Ownership

[condor]

Once socialism has been achieved, the whole concept of ownership has to be dissolved as it is a fetter to the relaying of goods away to those who have most use for them. Once private property becomes extinct, so must personal property of identical goods follow soon after.

Discuss.

[The Jay]

Why would we have to give up the ownership of our very clothes? That seems silly to me.

[Comrade Samuel]

I don't think we want to abolish personal property, only private. If I have to fit 2 or 3 people into my pants under communism I quit.

[Positivist]

I think what he means is not that the singular use of personal items should be abolished, but rather that their reuse should be shared.

As to the OP, this could be possible for some items, but for others there would be hygienic issues with sharing them.

[Zukunftsmusik]

we want to abolish bourgeois property, that is the private ownership over the means of production. Private ownership over goods aren't bourgeois, as we all buy products, both workers, capitalists. Of course, consumption would take a different form under a communistic mode of production, ie there would be no circulation. But how on earth would you organise a society with absolutely no ownership over goods/use-values?

[Comrade #138672]

I do believe that personal ownership should be limited. I do not have to share my clothes with other people, but to have 100 pairs of shoes seems unnecessary and unfair to me.

[Blake's Baby]

I really do think we should abolish 'ownership'.

If you want to take the boxers I was wearing yesterday and the toothbrush I used last night, meh. I'll get some more from the stores.

Of course if you want to take the toothbrush and the boxers I'm using, no that's stupid. Equally, the house or car or solar-powered helicopter that I'm using, even if no-one expects me to 'own' them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Once socialism has been achieved, the whole concept of ownership has to be dissolved as it is a fetter to the relaying of goods away to those who have most use for them. Once private property becomes extinct, so must personal property of identical goods follow soon after.

Discuss.

No, people had personal possessions long before private property ever existed and will continue to do so. Private property is a specific and relatively recent way of organizing and arranging property relations. Saying that the elimination of private property as a social relation also causes the elimination of personal use of items would be like saying that the abolition of national borders would cause land masses to disappear.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Fellow posters have made the distinction between personal items and private property / ownership...take the means of production out of private hands, but I'll defend my Count Duckula cuddly toy to the death.

[condor]

Obviously I did not mean all personal property. I hoped I wouldn't have to point that there would be exceptions for hygiene reasons. Under communism, you would have somewhere to store your items of sentimental value but would not live in a fixed address so that the number of houses would decrease as they would be used throughout the day and night. This would allow for massive more space for gardens.

The same would go for cars. Imagining how to utilize obejcts and rooms as near to 24 hours a day should be the spirit of communism, not the mindless theory of superabundance where you are working to produce objects that will only be used for a tiny proportion of the day. To me, that would be a real tragedy: regurgitating the past, not building the future.

[Catma]

Yeah I'm gonna want to live in a fixed address. It makes it easier to find a bed, a refrigerated jug of water, and some whole wheat bread and pickles when you stumble home drunk at 5 AM.

Lots of people have vastly different ideas about what constitutes personal vs private property, and that's something that will have to be worked out democratically.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I'm not entirely certain on the question of fixed addresses, although it's my instinct to favor living at one. I also don't think I really have a strong opinion either way about ownership of personal affects. Obviously, no one is allowed to use my tooth brush but me, but I don't mind sharing my means of entertainment.

[Blake's Baby]

Fellow posters have made the distinction between personal items and private property / ownership...take the means of production out of private hands, but I'll defend my Count Duckula cuddly toy to the death.

Yeah, but the point I was making, was that if you're using a thing - me with my toothbrush, you with your Count Duckula toy - then you use it. But there's no necessity for actual ownership.

And I have a guitar so I entirely take the point about your Count Duckula. I've been using it for 30 years and I don't plan on stopping any time soon.

[ckaihatsu]

Once socialism has been achieved, the whole concept of ownership has to be dissolved as it is a fetter to the relaying of goods away to those who have most use for them. Once private property becomes extinct, so must all personal property, personal identities, and consumption be utterly communized -- all building structures will be demolished, with everyone converging at one location on the earth to shed their names in favor of numeric designations, and will all be sewn together ass-to-mouth in a continuous circle of 7 billion so that all nourishment will be absolutely common to all.

Discuss.


x D

[The Jay]

Once socialism has been achieved, the whole concept of ownership has to be dissolved as it is a fetter to the relaying of goods away to those who have most use for them. Once private property becomes extinct, so must all personal property, personal identities, and consumption be utterly communized -- all building structures will be demolished, with everyone converging at one location on the earth to shed their names in favor of numeric designations, and will all be sewn together ass-to-mouth in a continuous circle of 7 billion so that all nourishment will be absolutely common to all.

Discuss.


x D

At first I was going to debate you, but then I kept reading. That was hilarious. Will you be my best friend?

[ckaihatsu]

At first I was going to debate you, but then I kept reading. That was hilarious. Will you be my best friend?


Um, yeah, sure, just so you're not in front of me in the circle....

[Marxaveli]

No, people had personal possessions long before private property ever existed and will continue to do so. Private property is a specific and relatively recent way of organizing and arranging property relations. Saying that the elimination of private property as a social relation also causes the elimination of personal use of items would be like saying that the abolition of national borders would cause land masses to disappear.

This. Owning a house and a car in Communist society is perfectly legitimate as I see it. Owning a business, of course, is not.

[The Jay]

Um, yeah, sure, just so you're not in front of me in the circle....

It's a circle, there is no front.

[ckaihatsu]

It's a circle, there is no front.


So can I count on your vote, then?


= D

[condor]

This. Owning a house and a car in Communist society is perfectly legitimate as I see it. Owning a business, of course, is not.

Why not? Ownership means things are only used for a tiny proportion of the day rather than being circulated, a complete waste of resources. This means you are working two or three times as many necessary hours than without ownership, something I find an abhorrent waste.

Opposition to ownership has nothing to do with morality but economics. The reduction in working hours would easily outweigh any small sentimental comforts of ownership.

[maskerade]

i dont feel that we can be making rules and generalizations about things like this at this stage. i mean, some commodities and items will be in abundance and some will not. i do feel that we will have to completely share some things that today we take for granted. For example, the current process of constructing electronics is completely destructive to both the environment and the wide array of workers that are involved in the process. this needs to stop immediately, and until a planned system is established communities will have to make do with what they already have - ie share.

[RedMaterialist]

Why not? Ownership means things are only used for a tiny proportion of the day rather than being circulated, a complete waste of resources. This means you are working two or three times as many necessary hours than without ownership, something I find an abhorrent waste.

Opposition to ownership has nothing to do with morality but economics. The reduction in working hours would easily outweigh any small sentimental comforts of ownership.

It's obvious that you don't understand the difference between personal property and capitalist private property.

Here is Marx on the issue (from the Communist Manifesto):

"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."

[Kotze]

Imagining how to utilize obejcts and rooms as near to 24 hours a day should be the spirit of communism, not the mindless theory of superabundance where you are working to produce objects that will only be used for a tiny proportion of the day.While we shouldn't go to that 24/7 extreme since we need slack to deal with the unexpected, this idea merits more than the jokey/handwavey/offtopic responses you have received so far. One shouldn't dismiss that idea by just taking the distinction between means of production and other stuff as given and then say we don't care about that other stuff, not only because there are also edge cases with some not so cheap tools. I of course agree with you that letting stuff catch dust while there are people out there who want to use it is kinda ridiculous, and that this not only applies to means of production.

So let's put all that commonownershipofpantshurfdurf aside. I have sympathy for the anarchist concept that possessing for personal use is respected, and just sitting on it and not sharing is not. But I don't see that working out in a purely informal way.

A: Are you gonna use that?
B: Yeah.
A: But I don't see you using that.
B: Well, I'm about to.
A: When?
B: Soon.
A: In the meantime, why don't you let me use it?
B: Nah. Who knows when I will get it back.

If you have to pay for the time you occupy something (that is without somebody deciding whether you "properly" use it or not), things work out even if people are assholes, provided everyone has similar amounts of money/vouchers/timeslotfunbux. For durable stuff, I prefer renting rather than owning.

A related idea is about the smooth distribution of free days and working days rather than everyone sharing the same days off. Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/workweek-rhythm-would-t169518/index.html?t=169518) is a thread about it. But what is free time worth if you can't share it with your friends? For the smoothing solution to be popular it is important that it assigns less time for working than usual and using an assignment mechanism that takes information about who you want to share free time with.

[ckaihatsu]

[L]etting stuff catch dust while there are people out there who want to use it is kinda ridiculous, and that this not only applies to means of production.

So let's put all that commonownershipofpantshurfdurf aside. I have sympathy for the anarchist concept that possessing for personal use is respected, and just sitting on it and not sharing is not. But I don't see that working out in a purely informal way.


Here's my own take on this subject, with an excerpt from a model I developed:





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/





Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property





If you have to pay for the time you occupy something (that is without somebody deciding whether you "properly" use it or not), things work out even if people are assholes, provided everyone has similar amounts of money/vouchers/timeslotfunbux. For durable stuff, I prefer renting rather than owning.


From a material perspective, either work-leisure (time) ratios are made constant / consistent for everybody so that 'time' remains neutral and un-valuation-able, or else it's *flexible* from person to person -- some method of valuation would then have to fill the gap so that we know what one person's work (or leisure) time is *worth*, compared to another's.

[Blake's Baby]

It's obvious that you don't understand the difference between personal property and capitalist private property.

Here is Marx on the issue (from the Communist Manifesto):

"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."

It's obvious you don't undertsand what Marx was talking about.

"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..." doesn't mean that there will be 'personal property' but that people will be able to take and use what they need.

"All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital..." means that the taking will not be done under capitalism's rules (ie, in order to guarantee that the worker is able to extend the capitalist's profit) but for their own self-development.

So I can 'appropriate' a piano not because anyone but me gets benefit from it but because I judge that it will benefit me. Is it 'my' piano? No; I don't own it. But I use it.

[Ocean Seal]

Guys it really depends on how you acquired your property. If you are a member of the ex-bourgeoisie, you don't get to keep your mansion. Seriously, don't take everything that Marx wrote as absolute.

[rti]

The way i see it communist economy will be based upon strategic access.

For example you dont need to own a car but you need instant access to transportation both cases serve the same purpose but one is wasteful and classicists the other is not.

In case of toothbrush and stuff like personal clothes , owning them like today is the most efficient way , since everyone has to have some, you can't share them etc. So in this case concept of strategic access is actual ownership because you can't use those thing efficiently and with the purpose they are made for without owning them.