Private Property

[Red Menace]

I've been reading this book on Communism and for the past 6 monthes, I have been left in the dark as to even some of the basic idealoligies of Communists. and then finnaly I understood. but I have a question, Why do we think Private Property is evil. I know its not the property thats evil, but the desire for it, that is. Wouldn't it be possible to distribute land to people, and have them call it theirs. It wouldn't be like one worker who has an acre, and a government official having 2, everyone would have the same. whats wrong with that. Im not criticizing, im just wondering.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

hey Defy,

Well, workers work in factories, offices etc.

So one person cannot own the workplace of everyone.

So its better to have the state own it all, and then the workers democratically run the state.

This means the workers own all the property, every individual effectively owns everything and its all run collectively. Descisions being made democratically.

Private Proprty, like a factory or farm or a hotel or somthing, gives a single person the ability to control the lives of loads of other people.


Wouldn't it be possible to distribute land to people, and have them call it theirs. It wouldn't be like one worker who has an acre, and a government official having 2, everyone would have the same. whats wrong with that.

If you are talking about houses and stuff, then i think you will "own" a house, in that people cant kick you out and stuff. it would be your so long you wanted it.

[apathy maybe]

Well I disagree with bloody_capitalist_sham on the issue of the state. Why would the state own it? Why do we even need a state/government? The community perhaps can own everything, but we do not need to have more masters.

Anyway, back to the original question of why property is bad. Property per say is not bad as you point out. However, if a person has more property then others, then they have more power then others. Control of resources and violence are the two big aspects of power, one often leads to the other.

So, when we abolish the state, army and police, when we abolish the private security firms, we hope to do away with a large part of the control of violence.

To abolish the control of resources requires the abolition of property.


This is not to say that we will not have property in the sense of usage. It will probably still be thought of as 'your' house because you live in it. But you will not be free to destroy it or sell it, once you stop using it 'ownership' reverts to the community.

This will be the same for other items as well. You 'own' it so long as you use it, but once you stop using it, it reverts to the community.

Of course, people will not be able to accumulate vast amounts of wealth, because they will not be able to use it all. As such, when someone sees the accumulation, it will be rapidly dismantled and distributed to those who would actually use it.

[Red Menace]

I see, thanks for the help.
one more question, im known in my school for being a communist, one of the few. people always say communism never works, and that it is evident in countries like Cuba, Russia, etc...
I always tell them because they were poor countries in miserable shape before communism. that if communism were to happen in America *doubt it <_< * that it would be better. Is this correct? what should I say?

[homeo_apathy]

well,marx&#39;s communism has never successfuly been implmented, so you could argue that communism as a clasless socitey has nevr been established..therefore noone knows what it&#39;s like to live under it.

[apathy maybe]

Defy: Communism as a classless stateless society where property is communually owned has (as homeo_apathy points out) never really be tried.

If one believes in Marx, it could be stated that the reason why communism did not come about in Russia, China etc. is because they were not advanced industrialised countries at the time of their revolutions. So if somebody comes along and says "communism will never work look at the USSR/Russia", you can say, "read Marx" (if you are a Marxist), and that would be a satisfactory answer.

According to Marx, a revolution in an advanced industrial country such as the USA would probably succeed and thus produce a "transitional dictatorship of the proletariat". That means fuck all because Marx didn&#39;t really explain what he meant by the phrase.

Of course, Marx wasn&#39;t the only communist going around in the 19th century neither are Marxists (of any variant) the only communists now. Communist anarchists also think that a successful revolution is more likely to succeed in advanced industrial countries.

Either way, communism is more likely to work in an advanced industrial country because the technology exists to eliminate most of the wealth differentials, bring everyone to about the same level and have that level reasonably high.

[Floyce White]

Property is the relation of violence between people with regard to things, places, ideas, and other people. Violence is anti-social; it is contrary to the survival of the species as a whole and survival as individual animals.

The only purpose for property is accumulation for the few, and dispossession for the many. If you think that a violently repressed mass of poor people is "good," then "property is good." I am part of that dispossessed mass, so I don&#39;t.

Nationalization or statization of big business is socialism. Collectives of atomized small holdings is anarchism. Both are anticommunism--NOT communism as the previous posters suggested.

[redhmong]

1. Private property blocks the further development of productivity;

2. Private property makes the appearence of classes;

3. Opposing private property does not mean that everybody possesses the exactly
same things;

[Ander]

We were all born on this planet, so how anyone own it? It is here for the use of all of us, it doesn&#39;t make sense if one person owns more than another. It belongs to all of us.

[SmithSmith]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 02:52 PM
We were all born on this planet, so how anyone own it? It is here for the use of all of us, it doesn&#39;t make sense if one person owns more than another. It belongs to all of us.
Exactly.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 02:52 PM
We were all born on this planet, so how anyone own it? It is here for the use of all of us, it doesn&#39;t make sense if one person owns more than another. It belongs to all of us.
a very simple way to put things. is true&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+Sep 7 2006, 06:44 PM--> (R_P_A_S @ Sep 7 2006, 06:44 PM)
[email protected] 7 2006, 02:52 PM
We were all born on this planet, so how anyone own it? It is here for the use of all of us, it doesn&#39;t make sense if one person owns more than another. It belongs to all of us.
a very simple way to put things. is true&#33;&#33;&#33; [/b]
agreed, but why can&#39;t everyone have a piece. not a few, not some. but all
and not anyone with a bigger share. everyone has an equal slice of the pie??

[Floyce White]

You&#39;re all allowing yourselves to fall into a logical trap. "Everybody owns everything" is NOT a useful way to express disagreement with ownership. Instead, "nobody owns anything."

I discussed this point in my fourth Antiproperty article Alphabet Soup Spells Capitalism (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A14) (January 1, 2002).

[RebelDog]

Our objective, in fact the evolutionary destination of the human-race, is to create a egalitarian society with no hierarchy and as much freedom as is possible for everyone. Property is the greatest barrier to this. Property helps create surpluss in one place and scarcity in another, ie, rich and poor. If we can rid the world of scarcity and ensure that everyone has what they need and desire, property, like the state that protects it, is doomed to irrelevance.

[Floyce White]

The Dissenter, property and sharing do not depend on having little or a lot to own or share. They are ways of treating others, not amounts of things.

[RebelDog]

Floyce White

The Dissenter, property and sharing do not depend on having little or a lot to own or share. They are ways of treating others, not amounts of things.

I&#39;m not totally sure what you mean there Floyce could one please eleborate?

[KC]

I&#39;m not totally sure what you mean there Floyce could one please eleborate?

He is saying that property is a social relationship and not a material object.

[rouchambeau]

I see, thanks for the help.
one more question, im known in my school for being a communist, one of the few. people always say communism never works, and that it is evident in countries like Cuba, Russia, etc...
I always tell them because they were poor countries in miserable shape before communism. that if communism were to happen in America *doubt it * that it would be better. Is this correct? what should I say?

I think you should firmly ground your beliefs before you start calling yourself this or that.

[grove street]

In true communism property is not considered &#39;theirs&#39; or &#39;yours&#39; instead it&#39;s considered &#39;ours&#39; since we all own it that is what publicisation is all about, just like in a company more then one person owns the business (shareholders) and they get a say in how the company is run. Well in communism the workers are like the shareholders but in a more fair and equal way and since they all own the property they all get a say in how they want it used.