/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Also include my small business where all members are either family, friends, or cooperators.
Under communism, we will all be libertarian small business owners.

>>2699974
>Under communism, we will all be libertarian small business owners.
Cooperativismo

This is the first time I've heard personal and private property used as something other than synonyms. It's meaningless to me.

thats some bullshit discussion only anarchists/libs engage in lol. all property is being done away with to lead to mere possession bud

>>2701042
I've heard it for over a decade in response to "communists will take your toothbrush"

>>2701124
Was always taqiyya, there's no qualitative difference between personal and private, between toothbrushes and factories, only quantative

It's just that it's pointless to do economic calculations on individual toothbrushes

>private property / personal property
I don't recall Marx and Engels ever making that distinction. I would rather use language that distinguishes between property rights and usage rights.

>>2701407
uh oh, rights only make sense under bourgeois society too

>>2701408
Written law predates capitalism.

>>2701410
classes predate capitalism too and im pretty sure those are going away along with capitalism :)

>>2701410
>>2701419
also not only appealing to "thing existed before so it shall be Eternal" but also trying to retroactively turn bourgeois rights into some transhistorical concept makes you a certified retard

1. Who cares.
2. No, Marx didn't give a fuck about either gimme that shit.
3. No, although it is bourgeois decadence.
4. Marxism is a spook: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_05.htm (paragraph 1)
5. The DPRK isn't even nominally "M-L" anymore, let alone Marxist or Leninist.

>>2701178
>Was always taqiyya
but the communists disdain to conceal their aims? was that also taqiyya?

>>2701443
Taqiyya of the taqiyya
Think dialectically

>>2701050
>all property is being done away with to lead to mere possession
>mere possession
??? isn't the definition of property something which one possesses???

>>2701421
>bourgeois
If written law predates capitalism, the concept of having written law is not bourgeois per se.
>>2701447
In law, possession usually refers to just being physically in control of something, irrespective of ownership.

that distinction never existed, it was made up by petty porky because they are afraid of their toothbrush. Private property being abolished means private property being abolished. Thats it.

>>2701459
You're one illiterate mouthbreather. I checked the thread and the whole conversation has been about law as it manifests under capitalism, a.k.a. bourgeois law.

>the concept of having written law
It makes no fucking sense for a stateless society to have laws either, retard.

>>2701536
>Private property being abolished means private property being abolished. Thats it.
True!

“Communism is when no toothbrush”: literally the first line of the communist manifesto

>>2701443
It's true that nobody will take your toothbruth or personal belongings, but not true that there is such a distinction.

Under developed communism there are no properties excempt from public planning. If we need to build a power station where your home is, or if for some bizarre reason your "personal" car needs to be commandeered for some important purpose, you don't have a divine inalienable right to it.
This makes middle classers really uncomfortable because they have a hard time imagining a world where being housed, or transport, are just not a problem any more, where nothing has inherent "worth" besides its direct usage.

Property rights will still exist in some capacity under lower stage socialism, and none of us will live to see advanced communism, so why confuse the normies with those details and scare the hoes for no reason

>>2701714
I think it has less to do with scaring the normies and more to do with the fact that we can't possibly know how things will work under higher stage communism. We should be focusing on getting people to understand in broad strokes to understand what is entailed by the DotP and lower stage socialism because these are the things that are actually achievable within the lifetime of a revolutionary. Beyond that we're in uncharted territory. The bourgeois revolutionaries of the 18th century never asked people to imagine NFTs.

The distinction can be supported on a Marxist basis. "personal property" is final consumer goods, while "private property" is capital goods. Private ownership of capital goods is what establishes the social relations of exploitation that define the class structure of capitalism. Communist control over the economy means abolishing exploitation by taking away capital goods from porky, to ensure production is organized directly for the use-value of consumer goods instead of profit. Right to ownership of personal property on the other hand entails no relations of exploitation, and is a minor concern based on relevant use-value e.g it makes hygienic sense for everyone to have their own toothbrush, but everyone in a locality shares the same electric bus.

I don't particularly care about what lawfag is saying, because law arises from material practice anyways, so i don't think anyone in high stage communism will find the notion of ownership (as opposed to possession) of personal toothbrushes to be counter-revolutionary.

It really is just a distinction to make it clear to petty bourgeois that the real economy is not their consoomer treats but the land and industrial machinery that tie workers to capitalist exploitation

>>2701714
well it's not just a middle classer thing. I think most people, including proletarians, don't want government goons, not even "the people's" government, busting into their apartment without any warning and digging through everything. People don't like it when their landlord does it either.

>>2701648
>I checked the thread
Read the OP.
>It makes no fucking sense for a stateless society to have laws either
And you believe a state bourgeois per se? You believe there won't be a transitional state?

>>2701714
>nobody will take your toothbruth or personal belongings
>If we need to build a power station where your home is, or if for some bizarre reason your "personal" car needs to be commandeered for some important purpose, you don't have a divine inalienable right to it.
You sure most burgerstanis would not classify their car under "personal belongings"?
>Property rights will still exist in some capacity under lower stage socialism, and none of us will live to see advanced communism, so why confuse the normies
Is it really a confusion just in language and not an actual conceptual confusion though.

Property right as it actually exists is the right to exclude others from using something. That's it. It's not a right to use something. I can own a plane without having a pilot's license. I can be the copyright owner of some audio data without having a working set of ears. A usage right is only an exclusion right to the extent that it has to be in order to facilitate the usage. You need to exclude others from digesting what you digest. You don't need to exclude others from listening to audio you are listening to.
Don't say: In socialism you will own a house, but not really; you will own a car, but not really.
Say: You will have a right to housing, you will have a right to transport.

>>2699968
>1. Is this image Marxist or something else?
marxist
source: me
>2. Does Marx distinguish between personal and private property?
yes
source: me
>3. Is home ownership petty bourgeois even if it is not used for profit?
no
source: me
>4. Are AES states Marxist or something else?
marxist (revisionist subtype)
source: me
>5. Is the DPRK constitution article 24 right-deviationist for recognizing private property of the workers?
yes
source: me

whitoid marxists think they're gonna get to keep their parents' mcmansion after the revolution lol