Communist property relations - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15004410
I’m wondering if there are novel views on what property relations might overcome that of private property as it exists under communism.
I am dissatisfied with the common distinction between private and personal.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/property.htm
One of the distinctions frequently made in relation to the question of the abolition of private property, and often accepted as ‘marxist orthodoxy’, is the distinction between social property, in particular the social means of production, on the one hand, and personal possessions or objects of consumption, on the other. Possibly this distinction makes some sense in the “political” phase of Communism Marx refers to above. However, the conception is of limited value because, for a start, it is founded on the rupture of the human being into a producer on one hand and a consumer on the other, and life into work and leisure, dichotomies which lie at the very heart of the fragmented existence which needs to be abolished. The abolition of private property in the productive sphere whilst retaining it in the domestic sphere, would in fact reinforce the inhumanity of modern life: personal property being entirely for one’s own use, is without significance and therefore worthless, while social property still has significance only for the purpose of earning a living and is therefore alien and oppressive.


The only different view I’ve seen from the same article as above.
So, there is a concept of property which exists in our relations both at work and outside work, which is to do with this: once you have established, with your co-workers, the right to work in a certain way, to work in a certain job or draw on the services of others in a given way and to a certain extent, then we believe that we have a right to demand that that activity should only be terminated or transformed with our agreement. We don’t need to bring things into that.


Money violates this right. Via money, people forcibly separate other people from their life and livelihood. Money grants to scoundrels the right to debauch themselves. But money is a carrier of the consent of the community, despite itself.
...
What about use? For Hegel use is a way of taking possession of something (provided it is not already the property of someone else who wishes to use it), and has the effect of maintaining ownership. When one no longer uses something, then one has taken one’s will out of the thing and it becomes ownerless.

This concept seems to stand up. It appears to be a substantive and ethical conception of property: a thing is mine if I use it in the course of activity which is mine, that is to say, in the course of my socially determined activity. If I stop using it, it reverts to a ‘state of nature’.

In summary, it seems to me that there is a kind of concept of property which exists within the activity of working people and the ethical relations between them. Economic relations, i.e., bourgeois relations, violate this ethic and violate workers’ property. This concept of property seems actually to provide, in combination with consensus decision-making and collaboration, the basis for the organisation of social production on a global scale.

Does this sound promising? What is your take on the subject?
#15004427
In terms of Communism the real distinction between private and personal property is possession. If your need requires something it is yours until you don't. Then it will be passed on belonging to someone else. You never own anything as is given to you and you will be given something depending on your need.

However under Capitalism private property creates surplus value as the means of that property is individual rather than collective resulting in only one person profiting from that means. The collective may well require the possession of that property to live - such as a home for example. However the answer under Capitalism is rent. You are basically are a wage slave in order to live.
#15004439
However, the conception is of limited value because, for a start, it is founded on the rupture of the human being into a producer on one hand and a consumer on the other, and life into work and leisure, dichotomies which lie at the very heart of the fragmented existence which needs to be abolished. The abolition of private property in the productive sphere whilst retaining it in the domestic sphere, would in fact reinforce the inhumanity of modern life: personal property being entirely for one’s own use


I will say that this dichotomy between producer and consumer do exist under current economic relations, its not just a convenient abstract classification. We are both producers and consumers at the same time, furthermore, we can abolish private property overnight but this dichotomy won't end overnight.

Then, I disagree with this article's notion when it says that "the inhumanity of modern life: personal property being entirely for one’s own use" which to me seems like the author believe that private property is entirely for one's own use which is just false. The owner of private property don't use everything that is produced personally, that's exactly what sets them apart.

Finally, the abolition of the private property won't exactly end the notion of producer and consumer in any way, the point of abolishment is to end appropriation of surplus value, a better organization of productive forces not to end the humans' role as producers, we still will need that but hopefully a lot less labour will be required giving us much more free time to unleash the potential we got rather than wasting it away slaving for our bouergiouse overlords.
#15004440
There are ways of relating to objects in the world that don't necessarily fall neatly under the rubric of property.

For instance, the sacred relationship of native Americans to land. Does their use of the land make it property? When other uses of the land can destroy this relationship, which use should be given priority?

What is the use right of emotional attachment? I'm thinking of anything from an ancestral family farmhouse full of objects that represent memories of a family all the way to a cathedral, synagogue, or mosque emotionally invested by thousands or even millions of people.

If someone works honestly for 40 or 50 years does she accumulate some ownership right of the house she lives in, even though she may no longer be able to contribute as much?

What is the right of an artist to the art or literature he has created?

Should a legal fiction like a corporation be able to own anything?

Who owns the biosphere that makes life possible?
#15004488
Since I live in Canada and work mainly with indigenous people and groups, any Marxist property paradigm has to be necessarily anti-colonial and supportive of traditional indigenous property ownership systems.
#15004628
Pants-of-dog wrote:traditional indigenous property ownership systems.


I mostly know next to nothing on this topic, can you point out to some sources where I can learn more about these systems, Google took me to very basic shits and wasn't really helpful.
#15004645
fuser wrote:I mostly know next to nothing on this topic, can you point out to some sources where I can learn more about these systems, Google took me to very basic shits and wasn't really helpful.


Basically POD went there to recruit them for communism but they ended up recruiting him for their own agenda instead. It probably went something like this:


POD: "Hi have you got a moment to hear about communism and how the communist party of Canada can save you from oppression by seizing all the means of production?"

Injun: "Go away white man, we don't want no bibles here. Go to our casino if you want something to do".

POD: "Wait, I'm not a bible salesman! I'm selling communism!"

Injun: "commiewhatnow?"

POD: "communism. It is the salvation of all mankind from the devils of capitalism. It is the fight against the oppression of having money and owning stuff. When the glorious communist party of Canada seizes all the means of production for itself you will all be saved from the oppression of owning anything.

Injun: "the casino does pretty good, but who doesn't like to get more money? Ok I'll give you 5 minutes."

POD: "oh yes the casino will be the among the first things the CPC will sieze from the capitalists."

Injun: "what?! No, no stupid white men are going to be stealing our casino! We had enough of you white people seizing our stuff. Fuck off!"

POD: "wait! your casino? It's not owned by the capitalists?"

Injun: "yes so if you want to go seizing things that don't belong to you maybe you should go seizing the white man's stuff instead of ours?"

POD: "well I suppose if the capitalists don't own your casino, we could make an exception for you."

Injun: "you'll do more than that, go seize our land back from the white man and maybe we'll have some of your little pamphlets."

POD: "okay, so if I get your land back you will become loyal foot soldiers of the revolution?"

Injun: "yeah sure whatever. Now why don't you check out the casino and play a hand or two before you go?"
#15004682
fuser wrote:I mostly know next to nothing on this topic, can you point out to some sources where I can learn more about these systems, Google took me to very basic shits and wasn't really helpful.


This information is very hard to find, mostly because it is not on the internet.

I get most of mu info directly from indigenous people who studied their own community’s history and culture.

If I do find something, I will let you know.
#15004694
@fuser
You probably should rein POD in before he gives away any more communist party property that they have not even had a chance to nick in the first place. He'll be letting the gays keep their hair salons, the muslims keep their schools of martyr bombing, women their Avon selling and the brown people their convenience stores. By the time he is done there won't be anything left to seize and the revolution will be without a payoff for the commies. :(

Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation F = G*m1m2/[…]

The Evolution Fraud

[Darwinism] refers strictly to biological evolut[…]

@Godstud Look in the mirror and ask yourself if […]

Aus: Federal Election 2019

First broken promise already! Coalition NOT going[…]