Property & Ownership

[Apollodorus]

I apologise for making a third topic in the space of a few days. This should be the last. The question is: what is wrong with private property? Why is it necessary to abolish ownership? I understand why people should not be allowed to own and profit from, say...workplaces in which they do not work, houses in which they do not live, and arable land upon which they do not grow crops or raise livestock. But why can they not own land, houses or workplaces which they are using? Or can they in a communist society? What about property other than those three examples? What of it?

[BobKKKindle$]

Private property is important, because the owner is able to assert control of goods that are produced by using his property - even if the owner wasn't part of the production process. The owner then receives the profit generated through the sale of the goods, and the people who actually produce them receive a wage that is, generally, determined by the owner, because if a worker tried to improve his pay, the owner could simply choose to employ someone else who is desperate for a job, or even move his enterprise to another country where workers are willing to work for far less and there are less stringent regulations controlling how firms are able to treat their workers. This group of workers that the capitalist does not employ, but could hire, is the reserve army of labour, and is used as to put downwards pressure on wages, to discourage workers from taking action to shift the terms of the wage-labour transaction in their favour. The actual profit is generated by paying workers less in wages than the value of what they produce, and is also known as surplus value.

Private property is thus responsible for the inequality present in all capitalist societies - the small minority which owns economic resources have living standards far above those of the general population. Production is social - it is reliant on the cooperation of many people, both within the workplace and society as a whole - but private ownership allows for individual appropriation. The separation of workers from their products is a form of alienation. This is unfair, because people should be rewarded for their efforts, and should not be able to attain wealth without making some contribution to the lives of others. Even when the capitalist assumes a managerial role and makes decisions as to how the business should be run (as it sometimes the case) they still receive far more in income (in the form of profit) than they would, if reward was a genuine reflection of effort or social contribution.

By putting the means of production (which is a general term used to refer to the tools and machinery we use to produce goods) under the ownership of the community, workers will be able to receive the full fruits of their labour, and by eliminating the parasitic layer at the top of society, we will improve the lives of everyone else. Resources will also be democratically controlled, through workers councils situated in every workplace. These councils will "spring up" as part of the revolution and will also form an important part of the state apparatus - workers in every factory will be organized into militias to defend their power.

A distinction should be made between private and personal property - the latter refers to items which are not used to produce. and people would be able to keep these items as their own property (so other people can't use them without the permission of the owner) except when it is vital that the item in question be controlled by the community, perhaps because it is scarce, but important - for example, a computer in a rural village. In a socialist society, no-one would be able to use their property to generate income - this means that capital (which Marx considered to be a social relation) will be abolished.

Don't be afraid of asking questions comrade! You can expand your knowledge, and it encourages more experienced members to think about their ideas, so we don't become dogmatic.

[FireFry]

Property is force, slave's can't be property if they're not held down or back with the force of firearms or chains. Machinery can't be property without the force of police or security contractors.

This is the most radical of ideas, and everybody hates it. Which just proves to mean that it's right.

[cenv]

I apologise for making a third topic in the space of a few days. This should be the last. The question is: what is wrong with private property? Why is it necessary to abolish ownership? I understand why people should not be allowed to own and profit from, say...workplaces in which they do not work, houses in which they do not live, and arable land upon which they do not grow crops or raise livestock. But why can they not own land, houses or workplaces which they are using? Or can they in a communist society? What about property other than those three examples? What of it?
You shouldn't try to define post-revolutionary society in terms of "ownership." It's not going to be a capitalist society, so why define it in capitalist terms?

Of course workers will have control over the workplaces they work in. I wouldn't call that "private ownership" though.

As far as owning houses and land -- what's the point in this? Seems like that would just force some people to rent, which would set the seeds for class distinctions.

[Dr Mindbender]

I apologise for making a third topic in the space of a few days. This should be the last. The question is: what is wrong with private property? Why is it necessary to abolish ownership? I understand why people should not be allowed to own and profit from, say...workplaces in which they do not work, houses in which they do not live, and arable land upon which they do not grow crops or raise livestock. But why can they not own land, houses or workplaces which they are using? Or can they in a communist society? What about property other than those three examples? What of it?
Read point 9.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/frequently-asked-questions-t65239/index.html

[Apollodorus]

Thanks for that, comrade bobkindles.


Property is force, slave's can't be property if they're not held down or back with the force of firearms or chains. Machinery can't be property without the force of police or security contractors.

This is the most radical of ideas, and everybody hates it. Which just proves to mean that it's right.

On the contrary, personal property appears to be more to do with protection than force. For example, when a father refuses to lend his son his car: because he does not want his son to damage it.



As far as owning houses and land -- what's the point in this? Seems like that would just force some people to rent, which would set the seeds for class distinctions.

Land or houses which one is using. One can not rent something which one needs for one's self.


Read point 9.
<link>

That is a very helpful topic. Cheers.

[Gold Against The Soul]

I apologise for making a third topic in the space of a few days. This should be the last. The question is: what is wrong with private property? Why is it necessary to abolish ownership? I understand why people should not be allowed to own and profit from, say...workplaces in which they do not work, houses in which they do not live, and arable land upon which they do not grow crops or raise livestock. But why can they not own land, houses or workplaces which they are using?

Well with the example of housing, you say it there in your final sentence. If it is being used by the owners then it's personal property not private. Obviously it is different when you own the house but don't personally use it and rent it out to someone else. Then it is no longer personal property.

Land and 'workplaces' are a bit different. Land is a productive force. Arguably that being privately owned is the beginning of class divisions, I would say.

[Gold Against The Soul]

I apologise for making a third topic in the space of a few days. This should be the last. The question is: what is wrong with private property? Why is it necessary to abolish ownership? I understand why people should not be allowed to own and profit from, say...workplaces in which they do not work, houses in which they do not live, and arable land upon which they do not grow crops or raise livestock. But why can they not own land, houses or workplaces which they are using?

Well with the example of housing, you say it there in your final sentence. If it is being used by the owners then it's personal property not private. Obviously it is different when you own the house but don't personally use it and rent it out to someone else. Then it is no longer personal property.

Land and 'workplaces' are a bit different. Land is a productive force. Arguably that being privately owned is the beginning of class divisions, I would say.

[apathy maybe]

The conception of property is one that is debated often in anarchistic circles, what is personal property etc...

I would suggest having a look at Individualist Anarchism, specifically this thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/information-individual-anarchist-t72342/index.html which you can view... and http://www.revleft.com/vb/defending-usage-conception-t51371/index.html?t=51371


Anyway, Bobkindles gave a good answer too (and thus will get a rep point...)