Personal property in Communism.

[Bala Perdida]

As an Anarcho-Communist, I believe that forming a new society what you had will remain your's. This does not include a house your not using or any other land of course, but things like coffee mugs, beds, laptops, tv's, ect... Other than that anything you produce will be yours, like if you have a garden in your yard the fruits from the garden will be yours. This is an Anarchist view of things, at least as I understand it.
Now for a more Marxist view, personal property I here is not discriminated from private property as far as I've heard. From what I've heard everything in a Marxist-Communist society is held in common. This means all your furniture, electronics, tableware, ect... is not yours to, for example, give away. This doesn't sound all that bad to me, I mean as long as your alive this means you got what you need and nothing goes to waste. Adding to that, I hear nothing you produce is yours, this means that any food you grow or ceramics pots you make (whatever else a common person can actually produce easily) is not yours and is added to the community supply instead. This is also okay I guess, assuming that the food I want at the moment, or the bowl I need to use can be taken or eaten after producing it; and everything else is given to the community. Now, where it gets crazy is when I hear that anybody can go into your house and take what they want, I don't think this is true but I want to hear what you comrades think.
I just want to clarify that this is not what I think or believe, these are things I have heard from Marxists and critics. So yeah, I'm not strong on conclusions but any help is appreciated. Thank you comrades for your time, and have a good rest of your day.

[Remus Bleys]

How does that follow from anarchism?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Marx is more interested in appropriating the factories, buses and land titles than your toothbrush and your teddy bear.

[Red Commissar]

As an Anarcho-Communist, I believe that forming a new society what you had will remain your's. This does not include a house your not using or any other land of course, but things like coffee mugs, beds, laptops, tv's, ect... Other than that anything you produce will be yours, like if you have a garden in your yard the fruits from the garden will be yours. This is an Anarchist view of things, at least as I understand it.
Now for a more Marxist view, personal property I here is not discriminated from private property as far as I've heard. From what I've heard everything in a Marxist-Communist society is held in common. This means all your furniture, electronics, tableware, ect... is not yours to, for example, give away. This doesn't sound all that bad to me, I mean as long as your alive this means you got what you need and nothing goes to waste. Adding to that, I hear nothing you produce is yours, this means that any food you grow or ceramics pots you make (whatever else a common person can actually produce easily) is not yours and is added to the community supply instead. This is also okay I guess, assuming that the food I want at the moment, or the bowl I need to use can be taken or eaten after producing it; and everything else is given to the community. Now, where it gets crazy is when I hear that anybody can go into your house and take what they want, I don't think this is true but I want to hear what you comrades think.
I just want to clarify that this is not what I think or believe, these are things I have heard from Marxists and critics. So yeah, I'm not strong on conclusions but any help is appreciated. Thank you comrades for your time, and have a good rest of your day.

Hmm, well, that's funny because often people say the same thing about anarchists holding everything in common. You'd probably find a Marxist holding your views while finding an Anarchist holding the ones you described for a Marxist and vice versa.

I don't really think this is a major distinction between Anarchists and Marxists with regards to what constitutes property. You'll find within both camps a lot of discussion on to what extent things should be held in common, how communities are organized, communes, collectivism etc.

The major point being on property is the kind that is used for productivity that should be held in common (by extension the means of production), not so much your toothbrush and other personal possessions.

[Bala Perdida]

How does that follow from anarchism?
If you're referring to the initial description of personal property, it's just pulled out of one of the most followed anarchist-communist theories. This is the theory of Pyotr Kropotkin, who's theory is elaborated in The Conquest of Bread. In the book he talks about people keeping their movable possessions (I guess that's one name for it), specifically I remember him talking about coats and how no one would want the coat of a "fat bourgeoisie" anyway (hahahaha). He also talks about how if an individual wants something, then they can have it by participating in it's production. So for example, if you want an accordion you can get it by helping to make it.
I hope this helps, and sorry if I over did it on the info. So basically, this comes from the widely accepted work on Anarcho-Communism The Conquest of Bread.

[Remus Bleys]

I have read the Conquest of Bread, but thanks for reminding me of that concept.

I mean, ownership is a concept and a part of ideology. Why should it continue to exist? Certainly you have things you consume. No one wants your toothbrush, so you can be said to own it. However, if somehow your toothbrush was needed, no one would hesitate in taking it from you because communist society would lack the very concept of ownership itself.

[Bala Perdida]

I have read the Conquest of Bread, but thanks for reminding me of that concept.

I mean, ownership is a concept and a part of ideology. Why should it continue to exist? Certainly you have things you consume. No one wants your toothbrush, so you can be said to own it. However, if somehow your toothbrush was needed, no one would hesitate in taking it from you because communist society would lack the very concept of ownership itself.
I guess I can agree with that, I mean book was published around the 1880's so things that people would buy back then where less complex to make. Today it's hard to participate in making technology, which is the focus of most people now, and things robots and automated factories can do it so much better any ways. Another idea I like is a sort of library system, where they have things like digital cameras, gaming devices, instruments, skateboards, tools or anything else people would want or need temporarily. From here people would take what they want and then just take it back when they're done using it. I'm not sure how others feel of the idea, but I think it fits in with most Communist or Socialist ideals.

[Remus Bleys]

I don't think there would be an issue with it being at one's house or on their person, just ownership of it.

[Brotto Rühle]

The Communist Manifesto, chapter 2 people. These are the BAsics.


All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

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.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

Let us now take wage-labour.

The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

[Ritzy Cat]

This is a touchy subject for some, as private property and what needs to be dealt to it remains one of the most prominent subjects of communism. While it is obvious it must be eliminated (esp. private ownership of the means of productions), what constituted private property, or property at all can become foggy.

I do personally believe in an extent of personal property. If everyone has a toothbrush, soap, clothes, I don't think it matter because everyone would have these items. Of course perhaps a comrade breaks his toothbrush, there shouldn't be any problem with sharing one with him. But the goal of this is to ensure that everyone has these basic necessities, and are easily accessible. I don't want to say that everyone "owns" their own one toothbrush for example, but if there is 1000 people and there are 1000 toothbrushes, everyone gets one, the problem is solved before anything can happen.

On the subject of a gaming system for example; it isn't really a necessity, and there should be no problem with sharing it among the community. However, a gaming system would be a permanent means of entertainment for some. Some would want to play it as their own method of entertainment. This would be difficult to appropriate as to who gets to use it and for how long, until everyone who wants one of these things, has it for themselves.

I think an issue with the thought that "everyone who wants something should participate in its production" may be that not everyone has the technical skills to produce said item. While he may contribute in his own way to the production of something else, I think that everything that the community can agree "We want to make this available to us" should become a project for the community.

[Blake's Baby]

As an Anarcho-Communist, I believe that forming a new society what you had will remain your's. This does not include a house your not using or any other land of course, but things like coffee mugs, beds, laptops, tv's, ect... Other than that anything you produce will be yours, like if you have a garden in your yard the fruits from the garden will be yours. This is an Anarchist view of things, at least as I understand it...

This is an 'anarcho-capitalist' view not an Anarchist-Communist position.

What makes the garden 'yours'? What makes the yard the garden is in 'yours'? What makes the product of the garden in the yard 'yours'?

No product can be the property of its 'maker' (as in the case of the veg you grow in 'your' garden) because the product is itself merely the latest of a practically infinite regression of human endeavour.

To take only one example. You grow some vegetables. To do so, you need a gardening trowel in order to dig the holes to put the seeds in. Did you make the trowel? No, it was assembled elsewhere, from some shaped metal and some shaped wood. Did you mine and smelt the metal that was used to make the trowel? Did you cut and shape the wood? Did you transport the wood and metal to the place where they could be put together? No; other people did these things.

They in turn were working with the results of other human interactions - the people that made the mining tools and the tools for cutting and shaping the wood, the people that made the roads on which they travelled to work, the people who prouced the food that kept them allive while they were doing the work that led to your trowel, the people who educated them in how to do their jobs; and the people that kept them alive and clothed them and educated them and kept them healthy, etc etc, in a huge expanding net of social relationships.

Now, multiply that network of relationships that go into the trowel, to everything that you would need to grow some vegetables. You got the seeds from somewhere - someone else provided them in other words. They were carried to 'your' garden. Did you make the device that carried them? Did you invent 'the packet'? No, the bag was invented about 2.5 million years ago (and a packet is just a closed bag). But in a slightly more modern context, you didn't even put 'your' seeds in the packet. Those seeds were taken (not by you) from another plant (not grown by you) from another location (not prepared by you) and transported (not by you) to another location where you collected them. The water you used to water the plants was piped to 'your' property in pipes not laid by you, not made by you, from a water-treatment plant not built or designed or staffed by you. The topsoil that you put down in 'your' yard to make a suitable growing medium was not collected by you, or packaged by you, or transported by you. The knowledge of how to grow the seeds was not invented or discovered by you, nor did you invent your own language to encode the information to your brain.

All of these things are the result of trillions of interactions between people. Your role in the whole affair is momentary. This is why production - even if one person is the 'last shaper' as it were - is always social production and any notion that 'I made this, it is mine' is ludicrous. There's always an infinitely complex regression of who made the things that went into the making and who made the things that made the things that went into the making.

[OGirly]

This is an 'anarcho-capitalist' view not an Anarchist-Communist position.

To take only one example. You grow some vegetables. To do so, you need a gardening trowel in order to dig the holes to put the seeds in. Did you make the trowel? No, it was assembled elsewhere, from some shaped metal and some shaped wood. Did you mine and smelt the metal that was used to make the trowel? Did you cut and shape the wood? Did you transport the wood and metal to the place where they could be put together? No; other people did these things.

They in turn were working with the results of other human interactions - the people that made the mining tools and the tools for cutting and shaping the wood, the people that made the roads on which they travelled to work, the people who prouced the food that kept them allive while they were doing the work that led to your trowel, the people who educated them in how to do their jobs; and the people that kept them alive and clothed them and educated them and kept them healthy, etc etc, in a huge expanding net of social relationships.

Now, multiply that network of relationships that go into the trowel, to everything that you would need to grow some vegetables. You got the seeds from somewhere - someone else provided them in other words. They were carried to 'your' garden. Did you make the device that carried them? Did you invent 'the packet'? No, the bag was invented about 2.5 million years ago (and a packet is just a closed bag). But in a slightly more modern context, you didn't even put 'your' seeds in the packet. Those seeds were taken (not by you) from another plant (not grown by you) from another location (not prepared by you) and transported (not by you) to another location where you collected them. The water you used to water the plants was piped to 'your' property in pipes not laid by you, not made by you, from a water-treatment plant not built or designed or staffed by you. The topsoil that you put down in 'your' yard to make a suitable growing medium was not collected by you, or packaged by you, or transported by you. The knowledge of how to grow the seeds was not invented or discovered by you, nor did you invent your own language to encode the information to your brain.

All of these things are the result of trillions of interactions between people. Your role in the whole affair is momentary. This is why production - even if one person is the 'last shaper' as it were - is always social production and any notion that 'I made this, it is mine' is ludicrous. There's always an infinitely complex regression of who made the things that went into the making and who made the things that made the things that went into the making.

This really helped explain some things for me as to why Communist thought feels the way it does about private property. I was trying to explain this to someone recently, and I couldn't put it as well or as simply as you have here. Well done.

[Blake's Baby]

:)

Glad I could help. It seems so obvious to me that we're all the result of bazillions of other actions by other humans, that it astounds me when people don't seem to realise it. We are, as human beings, social products living among other social products. The notion of a 'soveriegn individual', devoid of social context, is just nonsense.

[Comrade Chernov]

I would say that there could be 'assigned' or 'chosen' living spaces on which people could have some sort of 'claim' to. Not ownership, per se, but everyone deserves a private space to themselves. I would say it's more of a libertarian viewpoint than a capitalist one.

Also, if a comrade is maintaining a garden, then would it not be necessary for them to have sole possession of the seeds, the tools, the soil, etc., in order to ensure the survival of the foodstuff?

[Bala Perdida]

Adding to that, I hear nothing you produce is yours, this means that any food you grow or ceramics pots you make (whatever else a common person can actually produce easily) is not yours and is added to the community supply instead. This is also okay I guess, assuming that the food I want at the moment, or the bowl I need to use can be taken or eaten after producing it; and everything else is given to the community.
To try to end the whole garden argument this is basically how I see it, I don't think any of us are against this. A harvest big enough, a barrel or more, will be held in common, I don't think this is bad even for the producer. If the producer wants more fruit than they took for themselves they can simply take more, provided they don't overindulge or start wasting food. Also all growers will be free to take of the fruits of other growers, so I think all of this in exchange for doing your part will destroy any greed. Now for things not in garden terms, like a worker owning a saw, I think that is simply self explanatory. He uses it, so he might as well have it with him. Thank you comrades for contributing do far, I am glad to have learned a lot about this subject. My view of a Communist Marxist society is now undoubtedly positive in accordance with what you comrades have told me. Please feel free to keep contributing, I hope to see informative posts from you across the forum.:grin:

[argeiphontes]

This is an 'anarcho-capitalist' view not an Anarchist-Communist position.

What makes the garden 'yours'? What makes the yard the garden is in 'yours'? What makes the product of the garden in the yard 'yours'?

No product can be the property of its 'maker' (as in the case of the veg you grow in 'your' garden) because the product is itself merely the latest of a practically infinite regression of human endeavour.

Your use of something is what makes something yours, if you're an anarchist. It's true that Kropotkin wanted to expropriate all goods during the revolution, but anarchists, including anarcho-communists, have a conception of possession based on occupancy and use (http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionB3#secb31) that's opposed to "property rights".



The communalization of clothing — the right of each to take what he needs from the communal stores, or to have it made for him at the tailors and outfitters — is a necessary corollary of the communalization of houses and food.

Obviously we shall not need for that to despoil all citizens of their coats, to put all the garments in a heap and draw lots for them, as our critics, with equal wit and ingenuity, suggest. Let him who has a coat keep it still — nay, if he have ten coats it is highly improbable that any one will want to deprive him of them, for most folk would prefer a new coat to one that has already graced the shoulders of some fat bourgeois; and there will be enough new garments and to spare, without having recourse to second-hand wardrobes




Besides, in support of their thesis in favour of [I]private property against all other forms of possession, should not the economists demonstrate that under the form of communal property land never produces such rich harvests as when the possession is private?




As Alexander Berkman frames this distinction, anarchism "abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title -- not to ownership but to possession."




"Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property while maintaining possession."

[argeiphontes]

My view of a Communist Marxist society is now undoubtedly positive in accordance with what you comrades have told me.

Well, in a Marxist Communist society your personal property is safer than under anarcho-communism I would think, as Subvert and Destroy's post makes clear, since there is only socialization of the means of production. ;)

[Blake's Baby]

Your use of something is what makes something yours, if you're an anarchist. It's true that Kropotkin wanted to expropriate all goods during the revolution, but anarchists, including anarcho-communists, have a conception of possession based on occupancy and use (http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionB3#secb31) that's opposed to "property rights".

Yeah? I'm not claiming that once you've used something (particularly, the product of the garden) that it's not yours. Definitely yours once you've eaten it, I'm certainly not going to get some half-digested fruit out of you for the community. But is the garden 'yours'? I don't think so.

[argeiphontes]

Yeah? I'm not claiming that once you've used something (particularly, the product of the garden) that it's not yours. Definitely yours once you've eaten it, I'm certainly not going to get some half-digested fruit out of you for the community. But is the garden 'yours'? I don't think so.

I think you could argue that the garden, while it's growing, is yours as long as you can use the produce. Also, the plot of land may be yours to use if it's your designated area of a communal plot or something, so somebody couldn't just come and dig it up. Those details are for anarcho-communists to argue about I suppose :).

[Blake's Baby]

I think you could argue that the garden, while it's growing, is yours as long as you can use the produce. Also, the plot of land may be yours to use if it's your designated area of a communal plot or something, so somebody couldn't just come and dig it up. Those details are for anarcho-communists to argue about I suppose :).

I don't think that makes it 'yours', I think that makes it the community's, but you're using it. Can you transfer 'ownership' to someone else? If you can't, it's not 'ownership'. If you can, it's not communism.

[argeiphontes]

I don't think that makes it 'yours', I think that makes it the community's, but you're using it. Can you transfer 'ownership' to someone else? If you can't, it's not 'ownership'. If you can, it's not communism.

That's pretty obvious in the case of land, but would that be true for all personal possessions? If I have claim to a coffee mug because I'm using it, could I give it to somebody else to use?

What about an object I've made? If I find some flax and make some rope, in what sense is it mine? Am I free to give it away or destroy it?

(This whole discussion might be interesting in the Theory section, i.e. anarchist and/or communist conceptions of property. I don't want to bring any personal opinion into it here, though, since the OP is about personal property in communism...)

[A Psychological Symphony]

I think you could argue that the garden, while it's growing, is yours as long as you can use the produce. Also, the plot of land may be yours to use if it's your designated area of a communal plot or something, so somebody couldn't just come and dig it up. Those details are for anarcho-communists to argue about I suppose :).

My understanding is that if you grow a couple tomatoes you can keep the tomatoes, no big deal. When you start claiming ownership of the garden you are essentially claiming ownership of that land, which makes it private property. How is that garden different from a farm or a factory other than the smaller scale?

[ckaihatsu]

Marx is more interested in appropriating the factories, buses and land titles than your toothbrush and your teddy bear.


http://s6.postimg.org/o1r7dcjxp/2493067750046342459_JArka_P_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/o1r7dcjxp/)





I think an issue with the thought that "everyone who wants something should participate in its production" may be that not everyone has the technical skills to produce said item. While he may contribute in his own way to the production of something else, I think that everything that the community can agree "We want to make this available to us" should become a project for the community.


This is a crucial point that *proves* a localist / community scale of production is wholly inappropriate for our modern cooperative productive abilities and capacities.

If the only things made must be produced locally ('economics'), and only by those who have a direct interest in it ('political'), then the economic and the political *must* be one and the same, which constrains initial production to the localist scale.

So as you're pointing out, RC, people may want / need something that's being produced by a particular community, but they themselves are not able to immediately contribute to its production -- although they may be able to contribute some way *externally*, for whatever that's worth.

I'm critical of the localist / community-based conception for this reason, since the only direction for this approach is to then generalize production to some kind of inter-community *exchanges*, which is problematic since labor is then being valued according to the final product, in a commodity-like way.





What about an object I've made? If I find some flax and make some rope, in what sense is it mine? Am I free to give it away or destroy it?


This is another very good point that indicates that perhaps all production *should* be considered nominally 'collectivist', even if accomplished by a sole individual.

It could be argued that the rope would probably last longer than the individual who made it, so what right does the maker of rope have to destroy it -- ?

In practice, of course, all that would matter is whether needed and desired items are plentiful / abundant enough, or not -- complications only arise when there's *not* enough to go around. But the point stands that there should be a good *collective* reason for any significant production or destruction.

[argeiphontes]

This is another very good point that indicates that perhaps all production *should* be considered nominally 'collectivist', even if accomplished by a sole individual.

It could be argued that the rope would probably last longer than the individual who made it, so what right does the maker of rope have to destroy it -- ?

In practice, of course, all that would matter is whether needed and desired items are plentiful / abundant enough, or not -- complications only arise when there's *not* enough to go around. But the point stands that there should be a good *collective* reason for any significant production or destruction.

What do you mean in practice? If I'm sitting on the porch one afternoon making rope from the flax I found growing in the ditch, and a member of the communal council walks by, he can say "Whoa there buddy, I'm going to have to confiscate your rope. It belongs to everybody now." or what? (I'm making the rope because I know I go through 100 feet of rope a year.)

What if I make rope and my neighbor makes soap? I can't trade rope for soap or try to make soap-on-a-rope to give people for Christmas, both of these have to be socialized?

Is this the type of communalization that Marx and other communists intended, or is what they indended closer to the one Rudolf Rocker suggested in my quote above? Rocker isn't going to take away my soap-on-a-rope, I would think, but he was an anarchist.

[ckaihatsu]

What do you mean in practice? If I'm sitting on the porch one afternoon making rope from the flax I found growing in the ditch, and a member of the communal council walks by, he can say "Whoa there buddy, I'm going to have to confiscate your rope. It belongs to everybody now." or what? (I'm making the rope because I know I go through 100 feet of rope a year.)


I'm only surmising here -- *I* wouldn't want any "communal council" to confiscate your rope, and I'm also on-record as being against any form of personage-based political representation *whatsoever*:





I'll ask if delegated representatives *are* really required anymore when our current political vehicle, the Internet-based discussion board, can facilitate massively participatory, though orderly and topic-specific conversations, across all ranges of geography and scales of populations.




[In] this day and age of fluid digital-based communications, we may want to dispense with formalized representative personages altogether and just conceptualize a productive entity within a supply chain network as having 'external business' or 'external matters' to include in its regular routine of entity-collective co-administration among its participants.




http://tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism





What if I make rope and my neighbor makes soap? I can't trade rope for soap or try to make soap-on-a-rope to give people for Christmas, both of these have to be socialized?


Well, like I say, only *nominally* -- the smaller the scale of production the less it matters in a social sense.





Is this the type of communalization that Marx and other communists intended, or is what they indended closer to the one Rudolf Rocker suggested in my quote above? Rocker isn't going to take away my soap-on-a-rope, I would think, but he was an anarchist.


Yeah, well, I'm not the Grinch, so go ahead with whatever kind of kinky Christmas you have in mind there....


= D

[helot]

If you're referring to the initial description of personal property, it's just pulled out of one of the most followed anarchist-communist theories. This is the theory of Pyotr Kropotkin, who's theory is elaborated in The Conquest of Bread. In the book he talks about people keeping their movable possessions (I guess that's one name for it), specifically I remember him talking about coats and how no one would want the coat of a "fat bourgeoisie" anyway (hahahaha). He also talks about how if an individual wants something, then they can have it by participating in it's production. So for example, if you want an accordion you can get it by helping to make it.
I hope this helps, and sorry if I over did it on the info. So basically, this comes from the widely accepted work on Anarcho-Communism The Conquest of Bread.


Chapter 4, Expropriation:


"Ah, Expropriation! I know what that means. You take all the overcoats and lay them in a heap, and every one is free to help himself and fight for the best." But such jests are irrelevant as well as flippant. What we want is not a redistribution of overcoats, although it must be said that even in such a case, the shivering folk would see advantage in it. Nor do we want to divide up the wealth of the Rothschilds. What we do want is so to arrange things that every human being born into the world shall be ensured the opportunity in the first instance of learning some useful occupation, and of becoming skilled in it; next, that he shall be free to work at his trade without asking leave of master or owner, and without handing over to landlord or capitalist the lion's share of what he produces. As to the wealth held by the Rothschilds or the Vanderbilts, it will serve us to organize our system of communal production.

I didn't take a notion of personal property from kropotkin at all. Instead i'd say he rejected it.

Towards the end of Ch 4 he goes on to reject a distinction between articles of consumption and production and actually claims dwellings, clothing, food etc must be common property:



Nevertheless, some Socialists still seek to establish a distinction. "Of course," they say, "the soil, the mines, the mills, and manufactures must be expropriated, these are the instruments of production, and it is right we should consider them public property. But articles of consumption--food, clothes, and dwellings--should remain private property."
Popular common sense has got the better of this subtle distinction. We are not savages who can live in the woods, without other shelter than the branches. The civilized man needs a roof, a room, a hearth, and a bed. It is true that the bed, the room, and the house is a home of idleness for the non-producer. But for the worker, a room, properly heated and lighted, is as much an instrument of production as the tool or the machine. It is the place where the nerves and sinews gather strength for the work of the morrow. The rest of the workman is the daily repairing of the machine.
The same argument applies even more obviously to food. The so-called economists of whom we speak would hardly deny that the coal burnt in a machine is as necessary to production as the raw material itself. How then can food, without which the human machine could do no work, be excluded from the list of things indispensable to the producer? Can this be a relic of religious metaphysics? The rich man's feast is indeed a matter of luxury, but the food of the worker is just as much a part of production as the fuel burnt by the steam-engine.
The same with clothing. If the economists who draw this distinction between articles of production and of consumption dressed themselves in the fashion of New Guinea, we could understand their objection. But men who could not write a word without a shirt on their back are not in a position to draw such a hard and fast line between their shirt and their pen. And though the dainty gowns of their dames must certainly rank as objects of luxury, there is nevertheless a certain quantity of linen, cotton, and woollen stuff which is a necessity of life to the producer. The shirt and shoes in which he goes to his work, his cap and the jacket he slips on after the day's toil is over, these are as necessary to him as the hammer to the anvil.
This is fully in line with Kropotkin's views that everything is common property hell, "There is not even a thought... which is not common property, born of the past and the present." (Ch 1)



Or maybe it's my own biased reading.

[argeiphontes]

Yeah, well, I'm not the Grinch, so go ahead with whatever kind of kinky Christmas you have in mind there....


= D

Thanks, and I'm not picking on you personally. I was wondering how Marxist communists have traditionally conceptualized personal property. I've always thought, as you said, that personal-scale interactions don't magically negate a communist society, but others have suggested that all property and possessions are somehow social property. I don't think this squares with Marxism or anarchism. Why, for example, would someone be able to come into my garden and take my tomatoes or something like that? Just because I'm making something? I'm making it for my own use. That's why I brought up the rope, because it doesn't involve use of land, which is an obvious means of production (though it could still be assigned or lent to somebody for a season).

[ckaihatsu]

Thanks, and I'm not picking on you personally. I was wondering how Marxist communists have traditionally conceptualized personal property. I've always thought, as you said, that personal-scale interactions don't magically negate a communist society, but others have suggested that all property and possessions are somehow social property. I don't think this squares with Marxism or anarchism. Why, for example, would someone be able to come into my garden and take my tomatoes or something like that? Just because I'm making something? I'm making it for my own use. That's why I brought up the rope, because it doesn't involve use of land, which is an obvious means of production (though it could still be assigned or lent to somebody for a season).


Well, we have to keep in mind that everything takes place in some kind of material context, so it's conceivable that there *could* be certain conditions under which your tomatoes would not be your own -- what if the context was one of a prolonged worldwide political struggle against the bourgeoisie, with overwhelming efforts going towards opposing the oppressors -- ?

Perhaps you were the only one with foresight enough to grow food on your premises, and the local collectivized farm just got bombed to shit by the capitalists -- would you deny your comrades the fruits of your labor in this situation -- ?

[helot]

Thanks, and I'm not picking on you personally. I was wondering how Marxist communists have traditionally conceptualized personal property. I've always thought, as you said, that personal-scale interactions don't magically negate a communist society, but others have suggested that all property and possessions are somehow social property. I don't think this squares with Marxism or anarchism. Why, for example, would someone be able to come into my garden and take my tomatoes or something like that? Just because I'm making something? I'm making it for my own use. That's why I brought up the rope, because it doesn't involve use of land, which is an obvious means of production (though it could still be assigned or lent to somebody for a season).


I don't think anyone's saying someone going into your garden unilaterally to take the few tomatoes you've been growing is acceptable. That garden, those plants, are a community resource that, if you're the one occupying that space and using it, has been turned over to your care until it is agreed otherwise.

Besides, it's not just you that's cultivating, is it? Those tomato plants are the product of past labour. Millions of workers in the past have selectively bred plants to provide succulent fruits and vegetables. Millions of workers have worked that land your garden is a part of. Hell, it no doubt has been watered with human blood. It is no more yours than anyone elses. All that can be said is occupancy, use, possession. Not ownership.

[argeiphontes]

Towards the end of Ch 4 he goes on to reject a distinction between articles of consumption and production and actually claims dwellings, clothing, food etc must be common property:

This is fully in line with Kropotkin's views that everything is common property hell, "There is not even a thought... which is not common property, born of the past and the present." (Ch 1)

Or maybe it's my own biased reading.

I thought he was talking about expropriation, not about the future communist relations. He's also not the only anarcho-communist so anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.

(In fact, good thing I'm not a communist or I'd complain that Kropotkin was an ahistorical, unanthropological idealist with fetishistic notions about objects, that don't square with the rest of the anarchist tradition. But maybe that's my biased reading. ;))

I was hoping the online gift economy would deliver more usable product from the quote mines, especially from Marxist communism...

[argeiphontes]

Besides, it's not just you that's cultivating is it? Those tomato plants are the product of past labour. Millions of workers in the past have selectively bred plants to provide succulent fruits and vegetables. Millions of workers have worked that land your garden is a part of. Hell, it no doubt has been watered with human blood. It is no more yours than anyone elses.

So even seeds are the means of production? Keep in mind that I didn't acquire them outside of the communist system I'm living in, they were freely given by the producers, and anyone could have acquired their own set.

I think this type of interrelation argument is bogus. Production is a human relation subject to interrelatedness, for sure, but how does that inhere in the final product without some kind of fetishism, would be my question?

[helot]

I thought he was talking about expropriation, not about the future communist relations. He's also not the only anarcho-communist so anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.

(In fact, good thing I'm not a communist or I'd complain that Kropotkin was an ahistorical, unanthropological idealist with fetishistic notions about objects, that don't square with the rest of the anarchist tradition. But maybe that's my biased reading. ;))

I was hoping the online gift economy would deliver more usable product from the quote mines, especially from Marxist communism...

That post was refuting your claim that Kropotkin advocated personal property, nothing more. If you wanna discuss differing thoughts between anarcho-communists fair enough but the question of property, even personal, isn't that contentious. The divide is primarily over unions.



So even seeds are the means of production? Keep in mind that I didn't acquire them outside of the communist system I'm living in, they were freely given by the producers, and anyone could have acquired their own set. Seeds are no different to metals used in producing various items. I suppose the usual term is "articles of production".

If i cannot own the mine why should i be able to own the iron?


What makes you think that because you've been freely provided with what you need to live and to produce that you should own the product?






I think this type of interrelation argument is bogus. Production is a human relation subject to interrelatedness, for sure, but how does that inhere in the final product without some kind of fetishism, would be my question?

My point is that production is social even if in one given time it involves only one individual. I fail to see why there should be any temporal limits to this understanding.

[argeiphontes]

Well, we have to keep in mind that everything takes place in some kind of material context, so it's conceivable that there *could* be certain conditions under which your tomatoes would not be your own -- what if the context was one of a prolonged worldwide political struggle against the bourgeoisie, with overwhelming efforts going towards opposing the oppressors -- ?

Perhaps you were the only one with foresight enough to grow food on your premises, and the local collectivized farm just got bombed to shit by the capitalists -- would you deny your comrades the fruits of your labor in this situation -- ?

No, I would totally agree that there are circumstances that override any kind of rights, even rights to use something. Actually, based on your cute poster (I love the giant toothbrush) it seems we agree that 'use' is the basis for personal possessions. That's also in line with anarchism.


That post was refuting your claim that Kropotkin advocated personal property, nothing more.


Gotcha, I just thought he was going above and beyond what other anarchists, even anarcho-communists, like Rocker, thought. There was that one passage where he seemed to distinguish property from possessions, so I thought I could "rehabilitate" him into the anarchist tradition. But I'll concede what you're saying, I couldn't find anything else besides that one passage so what you say makes sense.



If you wanna discuss differing thoughts between anarcho-communists fair enough but the question of property, even personal, isn't that contentious.

What makes you think that because you've been freely provided with what you need to live and to produce that you should own the product?


Right, but my understanding is that it's based on the idea of 'usufruct' rights rather than 'property' in the sense of 'proprietor' or 'ownership'. I was just wondering about the boundaries, which Kropotkin seemed to be pushing. It seems obvious that nobody has a claim on anything above what they can personally use, however, no matter how much labor they put into it. If I'm going to be eating all my tomatoes and smelting all my iron, though, I would think most anarcho-communists would agree that I have a claim to it.

[Blake's Baby]

That's pretty obvious in the case of land, but would that be true for all personal possessions? If I have claim to a coffee mug because I'm using it, could I give it to somebody else to use? ...

Been thinking about this, so I've come back to it. It's a reasonable question.

The answer is, sure you could give it to someone. But their claim to 'ownership' is based on their use of it, not your transference of any kind of 'propertry right'. They have the 'right' to use your coffee cup anyway (because they 'own' it as part of the community). The fact that you are using it trumps their theoretical right to potentially use it, though. If you stop using it, you don't get to 'transfer' your right to anyone else - because you've given up your 'use-right' and then have the same relationship to it as everybody else does. Even if you say 'I am no longer going to use this mug, I want it to go to Kevin', no-one else in the community has to accept that. So, no, you can't transfer ownership, you just stop using something.

[argeiphontes]

Even if you say 'I am no longer going to use this mug, I want it to go to Kevin', no-one else in the community has to accept that.

That would mean that even if I made the mug with my own two hands and a pottery wheel, I wouldn't be able to choose who gets it? (I don't mean 'make' in the sense of commodity production, just a hobby or something.) So would the community get to veto my Christmas gifts?

I don't think possessions have ever worked that way in all of human history.

[Blake's Baby]

Did you make the mug that I'm talking about, that I got from the community store, and used for 3 months, or only the mug you are talking about, that you just made this morning?

That may - or may not - make a difference to the argument.

[Tenka]

That would mean that even if I made the mug with my own two hands and a pottery wheel, I wouldn't be able to choose who gets it? (I don't mean 'make' in the sense of commodity production, just a hobby or something.) So would the community get to veto my Christmas gifts?

Well you don't give a gift to someone whom you don't expect to find a use for it, unless you don't know that person very well (then why give a gift?). And of course an individual has a use for more than one mug. We aren't exactly deciding on rational distribution of scarce coffee mugs in Communism.


I don't think possessions have ever worked that way in all of human history.


I don't think we've ever had real Communism in all of human history so I guess it's a dumb idea...

[argeiphontes]

^ Oh I agree. I do give it to somebody who could use it, or else it would be stupid and I really would be wasting it. If somebody does something that shows they don't have any further use for the item, like donates it or puts it out on the curb, then somebody else can come along and say "Ha! I have a use for that, it's mine now" and take it home.

I thought Blake's Baby might be saying that, for example, as soon as I get off my bike it's no longer mine. Or a sleeping bag I use for camping is only mine when I'm camping. Or something like that.

[Blake's Baby]

Use is generally taken to include periods of non-utilisation. I use a toothbrush, but amazingly I don't brush my teeth 24 hours a day. I'm using my house to live in even when I go out. I'm using my shoes, even when I'm wearing my slippers. I'm using my food, even if I pause between mouthfulls.

As for the bike, well, depends how much you use it I figure. If it's twice a day, then I think it's reasonable to assume that's 'your' bike. If it's once every 6 months, and there is a shortage of bikes for the community, then I'd say it's not 'your' bike, it's a community bike, that you use for short periods.

[argeiphontes]

I get what you're saying, but it implies that I can only own personal property that I use on some community-decided frequency. I think there's a right to personal property that lets you decide the disposition of the item. At least I think I do.

[Blake's Baby]

I get what you're saying, but it implies that I can only own personal property that I use on some community-decided frequency...

Yes of course. Ultimately 'the community' - which includes you, and everyone else - has the right to deprive you of anything, even your bed and your toothbrush and your food.

But as the community operates on the principle that the freedom of the individual is guaranteed by general freedom, why should it? Unless you're trying to expropriate from the community by claiming 'private' property of course.

The short version of this is, why should you get to decide that something is 'yours' if you're not actually using it?


I think there's a right to personal property that lets you decide the disposition of the item. At least I think I do.

Why?

[ckaihatsu]

Just for the record I have to put in that this conversation is turning into a grand exercise in hair-splitting -- like the worst from religious scholasticism or academia.

The overall issue at stake here is whether items are *plentiful* or not -- and, by definition, a communist-type society would be making *all* technological production serve the needs of *all* people, without exception.

So if there are 10 billion people on the planet and society has ramped-up production to produce 25 billion mugs, then everyone has at least 2 mugs at their personal disposal and much better things to do with their time than bicker over how those mugs should be distributed.

[argeiphontes]

Yes of course. Ultimately 'the community' - which includes you, and everyone else - has the right to deprive you of anything, even your bed and your toothbrush and your food.

Well, if you'd like to go above and beyond what most socialists mean by abolition of private property, I think you should justify it somehow. Otherwise, I have to assume that the majority of people, who believe in their right to personal possessions, are correct. Why would "the community" have this right above me, if my possessions were obtained legitimately? Even "primitive" people have personal possessions.


The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

....

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property.


I'll take the old man's view on this, thank you. :)

[Blake's Baby]

Well, if you'd like to go above and beyond what most socialists mean by abolition of private property, I think you should justify it somehow. Otherwise, I have to assume that the majority of people, who believe in their right to personal possessions, are correct. Why would "the community" have this right above me, if my possessions were obtained legitimately? Even "primitive" people have personal possessions.



I'll take the old man's view on this, thank you. :)

What does this even mean, if not 'if my possessions were granted to me with the approval of the community'?

[argeiphontes]

What does this even mean, if not 'if my possessions were granted to me with the approval of the community'?

Sure. I didn't exploit labor or steal the item. I took it from the communal pot, traded for it, or otherwise acquired it by following social norms. But once it's mine, it's mine to do with as I please. This is circular, of course, so now that it's mine I can give it to someone else and they will have come by it legitimately too.

[Blake's Baby]

No, it's not 'yours', and you can't gift it. It never was yours, it's only being used by you an belongs to the community the whole time.

[argeiphontes]

No, it's not 'yours', and you can't gift it. It never was yours, it's only being used by you an belongs to the community the whole time.

I disagree. I will keep legitimately obtaining personal property and disposing of it as I see fit. Get your own toothbrush. It's mine! All mine! Mwah hah hah hah hah hah hah! :laugh: