the view that private property must be owned and operated commonly.

But what about personal property such as possessions?

In a socialistic society, would items for leisure be held commonly?

What are your views?

I have not yet formed an opinion, but it seems that if one were to live in such a society and harmonize with it perfectly, this would lead to some sort of ego-death. I do not believe, however, that it should be forced upon and should be voluntary.

[The Man]

Every Communist believes that people should have Personal Property (As far as I know of).... No one is going to take away any of your possessions, unless they are the Means of Production, or substantial amounts of land.

[Sixiang]

Every Communist believes that people should have Personal Property (As far as I know of).... No one is going to take away any of your possessions, unless they are the Means of Production, or substantial amounts of land.

Yeah, pretty much this. Marx and Engels specifically dealt with this in the Communist Manifesto. They made the distinction between private and personal property. Private property is bourgeois property or capital, property used to exploit and oppress workers. Personal property is personal possessions. We don't want to take your personal stuff. No one is going to take your gameboy or whatever.

[#FF0000]

Think about it. Even if a dude owned every ipod on the planet, who cares as long as the means to make more are freely available to the workers?

So yeah, in communism, have all the ipods you want.

[Delirium]

What if for example, someone owns a large house (not means of production) and there is a housing shortage?

[Magón]

What if for example, someone owns a large house (not means of production) and there is a housing shortage?

Stick a family in it? No one person needs a 5-10+ room/bath house, now or ever, to live comfortably.

[Delirium]

yes but isn't that house personal property?

[Sensible Socialist]

Everyone would have access to the personal items they desire, so long as the means to produce them are avalible and there is not a shortage of certain items. Along with people having personal property, I would also expect community centers to contain many things that could be loaned out or used on a temporary basis, just for the purpose of ease, as you wouldn't want to have a home filled to the brim with books, supplies, or instruments, although you may want to use them at certain points.

In short, no one wants to take your personal property away.

[graymouser]

The idea that we wouldn't touch personal property is at its basis a good one, but I think it has to have limitations. For instance, large single-family homes should be voluntarily converted into multi-family homes, which could happen at first with incentives and later on with penalties. This is not just because of housing shortages but because heating, cooling etc. would use more natural resources in these homes. The personal property that would have to be confiscated are mostly the toys of the rich - things like yachts that can't be run sustainably. For the average person, consumption would no longer be broadcast as the main goal of human life, but personal property wouldn't be confiscated.

[Dunk]

I was going to suggest that talk of a housing shortage in a socialist or communist society borders on the absurd, but then I began toying around with the idea of a natural disaster, like a hurricane or a tsunami.

Many of us think that once the means of production are seized by the working class, and the new class comes into being, that exploitation of one person by another essentially would become impossible. But what if the means of production of dozens of communities is destroyed or disabled by a natural disaster in a stateless and classless society? I began to think that not only would it be in the interest of those communities or people who are unaffected by such a theoretical disaster to help those who were affected out of a sense of altruism - but also, in a sort of collective-Machiavellian sense, to protect the integrity of the society they have built. I think the possibility of a group of people going Lord of the Flies would be of huge concern to the stateless, classless collective. Then again, that shows another strength of the communist society - the interests of the collective come to the rescue in rebuilding society and the means to produce for that community - and compare that to the non-response of capital to the needs of the most vulnerable victims of natural disasters. The marginal forces of charity and the court of public opinion (to force the capitalist state to act for relief) are often woefully inadequate to satisfy humanitarian needs in the event of disaster, and capital simply doesn't give a fuck about human needs - it merely waits for the water to recede to invest in profitable ventures in the clean slate offered up to it by whatever disaster took place.

EDIT: Also, I've has a few beers, so if that doesn't make sense, sorry.

[Zav]

yes but isn't that house personal property?
No. Personal property is that of which one has immediate use. Such a large house goes unused. Certainly, the rooms the person uses would be untouched, but the others would be given to the homeless of the local community.

[TC]

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that only privately owned means of production and investment property are objectionable, but personal personal property is as sacred to socialists as to capitalists. This is just wrong - even if socialism strictly doesn't require abolishing personal property, true leftists should want to abolish personal property to.

Property, as opposed to physical possession - is a legal status not between a person and an object but between a person and other people with regard to an object (or monetary instrument, land, building, etc). Liberals imagine that property is in some way pre-state, something that the state just protects - but actually the state creates property because property is a set of state enforced powers and the state chooses who it empowers in this way. But a socialist state wouldn't need to empower anyone with the right to transfer items regardless of public good - which can lead to the accumulation of private property again (as Nozick's Wilt Chamberlin scenario - google it if you're interested).

We should instead see personal property as a social convention that has undesirable social consequences. Rather than having property, a democratically run administration should grant people licenses to use items without extending the right to transfer those items to other people.

[Magón]

yes but isn't that house personal property?

Toothbrush, toothpaste, hair comb, deodorant, shoes, clothes, keys, sunglasses, books, movies, TV, radio, iPod, bed, bedsheets, etc. are personal property. A house is not if it's got multiple baths and rooms for people, and there's only one or two people living in it. I'd even say an apartment isn't personal property, since you're just inhabiting for a time. But of course, that doesn't mean people will just come waltzing in freely, and taking up space, people will understand like they do now, you can't just go walking into someone's apartment or home without a word, or anything.

If someone thinks that way, they've got a bad misconception of what Communism is when it comes to personal things.

[CAleftist]

There's a difference between personal and private property.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Possessions are not property per se. Usually property is used to describe any land capital be it agricultural, industrial, or even residential.

[ar734]

yes but isn't that house personal property?

You have to be more specific about the house.
1. How big is the house?
2. How many people live in it, what are their ages, etc.
3. What work does the owner do, if they (not he/she) do work.
4. How did the owner come to own the house.
5. What is the housing shortage actually like?

For instance, the house is a two story, 10 bedroom mansion on a 20 acre property. One person, the owner, lives in it with a maid, cook, a couple of personal servants. The owner does not work and lives off the investments his father, say, a Bernie Madoff type, left to him. He inherited the house from his father, who stole it from Fannie Mae.

The housing shortage is extreme. In fact there are a dozen homeless families camping on the edges of the property. It is freezing. The owner calls out the police periodically to harass and move the homeless away from his property. In the homeless crowd there are several small children and babies who are getting pneumonia, etc.

Under capitalism the ownership of the property is sacred. Things get more desperate for the homeless until they decide to kill the owner and take the property for themselves. By that time even the police are unemployed, homeless, etc. Thus, there is a revolution.

After the revolution, who owns the property? At that point does it really matter?

[graymouser]

It's not about property rights, at least in my view; it's about the question of the revolution not creating an alienated minority that it doesn't need to create. Kicking people out of their houses could really add fuel to a potential counter-revolution. Instead methods of social persuasion should be used - moral, and if necessary economic persuasion. While I think the revolution should give everyone the right to live in their primary residence, I don't think that it should keep the other rights, of getting loans on it, selling it, etc.

[Luís Henrique]

What if for example, someone owns a large house (not means of production) and there is a housing shortage?

A formula I can't say I dislike is to turn such houses into museums, and allow people to continue living there as long as they keep the museums open and working.

Luís Henrique

[OhYesIdid]

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that only privately owned means of production and investment property are objectionable, but personal personal property is as sacred to socialists as to capitalists. This is just wrong - even if socialism strictly doesn't require abolishing personal property, true leftists should want to abolish personal property to.

Property, as opposed to physical possession - is a legal status not between a person and an object but between a person and other people with regard to an object (or monetary instrument, land, building, etc). Liberals imagine that property is in some way pre-state, something that the state just protects - but actually the state creates property because property is a set of state enforced powers and the state chooses who it empowers in this way. But a socialist state wouldn't need to empower anyone with the right to transfer items regardless of public good - which can lead to the accumulation of private property again (as Nozick's Wilt Chamberlin scenario - google it if you're interested).

We should instead see personal property as a social convention that has undesirable social consequences. Rather than having property, a democratically run administration should grant people licenses to use items without extending the right to transfer those items to other people.

Congratulations, you've given birth to a shadow of a doubt :confused:

Isn't primitive barter a cause of economic stagnation? Why shouldn't it be allowed? I'm not talking about money, I'm just talking about a, fairly Proudhonian, group of individuals exchanging what they don't need in exchange for what they need.
As for Nozick's example...it talks about basketball. I'm not very familiar with his work, but it seems to me like just another version of "capitalism is inevitable, for it's in our blood."
As for the license thingy...we have computers now, how hard could it be to write an algorithm for Matthew 25:15?

[anonymousj]

thank you for bringing this up, I've had problems trying to get through to people on other forums about this.

surely personal property would still exist by nature of common curtsy (even if not technically). communism is common ownership of the means of production not common ownership of your fridge-magnets.

[MortyMingledon]

In my view all possessions are public ownership, because they all have an effect on public utility. We should feel ready to allocate property, private or personal, wherever it is needed and serves greatest benefit to the public. Socially, however, I think we are well off respecting people's personal belongings which they use on a day to day basis (wouldn't want some random person using my toothbrush).

[RedSquare]

Every Communist believes that people should have Personal Property (As far as I know of).... No one is going to take away any of your possessions, unless they are the Means of Production, or substantial amounts of land.
We need to tell everyone who doubts us these words.

[ArrowLance]

I think the distinction between personal and private property is vague. Also I feel that the term personal property is often used apologetically so as to get away with saying "we mean to abolish private property" so that when someone objects they can pull out the largely undefined term "personal property" to allow them to fill the void with some of their own most precious ideas of property.

All together the term is possibly worthless. Although restricting the idea of 'de-privitization' purely to the means of production could possibly still effectively remove class distinctions, all property not socially owned is privately owned.

But fears that the removal of the idea of personal property may bring about are also fairly baseless. It isn't a question of if someone could take your personal item, but why they would, and on what authority they could use to deny you access to it if there is no private property, property to which one has exclusive rights to. Why would someone want to "steal" something to which they have no investment, and that can not benefit them as a mere object.

With all this in mind the question asked about housing is simple. In no way does the resident have exclusive rights to the premises, and society can decide upon residents in whatever manner that society decides upon, less the recreation of exclusive rights. Permits could be issued or residence dictated, however with the dissolution of the idea of exclusive rights to 'property' I believe that many of these questions could be answered through direct conversation without the need of an outside apparatus.

[ArrowLance]

In my view all possessions are public ownership, because they all have an effect on public utility. We should feel ready to allocate property, private or personal, wherever it is needed and serves greatest benefit to the public. Socially, however, I think we are well off respecting people's personal belongings which they use on a day to day basis (wouldn't want some random person using my toothbrush).

With my above post in mind. Why would some random person want to use your toothbrush? Especially when I'm certain they could obtain one of their own.

[Rafiq]

What if for example, someone owns a large house (not means of production) and there is a housing shortage?

who's gonna build his house?