"Property" generally only refers to means of production. Many communists believe people are still entitled to various possessions.
Results 1 to 20 of 31
To what extent is private property abolished?
Does the abolition of private property refer to production property, or property in general? (I advocate the latter, so don't feel like you need to defend it if that's the case.)
"Property" generally only refers to means of production. Many communists believe people are still entitled to various possessions.
It refers to the abolition of private property in terms of production property (or in other words, the means of production). Ownership of individual items produced is a moot point, and wouldn't be a major issue.
GLS/SS d- s-:- a- C+++ P+ L+++ W+++ w-- PS+++ PE t R+++ tv+ b+ D++ e+++ h+ r---
The admin-mod team lacks standards.
"[...]driving down the highway screaming 'Ploterait of the world, unite!'."
Proudhon wrote "What is Property" and made the distinction between property and possessions. You cannot use a possession to coerce another human being. One (possession) is a toothbrush while the other (private property) is a factory.
Your toothbrush will not be a means of exploitation nor would your home or car.
You mean you are an advocate of property in general, or the abolition of property in general?
Anyway, socialists of all stripes generally refer to the abolition of private property as the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production.
YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS
GPDP, sorry for the confusion, I meant I advocate the complete abolition of private property.
To be honest, when I first read Marx's statements that we should "abolish all private property", I was like "fuck you I like my ipod".
Edit: Also, I think when interpreting Marx's statement, one should look at the conditions of the time. I think he literally meant the collectivization of all private property, but I only assume this was because at the time, if you weren't rich, you literally owned nothing. Now, I don't think that's applicable to modern society. In The Conquest of Bread, Peter Kropotkin, also advocated for the abolition of all private property, but at the same time, he wrote that (this isn't a literal transposition) "there's no need to force people into communal kitchens, if you want to cook at home, with your pots and dishes, I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to". But yes, basically I agree with most of the above, that only the means of production need to be communized.
Actually, infrastructure would be a better term than production property, wouldn't it?
But what about homes? Are they completely in the private domain? Or do they require some sort of government contract?
Edit:
Yeah, even when I say the complete abolition of private property, that wouldn't mean you don't have personals sitting around your house. I mean, think about it. Ownership is a social contract. One that can be very easily violated behind your back or at gun point robbery. The only ownership that really matters is infrastructure, which I regard as anything that doesn't function on your person. I mean, what, are you afraid someone's going to rub your toothbrush on their balls or steal your clothes because you don't "own" them anymore? You all have to realize, even as socialists/communists, being so sensitive about property is the product of capitalism.
I'm a little confused on this issue too. Are homes considered private property, or personal property? Or a kind of government contract as jmpeer says?
Nah, homes are pretty private, I think. Personal living space and all that.
And infrastructure probably isn't a good word because that refers to things like electrical, sewage, roads...etc. "Capital" is a better general word.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
I usually distinguish between "productive property" and "personal property." In the present capitalist society "productive property" is anything that can be used by its owner to make a profit, usually through its use in a process where workers are hired to production work. But this includes business assets that could be used to acquire productive property, such as money capital.
Personal property are things that are not productive property but are being used by somone or a household simply to enjoy or make things immediately for their own use or consumption. So a stove you use to cook on in your household is personal property. Similarly, your house, if you own it and simply use it to live in, is personal property.
But notice that things can be personal property in one context but productive property in another context. Although a dwelling is personal property for the person living there, if a slumlord buys up houses to make money from renting them out, then they become productive property.
A car you use to get around in is your personal property, but if a company owned a fleet, such as a pizza chain that delivers, then they become productive property.
I don't think there is any point to disallowing personal property. What we should be concerned with is productive property, because this can be the basis of a class system and exploitation. On the other hand, at the point where personal property is produced, if we have a system of socially owned and controlled production, then the products are also socially owned. So how they then become personal property depends on the particular system of distribution.
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.
Not only is it ridiculous to abolish personal property (like you said, I like my playstation), but it would be absolutely unfeasable and would just lead to all sorts of black markets.
Communalization of capital, things that make a profit. I might even say not just profitable things, like a hobby that has to be reported on a 1040. But just those things for which you have to hire additional workers (but im a noob, so idk lol).
syndicat, that's precisely the matter then. If personal property exists, then your distribution of resources relies solely upon the integrity of the people. You should prevent the problem by restructuring infrastructure in such a way that personal property is unnecessary. That's much easier to do.
Revolution starts with U, you've misunderstood my perspective. I would not deprive people of these kind of simple luxuries. And I don't know why it would mean you have to give up your ipods and playstations. They're completely worthless, except to you. I'm just saying we should structure our cities in such a way that needing items like these would become obsolete. These kind of things can be very easily integrated into our lives without having to produce all these consoles and handheld devices.
Anyways, I'm out for tonight.
This, pretty much. Communists advocate the abolition of private property rights, not personal possessions.
It's a pity that you didn't read on, then: "Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations."To be honest, when I first read Marx's statements that we should "abolish all private property", I was like "fuck you I like my ipod".
Edit: Also, I think when interpreting Marx's statement, one should look at the conditions of the time. I think he literally meant the collectivization of all private property, but I only assume this was because at the time, if you weren't rich, you literally owned nothing. Now, I don't think that's applicable to modern society. In The Conquest of Bread, Peter Kropotkin, also advocated for the abolition of all private property, but at the same time, he wrote that (this isn't a literal transposition) "there's no need to force people into communal kitchens, if you want to cook at home, with your pots and dishes, I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to". But yes, basically I agree with most of the above, that only the means of production need to be communized.
A good way to talk to people about this issue is to use the bit from the Communist Manifesto when they say something along the lines of: Do communists wish to abolish people's personal possessions? No, it's capitalism that has already abolished the ability of most people to have personal possessions through poverty and inequality.
Communists/Anarchists want everyone to have a place to live and to have a good life from the result of their collective labor efforts - it's the capitalists who want to foreclose homes and kick people out and rob workers of the products of their collective labor efforts.
Again, the abolition of private property, even as it pertains to personals, does not imply that you do not have personals, just as it does not imply society would no longer have means of production. Why must you 'own' something to have it?
Vulagr anti-communists like to be assholes for the sake of it and confuse Private Property (that is, private ownership of the means of production, which they would know if they actually read Marx) and Personal Property (your clothes, pencils, etc.). The former we seek to eliminate, the latter, no.
[FONT=Fixedsys][FONT=Garamond]"The only church that illuminates is a burning one" - Durruti[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys][/FONT]
I don't acknowledge the existence of any private property, because property is used as a storage of wealth in the capitalist system. Everything on the planet belongs to everyone. I make very few exceptions, for example toothbrushes. Don't really want to use other people's and don't think they want to use mine. Also in terms of housing in a post-revolutionary society there won't be need for these large, separated structured which only divide people and create alienation. All living spaces will be communal in nature, fostering a sense of community and cohesiveness. This is to combat individualism, which is a byproduct of a capitalistic society and only leads to greed and disregard for others.
