What’s the F in the spokes about?
The most annoying thing ‘socialists’ have done is creating their own lexicon and different meanings of English words so they can be oh so superior to the ‘normal folks’ without actually changing anything. The point of language is communication, to be clear. If your terms are confusing people, that’s your problem, not people’s problem
You literally read a meme that says “capialists have miseducated you to conflated these terms” and your reply was “I am conflating these terms and I blame socialists.”
Maybe the problem is you, as these are understood terms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property (do not the “Not to be confused with Personal property.” at the top of this page)
The point of the post was that they aren’t commonly understood.
And the point of the post is capitalists are the ones that caused that…
Yeah ,well op gatekeeping and being cagey about the difference in the two doesn’t educate anyone. I tried reading the Wikipedia pages and it didn’t really clear up the difference for me exactly.
Private property is capital like factories, land, things that produce on a large scale that is owned by a person or business. Public property is the same as private property but owned by the government that is for the public. Personal property is things like your toothbrush, your clothes, your toaster, etc.
Gotcha, thanks for that.
So this part of the Wiki didn’t clear up anything for you, despite being basically exactly what Comrade_Spood said below?
- Marxists argue that private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived, i.e., not a relationship between person and thing. Private property may include artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts, and seas—these generate capital for the owner without the owner necessarily having to perform any physical labor. Conversely, those who perform labor using somebody else’s private property are considered deprived of the value of their work in Marxist theory. Instead, they are given a salary that is disjointed from the value generated by the worker.
- Personal property, or possessions, includes “items intended for personal use” (e.g., one’s toothbrush, clothes, and vehicles, and rarely, money). The owner has a distributive right to exclude others (i.e., the right to command a “fair share” of personal property).
- In anarchist theory, private property typically refers to capital or the means of production, whereas personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services.
I’ve had you tagged as ‘lying troll’ for so long now, and you never fail to live up to it Dick.
I noticed the last line and that’s all I needed. You have been tagged “antagonistic dipshit” for about 2 years and it’s the truth.
At least I actually give a fuck about something. All you do is troll and operate in bad faith.
you’re this close to getting it.
Very helpful.
These terms do not appear mutually exclusive.
“Abolish private property” sounds like it would include “abolish private personal property” such as the bike in the meme.
If you had any idea what you were talking about, you’d probably be less annoyed. You’re on the Internet: try using it to learn.
this is anything, though.
integer? number
float? decimal
array? list
Do you have better terms?
Personal/private property for things individuals own and corporate property for things companies own? That’s just a suggestion off the top of my head
Congratulations! You made the distiction even more complicated by introducing another, superfluous term! /s
But they are terms they understand, so it’s okay! Communication restored without any critical thought on why they didn’t understand the other words.
Would rental property owned by small landlords be considered “corporate property”?
“Business” would be a better term than “corporate” in this context.
Sure, it was just a suggestion off the top of my head as I said, your suggestion is definitely better :)
A Corporation is any organization that is legally recognized and can act as a single entity, so a co-op, commune, even an HOA that has common areas would probably be setup as a corporation even if the property relations are different than a private for-profit company.
The distinction can be seen in late 1800s Mexico where liberal reformers were trying to get rid of corporate ownership of land to promote individual ownership like in the US. What this meant was many villages who held property in common since before the aztecs were being forced to split up the common land and distribute it to each individual family, so that then the rich landlords could piece by piece buy up the land starting with the poorest families.
deleted by creator
Kinda a distinction without a difference tho. I need to live somewhere, and I don’t want strangers to have access to my room. So private property makes sense there. No different from having an RV that I could live in, which is personal property.
The difference is kind of simple: is it something only you are using? It’s your, personal property. Your bicycle, your home.
Is it something that is intended for communal usage? A park, a factory, a tram network, a hospital? It’s a public property and shouldn’t be privately owned.
There are books and books are written and could be written gratifying nuances around the edges, but that’s the gist of itI would clarify it.
In Marxism, “private property” is a social relationship under which the “owner” excludes other people from enjoying the use value of a commodity. It is the unethical justification for stealing surplus value from the worker. “Personal property” can be seen as a morally just subset of private property, specifically it is a right to exclude others from using your fair share of society’s commodities intended for personal use. It means everyone has a right to own a personal toothbrush and have a place to live etc, but not own significantly more than anybody else.
In anarchism, “private property” is ownership on means of production, while “personal property” is ownership on any other commodities. This makes it difficult to set out categories of what does and doesn’t qualify, because the vast majority of commodities have both some direct use value and also some value as a mean of production. E.g. a home you live in is your personal property, a home you set up a business in is your private property and should be abolished.
I’d be fine with either definition, but we need to be aware that they are different.
E.g. a home you live in is your personal property, a home you set up a business in is your private property and should be abolished.
Maybe its an edge case, but what if you are a woodworker making a living building and selling furniture by yourself from your garage? Would that not be a “business” and would that entitle your garage to be public property?
It depends. If your workshop is suited for only one person, then it’s fine as it is. If it’s a huge-ass workshop for several people, you shouldn’t be able to gatekeep that.
Yeah I think it’s one of those edge cases and has been handled differently by different post-capitalist societies and at different stages of their development. E.g. you’d be OK with that during NEP in USSR, probably be in trouble shortly after, and probably be OK again by the 60s (as long as you didn’t exploit other people).
Ok. So what if its a worker owned and run collective of like 5 workers? They are all equals doing equal work getting equal reward from selling the goods they make. They don’t have the right to lock it up at night and prevent people from coming in and running off with all the materials and equipment? I’m just trying to understand the logistics of how this works.
In anarchist theory, co-ops neither private property nor personal property, but collective property.
In Marxism, it is a more ethically justified subset of private property.
Some anarchist movements (syndicalism, collectivism) consider complete collectivization of what is currently private or state property to be the end-goal of revolution. They envision a world economy which is a free association of co-operatives, or something similar.
Marxist movements have a more nuanced view of collective property, specifically it is envisioned as an ethical improvement over single-owner private property, and a useful stepping stone towards communism, but not an end-goal. Co-ops still allow for unfair inequality (e.g. members of one co-op can be much more well-off than members of another co-op, even if they produce the same value) and share some characteristics with private property. As such, what you are describing is once again an edge-case. Co-ops were generally glorified in USSR, especially during NEP:
Let’s all give a vow
To not let the merchants plunder
Buy in a co-op
Not a cent for the black market
During later periods, in most industries co-ops were usually overtaken by the corresponding state ministries or departments, sometimes with shares returned to the members, sometimes not. The members usually became regular employees of a state-owned enterprise. Co-ops did linger in some sectors, like consumer goods distribution in rural areas (сельпо - rural consumer association, basically a grocery store owned collectively by the village inhabitants), rarely agricultural production (колхоз - collective farm, a farm owned by everyone who works there), etc. But again, mostly they were expropriated by the state for the purposes of building a socialist planned economy. If you wanted to start a co-op during those times, if it was at all successful it would soon be overtaken by the state.
As usual, Perestroyka started with some great ideas in this area. It had the goal of returning some state property to co-ops so that employees became memebers and had more incentive to be efficient in their work, and have some agency to decide how to run the enterprise. It was supposed to complement the socialist planned economy (which would be responsible for strategic goods, like heavy industry and military) with a democratic, but more decentralized co-op economy (which would be responsible for consumer goods). As usual, it all went to shit soon after, because directors of co-ops became de-facto single owners and ran them like private businesses.
I’m just trying to understand the logistics of how this works.
Logistically speaking, co-op members did have an exclusive right over their collective property. That included locking the doors and such. But again, if your co-op was successful during the advances socialist economy stage of USSR, it would be taken over by the state.
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation and history.
There’s a big difference, personal property is the things you personally use yourself, your home, your computer, your pants, your toothbrush.
Private property is the things the bourgeoisie own that they don’t use themselves, a vacant house or a house for renting, a factory, copyrights. Usually used to extract labour value from those who can’t afford private property.
Surely private property is also the property one owns and directly uses themselves to live in?
No. As has been explained to you multiple times, that is personal property.
Again this is an issue where the terms personal and private property have been deliberately conflated to justify treating one as the other.
Something being personal property doesn’t mean anyone has the right to take and use it.
So private property makes sense there.
well, that’s not private property. that’s personal property. so it does not, in fact, make sense there.
You think these people thought that hard about this post? And not just “I want to be a edgy little edge lord”
if you were educated enough to understand the fucking meme, you wouldn’t be in here posting your dumbass reply, thinking you’re a lot fucking smarter than you actually are.
the sheer number of people posting here criticizing the meme and validating it in the process
Most of this kind of drivel relies on people not knowing how to spot an equivocation fallacy when they see one. But there’s no need to teach critical thinking, just give them enough reading, writing, and arithmetic to be useful office drones…
