Property

[propertyistheft]

If you were to judge me by my name you would think that I am opposed to all property, and that I believe that it is all theft. But I am not opposed to property on the whole. I just think that there is a need for distinguishing what needs to be personal property and public property.
Such as someones house, private
means of production, public
Finished product made by individual worker, private
factory made products, public

For any socialistic revolution to succeed we need to have a clear view of what is the communities and what is the individuals

Any comments or suggestions on how to define property is welcome, criticism is welcome as well.

[Cryotank Screams]

Property should be communally owned by the commune, things that would be used by the majority, such as hospitals, factories, fields, fire stations, generally thing of that nature.

Direct personal items should be based on need, what would be in the direct control of a specific individual the majority of the time said item is in use, such as toothbrushes, clothes, and what we generally/typically define as personal items.

[Red Menace]

Would for say my house and all of my stuff be taken away from me? I know I would not technically own it anymore, but would I be forced out?

[Floyce White]

Property is not a thing. Property is a way to treat others. Property is a social relation of violence between people with regards to things, places, ideas, or other people.

I wrote a series of Antiproperty (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html) essays you may find interesting.

[vyborg]

I think we are dealing here with the property of the means of productions (banks, factories, land etc.). Of course the socialization of property will not touch shoes or spoons...

[Vyru]

It's a complicated thing. I've been thinking about it alot. I think houses and things SHOULD be private... I don't feel like waking up at 4am to find some random guy claiming to be my Uncle Boris in my living room.

What about luxury goods and posessions, like Dual core gaming PCS, playstations and the likes?

No one's touching my wii when I get it..

[KC]

Property should be communally owned

What does this mean? Does this mean that everyone shares in its ownership? Or that only members of a certain "commune" have ownership over it? If everybody owns it, then nobody owns it, because to own something there has to be someone that doesn't own it that you can exclude from ownership. That is what property is; the exclusion of ownership to others. When you're saying "This is mine" you're really saying "This is not yours". Property isn't about who has what; it's about who doesn't have it. Something only becomes yours when you have power over who can access the object.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 05:56 pm
I think we are dealing here with the property of the means of productions (banks, factories, land etc.). Of course the socialization of property will not touch shoes or spoons...
Something that can not be stressed enough.

[Dimentio]

In technocracy, we make a distinction between productional property and personal property. It means that everyone would still own their own house, their own items, clothes, videogames, computers and exotic lava lamps, for example, while everything that is utilised for production and infrastructure is owned by the population as a whole and administrated by the technate.

[KC]

Property can't exist without classes.

[Dimentio]

:)

What about my underpants?

[chimx]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 19, 2006 02:45 am
Direct personal items should be based on need, what would be in the direct control of a specific individual the majority of the time said item is in use, such as toothbrushes, clothes, and what we generally/typically define as personal items.
has anyone else noticed that whenever communists or anarchist talk about personal property that will exist after a revolution, they always list "toothbrushes" as one of their first examples? I've seen it a lot. I guess I should be happy y'all are so concerned with oral hygiene.

As has already been mentioned, everybody opposed productive ownership (property) but supports individual commodity ownership (possession) if it is based on need. the latter presupposes surplus.

[ItalianCommie]

It's a complicated thing. I've been thinking about it alot. I think houses and things SHOULD be private... I don't feel like waking up at 4am to find some random guy claiming to be my Uncle Boris in my living room.

I think the important thing is that the means of production are communally owned, not necessarily living space.

[KC]

As has already been mentioned, everybody opposed productive ownership (property) but supports individual commodity ownership (possession) if it is based on need. the latter presupposes surplus.

Commodities will not exist in communist society.


I think the important thing is that the means of production are communally owned, not necessarily living space.

Nothing will be owned by anyone in communist society. There's no point.

[chimx]

oh please, you know what i mean.

[KC]

That's an important distinction, but I know you didn't mean that and I was just trying to be a smartass. :)

[chimx]

hey, you like orchid. have you ever listened to to the band city of caterpillar?

[KC]

Do you have memory problems? We've been over this like a million times.

[chimx]

i know, i was just trying to be a smartass too.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 11:59 pm
Would for say my house and all of my stuff be taken away from me? I know I would not technically own it anymore, but would I be forced out?
Your personal property (house, toothbrush, clothes, appliences, radios, tv's, etc.) would be yours to own. The means of production, however, would be made puplicly owned.

[Dimentio]

People would need integrity still, whether we will call it scattering or property. Integrity is necessary to form an identity.

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by Muigwithania+November 20, 2006 02:31 pm--> (Muigwithania @ November 20, 2006 02:31 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2006 11:59 pm
Would for say my house and all of my stuff be taken away from me? I know I would not technically own it anymore, but would I be forced out?
Your personal property (house, toothbrush, clothes, appliences, radios, tv's, etc.) would be yours to own. The means of production, however, would be made puplicly owned. [/b]
so, when we say private property, we are talking about the means of production?

[propertyistheft]

Basically yes, the means of production, as well as public transportation, and schools

[Cryotank Screams]

has anyone else noticed that whenever communists or anarchist talk about personal property that will exist after a revolution, they always list "toothbrushes" as one of their first examples? I've seen it a lot. I guess I should be happy y'all are so concerned with oral hygiene.

I listed that simply to use it as an example because it&#39;s a very basic, and essential item, sorry, <_< .

[KC]

so, when we say private property, we are talking about the means of production?

No, when we say private property we are talking about private property. However, with the abolition of class society property will also disappear.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 20, 2006 06:35 pm

has anyone else noticed that whenever communists or anarchist talk about personal property that will exist after a revolution, they always list "toothbrushes" as one of their first examples? I&#39;ve seen it a lot. I guess I should be happy y&#39;all are so concerned with oral hygiene.

I listed that simply to use it as an example because it&#39;s a very basic, and essential item, sorry, <_< .
The first thing that comes to mind when I think of "essential" is vital organs.
Maybe it&#39;s because I don&#39;t brush my teeth that often, but is a toothbrush really that essential to the survival of civilization?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 09:00 pm
The first thing that comes to mind when I think of "essential" is vital organs. Maybe it&#39;s because I don&#39;t brush my teeth that often, but is a toothbrush really that essential to the survival of civilization?
I guess in the over all scheme of things, no, but do I envision us using them in a post-revolution society, I would hope so, lol; and bear in mind I&#39;m still studying and learning about property theories.

[phoenixoftime]

I have been thinking about this issue lately and came up with an idea to deal with property during the transition to a worker&#39;s state. Private property is allowed up to a maximum net value, with excess property being redistributed, either in the form of communal ownership or being given to others in need. The major problem would be the logistics of such an exercise, so it would have to be limited to sizeable property rather than small commodities.

An example: Rather than a rich man being allowed to keep his superyacht as private property, it becomes the property of a community sailing trust who allows everyone equal rights to sign up to use it for a short period.

I wouldn&#39;t have a problem with community ownership of my house, so long as whoever is in charge of it guarantees me the sole right to it for as long as I want and make sure it is maintained properly.

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 20, 2006 05:35 pm

has anyone else noticed that whenever communists or anarchist talk about personal property that will exist after a revolution, they always list "toothbrushes" as one of their first examples? I&#39;ve seen it a lot. I guess I should be happy y&#39;all are so concerned with oral hygiene.

I listed that simply to use it as an example because it&#39;s a very basic, and essential item, sorry, <_< .
well when one thinks of sharing, the one thing that you are least likely to share is your toothbrush. I think thats why that example always comes to mind.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+November 20, 2006 08:00 pm--> (MonicaTTmed @ November 20, 2006 08:00 pm)
Scarlet [email protected] 20, 2006 06:35 pm

has anyone else noticed that whenever communists or anarchist talk about personal property that will exist after a revolution, they always list "toothbrushes" as one of their first examples? I&#39;ve seen it a lot. I guess I should be happy y&#39;all are so concerned with oral hygiene.

I listed that simply to use it as an example because it&#39;s a very basic, and essential item, sorry, <_< .
The first thing that comes to mind when I think of "essential" is vital organs.
Maybe it&#39;s because I don&#39;t brush my teeth that often, but is a toothbrush really that essential to the survival of civilization? [/b]
It&#39;s a classic capitalist argument to say, "eww, we have to share toothbrushes? Are you f&#39;n ballocks?" So we use toothbrushes as one of the first examples.

[vyborg]

and, by the way, in a socialist society toothbrash will be useless as we will find more efficient way to take care of our mouth.

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 01:51 pm
and, by the way, in a socialist society toothbrash will be useless as we will find more efficient way to take care of our mouth.
Like??? ;)

[KC]

Plat caps.