Did Marx ever distinguish between personal and private property? I feel that this has been a ruse all along...

have you ever been challenged by an intelligent person on Holla Forums?

...

This board is filled with roasties and their beta enablers. What else could you expect?

I would love to meet Rafiq in real life, I would just say I like dogs, then he would talk for three hours why this is literally fascism, then I would say I still like dogs. You know, I don't see an actual argument in that wall of text why we should abolish private ownership of consumer items, nor do I see an actual reference to Marx in support of that position. Given that Marx wrote in support of rationing consumer items via labour vouchers in Critique of the Gotha Program, it doesn't make any sense to assume he supported that in combination with people being free to take your personal shit. I have seen dozens of posts by Rafiq and never got the impression that he has read anything by Marx. I also know that you repeatedly lie about having read this or that book in one place while asking noob questions about it in another place, so my advice for you is go hang yourself.

is there an equivalent to roastie that refers to a "woman" whose vagoo was cirurgically made?
there needs to be.

isnt he a stalinist tho??

No, because those fucks are not women. Its literally in their DNA.

Substantiate your claims that I have lied, or… you know, keep choking on that noose. You can do both.

There is no real distinction between private and personal property; they both function on the same principle of all property: recognition of it and acting in respect of it. You can't deny one without denying the other. You either accept property (which is always de facto private even if public) or you give up the ghost of the lack of concept you have.

Are you implying I'm an intelligent person? How would you know? Only an intelligent person can recognize another intelligent person.

not to mention marx said any attempt to disarm workers should be resisted. meaning the workers would have to own arms in the first place

now if you'll excuse me i'm going to throw away all my clothes and underwear because communism means no possessions or attachments of any kind

Private and personal property should be abolished. Communize everything.

How stupid are you, really? People have a lot of things they don't own in this world. Nothing strange.

intelligent people aren't buddhas.

Technically, there can only be one Buddha in a world-system at a time. You're probably thinking of an arhat.

literally every post this guy makes includes an insult to the person he's replying to.
8ch.net/search.php?search=name:A.W.&board=leftypol

Every post should include two: one for the person I'm replying to, and one for the others on the board.

You're such a genius to notice something I do so purposefully.

fucking Christ… You do know you can disagree with or correct someone without insulting them? why hasn't this prick been banned yet? A.W. needs to have sex with my girlfriend while I watch.

I don't know who you fucking are, dude.

Well now you do, bruv. Move along now. I'm busy listening to Rodney Mullen and pondering how he is already what most people even in communism will fail to be.

no, I still don't.

if i can hold it in my possession, i own it. the only difference is terminological

Then why does no one accept it, you dongus? Why is it theft if I just possess things you formerly possessed and use them indefinitely?

maybe i'm not following you, but what does that have to do with the question of distinguishing private and personal property? i.e. in communism, will people own/have/possess (you can use whatever word you like) objects like clothing, cars, computers, refrigerators, etc. or will we all sleep naked on the ground and pick berries when we need sustenance

if the latter, that's basically affirming one of the most popular tenets of anticommunists; that communism means no one has anything and we all live in poverty and share a single toothbrush and eat from one big pot

It has to do with the false criterion of >use< for personal property against private property. That criterion has never been accepted and is not accepted, nor will ever be accepted. Property is a personal relation to objects conceived specifically to safeguard against its negation by use or any other criterion.

Either people can own things, or they cannot. If they can, owning a factory is not any different than owning a toothbrush in any principle manner. The only difference is that social relations, demands, and obligations may enter into how this property may be made, used, and disposed due to the social factors it has an effect on and is effected by.

If you say that people >can't< own a factory, can't own a shop, can't employ others, it's just an arbitrary limit without any reason other than claims of slippery slope, but guess what? That claim works on everything social. Everything which deals with social power is a slippery slope into hell, and history proves this without exception.

Can you make arbitrary limits on property? Sure. People had done that before capitalism already. Can you claim to be rational in doing so? Sure, according to your directed aims. Can you claim people have property if you assign things to them which they are not allowed to trade? Sure. You can do many things and enforce them for arbitrary reasons stemming from a distrust of freedom and what people may do with it.

Not him, but what is preventing somebody from accumulating personal property? People have been collecting stuff for thousands of years, ranging from trinkets and religious artifacts to music albums and figurines. If a person wanted to bring something into their personal possession, such as the aforementioned items, from somebody else that owned them, what would be the medium of exchange?

yeah I don't have any interest in a terminology argument so to put it this way. The question people have is,
and the answer must necessarily be no. To say yes is going to throw up a whole lot of other questions about child rearing and intimate relationships. Or a simple "I want to be alone in my room right now" and then someone comes in to disturb you while you try to read quietly.

Personal responsibility(from each according to his ability), personal space, personal property are all tied together. And easily distinguishable from someone claiming property to use for exploitation.

Some objects require ownership to have utility. Let's pretend we could reeducate everyone to be okay with collective hygienic items. What about people with mental illnesses? That get panic attacks from being too close to other people. They just liquidated?

so under communism will human beings have clothes and refrigerators and computers, or pets like cats and dogs?

so under communism will human beings have clothes and refrigerators and computers, or pets like cats and dogs, that they keep in their homes and use or enjoy at their leisure?

I'm not advocating it, I'm saying communists need to realize what property is and bite the bullet one way or another. I staunchly stand by the right of property. You're not collectivizing my anything, buddy. Not my pc, not my car, not my living space.

I like having things which are mine, which I can do what I please in my own privacy or public expression.

You can just print them anyway if someone takes them : ^ )
Just print them and the food in them if someone takes it
That you>>2149851
You can just print them anyway if someone takes them : ^ )
Just print them and the food in them if someone takes it
That you think you 'own' pets is telling of how reactionary you are. think you 'own' pets is telling of how reactionary you are.

does a woman own her reproductive factory?

print them with what? the devices we're not allowed to have?
i don't think that. "own" is just the word that we use in the current popular lexicon; i.e. pet ownership is the common term for having an animal in your life that you feed and shelter. you're just being pedantic about semantics

...

Another post shitted up and derailed by AW. Great.

All that happens in society is based on humans' fully conscious and deliberate decisions, you guys! Like, uuuh respect, respect is the basis. For instance, the basis of slavery in what is now the US is the r e s p e c t that slavery had. RESPECT (and whips). You know, that's some top-notch "marxist'' analysis you have there, maybe you want to make it perfect with some cultural analysis, eh? Maybe the reason yanks don't reintroduce slavery is because of the bad rep it has in pop culture, hmmm? Black folks are save as long as there is no KKK-Pop. Is that an idea for a great essay or what? Sounds like the essay that Kultural Marx would have wanted.

Either people can eat meat, or they cannot. If they can, eating people in not any different than eating an insect in any principle manner. Yeah…
>If you say that people >can't< own a factory, can't own a shop, can't employ others, it's just an arbitrary limit
And how do I employ someone with my privately owned toothbrush?

Just because they both function on the same principle doesn't mean there's no real distinction between them. As anarchists have long pointed out, there's a very real distinction between private and personal property: If you use said property to either employ others to use it, or extract rent from it in order to grow capital, then it's private property. If the object is only for personal use, then it's personal property.

Yes, as I revised the concept and was thinking, it DID sound inconsistent, and I wanted to confirm my suspicion and see if Marx ever ruled it out. Stop being a fucking shiteating cunt A.W.

We don't care, and we are socializing your everything, "buddy".