Abolition of Private Property

[OGG]

Okay, during the DOTP, one of the functions of the DOTP is to abolish private property in favor of free access. First off, is that this true? If so, how does it happen? Is it a matter of will; or is it similar to the notion of the State withering away, along with the class system?

I think I have a solid grasp about the theoretical nature of the DOTP and how it precedes socialism. However, the actual program of the DOTP to nurture (for lack of a better term) the conditions that we describe as socialism, is something I don't know.

[Tim Cornelis]

I wouldn't put it like that. It is to abolish private property. Distribution of the total product is more circumstantial. Private property needs to be counter-posed to common property; free access to, I guess, paid access? but rather it's production for use counter-posed to commodity exchange.

Capitalism socialises production. Production or supply chains become increasingly elongated and production units increasingly more interconnected. Production in capitalism is social. But the social character of production is established indirectly: only when the products of labour of one unit confronts the products of labour of another in the market. Commodity exchange is the indirect establishment of the social character of production. When the dictatorship of the proles assumes control of the socialised production processes and harmonises the methods of production with the methods of appropriation (i.e. both social), what follows is that the social character of labour is then directly established, and commodity exchange disappears. So the disappearance of commodity production is 'predetermined' by the development of capitalism, but it is not inevitable either in a revolutionary situation. If workers control production units independently, the social character of labour will still be established indirectly, and they will be independent commodity producers. For this reason it is necessary to make subservient the sectional interests of the parts of the proletariat to the interests of the class as a whole.

See also:

https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/tsushima/labor-certificates.htm

And:

"From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social labour. The quantity of social labour contained in a product need not then be established in a roundabout way; daily experience shows in a direct way how much of it is required on the average. Society can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of wheat of the last harvest, or a hundred square yards of cloth of a certain quality. It could therefore never occur to it still to express the quantities of labour put into the products, quantities which it will then know directly and in their absolute amounts, in a third product, in a measure which, besides, is only relative, fluctuating, inadequate, though formerly unavoidable for lack of a better one, rather than express them in their natural, adequate and absolute measure, time. Just as little as it would occur to chemical science still to express atomic weight in a roundabout way, relatively, by means of the hydrogen atom, if it were able to express them absolutely, in their adequate measure, namely in actual weights, in billionths or quadrillionths of a gramme. Hence, on the assumptions we made above, society will not assign values to products. It will not express the simple fact that the hundred square yards of cloth have required for their production, say, a thousand hours of labour in the oblique and meaningless way, stating that they have the value of a thousand hours of labour. It is true that even then it will still be necessary for society to know how much labour each article of consumption requires for its production. It will have to arrange its plan of production in accordance with its means of production, which include, in particular, its labour-powers. The useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labour required for their production, will in the end determine the plan. People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted “value”"

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm

[tuwix]

Okay, during the DOTP, one of the functions of the DOTP is to abolish private property in favor of free access. First off, is that this true? If so, how does it happen? Is it a matter of will; or is it similar to the notion of the State withering away, along with the class system?

I think I have a solid grasp about the theoretical nature of the DOTP and how it precedes socialism. However, the actual program of the DOTP to nurture (for lack of a better term) the conditions that we describe as socialism, is something I don't know.

Not do fast. :) Abolition of private property means, in first stage, giving it to to workers. The this DotP means: Workers rule. Free access is the higher stage, when civilization will develop.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Okay, during the DOTP, one of the functions of the DOTP is to abolish private property in favor of free access. First off, is that this true? If so, how does it happen? Is it a matter of will; or is it similar to the notion of the State withering away, along with the class system?

I think I have a solid grasp about the theoretical nature of the DOTP and how it precedes socialism. However, the actual program of the DOTP to nurture (for lack of a better term) the conditions that we describe as socialism, is something I don't know.

Whether private property can be abolished during the revolutionary transition is itself contentious. Namely, if you consider state property operated in accordance with the law of planning (necessarily limited by the law of value as we can't snap our fingers and abolish the global market) to be something else than private property, as Trotskyists do, then it can. If not, well, you can't abolish property in one part of the world. In either case wage-labour will presumably still exist during the d.o.t.p., although it will not be the same as wage-labour under the bourgeois state, so there will be no free access (unfortunately - but as I said, we can't abolish money, the market etc. in one part of the world, the victory of socialism needs to be global).

The dictatorship of the proletariat would prepare the way for socialism by placing the means of production increasingly under the command of the working people as a whole, first in the form of state property, changing to the (propertyless) planning of production and administration of the means of production by the entire society as the state withers away (in the years after the global victory of the socialist revolution; this isn't something that will take centuries).

[Pancakes Rühle]

Not do fast. :) Abolition of private property means, in first stage, giving it to to workers. The this DotP means: Workers rule. Free access is the higher stage, when civilization will develop.

If proles still exist, that tells me we aren't in the "first stage". Also, who is doing the "giving" of the means of production?

[Guardia Rossa]

If proles still exist, that tells me we aren't in the "first stage". Also, who is doing the "giving" of the means of production?

The first stage, or DotP, is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, nuff said.

But the second question remains... Is Tuwix our great leader in the Blanquist coup d'etat?

[Blake's Baby]

No, the 'first phase' of communist society is one in which production is for human need, but not yet capable of fulfilling all wants. It is not the same as the revolutionary dictatorship. By its own nature, the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat must be a class society and therefore cannot be classless in nature. The first phase of communist society must already be classless, stateless and propertiless, otherwise it isn't any form of communist society.

The revolutionary dictatorship is the working class taking political power in a limited area, and instituting measures to improve the lives of everyone in the revolutionary territories, but with the massive disadvantage that the world revolution is not yet successful. There can be no 'world plan' when only one area (or even several non-contiguous areas) is in the hands of the working class. The revolutionary dictatorship must concern itself with not only feeding, clothing, housing, and providing water, medical care etc to the population of the revolutionary territories, it must also wage war on the capitalist states that will be trying to destroy it and support the revolutionary workers in the states where revolution has not yet broken out. That is hardly compatible with the unlimited freedom of communist society.

It is only when the world revolution/world civil war has been won, when the revolutionary working class controls the whole territory of the earth, and all the property in it, that we can begin to talk of the 'first phase of communist society', because it is only when the working class has triumphed everywhere that classes themselves can cease to exist, through the socialisation of all property (property being the basis of class and all).

[Pancakes Rühle]

The first stage, or DotP, is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, nuff said.

But the second question remains... Is Tuwix our great leader in the Blanquist coup d'etat?

The first stage of communism is the DOTP?

That's fine if you are clear with everyone that you disagree with Marx.