abolition of inheritence

[micealobaoill]

in regards to the abolition of inheritence in a communist society,this is something i have been wondering about, eg: if a person died leaving a house, who exactly decides who should inhabit the house after them?? especially if there several people or families that would benefit equally from the house, would it be up to the local community to get together and discuss until everyone is in agreement as to who lives in the house?? this is my first post and i'm fairly new to far left politics so apology's if this is a bad question!

[Q]

Moved from Introductions to Learning.

Welcome btw.

[TheEmancipator]

Pretty much what you suggested. Obviously his close family would be taken care of, and I think most people would come to the consensus that they may remain in the house, provided they continue the contribution to the community.

The abolition of inheritance is based on the idea that you must work like everybody else instead of living off daddy's money. Issues such as these would be quickly resolved in a communist society.

[MrCool]

I sometimes wonder what would be "communized" after a person's death. Would, for example, family photos/memorabilia, be given to the community? I see no point in giving these thing to the community, as what use would it be to the community to have portraits from +100 years ago?

I understand that houses (things that have substantial value) should be given to the community, as they have use, but what should be done to little things (china, chairs, beds, etc.) lying around the house? Would everything be given to the community and distributed equally?

[BIXX]

I sometimes wonder what would be "communized" after a person's death. Would, for example, family photos/memorabilia, be given to the community? I see no point in giving these thing to the community, as what use would it be to the community to have portraits from +100 years ago?

I understand that houses (things that have substantial value) should be given to the community, as they have use, but what should be done to little things (china, chairs, beds, etc.) lying around the house? Would everything be given to the community and distributed equally?

I feel like photos should be allowed to stay with the family, as well as sentimental items. But everything else should be distributed.

[Crabbensmasher]

I sometimes wonder what would be "communized" after a person's death. Would, for example, family photos/memorabilia, be given to the community? I see no point in giving these thing to the community, as what use would it be to the community to have portraits from +100 years ago?

I understand that houses (things that have substantial value) should be given to the community, as they have use, but what should be done to little things (china, chairs, beds, etc.) lying around the house? Would everything be given to the community and distributed equally?

Well, there's a difference between private property and personal items.
Like a toothbrush for example. A toothbrush is a personal item. Would you really like to have your toothbrush communalized and used by the whole town? It is completely fine for you to say "This is my toothbrush".
I shouldn't see why the chairs, beds etc. cannot be considered personal as well. Assuming it's a peaceful transition after the person's death, I'd imagine the family should be able to choose what personal items to keep.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Abolishing inheritance is part of what led me to become a leftist.

Why the fuck does someone like Bill Gates' daughter deserve a couple of million dollars in the bank account and a free mansion when she's older? Because she crawled out of a birth canal? An Ethiopian worker with no inheritance who works each day what she'd work in a year would have to labour every day of every week of every month of every year for literally five hundred to one thousand years (the average income is $1.80 USD a week) to afford one of the cheaper houses in the suburbs here. Its' repulsive and the only people I've ever seen defend it are the most anti-progressive moralistic pieces of garbage you ever did meet.

Inheritance is economic dynasticism, plain and simple.

[Rooiakker]

If a person builds a house, and wishes that their family lives in that house I don't see why it should really be up for question. A house is personal property, one that requires maintenance and repair. If the family members wish to inherit the house I see no problem if they live there. Mansion or trailer. Now, they shouldn't be allowed to hire estate workers (Maids, gardeners, etc) as the house would then be owned by the union of the maintenance workers. A particularly large mansion in need of such help should be owned and managed democratically by the occupants/workers.

[MarxSchmarx]

The real problem with capitalist inheritance schemes are that they are predicated upon scarcity.

Inheritance is only valuable if you have the opportunity to enjoy something more than others. To some extent, there is sentimental value, like people inheriting their father's watch or something. But when we speak of for example inheriting property, that ton a large part really on matters because some property is seen as more scarce than others. So for instance if one were to inherit a time share, one would feel that is valuable onlhy because others don't have the time share. By contrast, if one were to inherit a box of toilet paper, I don't think most people would feel terribly remiss about the inheritance going to others. Rather, tissue paper being so abundant they would be fine with it not being part otf the inheritance. I believe a similar ethic will operate in a post-capitalist society.

My guess is that sentimental items would be inherited more or less according to current rules, for instance your father's teddy bear or your grandmother's diary notebook. ANd perhaps it is possible that if someone loved their cabin the desert and this was where somebody spent their childhood it might get inherited. But people wont' have an attachment to income generating possessions like land because they won't need it.

[Skyhilist]

How do you distinguish between something that's sentimental value and ok to pass down and something that gives someone privilege above everyone else without doing anything? For example, lets say there's a diamond ring that's a family heirloom. The family might want to keep it as an heirloom and not use it to take advantage of others. On the other hand, if diamond rings in an area are a symbol of privilege and someone in the family wears it around everywhere flaunting it, they're still getting privilege without actually doing anything. Seems like there would be a lot of items where there's a grey area like this. How should we address this?

[Blake's Baby]

I feel like photos should be allowed to stay with the family, as well as sentimental items. But everything else should be distributed.

Photos? Why? Surely, more people in the community knew your grandparents than people in your family did.

In my family, after the death of an elderly aunt, my dad obtained a box of stuff that origianlly belonged to her great uncle, including some of his uncle's things. A notebook from the the 1850s for instance, when he worked on a variety of ships. What possible use or even sentimental value is that to my family? None of us knew him.

On the other hand, what use is it to the local museum, who could have it transcribed, and use it as a resource for investigating 19th century social history, employment in the merchant marine etc? If we kept it as a personal archive then the information contained in it would be pretty useless. Information only has utility when it's combined, compared and contrasted with other information, to see what patterns emerge.

[CriticalJames]

How do you distinguish between something that's sentimental value and ok to pass down and something that gives someone privilege above everyone else without doing anything? For example, lets say there's a diamond ring that's a family heirloom. The family might want to keep it as an heirloom and not use it to take advantage of others. On the other hand, if diamond rings in an area are a symbol of privilege and someone in the family wears it around everywhere flaunting it, they're still getting privilege without actually doing anything. Seems like there would be a lot of items where there's a grey area like this. How should we address this?

Perhaps assets should be socialized, and personal belongings can be taken by the family. I'd feel that there would need to be a board to monitor this and penalize people who try and abuse the system by claiming sentimental value over monetary value. Ultimately things like your stocks, bonds, real estate and finances should be socialized, but the family should be allowed to be in claims for items that might hold some sentimental value.

[Blake's Baby]

But what's 'the family'? Do you think 'Mommy - Daddy - little Petey - darling Janie' will be the norm after the revolution?

What a limited vision. Honestly. I expect the 'nuclear family' will... explode? Decay? Difficult not to riff of the word 'nuclear' at this point.

[MarxSchmarx]

But what's 'the family'? Do you think 'Mommy - Daddy - little Petey - darling Janie' will be the norm after the revolution?

What a limited vision. Honestly. I expect the 'nuclear family' will... explode? Decay? Difficult not to riff of the word 'nuclear' at this point.

WEll one way to specify it is to look at the will of the deceased. That won't work perfectly in every case, but will probably cover the overwhelming majority of cases.

It can also be readily built into most long-term economic arrangements. I remember when i opened a bank account at 15 I was asked to designate somebody to receive my meager savings in case I died. Presumably that will hold for most things we possess - for instance the community might ask you who your furniture should go to in exchange for letting you live in their housing units, etc...

[Blake's Baby]

why? It's the community's furniture, that you are using. When you're dead it should go to someone who needs it. I don't the dead should necessarily get a vote.

[MarxSchmarx]

why? It's the community's furniture, that you are using. When you're dead it should go to someone who needs it. I don't the dead should necessarily get a vote.

I'm not sure why it has to be the community's furniture, but in any event, the idea that it should go to someone who "needs" it over someone who presumably doesn't but just so happened to be named in the dead's will presupposes scarcity. But the op was asking about what to do in a communist society.

So sticking with a post-capitalist order, the point of wills isn't that the dead should "get a vote" so much as it gives people some psychological benefit before they die.

If I want my dog to inherit my toilet plunger in case anything happens to me, and I'm better for feeling reassured the dog will in case I die (because I see that wills are in general respected after someone dies), then that's a real benefit. My present psychological benefit has to be weighed against how desperately the community needs yet another toilet plunger.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It seems likely that personal property will continue to be inherited. I agree with Blake's Baby that the nuclear family will go away to some extent which would make the right to inherit goods less valuable to people, but it won't wholly negate people's special sentimental relationships to friends, lovers and biological relations.

Some stuff really just doesn't make any sense for someone other than a family member to have it. Their value is wrapped up entirely within the sentimentality of the person.

[Blake's Baby]

So why not 'friends' rather than family? What if you thought your enitre family were total tools, but your mates were ace? Would you be able to leave your 'socialist property' to them?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

So why not 'friends' rather than family? What if you thought your enitre family were total tools, but your mates were ace? Would you be able to leave your 'socialist property' to them?

I don't see why not. It seems in fact that such a movement would be natural. Sentimental attachments would remain even as the moral significance of the atomic family breaks down.