What is the destruction of private property, in a layman's terms?

[Crest]

I've looked through several works for this, and while they all advocate the destruction of Private Property, there is no actual definition of what "private property" in this context is. Is it's ending actually how it appears, of just plain abolishing the right to own anything, or does it refer to the more strict definition of common distribution? I don't quite understand this specific plank of the Manifesto. Could someone help me out, here?

[AGITprop]

I've looked through several works for this, and while they all advocate the destruction of Private Property, there is no actual definition of what "private property" in this context is. Is it's ending actually how it appears, of just plain abolishing the right to own anything, or does it refer to the more strict definition of common distribution? I don't quite understand this specific plank of the Manifesto. Could someone help me out, here?

The abolition of private property simply means that no one can privately own land. We would all have the rights to own personal property such as our televisions, computers, mp3 players, shoes, etc etc, but land is everyones and needs to be redistributed in accordance to how much room a family unit would need to live.

[BIG BROTHER]

I would say not just land, but all means of productions i.e. factories and such.

[jake williams]

I would say not just land, but all means of productions i.e. factories and such.
Yes, this is the idea. Different people have different views on the nuances, and that's fine, but the general idea is you can't own property used for profit - factories, tractors and so on being the usual examples, but there are others. You still own your clothes and such.

[BIG BROTHER]

Yes, this is the idea. Different people have different views on the nuances, and that's fine, but the general idea is you can't own property used for profit - factories, tractors and so on being the usual examples, but there are others. You still own your clothes and such.

yeah, I got you. I would call that type of property personal property.

[rouchambeau]

Private property is a social relationship governing how people interact with each other and things in the world (those things generally being workplaces, land, basic needs, etc). The relationship says that someone "owns" a thing; that others are not allowed to use or take it. Destroying this private property means altering the relationship amongst people to the point that no one can be said to own anything, or no one can deny anyone else the use of something that they need.

[Q]

I've looked through several works for this, and while they all advocate the destruction of Private Property, there is no actual definition of what "private property" in this context is. Is it's ending actually how it appears, of just plain abolishing the right to own anything, or does it refer to the more strict definition of common distribution? I don't quite understand this specific plank of the Manifesto. Could someone help me out, here?
From MIA (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#private-property):

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.

With "capital" defined as (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm#capital):

Capital is in the first place an accumulation of money and cannot make its appearance in history until the circulation of commodities has given rise to the money relation.

Secondly, the distinction between money which is capital, and money which is money only, arises from the difference in their form of circulation. Money which is acquired in order to buy something is just money, facilitating the exchange of commodities. [Marx represent this as C - M - C or Commodity - Money - Commodity.] On the other hand, capital is money which is used to buy something only in order to sell it again. [Marx represented this as M - C - M.] This means that capital exists only within the process of buying and selling, as money advanced only in order to get it back again.

Thirdly, money is only capital if it buys a good whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of the commodity, realised in selling it for a Profit [or M - C - M'].

The word “capital” was first used in its current meaning in England around 1611, derived from “capital grant,” meaning a grant of land from the King – i.e. the head – which would be the basis of a new estate, and so meaning ”original” funds, thus carrying in its genealogy a mirror of the changing sources and origins of power, with the rise of the bourgeois revolution in England.

So yeah, in "layman terms" private property is everything that produces new capital in private hands. And with the "destruction" we mean putting the means of production under democratic control, so the surplus will benefit the whole of society as opposed to the wealthy few.

[crimsonzephyr]

The abolition of private property simply means that no one can privately own land. We would all have the rights to own personal property such as our televisions, computers, mp3 players, shoes, etc etc, but land is everyones and needs to be redistributed in accordance to how much room a family unit would need to live.

What about houses? If they are on property that is every bodies, will people be able to walk in from the streets and stay in your house. Or will housing be provided for all?

[Q]

What about houses? If they are on property that is every bodies, will people be able to walk in from the streets and stay in your house. Or will housing be provided for all?
The latter.

[Crest]

Ok, thanks. I understand it now.

But to continue on to what hardee was asking, even if they have their own place to stay, it would be technically legal for them to be in your house, right?

[palotin]

In layman's terms, the destruction of private property is usually really, really fun and almost always justifiable in terms of theory, though not always in terms of practice.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Ok, thanks. I understand it now.

But to continue on to what hardee was asking, even if they have their own place to stay, it would be technically legal for them to be in your house, right?I believe that just as you have the right to defend your personal possessions (television, clothes, etc) from being taken away from you, you should be able to defend your home from outsiders that could potentially be dangerous.

Communities should look to having a commons area with spare housing for those who may be traveling through the area or for those who have recently lost their home (perhaps a break up with the girlfriend?) to stay in until proper housing can be built.

[Crest]

Ok, gotcha.