Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30018
    15 Jun '19 19:05
    Apologies if this has been threshed out before, but a comrade poster stated in a diff thread that he does not believe in Private Property. To deny private property serves to obliterate the word ‘mine’ from the lexicon of humanity. I looked up stuff, (like this last sentence) and find this interesting. Does anyone else hold this belief?
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    15 Jun '19 19:113 edits
    @averagejoe1 said
    Apologies if this has been threshed out before, but a comrade poster stated in a diff thread that he does not believe in Private Property. To deny private property serves to obliterate the word ‘mine’ from the lexicon of humanity. I looked up stuff, (like this last sentence) and find this interesting. Does anyone else hold this belief?
    "Personally I don't believe in "private property" i.e. state-protected monopolies
    of certain objects or privileges which are used to exploit others."
    --No1Marauder (who cited this link below)

    http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB3.html#secb34

    Averagejoe1 may be astonished to learn (if he can) that humankind lived for a
    long time without a concept (or at least a legal definition) of 'private property'.
    (As No1Marauder presumably would put it, private property is not a part of natural law.)

    "In England, "property" did not have a legal definition until the 17th century."
    --Wikipedia

    My point is that 'private property' is not necessarily the sacred foundation of civilization.

    By the way, when women were regarded as the property of men (their fathers or husbands),
    a criticism of socialism was that it supposedly aimed to make women *communal*
    property rather than *private* property. So, instead of belonging only to her husband,
    a woman supposedly would belong to all men (women would be 'nationalized' ).
    This propaganda was intended to make a man (who then had the legal right to
    have sexual intercourse with his wife without her consent) become afraid that other
    men would claim his marital rights and be able to rape his wife with impunity.
  3. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30018
    15 Jun '19 19:24
    @duchess64 said
    "Personally I don't believe in "private property" i.e. state-protected monopolies
    of certain objects or privileges which are used to exploit others."
    --No1Marauder (who cited this link below)

    http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB3.html#secb34

    Averagejoe1 may be astonished to learn (if he can) that humankind lived for a
    long time without a conc ...[text shortened]... me afraid that other
    men would claim his marital rights and be able to rape his wife with impunity.
    If property is not the ......foundation of civilization, what do you think IS the foundation of civilization ?
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40151
    15 Jun '19 19:32
    @averagejoe1 said
    Apologies if this has been threshed out before, but a comrade poster stated in a diff thread that he does not believe in Private Property. To deny private property serves to obliterate the word ‘mine’ from the lexicon of humanity. I looked up stuff, (like this last sentence) and find this interesting. Does anyone else hold this belief?
    No, it doesn't; one can own things without using them to exploit others.
  5. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    No1GaveAF*IWasWhite
    tinyurl.com/y3czz7bk
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    15 Jun '19 19:321 edit
    Private property is not the only kind of property
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40151
    15 Jun '19 19:371 edit
    @athousandyoung said
    Private property is not the only kind of property
    I like this exchange:

    Personal property is that which you clearly own through use and occupancy. Private property is that which you clearly don't own through use and occupancy, but by the magic of the state still own.

    ghastly1302
    Anarchy is Order
    6 points
    ·
    2 years ago
    It's no magic - it's batons and tear gas.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/4r3qqj/difference_between_personal_property_and_private/
  7. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80687
    15 Jun '19 19:46
    @averagejoe1 said
    If property is not the ......foundation of civilization, what do you think IS the foundation of civilization ?
    The presence of Cities, the clue's in the name.
  8. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    15 Jun '19 19:49
    @averagejoe1 said
    If property is not the ......foundation of civilization, what do you think IS the foundation of civilization ?
    Mutual respect, social and cultural development, and taxation.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    15 Jun '19 19:53
    @deepthought said
    The presence of Cities, the clue's in the name.
    Has AverageJoe1 ever played the popular computer game 'Civilization'?
  10. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30018
    15 Jun '19 19:55
    @no1marauder said
    No, it doesn't; one can own things without using them to exploit others.
    What has a discussion about Joe Smith owning private property got to do with other people? So, if Bill Jones owns private property, it affects Bill Smith in what Way? How does Jones ‘exploit’ Smith.?
  11. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30018
    15 Jun '19 19:58
    @duchess64 said
    Has AverageJoe1 ever played the popular computer game 'Civilization'?
    I dont know of it.....
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40151
    15 Jun '19 20:031 edit
    @averagejoe1 said
    What has a discussion about Joe Smith owning private property got to do with other people? So, if Bill Jones owns private property, it affects Bill Smith in what Way? How does Jones ‘exploit’ Smith.?
    "Private property" is a social reality created by the rules of society, not a particular thing. And "private property" must exploit others or it is useless:

    due to the dispossession of the vast majority of the population from the means of life, capitalists are in an ideal position to charge a "use-fee" for the capital they own, but neither produced nor use. Having little option, workers agree to contracts within which they forfeit their autonomy during work and the product of that work. This results in capitalists having access to a "commodity" (labour) that can potentially produce more value than it gets paid for in wages. During working hours, the owner can dictate (within certain limits determined by worker resistance and solidarity as well as objective conditions, such as the level of unemployment within an industry or country) the level, duration and intensity of work, and so the amount of output (which the owner has sole rights over even though they did not produce it). Thus the "fee" (or "surplus value"😉 is created by owners paying workers less than the full value added by their labour to the products or services they create for the firm. The capitalist's profit is thus the difference between this "surplus value," created by and appropriated from labour, minus the firm's overhead and cost of raw materials (See also section C.2, "Where do profits come from?"😉.

    So property is exploitative because it allows a surplus to be monopolised by the owners. Property creates hierarchical relationships within the workplace (the "tools and equipment monopoly" might better be called the "power monopoly"😉 and as in any hierarchical system, those with the power use it to protect and further their own interests at the expense of others. Within the workplace there is resistance by workers to this oppression and exploitation, which the "hierarchical. . . relations of the capitalist enterprise are designed to resolve this conflict in favour of the representatives of capital..." [William Lazonick, Op. Cit., p. 184]

    Needless to say, the state is always on hand to protect the rights of property and management against the actions of the dispossessed. When it boils down to it, it is the existence of the state as protector of the "power monopoly" that allows it to exist at all.

    So, capitalists are able to appropriate this surplus value from workers solely because they own the means of production, not because they earn it by doing productive work themselves. Of course some capitalists may also contribute to production, in which case they are in fairness entitled to the amount of value added to the firm's output by their own labour; but owners typically pay themselves much more than this, and are able to do so because the state guarantees them that right as property owners (which is unsurprising, as they alone have knowledge of the firms inputs and outputs and, like all people in unaccountable positions, abuse that power -- which is partly why anarchists support direct democracy as the essential counterpart of free agreement, for no one in power can be trusted not to prefer their own interests over those subject to their decisions). And of course many capitalists hire managers to run their businesses for them, thus collecting income for doing nothing except owning.

    Capitalists' profits, then, are a form of state-supported exploitation. This is equally true of the interest collected by bankers and rents collected by landlords. Without some form of state, these forms of exploitation would be impossible, as the monopolies on which they depend could not be maintained. For instance, in the absence of state troops and police, workers would simply take over and operate factories for themselves, thus preventing capitalists from appropriating an unjust share of the surplus they create.

    http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB3.html#secb33

    Obviously, personal property such as a toaster isn't used to exploit others, so there is nothing objectionable about it.
  13. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30018
    15 Jun '19 20:05
    @athousandyoung said
    Private property is not the only kind of property
    If I own a deli now, I own the business, the land with Improvements, and the utensils, equip, etc. So to those of you who do not believe in private ownership of property, I am asking what utopia would be to you. What if I am walking around and want to buy a cheese sandwich. How would the deli use or ownership be structured.
  14. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30018
    15 Jun '19 20:071 edit
    @deepthought said
    The presence of Cities, the clue's in the name.
    But I live on acreage, far from any town, 200 miles from a city.
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40151
    15 Jun '19 20:09
    @averagejoe1 said
    If I own a deli now, I own the business, the land with Improvements, and the utensils, equip, etc. So to those of you who do not believe in private ownership of property, I am asking what utopia would be to you. What if I am walking around and want to buy a cheese sandwich. How would the deli use or ownership be structured.
    The people who actually do the work at the deli would receive the profits.
Back to Top