Private Property

[DaCuBaN]

Simple enough question really.

Most communists and many anarchists believe that private property will be out the window either by force or because it becomes unnecessary post-revolution.

Anyone think it possible?

[James]

Is it compatibale with socialism? Of course. But thats a very wide ranging "term". Technically New Labour are Democatic Socialist.
Compatibal with marxism - of course not.

In your hypothetical post communist revolution - no, private property will be abolished (along with parties ;P).

[Postteen]

I think people are still going to own their houses,at least!I'd say micro-private property (like a house,or a car)are compatible with communism.With socialism i think the thesis of private property is even "better".

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Beatle [email protected] 30 2004, 10:02 PM
I think people are still going to own their houses,at least!I'd say micro-private property (like a house,or a car)are compatible with communism.With socialism i think the thesis of private property is even "better".
no...no not at all

in a communist socitey their will and should not be any owner ship of cars or houses, come on on now, kat think.

their will be no private ownership except for maybe a tooth brush :lol:

[Postteen]

no,come on.And the cars?Whose will they belong?to everybody or to the government?

[Daymare17]

In Marxism, there is a difference between personal property and private property.

Private property means private property of the means of production. Factories etc.
Personal property means toothbrushes, backpacks and so on.

Yes, there will be personal property. No, there will not be private property.

[Kez]

the issue isnt whether it will or wont, but rather should it, considering issues such as incentive, wealth distribution.

whats your ideal situation?

[redstar2000]

Technically New Labour are Democratic Socialist.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Those who believe the labels without opening the package are always doomed to political futility.

"Technically" Bill Gates and I are "equal before the law".

:lol: :lol: :lol:

-----------------------------------------------

I rather doubt that cars and houses will be "owned" in a communist society...the chances are you will be granted use of them until you no longer need them and then someone else will have the use of them.

"Use" is the key criterion of communist society...if you're not using it, do you really need it?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 10:41 PM
no...no not at all

in a communist socitey their will and should not be any owner ship of cars or houses, come on on now, kat think.

their will be no private ownership except for maybe a tooth brush :lol:
The abolishment of private PROPERTY does not have anything to do with private POSSESSIONS.

[apathy maybe]

People should always be able to have exclusive use of some items. But if they don't use these items, they don't need them.

Things like computers, cars, houses and other big/expensive items shouldn't be exclusive use items. But things like storage mediums (floppy disks) should be. Cloths also should be (depending on the clothing).

[pandora]

The Mayan communities in Chiapas are so beautiful, a local man sat and explained the communal system to me here so simple and lovely, communal lands, lands stay in the community, if you move you leave your land and your animals.
Extended families split plots, have a house in the center all the crops and tools go in so everyone shares.
Those who have more give them potlatch style over the year to the others at festivals. If these persons are albe to do so properly over the year they get to sit in a chair watching the sun rise. Really beautiful. The honor of helping ones neighbor goes above all else.
Mostly vegitarian.
Everything shared, extras used for ceremonies which bind the community, you can leave at any time, but have to give belongings back to the community. They have some stuff for survival, like running land, in past was all open. Harder now because of government in Mexico City and their restrictions, so can{t say plant a field this year and pick a different one next. Still has worked well for some soil retention. But must get overworked.
Learning more about communal lands, really interesting.
When someone throws all the parties for the year because they have a little extra they get to live in a special house with that family that{s all adobe, for a year, after fulfilling tasks leave.
Imagine not owning the house you live in for a year or renting just sharing with other families, they are so happy, its amazing showed us a cool turtle they found in the creek today.

[James]

Those who believe the labels without opening the package are always doomed to political futility.

"Technically" Bill Gates and I are "equal before the law".


And the pope claims to be christian!

My point was that the term socialism is wide ranging. Thus some don't want communism - whilst other socialists are like TAT.

[James]

the issue isnt whether it will or wont, but rather should it, considering issues such as incentive, wealth distribution.

whats your ideal situation?


def.
Our current situation is that its so concentrated that some are selling it at ridiculous prices, whilst the vast majority have none what so ever.
An example is the EU and its food/fluid production. Again this is partly why i hate the EU: the food mountains and fluid lakes are in reality a crime against humanity.

Why should hordes of food be stacked up to rot? Whilst many many many people are literally starving to death.

Its just wrong.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 09:12 AM
My point was that the term socialism is wide ranging. Thus some don't want communism - whilst other socialists are like TAT.
Why do I always get dragged into these argument? There is actually a large debate among anarchists whether or not we can call ourselves socialists. The term has been so distorted, as you yourself prove, that it is probably less complicated if we don't.

[Funky Monk]

Given a whole hearted Communist revolution i think it would be possible if the authorities are sensible about it and dont try to change a great deal straight away.

I believe that property should be allocated by the state according to job, look at the mess in London with people having to commute, ive heard stories of people living several hours away by train because they cant afford houses in London. However i also believe that the state should give the people involved some input into the descision making process allowing them some leaway over a given radius from their job.

[James]

Why do I always get dragged into these argument? There is actually a large debate among anarchists whether or not we can call ourselves socialists. The term has been so distorted, as you yourself prove, that it is probably less complicated if we don't.


OH FFS!!!
You are the most "famous anarchist" on the board. Everyone knows who you are. Why do most people know you? Well you used to be a moderator!. You also have a tendency to have tantrums.

However - why did i choose you? You are very left wing, your commments on the north south divide demonstrate this.

I was merely pointing out how the left are wide raning: and that neither group has a monopoly on the term socialism.

And this is what i was also on about TAT before: you arn't getting "dragged" into anything. So just take your head out of your own arse, and RELAX!!!
I agree with alot of what you say - i suppose i like you: but sometimes you act like such a wanker!

[redstar2000]

My point was that the term socialism is wide ranging.

There are certainly people who would like it to be...the wider, the "better".

The promiscuous use of "left terminology" to cover bourgeois aspirations is a pernicious practice, in my view.

Just tossing the word around doesn't count for anything, doesn't mean anything, and provides zero guidance to what someone's politics actually are.

I've noticed on this board that more than one person will claim to be a "socialist" when what they really want is capitalism..."with a human face."

They are certainly "entitled" to their desires...but I, for one, would like to see considerably greater "truth in (political) advertising".

It would help a lot.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 04:24 PM
OH FFS!!!
You are the most "famous anarchist" on the board.
I'm not going to sleep with you.


Everyone knows who you are.

As they ought to.


Why do most people know you? Well you used to be a moderator!.

I was an admin thank you very much.


You also have a tendency to have tantrums.

Why is that so bad?


However - why did i choose you? You are very left wing, your commments on the north south divide demonstrate this.

I only did that to piss Kez off.


And this is what i was also on about TAT before: you arn't getting "dragged" into anything.

There are at least 5 threads where people use me as an example for something, usually negativly.


So just take your head out of your own arse,

No!


RELAX!!!

I'm very relaxed.


I agree with alot of what you say

I fucking well hope not!


i suppose i like you:

Of course you do.


but sometimes you act like such a wanker!

What, because I started some threads on an internet message board about myself? I'm sure there are far more terrible things in the world that could qualify someone as a wanker...Being a christian tory voting right winger for one.

[synthesis]

Bakunin said that anarchism could be called "stateless socialism."

If I had one definition of socialism, it would be this: collective ownership of the means of production by the proletariat. Anything less isn't socialist, it's as simple as that.

[elijahcraig]

The abolishment of private PROPERTY does not have anything to do with private POSSESSIONS.

God, I wish Marx had used a different term--this may be the top misunderstanding about Communism.


If I had one definition of socialism, it would be this: collective ownership of the means of production by the proletariat. Anything less isn't socialist, it's as simple as that.

That's debatable. You could have semi-socialist policies policies. Like I know TAT is a semi-jackass. While RedStar is a complete jackass. So a nation could be partially-socialist, while say Cuba or the pre-1954 was completely, or almost completely, socialist.

[synthesis]

God, I wish Marx had used a different term--this may be the top misunderstanding about Communism.

Yeah, it's kind of an obstacle, although I'd say 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is up there, too.

[elijahcraig]

Yeah, it's kind of an obstacle, although I'd say 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is up there, too.

He was full of good phrases.

Ah, it was probably that bastard Engels' fault.

[nakba]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 1 2004, 12:30 AM
The abolishment of private PROPERTY does not have anything to do with private POSSESSIONS.
exactly..


by the abolishment of the private property one is concerning the means of production, ofcourse that your house will be your house, and your car will be your car, but your factory wount be your factory if you know what i mean...

private ownership of the means of production, that's the real issue here...

[bobby]

Ah, it was probably that bastard Engels' fault.

Racist.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 01:29 PM
exactly..


by the abolishment of the private property one is concerning the means of production, ofcourse that your house will be your house, and your car will be your car, but your factory wount be your factory if you know what i mean...

private ownership of the means of production, that's the real issue here...
Right, after property is given back to the people that need and use it, I believe the term will have outlived it's usefulness.

The people running the means of production, are simply maintaining a resource just as someone using their toothbrush is maintaining a more personal resource.
Their is as much need to claim the land as there is to claim the food in someones mouth.
If you want anything you can create or attain it, there is no real need to claim ownership over anything. The idea of ownership or property fedishism, is simply a tool to hold control over people. Societies have functioned without it in the past and can operate now better than ever, with recent advances in production.

[bobby]

Societies have functioned without it in the past

Like who?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 08:23 AM

Like who?
Native cultures, people in communes that share their possetions.
The idea of property seems to come out of a desire to deprive others of certian things. In productive cooperative societies; what would you need such a concept for?