Abolition of Private Property

[Servia]

According only to Marx, what kind of private property will be abolished? The abolition the ownership of the shirt I am wearing all the way to the microwave manufacturing plant?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is one of the "frequently asked" questions when it comes to socialism, and you will find a lot of threads on the subject. Generally, socialists are concerned with the ownership (or rather control) of the means of production.

That said, a lot of people make the mistake of assuming socialism will be just like capitalism when it comes to property. Well, no. Property would not exist in socialism. You would keep your shirt because why would anyone take your shirt?

On the other hand, if someone is suffering from hypothermia and need to be warmed, and your shirt is the only article of clothing in range...

[Redistribute the Rep]

From chapter 2 of the communist manifesto


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.

[Comrade #138672]

Private property vs. personal property.

[Blake's Baby]

Says nothing.

Let us, as always, return to the vexed question of toothbrushes, that bugbear of the Right. There's a convenient index of some recent threads (basically about how we conceive of property in a socialist society) here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/difference-between-private-t190832/index.html?t=190832&highlight=toothbrush

No-one will take away your toothbrush. It will probably be easier to get a toothbrush than it is now. But, do you have a right to take all the toothbrushes and (for example) set fire to them? I'd argue not.

In capitalism there's nothing to stop you buying all the 100 toothbrushes in the local shop and then burning them because they're yours; capitalist property law says that you can dispose of your property as you wish (within certain laws about public safety and pollution at least). It makes no difference to the shopkeeper if the toothbrushes are bought by 100 customers or 1 customer. The shopkeeper can still order another 100 toothbrushes and use the money to pay for them, no matter who bought the toothbrushes.

It does make a difference in a socialist system of distribution however. If you go to the 'neighbourhood distribution centre' and take 100 toothbrushes - which is the number of toothbrushes that the community has been assigned that week or month or whatever - then you're taking the toothbrushes that have been produced for other people. Conceptually at least, this is more like waiting (in a capitalist system) until 100 people have paid for their toothbrushes, and then stealing them an burning them. If you set fire to the then the community needs to get another 100 toothbrushes, for the people whose toothbrush quota wasn't delivered. This could in theory continue for ever unless there is some social control on the number of toothbrushes you're allowed to requisition. You could bankrupt the economy, 100 toothbrushes at a time, just by treating them as 'property' as we do in capitalism.

So; I'd say that we won't have the same rights over the stuff we use as we do now. When things are free, then we have to be responsible about how we use them. Destruction, over-consumption, limiting other people's ability to freely access 'stuff' - these will have to be behaviours that we have to keep an eye on, I think.

[Dodo]

b..b..bu...but what about PEOPLE'S TOOTBRUSHES!!!!

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I'm of the belief that we Marxists perhaps need to come up with a new phrase for this instead of 'private property'. That term has evolved somewhat since Marx's time, and in the eyes of many of the proletariat (at least here in the States) the terms 'private property' and 'personal property' have become one in the same. Now, 'private property' means both the means of production AND your toothbrush.

[Tim Cornelis]

Hasn't it always?

[Creative Destruction]

yeah, i think it has. M&E even addressed that same issue in the Manifesto.

[Servia]

My friend says that he couldn't function in a communist society because he enjoys fine things like expensive clothing, etc. I myself have similar tastes.

But I don't see why these things couldn't still exist in a communist society. Thoughts? Is his statement just ridiculous or?

[adipocere12]

My friend says that he couldn't function in a communist society because he enjoys fine things like expensive clothing, etc. I myself have similar tastes.

But I don't see why these things couldn't still exist in a communist society. Thoughts? Is his statement just ridiculous or?


I guess you have to ask yourself why you like them. And whether or not you would miss them if it never existed in the first place.

Edit: actually, that's nuts. You're describing a world system of post-scarcity and peace and the best retort is "geez, I dunno.. What about my Levi jeans"?

[motion denied]

"Expensive" things certainly not, but I don't see why high quality clothes would not be produced.

If your friend, however, just uses it for status and exclusivity, well, he's a snob.

[Igor]

My friend says that he couldn't function in a communist society because he enjoys fine things like expensive clothing, etc. I myself have similar tastes.maybe ur friend should get the fuck over himself because things like food are something people actually cant function without irl bc of capitalism

[Comrade #138672]

My friend says that he couldn't function in a communist society because he enjoys fine things like expensive clothing, etc. I myself have similar tastes.

But I don't see why these things couldn't still exist in a communist society. Thoughts? Is his statement just ridiculous or?I can offer you some expensive clothing. The clothing itself is of low quality, but I can assure you that my prices are expensive.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

My friend says that he couldn't function in a communist society because he enjoys fine things like expensive clothing, etc. I myself have similar tastes.

But I don't see why these things couldn't still exist in a communist society. Thoughts? Is his statement just ridiculous or?

One one hand, fine things will exist in socialism, and will not be "expensive", it's not like we're all going to wear potato sacks and drink Mad Dog 200 Proof or something. On the other hand, it's pretty worrying that when faced with the prospect of a system where everybody could have food, shelter, utilities, education and security, your friend's first thought is "BUT WHAT ABOUT MY ARMANI".

[Art Vandelay]

it's not like we're all going to wear potato sacks and drink Mad Dog 200 Proof or something.

We will be if I have anything to say about it. This sounds awesome.