In Socialism/Communism/Marxism is Personal Property different from Private Ownership

[tradeunionsupporter]

In Socialism/Communism/Marxism is Personal Property different from Private Ownership of the Means of Production are there different kinds of Private Property ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property

[gendoikari]

yes.

[NGNM85]

This is a common misconception. The 'property' referred to in in the common Anarchist slogan; 'Property is theft!' (P.J. Proudhon) is more like 'capital.' It's meant to refer to the means of production. As far as Anarchism is concerned; your copy of Punisher: War Journal No. 6, your copy of Fletch, and the remote control to your TV, are all absolutely yours, and no-one has the right to take them from you.

[gendoikari]

This is a common misconception. The 'property' referred to in in the common Anarchist slogan; 'Property is theft!' (P.J. Proudhon) is more like 'capital.' It's meant to refer to the means of production. As far as Anarchism is concerned; your copy of Punisher: War Journal No. 6, your copy of Fletch, and the remote control to your TV, are all absolutely yours, and no-one has the right to take them from you.

what this guys said.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Are cars/vehicles personal or private property?

[gendoikari]

Are cars/vehicles personal or private property?

Depends. when socialists talk about private property being owned in common they mean the means of production. that car in your driveway is usually just going to be your car. Now if it's a work truck/van whatever it will be a different story, but then again those are already still technically owned by the company already so it won't mean much a difference to the individual.

[Sensible Socialist]

Are cars/vehicles personal or private property?
Considering a car sits unused for most of it's lifetime, I'd like to see a society transititon away from the idea of personal cars and move toward a system of effective mass transit or shared ownership of vehicles.

[gendoikari]

Considering a car sits unused for most of it's lifetime, I'd like to see a society transititon away from the idea of personal cars and move toward a system of effective mass transit or shared ownership of vehicles.

I wouldn't force shared ownership, but I would encourage public transpiration where it is feasible, but here in the states it's not always a realistic method.

[thesadmafioso]

Are cars/vehicles personal or private property?

I would classify them primarily as private property, due to the mass economic inequality inherent in their distribution and the quality in their distribution. If some rich bourgeois gentlemen insists on keeping his Ferrari after the revolution under the guise of calling it his 'personal property', I am sure he will be met with expropriation without much hesitation.

Of course, there are different extents to consider here. Some vehicles are widely accessible to a point where in certain economic contexts it would become more difficult to classify them entirely as private property.

[gendoikari]

I would classify them primarily as private property, due to the mass economic inequality inherent in their distribution and the quality in their distribution. If some rich bourgeois gentlemen insists on keeping his Ferrari after the revolution under the guise of calling it his 'personal property', I am sure he will be met with expropriation without much hesitation.

Of course, there are different extents to consider here. Some vehicles are widely accessible to a point where in certain economic contexts it would become more difficult to classify them entirely as private property.

I don't really care if the ex rich keep their ferrari's, but it will be fun to watch as 100+ acre estates get torn down to build hosing for the homeless they themselves denied jobs. In fact I propose we make a scrap book so we can remember those faces with fond memories.

[thesadmafioso]

I don't really care if the ex rich keep their ferrari's, but it will be fun to watch as 100+ acre estates get torn down to build hosing for the homeless they themselves denied jobs. In fact I propose we make a scrap book so we can remember those faces with fond memories.

Well yeah, that's the real brunt of most any revolution, but lets not forget the little things in the process of enacting dramatic social progress as well. Like depriving rich people of the sign value capitalist society allowed them in the form of decadent sports cars.

I'm sure they could be melted down into scrap metal and serve a more useful purpose to society anyway. Plus, they are terrible on gasoline more often than not. It would be irresponsible to allow for their continued existence on that basis alone.

[RGacky3]

Property is almost always refering to the means of production or Capital by socialists. Any other dispossession under socialism or under revolution is just spiting the rich, which is unnecessary imo.

Cars are generally not considered means of production, unless, as was said, its like a truck or something. Or unless theres a taxi company that owns a bunch of taxis.

[Weezer]

Private Property = privately held means of production.

A car isn't a means of production. Neither is toaster or a house for that matter.

[thefinalmarch]

or a house for that matter.
Landlords?

[Welshy]

Landlords?

I think (s)he is referring to the house that you live in, not cases where someone owns houses or apartments that they don't live in. Though I think some mansions should be seized are turned into apartments in order to help deal with homelessness.

[Zav]

I think (s)he is referring to the house that you live in, not cases where someone owns houses or apartments that they don't live in. Though I think some mansions should be seized are turned into apartments in order to help deal with homelessness.
The unnecessarily huge homes in Newport, Rhode Island with hundreds and hundreds of rooms should be torn down. I visited there recently, and it's disgusting. There are homeless people less than ten kilometers away. You could give someone half of one room and they would still be drowning in opulence.

[thefinalmarch]

I think (s)he is referring to the house that you live in, not cases where someone owns houses or apartments that they don't live in. Though I think some mansions should be seized are turned into apartments in order to help deal with homelessness.
Of course there can be houses that can be considered purely personal property. But properties (that is, as in land or whatever) are definitely not strictly personal or strictly private property - it's entirely dependent on the economic function of the properties. The point I'm getting at is that it would have helped if in utero clarified this in their post, as I have seen in many other threads where houses, etc. are given as examples of personal property.

[Weezer]

Of course there can be houses that can be considered purely personal property. But properties (that is, as in land or whatever) are definitely not strictly personal or strictly private property - it's entirely dependent on the economic function of the properties. The point I'm getting at is that it would have helped if in utero clarified this in their post, as I have seen in many other threads where houses, etc. are given as examples of personal property.

By houses, I mean your own home.

Houses and the ownership of them are sticky situations when discussing socialist and communist theory, but all private property is collectively owned(this is after a dictatorship of the proletariat, whereas in a dictatorship of the proletariat private property and market functions may still linger), but at the same time someone can't go into someone else's house and say: "It's perfectly legal because all property is collectively owned!"

What will more likely happen is that formerly-private property and houses will be rented to people by the collective local community.

I would say a house in general is more personal than private property however.

[Baseball]

In theory, it makes the distinction already mentioned.

In practice, the distinction becomes much more narrower. This is because in order for socialism to follow-up with its claims for more rational distribution of resources, it has to essentially approve the requests by people for production of toasters or automobiles and ect.. Requests, of course, can always be denied for whatever reason. As a result, a persons' personal possession (as defined by the socialists in this thread) become a question of debate and consideration by the community.

[RGacky3]

In practice, the distinction becomes much more narrower.

In practice when and where?


This is because in order for socialism to follow-up with its claims for more rational distribution of resources, it has to essentially approve the requests by people for production of toasters or automobiles and ect..

No it does'nt, the only time property would come up is when its disputed.


Requests, of course, can always be denied for whatever reason. As a result, a persons' personal possession (as defined by the socialists in this thread) become a question of debate and consideration by the community.

As I said before, you don't need to request something that no one is disputing.

[Baseball]

As I said before, you don't need to request something that no one is disputing.[/QUOTE]

Of course there will be disputes. Even this thread recognises this.

What...? Your "democracy" will be a rubber stamp?

[RGacky3]

Sure they're may be disputes, just as there are now, but to paint it as you need to request having a right to a toothbrush is just silly.

[Baseball]

Sure they're may be disputes, just as there are now, but to paint it as you need to request having a right to a toothbrush is just silly.

Toothbrushes, and any other product, need to be allocated.

You insist that in socialism it will be done so "democratically" or "for use or need."

Which means the community will have to evaluate whether a requested item by an individual is in fact needed by that individual, or whether other individuals have a greater need for that product, or whether another product entirely is in greater need by the community.

The bottom line is that "personal property" (as defined by the socialists) is subject to the consent of the community (ie the majority of the community). As such, the distinction between the two is very narrow and not the great chasm socialists like to claim it is.

[gendoikari]

You insist that in socialism it will be done so "democratically" or "for use or need."

Some forms do some forms don't remember the only defining characteristic is the means of PRODUCTION are owned in common.

[Baseball]

Some forms do some forms don't remember the only defining characteristic is the means of PRODUCTION are owned in common.

Fair enough.

But please recall there is nothing "uncapitalist" about the means of production being owned in common.

[La Peur Rouge]

Fair enough.

But please recall there is nothing "uncapitalist" about the means of production being owned in common.

I believe there is, preventing exploitation and accumulation of wealth were still pretty "un-capitalist" the last time I checked.

[gendoikari]

Fair enough.

But please recall there is nothing "uncapitalist" about the means of production being owned in common.

um seeing as how capitalism is defined by the private ownership of the means of production, yeah there is.

[RGacky3]

Which means the community will have to evaluate whether a requested item by an individual is in fact needed by that individual, or whether other individuals have a greater need for that product, or whether another product entirely is in greater need by the community.

The bottom line is that "personal property" (as defined by the socialists) is subject to the consent of the community (ie the majority of the community). As such, the distinction between the two is very narrow and not the great chasm socialists like to claim it is.

Distribution is not the same as having personal property, once you have it you have it, if you want or need something new there might be a process to get it, like there is in any system, like there was in non-market systems.

[Judicator]

The unnecessarily huge homes in Newport, Rhode Island with hundreds and hundreds of rooms should be torn down. I visited there recently, and it's disgusting. There are homeless people less than ten kilometers away. You could give someone half of one room and they would still be drowning in opulence.

They tried that. It's called the projects, and it was a disaster. Guess what happens when you put a bunch of criminally inclined people in the same place.

[RGacky3]

Because there was no crime before or after the projects right.

The fact is you need more than just housing, you need opportunity.

[Judicator]

Because there was no crime before or after the projects right.

No, the claim was that stuffing the poor in a single building resulted in more crime vs. the status quo.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2208943]Distribution is not the same as having personal property, once you have it you have it, if you want or need something new there might be a process to get it,

At least you are now falling away from your "democracy" mantra.
And what might that "process" be?

[RGacky3]

No, the claim was that stuffing the poor in a single building resulted in more crime vs. the status quo.

So the solution?


At least you are now falling away from your "democracy" mantra.
And what might that "process" be?

it depends, see Anarchist spain, see mutualist systems, I'm not gonna spend the time to detail a potential system just to have you purposefully missunderstand it.

[hatzel]

At least you are now falling away from your "democracy" mantra.
And what might that "process" be?

Probably "democracy" or something :p

[Baseball]

I believe there is, preventing exploitation and accumulation of wealth were still pretty "un-capitalist" the last time I checked.

You assume of course that "common" ownership ends "exploitation" and ends "accumulation of wealth." It would not only have to be proven that "common" ownership does so, it would have to be proven that such is a superior way of organizing production.

In any event, the note to which I responded stated that the DEFINING characteristic of socialism is common ownership of the means of production. And there remains nothing uncapitalist about the workers owning the means of production.

[RGacky3]

You assume of course that "common" ownership ends "exploitation" and ends "accumulation of wealth." It would not only have to be proven that "common" ownership does so, it would have to be proven that such is a superior way of organizing production.

its been done a million times, yet you ignore it everytime, change the subject, nit pick details, purposefully missunderstand.

[Baseball]

So the solution?



it depends, see Anarchist spain, see mutualist systems, I'm not gonna spend the time to detail a potential system just to have you purposefully missunderstand it.

If you have detailed a potential system, kindly direct me to it.

[hatzel]

If you have detailed a potential system, kindly direct me to it.

I feel that this might be a sensible time to quote from Voltairine de Cleyre's writings on so-called 'Anarchism without adjectives.' I'll put a section in bold, too, which I feel is particularly fitting for you:


This is the particular message of Anarchism to the worker. It is not an economic system; it does not come to you with detailed plans of how you, the workers, are to conduct industry; nor systematized methods of exchange; nor careful paper organizations of “the administration of things.” It simply calls upon the spirit of individuality to rise up from its abasement, and hold itself paramount in no matter what economic reorganization shall come about. Be men first of all, not held in slavery by the things you make; let your gospel be, “Things for men, not men for things.”

[...]

There are, accordingly, several economic schools among Anarchists; there are Anarchist Individualists, Anarchist Mutualists, Anarchist Communists and Anarchist Socialists. In times past these several schools have bitterly denounced each other and mutually refused to recognize each other as Anarchists at all. The more narrow-minded on both sides still do so; true, they do not consider it narrow-mindedness, but simply a firm and solid grasp of the truth, which does not permit of tolerance towards error. This has been the attitude of the bigot in all ages, and Anarchism no more than any other new doctrine has escaped its bigots. Each of these fanatical adherents of either collectivism or individualism believes that no Anarchism is possible without that particular economic system as its guarantee, and is of course thoroughly justified from his own standpoint. With the extension of what Comrade Brown calls the New Spirit, however, this old narrowness is yielding to the broader, kindlier and far more reasonable idea, that all these economic ideas may be experimented with, and there is nothing un-Anarchistic about any of them until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling persons to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to. (When I say “do not agree to” I do not mean that they have a mere distaste for, or that they think might well be altered for some other preferable arrangement, but with which, nevertheless, they quite easily put up, as two persons each living in the same house and having different tastes in decoration, will submit to some color of window shade or bit of bric-a-brac which he does not like so well, but which nevertheless, he cheerfully puts up with for the satisfaction of being with his friend. I mean serious differences which in their opinion threaten their essential liberties. I make this explanation about trifles, because the objections which are raised to the doctrine that men may live in society freely, almost always degenerate into trivialities, - such as, “what would you do if two ladies wanted the same hat?” etc. We do not advocate the abolition of common sense, and every person of sense is willing to surrender his preferences at times, provided he is not compelled to at all costs.)

Therefore I say that each group of persons acting socially in freedom may choose any of the proposed systems, and be just as thorough-going Anarchists as those who select another. If this standpoint be accepted, we are rid of those outrageous excommunications which belong properly to the Church if Rome, and which serve no purpose but to bring us into deserved contempt with outsiders.

Let's see whether you actually read that, or if you'll still be "but what economic system will you have? How will toothbrushes be allocated? Will I have to submit a written application for a toothbrush? How will it be decided whether or not I am worthy of a new toothbrush? Will there be limits on how many I can have in any given period? What if I want 20.000 toothbrushes? Then nobody else could have toothbrushes! What a horrible life that would be!"

[RGacky3]

If you have detailed a potential system, kindly direct me to it.

Coucil communism, participatory economics, syndicalism, market socialism and so on, there are many of them.

[Baseball]

I feel that this might be a sensible time to quote from Voltairine de Cleyre's writings on so-called 'Anarchism without adjectives.' I'll put a section in bold, too, which I feel is particularly fitting for you:



Let's see whether you actually read that, or if you'll still be "but what economic system will you have? How will toothbrushes be allocated? Will I have to submit a written application for a toothbrush? How will it be decided whether or not I am worthy of a new toothbrush? Will there be limits on how many I can have in any given period? What if I want 20.000 toothbrushes? Then nobody else could have toothbrushes! What a horrible life that would be!"

Sorry to bust your bubble, but production and how it occurs is not a "trifle."
My "toothbrush" comment simply followed upon what was mentioned by somebody else on how things might be organized.
"the spirit of individuality" still has to be described and how it functions within a community of millions.

[gendoikari]

you assume of course that "common" ownership ends "exploitation" and ends "accumulation of wealth." it would not only have to be proven that "common" ownership does so, it would have to be proven that such is a superior way of organizing production.

In any event, the note to which i responded stated that the defining characteristic of socialism is common ownership of the means of production. And there remains nothing uncapitalist about the workers owning the means of production.
read my post you ignorant moron the definition of capitalism is the private ownership clause.

[Judicator]

So the solution?

Probably doesn't involve the misguided intentions of the left.

[RGacky3]

Probably doesn't involve the misguided intentions of the left.

So basically you don't have one.

[Azula]

The only ones that shouldn't have the right to have houses with gardens, furniture, arts and other personal items should be the high-ranking members of the Party. They should be prepared to sacrifice everything for the people.

[syndicat]

In practice, the distinction becomes much more narrower. This is because in order for socialism to follow-up with its claims for more rational distribution of resources, it has to essentially approve the requests by people for production of toasters or automobiles and ect.. Requests, of course, can always be denied for whatever reason. As a result, a persons' personal possession (as defined by the socialists in this thread) become a question of debate and consideration by the community.

nope. people control their own consumption and have an entitlement to a share of the social product. they can decide to distribute that entitlement to consume among requests for any set of products whose costs of production fall within their bidget. community doesn't have to approve their decisions. that would violate their personal self-management of their consumption.

the only part of consumption where collective decision-making comes into play is in production of public goods and services.

[syndicat]

The only ones that shouldn't have the right to have houses with gardens, furniture, arts and other personal items should be the high-ranking members of the Party. They should be prepared to sacrifice everything for the people.

your statement is contradictory. that's because if there are "high ranking members of the Party" with power in the state or in the armed forces or industry as managers, then you can bet your ass they'll use that power to obtain privileges for themselves.

[Baseball]

This post was difficult to follow; to many "their" and "they" which do not follow the corresponding pronoun. However:



nope. people control their own consumption and have an entitlement to a share of the social product.

Okay


they can decide to distribute that entitlement to consume among requests for any set of products whose costs of production fall within their bidget.

I gather that "they" means the people. The quoted seems to suggest that individual consumers can choose whatever they wish, providing it is within that individual's budget. Fair enough- that's pretty much what we have in capitalism.


community doesn't have to approve their decisions. that would violate their personal self-management of their consumption.

Well, if the individual has a budget he or she is constrained by, why not the community as a whole?
Basically, it seems that people in a socialist community can have whatever they can afford- which is not particularly different than in a capitalist community. We then have have the added issue of determining whether the community can afford requested items.


the only part of consumption where collective decision-making comes into play is in production of public goods and services.

Then you would need to explain the above-- how the socialist community lays out its budget and what it can afford and how it makes its decisions to allocate requested goods and services.

[Judicator]

So basically you don't have one.

If the cure is worse than the disease sometimes the "solution" is to not do anything and accept things as they are until you develop functional alternatives.

[MarxSchmarx]

The only ones that shouldn't have the right to have houses with gardens, furniture, arts and other personal items should be the high-ranking members of the Party. They should be prepared to sacrifice everything for the people.
That sounds a lot more like Plato than Marx to me.

After all, Marx came to despise the very idea of "high ranking party members" having any authority in an incipient socialist society:


That the revolution is made in the name and confessedly for the popular masses, that is, the producing masses, is a feature this Revolution has in common with all its predecessors. The new feature is that the people, after the first rise [rising], have not disarmed themselves and surrendered their power into the hands of the Republican mountebanks of the ruling classes, that, by the constitution of the Commune, they have taken the actual management of their Revolution into their own hands and found at the time, in the case of success, the means to hold it in the hands of the People itself, displacing the State machinery, the governmental machinery of the ruling classes by a governmental machinery of their own. This is their ineffable crime! Workmen infringing upon the governmental privilege of the upper classes and proclaiming their will to break the economical basis of that class despotism which for its own sake wielded the organized State-force of society! This is it that has thrown the respectable classes in Europe as in the United States into the paroxysms of convulsions

[RGacky3]

If the cure is worse than the disease sometimes the "solution" is to not do anything and accept things as they are until you develop functional alternatives.

Except it is much better ... :)