How far can you take personal property before it becomes private property?

How far can you take personal property before it becomes private property?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacha
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

When papa Stalin feels you don't deserve it anymore :^)

When it starts being used for social production.

Is anyone else here also against persynal property?

Until you're not using it

Why exactly?

So Ancap definition then.

Not necessarily "against", but minimized as much as possible, given current technology.

Do you use your property to create social value through labor? If yes, then it's MOP. Does someone else provide the labor, while you redeem the value? Then it's private property.

Is it potentially MOP but you're not using it even though other people want to use it? Then it's private property.

socialism is whatever he feels necessary

I thought AnCaps were capitalist.

They believe you legitimately own land if you actively use it or something.

I kinda want to have a house in the country and a house or a rental in the city, or something along those lines. It could be pretty comfy IMO. Nothing extravagant, just the ability to go to two different places and have furniture and surroundings the way I like it.

Is it bourgeois to own a house, but not live in it half the year? Even if it's a cheap house?

Once everyone has a house, maybe it wouldn't be necessarily bougie, right now it definitely is.

no they dont. they still think you can own an entrie factory or lrge tracks of land if you have a contract and are able to protect it.

like everything else, it depends on the individual ideology

They are not the same concept. It's not a spectrum. Personal "property" is more like an allocation from society. It is a designation that you are to be the user of a resource, based on context of what constitutes the social good. (e.g., everyone gets to use only their own toothbrush). Unlike private property, the powers given from this allocation are not absolute, or permanent. The point of personal allocation is for the general welfare of society. If at any point an allocation stops serving this purpose, then it can be changed.

Posts like this are the reason why people need to stop using the term "personal property". It confuses people into thinking that "personal property" is just private property on a small scale.

If you cannot pick it up and carry it with you under your own power then it is not a personal possession. There is no property only possession, personal or communal.

sounds kinda lifestylist tbh

We have more homes than people in the US, its not bougie

maybe you could find someone else with the same idea and split two homes with him

If I'm paying off the loan for my house and my friend moves in, and I ask him to help me pay half my monthly expenses, does that make me a rentier?

If you two are paying the same amount each month, then no.

Specifics depend on your state's legal code. I strongly suspect the amount of land you can freely own in Greenland and in Singapore will be different.

The general idea is "until it starts harming other people".

"papa Stalin's" position was that it is determined by the involvement of other people: if you have to consistently hire other people to manage your farm - your farm is too big (occasional seasonal workers are permissable).

Not really. Summer houses were a thing in USSR even during revisionist crackdown on personal property (flat in the city, "dacha" in the country).

Capitalism and bourgeois power structures must must be fought within culture and during leisure time. Bourgeois tenants such as private property seeps into our culture albeit in a different form and we treat it as a given (persynal property for example). We need to ruthlessly question these givens because they are often the key to restoring and reproducing capitalist relations. We should strive to go as far away from and as contrary to class society in every facet of the humyn experience and our daily lives. Many communists severely underestimate the power culture has over practically everything and Maoism is the current that addresses it this issue the most.

Well I'm in the UK, we have a huge problem with holiday homes, homes left empty, and so on.

Maybe in rural parts of America it's not an issue.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacha
Well shit, it's real. This is pretty much exactly the kind of thing I would want. Based USSR.

FUCKING YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EVERYONE HERE HAS SUCH A PLEB-ASS UNDERSTANDING OF COLLECTIVE PROPERTY AND STILL BUY INTO THE PERSONAL PROPERTY SPOOK.

READ THE 'ENTIRE 'PARAGRAPH BELOW:
IN A COMMUNIST SOCIETY YOUR UNDERWEAR AND TOOTHBRUSH BELONG TO THE COMMUNE, BUT NOBODY COMES AND CONFISCATES THE UNDERWEAR BECAUSE THAT IS A GENERALLY DUMB AS FUCK THING TO DO. SO IT BASICALLY YOUR UNDERWEAR.

BUT IF THERE EVER WAS A MIDNIGHT OUTBREAK OF CANCER AND THE ONE WAY TO CURE IT WAS TO BURN EVERYONE'S UNDERWEAR IN A BONFIRE IN THE COMMUNE SQUARE, YOU BETTER BELIEVE YOUR UNDERWEAR WILL GET CONFISCATED, BUT YOU BEING A KIND AND COMPASSIONATE COMRADE WOULD PROBABLY WILLINGLY GIVE IT UP.

in anarchist held territory in spain 1936

the anarchists had a good rule of thumb, about land at least. if you did'nt want to collectivise, you could own the land you could farm your self. with
no labour.

i think something like that is good

We're talking about possible policy in the immediate future, not theoretical end-state societies.

that is a possible policy in the intermediate future.

Communism is also about educating the people, and this policy and its explanation will educate the people about communism.

No more half-steps, the reason why radical agendas fail is because they are not fully implemented.

Don't believe the lie that radical agendas create popular reaction. The decision to end reconstruction in the U.S south came from the top. The decision to dissolve the U.S.S.R came from the top. The decision to pursue market reforms in China and Vietnam came from the top.

The masses go the way the wind blows.