How would pet ownership work in a system without private property?

Is a dog personal property? It belongs to the household/family unit today, not a person.
How does this work with animal rights?
Is an AI personal property also?

pets are mostly a symptom of capitalist modernity and alienation. I must imagine that we'll return to the status quo ante bellum — people will devote time to their fellow humans rather than household animals.

So would precious metals, such as a big chest full of jewels, be expropriated?
Seems like an easy conversion for the rich to do, transforming their land into gold, and then making use of the gold on the black market that will inevitably exist for a good (jewels) that isn't abundant and can't be distributed, as its all personal property of a few people.

Gulag for the owners. Kitchen for the pets. Can't waste resources like that, comrade.

Clearly under communism we'll develop science to the point we can communicate with all animals as if they're fellow man and share with them the gift of proletariat revolution.

Still can't decide if this is bait or you're just insanely ignorant. The only things that are private property are workplaces, machines, things used to produce commodities and services. That's what we propose should be held in common, so society can end production for market exchange and instead control these processes democratically to directly fulfill the really existing needs of the community. We don't care about your cat or your toothbrush.

So inefficient.

If capitalists stash their wealth in gold and intend on using it as a tool of power then it will probably be expropriated. However if they want to hoard it to use on stupid luxury goods then i don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to keep it

Pets are no property.

Well roads, lakes, land and factories are obvious, but what about smaller and, today at least, personal usage machines? What about a hotdog stand?

It isn't obvious to me, explain further.

Not the user you're replying to but a hotdog stand is still private property as it's property used to make money. Even if its owned by a self employed entrepeneur or a large fast food chain, the same principle of utilizing it as a tool to make more money than what you invested in it still applies

Compare that to say, a kitchen tool you use at home. The kitchen tool is used solely for your own needs, and you won't make money cooking food at home, and the food you make won't become commodities sold on a market.

Stupid human, you think I'm your property? Hahahaha. Go clean my litter box.

Never change you glorious faggots.

You can take tomatoes, turn them into juice, and sell the juice. A person without access to a juicer can't access juice unless he buys it from a person who does own a juicer.
So would these juicers be confiscated to become state owned? In the same way, coffee makers? Even a guitar can be used to make money, and a person who doesn't own a guitar has to rent it to enjoy its benefits.

I just want to see where "means of production" ends, because using the logic listed in this thread I can expand it to almost every single item in my house.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm

Read and make better threads in the future if you don't want to get banned for making the same shitty b8 thread that looks like a million b8 threads that came before it.

An object is not private property until it's used to make a profit. For example, if you buy a guitar and use it to play for fun, then it's personal property. If you rent it to someone else for a profit however, it becomes private property

spooked af

Did cats read Stirner?

Stirner read cats

This is well established

A pet isnt private property?
Its personal property.

Meow Purrner "The Kitten and His Litter"

Are kids personal property too?

Meowx*
Fix'd

Kids are humans, so no. Humans cant be property.

Which of course doesn't mean that they aren't a responsibility

That conclusion doesnt follow at all.
If anything, something being personal property means there isnt a responsibility.

Not sure I understand what you mean
You don't own your kids, but that doesn't mean that you aren't responsible for their well-being

Sorry I read your comment wrong
I read

Fair enough.
I suppose we agree then?

aye

We will all have cats

Fug, shitpost flag

...

You beat me to it

They can be property, have you ever heard of slaves?

I thought we were talking about the concept of property under communism?
You're probably an AnCa… err I mean Neo-Feudalist.

Did you comrades even read a little Marx? Communism does not want to take away your private property. Communism merely forbids to own means of production. That's it. You cannot own land, resources, fabrics, power plants etc. so you cannot exploit your comrades. Of course you can have a cat. Hell, you can even have a plane or a ship as long as you do plan to make profit out of it and therefore exploit people.

I want to dismiss this image as a ridiculous straw man, but as this thread demonstrates there are people here who do agree with it.

Owning something like cat isnt nice they will be publicly owned.
Oh yeah also op is a fag.

It can be turned into profit.

Not an issue as long as you do not exploit anyone.

A cat petting zoo. Really nigger?

Hey, these are desperate times, the government has just confiscated all food and toothbrushes. People have to escape social reality somehow, and my cat petting zoo is charging only 2 manhours of labor for 1 hour of petting.

Nice shitposting fella

tfw your job post revolution will be cat petting zoo quality tester

Tell that to the lolbergs.

My cat is a family member, not property

if you want a pet you get a pet

Unless your use your cat to generate wealth through wage labor or rents, it is not private property. Pet ownership will be exactly the same.

Are pet shows bourgeoisie?

Is it bourgeoisie to bribe a dog with treats into fetch a newspaper every morning?

Threats are like pet labour vouchers. Of course the value of the threats should be in a 1:1 ratio to the value of the newspaper.

Meant treats oh my fuck

how do you equate value to a dog with value to a human?

no one cares about animal labor, tbh.

...

Now THAT'S a conondrum!

Since dogs can create more dogs, aren't they means of production?

a hammer is a mean of production. a sickle is. a needle is, and a thread.
all of these things are means of production. none of them are private property but personal property.

you still do not know the difference but instead of asking you are shitposting retarded "rhetorical questions". here's an idea: kill yourself.

Personal property you retard.
Pets are not private

How does that work? You can hire someone to hammer a nail into wood, thats capitalism. So the hammer is a mean of production. Fuck, if you have a hammer and your neighbor doesn't, you can charge them rent so they can fix their painting.

Is a plow personal property? Is a tractor?

If I rent a sickle (thus its private property) once, but then stop renting it and only use it myself, is it still private property? Once its been used to rent, is it forever tainted?

We need more solid rules, there must be better guide lines.

i was just about to respond to your first two replies but as i can see you are merely spaming retarded shitposts while making retarded claims ("If I rent a sickle (thus its private property)") only further proving your lack of understanding of terminology and basic economy.

so in turn i will just link you to texts to answer your "questions", so the effort matches that on your part. well, ignoring the fact that i actually read those.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/economy/
marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/

enjoy.

...

There is no communism without animal liberation

1. I didn't make all of these posts.
2. I was told earlier that a personal property becomes private property when you rent it out, so I am asking if this can happen the other way around, and how to avoid abuse.

...

do you really think someone would be autistic enough to take a screenshot of their phone, pull it up on their computer, and then open paint to disguise samefagging?
don't make assumptions if you won't accept evidence to the contrary.