Ownership

[Mr.835300]

I have been reading and learning about communism and socialism for the past week or so. The differentiations between classes have been on my mind ever since I read "1984" - the first real piece of revolutionary literature I've touched. And, as I've been reading - particularly the redstar2000 papers - he alleges that in a classless society individuals do not own homes - they use them.

However, this contradicts what marx said about how in a communistic society, it is merely all MEANS OF PRODUCTION (capital and machinery) that is transfered into the hands of the public. Not all PROPERTY that is transfered into the hands of the public. Or is it?

Here is what he said
"Neither the state (which wouldn't exist) nor individuals would "own" houses...ownership is a concept belonging to class society. You would be the user (occupant) of a housing unit until you decided that you no longer needed it...and then someone else would be the new "user". It wouldn't "belong" to anyone."

I guess he has a point in preventing opportunistic citizens from becoming landlords, and thus - creating a new class.

If I own a home - a home that I live in before say - "the revolution" - then will I still be able to live it in after any "revolution". Will my stereos be mine - will I still have all my CDs? Or will they be siphoned off as the "needs of the people" or whatever.

Is good will and self-defense all I will have to prevent people from taking the things that I "regularly" use and - some - that I rely on? Or will the concept of ownership disappear - and there will only be usership - temporary or "permanent" use of a specific item until it is worn out and no longer of use to anybody at all?

[Marsella]

If I own a home - a home that I live in before say - "the revolution" - then will I still be able to live it in after any "revolution". Will my stereos be mine - will I still have all my CDs? Or will they be siphoned off as the "needs of the people" or whatever.

I've gotta run off to work so I'll be brief in my opinions.

The difference between your stereos and your CDs is that they cannot be used to exploit others (i.e. to make profit by employing others).

Obviously that is possible with the means of production and private property (homes can be rented - be sold to make profit or be mortgaged etc).

Therein lies the difference.


Is good will and self-defense all I will have to prevent people from taking the things that I "regularly" use and - some - that I rely on? Or will the concept of ownership disappear - and there will only be usership - temporary or "permanent" use of a specific item until it is worn out and no longer of use to anybody at all?

No there are things beside good will and self-defense.

There will, of course, be some sort of authority which will fight crime - because that is exactly what it is.

That authority will be as democratic as possible.

However, to get to the point of what is really going on here.

There are other notions of property usage besides ownership.

So, workers may be 'licensed' to live in a property but not actually own it.

That license would give them a greater right than say, someone who walked in from the street.

Presumably, an authority would decide how best to allocate those licenses for the greater good of society.

But all in all, communists argue for the control of the means of production by the workers foremost.

That is where the bulk of the economic foundations lie.

Also, Marx states in the Communist Manifesto:


We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labor, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social STATUS in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.

These are just initial thoughts so I would be interested in others regarding home ownership.

Edit:

Oh and welcome to the forum, I hope you find it educational. :)

And you wouldn't be able to provide the link to that statement by RS2k - so I could read it in its context? ;)

[Mr.835300]

And you wouldn't be able to provide the link to that statement by RS2k - so I could read it in its context? ;)

that is here

http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subacti...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1095081406&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Marsella]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 08:25 pm

And you wouldn't be able to provide the link to that statement by RS2k - so I could read it in its context? ;)

that is here

http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subacti...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1095081406&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)
Are you sure that's the right link?

The quote doesn't show up in that article. :unsure:

[kromando33]

You don't seem to understand socialism, socialism does not posit collective control of all property including petty personal belongings, but instead common ownership of the means of production, so factories etc not your stereo etc. Communism is different because in communism all contradictions and reactionary tendencies in society are eliminated, so no one would have any concept at all of private ownership, such a thing would be ludicrous in communism. The central idea is that socialism breeds communism, in line with Marxist dialectics having common ownership of production under the proletarian state breeds a greater community solidarity and communal fraternity in the society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think the best approach to this question is, alas, the anarchist one. :(

Especially because of Proudhon's "property is theft" quote, anarchists are at the forefront of distinguishing possessions from property. The modern lingo for the latter is now "capital property." The lack of agitation regarding this key distinction has allowed the bourgeois hegemony in the mass media to smear perceptions of our positions with the false notion that we're out to have collective ownership right down to the last toothbrush - and thus extend the notion of "property" while putting a Newspeak twist on dictator rei gerendae causa (the basis of the dictatorship "rei gerendae causa" of the proletariat).

[Lynx]

Communists value privacy as much as anyone else. Your home may no longer be yours in the sense of charging someone rent to live in it, but it will be yours to live in; alone, or with family and friends.

[Mr.835300]

Are you sure that's the right link?

The quote doesn't show up in that article. unsure.gif


Class in a post revolutionary society (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1089425419&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

There's the right article.. sorry :/