Is all Private Property bad ?

:lol:

Search for sources Zhdanov Doctrine and Central Committee’s Decree “On V. Muradeli’s opera The Great Friendship,” . I'm not going to do your homework for you, kid.

That doctrine and that decree demanded soviet musicians play "proletariat" music, whatever the hell that means.... "hint: wherever the state wants".

The collectivist state tried to control art as if it were state property

If you are talking about companies,then yes they are very bad.They are frauding the people,steal them,exploit their workers and owners of them(companies) are 100% capitalists,something I very oppose.

As opposed to the state doing the same in a collectivist system? It's the same thing, only in a collectivist state....there is more centralisation of power.

I myself have always considered land and houses to be private property as opposed to personal... not in that people shouldn't be allowed to live in their own house, just that large amounts of land (other than for farmers) can be enough for a few houses, rather than a mansion for one. Bad example though, I guess.

Holy fuck, you must be an idiot of sorts if you mistake the political instrumentalization of the arts with blurring the lines between private property and personal possession. And the doctrine of Proletkult, and its subsequent transformations, showed much more than your idiotic reduction to the metaphysical will of the State. Not that I find that particular cultural policy progressive (not only because of the dirigated character of the content of art, but that's beside the point.
You should argue against political agitation (ab)using popular culture and the arts, and not babble about the supposed dangers of the Great Collectivist State (oh yeah, and what is a collectivist state?) abusing and misunderstanding concrete historical phenomena in order to demosntrate a speculation about personal possession and private property.

All private property is "bad", but I think you fail to grasp what Marx means by private property. Ill refrain from repeating more of whats been said already.

Good subject yes.

God that sounds horrible.

There's very little ambiguity between a toothbrush and a tractor. Anyone who attempts to tell you otherwise is full of shit, be they capitalist or communist.

Really? I think it sounds a sight less horrible than hundreds of millions of people all 'owning' cars (tying up loads of resources and even space) that are are only used a tiny fraction of the time.

A quick aside - somebody asked "What about houses?" - to which I can only reply, "You own a house?!"

Seriously, capitalism seems a bigger barrier to me than communization as regards the question of secure housing. I've been evicted from at least three flats because the landlord wanted to clean the place up and jack up the prices. Nothing would give me more satisfaction than moving any of those motherfuckers in to cardboard boxes.

The quotes serve no purpose in this sentence. You are either implying that everyone's claim to ownership of a car is illegitimate, or you are questioning the legitimacy of the concept of ownership, itself. Both are ridiculous.

I see no reason why people shouldn't share automobiles. For that matter, I see no reason that we shouldn't have drastically higher fuel efficiency standards, and produce more electric cars. For that matter, we should also be building up our pathetic public transportation system. those are all excellent ideas. However; I don't see that there is any rational argument that it is categorically wrong to own a car. For one thing; they serve a very legitimate utilitarian purpose, or, as I was saying earlier; with the concept of; 'ownership', itself. No offense; but this is just nonsense. Anarchism is philosophically opposed to capital, as this necessitates an institution of degredation, and exploitation, but it is not philosophically opposed to personal posessions. The fact that you have trousers that just you wear does not in any way necessitate the exploitation, or degredation of myself, or any other human being. You do not extract surplus value from them.

Yes.

Well, OK, let's look at that for a moment NGNM85 'property is theft'.

I rather think I'm questioning the legitimacy of the concept of ownership there NGNM85 'property is theft'.


You can't just plop the word 'legitimate' in here and expect to get to get away with it.

They serve a utilitarian puropse, certainly, under capitalism where people often have to travel great distances due to work, where development of public transport ranges from pretty good to absolutely shit, and where for some reason everything starts and ends at particular times and people need to move around then and mostly only then. Why do you think this is 'legitimate' NGNM85 'property is theft'?




My trousers do not emit noxious gases, require constant maintainace, use a tonne of metal and 1/4 tonne of plastic in their construction, take up space on the street or have the ability to kill people when misused. However, when it comes down to it, I don't really care if I 'own' my trousers or just 'use' them.

The classical concept of ownership includes 3 elements; usus, abusus, and fructus.

The first of these is what we would consider 'use' - I have the right to utilise the object in question. As a transportation device maybe. Use as weapon would probably bring me into conflict with other 'rights' so let's just stick to using it as a transportation device. So far so good. I think this is faie enough under capitalism or socialism, 'the right to utilise a car as a transportation device'.

The second element is the right to 'abuse' the object - to destroy it, or disposses myself of it by transfrering 'ownership' to another. I certainly have this right under capitalism. Do I have this right under socialism? Does the car not then become an object of investment capital, or a potential hazard? Do I have the right to set fire to it by the side of the road, having decided I'm going to 'abuse' it? Do I have the right to promise it to someone, perhaps in exchange for some favour? I'd say, no, I don't.

The third is the right to the 'fruit' of the object. Products. Well, no-one in capitalism enforces their right to harvest the exhaust gasses of their car, but it exists. Will people do this under socialism? Will this right exist? Will cars be utilised as productive machines, and if they are, is it OK to own them as long as one doesn't employ wage labour? Tricky situation here. It implies I can 'own (enjoy the use, abuse and fruit)' anything as long as I don't get someone else to work it. Are you sure this where you want to go, NGNM85 'property is theft'?

The task should be to initiate plans to build high quality city living as well as put resources into high quality and efficient public transportation so as to eliminate the need for automobiles in a lot of cases.

I just really like the idea of owning my OWN car, with my OWN preset radiostations tunes in, customized and pimped out in my own style, and not having to worry about what kind of asshole might have been using it before me and sharting on the seats.

But apart from not wanting to drive a public car, I don't see how it's practical. You'd never be able to drive your car to your house, you'd have to leave it at some compound and then walk or catch a bus to your house. Then you get up in the morning, and have to go back down to the compound again.

Sing it sista! I couldn't agree more. The fact that you never really own a house, and have to pay all sorts of rates and shit is a major reason I've never been tempted to want to "own" one. Sure, I'd love to live in a mansion, but when I think about all that it is involved in owning one, nah fuck it. The rates my parents pay on their house they supposedly own just make me sick.

I use something like that, it's called the city bus. I have always believed owning a personal automobile is just too bourgeois.

I never have to warm it up, I never have to change the oil, I never have to wash the windows, I never have to wash and wax the car. I never have to buy gas, I never have to make car payments, and I never have to pay for insurance.

I also have a nice pair of tennis shoes so if the trip is less than three miles and the weather is nice, I walk. :)

The question in itself is a pointless one. Private property is not objectively "bad" because morality is neither objectively existent nor objectively defined. To include private property in this black and white ideological presupposion, a world of "good" and "bad" is not only antiscientific, it is laughable. To attribute something so complex and dynamic, like private property and it's innumerable manifestations as being "bad" is erroneous. The point is not whether private property is immoral or not. The point is, is that an actual existing class within an actual existing form of social relations opposes the existence of private property intrinsically, i.e. It's class interest.

What this means is that the existence of private property following a proletarian revolution is not a matter of "choice". There will be no grand round table of intellectuals debating as to whether it is immoral or not and then by which make decisions about how future social relations should manifest themselves. Again, if it's about expressing our "will" into reality, in which existent "realities" are our only obstacle (of course pre supposing that existent realities have no hegemony over our will), who the hell would want communism? Why not welfare state capitalism?

So because you want to own your own car, but not your own house, that's where you draw the line?

I don't get what's so impractical about car-sharing. I live on a crowded street, if everyone here had a car, we couldn't all park them here anyway (and what about people who live in tower-blocks? Do you want to provide each of them with 1,000-space car parks?). I can't park outside my house, visitors can't park outside my house, because there are too many other cars parked there. If we shared cars, there would be fewer cars on my street and I might be able to park outside my house. Frankly even halving the numbers of cars would be a start, but I'd think that cutting maybe 70% of cars (at least in urban areas) would be a reasonable target. I understand that in rural areas that's not going to be possible but even so, car-sharing could take maybe 25% of vehicles off the road.