A Communist Definition of Property
The Communist understanding of property is not often taught in school, but is important to understand.
Under Capitalism it is assumed that every type of property is equal to another. That property is often called private property. That, however, is not that simple under any other system. Every economic system analyzes social relations in a different way. All property exists through these social relations, so under different economic systems property comes in different forms.
Private Property VS Personal Property
One of the main aspects of capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, otherwise known as private ownership of capital. The means of production are the tools used to produce the goods for all of society. These tools can take many forms, but the most commonly used example is the machines within factories. Under capitalism these are under absolute control of an entity or group of entities. The working class must come to an agreement with those who control the means of production, or starve. This agreement generally comes in the form of wage labor, where the worker is given a portion of the profits while the majority goes to those who control the property.
Personal Property tends to exist under every economic system. Personal property is property intended for use by the individual who controls it, and is attained in a socially “fair” manor. Items in this category would include toothbrushes, personal computers, and most cars. Most personal property of the bourgeoisie, the owners of private property, can only be afforded through this ownership. A 500 room mansion, and collective of private jets would not count as personal property. A private jet could easily cost a million dollars per year, and very few people would be able to produce enough themselves to afford that, so it can only come through control of the means of production. [3] [4]
Property and The State
All public law today is based on the principles of a “monopoly on violence”. A monopoly on violence. The social relations of the worker to the controller cannot exist without this. There is no basis for control without a monopoly of violence, so private property cannot exist without it. Some groups, “anarchist capitalists” for one, would claim that private property is independent of the government. The counter-claim is that a force of guards used to protect private property rights is itself a state. A simple definition of state from dictionary.com states “a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign”. The private property itself would be the territory and the owner(s) would be the ruler, while the guards would be the much-needed monopoly of violence. The workers made the means of production and use the means of production. In other societies it has been shown that they can also manage the means of production. That means anybody controlling the means of production through violence is doing it offensively, and not defensively. As they are trying to take the rights of the workers away by calling it their own property and structuring society around that control.[5]
Note: The definition of state has no consensus and changes over-time (especially since “anarchist capitalism” relies on a different definition than everyone else). [6]
The only thing somebody controls when they are born is themselves. Everything that comes from the control of their own body is the fruits of their labor. The fruits of their labor, and their personal property created from that is part of their freedom. To take personal property is to take their freedom. This means that a thief is using offensive violence to attack the freedoms of a worker. Defensive violence is not authoritarian like offensive violence, so thus personal property can exist outside the bounds of the state (or depending on your definition, each individual is their own state).
Social relations are surprisingly simple, but different interpretations of the actions of humanity lead to many different ideas. The different types of property under different systems are examples of this.
Would defensive violence still be termed not authoritarian if a state uses a nuclear weapon to retaliate on the killing of its people by another state that used guns?
well that would be complicated and up for debate.
its generally defensive and not authoritarian when its to keep another from attacking freedoms. The state is attacking the freedoms of the individuals in the attacking country in an effort to defend its own. So its still authoritarian
Thanks a lot for clarifying this issue.
In my opinion, the effort that this State is making when launching the nuclear bomb is not focused on defending itself, but on revenge, and is using a means that will affect the innocent. For that reason I do not consider that this example represents a real exception about "defensive violence is not authoritarian".
well, mutually assured destruction. Being willing to carry out revenge could be considered the only possible defensive move in this complicated world. (well, for states)
If the force you use is definitely greater than what is necessary for the defense, are you really defending yourself or have you taken an offensive position? In my opinion, if you use a nuclear weapon as revenge against another who attacked you with firearms, you are no longer in a defensive position.
It’s insanity to me that people still believe this could work!
yeah, anybody who thinks capitalism is a good system is full on crazy
I want to believe that no system can refrain from the use of violence to exist ∼offensive or defensive There is always the need to expand or defend what's already there Each social system has its merits & demerits Communism may look appealing bt one has to live in such a society to make informed conclusion on the merits of it Capitalism is no better evil also A better conclusion is by one has experienced life in both stages of development
capitalism cannot function without expansion, other systems can.
@originalworks
why tho
Wanted to see how far I could push it to the limit.
Welp, I be late to th' screenin' o' first reactions, but I still got me popcorn 'n' I'm goin' to read th' hilarious comments left by everybody. Amasses more popcorn while I still be 'ere
All economic systems are capitalist, including communism, fascism, Trumpism, and other collectivist Statist doctrines. No type of economy or essentially any society can develop and sustain itself without the use of capital by some group of people; which are all "private" in organization even if they are under the guise of being "public". The nature of the State through history is that it's a private criminal element that takes over and dominates society for self-serving interests, re-allocating capital for whatever ends they think is necessary.
The only difference in the types of economies is whether they are laissez faire and market oriented or monopolist and interventionist as is the case with virtually all those represented by nation-states.
"The nature of the State is that it is a private criminal element that takes over and dominates others for self-serving interests."
That is the nature of capitalism, the state takes different forms under different systems
you don't seem to understand communist theory at all, and I'm still an anarchist.
https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf
This book is called state and revolution, its a good read
Anarchism is in total oposition to communism. Nazism is almost equal to communism, both have socialistic roots where nazism has the nation as bonus point.
the end goal of communism is a stateless classless society, what you have been reading is propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
anarchist capitalism is the oxymoron here, to quote the first self-proclaimed anarchist "property is theft"
I've been living communism. That is the difference between theories and youtube videos, real living it. It is a cancer.
Who controls the use of capital under communism; or maybe capital ceases to exist. How would you determine the factors of production?
if you were to ask an authoritarian they would say the only way to maintain a state where the workers are to control the means of production they must organize into a form of state based directly on the workers, where only those who fight for worker control can themselves be allowed to control it.
it depends on who you ask. As an anarchist I would answer it is run by free-association and free-use. It is common ownership, nobody controls it except those who are using it
Yes, although I don't see how a communist regime would work without a State. The State is by definition a private criminal class of people who use political means as a way to get what they want. This has been well-established by marxist, anarchists, and even classical liberals.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
here is a basic book explaining it
well then you don't know what communism is, all most people know is propaganda.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays
a nice book on anarchy, because i have a feeling you don't understand that either
Have you noticed you just send me links to books without your own personal comments besides saying "I don't know anything?"—which you're right I don't. I could give you dozens of titles of books regarding the nature of the State and anarchy but I don't because I don't have any insecurity regarding the knowledge on the subjects.
I don't believe in any system. They are all made by man so they are fallible by their very nature. I only believe in the individual and free association. If thats what communism is then I don't have a problem with it.
Agreed.
Recognizing fallibility and the fact that nobody has access to all information, and therefore may never be able to ensure their conclusions are valid, should logically be at the foundation of any ideology.
Systems that don't do this become dogma when contrary information exists.
Hello this is quite a long response so i tried to format it in a way that is easy to read without reading my whole response. Id like to see what you have to say in response to the following issues. My central points are 2, 4 and 5. so if you want to just respond to those that would be fine with me. I apologize in advance for any abundant grammar mistakes which I'm sure are present here.
within your example of machines:
(1)
your word choice in referring to the owners of the means of production as a group of entities, in my view, masks the fact that ownership of the means of production is more fluid. Despite the fact that many wealthy families may hold their wealth, there is an ever present circulation of people in and out of the working class.
(2)
Additionally you ignore the fact that the owners of the machines either produced or otherwise expended valuable resources to establish or obtain them. This means that the man who created the machine is rightfully the owner of the machine or that he engaged in a voluntary transaction to exchange his property for resources. Do you fundamentally reject the notions that an individual is entitled to the fruits of his labor and that one is entitled to engage in voluntary transactions? If so then you are embracing a fundamentally coercive economic system
(3)
Lastly on this topic you present a false dichotomy in place of the spectrum of options available to the working class. you claim that he either comes to an agreement with the owners of the machines or starves, but he has other options. Firstly he could establish his own means of production or otherwise provide a service which other individuals wish to exchange goods for second he could sustain himself through other means such as farming and/or foraging. Assuming he is not a slave there is no factor which forces the individual to work for another man.
Regarding your statements on the state's relation to property:
(4)
Firstly you claim that the social relations of the worker to the owner can not exist without a monopoly of force (presumably in favor of the owner). This is inaccurate, perhaps you could argue that it is not likely to exist without use of force but to claim that it can not exist is wrong. For example if both the owner and the worker respect property rights as a fundamental moral principle, then there is no need for a monopoly of force. As another example, if we are feeling especially pessimistic on human nature, lets say both the workers and owners posses the ability to attack and defend each other with equal ability then the workers have no reason to attack the owners knowing that it would not be worth the risk. Thus property rights are respected without the need for a monopoly of force. The central point in this is that you can not simply assert that the relationship between workers and owner is only attainable through a monopoly of force and therefore immoral. You must make the argument that it this is the case, which you have not done.
(5)
You state that the workers made and use the means of production, which I think we can again refer to as machines without losing any generality. It then appears that you make the claim that the owner must use violence to claim ownership of the machines. Now if it is the case that the owner just happened to stumble into a factory with workers building machines and called his guards to claim ownership of the machines then yes that would clearly be an inexcusable use of force, but if the owner walked into town with a box of gears and drill bits and entered a voluntary transaction with a group of workers to exchange labor for money wherein it was agreed that the completed machine would remain the property of the owner
On point one: The fact of the matter is that he’s referring to the capitalist class that owns the Means of Production (MOP). As he points it out, five wealthy individuals “own more wealth than the bottom half of the population of the world.” This statement is not a meaningless factoid but a statement of our reality as it is today, the concentration of capital. These five people managed to accumulate capital and PRIVATE property into their hands while weeding out competition. This was bound to happen when selfish greed, generated by the system and is not INNATE in humans, kicks in to perserve the individual at their peak and kill off any potential threat. Competition to a single capitalist in the long run makes no sense since it will harm more than help them.
On point two: First of all, rarely, if ever, do most capitalists ever expand labor into making a machine. Nonetheless, most inherit it from their ancestors, and their ancestors either enclosed farming lands to farming units or worked with the government to kill of the guilds in the city already producing the commodity at hand. What you are thinking of is a petit-bourgeois (“small” capitalist) and we rarely have any of those today.
Even then, does the owner work exponentially harder than his worker? The answer is no, for if the capitalist could we wouldn’t need jobs in the first place. Moreso, without the worker, the capitalist would go out of business as they have no one to operate the MOP. The worker is lifeline, the Force of Production, for the MOP and the capitalist, the second they revolt is the second you make concessions to not lose it all.
Truly in the worker’s case is it hard to survive in this world since ‘tis nye-on impossible for them to acquire the MOP without loosing an arm and a leg. And, nonetheless, to even have any leverage as an individual worker on the table with capitalist who has many other people waiting to take their spot eargerly for less. Their two choices are death and wage-labor. The former is meaningless since ‘tis a dead-end that extends not the person’s life and the latter an alienated life where someone produces something only to get a check to continue on struggling.
On point three: I refer to Anarchyhasnogod’s points down below. I think he covered it well enough. Plus some of my response in point two can easily bleed into this point here.
On point four: Again I refer you to read Anarchy’s points, but this time I have something to say.
The monopoly of force is first and foremost guarneteed by the state and protects the ruling class, that being the capitalist class. The state protects the ruling class since the ruling class controls the functions of the state in a way that gurantees their survival and surpresses the working class in a way that their class consciousness is murky and a revolt would be a net-negative. Also if they were equal in fighting power, then Anarchy’s points would still remain.
On point five: Again you conflate capitalists with petit-bourgeoisie (“small” capitalists if you had forgotten already). The workers’ only bargaining chip is their labor power, to which capitalist has capital and MOP to threaten back with. (Again the choices are death or wage-labor for the worker, the real choice being the latter since that continues their existence and won’t starve or die that easily.) Also the capitalist has to exploit the worker of their surplus value, value created that is more than socially necessary to produce a commodity. Otherwise, they cannot get any profits nor can they continue to live on in the market economy where time is of the essence.
To add onto my point: Revolutions in other countries have shown that private property actually slows down growth and takes resources away from the workers. If this is true, and the workers know it, then any transaction must not be voluntary and must be for some other reason, like all of the ones I pointed out. There is no reason the workers would settle for less, isn't that the whole point of markets?
to me it seems like you missed the entire point of the post
Nice post! Thanks for sharing that educative post. I am futher enlightened about communism and capitalism. I follow and upvote you.
"A 500 room mansion, and collective of private jets would not count as personal property. A private jet could easily cost a million dollars per year, and very few people would be able to produce enough themselves to afford that"
In some countries a very few people are able to produce enough to afford an appartment, a Car, a Simple computer, or even a smartphone. So If you live in those countries, and you hear that argument, you probably would not consider those things as personal property. In those countries having those simple things "can only come through control of the means of production." How to define things in those cases?
I think in theory communist concept is good but I'm not sure about practise what's your thoughts on this @anarchyhasnogods
actually in practise it does better than capitalism in every way