All Property Is a Crime, Or is it?

[MurderInc]

Every now and then I read the comment, "Property is crime" or "Abolish all private property" as one possible definition of Marxism.

I am more of a pragmatist myself, and my mind tells me these are perhaps "bumper sticker" statements without depth.

In fact, if one reads the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one can find a few absolutisms as well, such as, Congress may not abridge the press or prohibit the free exercise of religion. Yet the Supreme Court has ruled that none of these are absolute, and that no one has the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater where no such danger exists, or for a 60 year old man to marry a 14 year old in pursuit of his religious freedom, and that Congress (the state) may prevent such happenings. So, the Court has ruled these rights are not absolute.

One has to presume the same is built into this philosophy, regardless of the words "All" or "abolish" in Marxist slogans.

Won't some body similar to the Supreme Court have to unify this thinking, to prevent the DoP or local direct soviets from declaring no one owns their clothes, or the food they caught in the stream, or their wedding bands or personal photographs?

Has there been any commentary along these lines?

[kurt]

Won't some body similar to the Supreme Court have to unify this thinking, to prevent the DoP or local direct soviets from declaring no one owns their clothes, or the food they caught in the stream, or their wedding bands or personal photographs?
That's personal property and won't need to be abolished.

When it comes to private property however, marxists and most anarchists I suspect are all unified in the desire to abolish all private property. Private property is used soley to exploit labour, without private property, this cannot happen.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:04 PM
Every now and then I read the comment, "Property is crime" or "Abolish all private property" as one possible definition of Marxism.
Where do you people get this distorted "definitions"?

[Leo]

Every now and then I read the comment, "Property is crime" or "Abolish all private property" as one possible definition of Marxism.

I am more of a pragmatist myself, and my mind tells me these are perhaps "bumper sticker" statements without depth.


Won't some body similar to the Supreme Court have to unify this thinking, to prevent the DoP or local direct soviets from declaring no one owns their clothes, or the food they caught in the stream, or their wedding bands or personal photographs?

Surely they are a little bit of "bumber sticker" statements, or we can simply call them 'slogans'. Not many slogans have any depth. (I must admit that I find slogans from May 68 Paris quite deep though).

Here, what matters is questioning what property is. Do we actually 'own' anything other than our own selves?

After the revolution, the idea of property will dissapear. It will be a concept from the old system. Surely, we will use some products individually, after all no one would want to use our tooth brushes or our dirty clothes, and no one will need our wedding bands or personal photographs.


Where do you people get this distorted "definitions"?

Marx himself describes communism as the 'abolishion of private property'. Property is crime, well, originally it is 'Property is Theft' and it is Proudhon's motto.

[Cloud]

Private Ownership is a crime, yes. Land worked by the worker is controlled by the worker. If your talking about general place to live as in your own home, then in my veiws, no, you are allowed a place to live. But as for private ownership, yes, that is a crime and should not be toleraed.

[Burrito]

Cloud,

Hand over your wallet. Criminal.

[bayano]

a wallet is personal property, you guys still aren't getting it. notwithstanding any utopian plans to do away with personal property in favor of all communal property (which there would always be exceptions to- we dont need our own movies and books, but our own underwear and toothbrushed might be nice), in the slogans you mention private property means essentially capital- the private property of the means of production, of resources, productive machinery, space and the like. the private property of something for profit or personal gain to be taken from others, by the exploitation of labor power, the requirement of rent or other payment, etc.

so you can keep your petty bourgeois commodity fetishism (which will be done away with culturally and gradually one would assume), and help us demand that the land be run by those who sow it, the factories run by those who work them, etc etc.

if you still dont get it, go to www.marxists.org and read some articles defining private property.

[RebelDog]

Who would want someone else's wedding band anyway? Gold and diamonds are only worth so much money beacuse the rich covet them so they can show-off the fact that they have so much money they can waste it. The reality is gold and diamonds only have real value in industry, gold plating, diamond drilling etc. In our communist society the absence of the market and want will mean goods and services will have only value to the user. Everyone will have free access to the same goods and services. The value cannot be transfered or exploited. People often say when you tell them this that if we all own everything then people will come in to your home and do things like put your underpants on, because they own them too. People have no interest in someone else's stinking underpants if they have free, equal access to underpants of their own. Communism must create a world of plenty for anyone. If you are in an orchard do you argue with people over an apple? Private property will be abolished as it is indeed theft. Need, need is criminal.

[JKP]

" Personal possession is just as odious as any other form of property. A “claim” is something you make to other people; property is a method of interacting with others. In the hypothetical absence of any conflict, to say that “I own my shirt,” “you own your shirt,” and “we own our shirts” is not interaction, therefore it is the trivial case–as in mathematics when all variables are set to zero. The claim to own some things used by only you and your kin would be entirely unnecessary–and the implied threat of violence to enforce that claim would be anti-social–if not for the need to put up a passive defense against the system of accumulation of wealth and its encroaching dispossession that does not distinguish between things used by one or by many. Personal property is a method of struggle on terms set by the oppressors...The production and distribution of goods and services were not envisioned as sharing, but as “exchange of personal possessions".


-Floyce White

[RevolverNo9]

In Marxian economic terms, 'private property' constitutes the means of production and the sum amount of capital. It is the ownership of this by the bourgeoisie that grants them economic power in capitalist society. The further consequence is, however, that by placing ownership (and therefore the power to produce, create and distribute (and consume)) in the hands of a sole entity, the entirety of the remaining social order is alienated. This is why that great but flawed philosopher, Proudhon, declared his infamous maxim: 'Property is theft.' Therefore a communist society is one where the property is held in common, ie. no-one is alienated from the economic process.

I'm interested by Murder Inc.'s use of the term 'crime'. It needs addressing. What, of course, a society deems 'criminal' is a value-judgement that is the ideological necessity of a class-based system which must 'legitimise' some practices and 'stigmatise' others (so as to consolidate that ruling class' position of power). Capitalism stigmatises and criminalises some forms of 'theft' (burgalry, for example) while legitimising others (sole ownership of producitve property or the profits made off the workers' production). Communism, however, is not about 'ending crime'. It is simply a society where different practices are stigmatised (such as property-ownership) which is no less a value-judgement. Yet the social conventions that constitute communist relations will be decided upon in a rational manner with the aim of enrichening the greatest majority of lives.

And that is what the abolition of private property will accomplish.

[MurderInc]

My use of "crime" was merely in the context of quoting these slogans. One of them is that property is a crime. Some people post it here all the time.

But I'm disappointed that noone has commented on the concept that there would be different communities with different concepts of property.

As I mentioned: In a world without private property, if a man catches a fish, can another take from it as much as he believes he needs and can the other object?

Would there not be a Court that would have to clarify how much could be saved by an individual?

All of this theory and text is not answering the questions "where the rubber meets the road".

It is post revolution times. You are traveling from one place to another with your family. Someone stops you and declares you have no right to certain things you have with you, and that he and his friends take them and use them at that moment. Where are the lines drawn? Would events cry out for a common law, and why would we be right back where we started?

I am not talking of the tools of production, but smaller things, and in the context that property is not allowed.

If claiming you own something and you prevent others from getting it, during post-revolutionary times, are you committing a crime? Wait, there's no state!

[MurderInc]

My use of "crime" was merely in the context of quoting these slogans. One of them is that property is a crime. Some people post it here all the time.

But I'm disappointed that noone has commented on the concept that there would be different communities with different concepts of property.

As I mentioned: In a world without private property, if a man catches a fish, can another take from it as much as he believes he needs and can the other object?

Would there not be a Court that would have to clarify how much could be saved by an individual?

All of this theory and text is not answering the questions "where the rubber meets the road".

It is post revolution times. You are traveling from one place to another with your family. Someone stops you and declares you have no right to certain things you have with you, and that he and his friends take them and use them at that moment. Where are the lines drawn? Would events cry out for a common law, and why would we be right back where we started?

I am not talking of the tools of production, but smaller things, and in the context that property is not allowed.

If claiming you own something and you prevent others from getting it, during post-revolutionary times, are you committing a crime? Wait, there's no state!

[Leo]

As I mentioned: In a world without private property, if a man catches a fish, can another take from it as much as he believes he needs and can the other object?

It depends on how much the taking man really needs. Of course the fisherman can object, he is free not to give what he has. In case of a conflict, the society would be the judge. The fisherman might be trynig to keep all extra fish to himself, or the other man might be trying to get extra fish, but in either case the person will be regarded as a sick person who needs serious help.


It is post revolution times. You are traveling from one place to another with your family. Someone stops you and declares you have no right to certain things you have with you, and that he and his friends take them and use them at that moment. Where are the lines drawn? Would events cry out for a common law, and why would we be right back where we started?

If someone tries to take what the other is carrying against their will, the taker would be in trouble, and again he would probably be regarded as a sick person who needs serious help. Here, there is no rule banning using materials. Communism is a voluntaristic system; if someone doesn't want to give what they produce to the society, no one can take their products, then they simply won't give anything to the person. Therefore it is the logical action to give every extra product. It is a natural balance between production and consumption.

[MurderInc]

I agree with you about the voluntarism. Shame the person into reason and don't contribute with him what you have.

But I have a SERIOUS problem with this comment:


The fisherman might be trynig to keep all extra fish to himself, or the other man might be trying to get extra fish, but in either case the person will be regarded as a sick person who needs serious help.

I don't know how up you are on your history with this "sick person" business. In case you didn't know, the former USSR's psychiatric profession was nearly destroyed by politics. During the Krustev and Bresnev (sp?) eras, where one wanted to defect to the USA, or showed capitalistic tendencies, they were in many cased declared to have mental aberation, based on the theory that where one showed anti-Soviet point of view, they had to be "crazy".

Call a person greedy, or not hip to the new post-Revolutionary times, but it's not a sick person who chooses a free market life style.

Otherwise, I enjoyed your comment.

[RevolverNo9]

But I'm disappointed that noone has commented on the concept that there would be different communities with different concepts of property.

...


In Marxian economic terms, 'private property' constitutes the means of production and the sum amount of capital.

Got it?

Furthermore, just because there is no state does not mean that social conventions (and 'law') cannot coerce individuals who accept their role in the community into acting in a manner conducive to social harmony.

[CCCPneubauten]

I think most are forgeting about the socialist transitionary period, there will do doubt be evidence of 'private property' you can't change from a system based on private property to one that is the exact opposite over night.

This might be the central value of an anarchist, but it isn't of any Marxist.

[Leo]

I don't know how up you are on your history with this "sick person" business. In case you didn't know, the former USSR's psychiatric profession was nearly destroyed by politics. During the Krustev and Bresnev (sp?) eras, where one wanted to defect to the USA, or showed capitalistic tendencies, they were in many cased declared to have mental aberation, based on the theory that where one showed anti-Soviet point of view, they had to be "crazy".

Call a person greedy, or not hip to the new post-Revolutionary times, but it's not a sick person who chooses a free market life style.

Well, I did really mean what I said though, it is not about calling them names, they will literally be sick, because everyone will have access to whatever they need in the communist society, everything will be open for everyone, and therefore no one will have a reason to get more than what they need. The rational thing to do will be taking as much as you need, as much as you can use, if someone is taking more than they can use, they will be acting irrationally and they won't be able to help it.

In capitalist material conditions, taking more then what you can use is accepted as a rational behavior, after all the person can't know when they will need it and the person can't know if they can get it when they need it. USSR was state capitalist, it was a money economy. It was nothing like what communism would be in the future.

Other than that, I'm glad I answered your question.

[RevolverNo9]

I think most are forgeting about the socialist transitionary period, there will do doubt be evidence of 'private property' you can't change from a system based on private property to one that is the exact opposite over night.

Er, well the role of any 'transitionary state' would be to bring the means of production under common ownership and that is the destruction of private property!!!

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 24 2006, 11:36 PM
Marx himself describes communism as the 'abolishion of private property'. Property is crime, well, originally it is 'Property is Theft' and it is Proudhon's motto.
Even assuming that Marx defined "communism" that way, I don't see how it is a possible and valid definition of "Marxism", as MurderInc claimed.

[drain.you]

If you believe in the word of Marx then private property is totally irrational and not necessary and the people should own all land or you could say that no-one owns any land, kinda the same thing.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

No-one NEEDS private land.

People should be allowed personal property, I dont think many would argue against this. And again working off the above quote, people shouldn't be hoarding things and being selfish because people should only have what they NEED, you don't NEED all the food you could possibly gather or whatever.
I imagine communities would adopt that famous quote as one of their 'laws' so they can codemn people who break it and use it to keep a sense of equality.


Er, well the role of any 'transitionary state' would be to bring the means of production under common ownership and that is the destruction of private property!!!
Not all property are means of production though. What about private housing? The big mansions and villas around the world. There will be a stage where people will have these even when the means of production are in the hands of the people. This isn't fair and will take time to solve. We will have to destroy unnesscarily big houses and build housing that is somewhat the same in size and have the same available facilities.
We cannot have equality if some people live in mansions and some live on the street.

[rouchambeau]

You are confusing private property from personal property. There is a BIG difference. Private (comming from the word "priv" for deprive) property is more along the lines of means of production. Personal property are the clothes you own, the food you eat, your CDs, etc.

[Janus]

Yes, there is a distinction between personal property and private property. Private property is something that is owned by an individual regardless if they are actually using it.

Communism seeks to abolish personal property but not private property. Personal property means that you are the sole user of that object but you can not buy or selll it in order to make a profit, etc.

[Floyce White]

JKP you beat me to the punch.

It's not that they don't understand the words. They just don't agree. The prejudice of family background determines what they will agree with (or even hear).