Private Property in Communism?

[DoCt SPARTAN]

I've never really understood the ideas with private property in communism. My friend always states that "if communism took affect in our town, That the pool in his back yard would not belong to him anybody could use it. Because there is no Private property. & and every house would be the same size!"
I dont know if this is true, I just didn't know how to respond, because i dont know to much about communism. I am still a novice in this philosophy.

[#FF0000]

Communists make a distinction between private property and personal property. Private property, to us, means private or exclusive ownership over the means of production. Personal property, on the other hand, is that pool, the house you're living in, your car, stove, books, tv, computer, etc. etc. etc.

[reb]

Pools for everyone. The kind of property that we are talking about is a specific kind of property, that is, economic property, things that contribute to material to society. His pool, as bourgeois as it is, is not economic property. But to be honest, if he was being this much of ass about it, I would take his pool.

[Ledur]

Communists make a distinction between private property and personal property. Private property, to us, means private or exclusive ownership over the means of production. Personal property, on the other hand, is that pool, the house you're living in, your car, stove, books, tv, computer, etc. etc. etc.

This. About personal properties, they would also be more 'shareable'. You aren't obliged to let others use your house or pool, but there's no need of everybody having, in every home, a washing machine, a toolbox or too many children's toys.

On the other hand, useful luxuries like yachts, good vacation hotels and high-speed transport, would still be produced, but the goal here is to serve the greatest number of people.

That's an effective and simple way to create abundance. But again, there's no coercion, you can have everything you need. And here, "need" is an important word. Your "needs" will be fullfilled before your "wants". You may not get everything you want, because some things are hard to produce, but things would be FAR easier to obtain, and not based on "how much can you pay".

[tachosomoza]

A house, car, pool, clothes, food, yes. Healthcare and housing and sustenance and education, from cradle to grave, are rights. Freedom from exploitation and discrimination are rights. 15 million shares of Alcoa and 75% of the land in the town, in addition to a butler, 6 mansions, 25 Lamborghinis, and 5,000 workers whose livelihoods you can make or break at will, or an entire town you can destroy through outsourcing (Detroit) are not allowed. The land belongs to all, the factory belongs to all, the government belongs to all, the hospital belongs to all, the school belongs to all, the state belongs to all. Not to those with the most money.

[Blake's Baby]

I think a lot of the distinctions between 'private property' and 'personal property' are bunk. There's a hell of a difference between a coal mine and a tooth-brush, but between an injection-moulding machine and a 3-d printer?

A car? We're not all going to have cars in socialist society, are you all insane? I'm sure communities will have a transport pool but a car each? Hell no.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've noticed that people here tend to make the distinction to be one between private property and personal property, but I think that's potentially confusing, especially since a lot of rhetoric (e.g. "property is theft") doesn't actually make such a distinction.

Instead, I'd say it would be better to make a distinction between property and possessions. I know that people might think that possessions only covers small personal items like clothing and toothbrushes, but if you think about carefully then it makes sense. One's home would be a possession, since it's full one's personal items and even smells familiar, unlike homes inhabited by other people.

[Kamp]

To live in a mansion or a appartment big enough for 8 alone doesn't contribute ANYTHING bck to neither society nore to people of the working class or a fellow human being of planet earth.

So if he or he's family have something that they have gained by exploiting the working classes then i would be happy to take that pool and piss in it at the same time.

If however they are a huge family thats in need of a big house then i would be happy to clean that pool for them..

It's about them and their conscience as human beings.. but he seems afraid of the woking class so my wild guess is that hes family have exploited them for quite some time.. :unsure:

[#FF0000]

I think a lot of the distinctions between 'private property' and 'personel property' are bunk. There's a hell of a difference between a coal mine and a tooth-brush, but between an injection-moulding machine and a 3-d printer?

Well when we're talking about "private property" and "the means of production" we're talking having control over the product of social labor (at least this is how I look at it). So having your own 3D printer or sewing machine or stove or injection-molding machine and using it yourself is distinct from owning something and making other people sew, cook, etc. for you for a wage.


A car? We're not all going to have cars in socialist society, are you all insane? I'm sure communities will have a transport pool but a car each? Hell no.Why not?

[Blake's Baby]

Well when we're talking about "private property" and "the means of production" we're talking having control over the product of social labor (at least this is how I look at it). So having your own 3D printer or sewing machine or stove or injection-molding machine and using it yourself is distinct from owning something and making other people sew, cook, etc. for you for a wage...

That doesn't make sense. I can 'own' the means of production, as long as I don't exploit labour?

So, can I have a coal-mine as long as it's just for personal use?


...
Why not?

Because we don't need them. It's a massive waste of resources. It's beyond ridiculous to suggest that we'll 'all' (or even a good many of us, or as far as I'm concerned, any of us at all) 'own' cars.

[Red_Banner]

That doesn't make sense. I can 'own' the means of production, as long as I don't exploit labour?

So, can I have a coal-mine as long as it's just for personal use?



Because we don't need them. It's a massive waste of resources. It's beyond ridiculous to suggest that we'll 'all' (or even a good many of us, or as far as I'm concerned, any of us at all) 'own' cars.

Well what about mopeds, scoots, and motorcycles?

It is one thing if you don't want a vehicle, but you are walking on thin ice when you tell others that they can't even have basic transporation.

[tachosomoza]

That doesn't make sense. I can 'own' the means of production, as long as I don't exploit labour?

So, can I have a coal-mine as long as it's just for personal use?



Because we don't need them. It's a massive waste of resources. It's beyond ridiculous to suggest that we'll 'all' (or even a good many of us, or as far as I'm concerned, any of us at all) 'own' cars.

1.) You're not running a coal mine and hauling coal by yourself, nor would one individual ever need industrial quantities of coal for their own personal use. You can use a sewing machine, computer or 3-D printer for your own personal needs.

2.) Say that to someone who lives in a rural area. Cars don't have to be gas guzzling and wasteful pollutants, because they don't have to run on gasoline at all. In the cities, yes, developing clean, efficient, well utilized mass transit ought to be a priority, but it is not your job or my job to tell anyone how to move around.

[#FF0000]

That doesn't make sense. I can 'own' the means of production, as long as I don't exploit labour?

Well, let's look at the inverse. One can't individually own a stove, a sewing machine, a computer, or anything else that can be used to produce something?


So, can I have a coal-mine as long as it's just for personal use?

No, because "owning a mine" means you own all of the ore or coal or whatever it is that's down there, and that's not something anyone can claim (if a guy starts slamming on rocks with a pickaxe on his own, though, then hey whatever let him keep the smaller rocks he just made).

I mean, when we're talking about factories, mines, and workshops, we're talking about, like, organized centers of social labor.


Because we don't need them. It's a massive waste of resources. It's beyond ridiculous to suggest that we'll 'all' (or even a good many of us, or as far as I'm concerned, any of us at all) 'own' cars.

In rural/semi-suburban areas you definitely do. I don't doubt, though, that we'd probably end up relying less on cars over time, with new ideas on urban development and planning and all that.

[Ledur]

About "everyone having a car", I assume that:

- public transport shall be priority, but those who NEED cars (in a remote area, where it'll be energy-costly to take public transport) shall have it.

- as time goes by, if there isn't any other socially useful work to do with current resources (materials and labour), AND there's high demand for personal cars, they should be produced to everyone who wants them.

- however, 1 car/person is wasteful. People should share cars whenever possible.

[Blake's Baby]

Well what about mopeds, scoots, and motorcycles?

It is one thing if you don't want a vehicle, but you are walking on thin ice when you tell others that they can't even have basic transporation.

I would be if I'd said it.

I said people wouldn't own cars. I said we wouldn't 'all' (as in, each, individually,) have cars. I also said that communities would have a vehicle-pool. Where in that is the idea that people "... can't even have basic transporation"? Because that's taking a strawman and making him drive the car that you're not going to own.



Well, let's look at the inverse. One can't individually own a stove, a sewing machine, a computer, or anything else that can be used to produce something? ...

I don't think we individually will 'own' anything.

You do. So, you tell me what you think I will be 'allowed' to 'own'.



...
No, because "owning a mine" means you own all of the ore or coal or whatever it is that's down there, and that's not something anyone can claim (if a guy starts slamming on rocks with a pickaxe on his own, though, then hey whatever let him keep the smaller rocks he just made)...

And 'owning' an oven mens you 'own' the products of the oven and 'owning' a sewing machine means you 'own' the products of the sewing machine and 'owning' a computer means you 'own' the products of the computer and 'owning' anything else that can be used to produce something means you 'own' the products of anything else that can be used to produce something...

I'm not getting the distinction you're making here. Unless it's 'a coal mine is too big'.



...I mean, when we're talking about factories, mines, and workshops, we're talking about, like, organized centers of social labor...

Sure. That's why I said 'there's a hell of a difference between a coal-mine and a toothbrush'.

But what's the difference between an injection-moulding machine and a 3-d printer? Where is the dividing line between the 'means of production I can own' and 'means of production I can't own'?





...In rural/semi-suburban areas you definitely do. I don't doubt, though, that we'd probably end up relying less on cars over time, with new ideas on urban development and planning and all that.

And why wouldn't these vehicles be collectivised?

[#FF0000]

I don't think we individually will 'own' anything.

You do. So, you tell me what you think I will be 'allowed' to 'own'.

I think the difference we're having here is over the word "own". When I say we can "own" these things, I'm saying that individuals can possess them. Someone can have a toothbrush, can have a home, can have books, a tv, tools, musical instruments, etc. etc. like they have them today.


And 'owning' an oven mens you 'own' the products of the oven and 'owning' a sewing machine means you 'own' the products of the sewing machine and 'owning' a computer means you 'own' the products of the computer and 'owning' anything else that can be used to produce something means you 'own' the products of anything else that can be used to produce something...

What exactly is the problem with that? If I "own" a sewing machine and make something with it, what's wrong with "owning" the product of it?

What I'm really asking here, I think, is what is the difference between "owning" something and "having" something?


I'm not getting the distinction you're making here. Unless it's 'a coal mine is too big'.


But what's the difference between an injection-moulding machine and a 3-d printer? Where is the dividing line between the 'means of production I can own' and 'means of production I can't own'?

Well, yo I think "scale" has a to do with this discussion, to be fair. There's a difference between tools and machines for personal use, and tools and machines for industrial use.

I think this does raise some really interesting questions though, because like, yeah, we can produce things individually now that used to require advanced machinery, labor, and a lot of time, money and resources.


And why wouldn't these vehicles be collectivised?

What do you mean by "collectivised" exactly? I would think it would be an incredible waste of time and resources to have everyone store a vehicle in some central location that they'd have to travel to every time they want to drive somewhere.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the difference we're having here is over the word "own". When I say we can "own" these things, I'm saying that individuals can possess them. Someone can have a toothbrush, can have a home, can have books, a tv, tools, musical instruments, etc. etc. like they have them today...

I can use a toothbrush. I can use a television. I can use an injection-moulding machine. Why do I need to 'own' any of these things?


...

What exactly is the problem with that? If I "own" a sewing machine and make something with it, what's wrong with "owning" the product of it? ...

You're not an 'anarcho-capitalist'. That's what's wrong with it. You don't 'own' the means of production and you don't 'own' the social product either - because it is 'social product' even if you happened to be the last user of the parts that made it. You didn't build the dam that caught the water that irrigated the field that grew the cotton that made the thread that you put into the sewing machine that you didn't make; so 'you' didn't 'make something with it', we all did. We all helped grow the cotton, build the dam, provide you with electricity to see, raised the sheep that gave the wool, and fed and edicated your kids while were busy pretending 'you' had uniquely created something in the space we let you use.


...What I'm really asking here, I think, is what is the difference between "owning" something and "having" something?...

thinking you have the right to tell other people they can't use for any other reason than 'because I'm using it at the moment'.




...



...
What do you mean by "collectivised" exactly? I would think it would be an incredible waste of time and resources to have everyone store a vehicle in some central location that they'd have to travel to every time they want to drive somewhere.

If someone lives 3km from their neighbour it makes sense to let them have a truck or jeep or something. But it's still up to the community (which could mean some kind of 'Area Farmers' Union' rather than workers' council as we understand it in an industrial area) to assign the social product.

[reb]

I think a lot of the distinctions between 'private property' and 'personal property' are bunk. There's a hell of a difference between a coal mine and a tooth-brush, but between an injection-moulding machine and a 3-d printer?

A car? We're not all going to have cars in socialist society, are you all insane? I'm sure communities will have a transport pool but a car each? Hell no.

Yeah but then we get into the Das Mudpie argument.

[Blake's Baby]

'Das Mudpie'?

[#FF0000]

I can use a toothbrush. I can use a television. I can use an injection-moulding machine. Why do I need to 'own' any of these things?


thinking you have the right to tell other people they can't use for any other reason than 'because I'm using it at the moment'.

Just as a matter of convenience so that when you leave your house to do something, you can come back and the stuff that you kept in the house would still be there.

I mean, I don't think that's what you're suggesting: that everything is literally up for grabs if you aren't using it right at that very moment. I jsut want to be clear about this.


If someone lives 3km from their neighbour it makes sense to let them have a truck or jeep or something. But it's still up to the community (which could mean some kind of 'Area Farmers' Union' rather than workers' council as we understand it in an industrial area) to assign the social product.

Yo I imagine a lot of people would want to keep cars as a matter of convenience, though. To be totally honest, I think a lot of people would prefer to forgo their cars. The fact of the matter is, though, is as communities are designed today (in America, at least), doing that is literally impossible unless you live in a major urban center.

[Blake's Baby]

Just as a matter of convenience so that when you leave your house to do something, you can come back and the stuff that you kept in the house would still be there.

I mean, I don't think that's what you're suggesting: that everything is literally up for grabs if you aren't using it right at that very moment. I jsut want to be clear about this...

Honestly? If someone comes to 'my' house and takes 'my' toothbrush... fuck it, they can have it. I'll get another one.

I'm suggesting you won't 'own' a car. I'm even suggesting that I would be happy not 'owning' a toothbrush.




Yo I imagine a lot of people would want to keep cars as a matter of convenience, though...

I imagine some people would want to keep money, or coal-mines, or slaves as a matter of convenience. Doesn't mean the rest of us are going to go along with it.

You can't even get petrol without the rest of us agreeing. What use is your car?


... To be totally honest, I think a lot of people would prefer to forgo their cars. The fact of the matter is, though, is as communities are designed today (in America, at least), doing that is literally impossible unless you live in a major urban center.

Well, yeah. But 'communities how they are designed today' is not what we're after.

People in rural communities are more likely to need 'personal' transportation than people in urban areas; agreed. I'd like to rapidly see cities with no cars at all (like, after the petrol is requisitioned, they don't really come back).

But even rural areas can use buses. Even rural areas can use car-sharing and/or a 'taxi' system (ie, collectivisation of cars). There is no reason, even when people live a long way from each other, that the transport between the shouldn't be collectively administered - even if it's on semi-permanent loan to certain people. It's still 'owned' by the community. We can take it back if a more deserving case comes along.

[Marxaveli]

This. About personal properties, they would also be more 'shareable'. You aren't obliged to let others use your house or pool, but there's no need of everybody having, in every home, a washing machine, a toolbox or too many children's toys.

On the other hand, useful luxuries like yachts, good vacation hotels and high-speed transport, would still be produced, but the goal here is to serve the greatest number of people.

That's an effective and simple way to create abundance. But again, there's no coercion, you can have everything you need. And here, "need" is an important word. Your "needs" will be fullfilled before your "wants". You may not get everything you want, because some things are hard to produce, but things would be FAR easier to obtain, and not based on "how much can you pay".

Yea, and I think peoples 'wants' would be less under socialism anyway. Under capitalism advertisement, commodity fetishism, the culture of consumerism, social status drive people to 'want' things that they don't really need, to line the pockets of the capitalists.

[RedGuevara]

I was and am somewhat still kind of confused about this lol. I just take everything with an open mind. Thanks for posting this though because sometimes I even wonder. Like I've read an inheritance should be taken and given back to the public. But does this include say your mothers jewelry set? Or your fathers old pocket watch?

[tachosomoza]

Like I've read an inheritance should be taken and given back to the public. But does this include say your mothers jewelry set? Or your fathers old pocket watch?

Of course not, jewelry and watches are possessions for personal use. No inheritance of means of production or financial instruments tied to them. You can keep the pictures and diamond ring, but the jewelry factory, the 20,000 acres and the diamond mine must be expropriated for the common good.

[RedGuevara]

I agree. I believe in a collective environment where all people can benefit from means of production. I wouldn't even be against the idea of abolishing the diamond work done in mines. It hurts the environment and I mean in a communist society are there really need for "precious" metals?

[#FF0000]

I imagine some people would want to keep money, or coal-mines, or slaves as a matter of convenience. Doesn't mean the rest of us are going to go along with it.

Except that is all totally different from wanting to be able to maintain the state of one's living space.

I think all of this is a moot point though, to be honest, because there would be no need for someone to go around and take your toothbrush or your dishes or anything else, because a socialist society aims to minimize and eliminate scarcity entirely, so there would be no reason for anyone to go ahead and take the things in your living space, raid the garden you've been working on, whatever.

The things that are "yours" would be "yours" not because of a state that exists to draw and enforce that line but because of the condition of hyper-abundance that a socialist society would provide.


Well, yeah. But 'communities how they are designed today' is not what we're after.No kidding, but that's what we're going to have for until we have what we're after.


But even rural areas can use buses. Even rural areas can use car-sharing and/or a 'taxi' system (ie, collectivisation of cars). There is no reason, even when people live a long way from each other, that the transport between the shouldn't be collectively administered - even if it's on semi-permanent loan to certain people. It's still 'owned' by the community. We can take it back if a more deserving case comes along.This strikes me as entirely unnecessary and overly bureaucratic. The way this entire discussion is framed is entirely arbitrary -- talking about communities not needing cars as much because of how they'll be set up but then assuming vehicles like cars won't be made safer, cleaner, cheaper in terms of resources, or otherwise made more efficient or running on something other than fossil fuels. I mean, yeah, we could have busses and taxis -- but then we'd need people driving those busses and taxis around, and there's no reason in the world people shouldn't have the means to transport themselves without inconveniencing or waiting on someone else.

In any case, I agree that "ownership" as we know it won't be a thing anymore, so.

[#FF0000]

I agree. I believe in a collective environment where all people can benefit from means of production. I wouldn't even be against the idea of abolishing the diamond work done in mines. It hurts the environment and I mean in a communist society are there really need for "precious" metals?

Some of these metals have industrial uses. Fortunately, we can produce synthetic diamonds.

[Rational Radical]

Hopefully the proposal of banning of cars will come about after communities are restructured to make access to goods and social events easier which will be voted on by the communes,not just a ridiculous immediate demand of a few workers who feel they're pointless. Also,if your communism includes non-exploitative relations to the means of production which require communalism or cooperation cool,I'm down,but if it requires you running up in my crib at night to use my toaster/shower/printer/oven when scarcity is nonexistent and you just felt like it then gtfoh with that.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Serious, but stupid question. Don't certain forms of real estate count as private property (rent-out apartments/farmland/ land acres)?

[Blake's Baby]

Hopefully the proposal of banning of cars will come about after communities are restructured ...

For fuck's sake, WHO IS TALKING ABOUT BANNING CARS?

I'm talking about collectivising transport.

Can everybody see that, or is it just me?

Collectivising.

Not 'banning'.

So you will not 'own' a car because you 'want' one, but you can use a care because you need one.

Which will mean far fewer cars (in the short term) and far less pollution/resources tied up in them (in the short term). Long term restructuring of transport technology/communities/ending of the distinction between city and country - not my business really to offer opinions on at the moment. In the short term we need to massively reduce reliance on cars and fossil fuel (because of extraction) and pollutants (so fossil fuel again, as well as 'biogas' etc). So as much as we can we need to cut car use. Collectivisation will help. It isn't a permanent 'solution' nor the only thing we should do and we should definitely be researching a) other sources of power and b) other ways of living and 'working' and c) other ways of using transport. Not 'banning cars' and by implication letting people in isolated areas starve to death because they can't get to the 'socialist store' 20km away.

Is that really clear?

[Rational Radical]

Apologies Blake's Baby,I thought you were advocating the total replacement of cars for public transportation,however while I feel there needs to be more innovation on public transportation to prevent the waste of resources or environmental pollutants I also believe that the collectivization of cars needs to happen after the restructuring of communities and that it wouldn't be effective to immediately do so after workers gain power in a post-capitalist world ,which would still deal with at least the remnants of capitalistic problems(lower phase of socialism/communism)

[Blake's Baby]

If 'the total replacement of cars for public transportation' means the end of 'private cars' and the begining of 'public cars', then that is exactly what I'm advocating. But I'm not talking about 'banning cars'. I'm talking about collectivising private cars. Do you see the difference?

Transport policy needs to be determined by the community. Resource use (eg, supplies of petrol) needs to be determined by the community. Do you see where I'm going with this?

[Rational Radical]

I'm agreeing with you in regards to community control of resources and transportation methods but all I'm saying is that before the proposal of collectivising private cars it would be smarter to at least begin the process of restructuring communities,again I get you and I'm agreeing with you I just feel there should be steps taken before it,am I clear ?

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, I understand your words, but I'm not sure what you think the advantages are of 'private' cars and 'public' petrol.

When we send a delegation over into the next county to talk to them about water supplies or a common agricultural policy (because obviously we're talking about rural areas here) do you really think that everyone will be driving 'their own' car?

Honestly; you and #FF0000 sound like 'an-caps'. Seriously.

[Rational Radical]

Lol you honestly sound like an ideologue who has trained themselves to spew insults at people and misrepresent opinions/suggestions without even giving them any consideration because you already have the correct line of thought lol me and #FF0000 sound like an-caps for simply bringing up other ways to deal with this issue via restructuring of communities during the lower phase of communism or non petrol cars,you're one of my favorite posters on here and I tend to agree with and enjoy your posts but this is one is just silly.

[Blake's Baby]

So, rather than actually explain what you think the advantages are, you just say 'urgh you sound stupid comparing us to 'an-caps'?'

You do sound like 'an-caps'. Or gun-nuts. 'Dang socialist gub'mint wants to take our cars away'. What comes across is a desire to 'own' stuff even though it doesn't make any sense. What you're failing to do is explain why private cars are an advantage. Do you want to try doing that?

[Rational Radical]

Capital has shaped communities which developed different modes of transportation as I'm sure we both know,so a post capitalist urban city would possibly need less cars due to public transportation(which would be of course in the process of being improved upon in a lower phase to eventually stop the usage of cars),however a rural or suburban area would require more cars due to an either less developed or undeveloped public transportation system. So rather than just immediately collectivizing all cars there needs to be a process of making access to goods and events easier to precede that ,do I make sense? Also to entertain the idea of cars not using petrol fuel ,what would be the problem with them if they were produced abundantly ? Now explain to me how I and other posters sound like an-caps.

[Blake's Baby]

Capital has shaped communities which developed different modes of transportation as I'm sure we both know,so a post capitalist urban city would possibly need less cars due to public transportation(which would be of course in the process of being improved upon in a lower phase to eventually stop the usage of cars)...

No-one's arguing about this, as far as I'm aware. Though to be honest I think the idea of stopping the use of cars completely is utopian - so I will give you an argument about it if you want.


...however a rural or suburban area would require more cars due to an either less developed or undeveloped public transportation system...

Right. But the process of revolution is one of overturning the existing ways of doing things. I'm not talking about long-term changes to infrastructure (eg road-building), I'm not talking about new technology (eg electric cars), I'm not talking about long-term restructuring of how we live and work (to eliminate 'commuting', or breaking down the distinction between town and country); I'm talking about something we can change immediately - how we use the technology we have. Car-sharing or car-pooling or whatever you want to call it is more efficient than individualising transport. And, increased use of buses and 'taxis' (so you phone up the transport depot and say 'can you send a car') is going to be more efficient too.

Making transport a collective endeavour not a 'private' one is also one of the ways in which people learn a new way of living.

Then of course there's the problem of petrol. Why should I (part of the community) vote to give anyone petrol (don't forget, this isn't some hazy super-abundant future this is still the revolutionary transformation) to someone who thinks 'his' car, and our petrol, are his private toy?




... So rather than just immediately collectivizing all cars there needs to be a process of making access to goods and events easier to precede that ,do I make sense? ...

No, I don't really know what you're saying here. Are you saying we should make things easier for people so they don't need their cars? Long term I agree - see all the stuff above about work/life/technology etc. But in the short term they won't be easier; they'll be harder, petrol and other resources will be rationed and as I intimated above there's no way anyone who has a 'private' car is going to get my vote for those resources.

Long term, of course we need to change everything. Short term, we need to change some things - not nothing. Collectivising cars is one thing that we need to change - just as collectivising housing is.

Honestly: you may go 'urr-hurr-hurr, you sound dumb' but it staggers me that anyone is suggesting that we don't collectivise social resources. We're communists. Of course transport should be controlled by the community, not by individuals.




...Also to entertain the idea of cars not using petrol fuel ,what would be the problem with them if they were produced abundantly ?

Apart from all the raw materials that go into them, you mean? Obviously, a solar-powered car that has the same energy inputs to make but 1/100,000 of the energy input to run is better than a petrol-powered car that otherwise provides the same service. But I'm not talking about 3 or 10 years down the line, I'm talking about the process of the revolution itself. We won't be making solar-powered cars during the revolution, we'll be trying to find a way to run them on old socks and rhetoric.

Apart from the fact that they clog up roads, then? When you can get 70 people on a bus (maybe 6x bigger than a private car) or you can have between 14 and 70 (depending on how many passengers you have) cars... which takes up most resources? Even the minimum for cars is more than twice the size, nearly 10 times as many tires, etc. Individual cars are really wasteful which is why they're terrible for cities but even if they weren't polluting they still have problems.

But the argument is about rural areas - are they necessary? I'd say yes cars are; but what isn't necessary is that the use of those cars is decided on any other basis than community control.


... Now explain to me how I and other posters sound like an-caps.

Because you're privileging private property over community control, in exactly the same manner as an 'an-cap' sitting on his metaphorical porch threatening to shoot 'commies' who come onto 'his' land. Do you not even know what you're saying?

Why do people, in the revolution, need to 'own' cars, any more than they need to 'own' houses?

[Red_Banner]

I would be if I'd said it.

I said people wouldn't own cars. I said we wouldn't 'all' (as in, each, individually,) have cars. I also said that communities would have a vehicle-pool. Where in that is the idea that people "... can't even have basic transporation"? Because that's taking a strawman and making him drive the car that you're not going to own.




I don't think we individually will 'own' anything.

You do. So, you tell me what you think I will be 'allowed' to 'own'.




And 'owning' an oven mens you 'own' the products of the oven and 'owning' a sewing machine means you 'own' the products of the sewing machine and 'owning' a computer means you 'own' the products of the computer and 'owning' anything else that can be used to produce something means you 'own' the products of anything else that can be used to produce something...

I'm not getting the distinction you're making here. Unless it's 'a coal mine is too big'.




Sure. That's why I said 'there's a hell of a difference between a coal-mine and a toothbrush'.

But what's the difference between an injection-moulding machine and a 3-d printer? Where is the dividing line between the 'means of production I can own' and 'means of production I can't own'?






And why wouldn't these vehicles be collectivised?

Why should I have to be part of a pool?

Why are you getting in the way of my personal property?

[Catma]

I think a lot of the disagreements in this thread are over the issue of what stage of development we are talking about, both in terms of infrastructure and social... consciousness, for lack of a better term.

The issue of infrastructure has already come up, but the social one is a little further out. In the immediate future, I can't see myself being ok with it if my wife, kid and I are in some apartment, and a half dozen guys come in and say "hey man we're pretty wasted... we're gonna crash here. Where's your food?" Ultimately I would be ok with more fluid living arrangements and "property" - as Blake's Baby said, sure, I'll just go get another toothbrush from the distribution center tomorrow. But some things will take longer than others for the general populace to be cool with.

[Marshal of the People]

I think that the means of production (factories, mines, businesses and farms etc.) should be nationalised for the public to uses while I think that things like toothbrushes, cars, homes, televisions, computers, sewing machines should be classified as personal property (for example I wouldn't like to come home from work only to find that my entire house is empty). I also think that cars should be banned from cities and replaced with public transport though car ownership should be legal especially for those in rural areas (for those city dwellers that need to visit a friend in a rural area their should be as centres where you can borrow a car for a certain amount of time free of charge).

So I think that the means of production (factories, mines, businesses and farms etc.) should be nationalised and personal property (toothbrushes, homes, computers, sewing machines and clothes etc.) respected.

PS. Please don't call me a capitalist because I'm not.

[Jack Daniels]

Well, it wouldn't work like that. While you technically don't own your property, it is still yours, personnel. So noone could just walk into it. And most likely every house would be about the same, it might be tailored to how many are living in one house. But communism is about equallness between l people, so there sent going to be any mansions where only one person lives, or any one bedroom houses that 20 live in.

[Blake's Baby]

...

The issue of infrastructure has already come up, but the social one is a little further out. In the immediate future, I can't see myself being ok with it if my wife, kid and I are in some apartment, and a half dozen guys come in and say "hey man we're pretty wasted... we're gonna crash here. Where's your food?" ...

And who's saying that's a possibility?

Housing is a community resource. It is controlled by the community. That means that someone who lives in a two-bedroomed house with 4 kids has a right to a bigger home, and someone with a 6-bedroomed house who lives alone does not have the right to all that space while other people in the neighbourhood have cramped conditions.

What you're suggesting, that everywhere becomes a caricature of squat, is about as likely as people now taking all of your library books off you as you leave the library because 'they own them too'.

So; transport is a community resource too. No, you don't have a 'right' to a car. If you need a car you shoud have access to a car; but that's up to the community to decide, as it is with all the other 'needs' you have.

Propertarian attitudes are something we need to break down, not re-inforce.

[Red_Banner]

And who's saying that's a possibility?

Housing is a community resource. It is controlled by the community. That means that someone who lives in a two-bedroomed house with 4 kids has a right to a bigger home, and someone with a 6-bedroomed house who lives alone does not have the right to all that space while other people in the neighbourhood have cramped conditions.

What you're suggesting, that everywhere becomes a caricature of squat, is about as likely as people now taking all of your library books off you as you leave the library because 'they own them too'.

So; transport is a community resource too. No, you don't have a 'right' to a car. If you need a car you shoud have access to a car; but that's up to the community to decide, as it is with all the other 'needs' you have.

Propertarian attitudes are something we need to break down, not re-inforce.

Well maybe you don't care so much about how the vehicle you use performs or looks, but there are people such as myself that do.

Like with my motorbike, the transmission is tuned and I've customized the vehicle with better lighting.

Alot of people such as myself like to ride/drive certain vehicles for recreation.

[Blake's Baby]

Does that give people who've spent time and effort on their houses the right to say that they should keep them?

You don't get to say 'oh I like it and I've worked on it so I get to keep it'. Otherwise Bill Gates is keeping Microsoft.

[Red_Banner]

Does that give people who've spent time and effort on their houses the right to say that they should keep them?

You don't get to say 'oh I like it and I've worked on it so I get to keep it'. Otherwise Bill Gates is keeping Microsoft.

But BIll Gates isn't the sole person who worked on Microsoft.

[Blake's Baby]

You made the car from your own hair, did you?

[reb]

'Das Mudpie'?

Unless what you have is tied to and regulated by the SNLT with the goal of producing value, then having anything wouldn't constitute economic property. In other words, if it's not producing commodities then it's out of the scope of capitalist relations.

[Blake's Baby]

So, let's say, a country estate is OK in your book? Excellent, I'm investing in property if I can keep it all after the revolution.

Not to charge rent on it, you understand. Just to swan around on my massive playground with a huge wall around it.

[Red_Banner]

You made the car from your own hair, did you?

Man, you people do have an infantile disorder.

[Blake's Baby]

You didn't build the car yourself. You 'own' it. Bill Gates didn't build Microsoft. He 'owns' it. Difference?

[Red_Banner]

You didn't build the car yourself. You 'own' it. Bill Gates didn't build Microsoft. He 'owns' it. Difference?

No, he built in in part despite him being a greedy bastard.

He just didn't do it all himself.

[Blake's Baby]

You didn't build the car yourself. I'm sure you built bits of it. Meanwhile, I'll build parts of my massive garden and house behind a huge wall. OK?

[Red_Banner]

You didn't build the car yourself. I'm sure you built bits of it. Meanwhile, I'll build parts of my massive garden and house behind a huge wall. OK?

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

You're not making any sense.

[Blake's Baby]

You're claiming, as 'an-caps' do, that the last person to work on something is the owner, yes?

YOU: 'I painted these flames up the side of this car, and I tuned the engine and put an air freshener in; I've worked on it, it's mine'.

ME: 'Hundreds of people worked on that car; it's a social product, that you happened to work on last. If it's OK for you to expropriate social product that you happened to work on last, can I do the same with a big house and garden that I say I worked on it so it's mine about?'

YOU: 'Lalalalala, I like my car and you don't make sense.'

I paraphrase.

[Red_Banner]

You're claiming, as 'an-caps' do, that the last person to work on something is the owner, yes?

YOU: 'I painted these flames up the side of this car, and I tuned the engine and put an air freshener in; I've worked on it, it's mine'.

ME: 'Hundreds of people worked on that car; it's a social product, that you happened to work on last. If it's OK for you to expropriate social product that you happened to work on last, can I do the same with a big house and garden that I say I worked on it so it's mine about?'

YOU: 'Lalalalala, I like my car and you don't make sense.'

I paraphrase.

No, I am claiming like Marx that people have the right to personal property.

Just because somone makes a product does not mean the own it forever or even want to.

Sure somone at a factory makes a car, but are they the one that keeps the fuel tank full?

Do they wax the car?

Do they keep the tires inflated?

A car is not exclusively a social product.

A taxi might be, but not one where an individual or family primarily uses and takes care of it.

What you are proposing is the same crap the capitalist music, video, and game industry claims with their 'licensing".

[Blake's Baby]

No, I am claiming like Marx that people have the right to personal property.

Just because somone makes a product does not mean the own it forever or even want to.

Sure somone at a factory makes a car, but are they the one that keeps the fuel tank full?

Do they wax the car?

Do they keep the tires inflated?

A car is not exclusively a social product.

A taxi might be, but not one where an individual or family primarily uses and takes care of it...

Of course a car is 'exclusively' a social product. It is 'exclusively' made by many people. It isn't 'both made by many people and not made by many people'.

What you're saying is that it should be treated as the property of an individual, not that it hasn't been made by many people.

What I want to know is, why do you think that?

Furthermore, is it OK in your view to claim exclusive ownership of other things (like mansions or palaces) as long as one doesn't use them to employ people? Because if it is I bagsy a $50million Malibu mansion thanks. I will mow the lawn and change the lightbulbs.



...What you are proposing is the same crap the capitalist music, video, and game industry claims with their 'licensing".

I literally have no idea what makes you say that. Care to explain?

[LiamChe]

Obviously, as was already pointed out Marx was not against the abolition of personal property. Private property is defined as owning land, factories, farms, infrastructure, etc. Communism puts all of this in the hands of the people and gives them the right to control it. Obviously, copyright laws will be abolished, Bourgeoisie estates, mansions, etc. But your house is your house.

[Red_Banner]

I'm not wasting any more time on you.


You are a troll.

[Rafiq]

You should not argue who owns what, but realize that, as Communists, we recognize the concept of ownership is a ridiculous one, there are no set of universal moral laws, no one owns anything, it is through power and force that one claims something to be his to do with.

[nihilust]

Myth #1: Socialists want to take away your property

This myth confuses private property with personal property. When socialists talk about the abolition of private property, they are referring to the socialization of the means of production—the resources and equipment that create wealth. Working people do not own this type of property—which is why we have to work to survive.

Right now, the wealth of the 1,000 billionaires is equal to that of the 3.5 billion poorest people on the planet. In order to provide everyone with more, that wealth must be commonly owned, and not the property of those few capitalists.

Socialists have no interest in taking away one’s home, car or individual items intended for personal use. In reality, as the foreclosure crisis has shown, under capitalism the banks own most of this property as well—and will take it away as they please.

[Firebrand]

I think that this car argument is seeing cars and other vehicles solely in terms of their practical value. If cars were purely a practical thing like a factory or a washing machine then the idea of them all being collectivised would be perfectly justifiable, they are just as functional as community property as they are as private property if not more so. However given that many people love cars for recreational reasons, and put a considerable amount of time and effort into personalising them and spend a lot of their free time enjoying using them, you could make an argument for cars as a luxury item. In other words, if there is no shortage then people should be allowed them as an item of personal enjoyment much like a television or a football. There should of course be a communal car pool for people who only want cars for practical reason but I see no problem with people owning cars as a luxury item.

[Blake's Baby]

We're discussing the revolutionary period, not a society of abundance. I agree if there's no shortage of cars or fuel it's not a problem. But this argument is about when that's not the case; whether cars and fuel in that case should be regarded as personal items or under the control of the community.

I don't think that 'loving' cars is a good enough reason to decide they should be personal items. Some people 'love' their houses and other property, and have spent time and effort making them nice. Doesn't mean that other people don't have a right to a decent house.

Housing will be a community resource; it's up to the community how housing is assigned and it doesn't matter that some people 'love' their houses and gardens and want to put up big walls and stop other people going in. I don't care. And I don't care that people 'love' their cars. Part of me says they shouldn't be so bloody alienated that they transfer affection to a machine, because it's weird, but I realise that the point is more that something one has spent time and creative effort on is often a source of personal validation and pride. But that is less important than that transportation and the resources used by transportation are a matter for the community to decide, not individuals. And anyway, if you're really proud of the job you did on your vehicle, why not use those skills to benefit the community not just yourself, and get kudos from your neighbours for your awesome pimping?

[RedMaterialist]

Marx briefly addresses the personal property issue in the Communist Manifesto:

"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.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily."

[argeiphontes]

Comparing a car to a mansion doesn't work and relies on the obscene opulence of the mansion. A car is just a necessity. Taking away cars would turn rural Americans into Amish peasants.

Also, I don't think the fact that several people worked on something says anything about the ownership. In a modern factory, several people make almost everything. You'll pry my toaster from my cold dead hands :lol:

The means of production are what has to be socialized.

[Blake's Baby]

Comparing a car to a mansion doesn't work and relies on the obscene opulence of the mansion. A car is just a necessity. Taking away cars would turn rural Americans into Amish peasants...



Dang socialist gub'mint, comin' here takin' our cars...

And who, pray has suggested this?

Turning communists into straw men makes them easier to set on fire! Argeiphontes wants to burn us all!




...Also, I don't think the fact that several people worked on something says anything about the ownership. In a modern factory, several people make almost everything...



I quite agree. That's why painting flames on your car and filling it with gas doesn't make it yours. Hundreds of people have been resposnsible for making it. A whole society has been responsible for making it. It isn't 'yours'. It's everyone's.



...

The means of production are what has to be socialized.

I disagree. Or rather, I agree that the means of production need to be socialised. But socialisation needs to go much further than just taking over the factories. If only the means of production are socialised, then you have no objection to my non-productive mansion, yes?

[argeiphontes]

I do object to your mansion, but not for the same reason as you object to the car.

[Blake's Baby]

I do object to your mansion, but not for the same reason as you object to the car.

You're going to have to explain, then, why I object to the car, and the reason you object to the mansion, and then explain the difference between them. Because they sure look the same to me.

[argeiphontes]

I don't care anymore. Keep the car.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't care anymore. Keep the car.

I want a mansion.

[Firebrand]

Even during the revolutionary period people should be allowed luxury items within reason, i've seen nothing to suggest there will be a shortage of cars. If someone had lets say a musical instrument, or a set of paints, or a nice outfit, should these also be taken? The whole point of the revolution is to ensure a better standard of living isn't it? There should be a communal car pool for cars as transport, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of individual possession of cars as luxury items. There's no point in having a revolution if the first thing you do is separate people from doing the things they enjoy. Some people enjoy playing music they should be allowed instruments, some people enjoy drinking they should be allowed alcohol, some people enjoy driving and they should be allowed cars.

[Blake's Baby]

Transport (as a social good) is a necessity (people need to get to hospital/food needs to be brought to places that don't have it, etc) and fuel (for various things including generators as well as transportation) is also a necessity; and therefore it seems reasonable to me that during the revolution, fuel is going to be rationed and transport policy is going to be socially determined.

With the best will in the world, guitars and paints (and I say this as someone who both plays guitar and paints), are not necessities. So there's no real reason for them to be under the control of the community. If I run out of paint or break a string during the revolution... tough shit on me. No-one dies because of it.

Unlike if the generator packs up at the hospital or there's no fuel to get the ambulance out to old Mrs Miggins because some knob of a boy racer has been driving his souped-up Ford Capri round the place for days using all the fuel.

[Firebrand]

Things can be both a necessity and a luxury. Transport is a necessity, a souped up motorbike is a luxury. Food is a necessity, ice cream is a luxury. Just because people need food doesn't mean they shouldn't have ice cream if they want it, just that ice cream is lower priority. If there is a fuel shortage there should be rationing. if there is a sudden and inexplicable shortage of transport mechanisms the community can draft personal vehicles into service. That doesn't mean people can't have cars as personal property, just that they are lower priority than ambulences.

[Blake's Baby]

Things can be both a necessity and a luxury. Transport is a necessity, a souped up motorbike is a luxury. Food is a necessity, ice cream is a luxury. Just because people need food doesn't mean they shouldn't have ice cream if they want it, just that ice cream is lower priority. If there is a fuel shortage there should be rationing. if there is a sudden and inexplicable shortage of transport mechanisms the community can draft personal vehicles into service. That doesn't mean people can't have cars as personal property, just that they are lower priority than ambulences.

So private cars but public petrol?

Why not public cars?

[Firebrand]

So private cars but public petrol?

Why not public cars?

Why not both? Public cars for people who just want a way to get around, and private ones for people who genuinely enjoy going out and driving them, or working on them in their back rooms, or want to use them to create a piece of symbolic modern art. Petrol would be a luxury resource, (hopefully we can come up with a more sustainable substitute), but if people want to spend their luxury resource allowance* on petrol instead of paints then why not? Why is driving fast an inherently less acceptable form of self expression than painting with acrylics? Both of them involve a personal hobby that isn't necessarily of benefit to anyone else and both use finite, petrochemical resources that could no doubt be used for a far more pious and righteous purpose. Orwell wrote some very interesting things on the idea that people having luxuries can actually be more important to their quality of life then having necessities. One of them keeps you alive, the other one makes you care one way or the other. Personally I reckon that caring whether you're alive takes priority over maintaining perfect physical condition. Wanting yourself dead will kill you faster than starvation.

*(just to be clear a luxury resource allowance isn't a thing, its just a way of expressing the fact that we all have a right to have some things we like but don't need, within reason.)

[RO17]

1.) You're not running a coal mine and hauling coal by yourself, nor would one individual ever need industrial quantities of coal for their own personal use. You can use a sewing machine, computer or 3-D printer for your own personal needs.

2.) Say that to someone who lives in a rural area. Cars don't have to be gas guzzling and wasteful pollutants, because they don't have to run on gasoline at all. In the cities, yes, developing clean, efficient, well utilized mass transit ought to be a priority, but it is not your job or my job to tell anyone how to move around.
Yes, you can use hemp ethanol, it will not hurt the environment because it was carbon already present in the atmosphere, hemp grows in 16 weeks, consumes more carbon during that time than a tree in 20 years, yields 6-5x more cellulose than any other crop (which is used for ethanol), you do not need chemicals for ethanol, all you need is fermentation and yeast and you have yourself a mighty fine fuel!

Ethanol is also used for rubber and hard and flexible plastics, which Henry ford actually used in one of his cars, but the hemp was banned and he was never able to utilize it.