Socialism and property

[B.H.]

Hello,


Couldn't one argue that socialism and communism are not necessarily the abolition of private property per see but the nationalization and public ownership of some properties in some respects with the intent of increasing the level of private property owned by the masses in other repsects?

[BOZG]

I don't think anyone here is opposed to people owning their house, their car, their tv etc. but rather private ownership of production etc or people owning 10 bedroom houses when only 2 people live there etc.

[B.H.]

But can you absolutely and objectively condemn private property in one case and endorse it in another case? Like, let's say that I don't like cleaning my apartment so can I hire someone to clean it for me? Is my apartment now a source of exploitation?


Bear with me comrades, I am trying to to see where the fallacy is in the above. Some folks over on another board used just that idea above to show that socialism is inherently self contradiction in its claims.

I don't think such is the case. For one, under socialism the person I hire could turn down the job from me and still have a full time job thanks to the state. That person's livelyhood is not tied to my whimsy or economic fortunes or misfortunes. Any pay she/he gets from me would truly be "fun money" and it would truly be that persons choice to work for me or not. That persons liveyhood is not harmed anyway if he/she turns the job down or I decide to clean my own apartment.

The privately owned business is different than owning my own apartment and paying a cleaner. The factory would probably demand the workers full time labor and could fire that worker for any little whimsy---thus ending the workers livelhood. The worker's livelyhood depends on the fortunes or whims of the factory owner (profit rate and growth) whereas working for me it does not.
Lastly, any wages I chose to pay out for a cleaner come out of the wages I earn working for the state employer, not out of some profit. I am just chosing to spend some of my wages that I worked for for a cleaner and not some profit via surplus value.

[B.H.]

Look at it like this.

Perhaps both capitalism and socialism are both pro-private property theories.

However, socialism is just a system that gives more private property and security to those who may not have as much in a capitalist system? It does this by and large through government ownership and control of the means of production. Wheras capitalism gives private property to people in varying degrees through the use of privately owned means of production.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 09:41 PM
I don't think anyone here is opposed to people owning their house, their car, their tv etc. but rather private ownership of production etc or people owning 10 bedroom houses when only 2 people live there etc.
under communism you would not own your own car or house ex... it would be shared and be used to best suit the community. I am not shur specifically how it would work under socialism

[bunk]

why would you need your own car anyways?
The public transport system would be much more efficient.

[Pawn Power]

yes public transportation would be used alot more because it is so much more efficient but some would still need cars for job locations not in a large complex