Reminder communism does not merely abolish bourgeois private property, it ultimately abolishes property as such, including state or cooperative ownership, because property inherently presupposes exclusion and classes.
"From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all […] are not the owners of the globe."
-Karl Marx
>>2621266
Posted it again award
>>2621196You are confusing the abolition of property itself with the abolition of private property, anarchy of production and social classes. Collective property is not abolished, private property is abolished, and cooperative property does not compete with itself in the market, but the goal would be for all property to be collective and public, belonging to the whole society.
I will post the quotes that prove my point:
<The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
<In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.[…]
<In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.
<In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.
<And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
<By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.[…]
<Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
<III. Proletarian Revolution, solution of the contradictions: the proletariat seizes the public power and by virtue of this power transforms the social means of production, which are slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from their previous character as capital, and gives their social character complete freedom to assert itself. Social production according to a predetermined plan now becomes possible. The development of production makes the further existence of different social classes an anachronism. In proportion as the anarchy of social production vanishes, the political authority of the state dies away. Men, at last masters of their own mode of social organization, consequently become at the same time masters of nature, masters of themselves – free.
<To accomplish this world-emancipating act is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To grasp the historical conditions of this act and therefore its very nature, and thus to bring the conditions and character of its own action to the consciousness of the class that is destined to act, the class that is now oppressed - this is the task of scientific socialism, the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement.
<Frederick Engels, 1880, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, III [Historical Materialism]http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/SUS80.html#s3 >>2621518thats literally what op is saying too
>no more property but merely possession, handing down to future generations, etc >>2621526
If you ask nicely and become friends before, yes. Like human beings.
>>2621552
Its not that the other person is left in the dirt, but there is allocation of utilities based on needs because there are people producing such utilities to make it available of distribution to begin with. The mode of consumption is constructed from the mode of production to reproduce the relations of the mode of production.
"As the coat and the linen are two qualitatively different use values, so also are the two forms of labour that produce them, tailoring and weaving. Were these two objects not qualitatively different, not produced respectively by labour of different quality, they could not stand to each other in the relation of commodities. Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use value is not exchanged for another of the same kind."
>>2621526>>2621552>>2621633>what if i take ur shit as if communism is just capitalism minus "property" XDDDDDDDDD and not an entirely different mop and all the new relations that entailswhy tf would u (yes u
>>2621547 >>2621631 ) even bother engaging with this retardation
>>2621521The text that was posted seems to imply a lack of economic planning in collective ownership; scientific socialism also involves the abolition of the anarchy of production, and it's important to understand that this will irritate some people who are against what is called "authoritarianism" in economic planning.
>>2621668
on the contrary, a mode of production is entirely concrete but ur retarded brain is too smooth to understand even that
>>2621669social planning isnt really the central planning retards like cockshit who dont even understand value pretend it is