Holla Forums lurker here…I got a question for y'all

Holla Forums lurker here…I got a question for y'all.

Please don't lose your chicken tendies, I barely post there. I just lurk there. Although I'm no fan of socialism, I see nothing wrong with learning about the socialist perspectives about things.

So, private ownership: how does that work in the majority consensus of socialism? I know that socialists aren't supposed to approve of private ownership, but I also know that socialists disagree on just about everything except the phrase "fuck fascists" so for all i know there's a socialist that approved of private property….


Anyways, my point is, whats the majority consensus? Under socialism, is my computer not actually my computer? Can it be confiscated at any time? If so, by who?
Or does it extend to land only, or the mental idea of property in general, etc.

I'm just confused how it works in effect.

And to be frank, I'll admit; I'm porky as fuck. I live a muh privileged life, with a nice shelter and occupation, and nothing scares me more than this idea spread by Holla Forums that stalin (inb4 stalin wasn't communist- I've seen a meme on here that takes pride in socialists from a variety of revolutions killing nonsocialists, soooo…) is going to be knocking on my doorstep to gulag me for no other reason than that I was related to someone. I don't want my life situation to change unless it gets better; that's in my self interest, so surely you can sympathize (key word: sympathize, not empathize) with that, no?

Tl;dr

Debunk the general "american" fear of socialism

Explain to me how my life will not only not get worse, but get better, with minimal effort.


I don't expect this board to do anything for me but I'm not interested in spending hours reading up on socialists just to find a historical figure that agreed with me on things. As someone who I think qualifies as representation of the silent majority, this inherently gives Holla Forums the motivation to help me understand so that maybe, if I don't fear it less, I can help others indoctrinated by this god awful education system.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_property
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Left_(Germany)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

not very good

You have private property mixed with personal property.

Private property is usually land and other assets which capitalists gain to exploit you. Your job is the capitalist exploiting the land, your labor, and your ability to work, to squeeze a profit out of you and give you just enough to survive.

The point is a form of collective ownership which allows you to have a say in how the land is used, your labor is used, and other issues and concerns where the relationship you have between employer and employee (the basis of capitalism) is changed to one of workers in socialism with the same decision making potential.

This form of organization scares porkies shitless. From what you say, you still have working class interests and just bought a bunch of the ideas that porky gives you.

Socialists care about your class interests. Fascists care taking advantage of your fears.

That's the big difference between the two.

This is another I cannot tell the diffence between private and personal property, cause I cannot think beyond Capitalism.


YOU ARE NOT!

Socialists make significant distinctions between personal property and private property. If you conflate the two, then of course you're going to be adverse to the idea of socialism out of this error. Comrades, give this guy a lesson without being haughty, It'll help.

I think you got it the other way around mate. Socialism by its very definition means no private property. If you are a socialist, by definition you agree on no private property. Otherwise youre just a social democrat.


It is personal property and thus yours.


Technically yes, by burglars. Otherwise, no.


2 forms of property:
Which is used to produce commodities for exchange
which is used for personal use, such as your computer, car, toothbrush or house.

Lets see if you actually are or if you just buy into the "middle class if porky" meme spread by fearmongering neolibs

meh
Good for you mate
Sounds like hitler to me, my good goy. But stalin was a fucking maniac who betrayed the revolution of lenin.
A rational response, which we all want
Of course, the reason i support socialism is because its in my interests first, and second in my interest and that of my children in the long run.

There is nothing porky about this. As long as you do not own a business and employ workers, you are nor bourgeois, and since you are employed, you are probably working class like (almost) all of us.

Stalin is not "socialism", hitler is not socialism, bernie is also not socialism. Bernie is socdem as per his program, which is better than what you have now i would say, hence our support of him. His powerlevel is up for debate, but we generally agree that judging from his statements and acts in his life up to now, he is much more radical than he shows to the camera.


Improvement is never with minimal effort. It will take effort, but since capitalism is, as you have probably noticed, nearing its critical mass, its time for our turn to put forward an alternative in which the rich do not get 90% of the products you produce, in which you get a voice in the running of the government and/or state-replacement and you get to decide, together with your colleagues, how to produce, rather than it being dictated to you by your capitalist overlords.

So in conclusion, please stop listening to tumblrites who say that white people are muh privileged because magic or that having a fucking job, house and car somehow is bourgeois. Growing up in a stable household with more than enough food, a nice home and no worries is our goal for everyone, not the evil that must be abolished. Socialism at its most basic form is a workers movement to abolish capitalism and put in place a system where the means of production (factories, stored, workshops etc etc) are owned collectively by the workers/society and managed by the people who work on them (because they know how to do it best).

I hope i explained it a bit for you, my good Holla Forumsfriend.

A PC (a personal computer) is not private property. It's personal property.

It is only private property if it's owned by a company and whatever code is written on it by the programmer is the property of the company that owns it.

You can have stuff under both socialism and communism. Private property is absentee property used to enrich oneself solely through ownership, like company for example.

*not

To expand on how to debunk your american view of socialism:

Socialism is not big government with lots of burocracy, it is not taking away the freedom to do [normal thing that you supposedly cant do in the ussr or ddr or whatever], its not about restricting your "freedom (tm)". Socialism is about increasing the freedom to develop yourself, to reach your goals and to create new cooperations to create new products or develop new concepts. It is not a system focussed on making more money than the rest, it is not a system focussed on out-competing or being the best at the game. Its a system about being the best version of you and doing the best you can and want to help society as a whole.

Most american fearmongering is about limiting "private enterprise", but be honest with yourself. Do you have the option to start for yourself? You have debt, you dont have money to sustain yourself through the initial period and you certainly cant afford to lose your job because you need to buy food and pay the bills. And even if you managed to set up your own company, you are easily out-competed by larger established firms using both their efficiency, intellectual property, customer base and even underhand tactics such as purposeful undercutting even at a loss or plenty of other less legal tactics.


Intellectual property is pretty counter-productive, comrade, although it does indeed depend on the kind of socialism you have if it exists. It would not exist under communism of course.

He was, of marxist-leninist-stalinist variety. The common problem is that most people see socialism as marxism-leninism, to be more exact stalinism and/or maoism. Don't be fooled, those two are not the only possibilities, socialism defines who is the owner of means of production, not the way of ruling over the people. After all, we have both capitalist dictatorships and capitalists democracies.

Fuck i keep forgetting that i need to use double apostophes for bold text.

"goal" should be bold.

This answers my question pretty succinctly; to sum it up in my own words, personal property or personal ownership involves actually using something, and its yours; private ownership is when your name is on something so you reap its rewards of usage, but you did none of the work. I pretty much have personal property so its always going to be mine.

i had this fear that "stalin" was going to take me and collectivize everything I own.

This helped a lot, thanks guys!

I'll probably stick around to ask questions about a thing or two left in replies to my OP

Well a fear that a stalin would do that, under the assumption socialism was the economic model.

Your fear of being murdered by stalinists simply because you are either rich or related to rich people is just the fantasy of a minority who don't get taken seriously in the general stream of things, much akin to the "day of the rope" shit.

Holla Forums generally would not be able to come up with a working definition of fascism if they tried. What would you term fascism as?

I don't doubt your claims, I just ask because my understanding of fascism was that it was pseudo-socialist, and pseudo capitalist. in that there were some ideas about taking care of people implemented, like universal healthcare and possibly even a UBI, but also allowed for small businesses to exist, that wouldn't be destroyed by un-innovative monopolies (like..ULA in the rocket industry before SpaceX). Thus, that would place it in between the two, and doesn't sound horribly scary.

No problem. Also slight correction. Personal property if everything you use for your own use, but private property would also be the store you work in. Technically, a one-man-cleaning-bussiness would be categorized as private property too, so that would be the broom, mop and towels, since you produce a service, which is a commodity, for exchange/sale (money in this case). But since all of it is already owned by the single sole person operating them and producing commodities (clean floors) with them, little to nothing would change for this janitor, aside from maybe a few administrative things like legal business structures and whatnot.

So a store, even if you work in it, is still private property (under capitalism), since its used for production. But if the workers get what they produced, its basically already socialist. The only thing that would be changed is that it would go from private property to collective property. In practice, almost no changes in this example.


stalin was known for not taking kindly to dissent and even killing family-of preventive.

Not too much of a stretch to be afraid of Stasi 2.0

Oops forgot to say:

But your own definitions are generally okay though, OP, since worker-operated businesses are rarer than unicorns. In conventional businesses, your definitions are 100% correct.

Dude, it's only private property if you have non-owners working it.
So a one-man-company is personal property too.

It would not be personal property, it would be non-private property if you want to go by that definition, because a one-man-company is not for personal use, but for exchange.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_property

by which i mean that a one man company is used to produce for exchange, obviously. Not to produce for personal use. And since a company cannot be traded, it is also not a commodity.

Sure, the commodity would not be your personal property, but the means of production would. It's a very odd definition you're going by here, when private property is defined by it's extraction of surplus labour regardless of whether the product is exchanged or not.

The means of production cant be personal property if its used to produce commodities for sale.

Otherwise it would need to ceize being personal property once a second person starts helping to produce commidities and then become the collective property of the workers.

Hence, the means of production are always either private or collective property. You can't produce things that are for exchange, for personal use. Those 2 uses are mutually exclusive.

ignore my multi-reply structure, its 3:30 am and i click reply before i think up the rest. Ima go to bed now.

I work for a wage if I own something with which I produce artisan goods that I exchange in a market?

That's absurd. Private property is not dependent upon exchange at all. You might as well argue that it was collective property since it sold products to others.

Not only is that not a good representative of the current left, but stalinists are all but dead.

Yes exactly. It siezes being personal once more than two people own it. That's a given.

Private or collective property does not imply wages.

Look mate, its all about technicality. Nobody is going to give a rats ass about if you use your own file to make wooden dildos or use your own broom to sweep floors.

Really it makes no difference, but by the definitions as i understand them, as soon as you use something for production in exchange, its a means of production and thus does not belong to the individual for personal use, but to the collective, being whatever scale you may work at (cooperation, state, state-not-a-state, commune). Why? Because you dont use it for personal use, that's why its not personal property.

Again its just technicality. At the scale of a one-man company, nobody is going to give a fuck about whether you use company laptop or your own.

Also fucking check my hitlerdubs.

Stores are generally used for commodity distribution. The production of those commodities happens before it enters the market.

If said store actually does produce it's own goods, sure as meets and pastries, then you would be correct.

A service is also a commodity. Distributing and storing commodities is a service. Read Marx.

my bad

The Stasi is still functioning, although they appreciate your concern for their well being in a time of great weakness of the left.

To keep it simple, it's the privatization of all aspects of society to have a dictatorship of capital. 1930s Germany privatized labor and was taken over at the behest of corporations and the rich.

That's why the propaganda is utilized. Until fascists have enough power to smash the opposition in the open, they throw out the nonsense to gain support until brute force is necessary.

Think about fascists as making a deal. The problem is that the people they exploit have other ideas and they'll be the foot soldiers of the rich based on the ideological pursuits they have for an authoritarian strongman.

This is just to keep it simple though. So long as capitalism is the main system, you'll have the fascists that seek to privatize everything to gain power and maintain it similar to fighting for the Game of Thrones.

...

What is the name of this movie already?

id love to hear you explain this one

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Left_(Germany)

"A large percentage of the party's politicians are known or suspected agents of the former East German secret police Stasi.[35]"

"Some of its internal factions are under observation by some states' or the federal Verfassungsschutz (constitutional protection) authorities on account of suspected extremist tendencies.[10] In Bavaria, the entire party is under surveillance.[11]"

Private property in economic terms is not the same as in social terms, which is why "personal property" is sometimes used instead for clarity.

There is a difference between owning a business and owning a TV.

Cease

W E W
E • E
W E W

...

I give a fuck