Private property in Socialism

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Is private property to exist in a socialist economy? If so, what is to be its roll?

If it is to not exist, or to be greatly curbed, what about the idea of property (as J.S. Mill put it) being a catalyst of independence and freedom? As long as property isn't hurting anyone via economic means, like a house (as opposed to a factory), should it be curbed? And what about an accumulation of property? Is there to be a limit? Do we need a "socialist" police force to guarantee that the proper amount of property is not surpassed? Will this police force not create contempt and in essence less freedom?

In regards to the argument that property will be eliminated, surely you are not serious. Should not everyone be able to possess a house? or an apartment? or a car (where feasible)? And if not, why not? Is not socialism's purpose to create an abundance of material things for people to own or better be able to afford within reason?

Let me know what you think.

TGOW

[Lamanov]

Properity should be ebolished in definately, there is no question about that. I understand it could be hard sometimes to understand and visualise such society.
This answers the question about the accumulation of properity. You can't own anything. Right term would be, in my opinion "for you to use".
You don't have to own something in order for you to use it. In planned economy which is supposed to satisfy the needs of everybody at the highest standard possible [socialist economy] everyone is supposed to have a place of residence and transportation for private, or, in better term, personal usage. This means for housing, entertainment, accesories, all ofcourse, in highest standard possible for the production, produced in optimum quantity and quality depending on the ogranisation of the recources, production, productivity and market.

I don't think global socialist economy could produce cars of such diffrent quality as [for example] Lexus and Daihatsu. Everyone would want to drive Lexus. Optimised means that there should be a "optimum" in quality and quantity, such that industry can handle so it isnt effected in other areas of production. I think, by todays standards, every qualified worker could probably drive a Golf 5 or something like that, live in a nice apartment, have a fine stereo system, tv, nice modern furniture, etc. In return - he should be able to work in the line of work for which he is qualified - in satisfying work conditions and in 'normal' time limits. His time off should give him other opportunities for usage - such as cinema, libraries etc.

Planned production in optimal standards for everyones satisfaction is a key for total ebolishment of properity, and - more important - ebolishment of needs for properity.

Isn't production of real life basis for everything ? If an individual in society without properiy can work and produce for himself so he is satisfyed, idea of properity isn't there anymore.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

DJ-TC ... I understand your point, and I have given some thought into this response.

I believe you are saying that the only way you can "own" something is to "use" it. And therefore, you cannot own if you do not use. So then you can't own anything.

We do not have the right to own a house, we do not have the right to own a car if we wanted one, we do not have the right to own furniture. All of these things are in essence, leased to us, or rented to us and we "pay" with our labor. Which brings to mind questions pertaining to money and so forth. Well, minus all that, I have only one argument for property ...

Property is the very essence of materialist theory. The problem arising from the workers and the capitalist is who really "owns" the profit that has been derived from a product. Basically, who gets the money from the product. If the workers get the money, they should be able to retain the right to purchase what they want with it, this is absolute economic freedom ... the ability to easily pay for the things that you not only need, but what you desire as well. Obviously, not everyone can have everything they want, absolute scarcity forbids it.

If people were allowed to own their homes, to own their farms, to own their cars, there is the strong possibility that crime and so forth would go down, as well as other problems. Is not the possession of property the basis for countless problems and revolutions? ... peasants rebel to own the land they work from their oppressive landlords, stealing stereo equipment because you can't afford it yourself, selling drugs to pay rent or to pay off the car. Most of these things can be (for the most part) eliminated if everyone were a small landowner, or able to own the place where they lived.

If we were to not own, are we simply leasing? or renting? From whom? The state, the municipal or national government? After we are to throw off our current private landlords, we replace them with another land lord?

I realize that property should be abolished, it spawns jealously, greed, hatred, fighting, etc. But that is a huge and drastic step. I don't foresee that happening if the revolution were to spring about tomorrow. Saying that we will take your land away is very unappealing. The benefits of owning something, or having something to hold on to, property, seems to be worth the break from orthodox Marxism.

TGOW

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Grapes of Wrath
If the workers get the money, they should be able to retain the right to purchase what they want with it, this is absolute economic freedom ... the ability to easily pay for the things that you not only need, but what you desire as well.

This is indeed a real problem for socialists (not for communists).

Let's suppose our socialist planning bureau decided on a housing standard: one room per person.

How could that be implemented if there was still a "free market" in housing/apartments? Some people might have three or four rooms; others might not even have a room of their own. To make appropriate adjustments, people would constantly be having to buy and sell dwelling units. You split up with your boyfriend -- your two room unit goes on the market while each of you must now purchase a one-room unit.

In particular, the young would suffer...where are they to get the money to buy a one-room unit of their own and move out of their parents' house?

It's just a lot easier for a socialist government to do this as a combination of personal choice and assignments. You go to the housing center and register for a dwelling place -- I imagine the principal consideration would be to put you as close to where you work as possible. If you were elderly and retired, you'd want a place close to a grocery center and perhaps even a medical center.

The same holds true for automobiles; a small car (probably electric or hydrogen fueled) would be sufficient for urban transportation for a single person; a van (in perhaps two sizes) for families or collectives. Assigned to you (by the auto center) for use...then returned when you no longer need it.

Movable property (furniture, dishware, clothing, etc.) might still be purchased and owned in a socialist society...but if you had something that you didn't want to keep but was still potentially useful, I think you'd be expected to donate it to a center for redistribution...not just pitch it out on the street.

In my opinion, socialists (as opposed to communists) are caught in a kind of contradiction...beneath all the rhetoric about "equality" and "social justice" is the realm of the marketplace and the potential of gross inequalities emerging as a consequence of that marketplace.

Under socialism, the more money you have, the better you live.

That is something that practically demands the restoration of capitalism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif