5 ms·

Eh, I'm not really pro communism, but it makes sense to me. If one of the central differences people focus on between the systems is private property, if someo

Eh, I'm not really pro communism, but it makes sense to me. If one of the central differences people focus on between the systems is private property, if someone sees that as somewhat of an illusion it makes sense to note it.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
Private property != personal property Means of production is not the same as the shoes on your feet. It's just unfortunately confusing terminology that leads to twisted argumentation. Btw, the alternative to capitalist liberal states is not exclusively authoritarian marxist-leninist communism. Not all anti-capitalists are pining for another different boot to lick.
- Retric 3y ago
  A tool (boot, glove, knife, hammer, etc) is easily both the means of production and personal property. The distinction is in effect meaningless.
  - enterprise_cog 3y ago
    A hammer isn’t a factory. There is a distinction, unless you don’t think industrialization had any effect on society.
    - Retric 3y ago
      The rhetoric around the means of production was initially in reference to slaves. Communism was an offshoot of the abolition movement not in reference to at the time minimal number of factories. And in that context people did abandon slavery. Even today factories aren’t the means of production, they don’t make houses that’s mostly people with hand tools. Nor do they make food or mine resources etc.
      - enterprise_cog 3y ago
        What point are you trying to make here? Marx’s writings were based on his observations of factories and industry in England at the time, among other things.
        Retric 3y ago
        It just annoys me that people don’t understand the philosophy they expose. Marx was not the origin of Communism or the phrasing around means of production. The context for his writing wasn’t simply factory conditions being so bad he created an original ideology from whole cloth. Which is why he was credited with the Marxism not Communism.
        enterprise_cog 3y ago
        This entire thread was in response to police stealing in the US, and someone responded referencing communists. Given they context, they were clearly talking about Marxism. The guy you responded to explicitly mentioned that. And then you go off on some other interpretation of the same words, clearly misinterpreting what they posted to argue some other point.
        Retric 3y ago
        Assuming someone misspoke to support your point is a bit much.
- Nasrudith 3y ago
  That is an imaginary distinction which only exists to anti-capitalists to have their cake and it eat too, along with a continuation of their ongoing torrid love-affair of creating their own sophistic definitions. Everyone else says more or less "that is private property you fool!".
Gormo 3y ago
In theory, communism can reject the concept of private property, but in practice, all property ownership is "private", as any finite quantity of matter and space must necessarily be controlled by someone in particular at the exclusion of everyone else if it is to be used by anyone at all. So the practical differences are merely aesthetic.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

wahnfrieden 3y ago

Private property != personal property Means of production is not the same as the shoes on your feet. It's just unfortunately confusing terminology that leads to twisted argumentation. Btw, the alternative to capitalist liberal states is not exclusively authoritarian marxist-leninist communism. Not all anti-capitalists are pining for another different boot to lick.

Retric 3y ago
A tool (boot, glove, knife, hammer, etc) is easily both the means of production and personal property. The distinction is in effect meaningless.
- enterprise_cog 3y ago
  A hammer isn’t a factory. There is a distinction, unless you don’t think industrialization had any effect on society.
  - Retric 3y ago
    The rhetoric around the means of production was initially in reference to slaves. Communism was an offshoot of the abolition movement not in reference to at the time minimal number of factories. And in that context people did abandon slavery. Even today factories aren’t the means of production, they don’t make houses that’s mostly people with hand tools. Nor do they make food or mine resources etc.
    - enterprise_cog 3y ago
      What point are you trying to make here? Marx’s writings were based on his observations of factories and industry in England at the time, among other things.
      - Retric 3y ago
        It just annoys me that people don’t understand the philosophy they expose. Marx was not the origin of Communism or the phrasing around means of production. The context for his writing wasn’t simply factory conditions being so bad he created an original ideology from whole cloth. Which is why he was credited with the Marxism not Communism.
        enterprise_cog 3y ago
        This entire thread was in response to police stealing in the US, and someone responded referencing communists. Given they context, they were clearly talking about Marxism. The guy you responded to explicitly mentioned that. And then you go off on some other interpretation of the same words, clearly misinterpreting what they posted to argue some other point.
        Retric 3y ago
        Assuming someone misspoke to support your point is a bit much.
Nasrudith 3y ago
That is an imaginary distinction which only exists to anti-capitalists to have their cake and it eat too, along with a continuation of their ongoing torrid love-affair of creating their own sophistic definitions. Everyone else says more or less "that is private property you fool!".

Gormo 3y ago

In theory, communism can reject the concept of private property, but in practice, all property ownership is "private", as any finite quantity of matter and space must necessarily be controlled by someone in particular at the exclusion of everyone else if it is to be used by anyone at all. So the practical differences are merely aesthetic.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]