Is all Private Property bad ?

An argument against personal property could made as well though, mainly dealing with waste of resources as well as generally ingraining the concept of exclusivity.

All-in-all usership is to be preferred over ownership.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.



We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, 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.

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

What is generally meant by "private property" is productive resources, means of production, land used to cultivate products, as well as natural resources.

Yep, the marxist suggestion is to hand it all over to the state.

Yep, the marxist suggestion is to hand it all over to the state.

Not quite, but nice try though.

The line between "personal possession" and "private property" is blurred enough as it is to suffer being taken advantage of by the collectivist power structure.

In other words, they have the power to define these terms upon the individual. Look at history, what did collectivist states do? They had the insolence to try and render intangible arts into state property.

I've no idea what your babbling about here, honestly. What do you refer to as "intangible arts"?

In collectivist states, even the public performance of music became the collectivised property of the state.

I've never heard of such an phenomenon. And I suspect you might be bending the concrete historical phenomena to fit your preconceived notions.
But can you point me to some sources discussing this?

Yes I'll give you primary sources - find and approach the musicians whom applied for license, approach the musicians whom licenses were revoked then ask them about "the historical phenomena" of the machinations of a collectivised state :rolleyes: