The Manifestio on Private Property

[Bostana]

A huge question that is constantly asked to me and maybe other Communists is Marx's theory of the 'banishment' of Private Property. So if you Comrades would, please give me a quote from the Manifesto, Marx, and if you can Engels, on the Private Property issue.

Thanks and Peace

[RedAtheist]

Here's what Marx had to say about the abolition of private property in the Communist Manifesto

"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. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." (Emphasis added by me)

I've heard right wingers use this quote to argue that communists want to take people's personal belong (their car, their television, that sort of thing.) Funnily enough Marx goes on the explain what he means in the very next line, which show that right-winger never bothered to read the Communist Manifesto. They just picked this quote from it. Here's the next section.

"We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

The authors then go to talk about the property of the middle class and the capitalist class, but I'll just skip to the part that's relevent to us workers. "What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with, is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it." (Emphasis added by me)

One could argue that workers today earn more for their labour than workers of the past did, but was not changed is that the wages workers earn are still used to sustain the worker and to meet the workers' needs, not to 'command the labour of others' with the intention of earning a profit. Thus the manifesto's statements still apply to the modern day working class.

Either how, Marx and Engels weren't interested in taking away workers' personal belongs, only in taking away that which gives one power over other people. This fact is crucial to one's understanding of socialism.

[honest john's firing squad]

this is like the most central tenet of communism and you don't know what marx and engels had to say about it?

[Manic Impressive]

Proudhon's What is property? (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm) is also an important piece on this.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Here's what Marx had to say...

...

One could argue that workers today earn more for their labour than workers of the past did, but was not changed is that the wages workers earn are still used to sustain the worker and to meet the workers' needs, not to 'command the labour of others' with the intention of earning a profit. Thus the manifesto's statements still apply to the modern day working class.


This was an excellent response and I have noting to add to your explanation. On this one question of workers retaining more of their surplus labor today, I'd just add that while workers are paid more and recieve more benefits, we also produce much more. That and also it's important to note that several waves of workers movements have happened since Marx's time as well and although they obviously didn't result in movements that resulted in worker's power, they have helped workers make temporary gains - the legacies of which remain (though under attack).

This is just to pre-empt claims made by apologists for the system that because people are paid more or have relatively better benefits, that there is a natural (or automatic) progress in capitalism for improvements in living standards.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Proudhon's What is property? (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm) is also an important piece on this.
I'm not really an anarchist of any kind, but I've always liked Proudhon's writings on the subject of property.

[Manic Impressive]

Yeah I'm no anarchist either and I generally have a very dim view on mutualism. But for me What is property is Proudhon at his best and it is a very important work regardless of tendency.

[Revolution starts with U]

this is like the most central tenet of communism and you don't know what marx and engels had to say about it?

This post I am posting is about as helpful as yours.

Also, "communism is not an ideology" and all that..

[honest john's firing squad]

This post I am posting is about as helpful as yours.
I'm calling out the OP on their strict adherence to anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism-Maoism despite being completely unaware of what is singlehandedly the most fundamental and important goal of our class' movement.

[honest john's firing squad]

I guess defending the eternal principles of the anti-communists Stalin and Mao is a higher priority than even understanding fundamental aspects of M&E's theories lol

[Bostana]

I'm calling out the OP on their strict adherence to anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism-Maoism despite being completely unaware of what is singlehandedly the most fundamental and important goal of our class' movement.

Calm your shit.

Askining a question on Marx's theory isn't just done by me ya know. And obviously you have not intent on answering the question so you really have no reason to post on this thread

[Bostana]

I guess defending the eternal principles of the anti-communists Stalin and Mao is a higher priority than even understanding fundamental aspects of M&E's theories lol

Because I asked one question on Marx's theories you have to bite my head off? I could guess that some on Marx's principals you don't get either. And me asking about one, and then you judging me for it is real really stupid.

Lol anti-Communists? I have discussed this before. If Mao was an anti-Communist why did he risk imprisonment and even execution with associating himself with the Communist party when at that time in China it was illegal.

[Tim Cornelis]

Calm your shit.

Askining a question on Marx's theory isn't just done by me ya know. And obviously you have not intent on answering the question so you really have no reason to post on this thread

No, it is also done by others. But those others generally do not purport to be an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist. For in order to be an anti-revisionist anything, you need to grasp the fundamentals of said ideology.

Don't you think it would be wiser to first develop and study communist theory, before labeling yourself anything?


Because I asked one question on Marx's theories you have to bite my head off?

You cannot be a Marxist without knowing the basics of Marxism. It is fine to ask questions, but ask questions first, then develop your ideology.



And me asking about one

It is the very basis of communism, yet you don't know it. That's the point we're trying to make. It is fine you want to learn about communism and Marxism.



Lol anti-Communists? I have discussed this before. If Mao was an anti-Communist why did he risk imprisonment and even execution with associating himself with the Communist party when at that time in China it was illegal.

This is tantamount to asking "if Hitler was an anti-socialist, why did he risk imprisonment and execution by associating himself with a National Socialist Party?", i.e. it's fallacious reasoning. I don't think he questions that Mao considered himself a communist, but that Mao did not understand what it entails, and was acting contrary to it.

Just because one labels oneself a certain way, does not mean it's accurate.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm calling out the OP on their strict adherence to anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism-Maoism despite being completely unaware of what is singlehandedly the most fundamental and important goal of our class' movement.

(Edited out useless criticism because I don't want to jam up the thread with more nonsense. For the gist of it, compare Goti's post above mine to yours.)


Also our "goal" is to crush the class enemy. We suppose (through method of study) that the abolition of private property will be the outcome of that.

[Bostana]

Don't you think it would be wiser to first develop and study communist theory, before labeling yourself anything?


I asked for information on the subject it isn't much of a problem.

[Bostana]

Someone please close this thread the information I asked for has been given by Red Atheist