Is all Private Property bad ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is all Private Property bad according to Marxism ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid...w=1680&bih=822

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/cl...manifesto.html

[ColonelCossack]

Private property is not the same as personal possessions.

[tradeunionsupporter]

What about Houses/Homes or Cars ?

[Tim Cornelis]

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

A house used for personal use (i.e. living) is not private property, nor is a car. However, renting a house is illegitimate.

So yeah, all private property is illegitimate.

[ColonelCossack]

^what s/he said.

[aristos]

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.

[RGacky3]

When we talk about private property we generally refer to the "means of production," and natural resources. No one is talking about personal property.

[Agent Equality]

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.

I'm not quite sure I'd want 20 different people using my toothbrush. I don't give a flying fuck if its a waste of resources. I want my own toothbrush

[aristos]

Don't be ridiculous, I didn't mean unhygienic practices (or for that matter belongings of sentimental value).
An example would be that instead of owning a car, infrastructure could be in place for everyone to take a car from a parking lot to their destination. Once you exit it, anyone wishing to do so could use it from then on, but so could you yourself use any other car available. As long as you are actively using an object it would of course be exclusive to the user.
Availability on demand instead of hoarding things.

[Zealot]

Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...festo/ch02.htm

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.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I agree about Bourgeois Property.

[disbeliever]

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.

[Thirsty Crow]

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

Not quite, but nice try though.

[aristos]

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

Better than handing it all over to you, though.

[disbeliever]

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.

[Thirsty Crow]

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"?

[disbeliever]

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.

[Thirsty Crow]

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?

[disbeliever]

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

[Thirsty Crow]

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

Licenses for what?
Y'know, I think you're full of shit and can't even back up this story of yours with a mere article discussing the issue of music performance in USSR (I suppose that this construct of your, "collectivised state", which is quite ridiculous on its own, refers to USSR first and foremost). For example, I personally know some musicians from what would you call a collectivised state - SFR Yugoslavia, and know nothing about practices which you're referring to. But it may be that you're too inartuculate since it's not so clear what licenses are you talking about.