My views on property

[Connolly]

Ok. Edit. Let me rephrase what it is I am saying here

----------------------------------------------

Ill compare and contrast.

My definition of property: Something you have full control and rights over - legitimised by a state or some enforcement mechanism.

Socialism has collective ownership. It has this because society, as a whole (through whatever enforcement mechanisms there may be), controls the 'rights' of ultimate effective control (UEC) of property. As an individual therefore, you do not have property rights - but possession. Your possssion still remains subject to societies ownership and therefore its 'rights' and will - you could even call it a 'lend'.

When you have a possession, you are allowed benefit from its use.



Capitalist society is somewhat different. The state which legitimates ownership, is controlled by (for simplicity) the capitalist class. The state in capitalism has UEC over all property - as with socialism. It has ultimate say over both capitalist and workers 'effective control' over land, personal items and factories etc.

Since in socialism you possess something because UEC is collective. Then is it not fair to say that since UEC is by the capitalist state, you dont own anything, but possess it.

But property is relative in this sense. From the perspective of the working class, who have no control over the state, the capitalists have property. UEC is out of the hands of the working class, and in the capitalists. So the working class, because they dont control the state, and therefore do not possess the ability to assert property 'rights', are propertyless, and are infact in possession. Just like socialism.

To the workers, the capitalists own everything in society - including personal property, because the capitalists control the state and therefore UEC and the basis of the legitimation of property.

So. The workers own no property, but possess it.


The capitalists - as a class - control the state collectively. They therefore, from their perspective, own things collectively as a class. They do not have individual ownership - they have possession. They have possession because the state, despite being controlled by their class - retains the ability to confiscate their control as individuals.

They have, through their possesssion, the benefits of control. In this instance, the means of production and the profit obtained from it. This is comparable to how a person may have possession of something under socialism, and benefit from it.

------------------

And, this is why, say, libertarian capitalists and anarcho-capitalists oppose the state. They feel the state is taking away from their full individual 'rights' to control property. They want no state interference, nor any taxation on their "hard earned gains".

So, Socialists want to collectivize property. Free market capitalists want to individualize it. The present state of affairs - and this includes Ireland, the USA, Cuba, DPRK, UK, China - as capitalist nations - retain neither full 'individual property rights' nor collective property rights. Cuba and the USSR are, by what I wrote above, capitalist societies. One section of society controls the state by undemocratic means, and therefore retain "Ultimate Effective Control" over property - while the rest of society do not control the state, and are propertyless.

------------------

So thats the edited jist of what i was saying. Your criticisms welcome :)

[Connolly]

Bump, I edited it to make it more clear and consistent to understand.

[BobKKKindle$]

My definition of property: Something you have full control and rights over...[etc]


Socialism has collective ownership..[etc]

You have not given any real explanation of what would actually be included in the category of "collective ownership" in a socialist society. Would society be able to tell people what to do with their own bodies? Would people be denied the right to own items which cannot be used to exploit others, and stop other people from using those items?

[Connolly]

You have not given any real explanation of what would actually be included in the category of "collective ownership" in a socialist society. Would society be able to tell people what to do with their own bodies? Would people be denied the right to own items which cannot be used to exploit others, and stop other people from using those items?


Well yes, I suppose people wouldnt be able to do what they want with their own bodies. Rehabilitation and prison are something where a state or collective could impose.

Who would enforce ownership of personal items if they were to be owned?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

100% unlimited right to property doesn't exist in any system, even hypothetical anarcho-capitalist. It may be just semantics, but I have time digesting the idea humans are comparable to property.

There is no perfect notion to property. We need to accept that. Capitalists won't because they live by a religion.

[graaaaaagh]

In my view, legitimate ownership is constituted by active occupancy/use. If you don't use it, it isn't yours; it belongs to either the community as a whole, or to he who needs it most.

[Lynx]

Collective ownership of the means of production. This means property that is a) a means of production, b) in short supply and c) in demand. If a, b and c conditions are not met, it would be unnecessary to expropriate that property.

[Dharma]

Private property shall exist and be distributed equally among the people, regardless of race, religion or political beliefs.

[DesertShark]

Does this mean that within any system (possibly even anarchy), private property would exist?

-DesertShark

[Led Zeppelin]

My definition of property: Something you have full control and rights over - legitimised by a state or some enforcement mechanism.

So my toothbrush is property? After all, I have full control and rights over it (since I bought it) and the state makes sure that it is so.

You have to make a distinction between private property (which is what you described above, though still a bit vaguely) and personal property, which are items used for personal use.


Socialism has collective ownership. It has this because society, as a whole (through whatever enforcement mechanisms there may be), controls the 'rights' of ultimate effective control (UEC) of property. As an individual therefore, you do not have property rights - but possession. Your possssion still remains subject to societies ownership and therefore its 'rights' and will - you could even call it a 'lend'.

This is a bit weird. So my toothbrush can be taken away from me by a post-revolutionary state just because they need it? So if a worker has earns enough money to "buy" a house, the state can take it away whenever they want to?

The initial problem with not showing the difference between private and personal property comes to light here.

A socialist society is based on the dictum; "From each according to his ability, to each according to their contribution", or; "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", meaning that you should get in return from society what you have given (of course deductions are made from this for expansions, healthcare, wear and tear etc.).

Your definition of socialism would be; "From each according to his ability to each according to his use, until we say otherwise."


When you have a possession, you are allowed benefit from its use.

This is kind of vague. You are allowed benefit from its use, but what if you "use it up"? For example, what if the "property" is food or a piece of clothing that you ate or that you worn out. You have used it but will you have to repay it to society because it was "on loan"?

Again, this goes back to the private/personal property issue.

If you had made that distinction all of this would have been clear.


Capitalist society is somewhat different. The state which legitimates ownership, is controlled by (for simplicity) the capitalist class. The state in capitalism has UEC over all property - as with socialism. It has ultimate say over both capitalist and workers 'effective control' over land, personal items and factories etc.

This isn't really true. The bourgeoisie does not have any control over the personal property of people. Of course they determine the amount of personal property someone can get (due to wages, and a host of other means) but when personal property is acquired the capitalist state defends your right to have it and use it in whatever way you like.

Naturally if you have "broken the rules" the state can take away all your property, but in essence when you have "lawfully" acquired an item of personal property it's yours to do with as you please.

The essence of Marxism though is the struggle against private property, not personal property.


To the workers, the capitalists own everything in society - including personal property, because the capitalists control the state and therefore UEC and the basis of the legitimation of property.

As I said above (and elaborated on) I don't believe this is true.


So. The workers own no property, but possess it.

Hmm, this is a bit semantical though.

When you have total possession over a personal item, and are free to do with it as you please, and the right of you doing so is defended by the state, you own it. That's the definition of owning something.


The capitalists - as a class - control the state collectively. They therefore, from their perspective, own things collectively as a class. They do not have individual ownership - they have possession. They have possession because the state, despite being controlled by their class - retains the ability to confiscate their control as individuals.

This is also a bit vague and untrue in my opinion.

The capitalist class is not a monolithic whole, on the contrary, it has many divisions and sub-divisions and each of them may have a different interest than the other. It is a class not only in struggle against the other classes of society, but also against itself. The "big fish" do exist of course, but even they struggle against each other.

They do share a common interest though; to struggle against the working-class. Just as the workers share a common interest; to struggle against the capitalist class.

But as you know, the working-class is also divided, and more so than the capitalist class is, but it's not true that the capitalist class is not divided.

They have, through their possesssion, the benefits of control. In this instance, the means of production and the profit obtained from it. This is comparable to how a person may have possession of something under socialism, and benefit from it.


So, Socialists want to collectivize property.

No, they want to abolish private property.

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." - Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

It was a good article though in general, if you make the distinction clear between personal and private property, and make sure to direct your attacks at private property, it would be flawless. :)

Keep up the good work.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I wonder what kinds of private property that exist out there that aren't capital property, per se.

[redguard2009]

I think you are taking the term "private property" too literally.

In an economic sense, "private property" is any article or even idea (intellectual property) whose use is assigned solely to one person or one group through legal means and which is used in the generation of capital, usually through the exploitation of others.

For instance, in Marx's time, private property was epitomized by the plethora of industrial machines, techniques and technologies which were being invented that superceded and replaced the old methods of production and which afforded the creators, inventors, and/or owners of that technology with immense wealth and monopolization over the proliferation of the product their machines create. And more often than not (re: universally) when a technology, machine, technique or what-have-you was deployed for use in generating some profit for its owner it was handled not by the creator or owner himself but by men (re: proletarians) he hired to operate those machines.

In a sense, the private property which is in contention is the machinations for the creation of monopolized commodities whose function as a consumable product is owned by an individual or company or other interest. This property usually comes in the form of patents on designs or techniques.

The abolition of private property is in effect the publication of all technology; in essence the abolition of patented rights of ownership. The issue here deals with the production of commodities, not physical, literal ownership. When Marx said the ultimate goal was the abolition of property he spoke of the enforced rights of an individual to manage the production of whatever commodity in order to maximize their own personal benefit from its use. When the notion of private property is abolished, all technologies become liberated for use by all without some higher figure dictating how much we must give for it, who gets to use it, who gets to produce it, etc.

In the case of the toothbrush, it doesn't mean that your toothbrush is owned by society; it means that the toothbrush in a more abstract sense, its production and design and use, is owned by society, and everyone has the right to make his own toothbrush however he sees fit, and everyone has the right to start a production line of toothbrushes.

(Perhaps a more pertinent example, the recipe for Coca-Cola is patented and the private intellectual property of the Coca-Cola Company Ltd; in a communist society that recipe would be available to all, for anyone to make their own Coca-Cola, for their own use or the use of others, to be sold at their leisure.)

Which of course brings up the issue of competetiveness between groups of autonomous workers producing similar products...