But I heard the tankies are going to take my toothbrush away and give it to my neighbor!!!
We are gonna take the neighbor toothbrush too.
I want to know who is hoarding all of these toothbrushes!
I’ve come for your toothbrush.
we’re going to seize all the toothbrushes from the peasantry and force them to rent the toothbrushes from us to brush their teeth!!! monopoly the means of dental hygiene, mwah, hahaHA!
So many people don’t understand the difference between personal and private property.
Maybe you should rename “private property” then so people don’t keep getting the wrong idea?
Yeah that sure worked with global warming and climate change didn’t it?
Sure, it worked, but in the wrong direction. “Global warming” is a factual description and “climate change” is an obscuring euphemism invented by polluters.
maybe society should incentivise people more to understand things instead of jumping to conclusions. It is such a widespread problem. People tend to interpret details of either alien concepts or concepts they don’t (or are taught to not) like and don’t fully understand in the most negative way
That’s also just propaganda. When we’re taught random stuff, like philosophy, we don’t necessarily jump off to a negative conclusion. It’s mostly with political stuff where we’re beaten down to think that things like redistribution or socialism is “good in theory but bad in practice”, that “humans are selfish by nature”, that “anyone with power is corrupted so we shouldn’t aim to have it”, and so on, so by the time you encounter leftist theory you don’t treat it with the same grace you would if you read, say, Aristotle, but as a reflection of poor character (“they must have had a secret agenda of domination!”), or poor understanding (“did Marx never hear about human nature? what a dumbass!”) or both. When we actually open up to the idea that people like Marx and Engels and others could be right, and read it with an open mind, we can very easily work out that they were right.
i think in general it is due to cognitive dissonance, which kicks in when ideas are tied to strong emotions. In the case of propaganda those emotions are induced by the language used to describe those concepts. This is definitely on purpose.
But i have seen this effect with way more meaningless things as well. For example, i am a huge coffee nerd and when i tell people about specialty coffee, what it is and how i can taste, even while making an effort to not belittle anyones personal preferences, people still get weirdly defensive about their tastes.
So i really think it is a more general societal problem of valueing knowledge over the process of learning and understanding. This in itself is a useful trait because it makes people way more susceptible to propaganda
because it seems like there is no clear boundary. If I purchased a steel mill and was the sole oener/operator is that personal property? what if it is only used for hobby projects and not for profit?
If I purchased a steel mill and was the sole oener/operator is that personal property?
No it’s private property you’re a petty bourgeois/small proprietor.
what if it is only used for hobby projects and not for profit?
If you’re not selling what you make it’s personal property.
Then it wouldn’t be production then dude keep up.
Private property is mostly things you don’t use. Like a second flat you have the ownership papers for, but do not live there. The house you’re living in is not private property.
What if you live in one urban house during the week and the other cheap rural retreat on the weekend? What if your kids live separately because of education reasons?
Second house criteria seems rather arbitary to me.
The actual criterion is whether something is used to make profits or not. If you have 10 houses, but don’t rent them, that’s personal property. If you own just one house and rent it, it’s your private property.
Better yet - private property is things used to exploit other people’s labour. Renting exploits labour, too, but indirectly.
communism is 100% about nationalizing your parent’s sex tapes
The actual criterion is whether something is used to make profits or not. If you have 10 houses, but don’t rent them, that’s personal property. If you own just one house and rent it, it’s your private property.
Better yet - private property is things used to exploit other people’s labour. Renting exploits labour, too, but indirectly.
(Reposting my reply to somebedy’s comment)
I’m a noob at this and I kind of dont understand. Could i still own a house or like a couple acres ? Or would there be no ownership?
Home ownership is a lot higher in currenntly existing socialist states than in their capitalist peers. Do what you will with that information.
Not all housing is equal, at least in so called capitalist peers, where lots of people who can afford houses in small town or village are not buying that as they live in big cities and are saving up.
I’d like to know if the housing in the socialist peers is considered equal, regardless of size and location?
In Marxism communism personal ownership is still allowed (you own your house and belongings etc.). What’s not is the control of the means of production or any property that lets its owner live off others’ labor, say factories, land, mines etc. by capitalists and argues that they should be the social or common property of the producers/workers.
The distinction between personal belongings and means of production is not at all clear-cut. In what flavor of socialism would I be allowed to own which dual-use goods? Examples:
- My house and garden can be a place of production (for art, artisan goods, handicraft, foods, etc.).
- May a musician own musical instruments or must he collect them from the warehouse of the local musical collective?
- Computers and other electronics are classical dual-use goods. Do I have to share them with all kinds of people?
- Cars and other vehicles. Are socialists going to emulate historical Albania in that cars are not allowed as personal property? Where will they draw the line? Are e-bikes allowed, or scooters, or freight bicycles?
My house and garden can be a place of production (for art, artisan goods, handicraft, foods, etc.).
That is not “letting the owner live off other people’s labor” it’s letting the owner live off their own labor. Do other people have to come over to your house and garden to make things? They should have their own house and garden. If they then want to come over to hang out and make crafts, then what would possibly be the problem?
May a musician own musical instruments or must he collect them from the warehouse of the local musical collective?
Again, so long as a type of tool is accessible to anyone, there’s no issue with someone owning their own set. Whether it’s a musician with an instrument or a plumber or a mechanic that owns their own tools, there’s not really a problem. Nobody’s going around confiscating everyone’s wrenches for some ideological reason.
Suppose there’s some very expensive instrument, say a massive pipe organ in some church. If that organ is not being used for profit, then it doesn’t matter, but if it is being used that way, then perhaps it would make sense if various musical groups were allowed to use it occasionally, since it might not be practical to ensure everyone has their own pipe organ.
Computers and other electronics are classical dual-use goods. Do I have to share them with all kinds of people?
In a modern economy where everyone has their own computer, that’s completely unnecessary. Suppose there’s some remote village somewhere where they only have one computer. In that case, surely it makes sense for access to be shared.
Cars and other vehicles.
Repeating myself a lot here. Socialists aim to make transportation accessible to everyone, which generally means investing in public transit. But there are cases where it might make more sense to make it easier for everyone to have a car, like a remote region where public transportation is less viable, or a situation where people already own cars. I think most socialists would favor a gradual phasing out of cars in favor of public transit for efficiency, accessibility, and environmental reasons. A socialist state that doesn’t already have cars probably wouldn’t prioritize them, but that depends on the material conditions (as I said about rural regions).
Socialists want to eliminate Private Property, which is to say property that generates capital: farms, factories, stores, etc. While retaining personal property. Stuff like you’re house, your tv, your toothbrush, etc.
Now, there are some exceptions to this. If you go to Cuba, you’d find that most of the agricultural land isn’t collectivised, but is rather owned by individuals or families, who’s interests are represented by a mass organization of small holding farmers.
The historical specificities of Cuba’s land reform process meant that Cuban socialism retained a sector of small scale private ownership, within a Socialist system.
The point Marx is making is that under capitalism, as much as they talk about private property being a fundamental natural right, the consolidation of capital means that most people never have the opportunity to access that supposed right, or reap its benefits
In addition to what others have said, the boundaries between these can change according to the society and time. Fifty years ago, a computer would have been ‘private property’. Nowadays most computers are ‘personal’.
Whether you can own a house or a couple of acres under a hypothetical socialist system would mainly depend on population density. The Soviets used to give young people large tracts of land in rural areas because land isn’t really a scarce resource in Russia. (Vietnam still does this, but the plots are smaller.) On the other hand, Singapore, a capitalist country, has no private land ownership because land is so scarce.
Not in China, it’s kinda like Canada. You don’t own the land you lease it. It’s yours until the government deems it not.
Edit: because yall ignorant
In Canada, private property ownership is called fee simple. Legally, you own the exclusive right to live on, modify, sell, or pass down that land forever. However, the ultimate radical title sits with the Crown.
And the US? Try not paying property taxes on the land you “own” for a while and see how much you own that land compared to the government.
In China, the government can do the same to your house/land even if you pay all your “dues” timely.
So can most countries it’s called eminent domain
Removed by mod
As you can in China I’d advise looking into nail houses where you can delay them so long that you don’t even have to give up your house/land. Most people just choose not to given the new accomodation is generally better/more modern alongside a payout.
Also
civilized countries
Adolf is that you?
We dont own land in the US either, we are on a perpetual lease from the government. Stop making that yearly lease payment called property tax and the government will evict you from their property and steal your assets
What will you do with those couple of acres?
Farming, cattle and poultry. A storehouse, a small factory, and a separate kitchen house/pantry.
Depends on how industrious one is, and how much hiring and help one can do.
If you’re hiring then you are own the means of production that should be shared by the workers.
Not OP, but I would set up a basketball halfcourt, grow some weed, have a mead shed
