Property

[anomaly]

I realize the difference between personal and private property, but I am curious what makes private property different than personal property. I had an argument with an anarcho-capitalist earlier tonight, and I was stumped when he said there is no difference between the two. So, what exactly makes the two different?

[kurt]

Under capitalism, private property is used to extract surplus value from workers.

Personal property doesn't.

[KC]

Under capitalism, private property is used to extract surplus value from workers.

Actually, private property developed from the emergence of class society, although they did develop relatively simultaneously. Of course, private property is a precursor for capitalism, but it isn't what is directly used to extract surplus value from workers.

Regarding anomaly's original post, I found this on marxists.org:


Originally posted by marxists.org
Private property is the right of an individual to exclude others use of an object, and predates the rupture of society into classes. In its undeveloped form private property is the simple relation of the individual to the natural world in which their individuality finds objective expression. Private property is essentially the denial of the private property of others and finds its ultimate expression only in the relation of wage-labour and capital.

Basically the difference between private and personal property is one is ownership and one is possession. Private property is what is mine while personal property is what I have. Although they sound similar, there is a fundamental difference. That difference is the social character of the property. When I say that something is mine this means that it is mine and not yours - that it is mine and mine only. This is, of course, private property. Personal property is merely what I have, or what is in my possession. It isn't "mine"; it is everyone's. I merely possess it.

[kurt]

Actually, private property developed from the emergence of class society, although they did develop relatively simultaneously. Of course, private property is a precursor for capitalism, but it isn't what is directly used to extract surplus value from workers.

Yes, private property has been in existence since the rise of class society, which is why I said "under capitalism". And you're correct, surplus value is not extracted "directly" from private property, but it is usually the place where exploitation occurs.

I also read this quote you posted:

Originally posted by marxists.org
Private property is the right of an individual to exclude others use of an object, and predates the rupture of society into classes. In its undeveloped form private property is the simple relation of the individual to the natural world in which their individuality finds objective expression. Private property is essentially the denial of the private property of others and finds itsultimate expression only in the relation of wage-labour and capital.
emphasis mine

I take this to mean that private property is developed to its highest form under capitalism, and that fundamentally it is where the conflict between wage-labour and capital occurs.


Basically the difference between private and personal property is one is ownership and one is possession. Private property is what is mine while personal property is what I have. Although they sound similar, there is a fundamental difference. That difference is the social character of the property. When I say that something is mine this means that it is mine and not yours - that it is mine and mine only. This is, of course, private property. Personal property is merely what I have, or what is in my possession. It isn't "mine"; it is everyone's. I merely possess it.

I don't have any "major" issues with this, but I'd like to ask you to clarify something.

When you say:

When I say that something is mine this means that it is mine and not yours - that it is mine and mine only

Using this definition, couldn't we take it to mean that all property under capitalism is "private", in this sense? I mean, under capitalism, my house/car is indeed mine and mine only.

I like your definition of personal property however, as I believe all property will have this character under communism. Products/goods/objects will be produced/held for use.

For example:

Under communism your house isn't really your house. You're simply using it. When you're done using it, it is free for someone else to use. You have no need to hold onto things in order to make an exchange, as it will be abolished.

Just a thought.

[Delta]

In my opinion the simplest way to define the difference is that personal property is the stuff that I use for myself, such as my clothes, my car, my toothbrush, etc. Private property is the stuff that I use only to exploit other people. It is the stuff that I don't use, but that I refuse to let other's use unless they give me something of value (such as their labor).

[KC]

Yes, private property has been in existence since the rise of class society, which is why I said "under capitalism". And you're correct, surplus value is not extracted "directly" from private property, but it is usually the place where exploitation occurs...


emphasis mine

I take this to mean that private property is developed to its highest form under capitalism, and that fundamentally it is where the conflict between wage-labour and capital occurs.

I agree with you.



Using this definition, couldn't we take it to mean that all property under capitalism is "private", in this sense? I mean, under capitalism, my house/car is indeed mine and mine only.


Yes. Nearly everything is private property in a capitalist society, including your labour power.



I like your definition of personal property however, as I believe all property will have this character under communism. Products/goods/objects will be produced/held for use.


Well, yes, that is the point. Our revolution will destroy not only class society, but also private property.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by kurt
I take this to mean that private property is developed to its highest form under capitalism, and that fundamentally it is where the conflict between wage-labour and capital occurs.
Yes, this was essentially the point I was arguing to the anarcho-capitalist. When one starts using this 'property' to exploit others and extract a profit from them, I'd consider this 'private property'.

KC raises some good points as well about what is 'mine' and what I merely 'possess'.

Either definition will suffice.