communism and personal property [Archive]

Blake's Baby

18th February 2014, 22:29

Yes, it's called communism.

I am in somewhat of a minority on this board in arguing that people have mistaken the notion of 'property'.

In socialist society something will be 'yours' because you use it - your toothbrush, your clothes, your bed, your house even, possibly. But these are all social products and it's up to society as a whole what happens to them. If the situation changes then yes, the community can say, 'right, we don't have enough houses, someone else has to come and live with you'. You can argue but if the decision goes against you then someone else moves in, it's that simple. You can't sell your house, you can't bequeath it, you can't burn it down, and you can't over-rule the community if they say someone else should move in, so in what sense it it really 'yours'? Only by virtue of the fact that you use it, just like anything else you use.

In this situation the notion of 'personal property' is just so much hogwash inherited from capitalism, I'd argue.

L.A.P.

18th February 2014, 22:51

^definitely this

the post above Blake's indicates remnants of a liberal notion of individual liberty that has no place in a Marxist paradigm

Sinister Intents

18th February 2014, 23:05

^definitely this

the post above Blake's indicates remnants of a liberal notion of individual liberty that has no place in a Marxist paradigm

I agree with Blake as well, but how for my post? I'm busy and don't feel like making lengthy posts

Diirez

18th February 2014, 23:20

Why would you not want personal property anyways?

Blake's Baby

18th February 2014, 23:22

I agree with Blake as well, but how for my post? I'm busy and don't feel like making lengthy posts

But you feel like agreeing with posts that directly contradict your posts?

Is there a communist ideology where personal property don't exist?

None that I've seen at all. Personal property is just that, it's your own damn property and your own damn business.

Is there a communist ideology where personal property don't exist?

Yes, it's called communism...

...the notion of 'personal property' is just so much hogwash inherited from capitalism, I'd argue.

Why would you not want personal property anyways?

because it's hogwash inherited from capitalism.

Sinister Intents

18th February 2014, 23:35

@ Blake
I see what you're saying, I'll take your word for it. I didn't see how that was contradictory at all but I see now.

Blake's Baby

18th February 2014, 23:57

You say that there'll be personal property in communism. I say there won't. How could they be any less contradictory?

Sinister Intents

19th February 2014, 00:47

You say that there'll be personal property in communism. I say there won't. How could they be any less contradictory?

I was thinking personal items that you use being personal property, like your bong being your own property and your clothes being your property. I do see how that's contradictory, but I learned so I won't make that mistake again :)

Blake's Baby

19th February 2014, 01:13

People use the term 'personal property'. Like, I play the guitar. I've had the same one for 30 years. I can't see any earthly reason why the community would need it, but would I give it up if the community said 'that guitar is vital for x-compelling reason'? I'd have to I think. I don't get to decide that my use of a guitar (or anything else) is higher in the chain of necessity than someone else's use of the resources it represents.

I dunno. If someone is going to die of hypothermia if we don't burn it or something, yeah I'd burn it. It's just a thing. It's not as important as a person.

PhoenixAsh

19th February 2014, 01:14

I don't agree with Blake because his post is full of cognitive dissonance and extremely sloppy...and quite frankly...theoretically wrong.

There is a significant distinction between private property and possession. In capitalism both are property. In Anarchism / communism...the distinction is huge.

A property within Anarchism/communism is something which is used to exploit others. In short...the means of production. Possessions are things you own (Like your bed. Your toothbrush.....and yes... your house) that can not be used to exploit others (unless you rent out your house...which makes it immediately become property)

Property is a big nono. Possessions...are those things you own because you use them or accumulated them. The community has no say in that what so every.

Taking his arguments to its logical extreme...the community short on toothbrushes votes you have to share yours. Which is ridiculous...but exactly what he says. And that is simply not the case. Actually occupation and use are considered the ONLY relevant title and the community simply has no say on that.

Your teddy bear belongs to you. The factory that produces the teddy bear belongs to the community.

To quote Proudhon: "Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property while maintaining possession."

Blake's Baby

19th February 2014, 01:24

RedCornFlakes

19th February 2014, 01:40

There is such thing as Libertarian Socialism

PhoenixAsh

19th February 2014, 01:56

Excellent, I'm getting a mansion on day one, and if I'm possessing it, you can all live under a bench in the park and die of cold for all I care, fuck the lot of you.

Cognitive dissonance my arse. Go on, I dare you, pull out one example, let alone demonstrating that my post is 'full' of it. Massively rigourous it is pal, I don't even have to invent different categories of 'property' or anything.

I think I just gave you a perfect example....so I really don't see the challenge of that "dare".

The cognitive dissonance is that you label items as social products which are ultimately controlled by the community. That is the core argument of your post. And you build from there. However the community does not control any of these items.

What the community controls are the means of production. They do not control your toothbrush. Your bed. Your chair. These are yours. You occupy or use them and as such you control them.

This distinction between property and possession has always been a part of the dialogue and hasn't been "invented" as you suggest. Marxists make the distinction between private property and personal property and Anarchists make the very same distinction but between private property and possession. Both however refer to private property purely on the basis of the productive powers of property...in other words...the means of production. Which...btw...was also the common parlance use of the term in Marx time.

So yeah...you are wrong.

Blake's Baby

19th February 2014, 02:00

Halert

19th February 2014, 02:14

I think I just gave you a perfect example....so I really don't see the challenge of that "dare".

The cognitive dissonance is that you label items as social products which are ultimately controlled by the community. That is the core argument of your post. And you build from there. However the community does not control any of these items.

What the community controls are the means of production. They do not control your toothbrush. Your bed. Your chair. These are yours. You occupy or use them and as such you control them.

This distinction between property and possession has always been a part of the dialogue and hasn't been "invented" as you suggest. Marxists make the distinction between private property and personal property and Anarchists make the very same distinction but between private property and possession. Both however refer to private property purely on the basis of the productive powers of property...in other words...the means of production. Which...btw...was also the common parlance use of the term in Marx time.

So yeah...you are wrong.

things like yachts, expensive jewelry, big mansions would be considered personal possessions. During the revolution the means of production will be expropriated, but it will be fine for the super rich to keep all their wealth in the form of yachts, mansions and jewelry? even thou it has been acquired through exploitation.

PhoenixAsh

19th February 2014, 02:16

In other words, you can't find any examples of cognitive dissonance. Do you even know what it means?

No, the community controls social products too. I don't get to hoard food because it's 'personal property' (it's really not a MOP) while other people starve. Fuck that if you think we're having the revolution just so someone can go 'I'm possessing this massive house and this stockpile of food, fuck you'.

It is striving for internal continuity between two contradictory believes. So...in your case trying to equate the notion of communism with community control over toothbrushes.

The community does not control social products because these...do not exist. The community controls the means of production and production.

You...however...get to do whatever you like with your possessions or personal property. Just as long as you do not use them to exploit others or turn them into private property. Once it is yours...it is yours.

You can store as much food as you want. You can expand your house as much as you want unless it infringes on somebody else. You can even use your toothbrush to paint the walls. The community has no say in it. Period...until you turn them into exploitative property or infringe on the rights of others.

Blake's Baby

19th February 2014, 17:26

PhoenixAsh

19th February 2014, 20:27

Can I haver a mansion on the basis of 'possession' while other people are homeless? Can I hoard food while other people are starving?

If not, why not? Neither of these are 'means of production' and therefore the community has no say over them, according to you.

things like yachts, expensive jewelry, big mansions would be considered personal possessions. During the revolution the means of production will be expropriated, but it will be fine for the super rich to keep all their wealth in the form of yachts, mansions and jewelry? even thou it has been acquired through exploitation.

Yeah....because DOPT is completely the same as a communist society. Stop playing the argument shift game. You were wrong. Period.

:rolleyes:

But yeah....lets run with your arguments:

Are the Western, white, male, heterosexual workers allowed to keep any thing they have? Since that has basically been gained through exploitation of the colonies. And what about the black workers in America and Europe? They, while being more disenfranchised than white workers....still benefit from societies exploitation of former colonies.

So what do you propose? We are going to assemble each and all objects in a large square....have all the people pack up and deliver all their stuff there....then we make an inventory and then redistribute them all?

Then we are going to redistribute houses and radomly assign them to people. Because...you know...fuck where you have been living...other people might need that house.

:laugh: :laugh:

Because that is the logical extend of your notion that the community has anything to say about your toothbrush and who gets to use it.

:lol:

Not to mention of course that "wealth" in a communist interpretation is either a production factor....or...probably useless. Given the nature of...you know....no markets. So...seeing as wealth is a production factor...what do you think happens to it?

Blake's Baby

19th February 2014, 22:59

Why the fuck would we get everything together in a large square? What's the point?

Everything is controlled by the community. What's so hard to grasp?

PhoenixAsh

19th February 2014, 23:26

Why the fuck would we get everything together in a large square? What's the point?

Everything is controlled by the community. What's so hard to grasp?

You don't get the point? So basically...you haven't thought through what you just argued yourself and the implication of your words?

Because the implication of your words is that all possessions are null and void and everything in the west is basically a product or an end result of exploitation. Period.

And that means they need to be redistributed...because what YOU have right now might be something somebody else NEEDS. And EVERYTHING you currently have is a result of exploitation of somebody somewhere.

So either walk the walk or stop talking the talk.

The community...in Marxist (both traditional and modern) and Anarchism only has power over the means of production. This is what is meant with private property...both in Marx's time and there has always been a clear distinction between private property and personal property (or...in anarchism...private property and possession)

The community has fuck all to say about my toothbrush, my books, my kids teddy bear or what the hell I chose to do with the products I accumulate....simply because they are NOT the communities business.

The notion that all objects produced are somehow controlled by the community which is the ultimate arbiter to say what you should do and therefore how you should live your life is both ridiculous and insane for reasons that should be beyond obvious...but mainly because they quite simply are anti-communist.

Now think through the implications of what you are suggesting...of a majority control of ALL objects....and what that means for authority, individualism, and social standing of individuals.

A nice example...if you are not well liked by the community the community can simply impose its will and dominance on you simply by voting on how you can use the products in your possession. Now...think that through. Because you are suggesting a society that simply would amount to a new form of hierarchy imposed on individuals and a new class system based on social standing.

Diirez

20th February 2014, 02:36

Blake's Baby

20th February 2014, 11:52

And if I decided not to? That my guitar was more important than someone else's life? That's OK with you is it?

Blake's Baby

20th February 2014, 11:54

You don't get the point? So basically...you haven't thought through what you just argued yourself and the implication of your words? ...

Yeah, I think people aren't assholes. You seem to think they are.

ArisVelouxiotis

20th February 2014, 13:01

And if I decided not to? That my guitar was more important than someone else's life? That's OK with you is it?

Is your guitar a magical healing device?

PhoenixAsh

20th February 2014, 13:06

Yeah, I think people aren't assholes. You seem to think they are.

No. You seem to think they are....and thus need the community to be forced to do something they do not want to do. You continuously keep revering to people not wanting to help others in order to show why the community needs control over all objects.

That is the basis of your whole argument against possession.

I on the other hand think communities are assholes and will become so if they are given that kind of power with such a micro regulatory power over somebodies daily life and business

PhoenixAsh

20th February 2014, 13:16

And if I decided not to? That my guitar was more important than someone else's life? That's OK with you is it?

Yes. Perfectly fine.

Do you think your guitar is the only thing that can safe a live?

Don't you think that once the community comes to a point that individual lives depend on the good will of one single of its members the community has fucked up entirely?

Don't you think when NO volunteers are found to take somebody who is homeless (how the heel did that happen in commie society in the first place) or to feed somebody who is starving (again...don't see it happening unless on a huge scale) then the community voting on why has to sacrifice is a mood point?

My point being...the community finds solutions and volunteers & not by forcing others to do what they do not want to do.

Hell if you want to sacrifice your guitar...that is awesome. Because that means nobody else has to do it. And you can borrow mine from time to time until you find a new one. <--- THAT is how it is done.

Not by all coming together and deciding that you have to sacrifice your guitar because we say so.

ArisVelouxiotis

20th February 2014, 14:06

Yes. Perfectly fine.

Do you think your guitar is the only thing that can safe a live?

Don't you think that once the community comes to a point that individual lives depend on the good will of one single of its members the community has fucked up entirely?

Don't you think when NO volunteers are found to take somebody who is homeless (how the heel did that happen in commie society in the first place) or to feed somebody who is starving (again...don't see it happening unless on a huge scale) then the community voting on why has to sacrifice is a mood point?

My point being...the community finds solutions and volunteers & not by forcing others to do what they do not want to do.

Hell if you want to sacrifice your guitar...that is awesome. Because that means nobody else has to do it. And you can borrow mine from time to time until you find a new one. <--- THAT is how it is done.

Not by all coming together and deciding that you have to sacrifice your guitar because we say so.

Well if it really saved one's life how could you say no to that?And how could that be fine?Except if there is another way you really shouldn't have the option to deny saving one's life when you have the tools to do it.

Blake's Baby

20th February 2014, 18:31

Is your guitar a magical healing device?

I take it you didn't bother to read either Diirez's post or the post of mine that it quoted. If you're going to jump into the middle of an argument, you could at least make sure what's being argued about.

We were discussing the situation o someone potentially suffering from hypothermia and my guitar being the last bit of burnable material to keep a fire going. Am I at liberty to let someone die rather than sacrifice 'my' property?

PheonixAsh says yes, I say no.

ArisVelouxiotis

20th February 2014, 18:55

I take it you didn't bother to read either Diirez's post or the post of mine that it quoted. If you're going to jump into the middle of an argument, you could at least make sure what's being argued about.

We were discussing the situation o someone potentially suffering from hypothermia and my guitar being the last bit of burnable material to keep a fire going. Am I at liberty to let someone die rather than sacrifice 'my' property?

PheonixAsh says yes, I say no.

I can't think of a more ridiculous example but whatever I'll play along.I believe that the community has no right on your possesions personal property whatever but if it's life or death then I think it does.I think this should be obvious.

Slavic

20th February 2014, 21:50

Holy shit these examples are so extreme and farfetched they are not based in any reality whatsoever. Just in the US alone there are enough empty houses to house the current homeless population and enough food to provided basic subsistence to the population.

So I'm going to assume, that order numero uno during a communist revolution would be to utilize the current surplus of food and houses to shelter and feed those without. Once production has been socialized, commodities will be produced for their use-value for what ever is needed for the immediate society.

I can not see a situation where I will have to share my toothbrush with the village and I'd be damn if the village forces me to pass around my toothbrush.

Communism =/= happy friendly sunshine hippie communes
Communism = socialized production for use-value

I can provide for the community by donating my labor toward production of use-values the community need, but I'm not going to be fucking Mother Teresa and live like a monk.

Blake's Baby

20th February 2014, 22:27

I can't think of a more ridiculous example but whatever I'll play along...

Of course it's a fairly ridiculous example. I tried to think of the possession that I would least like to give up, and then had a to construct a reason to give it up. FFS, if the question was 'would you care if someone used something you didn't care about?' then of course the answer woul be 'no, I don't care'. But what would that have demonstrated?

... I believe that the community has no right on your possesions personal property whatever but if it's life or death then I think it does.I think this should be obvious.

So no rights whatever - except for the obvious rights that it does have?

Thanks for playing but really, that answer doesn't mean anything.

Holy shit these examples are so extreme and farfetched they are not based in any reality whatsoever. Just in the US alone there are enough empty houses to house the current homeless population and enough food to provided basic subsistence to the population...

Great. And when the refugees start coming in? Can you house and feed them too?

...

I can not see a situation where I will have to share my toothbrush with the village...

No, nor can I. Don't worry, it's PhoenixAsh that has an obsession with toothbrushes.

One thing worries me though. I need a toothbrush. So I go to the community store to get one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

After 2 days of this the community store has run out of toothbrushes. Comrade PheonixAsh needs a toothbrush, but there aren't any left. I've had them all. Should the community at any point have been able to stop me?

PhoenixAsh

20th February 2014, 23:25

We were discussing the situation o someone potentially suffering from hypothermia and my guitar being the last bit of burnable material to keep a fire going. Am I at liberty to let someone die rather than sacrifice 'my' property?

The logical fallacy is that there would be such a situation in which the community plays an active role where one single individual holds the power over life and death.

This situation however is so beyond far fetched that it ignores the fact that:

1). When such situations occurs the community failed completely and utterly in a much much earlier stage. If the community is not able to have prevented such a situation or find a solution (without forcing the majority opinion on some random individual), or has planned for the occurrence of certain situations going to happen....then it is a flawed community.

2). The situation in which one single individual can make a difference...as you describe here...would either not involve the community by its extended logic that if there was a community you wouldn't be the only one to make a difference....but it would also be a situation that would not require a vote of the community simply because of its urgency. So your example boils down to individual morality which is detached from whether or not the community can actively own your possessions by default.

Your assertion was, at the basis of the entire argument, that the community has control over all things you have in your possession and use by default. (I will quote this later on). Yet your examples are rare occurrences which would be tantamount to urgency and exceptional force majeure. In which case you argue that the community should have the ability to commandeer possessions for that very specific instance...which is a far cry from having default ownership.

PhoenixAsh says yes, I say no.

I do say yes. Because it is a morality issue and not one of possession.

Of course it's a fairly ridiculous example. I tried to think of the possession that I would least like to give up, and then had a to construct a reason to give it up. FFS, if the question was 'would you care if someone used something you didn't care about?' then of course the answer woul be 'no, I don't care'. But what would that have demonstrated?

So no rights whatever - except for the obvious rights that it does have?

Thanks for playing but really, that answer doesn't mean anything.

It is a morality issue and not one of possession. The community can punish somebody for letting another die.

Great. And when the refugees start coming in? Can you house and feed them too?

So to continue from what I stated earlier. Again...this is a force majeure situation. But also one that does not have to be solved by enacting a default community ownership of all objects in society.

There are ample solutions that do not require this kind of force:
1). build housing
2). build temporary housing & open public spaces for temporary dwellings until permanent dwellings are build or the reason of the refugees is addressed
3). ASK the community for help and volunteers

are the ones that quickly come to mind,

No, nor can I. Don't worry, it's PhoenixAsh that has an obsession with toothbrushes.

I will quote you:

In socialist society something will be 'yours' because you use it - your toothbrush, your clothes, your bed, your house even, possibly. But these are all social products and it's up to society as a whole what happens to them.

One thing worries me though. I need a toothbrush. So I go to the community store to get one.

20 minutes later I get another one. etc. etc.

After 2 days of this the community store has run out of toothbrushes. Comrade PheonixAsh needs a toothbrush, but there aren't any left. I've had them all. Should the community at any point have been able to stop me?

Well...fuck the community for squashing my life long dream and ambition to build a toothbrush fort. ;)

But seriously.

This is a very valid point you bring up. However this is not an issue of possession but one of distribution...which is an entirely different matter. Hoarding...especially of scarce products obviously needs to be prevented....but it occurs before something becomes a possession.

I will not argue against the community seeing to it that products are distributed fairly. But once something is distributed it becomes a possession and it is out of the communities control.

So...if everybody gets 10 banana's a day...and I decide to only eat four...and store 6 and after a while I have 60 banana's....the community can't simply decide to redistribute them.

I am not entirely opposed to a force majeure situation in which these banana's are needed to be commandeered. But there needs to a serious reason and there needs to be some form of compensation when the situation allows. But again....this is not a default ownership by the community.

Blake's Baby

20th February 2014, 23:33

So rich people in capitalism who manage to hang on to their property can keep it?

Brutus

20th February 2014, 23:39

So rich people in capitalism who manage to hang on to their property can keep it?

So if I grab 30 houses during the revolution, it's my personal property and I get to keep 'em all?

Diirez

21st February 2014, 00:03

And if I decided not to? That my guitar was more important than someone else's life? That's OK with you is it?
No but I also don't see how abolishing personal property is okay either. That would mean the government would take your guitar for whatever reason or other people taking it and using it, since you don't own it.

Blake's Baby

21st February 2014, 00:16

No but I also don't see how abolishing personal property is okay either. That would mean the government would take your guitar for whatever reason or other people taking it and using it, since you don't own it.

What government? Seriously?

Why would the community need to take my guitar? 'For whatever reason'? Why? What's wrong with 'I'm using it' as a reason?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

21st February 2014, 00:22

One thing worries me though. I need a toothbrush. So I go to the community store to get one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

After 2 days of this the community store has run out of toothbrushes. Comrade PheonixAsh needs a toothbrush, but there aren't any left. I've had them all. Should the community at any point have been able to stop me?

I'd imagine if this behaviour was generalised, then there would be no communism.

IIRC you were arguing in another thread (correctly, I might add) that the reason the streets will get swept under communism is because nobody wants to live in a society where the streets are just left dirty, etc. I'd imagine the same solidarity would need to be seen on a society-wide level for communism to exist.

PhoenixAsh

21st February 2014, 00:28

So rich people in capitalism who manage to hang on to their property can keep it?

You keep getting back to this. Explain to me why they can't.

So if I grab 30 houses during the revolution, it's my personal property and I get to keep 'em all?

Besides the fact that that is theft....and that there is no reason for you to appropriate them for yourself nor would you be able to or allowed to do so.

...the logical extent of the idea of possession is: Only if you use all 30 of them.

PhoenixAsh

21st February 2014, 00:35

What government? Seriously?

Why would the community need to take my guitar? 'For whatever reason'? Why? What's wrong with 'I'm using it' as a reason?

That is quite a reversal of statement. Your initial argument was that the community decides what happens to social products. That means the community can simply outvote you on the basis that they simply do not like you to play the guitar....or whatever...just as long as the decision is made by the community you have to agree with it. Defacto this means community ownership of everything except human beings.

The fact that you are using it and it is therefore your possession (or personal property) means the community can not decide without a serious force majeure reason to do so in exceptional circumstances where there is no reasonable other alternative. This means your ownership of the product in all other situations.

Blake's Baby

21st February 2014, 00:36

You keep getting back to this. Explain to me why they can't...

Are you serious?

There'll still be rich and poor after your revolution?

Hey everybody, let's have a revolution against capitalism that results in exactly the same situation after the revolution as before! Except for the dead bodies an the destruction, of course.

...
Besides the fact that that is theft....and that there is no reason for you to appropriate them for yourself nor would you be able to or allowed to do so.

...the logical extent of the idea of possession is: Only if you use all 30 of them.

'Theft'? Brilliant.

No reason? If I use all of them (or Brutus does)? Excellent. How about, 'for a reason', 'hey, I've got thirty houses because no-one wants to stop me, how about I let you live in one if you give me a blow-job every day? ... Right, now what can i get from 'not-renting' the other 29...?'

PhoenixAsh

21st February 2014, 01:16

Are you serious?

There'll still be rich and poor after your revolution?

Hey everybody, let's have a revolution against capitalism that results in exactly the same situation after the revolution as before! Except for the dead bodies an the destruction, of course.

Again I will counter...and which you have not answered yet....so I will expand on it:

* What about the white western working class vs the former colonies?
* What about the middle class in current society vs the workers in smaller houses?
* What are you planning to do?
* Where do you draw the line in your attempt to equalize everybody?
* Are we going to throw everything on a big heap and redistribute everything? If so: How are you going to plan this and who is going to say what is a fair distribution?

* And what the fuck us wealth after a revolution? Can you explain this concept in a communist society??

We are having a revolution because we want ownership of the means of production. Not because we want a diamond necklace. :rolleyes:

'Theft'? Brilliant.

No reason? If I use all of them (or Brutus does)? Excellent. How about, 'for a reason', 'hey, I've got thirty houses because no-one wants to stop me, how about I let you live in one if you give me a blow-job every day? ... Right, now what can i get from 'not-renting' the other 29...?'

You are extremely ridiculous in your arguments and can only revert to a strong position in arguments absurdum....all to distract from the fact that you are arguing that the community has absolute control over all products ever made in society at all times.

But you forget the fact that as soon as personal property is being used to exploit somebody then it becomes private property.

Something which I explained to you at the beginning of the discussion but which you seem to have forgotten.....it was after all in my very first post in this thread and that is a little while ago....in which ironically I mention this exact example of renting out houses.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2722810&postcount=15

So let me put it in big red letters:

Private property is everything that can and is being used to exploit others....in other words the means of production. Owned by the community

Possession is everything you use and is not being used to exploit others. NOT owned by the community but by the user

So....asking somebody to live in a house in return for something (money, blowjob, food) is instantly making the house a means of production and thus private property....which is...as was argued before...and entirely different matter. Community owns that.

Community however does not own and has no say over possession or personal property. Not in Marxism and not in Anarchism. Period.

Slavic

21st February 2014, 01:18

PhoenixAsh

21st February 2014, 01:27

So possessing a house that is larger than your neighboor's in a post-revolution society; after capital has been eliminated; after wage-labor has been eliminate; after money and market exchange has been eliminated entails that you are rich?

I am wondering the same thing. And I am wondering where the line is drawn.

That statement raises so many questions.

First of all, this example is basically just a reinstating of capital/rent, so naturally it would be condemned by society at large. Also PhoenixAsh did not state that it is right to steal 30 homes, he is just stating that if somehow you were able to live in those 30 homes simultaneously then those homes will be your possession. The fact that this is impossible leads to the fact that stealing those 30 homes in the first place is wrong, since you can not live in them.

^ that.

newdayrising

21st February 2014, 12:52

One thing to take into account is that a lot of what's considered "personal property" like big houses, luxury cars, yachts, etc, require other people taking care of them other than the owner. You need domestic emplyees, a "boat guy", and so on. Otherwise the "owner" would have to dedicate his entire life just keeping his "personal property" from rotting. Which would keep him from doing actual collective work that would benefit the rest of society. Even if one has a Ferrari or a Rolls Royce, they would need other people to spend a lot of time and resources fixing it, replacing parts and so on. I imagine people would not be happy doing that if there's more important things to be done with their time for the good of everybody, not a single "owner" of something.

In the example given by Blake of the hypothetical toothbrush abuser, I would think that whoever supplies the toothbrushes would be alarmed if one community began demanding more and more of them and would probably ask what's going on and the community would deal with the issue. Precisely because even though it's "your toothbrush" once you use it, the labour required to make it and get them there isn't yours, it's social. So an abuse of personal items becomes a social problem that concerns everyone.

The very notion of what it means to have things would be completely different, as it is in different societies. Our culture teaches us that it is good to have things, the more the merrier. But that's not always the case. For instance, in hunter gatherer (primitive communist) societies, personal property can become a problem, because one needs to carry it around. So if it's not really useful it becomes a problem to the individual as well as the community, since the "owner" will spend valuable time and energy taking care of something that doesn't really help much.
In a (non primitive) communist society, "having" things would therefore also have a very different meaning to people, I suppose.

My point is, you don't even need to formally prohibit personal property in a communist society, if there's no capitalist relations this very notion stops making sense the way we understand it now. Will you be able to "have" things? I guess so, things will be there your personal control. But "having" would have an entirely different meaning. As Blake said, everything is supplied by society, so it is not "yours" in the sense we understand the term now, even if you are allowed to keep it with you while you use it.

ArisVelouxiotis

21st February 2014, 13:20

Of course it's a fairly ridiculous example. I tried to think of the possession that I would least like to give up, and then had a to construct a reason to give it up. FFS, if the question was 'would you care if someone used something you didn't care about?' then of course the answer woul be 'no, I don't care'. But what would that have demonstrated?

So no rights whatever - except for the obvious rights that it does have?

Thanks for playing but really, that answer doesn't mean anything.

Great. And when the refugees start coming in? Can you house and feed them too?

No, nor can I. Don't worry, it's PhoenixAsh that has an obsession with toothbrushes.

One thing worries me though. I need a toothbrush. So I go to the community store to get one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

20 minutes later I get another one.

After 2 days of this the community store has run out of toothbrushes. Comrade PheonixAsh needs a toothbrush, but there aren't any left. I've had them all. Should the community at any point have been able to stop me?

Sorry for quoting everything I dont know how to choose what to quote.
I think is common sense that If I can save a life and I have the tools to do it and I choose not to then the community has the right to force me.But I dont know why I would put my guitar over somebody's life.

Blake's Baby

21st February 2014, 17:13

PhoenixAsh

21st February 2014, 18:02

One thing to take into account is that a lot of what's considered "personal property" like big houses, luxury cars, yachts, etc, require other people taking care of them other than the owner. You need domestic emplyees, a "boat guy", and so on. Otherwise the "owner" would have to dedicate his entire life just keeping his "personal property" from rotting. Which would keep him from doing actual collective work that would benefit the rest of society. Even if one has a Ferrari or a Rolls Royce, they would need other people to spend a lot of time and resources fixing it, replacing parts and so on. I imagine people would not be happy doing that if there's more important things to be done with their time for the good of everybody, not a single "owner" of something.

Which is exactly why we shouldn't care and bother.

In the example given by Blake of the hypothetical toothbrush abuser, I would think that whoever supplies the toothbrushes would be alarmed if one community began demanding more and more of them and would probably ask what's going on and the community would deal with the issue. Precisely because even though it's "your toothbrush" once you use it, the labour required to make it and get them there isn't yours, it's social. So an abuse of personal items becomes a social problem that concerns everyone.

Yes. But that is a distribution problem. And not a problem of possession....and the community has no say in how you are using your toothbrush. I don't get why it is so hard to get the distinction.

Possession is what happens during the time you use it...possession ONLY applies to that period. Is says NOTHING at all over rights of replacement.

The very notion of what it means to have things would be completely different, as it is in different societies. Our culture teaches us that it is good to have things, the more the merrier. But that's not always the case. For instance, in hunter gatherer (primitive communist) societies, personal property can become a problem, because one needs to carry it around. So if it's not really useful it becomes a problem to the individual as well as the community, since the "owner" will spend valuable time and energy taking care of something that doesn't really help much.
In a (non primitive) communist society, "having" things would therefore also have a very different meaning to people, I suppose.

Perhaps. But this is a far cry from community control over the things you use.

My point is, you don't even need to formally prohibit personal property in a communist society, if there's no capitalist relations this very notion stops making sense the way we understand it now. Will you be able to "have" things? I guess so, things will be there your personal control. But "having" would have an entirely different meaning. As Blake said, everything is supplied by society, so it is not "yours" in the sense we understand the term now, even if you are allowed to keep it with you while you use it.

"Allowed" implies hierarchy and domination.

So I like to see this new meaning of "having" because an abstract notion that "having" will change in direct relation to the community being able to decide how you use your possessions/private property as is suggested here are two completely different things.

PhoenixAsh

21st February 2014, 18:04

Sorry for quoting everything I dont know how to choose what to quote.
I think is common sense that If I can save a life and I have the tools to do it and I choose not to then the community has the right to force me.But I dont know why I would put my guitar over somebody's life.

I absolutely disagree with the right of the community to force somebody to do something against their will....even if morality dictates that that would be the right course of action.

I do however think the community has the right to punish you for deciding to take certain courses of action.

PhoenixAsh

21st February 2014, 18:10

So you believe, as I do, that the community should be able to compel individuals to give up 'personal possessions'? Excellent; that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is to believe in both the individual right to absolute control of personal possessions, and the right of the community to comandeer them, which was the content of your post.

The distinction between your notion and mine is that you imply the community has absolute control over everything at all times as a default and the individual has temporary use rights.

I imply that the absolute control lies with the individual as a default where there are certain extremely rare exceptions in which case the community can come into a force majeure situation where it needs to take over temporary use rights.

ArisVelouxiotis

21st February 2014, 18:14

Slavic

21st February 2014, 18:28

I absolutely disagree with the right of the community to force somebody to do something against their will....even if morality dictates that that would be the right course of action.

I do however think the community has the right to punish you for deciding to take certain courses of action.

Once personal possessions are removed and declared to be entirely social, and following Blake's logic that the use of social commodities are ultimately at the control of society at large; we come to a problem in which the individual is entirely subjected to societal moralism.

Society at large dictates that the way you are currently using your toothbrush is not efficient and is a detriment to society for it can be put to better uses (better mouths lolz). Following the logic that all commodities are social, the society at large can approach you and commandeer your toothbrush without your consent since the toothbrush is not yours but society's.

This in my opinion reeks of moralism. It is as if the individual must be entirely sacrificed for the sake of society; which is something I do not agree with. It is true though that my line of thinking does lead to the implication that the individual also extends to his possessions. I accumulate possessions of a certain type that I enjoy and see as an extension of myself. To declare that I am not the clothes on my back violates my personal autonomy.

Yes the above sounds consumerist but even in a post-revolution society I doubt that individual association with commodities will cease. Such a thing is human.

Blake's Baby

21st February 2014, 19:48

Once personal possessions are removed and declared to be entirely social...

Say, what? Are you after my toothbrush as well?

Why should things be 'removed', unless leaving them in place produces glaring social disparity? What would be the point? I mean, I'm all for equality, but should everyone be forced to have a guitar even if they don't want one, or have to take a wheelchair even if they can walk perfectly easily? Why should people give stuff up that they're then just going to get back? That makes no sense.

newdayrising

22nd February 2014, 13:58

Yes. But that is a distribution problem. And not a problem of possession....and the community has no say in how you are using your toothbrush. I don't get why it is so hard to get the distinction.
I believe it is indeed a problem of "possession"/"property". In capitalism, the toothbrush is indeed your property, because you bought it. So in normal circumstances you could buy one every 20 minutes even if you're just going to throw them away and burn them, and it whoever sells it would be actually happier, since your money actually pays enough that they're able to make more and bring them over.
In a free access society, however, you don't pay for things, you just take what you need. So you don't really have absolute rights over whatever you take since it would be making people work more for no good reason. You can call it possession, personal property or whatever you want, but it's not really just a distribution issue, it's much more than that and it's the center of the whole argument.

Possession is what happens during the time you use it...possession ONLY applies to that period. Is says NOTHING at all over rights of replacement.

Perhaps. But this is a far cry from community control over the things you use. I'm ok with this, I don't see in what way "how you are using your toothbrush" would matter. As far as I understand it you could never brush your teeth at all, it would make no sense to care what people are doing with things at least if they're not taking more than it's reasonable.

I could see a situation, however where somebody would be asked why on earth are they taking a toothbrush every 20 minutes. They wouldn't be able to just reply "they're mine, it's my business, I'll keep on taking more of them", precisely because they actually belong to everybody, because "everybody's" work made them and put them there. So "everybody" would have to deal with the toothbrush waste in one way or another.

Again, I don't care if it's called possession, personal property or no property at all. My point is just that, in a communist society it makes no sense to talk about owning things, really. What makes people own things is commodity exchange, once it's gone, things are made by society and used by society, it's not really "yours" the way we understand it now. Which, as I said, doesn't mean you'll have other people policing what you do with the things.

"Allowed" implies hierarchy and domination.

So I like to see this new meaning of "having" because an abstract notion that "having" will change in direct relation to the community being able to decide how you use your possessions/private property as is suggested here are two completely different things.As said above, I never said anything about "HOW" and I don't understand why it's even relevant.
About "allowed", "domination", "hierarchy" and so on. I don't think it's a very meaningful discussion. I don't believe one will ever be "allowed" to kill or rape whoever they want for instance. How they would be stopped from doing so, by whom and how they would be dealt with later, or even why/if people would do that then is a different issue, maybe the community would just sit in circle and say "stop doing bad things, you're an asshole", but if you're implying that in a communist society there would be no restrictions on anything because otherwise there would be "hierarchy", I would have to disagree with you.

PhoenixAsh

22nd February 2014, 16:55

I believe it is indeed a problem of "possession"/"property". In capitalism, the toothbrush is indeed your property, because you bought it. So in normal circumstances you could buy one every 20 minutes even if you're just going to throw them away and burn them, and it whoever sells it would be actually happier, since your money actually pays enough that they're able to make more and bring them over.
In a free access society, however, you don't pay for things, you just take what you need. So you don't really have absolute rights over whatever you take since it would be making people work more for no good reason. You can call it possession, personal property or whatever you want, but it's not really just a distribution issue, it's much more than that and it's the center of the whole argument.

That line of reasoning has incredible implications way beyond the question of possession/personal property and right into the heart of personal freedom where the community in fact has absolute control over personal life and how somebody lives it.

This form of democratic centralism potentially disallows any form of aberration and deviation from the norm simply because the majority of the community decides so.

It opens up a whole set and range of problems from limiting freedom of travel (because the community decides that it doesn't want to spend the resources on you), from deciding hat you can and can not
have and use...to limiting expressions of creativity because the majority doesn't see the use of them.

It places production first and foremost rather than personal autonomy and freedom.

I am seriously opposed to democratic centralism in how people live their lives...and I would in fact fight it and see in it a reason to oppose any form of society that uses it to gain such hierarchical dictatorial power over the individual....which in my eyes is just another form of capitalism.

ok with this, I don't see in what way "how you are using your toothbrush" would matter. As far as I understand it you could never brush your teeth at all, it would make no sense to care what people are doing with things at least if they're not taking more than it's reasonable.

This we agree on

I could see a situation, however where somebody would be asked why on earth are they taking a toothbrush every 20 minutes. They wouldn't be able to just reply "they're mine, it's my business, I'll keep on taking more of them", precisely because they actually belong to everybody, because "everybody's" work made them and put them there. So "everybody" would have to deal with the toothbrush waste in one way or another.

Yes. But again...this is a problem of distribution. The community can say they will stop delivery of toothbrushes to somebody. But they can't take the toothbrushes that person already has away or decide how that person uses them and enforce their opinion.

Again, I don't care if it's called possession, personal property or no property at all. My point is just that, in a communist society it makes no sense to talk about owning things, really. What makes people own things is commodity exchange, once it's gone, things are made by society and used by society, it's not really "yours" the way we understand it now. Which, as I said, doesn't mean you'll have other people policing what you do with the things.

Actually...it does. As you can see the discussion is developing from the notion that there is no personal possession only social possession in which the community (in fact...the majority of the community) can in fact say what and how you use it and when.

As said above, I never said anything about "HOW" and I don't understand why it's even relevant.
About "allowed", "domination", "hierarchy" and so on. I don't think it's a very meaningful discussion. I don't believe one will ever be "allowed" to kill or rape whoever they want for instance. How they would be stopped from doing so, by whom and how they would be dealt with later, or even why/if people would do that then is a different issue, maybe the community would just sit in circle and say "stop doing bad things, you're an asshole", but if you're implying that in a communist society there would be no restrictions on anything because otherwise there would be "hierarchy", I would have to disagree with you.

I am definitely not implying that and in fact I have argued against it But again...the argument evolved from Blake's post i which it was quite clearly stated that the majority of a community, through democratic centralism, has absolute control over all objects in that community.

It also evolved to a point where moralism could be imposed and proactively enforced on individuals. To which I am also opposed. The only authority a community has over an individual is once behaviour has crossed the line and not before.

RealYehuda

22nd February 2014, 17:43

A lot of people dont understand the meaning of private property

Private property does not mean your tv

Private property is the means of production that are owned privately

Slavic

22nd February 2014, 18:47

Say, what? Are you after my toothbrush as well?

Why should things be 'removed', unless leaving them in place produces glaring social disparity? What would be the point? I mean, I'm all for equality, but should everyone be forced to have a guitar even if they don't want one, or have to take a wheelchair even if they can walk perfectly easily? Why should people give stuff up that they're then just going to get back? That makes no sense.

Of all the things you took from my post.

I meant removed in the abstract sense not physically. Idea of individual ownership over a commodity would be removed and replaced with the idea of social ownership over a commodity.

Blake's Baby

23rd February 2014, 11:37

Blake's Baby

23rd February 2014, 13:08

...

I'm ok with this, I don't see in what way "how you are using your toothbrush" would matter. As far as I understand it you could never brush your teeth at all, it would make no sense to care what people are doing with things at least if they're not taking more than it's reasonable...

Missed this before. Odd, I think, that you should agree with it PhoenixAsh, because it's the whole crux of the point that are arguing against.

...

...it would make no sense to care what people are doing with things at least if they're not taking more than it's reasonable...

Who decides what is 'reasonable', PhoenixAsh? Do you decide what is 'reasonable' for you to take from society, or does society decide what is reasonable for you to take from society?

Can I take all the toothbrushes, because I want to, and then burn them, because I want to, and leave none for you, because I want to? Or is the community allowed to stop me?

PhoenixAsh

23rd February 2014, 18:04

I think there is a distinction between distribution and possession. Possession occurs when somebody uses the object. Distribution is everything that happens up until the point when somebody gets to have the object.

Where I do not agree on default community control on possessions I do think there is a default community control over distribution and an obligation to prevent misuse of distribution within reason.

However. Once an object is distributed this default community control ends and rests with the user. In that case only rare force majeure situations could lead to a situation in which somebody can be released of control over an object.

Slavic

23rd February 2014, 18:33

The idea of capitalism is 'removed' and replaced by communism. Seems like an odd way of describing it. When you said 'removed', I assumed you meant 'removed', given taht you were talking about 'personal possessions' not 'the idea of personal possessions' (and I'm not sure how an 'idea' can be 'removed' anyway).

I could have worded it differently; the point I was trying to get across is that this discussion we are having is supposedly taking place in a society that is post-revolution. That being said, at least in my views, if a revolution were to be even slightly successful there must have been a critical mass of the proletariat whom have changed their views on what constitutes private property ie. Means of Production.

But you are right, you can't just will away an idea, ideas will change gradually when the material base for them changes. So going off of what I said above, in a post-revolution society, the material base of society would lend to the "removal" of the old idea of property, and is replaced by what ever said society thinks property should consist of, hence the discussion we are all having right now.

But yea, "remove" was a stupid way to describe it.

Seemingly that was a mistake on my part. But I hope you can see why I thought that. I assumed you meant (as you were talking about actual 'possessions') that there was going to be some sort of grand collection-redistribution process (or rather, that you were assuming I thought there was), rather than just the assumption that now, the community has a right to decide what happens to 'your' property.

Lolz sorry this paragraph made me chuckle. Its like a "I was thinking that you thought that what I was thinking was not what you thought, but now I know what you were thinking about what i thought was INDEED what I was thinking."

I understand the confusion, sometimes text is not the best medium.