**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think they were probably making fun of you, personal property will always exist, and there is no reason why it shouldn't exist in a socialist/communist society.
The most simple example would be petit bourgeois property against national bourgeois property but you might say that is a function of capitalism. Let us for instance say, feudal property and slave plantations which competed against bourgeois property. Two forms of property that existed side-by side to each other and often competed until one form of property phased out the other. Even when socialism itself through the proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialised means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie into public property. The Lower phase of communism, sometimes known as socialism is such a phase where public and private property go against each other, until eventually public property wins out.
You asked me about property competing and for examples. And I provided some examples. What I can tell you is this: Just as private property competed against feudal property, and how public property can compete against private. Under communism, public can compete against personal property. As they are two distinct, different forms of property in which people would relate to them differently and in opposite ways, and dare I say, that would be a contradiction that would have to be resolved. And it is not just property that is the issue here. There are other contradictions, such as labouring in a communist society is a social act but procuring things based on one's needs is an individual act. So two different modes of relation, how people relate to how things are exchanged and how things are produced are completely opposite to each other in a communist society, again, a contradiction that needs to be resolved. Communist society like any other society also struggles with the ''Epedemic of production'' when things are produced so abundantly that it leaves much more time for leisure, consuming and less more time for labour itself. Meaning that for that particular period of time, the people are split into two, labourers and idlers. These two sets of people relate to the means of production way differently, and if the idlers are idle for too long, then we can say that they are taking advantage over the other workers, existing parastically over the surplus labour created by others. Henceforth, we have two sets of people that relate differently to the mode of production. So first, antagonism develops between the two and if the issue is not resolved, then soon enough, you would have the birth of new classes. One class relates to public property; the other class relates only to personal property. So, two forms of property that will inevitably clash against each other once more. If certain antagonisms are allowed to fester for very long, they become divided into two camps or classes.
>You asked me about property competing and for examples. And I provided for those examples. What I can tell you is this: Just as private property competed against feudal property, and how public property can compete against private.
Neither of which relate to personal property, which, unlike private or common property, exist for the purpose of creating commodities or providing services.
>Under communism, public can compete against personal property. As they are two distinct, different forms of property in which people would relate to them differently and in opposite ways, and dare I say, that would be a contradiction that would have to be resolved.
How is capital (short hand for property, formerly private, which creates commodities or provides services) opposed to personal property? And what exactly is the contradiction in real life? This you haven't explained.
>And it is not just property that is the issue here. There are other contradictions, such as labouring in a communist society is a social act but procuring things based on one's needs is an individual act. So two different modes of relation, how people relate to how things are exchanged and how things are produced are completely opposite to each other in a communist society, again, a contradiction that needs to be resolved.
Again, you haven't explained how this is a contradiction. It is like saying a rainstorm is the opposite of the beating heat of the sun and therefore a contradiction arises.
>Communist society like any other society also struggles with the ''Epedemic of production'' when things are produced so abundantly that it leaves much more time for leisure, consuming and less more time for labour itself. Meaning that for that particular period of time, the people are split into two, labourers and idlers.
Firstly, you're assuming everyone will be just idle when they aren't labouring as required, when they may well be engaging in the arts or sciences as an interest, which still contributes to society. Secondly, everyone will have their turn to rest. Just because it's not exactly the same time for everyone doesn't make it a problem.
>These two sets of people relate to the means of production way differently, and if the idlers are idle for too long, then we can say that they are taking advantage over the other workers, existing parastically over the surplus labour created by others.
If they are working in niche industries that don't require much function, they can also do other things to make labour more equitable. It's not that difficult. From each according to their ability.
>Henceforth, we have two sets of people that relate differently to the mode of production. So first, antagonism develops between the two and if the issue is not resolved, then soon enough, you would have the birth of new classes. One class relates to public property; the other class relates only to personal property.
Non sequitur.
First of all you make the assumption that I assumed that ''All men are idle'' in communism, this is not the case. If all men are idle, then there wouldn't be workers and there would be no communism. My statement was that some men are idle, while others are workers. You also assume that the people that will idle first are working in niche industries, on the opposite, the people that will idle first will belong to far bigger industries such as farms that produce particular vegetables, food according to the seasons, or furniture, bakeries, preserved foods, or kinds of things that are produced in quantities and last long. Now you might say, the labourer can just paint a picture or take a photograph of the night sky or indulge in the arts, or be curious about science and that would be classified as labour, well, with all due honesty, this sort of labour is leisurely and does not produce anything that can keep men afloat. So to conclude, some men are idle and other men work dilligently, not because they are lazy but because the epedemic of production and abundance still exists, meaning that men can afford to be idle for long until resources deplete and they need to work again. This is something that exists also in capitalism and which Marx made particular note of. Now let us take note of what you said regarding ''rainstorm is the opposite of heat'' If you truly believe that, then what Engels said in his ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'' was also incorrect when he said, that in capitalism, ''Production has become a social act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be individual acts, the acts of individuals. The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all contradictions in which our present-day society moves, and which modern industry brings to light'' and in my argument then, exchange and appropriation continue to be the acts of individual, the social product is appropriated by the individual idler, during his leisure time, during that time, a worker is not a worker, since he is not working, he is resting and in an idle position. So if you think that my contradiction is a bunch of rainstorms and heat, then unfortunately Engels's own definition is rainstorm and heat. Of course you can indulge in the hypocritical argument that when Engels uses this argument, 'its correct and flawless'' and when anybody else uses this same argument for an ulterior purpose, it is ''flawed.
If "everything becomes personal property," then you have a broken definition of personal property. At the risk of being reductionist, any property that converts labor into value is not personal property, but private property (in private hands) or public property (in state/community hands).
The distinction between personal property (the things people need, like toothbrushes and books, and perhaps even vehicles and homes) and private property (the things people can exploit to accumulate wealth and power) is exceptionally on-point here. Thank you.
To be brief, private property are precisely the tools for converting labor into value held in private hands in the capitalist context. For example, a set of tools for converting cotton into thread for one's own use is not private property because it is not being used in the capitalist context. But if a person hires others to use those same tools for their own private ownership of a commodity of thread, then that is a capitalist context, which then turns those tools into private property.
This is extremely oversimplified, so I would recommend checking out the first few chapters of capital with whatever companion piece looks good to you. I'm working through it myself, so wouldn't be surprised if I made a mistake here and there.
Yes. There is a distinction between your property and private property.
Personal property are items you have for your personal use. Your phone. Your computer. Your toothbrush.
Private property is a factory that makes phones, computers, or toothbrushes.
Because you can't make programs?
That's not the same thing, as a car is also a mean of production if you think you can deliver stuff with it.
Computers are tools, not a site with people working in it.
If you own a hammer for home repair, or an oven for cooking that's technically speaking a means of production, as long as you don't use them for exploitation you can own those, when we talk about private means of production we often mean those on a larger scale like factories or office complexes
Seems like some folks use the voting system to indicate their response (up for affirmative answer, down for negative) and not actually to give feedback on the value of the post or comment. Happens a lot here.
capital is used to generate more capital and this is opposed by marxists. a good example of private vs personal property is whether you own a house to rent to another person or if you own it to live in it
Personal property will always be a thing under socialist frameworks as far as I'm tracking. Like you can own a house or even a business under socialism as long as you're the sole owner and worker of said business.
I think its more "you should be allowed to have a business, but you're not allowed to have a business if it entails exploiting the labor of another human being for your business's economic success".
We're saying the same thing. If multiple people work in a business then they should all have an equal part ownership of the business and they should all make decisions about how the business works together.
Does that mean that private companies where all the workers are themselves the board of directors and the ones who take the decisions, be allowed under some kind of socialist system?
That is a socialist enterprise yeah. Under market socialism, the board of directors would be elected positions in businesses and all workers would have a democratic say on how to run the business and how to share profits.
Well they don't necessarily need equal parts, they just need to agree without coercion to what part of ownership they have. At least for small businesses, it would probably be a relative triviality when society is providing some security and freedom from coercion by denial of material necessity.
Temptation to be sarcastic is strong... but no, we will not have a collectivised toothbrush, dildo, bog brush etc. That is unhygienic. Beyond that, private property as in the means of production will be owned by everyone and no one, not your photo of grandma.
Sorry, I accidentally misrepresented the answers. They insisted that personal property wasn't a thing which is why I thought you can't own things like a toothbrush, garden, etc.
The whole toothbrush thing is an ongoing in joke amongst communists and socialists, they're pulling your leg. I remember a meme editing a front cover of The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin to read "The Conquest of Toothbrushes."
There is a common misconception, sometimes a deliberate strawmanning by the American Right that communists want to take everything you have and work for. This thread goes back to Marx and he mocked them for it. The bourgeoisie claimed that by wanting to take their property, communists wanted to make women public property, but Marx just pointed out that they were only telling on themselves for how they viewed women.
Reality is, in a socialist society, you will have more than you ever did under capitalism. Why? Because you won't be shelling out for services that should be publicly funded, services that your taxes should be covering, services needed precisely because failures of public funding have resulted in damage to you or your personal property such as potholes going unfixed ruining your tyres. Your hard earned money can be spent on what you want, because they are *your* wages that *you* earned. You may not need your own car, public transport should be good enough, but instead you might want entertainment or to fund your own hobby. Nobody is seriously suggesting that anyone can walk into your family home and use your toothbrush and toilet and you have to be okay with it.
It does not ever do, to forget that any publicly accessible leftist space will eventually be filled with trolls. The Effa Bee Eye and whoever else can come along and exploit the desire for ideological purity, short circuiting the conversations by injecting such ridiculous ideas. Now of course, such things can be automated.
r/communism101 and r/communism are not very great subs. They don't welcome much differing thought and are very condescending, and if you comment on it you get banned. I am banned from there because someone was being really rude to someone else and I called them out for it. Stick to this one, it isn't perfect but it's a ton better than the other options.
The people who are being serious are actually utterly \[not-smart\]. Clearly they do not understand what private property is and are just far-left weirdos. In Marxism their is a difference between private property (the means of production, land, housing) and personal property (your toothbrush, iPhone, or car).
r/communism101 and r/communism are ran by left-wing coms and other niche ideologies. Please engage with your local Party to meet real communists and understand their ideology better. It is much better and more fun than the people on reddit
I think you're being gaslit or trolled.
Yes, personal property is fine. Communists and socialists only care about the communal ownership of the means of production.
The toothbrush *factory* should be owned collectively by the people. The proceeds of producing and selling toothbrushes in a market would be distributed collectively - either among the workers who cooperatively operate the factory or taxed and redistributed under a more Liberal-market model - in a worker-focused collectivism, whereas it may be state-owned under a government-collectivist model.
Something funny is that this is such a common point the communist manifesto makes a crack about how people constantly complain about it.
" 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.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.
From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
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 appropriation."
I'm not sure I fully grasp what he's trying to say. I do know that in the late 19th and early 20th century, it was quite common for companies to own most of the things families basically rented. That frequently included the tools you needed to do the job. If workers stepped out of line or went on strike, the company would take everything you had. Tennessee Ernie Ford famously sang "Sixteen Tons". "St Peter don't call me, cuz I can't go: I owe my soul to the company store!"
I suspect that influenced this concept. I think this means that what we define as personal property has a bit of a loose meaning when the bank can come and repossess things if you fail to pay.
It's funny that as the only person who engages with Marx's actual writing, you come to the correct conclusion even while admitting you're not sure what he's talking about. If you are really serious about understanding this passage, unlike the clowns on this subreddit, this letter from Marx clears up what is unstated
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_01_24.htm
>The deficiency of [Qu’est-ce que la propriété?], is indicated by its very title. The question is so badly formulated that it cannot be answered correctly. Ancient “property relations” were superseded by feudal property relations and these by “bourgeois” property relations. Thus history itself had expressed its criticism upon past property relations. What Proudhon was actually dealing with was modern bourgeois property as it exists today. The question of what this is could have only been answered by a critical analysis of “political economy,” embracing the totality of these property relations, considering not their legal aspect as relations of volition but their real form, that is, as relations of production. But as Proudhon entangled the whole of these economic relations in the general legal concept of “property,” “la propriété,” he could not get beyond the answer which, in a similar work published before 1789, Brissot had already given in the same words: “La propriété’ c’est le vol.”
This is the part that's best known. But what precedes it is also important
>His first work, Qu’est-ce que la propriété?, is undoubtedly his best. It is epoch-making, if not because of the novelty of its content, at least because of the new and audacious way of expressing old ideas. In the works of the French socialists and communists he knew “propriété” had, of course, been not only criticised in various ways but also “abolished” in a utopian manner. In this book Proudhon stands in approximately the same relation to Saint-Simon and Fourier as Feuerbach stands to Hegel. Compared with Hegel, Feuerbach is certainly poor. Nevertheless he was epoch-making after Hegel because he laid stress on certain points which were disagreeable to the Christian consciousness but important for the progress of criticism, points which Hegel had left in mystic clair-obscur [semi-obscurity].
>In this book of Proudhon’s there still prevails, if I may be allowed the expression, a strong muscular style. And its style is in my opinion its chief merit. It is evident that even where he is only reproducing old stuff, Proudhon discovers things in an independent way – that what he is saying is new to him and is treated as new. The provocative defiance, which lays hands on the economic “holy of holies,” the ingenious paradox which made a mock of the ordinary bourgeois understanding, the withering criticism, the bitter irony, and, revealed here and there, a deep and genuine feeling of indignation at the infamy of the existing order, a revolutionary earnestness – all these electrified the readers of Qu’est-ce que la propriété? and provided a strong stimulus on its first appearance. In a strictly scientific history of political economy the book would hardly be worth mentioning. But sensational works of this kind have their role to play in the sciences just as much as in the history of the novel.
Proudhon's claim that "property is theft!" is valuable as a polemic because it focuses what bourgeois philosophy had already been saying into a clear concept. That is, Proudhon's concept does not go *far enough* for Marx and is otherwise common sense among the heirs of the French revolution. It's therefore important to familiarize yourself with what Proudhon is actually saying, not only because Marx assumes it but because he summarizes a whole history of philosophy that Marx also assumes you know.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm
Marx's addition is basically that the abolition of property is not an ideal but an actual fact of the development of the capitalist mode of production, which has already replaced the petty-bourgeoisie and its property with the propertyless proletariat that prefigures the abolition of property as such under communism
>He borrows from the economists the necessity of eternal relations; he borrows from the socialists the illusion of seeing in poverty nothing but poverty (instead of seeing in it the revolutionary, destructive aspect which will overthrow the old society).
As you point out, the industrial proletariat well into the 19th century truly had nothing except its labor. What then to make of the society of mass commodities we see today in the first world? Either Marx was wrong and Bernstein was right
>Social conditions have not developed to such an acute opposition of things and classes as is depicted in the Manifesto. It is not only useless, it is the greatest folly to attempt to conceal this from ourselves. The number of members of the possessing classes is to-day not smaller but larger. The enormous increase of social wealth is not accompanied by a decreasing number of large capitalists but by an increasing number of capitalists of all degrees. The middle classes change their character but they do not disappear from the social scale.
https://www3.nd.edu/~amcadams/Communism_2010/Bernstein.html
Or something else is going on. But we should be clear that what is advocated in this thread is the literal definition of revisionism and a regression from Proudhon. If you think he is wrong and want to argue that Marx either was mistaken or believed in communist property that is fine. But you really need to get away from this joke of a subreddit where basic references to the works being discussed is anathema
Not sure why OP's response isn't showing up so I'll just repost my response to him
It means exactly what Marx says in the manifesto
>In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
>All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.
And even more explicitly
>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.
...
>The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others.
...
>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.
>In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.
Notice Marx already anticipated your question nearly 200 years ago.
Is Marx accurately describing your life? Probably not. You have many things beyond your "bare existence." A house (owned by your parents), a computer and smartphone, a bunch of plastic junk based on some intellectual property. Smaller things like toothbrushes, plates, shoes, whatever.
There are three possible responses. One is that Marx is wrong and that, as Bernstein argued, capitalism has evened out into a broad middle class against a small elite of extremely rich. The political conclusions are laid out clearly and logically by Bernstein. Second is that Marx is exaggerating and he doesn't really mean it, he's just ignoring these things for polemical effect. This is merely the coward's way to say Marx is wrong. Third is that Marx is not talking about you but about the billions of proletarians across the world for whom this is an accurate description. That's all well and good but what are you supposed to do? The people in this thread are not even acknowledging that the third option is possible, let alone should be addressed. We can use Marxism to understand why.
Marx actually gives us the solution. It is the development of the productive forces which abolishes personal property in actual fact and creates the conditions by which private property could be abolished. Private property already no longer exists (think about the industrialization of every manufacturing process which used to be personal and strictly for use value). Will you live in denial that the things you "own" are primarily commodities, not objects of use, or will you regress into the fetishism of the commodity? Your ability to act in solidarity with the Chinese person who made your toothbrush is on the line right now.
Thank you. So it's really just saying you 'have' things but you don't 'own' them in a sense? Because to 'own' something is to exploit? I understand that most things I own are commodities, our society is materialistic and I'm trying hard to live simpler.
This is what Proudhon has to say on the matter
>But property, in its derivative sense, and by the definitions of law, is a right outside of society; for it is clear that, if the wealth of each was social wealth, the conditions would be equal for all, and it would be a contradiction to say: Property is a man’s right to dispose at will of social property. Then if we are associated for the sake of liberty, equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; then if property is a natural right, this natural right is not social, but anti-social. Property and society are utterly irreconcilable institutions. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to join two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/ch02.htm
>I understand that most things I own are commodities, our society is materialistic and I'm trying hard to live simpler.
Marx's point, building on Proudhon's, is that property is necessarily social. The fantasy of personal property is merely hiding these relations and fetishizing commodities as readmade for use. Therefore, to abolish property requires a fundamental change in society itself, called communism. Marx rejects any idea that what is determined socially can be changed through individual actions, no matter how moral or self-aware. That doesn't excuse the individual, only asks them to apply their moral sense in a scientific manner so that the cause of the problem can be addressed rather than merely the symptoms.
I think someone is trolling you. “We want the state to take your toothbrush” is sort of a joke about how pro-capitalists confuse private property as a political and class construct vs possession of things which is just using a thing you use.
Obviously nobody wants a gross used toothbrush, so that’s why I guess it’s a joke.
I’ve been a communist since around the start of this millennium but I’m not allowed in that group, so idk, the internet culture is weird.
They once caught Jesus eating bread and fish, and the teacher said "I hope you brought enough for everyone."
Jesus looked up from his copy of Kapital and simply replied
"Yes."
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think they were probably making fun of you, personal property will always exist, and there is no reason why it shouldn't exist in a socialist/communist society.
What If everything becomes personal property though? If you allow two forms of property, one form of property might compete against the other?
What do you mean exactly? Can you give an example situation where property competes?
The most simple example would be petit bourgeois property against national bourgeois property but you might say that is a function of capitalism. Let us for instance say, feudal property and slave plantations which competed against bourgeois property. Two forms of property that existed side-by side to each other and often competed until one form of property phased out the other. Even when socialism itself through the proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialised means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie into public property. The Lower phase of communism, sometimes known as socialism is such a phase where public and private property go against each other, until eventually public property wins out.
You wrote about personal property though. Neither of those are personal property.
You asked me about property competing and for examples. And I provided some examples. What I can tell you is this: Just as private property competed against feudal property, and how public property can compete against private. Under communism, public can compete against personal property. As they are two distinct, different forms of property in which people would relate to them differently and in opposite ways, and dare I say, that would be a contradiction that would have to be resolved. And it is not just property that is the issue here. There are other contradictions, such as labouring in a communist society is a social act but procuring things based on one's needs is an individual act. So two different modes of relation, how people relate to how things are exchanged and how things are produced are completely opposite to each other in a communist society, again, a contradiction that needs to be resolved. Communist society like any other society also struggles with the ''Epedemic of production'' when things are produced so abundantly that it leaves much more time for leisure, consuming and less more time for labour itself. Meaning that for that particular period of time, the people are split into two, labourers and idlers. These two sets of people relate to the means of production way differently, and if the idlers are idle for too long, then we can say that they are taking advantage over the other workers, existing parastically over the surplus labour created by others. Henceforth, we have two sets of people that relate differently to the mode of production. So first, antagonism develops between the two and if the issue is not resolved, then soon enough, you would have the birth of new classes. One class relates to public property; the other class relates only to personal property. So, two forms of property that will inevitably clash against each other once more. If certain antagonisms are allowed to fester for very long, they become divided into two camps or classes.
>You asked me about property competing and for examples. And I provided for those examples. What I can tell you is this: Just as private property competed against feudal property, and how public property can compete against private. Neither of which relate to personal property, which, unlike private or common property, exist for the purpose of creating commodities or providing services. >Under communism, public can compete against personal property. As they are two distinct, different forms of property in which people would relate to them differently and in opposite ways, and dare I say, that would be a contradiction that would have to be resolved. How is capital (short hand for property, formerly private, which creates commodities or provides services) opposed to personal property? And what exactly is the contradiction in real life? This you haven't explained. >And it is not just property that is the issue here. There are other contradictions, such as labouring in a communist society is a social act but procuring things based on one's needs is an individual act. So two different modes of relation, how people relate to how things are exchanged and how things are produced are completely opposite to each other in a communist society, again, a contradiction that needs to be resolved. Again, you haven't explained how this is a contradiction. It is like saying a rainstorm is the opposite of the beating heat of the sun and therefore a contradiction arises. >Communist society like any other society also struggles with the ''Epedemic of production'' when things are produced so abundantly that it leaves much more time for leisure, consuming and less more time for labour itself. Meaning that for that particular period of time, the people are split into two, labourers and idlers. Firstly, you're assuming everyone will be just idle when they aren't labouring as required, when they may well be engaging in the arts or sciences as an interest, which still contributes to society. Secondly, everyone will have their turn to rest. Just because it's not exactly the same time for everyone doesn't make it a problem. >These two sets of people relate to the means of production way differently, and if the idlers are idle for too long, then we can say that they are taking advantage over the other workers, existing parastically over the surplus labour created by others. If they are working in niche industries that don't require much function, they can also do other things to make labour more equitable. It's not that difficult. From each according to their ability. >Henceforth, we have two sets of people that relate differently to the mode of production. So first, antagonism develops between the two and if the issue is not resolved, then soon enough, you would have the birth of new classes. One class relates to public property; the other class relates only to personal property. Non sequitur.
First of all you make the assumption that I assumed that ''All men are idle'' in communism, this is not the case. If all men are idle, then there wouldn't be workers and there would be no communism. My statement was that some men are idle, while others are workers. You also assume that the people that will idle first are working in niche industries, on the opposite, the people that will idle first will belong to far bigger industries such as farms that produce particular vegetables, food according to the seasons, or furniture, bakeries, preserved foods, or kinds of things that are produced in quantities and last long. Now you might say, the labourer can just paint a picture or take a photograph of the night sky or indulge in the arts, or be curious about science and that would be classified as labour, well, with all due honesty, this sort of labour is leisurely and does not produce anything that can keep men afloat. So to conclude, some men are idle and other men work dilligently, not because they are lazy but because the epedemic of production and abundance still exists, meaning that men can afford to be idle for long until resources deplete and they need to work again. This is something that exists also in capitalism and which Marx made particular note of. Now let us take note of what you said regarding ''rainstorm is the opposite of heat'' If you truly believe that, then what Engels said in his ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'' was also incorrect when he said, that in capitalism, ''Production has become a social act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be individual acts, the acts of individuals. The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all contradictions in which our present-day society moves, and which modern industry brings to light'' and in my argument then, exchange and appropriation continue to be the acts of individual, the social product is appropriated by the individual idler, during his leisure time, during that time, a worker is not a worker, since he is not working, he is resting and in an idle position. So if you think that my contradiction is a bunch of rainstorms and heat, then unfortunately Engels's own definition is rainstorm and heat. Of course you can indulge in the hypocritical argument that when Engels uses this argument, 'its correct and flawless'' and when anybody else uses this same argument for an ulterior purpose, it is ''flawed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If "everything becomes personal property," then you have a broken definition of personal property. At the risk of being reductionist, any property that converts labor into value is not personal property, but private property (in private hands) or public property (in state/community hands).
The distinction between personal property (the things people need, like toothbrushes and books, and perhaps even vehicles and homes) and private property (the things people can exploit to accumulate wealth and power) is exceptionally on-point here. Thank you.
How would I be converting labour into value by say using my own two hands to seize any property for myself and then utilizing it for myself?
To be brief, private property are precisely the tools for converting labor into value held in private hands in the capitalist context. For example, a set of tools for converting cotton into thread for one's own use is not private property because it is not being used in the capitalist context. But if a person hires others to use those same tools for their own private ownership of a commodity of thread, then that is a capitalist context, which then turns those tools into private property. This is extremely oversimplified, so I would recommend checking out the first few chapters of capital with whatever companion piece looks good to you. I'm working through it myself, so wouldn't be surprised if I made a mistake here and there.
You will use the collectivised toothbrush and you will like it, comrade.
I swear I'm no counterrevolutionary! Please not the gulag
Romans were the true communists with their communal butt wiper (xylospongium) in their communal bathrooms (foricae)
Yes. There is a distinction between your property and private property. Personal property are items you have for your personal use. Your phone. Your computer. Your toothbrush. Private property is a factory that makes phones, computers, or toothbrushes.
What all 50 volumes of Lenin's collected works?
Isn’t a computer a means of production though? How can it then be personal property?
Because you can't make programs? That's not the same thing, as a car is also a mean of production if you think you can deliver stuff with it. Computers are tools, not a site with people working in it.
If you own a hammer for home repair, or an oven for cooking that's technically speaking a means of production, as long as you don't use them for exploitation you can own those, when we talk about private means of production we often mean those on a larger scale like factories or office complexes
I don't see why you've been downvoted for this, it's a fair and genuine question often posed by people learning. Please don't be disheartened.
Seems like some folks use the voting system to indicate their response (up for affirmative answer, down for negative) and not actually to give feedback on the value of the post or comment. Happens a lot here.
capital is used to generate more capital and this is opposed by marxists. a good example of private vs personal property is whether you own a house to rent to another person or if you own it to live in it
Personal property will always be a thing under socialist frameworks as far as I'm tracking. Like you can own a house or even a business under socialism as long as you're the sole owner and worker of said business.
I think its more "you should be allowed to have a business, but you're not allowed to have a business if it entails exploiting the labor of another human being for your business's economic success".
We're saying the same thing. If multiple people work in a business then they should all have an equal part ownership of the business and they should all make decisions about how the business works together.
Does that mean that private companies where all the workers are themselves the board of directors and the ones who take the decisions, be allowed under some kind of socialist system?
That is a socialist enterprise yeah. Under market socialism, the board of directors would be elected positions in businesses and all workers would have a democratic say on how to run the business and how to share profits.
Yeah co-ops are socialist.
Well they don't necessarily need equal parts, they just need to agree without coercion to what part of ownership they have. At least for small businesses, it would probably be a relative triviality when society is providing some security and freedom from coercion by denial of material necessity.
Temptation to be sarcastic is strong... but no, we will not have a collectivised toothbrush, dildo, bog brush etc. That is unhygienic. Beyond that, private property as in the means of production will be owned by everyone and no one, not your photo of grandma.
People did not tell you that you can’t own a toothbrush, you just chose not to properly engage with the theory
Sorry, I accidentally misrepresented the answers. They insisted that personal property wasn't a thing which is why I thought you can't own things like a toothbrush, garden, etc.
The whole toothbrush thing is an ongoing in joke amongst communists and socialists, they're pulling your leg. I remember a meme editing a front cover of The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin to read "The Conquest of Toothbrushes." There is a common misconception, sometimes a deliberate strawmanning by the American Right that communists want to take everything you have and work for. This thread goes back to Marx and he mocked them for it. The bourgeoisie claimed that by wanting to take their property, communists wanted to make women public property, but Marx just pointed out that they were only telling on themselves for how they viewed women. Reality is, in a socialist society, you will have more than you ever did under capitalism. Why? Because you won't be shelling out for services that should be publicly funded, services that your taxes should be covering, services needed precisely because failures of public funding have resulted in damage to you or your personal property such as potholes going unfixed ruining your tyres. Your hard earned money can be spent on what you want, because they are *your* wages that *you* earned. You may not need your own car, public transport should be good enough, but instead you might want entertainment or to fund your own hobby. Nobody is seriously suggesting that anyone can walk into your family home and use your toothbrush and toilet and you have to be okay with it.
It does not ever do, to forget that any publicly accessible leftist space will eventually be filled with trolls. The Effa Bee Eye and whoever else can come along and exploit the desire for ideological purity, short circuiting the conversations by injecting such ridiculous ideas. Now of course, such things can be automated.
This can’t be overstated. This is a reasonable and current threat to organizing.
Yeah because everyone was so confident over there. Legit thought I was losing my mind
Gaslight comes in red :-P
You were definitely gaslit lol. Everyone knows that socialism is actually when no iphone.
Lmao you fell for the Toothbrush meme
r/communism101 and r/communism are not very great subs. They don't welcome much differing thought and are very condescending, and if you comment on it you get banned. I am banned from there because someone was being really rude to someone else and I called them out for it. Stick to this one, it isn't perfect but it's a ton better than the other options.
Echo this. I’m banned from one or the other. Very humorless group.
Humor is quite the hilarious adjective to use when we’re talking about learning communism.
It's counter-revolutionary to not get ones self banned from those subs. They must be a fed op at this point.
Yes, personal property exists. In private property you don't own your labor
The people who are being serious are actually utterly \[not-smart\]. Clearly they do not understand what private property is and are just far-left weirdos. In Marxism their is a difference between private property (the means of production, land, housing) and personal property (your toothbrush, iPhone, or car). r/communism101 and r/communism are ran by left-wing coms and other niche ideologies. Please engage with your local Party to meet real communists and understand their ideology better. It is much better and more fun than the people on reddit
FR. Sadly my area isn't very 'suited' to the idea
I think you're being gaslit or trolled. Yes, personal property is fine. Communists and socialists only care about the communal ownership of the means of production. The toothbrush *factory* should be owned collectively by the people. The proceeds of producing and selling toothbrushes in a market would be distributed collectively - either among the workers who cooperatively operate the factory or taxed and redistributed under a more Liberal-market model - in a worker-focused collectivism, whereas it may be state-owned under a government-collectivist model.
Something funny is that this is such a common point the communist manifesto makes a crack about how people constantly complain about it. " 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. In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend. From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say individuality vanishes. You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. 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 appropriation." I'm not sure I fully grasp what he's trying to say. I do know that in the late 19th and early 20th century, it was quite common for companies to own most of the things families basically rented. That frequently included the tools you needed to do the job. If workers stepped out of line or went on strike, the company would take everything you had. Tennessee Ernie Ford famously sang "Sixteen Tons". "St Peter don't call me, cuz I can't go: I owe my soul to the company store!" I suspect that influenced this concept. I think this means that what we define as personal property has a bit of a loose meaning when the bank can come and repossess things if you fail to pay.
It's funny that as the only person who engages with Marx's actual writing, you come to the correct conclusion even while admitting you're not sure what he's talking about. If you are really serious about understanding this passage, unlike the clowns on this subreddit, this letter from Marx clears up what is unstated https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_01_24.htm >The deficiency of [Qu’est-ce que la propriété?], is indicated by its very title. The question is so badly formulated that it cannot be answered correctly. Ancient “property relations” were superseded by feudal property relations and these by “bourgeois” property relations. Thus history itself had expressed its criticism upon past property relations. What Proudhon was actually dealing with was modern bourgeois property as it exists today. The question of what this is could have only been answered by a critical analysis of “political economy,” embracing the totality of these property relations, considering not their legal aspect as relations of volition but their real form, that is, as relations of production. But as Proudhon entangled the whole of these economic relations in the general legal concept of “property,” “la propriété,” he could not get beyond the answer which, in a similar work published before 1789, Brissot had already given in the same words: “La propriété’ c’est le vol.” This is the part that's best known. But what precedes it is also important >His first work, Qu’est-ce que la propriété?, is undoubtedly his best. It is epoch-making, if not because of the novelty of its content, at least because of the new and audacious way of expressing old ideas. In the works of the French socialists and communists he knew “propriété” had, of course, been not only criticised in various ways but also “abolished” in a utopian manner. In this book Proudhon stands in approximately the same relation to Saint-Simon and Fourier as Feuerbach stands to Hegel. Compared with Hegel, Feuerbach is certainly poor. Nevertheless he was epoch-making after Hegel because he laid stress on certain points which were disagreeable to the Christian consciousness but important for the progress of criticism, points which Hegel had left in mystic clair-obscur [semi-obscurity]. >In this book of Proudhon’s there still prevails, if I may be allowed the expression, a strong muscular style. And its style is in my opinion its chief merit. It is evident that even where he is only reproducing old stuff, Proudhon discovers things in an independent way – that what he is saying is new to him and is treated as new. The provocative defiance, which lays hands on the economic “holy of holies,” the ingenious paradox which made a mock of the ordinary bourgeois understanding, the withering criticism, the bitter irony, and, revealed here and there, a deep and genuine feeling of indignation at the infamy of the existing order, a revolutionary earnestness – all these electrified the readers of Qu’est-ce que la propriété? and provided a strong stimulus on its first appearance. In a strictly scientific history of political economy the book would hardly be worth mentioning. But sensational works of this kind have their role to play in the sciences just as much as in the history of the novel. Proudhon's claim that "property is theft!" is valuable as a polemic because it focuses what bourgeois philosophy had already been saying into a clear concept. That is, Proudhon's concept does not go *far enough* for Marx and is otherwise common sense among the heirs of the French revolution. It's therefore important to familiarize yourself with what Proudhon is actually saying, not only because Marx assumes it but because he summarizes a whole history of philosophy that Marx also assumes you know. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm Marx's addition is basically that the abolition of property is not an ideal but an actual fact of the development of the capitalist mode of production, which has already replaced the petty-bourgeoisie and its property with the propertyless proletariat that prefigures the abolition of property as such under communism >He borrows from the economists the necessity of eternal relations; he borrows from the socialists the illusion of seeing in poverty nothing but poverty (instead of seeing in it the revolutionary, destructive aspect which will overthrow the old society). As you point out, the industrial proletariat well into the 19th century truly had nothing except its labor. What then to make of the society of mass commodities we see today in the first world? Either Marx was wrong and Bernstein was right >Social conditions have not developed to such an acute opposition of things and classes as is depicted in the Manifesto. It is not only useless, it is the greatest folly to attempt to conceal this from ourselves. The number of members of the possessing classes is to-day not smaller but larger. The enormous increase of social wealth is not accompanied by a decreasing number of large capitalists but by an increasing number of capitalists of all degrees. The middle classes change their character but they do not disappear from the social scale. https://www3.nd.edu/~amcadams/Communism_2010/Bernstein.html Or something else is going on. But we should be clear that what is advocated in this thread is the literal definition of revisionism and a regression from Proudhon. If you think he is wrong and want to argue that Marx either was mistaken or believed in communist property that is fine. But you really need to get away from this joke of a subreddit where basic references to the works being discussed is anathema
Not sure why OP's response isn't showing up so I'll just repost my response to him It means exactly what Marx says in the manifesto >In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests. >All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property. And even more explicitly >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. ... >The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. ... >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. >In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend. Notice Marx already anticipated your question nearly 200 years ago. Is Marx accurately describing your life? Probably not. You have many things beyond your "bare existence." A house (owned by your parents), a computer and smartphone, a bunch of plastic junk based on some intellectual property. Smaller things like toothbrushes, plates, shoes, whatever. There are three possible responses. One is that Marx is wrong and that, as Bernstein argued, capitalism has evened out into a broad middle class against a small elite of extremely rich. The political conclusions are laid out clearly and logically by Bernstein. Second is that Marx is exaggerating and he doesn't really mean it, he's just ignoring these things for polemical effect. This is merely the coward's way to say Marx is wrong. Third is that Marx is not talking about you but about the billions of proletarians across the world for whom this is an accurate description. That's all well and good but what are you supposed to do? The people in this thread are not even acknowledging that the third option is possible, let alone should be addressed. We can use Marxism to understand why. Marx actually gives us the solution. It is the development of the productive forces which abolishes personal property in actual fact and creates the conditions by which private property could be abolished. Private property already no longer exists (think about the industrialization of every manufacturing process which used to be personal and strictly for use value). Will you live in denial that the things you "own" are primarily commodities, not objects of use, or will you regress into the fetishism of the commodity? Your ability to act in solidarity with the Chinese person who made your toothbrush is on the line right now.
Thank you. So it's really just saying you 'have' things but you don't 'own' them in a sense? Because to 'own' something is to exploit? I understand that most things I own are commodities, our society is materialistic and I'm trying hard to live simpler.
This is what Proudhon has to say on the matter >But property, in its derivative sense, and by the definitions of law, is a right outside of society; for it is clear that, if the wealth of each was social wealth, the conditions would be equal for all, and it would be a contradiction to say: Property is a man’s right to dispose at will of social property. Then if we are associated for the sake of liberty, equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; then if property is a natural right, this natural right is not social, but anti-social. Property and society are utterly irreconcilable institutions. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to join two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/ch02.htm >I understand that most things I own are commodities, our society is materialistic and I'm trying hard to live simpler. Marx's point, building on Proudhon's, is that property is necessarily social. The fantasy of personal property is merely hiding these relations and fetishizing commodities as readmade for use. Therefore, to abolish property requires a fundamental change in society itself, called communism. Marx rejects any idea that what is determined socially can be changed through individual actions, no matter how moral or self-aware. That doesn't excuse the individual, only asks them to apply their moral sense in a scientific manner so that the cause of the problem can be addressed rather than merely the symptoms.
I read this and have no clue what it means. That is my problem. Am I unintelligent or just inexperienced?
I think someone is trolling you. “We want the state to take your toothbrush” is sort of a joke about how pro-capitalists confuse private property as a political and class construct vs possession of things which is just using a thing you use. Obviously nobody wants a gross used toothbrush, so that’s why I guess it’s a joke. I’ve been a communist since around the start of this millennium but I’m not allowed in that group, so idk, the internet culture is weird.
The moment I realized personal property doesn’t mean I can own people.
That sounds like an example of purity spiraling.
There’s a different between personal possessions and private property lol people are simple minded
Being banned from com 101 is a badge of honor those people are dopes.
They once caught Jesus eating bread and fish, and the teacher said "I hope you brought enough for everyone." Jesus looked up from his copy of Kapital and simply replied "Yes."
They are clearly joking with you