The personal property of the bourgeoisie

[Questionable]

There's a distinction between the institution of private property and a person's own personal property. Communists have always had to assure people that when they say "abolish private property," they don't mean the person's own home or things they hold dear, but to put factories and banks and other private institutions in the hands of the proletariat.

That being said, what about the personal property of the bourgeoisie? The wealthy have obviously amassed quite a bit of wealth around them in the form of mansions and fleets of cars. Are we to redistribute that wealth too? Do we open up their homes to the homeless and give their vehicles to the needy? Or do we begin working to insure that everyone has that level of personal comfort?

[ind_com]

There's a distinction between the institution of private property and a person's own personal property. Communists have always had to assure people that when they say "abolish private property," they don't mean the person's own home or things they hold dear, but to put factories and banks and other private institutions in the hands of the proletariat.

That being said, what about the personal property of the bourgeoisie? The wealthy have obviously amassed quite a bit of wealth around them in the form of mansions and fleets of cars. Are we to redistribute that wealth too? Do we open up their homes to the homeless and give their vehicles to the needy? Or do we begin working to insure that everyone has that level of personal comfort?

It depends on his attitude to the revolution. If he does not use force against the revolution, then he will be left with what a middle-class person (a well-off worker, middle-peasant, or a petty-bourgeois) can have. But if he uses force, all of his property is confiscated and he is imprisoned.

[Avanti]

your only real property

is what you create with your own hands

through your own mind

the rest are only items you deem valuable

theft is not violence

theft is a social action

one person taking what someone else had

sometimes

we have to steal to survive

real theft

is when property is institutionalized through violence, through laws, policemen, arrests, prisons and mental hospitals

and 99% of the Earth's riches are claimed by 1%, a minority of god kings living in pyramids of glass and steel

worshipped like the high priests

that is Babylon

nobody has the right to own a flat screen tv

nobody has the right to own a car

nobody has the right to own a swimming pool

those are not rights, those are fetishes

the only real rights

are the right for survival

for love

and for creativity

the rest is just entrapments by Babylon

slavery of the mind

the world can become a garden

but the elite has created a supermall

and brainwashed all of you

into seeing rights as property

the real freedom is outside

[helot]

The personal wealth of the bourgeoisie is different to that of the worker both in extravagance and in its source. It's not like what we want is to divide up the wealth of the bourgeoisie but to arrange social affairs in such a way so that no one has to sell their labour power for a wage. Their personal wealth will serve us in organising our system of communal production.

Their mansions will become the communal dwellings of the homeless.

[Ocean Seal]

Can someone at least issue a warning to avanti for spamming the boards with irrelevant posts in a format that takes up space and is inconvenient for the reader?

[Avanti]

irrelevancy

can be relative

property is a fetish

connected to the fear of death

when the fear is no more

neither property will

and we will be free

and can stare into the sun

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Presumably, most people could keep a fair portion of their personal property. However, the wealthiest individuals and people with extra assets like multiple homes would presumably have a portion of their assets appropriated. Of course, it really depends on the extent of violence in a revolution ...


your only real property

is what you create with your own hands

through your own mind

the rest are only items you deem valuable

theft is not violence

theft is a social action

one person taking what someone else had

sometimes

we have to steal to survive

real theft

is when property is institutionalized through violence, through laws, policemen, arrests, prisons and mental hospitals

and 99% of the Earth's riches are claimed by 1%, a minority of god kings living in pyramids of glass and steel

worshipped like the high priests

that is Babylon

nobody has the right to own a flat screen tv

nobody has the right to own a car

nobody has the right to own a swimming pool

those are not rights, those are fetishes

the only real rights

are the right for survival

for love

and for creativity

the rest is just entrapments by Babylon

slavery of the mind

the world can become a garden

but the elite has created a supermall

and brainwashed all of you

into seeing rights as property

the real freedom is outside

This reads like the lyrics of some oddball reggae song.


theft is not violence

theft is a social action

Doesn't this lead to a destructive circle? If Frank steal to eat for survival, and someone else steals that food from Frank, then isn't violence being committed to Frank?

[Avanti]

yes

but some violence is inevitable

sometimes, you have to steal to survive

sometimes, you have to do violence to survive

(when you are fighting other NeoTribes for a home to squat in, or when you are fighting the drones of Babylon)

that state of being will persist

until the lost children

has defeated Babylon

and can stand triumphantly on the ruins of the eyed pyramid

[helot]

Btw, i forgot to mention that i fail to see any meaningful distinction between articles of consumption and instruments of production. Metals, plastics etc are no more vital to production than the worker's food, home or clothing. If we're to expropriate the means of production why would we not touch housing or anything consumed by the bourgeoisie?

[Avanti]

tools are an extension of the human will

they should belong to those who dare to dream

the lost children

but smash the flat-screen tvs

they are the tools

of your slavery

[Comrade #138672]

There's a lot which needs to be redistributed. Yes, the big mansions should definitely be confiscated and used to shelter many people (possibly homeless).

It doesn't make much sense for one person to own that much in a Socialist society.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Perhaps we ought to cap the amount of personal property that the bourgeoisie is allowed to retain? Just thinking aloud.

[Ostrinski]

The toothbrush will become the people's toothbrush!

Confiscate the large states to build housing on, confiscate cars so that everyone can have at least one. I'd say we should be mainly focused on confiscating fluff and superfluous things. Obviously one of the first tasks is going to be making sure everyone has a somewhat secure and comfortable living arrangement and the large estates would be put to good use. Immediately though we will be building an economy based on human need and that would entail building higher quality housing for most of the people.

As far as cars go, I think it would be wise to ensure quality urban living first and bulldoze slums as soon as we can ensure comfortable apartment living for the people who live in the poorer areas. I also think we should prioritize public transportation and building enough methods for people to navigate the cities comfortably and safely by public means. Once this is accomplished we should ban individual automobiles from cities because they get in the way and there's no need for them in metropolitan and urban areas.

[Avanti]

leave the slums alone

they are the homes for dreams

demolish all middle class neighbourhoods

and give people materials to build organic dwellings

don't destroy the few organic and beautiful things that Babylon allows

[Conscript]

Either leave it alone owing to principle

Or

Appropriate things that present an opportunity for a symbolic gesture, such as a capitalist's personal collection of estates, cars, etc. A campaign against hoarding could do very well.

[helot]

I also think we should prioritize public transportation and building enough methods for people to navigate the cities comfortably and safely by public means. Once this is accomplished we should ban individual automobiles from cities because they get in the way and there's no need for them in metropolitan and urban areas.

If there becomes no need for cars in urban areas what would be the point in banning them? Would there not be as problem? If there's no need for cars then its only in extreme situations in which you'll find someone driving one.

Also, the ban being only in urban areas would be quite detrimental to various people. For anyone to get somewhere from their home in an urban area to elsewhere they're screwed. It's not like there can be railways everywhere nor subways and the frequency of buses would always be based on how many people would be using the service (there's no point in a 24/7 bus route if only 3 people use it once during a week).

Of course, i do think there's far too many motorists in cities but surely it'd be enough to try to make cars obsolete through decent public transport than to just ban them in the cities completely.

[l'Enfermé]

"The personal property of bourgeoisie parasites will be used to fuel the funeral pyres of the scumbags after we shoot them" is the only correct answer to your question, comrade.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

"The personal property of bourgeoisie parasites will be used to fuel the funeral pyres of the scumbags after we shoot them" is the only correct answer to your question, comrade.

That's going in the shhhh thread

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

"This boundless greed after riches, this passionate chase after exchange-value , is common to the capitalist and the miser; but while the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist is a rational miser. The never-ending augmentation of exchange-value, which the miser strives after, by seeking to save his money from circulation, is attained by the more acute capitalist, by constantly throwing it afresh into circulation."
- Karl Marx, Capital: Volume One. "Chapter Four: The General Formula for Capital".

So, if it aint got use- value, to the funeral pyre with it (to echo l'Enfermé).

[helot]

"The personal property of bourgeoisie parasites will be used to fuel the funeral pyres of the scumbags after we shoot them" is the only correct answer to your question, comrade.

Such a waste. They may be scum but their meat could go to feed some animals. I say kill 'em and dump them in the woods. They don't deserve a funeral.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Presumably, communism will mean repurposing everything. What is and isn't relevant as personal property, therefore, will be wildly different than under current circumstances.

[newdayrising]

I suppose that it wouldn't even require much use of force to make people abandon decadent luxurious excesses. Imagine your average super rich family having to take care of their own homes, horse breeding farms, sports cars collections and so on without people working for them. Would be materially impossible. These "personal properties" would have to be shared with others one way or another, or they would just rot. To make a long story short, they would, to a large extent, redistribute themselves.


There's a distinction between the institution of private property and a person's own personal property. Communists have always had to assure people that when they say "abolish private property," they don't mean the person's own home or things they hold dear, but to put factories and banks and other private institutions in the hands of the proletariat.

That being said, what about the personal property of the bourgeoisie? The wealthy have obviously amassed quite a bit of wealth around them in the form of mansions and fleets of cars. Are we to redistribute that wealth too? Do we open up their homes to the homeless and give their vehicles to the needy? Or do we begin working to insure that everyone has that level of personal comfort?

[ckaihatsu]

I suppose that it wouldn't even require much use of force to make people abandon decadent luxurious excesses. Imagine your average super rich family having to take care of their own homes, horse breeding farms, sports cars collections and so on without people working for them. Would be materially impossible. These "personal properties" would have to be shared with others one way or another, or they would just rot. To make a long story short, they would, to a large extent, redistribute themselves.


It's tough to top this, but since I now just put myself up here on stage, here goes....

This would be the 'default' state that a socialist societal mass administration could be -- all labor, uncoerced, liberated, would directly 'enliven' whatever and make it function and be productive for human-societal needs and desires. All productive activities would always be rooted in intentional motivations -- yielding creativity itself, possibly, in the absence of the endless chasing-after obligations of private ownership -- and would be direct reflections of that person's political will for the best common interests.

Only those aspects of the material world that a liberated humanity *chose* to address would receive consideration and attention, as for improvements and developments. Auxiliary concerns may not even be addressed at all, depending on variables of mass support, relevance, feasibility, expediency, etc.

But this is actually a 'parallelist' approach -- a politically libertarian one -- which implicitly suggests a jigsaw-puzzle-like fitting of everyone's lives together into a cohesive, cozy quilt of a society.

Would social norms for public matters really be entirely anarchic and always informal? Or would there be a *political* organization -- the superstructure -- that would regulate the major aspects of social production, *not* leaving it to libertarian fantasies -- ?

While most would probably want to just laugh-off the detritus of a now-past social order, self-assured that it would only be poked at by archaeologists, the empirical fact would remain that *artifacts* -- let's call them -- would continue to be in existence, as real as any manufacturing plant.

The *least* fleeting moment of thought or attention paid to even the *recollection* of such artifacts would be a claim from the past made on the present day and its inhabitants. This 'material claim' on someone's thoughts is *inevitable*, since such products from the former capitalist era would be accessible in some form in such a future society -- in archival records, if nowhere else (not that I'm suggesting anything here).

Shouldn't the social *availability* of such a historic past be *socially planned*, or co-administrated in some way -- ?

So, just as we would readily repurpose productive machinery and turn it into that which benefits the social commons, we shouldn't shy away from taking the same approach to artifacts and tools -- "past" objects -- post-revolution. Would we want random objects scattered around in lesser-used fields, left to return to nature at their own pace -- ? One-time garbage dumps? First-come-first-served -- ? Warehousing?

In other words, a revolution should expand the public sphere to be all-encompassing, so that local-type initiatives can be as generalized as possible, coordinating common societal interests at the broadest scales of activity possible.

This kind of organization could address matters of historical interest, hopefully in a way that's more effective than a default of *dis*-organization and mass individualism over the subject.

[LiberationTheologist]

What should be done with the personal property of the rich? No more than one boat, no more than one house with half acre. Outside of that their property should be redistributed and abolished in the case of land.

Now jewlery and jewels that is something I have not considered too thoroughly. I'm not sure what kind of policy would be just. Obviously the amount of jewelry should probably not be anything over family heirloom or wedding pieces. Animals, damn I dont know that should be limited too because you cant reasonably care for more than a 3-4 animals in a household. This will depend on where you live and what you do.

[ckaihatsu]

The personal wealth of the bourgeoisie is different to that of the worker both in extravagance and in its source. It's not like what we want is to divide up the wealth of the bourgeoisie but to arrange social affairs in such a way so that no one has to sell their labour power for a wage. Their personal wealth will serve us in organising our system of communal production.

Their mansions will become the communal dwellings of the homeless.


From a politically partisan stance here, I think we would have a political interest in seeing such displays of conspicuous consumption as being 'tainted' by humanity's oppressors' bloody history -- that of the capitalists.

Sure, if *dire necessity* called for using existing buildings, etc., then that's understandable, but by a political social norm it would certainly come to be frowned upon, except for purposes of historical research and ironic use-of (grin).

I can't help but think / wish that a revolutionary movement that overthrows bourgeois social relations would also immediately find its own forms of social productivity *and* expression, mostly eschewing imitation of what-has-gone-before. Wouldn't a revolution in politics be accompanied by a concomitant increased participation in revolutionizing *all* new forms as well -- ?





Presumably, most people could keep a fair portion of their personal property. However, the wealthiest individuals and people with extra assets like multiple homes would presumably have a portion of their assets appropriated. Of course, it really depends on the extent of violence in a revolution ...


I have half-a-political-mind that says the homesteading ideal / mythos may finally be laid to rest -- in a world where all costs and benefits are socialized and political parity over the economy has been achieved, people would hardly see any difference in *anything* substantive that would make one place any more costly (measured roughly in labor hours) to live in and/or move to, than any *other* place in the world, with very little variance across-the-board.

What would even *land* *mean* anymore, with all conceptions and realities of private property *eliminated* -- ? -- !

Anything not directly mechanically functional and beneficial for the social good would be for casual use and natural areas, with everything entirely in the public domain and for immediate use if not already in use.

Would the people of such a society want to deepen planted roots, or be more urban, more cosmopolitan, or less formally settled -- ?





Btw, i forgot to mention that i fail to see any meaningful distinction between articles of consumption and instruments of production. Metals, plastics etc are no more vital to production than the worker's food, home or clothing. If we're to expropriate the means of production why would we not touch housing or anything consumed by the bourgeoisie?


Articles of consumption are just that -- for consumption. They have already been made and are the *output* from a production process. The *instruments* of production allow the owner(s) to make *more* of the stuff that's for consumption.

Anything already existing is 'historical' in my estimation and should be superseded.





tools are an extension of the human will

they should belong to those who dare to dream

the lost children

but smash the flat-screen tvs

they are the tools

of your slavery


I smashed my flat-screen TV -- just like you said -- but then I had to go out and buy a new flat-screen TV so that I could post this reply. (Just kidding, of course.)





There's a lot which needs to be redistributed. Yes, the big mansions should definitely be confiscated and used to shelter many people (possibly homeless).

It doesn't make much sense for one person to own that much in a Socialist society.


If we obliterate the concept of 'ownership' or 'mine', we *are* almost down to toothbrushes, arguably. People who happened to take greater-than-average interests in aspects of the cultural and/or material world would be 'in a field' as a matter of innate interest and self-activity.

And, if someone *insisted* on doing the 'mine' thing over a wide area, it would, in such a society, appear to be like an artistic performance of some sort.





Either leave it alone owing to principle

Or

Appropriate things that present an opportunity for a symbolic gesture, such as a capitalist's personal collection of estates, cars, etc. A campaign against hoarding could do very well.


The funny thing with the concept of a communist commons is that it can't really speak to the empirical *emergence* of hoarding, if that turned out to be fairly commonplace. Without the limitations of capital non-/ownership, why *shouldn't* people make their lives out of acquisitive habits, and in a society that would have a historically unparalleled capacity -- ?








I've also wondered about how everyday use of *physical space* would change, once private property is done away with -- perhaps the communization of materials, and physical space, would mean that daily life would be much more *mobile* than today, perhaps more resembling the times of primitive communism, since there would be no more uncertainty in modern "foraging".

Private collections of whatever cultural artifacts would give way to a norm of *collectively* administrating such collections, more like a common network of museums or an academia that's as ubiquitous as the Internet.

It's tough to say, though, because it would probably hinge on how much slack the people of such a world would grant to the domain of *sentiment* -- would personal possessions *increase*, in a hoarding kind of way, for expanding and expansive personal reasons, or would society frown on such harboring of sentimentality, since all items themselves would be freely available anyway -- ?

A formal economy would be good to preserve and encourage individuality, but from a strictly material standpoint wouldn't be absolutely *necessary*, as the degree of socialized life increased. Doubtless there would have to be some complex balancing of the two, in all aspects.

[Let's Get Free]

Do I believe in the appropriation of the billionaire's 20,000 square foot mansion, or the millionaire's 60-foot yacht? Am I eager to see the redistribution of Paris Hilton's jewels, or Anne Romney's dressage horses?

Well, I don't think it makes too much sense to try to redistribute the expensive toys of the super-rich to the poor. Or at least, it's not of primary concern. That may get nasty & personal & may ends in horrors.

What IS of primary concern is seizing the means of production from the bourgeois. The factories, mines, land, pharmaceuticals, ect. As uncle Karl said, dispossess the dispossesers.

[LiberationTheologist]

THE FULL LIST: AMERICA’S TOP 100 LANDOWNERS 2012

No. 1 John Malone

2,200,000 acres


1. John Malone
2. Ted Turner
3. Emmerson Family
4. Brad Kelley
5. Irving Family
6. Singleton Family
7. King Ranch Heirs
8. Pingree Heirs
9. Reed Family
10. Stan Kroenke
11. Ford Family
12. Lykes Bros. Heirs
13. Briscoe Family
14. W.T. Waggoner Estate
15. D.M. O’Connor Heirs
16. Phillip Anschutz
17. Drummond Family
18. Simplot Family
19. Robert Earl Holding
20. Malone Mitchell 3rd
21. Hughes Family
22. Collins Family
23. Patrick Broe
24. Nunley Family
25. Flitner Family
26. Jeff Bezos
27. Collier Family
28. H. L. Kokernot Heirs
29. Anne Marion
30. Babbitt Heirs
31. Lyda Family
32. Jones Family
32. True Family
34. Mike Smith
35. Reynolds Family
36. Paul Fireman
37. D.K. Boyd
38. The Koch Family
39. McCoy & Remme Families
40. Llano Partners
41. Homer Scott Heirs
42. Louis Moore Bacon
43. Roxana Hayne & Joan Kelleher
44. Cassidy Heirs
45. Killam Family
46. East Wildlife Foundation
46. Eugene Gabrych
46. Langdale Family
49. Bogle Family
50. Hunt Family
51. Tim Blixseth
52. Bidegain Family
52. Williams Family
54. Robert Funk
55. Russell Gordy
56. Broadbent Family
56. Irwin Heirs
58. Sugg Family
59. Fasken Family
60. Benjy Griffith III
61. Mike Mechenbier
62. Cogdell Family
63. Fanjul Family
64. Hearst Family
65. Ellison Family
66. Bass Family
66. Emily Garvey Bonavia
66. Boswell Family
66. Eddy Family
66. William Henry Green Heirs
66. J. Luther King Jr. & Frank King
72. David Murdock
73. Wells Family
74. L-A-D Foundation
75. Gerald J. Ford
76. Thomas Lane Family
76. Harrison Family
78. Isaac Ellwood Heirs
78. JA Ranch Heirs
78. Monahan Family
81. Les Davis Heirs
82. Booth Family
82. Brite Ranch Heirs
82. Stefan Soloview
85. Milliken Family
86. Roxanne Quimby
87. Reese Family
88. Moursund Family
89. Scharbauer Family
90. Clayton and Modesta Williams Jr.
91. Stan Harper
92. Frank VanderSloot
93. Richard and Victoria Evans
93. Linnebur Family
95. Moore Family
96. Robinson Family
97. Beggs Family
97. Powell Heirs
97. Walter Umphrey
97. Yates Family


http://www.landreport.com/americas-100-largest-landowners/

[helot]

From a politically partisan stance here, I think we would have a political interest in seeing such displays of conspicuous consumption as being 'tainted' by humanity's oppressors' bloody history -- that of the capitalists.

Sure, if *dire necessity* called for using existing buildings, etc., then that's understandable, but by a political social norm it would certainly come to be frowned upon, except for purposes of historical research and ironic use-of (grin). To start with i think it would probably be necessary, atleast in some areas. Of course, i've no problems with demolishing superfluous buildings that would serve as an eye sore for the collective conscience of the liberated masses. Besides, i suspect liberated labour is capable of producing far more beautiful buildings than alienated labour.





Articles of consumption are just that -- for consumption. They have already been made and are the *output* from a production process. The *instruments* of production allow the owner(s) to make *more* of the stuff that's for consumption.

The distinction, though, is weak. Electricity is produced and is subsequently consumed to power the machines that the worker tends. It's no different to the worker's food.

[ComradeOfJoplin]

I believe that the best coarse of action is to not directly take the bourgeoisie property but to use more subversive action. The reasoning for it is that any property nabbing is going to have reactionary feelings with the proletariat.

First, you create tax codes that make it an inconvenience to be rich. While that is happening make it impossible to hide money by creating a single bank (a state bank) and only allow money to move out under state approval.

Secondly, have the investigation department always keep an eye on them to find (even if it is minor) evidence in order to find them in contempt of law and deal out a punishment that apprehend property.

Finally, this one might be the hardest to do but create laws that prohibit inheritance.